Historic 9/11 Case Brewing as AE911T Presents Evidence in Court Against BBC!

page: 3
72
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


That would be relevant if the towers were made from cardboard boxes but alas they were not. Too bad, so many lives could have been spared it a box fell on them and not tons of concrete and steal.
edit on 20-2-2013 by karen61560 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


If the case is about licenseing fees then that is all the evidence he will be allowed to present unless UK courts are vastly different from US courts. I think we took the model from you guys though so.......Except for the silly wigs that is. We gave those up some time around the early 1800's. ( when we invented shampoo.)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Is this case about what they presented in their program or their right to air that program. (feel free to add the 'e' on the end of program if you're a Brit. )



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Who is the prosecuter in this case? I am sure he will object to anything that does not directly address licensing fees and whether they had the right to air this program and not allow them to "air" it again in court.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ObservingYou
 


That could have been a simple misidentification. The place was in shambles, smoke and debris all over the place. I know the area and I couldnt have identified what buildings were where in all of that. Of course I dont think this was something my government did so I am pretty biased in that respect.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CodeRed3D
Unfortunately, I see a payoff to the judge and a lot of valid reasons to dismiss the evidence. That said, it is never-the-less ingenious. I specially appreciated the slant on the accusation that BBC is aiding and embedding terrorists by covering up evidence that could lead to the apprehension of more parties involved with the 9/11 incident.


The only evidence that will be allowed will be whether this company paid its licensing fees. This judge will not have to decide if the tragedy of 9/11 was home grown or terrorist activity. Why would the UK get to decide this anyway ? And if they want to then they would bring charges against the United States government and not this fellow from the BBC.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Just wait for the result on Monday when the guy is quickly found guilty of licence evasion and then we can look forward to his appeal to the Crown court. That will be mildly interesting but regarding the charge of using TV receiving equipment without a licence I assume the result will be the same as in the magistrates.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
However unlikely, even if a case against the BBC under the Terrorism Act regarding the reporting on the day of 911, was proposed, it is likely that it would be denied any hearing as an error in reporting.

For any accusations of fault under such an act regarding Terrorism, they would have difficulty proving any FAULT on their part for actually CAUSING anything.

If they suspected them being part of something greater, an international conspiracy, that would involve far more evidence and would be more likely to happen in the US than for errors in reporting here.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
this failed at

"On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom"

its an f ing tv liscence fee problem lol, the only reason this even saw the news locally is because the reporter was tired of covering "rain". lol not to mention not even in the country it matters in, lol. we already know there is tons of evidence pointing the other direction from "official" stories and tons have made it to trials, tv shows, internet, youtube, the problem is getting anyone to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT instead of just going along with the good ol boys.

you can find the smoking gun, with an address, video tape, and a confession, if it doesnt happen in usa, NO ONE CARES,
because the best any country can do after the fact even if they have the one man who set it all up is... not let them into the country heh, oh no oh gee.

it doesnt even matter, we could have all the smoking guns, all the evidence and confessions from all involved and nothing will happen, because everyone is always expecting the "police" or government to do something about something, and if they are even slightest involved they will never ever help in finding the "real" truth on top of that the people in my country are so f ing stupid even after being told the truth they would just change the channel.

HAHAH I KNOW SO F ING SAD RIIIIHGT? lol



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by karen61560
reply to post by hellobruce
 


That would be relevant if the towers were made from cardboard boxes but alas they were not. Too bad, so many lives could have been spared it a box fell on them and not tons of concrete and steal.
edit on 20-2-2013 by karen61560 because: (no reason given)


I'm not sure why you and a couple of other posters on this forum have so much trouble understanding the principle he is demonstrating. It's quite simple really. It shows the difference between an object that meets resistance, and one that doesn't. Whether it's made of cardboard or hostess twinkies is not the point.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


So if something encounters any sort of resistance, it just stops immediately?

I think I have some physicists that would like to have a word with you.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Of course not. But according to Dr Bazant, Gage's little box should have completely destroyed his big box all the way to the floor before destroying itself. Sound plausible?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


This is just oversimplification of the event. if you wish to take such an example as fact, then by all means I suppose if I threw a bullet at you, that would mean a bullet cannot hurt you either correct? Or if i drive a car into a wall at 1 mph then that means brick walls cannot hurt my car? Or if I threw a bird at a plane, it will not harm the plane at all?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


This is just oversimplification of the event. if you wish to take such an example as fact, then by all means I suppose if I threw a bullet at you, that would mean a bullet cannot hurt you either correct? Or if i drive a car into a wall at 1 mph then that means brick walls cannot hurt my car? Or if I threw a bird at a plane, it will not harm the plane at all?


Except that we are talking about objects constructed of identical materials using gravity alone.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
It's irrelevant anyway, the guy will be convicted for the trivial offence of using equipment to receive live television broadcasts without a licence on Monday at Horsham magistrates court.. His defence may or may not have substance but he will lose the argument regardless. This thread will die in 4 days time.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


But the WTC buildings were not built of one material in one solid mass. So no, Gage has shown his inability to grasp the complexity of the WTC event and the physics behind it. Dr. Bazant was demonstrating demolition physics, something Gage has ZERO concept of.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


This whole thread was doomed from the start.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by grainofsand
 


This whole thread was doomed from the start.
Agreed.
It reminds me of the people who occasionally refuse to pay X amount of council tax because their bins were not collected on time etc. They always lose the legal argument in court.
911 may or may not have been a conspiracy by governments (I do have an open mind) but exploring terrorism claims against the BBC as a defence for using equipment to receive broadcast TV without a licence is frankly laughable as a strategy.
The headline of the OP is equally laughable with it's exclamation mark and use of the word historic. Funny as though. Look forward to the local news link detailing a minor fine for licence fee evasion.
I haven't bought a licence for over 13 years now, but I haven't tried fighting such requests with any defence that the BBC is a terrorist organisation
edit on 22-2-2013 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


It sounded like it was an article from the Onion than actual news. The whole argument reminds me of the "Chewbacca Defense" from South Park, if you are familiar with that show.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Haha, I know that! Yes, very similar.
I shall check out the Horsham news on Monday though and see what the grounds are for an appeal to the Crown court, for sure that will have to be their next move. People such as these will of course explore all avenues, I wonder if they have the funds to make it to the high court.





top topics
 
72
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join