UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up (Video)

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   


Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up (Video)



Searched and couldnt find any other articles, so apologies if its already been posted.

Fair play to the guy and the judge presiding over the case...




posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Don't think he got off with it completely...




A 49-year-old man refused to pay his TV licence because he believed the BBC covered up facts about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Tony Rooke, who represented himself today at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, said he did not want to give money to an organisation 'funding the practice of terrorism'. 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. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


I wouldn't give them the money for a licence as I watch on demand or plus TV anyway so don't need one...



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Gibonz
 

Wait, what?

The Brits have to get a license and pay a fee to watch TV? A TV tax?

The State also knows who has a TV and how many? What in the...?



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Huh? I never knew you needed a license to operate a tv in the UK.
Perhaps we should pass this law across the pond. Taking away the electric teet of disinformation might get some of these mouth breathers to actually think for themselves.



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Yes, thats right.

We're forced to pay for a national TV channel because it doesn't advertise, instead it gets its revenue from all 70 million of us, a nice £6-£11 PCM. If you do not pay this, you will be fined, if you don't pay the fine you will go to prison.

Guess what? We also have bedroom tax, too. If you live in a council house and you don't have enough people to use all the rooms, you will get taxed for that spare room.

Next it will be Tax tax, tax on your tax.



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by n00bUK
 


yeah pathetic aint it, tax on taxis lol the Tv licence is run by a company called Capita and they work on behalf of the BBC because they dont advertise yet you still have to pay a tv licence for ALL channels not just the bbc, but only the bbc get the money for it, now why in the hell do i have to pay for something that is not even for that something eg: I have to pay to watch channel 4 live as it is being shown yet not a penny of that money I have to pay to watch channel 4 actually goes to channel 4?? how can they get away with it!



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by n00bUK
 


Yep...same in my country...the minute you buy a device...any device (tablet, computer, radio, TV)...you must pay our national broadcaster TV rights...whether you watch the national TV or not...they don't care.

Sounds beautiful...doesn't it.



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I know...the link is beforeitsnews...

Lately, I have a feeling that any subject concerning 9/11 that isn't in support of the official story immediately goes in the HOAX section.

I remember that this case is real...I mean...the man really sued the BBC...or they sued him...so why is this story a hoax ?


edit:

link is broken and the vid removed...is this the reason?
edit on 24-9-2013 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


is this why we cant star or flag?? because its in the hoax bin?? has anyone said or proved this story a hoax??



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by anonymous1legion
 


almost certainly...

But the original story is real...if I'm not mistaken.



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


ah I think its because the op linked to Before its News which is now not accepted as a credible source here at ats, thats probibly why its in the hoax bin if op could find an alternate source or even mainstream source mods might move it back out of the hoax bin otherwise a proven non hoax in the hoax bin is as bad as a proven hoax in the ufo forum they wouldnt allow it



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

MarioOnTheFly
I know...the link is beforeitsnews...
link is broken and the vid removed...is this the reason?

"Before It's News" deliberately peddles hoaxes from known hoaxers. That site is banned on ATS as a source of information.



MarioOnTheFly
Lately, I have a feeling that any subject concerning 9/11 that isn't in support of the official story immediately goes in the HOAX section.

You've been here long enough to know that your statement is patently false. There's a whole 9/11 forum full of threads not supporting the official story. Furthermore, anyone can browse the HOAX bin and see that your statement is false.

The only 9/11 threads in the HOAX bin are the ones that are proven 9/11 HOAXES like the "tv fakery / cgi planes / no planes hit the WTC" garbage.

The original thread of this particular old story is not in the HOAX bin and is in my post below.



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Gibonz
Searched and couldnt find any other articles, so apologies if its already been posted.

I don't know which search you used, but this has been posted going on a dozen times, and the story is going on 6-months old. The previous threads show up just fine in search.

The original thread is here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...






edit on 24-9-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a better source for material in op www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
seems like winofiend saw this thread coming....


winofiend
I see this as being fodder for future posts.. Judge says he agrees, ra ra.

Sounds to me like the judge, without having weighed the evidence in the case re WT7, sees that from what is presented in front of him, in a legal manner, simply agrees that the guy has a case to be looked at.

Nothing more.

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.

Either way, I rekon I'll be hearing about this till the day I die. And not a single thing will have changed.
edit on 9-4-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-4-2013 by winofiend because: reconfigure sentences..


from other topic provided



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





You've been here long enough to know that your statement is patently false. There's a whole 9/11 forum full of threads not supporting the official story. Furthermore, anyone can browse the HOAX bin and see that your statement is false.

The only 9/11 threads in the HOAX bin are the ones that are proven 9/11 HOAXES like the "tv fakery / cgi planes / no planes hit the WTC" garbage.

The original thread of this particular old story is not in the HOAX bin and is in my post below.


It was more of a token statement on my part...as I red a piece by Skeptic Overlord yesterday (older thread)...coming pretty hard on the subject 9/11 various theories. I was under the impression that most mods on ATS including the owners...are more or less...supporting the official line. Hence my "lately" comment...

I admit...it was a knee-jerk reaction to this subject being put in the HOAX bin...as for Beforeitsnews...I agree completely about the site.



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by n00bUK
 

WOW, just super WOW.


No wonder they took away your guns...



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Why is it put in HOAX?

Why not close it and link to the existing thread?



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





The only 9/11 threads in the HOAX bin are the ones that are proven 9/11 HOAXES like the "tv fakery / cgi planes / no planes hit the WTC" garbage.


I disagree and so do many others.

It is also pathetic to pre label things as a hoax.


There was this no plane thread in the hoax section for over a year where a mod was trying to debunk the premise with a testimony that was a lie, or at least a big misrepresentation that involved a testimony of not being able to see a plane, years earlier, opposed to the "debunk" in the thread where he claimed to have seen the plane hit.

The thread was completely removed a few days ago.




edit on 24-9-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

NeoParadigm
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





The only 9/11 threads in the HOAX bin are the ones that are proven 9/11 HOAXES like the "tv fakery / cgi planes / no planes hit the WTC" garbage.


I disagree and so do many others.

It is also pathetic to pre label things as a hoax.


perhaps that is because the source is a site known to post hoaxes

And he didn't "win" the court ordered him to get a TV license and conform to the law

Him winning would have been the judge saying "yes you are right, it is not lawful for you to pay your TV License as it would be funding terrorism"

That's why this is a hoax and quite rightly.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join