UK man wins court case against BBC for 9/11 cover up!

page: 4
72
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   


what is less well known is that while the terrorist attacks were taking place and for many hours after, numerous additional aircraft gave indications that they had been hijacked or, for other reasons, were singled out as potential emergencies.

Here





According to Glover, the FAA says to NORAD, “Hey, this may be a possible hijack, or this aircraft may be a possible hijack.” As a result, those in the operations center “did not know how many more there were. Were there five, six, seven, or eight?” [

and



However, most of the additional hijackings that the FAA is reporting to NORAD turn out to be false alarms. Glover will say that most of the reports “were not true.”

Here


Lots of erronious reporting that day.




posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Rubic0n
What was the point of those points since the points you made are a lie!?


No, they are not. Actually check your facts, don't just believe the OP.


Originally posted by Rubic0n
The man took the BBC to court, not the other way around.


Er, no. He was up on charges of non payment of his TV license.


Originally posted by Rubic0n
The man was not convicted nor did he get fined.


He was given a conditional discharge and fined £200.


Originally posted by Rubic0n
The judge did not dismiss the mans "wacky claims" in fact he took them seriously.


No, he didn't.


Originally posted by Rubic0n
Not sure how you dreamed all that up tho.


I dreamed up nothing, it's you making stuff up.

Here is an actual report (albeit it's the Mail) on the case
edit on 10/4/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)


Again ! He was not fined $200 and not convicted of anything. Those $200 WHERE THE LEGAL COST's [SNIP]

Shows how untrustworthy you lot are with your[SNIP]

Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.



edit on 10-4-2013 by Rubic0n because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/4/13 by argentus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
why was he in court, again? It couldn't possibly be because the BBC were claiming he needed a license, could it?


No, the BBC had no involvement at all in this court case - why do you think that they did?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
This story is so bizarre. It would be like me getting a speeding ticket and talking to a judge about having it dismissed..... and then surprising him by making him sit through a long presentation with evidence and graphs about a huge conspiracy theory that happened over a decade ago.

You know when you're in a room with a crazy person, and you'll do or say anything to get them to leave? I think that's what this story is about.
edit on 10-4-2013 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)


I'm only guessing, but it seems to me his point was "why should I pay a license fee to a company I think is as bent as a banana, or at least failing in its duty to keep the populace as informed as it needs to be?"


Bingo!...Please take a bow sir.

Rainbows
Jane



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I still say, as i posted earlier, the reporter or interns who got the info didnt know what the buildings were called.

Aside from that, the lawsuit has no merit. If a weather person on BBC says it is going to rain tomorrow and it does not rain someone will sue?

One other thing i wanted to touch on is that the terminology of things confuses people. I bet if it was not referred to as "license" then it would be viewed differently. Best thing is to change the word to "subscription".
edit on 10-4-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


well tough titty for them, never paid it and never will



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend

but it will no doubt fuel the flames - no pun intended - of the argument that this was a planned event. Rather than a case of over zealous - once more and yet again - bad media reporting.



Bad media reporting? I'd guess that any reporter that can accurately predict major events twenty minutes before they occur would be in high demand. This was awesome media reporting.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
why was he in court, again? It couldn't possibly be because the BBC were claiming he needed a license, could it?


No, the BBC had no involvement at all in this court case - why do you think that they did?


Erm... because he was up before the beak for non-payment of his BBC tv license fee. Who else do you think might be able to call for someone to be brought into court for such a thing? British Gas, pehaps?



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Two things I find ridiculous with this

1. This guys reasons for not paying the fee. (as if 100% fact needs to be broadcast in relation to the fee)

2. Being made to pay a fee in the first place.

Oh and that many British love to call Aussies criminals.

I`ll just do a little dance while saying "we get free to air TV and the British down here love it" come on over we`ll heat the barbie up and hopefully Australia`s not playing for the Ashes,but at least it would be free.(minus the cost of a humongous big ass TV)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfootgurl

Originally posted by winofiend

but it will no doubt fuel the flames - no pun intended - of the argument that this was a planned event. Rather than a case of over zealous - once more and yet again - bad media reporting.



Bad media reporting? I'd guess that any reporter that can accurately predict major events twenty minutes before they occur would be in high demand. This was awesome media reporting.


There was a general expectation that WTC 7 was going to collapse. FDNY had pulled all their men back to a four block radius to form a collapse zone.

Here's another reporter anticipating collapse. Nothing " awesome " about it; simple observation.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 11-4-2013 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-4-2013 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   
This whole thing about the early reporting is absurd. Either

- the conspirators involved an enormous foreign news agency, at least down to reporter level (ie widely), in their plan of mass murder, apparently confident that nobody in a left-leaning organisation packed with journalists would breathe a word about it. They did this for no reason, since the reporting of the building falling by the BBC would in no way help their plot but could hinder it, for example by an early reporting mistake being made (which is what allegedly happened) or by the wrong person inadvertently seeing the information. And in fact the plotters were anxious that people not know about Building 7 at all and have sought to keep quiet the fact it fell at every opportunity since, but on the day they were so keen that as many people knew as possible they made sure the BBC knew about it so they could report it. Which they probably would have done anyway, even if they weren't involved in the plot. Possibly Flight 93 was meant for building 7 but when that backfired instead of aborting the report they got in touch with the BBC and changed it to advertise a senseless, inexplicable collapse.

- the BBC wrongly repeated a Reuters report that misinterpreted the widely-held belief that the building was on the verge of collapse and instead reported that it had already fallen.


If you believe the first one you are in denial.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
why was he in court, again? It couldn't possibly be because the BBC were claiming he needed a license, could it?


No, the BBC had no involvement at all in this court case - why do you think that they did?


Erm... because he was up before the beak for non-payment of his BBC tv license fee. Who else do you think might be able to call for someone to be brought into court for such a thing? British Gas, pehaps?


The TV Licensing Authority is not part of the BBC.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
Two things I find ridiculous with this

1. This guys reasons for not paying the fee. (as if 100% fact needs to be broadcast in relation to the fee)

2. Being made to pay a fee in the first place.

Oh and that many British love to call Aussies criminals.

I`ll just do a little dance while saying "we get free to air TV and the British down here love it" come on over we`ll heat the barbie up and hopefully Australia`s not playing for the Ashes,but at least it would be free.(minus the cost of a humongous big ass TV)


Look mate; I have it on good authority that all you can watch on Oz tv are re-runs of Skippy the Kangaroo. Is that right ?

www.youtube.com...)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

The TV Licensing Authority is not part of the BBC.


Who are they working for? They aren't chasing license fee evaders for their own benefit, they are doing it on behalf of the BBC Or am I missing something major here?. I''l happily read your explanation as to why they have nothing to do with each other.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 




If that was true we`d move to the UK.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   
If Building 7 had not been hit by a plane, how come the firefighters were anticipating it would collapse?



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Who are they working for? They aren't chasing license fee evaders for their own benefit, they are doing it on behalf of the BBC Or am I missing something major here?. I''l happily read your explanation as to why they have nothing to do with each other.


They don't have "nothing to do with each other" in a complete sense. But the BBC was not involved in this case since the TVLA, as I understand it, is mostly made up of subcontracted agencies and anyway the charge is brought by the crown (I think). Complaining that the BBC doesn't do what it says on the tin - never mind how ridiculous the specific charge - is kind of irrelevant because they aren't present in the case.

But in this particular instance the guy is just making himself look stupid. He hasn't won the case. He's just been told to belt up and get a license and stop wasting everybody's time with his nonsense. In a tiny provincial court. For him to paint this as some kind of victory is just weird.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CJCrawley
If Building 7 had not been hit by a plane, how come the firefighters were anticipating it would collapse?


Experience. They were all familiar with high rise structures having asymettrical fire and structural damage and then collapsing completely like they'd been demo'd. Oh wait.. no they weren't, because such a thing had never happened before. Then again, they had seen 2 much taller high rise structures crumbling to rubble, sp paranoia might have been a factor. Still, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean another building ISN'T going to collapse, and, it's better safe than sorry..



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


Because of damage done to a side of the building due to the collapse of one of the towers.

Though I hold no doubt in my mind that building 7 was nothing more than a controlled demolition and how would that have been prepared in such a short amount of time,if not before the planes hit.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
They don't have "nothing to do with each other" in a complete sense. But the BBC was not involved in this case since the TVLA, as I understand it, is mostly made up of subcontracted agencies and anyway the charge is brought by the crown (I think). Complaining that the BBC doesn't do what it says on the tin - never mind how ridiculous the specific charge - is kind of irrelevant because they aren't present in the case.

So, in essence, they've created some sort of buffer zone from the tacky side of enforcing their taxation of the tv viewing public?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
But in this particular instance the guy is just making himself look stupid. He hasn't won the case. He's just been told to belt up and get a license and stop wasting everybody's time with his nonsense. In a tiny provincial court. For him to paint this as some kind of victory is just weird.

Well, here's somebody else's perspective on the case.

Tony Rooke is a very brave individual indeed. Yesterday he was in court at Horsham following his candid refusal to pay for a BBC TV Licence and an earlier appearance on 17th December 2012 before the Magistrate Court at Crawley.

Yesterday, in a hearing before the same Magistrate Stephen Nicholls, Mr Rooke risked being convicted of a criminal offence over his non-payment stance. However, yesterday the Magistrate Judge decided after reading the evidence not to convict him. Instead, Tony was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £200 court costs. Being a Gunner supporter, he afterwards described this to me as a draw. However, most of the 100 or so people present saw it as a moral victory for him.


www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

It doesn't appear that he is doing this just to evade an unfair, unvoted for £145 a yr tax.





new topics
top topics
 
72
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join