Man Wins Court Case for 9/11 Coverup

A man named Tony Rooke presented BBC video footage to a judge at a court in the UK, trying to prove that the media empire had to have prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks since they reported the demolition of the WTC 7 twenty minutes before it actually happened.

And the judge agreed.

Apparently, Rooke was in some sort of disagreement with the BBC over a licensing fee.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

Here's the video: (The video doesn't seem to be working at any site anymore for some reason...)




Here's a more thorough article in the Daily Mail:
www.dailymail.co.uk...


topinfopost.com...
Source:

This code: bHQPaAkIl0I

a reply to: MRuss

He was found guilty and the judge wouldn't let him use his ''evidence'' because it was ''irrelevant'' to the case.

Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Personally I've always just felt that the BBC 9/11 footage on WTC7 wasn't an indication of the BBC being in on the conspiracy, it was just the BBC being retarded, not for the first time

a reply to: jude11

Thank you!

So does this mean that UKers can do this every time the news reports something wrong now?

I'm not biting on the 9/11 aspect, as I have a mound of reading still to do.

But I think it's a valid question, since the 24/7 media cycle now reports rumor as fact

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: jude11

Thank you!

NP

Peace

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: MRuss

He was found guilty and the judge wouldn't let him use his ''evidence'' because it was ''irrelevant'' to the case.

Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Personally I've always just felt that the BBC 9/11 footage on WTC7 wasn't an indication of the BBC being in on the conspiracy, it was just the BBC being retarded, not for the first time

Plus, there's that.

The claim is a hoax, Rooke actually lost the court case, it has been covered here before, and it is where it belongs, in the hoax bin.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It happened 18 months ago also....

It is amazing what truthers think is a win in court!

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: MRuss

He was found guilty and the judge wouldn't let him use his ''evidence'' because it was ''irrelevant'' to the case.

Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Personally I've always just felt that the BBC 9/11 footage on WTC7 wasn't an indication of the BBC being in on the conspiracy, it was just the BBC being retarded, not for the first time

Plus, there's that.

I think it's an indication that the News is spoon fed from centralized controlled unknown powers that be. She was simply regurgitating what was read off the teleprompter.

Building 7 countdown

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

Building 7 countdown

He constantly changes his story, and claims there was a countdown on a red cross radio....

screwloosechange.blogspot.com.au...

Hoax Already Posted

Closing

Semper