Saturday, February 23, 2013

Tony Rooke to discuss BBC 9/11 court case LIVE, shortly after the hearing!

The BBC reported WTC-7's demise...20 minutes early! Obviously the 9/11 criminals fed the story to the BBC a bit early...BBC's cover-up on their behalf ever since is a capital crime against humanity
First hour: Tony Rooke discusses this morning's court hearing charging the BBC with 9/11 lies and propaganda. (Details below).

Second hour: Tom Tvedtan, MD may have compelling evidence that miniature nuclear weapons were used in the WTC demolitions: An off-the-charts rate of "nuclear-only" cancers among those exposed to WTC dust.
 
* * *

Ian Henshall writes:

Saturday 23 February

Tony Rooke has persuaded the courts that the BBC must answer the allegation that, in covering up information on the 9/11 attacks, they are colluding with terrorism.

Many truth activists are planning to attend the three hour hearing in front of a judge at Horsham magistrates court this Monday 25 February at 9.00am. There are only 30 seats available in the court room and they will be on a first come first serve basis. Some activists will be flying long distance.

The hearing will be at The Law Courts, Hurst Road, Horsham West Sussex England RH12 2ET.

At least one mainstream media crew will be present but Tony is asking activists not to talk to them and not to hold up placards which do not represent his views. Please go to bottom to see his message in full.

The message to the mainstream media is that Tony will be making a statement after the hearing and they should wait for that.

Campaigners are concerned that the media will seek out and interview whoever they can find pedalling a radical 9/11 theory and use them to attempt to discredit months of hard work. This has been a common tactic, for instance from the BBC in their Conspiracy Files programmes. To prevent this happening, organisers intend to physically obstruct interviews with mainstream media outside the court if necessary.

Activists attending the hearing are asked to make sure any signs represent the message of this campaign: that the BBC has covered up the truth on 9/11. Those with signs saying anything that would appear speculative to a general audience (eg 9/11 was an inside job) will be seen as undermining the court case and Tony's campaign.

On the factual side Tony is most concerned to highlight the symmetrical collapse of WTC Building 7, a large portion of which fell at free fall speed and which was announced by the BBC some half hour before it happened.

He says the Jimmy Saville scandal shows that the BBC were unable to investigate a child molester in their midst, so it is hardly surprising that they do not have the courage to impartially investigate the crime of the century.

'Despite recent offers from mainstream sources,  Tony Rooke and his defence team feel that this has come all too late and is not consistent with far too many years of indifference towards the scientific facts that incontrovertibly disprove the official account of 9/11.  Illegal wars have come and continue to be fought under the pretext of that day. Civil liberties have been erased along with the countless lives of troops, civilians and children abroad. These overtures of 'friendly' interest are not to be trusted. This court case has happened only BECAUSE of mainstream media's indifference, antipathy and often ridicule towards those who have researched and found the truth of 9/11, in tandem with a conspicuous silence in the face of such overwhelming evidence that disproves the official version. The mainstream press are to be treated with the contempt they deserve. This case is being fought by those whose ONLY interest is in seeing the science of the 9/11 event analysed by a court,  a scrutiny of FACTS that SHOULD have been undertaken by the commercial press and the BBC a long time ago.

Any individual who engages in conversation with a demonstrably deceptive mainstream media at Horsham, does NOT speak for myself or the defence team and we disassociate ourselves from those who cannot resist such insincere overtures. Win, lose or draw, we hope that this court case prompts all those who mistrust our media, to engage in similar, peaceful action, until such numbers become impossible to ignore. The time for 'research' is long over. The obvious suspects, complicit in the orchestration and cover-up of 9/11, now need to be questioned by uncorrupted police officers. This will NOT be achieved sat in front of your PC.

Ignore ITN, ignore ANY mainstream journalist. They have earned your suspicion.'

Thank you to all who have supported this stand for progress.

Tony Rooke

12 comments:

  1. Historic Court Hearings:

    The BBC in the Dock for Manipulating Evidence and Providing Biased Coverage of the September 11, 2001 Attacks

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
    Global Research, February 22, 2013
    Url of this article:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/historic-court-hearings-the-bbc-in-the-dock-for-manipulating-evidence-and-biased-coverage-of-the-september-11-2001-attacks/5323881

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.countercurrents.org/aeft210213.htm

    ReplyDelete
  3. I attended the hearing today and it leaves me feeling angry with the courts decision which is just another nail in the coffin of British justice. Sadly Mr. Harritt did not get to submit his evidence. Let's hope there will yet be another opportunity to get the truth out to the public.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Has anyone any news about this ? Im searching a lot about any news of this since it happend today.

    bst.rgrds

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tony Rooke lost his case due to TV licensing rules make it a statutory liability that if you own a tv, you must own a tv license. The fact that he was not paying due to 9/11 issues was irrelevent to the judge. I was very glad to attend but sad that Tony was not advised properly regarding his case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What law is that, then?

      Delete
  6. Mini-nukes at the WTC is dis-info and Steven Jones is quite right, there is no evidence to support the proposition that nuclear detonations were involved in the destruction of the twin towers.

    Jones' arguments are sound and he's not the only nuclear expert to categorically refute the mini-nukes hypothesis, indeed it should be obvious to anyone who has studied nuclear physics.

    For a start, there is a physical threshold to how small an atomic devise can be made, determined by a quantity known as "critical mass". Any nuclear explosion will release an enormous amount of visible light, a blinding flash not observed during the demolitions.

    Neutron emissions from a nuclear detonation activate surrounding materials which subsequently emit measurable quantities of radioactive particles, also not observed at ground zero.

    Nuclear reactions produce a whole host of daughter nuclei fragments including well known and readily identifiable isotopes, that would have been present in measurable quantities throughout Lower Manhatten if nukes were used, yet none have been detected.

    Nuclear detonations are point sources of energy radiating out in a spherical shock wave and would level everything in the vicinity, not stop conveniently at the boundary of the WTC complex.

    The demolitions of the WTC twin towers and building 7 are readily explained by the abundant presence of advanced military grade nano-thermite, well documented and essentially proven present in samples of WTC dust as well as known to have been developed by defence contracting laboratories in the US.

    Those like Jim Fetzer, who attack Steven Jones and continue to deny the obvious "explosiveness" of nano-thermite and claim the need for "mini-nukes" to explain the demolitions are, in my opinion, blinkered by egotism or worse, deliberate dis-info.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nuke – Thermite Free Zone

    All (just put your favourite gatekeeper here – mine is LIARS)FOR 911Truth take note, that the only Legal case in 911 History was pursued by a lone light in the murky world of 911 hypocrisy and censorship – Dr Judy Wood Ph.D., the most qualified expert to expose the undisputed empirical evidence both in her seminal and ‘Only’ forensic investigation

    http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

    and then uses her Imperial Evidence to sue those involved.

    Yes, you might ask what all those ‘Lawyers for 911 Truth’, or ‘Scholars For 911’ or ‘Architects for 911’ or ‘Engineers for 911’ have done in the Legal world?

    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

    Did you know that in the 1970/80/90’s John Hutchinson was replicating and reproducing some of the workings of Tesla and then developed his own interference technology that not only had US/Canadian Military invest many months looking at then confiscate?

    Did you know he can change the elements in materials, levitate heavy objects, and create destruction of metals with no recorded heat? Fires that do not burn the materials around it through this low energy interference technique?

    Did you know that Ponds and Fleishman circa 1989 could produce excess energy and Nuclear by-product elements from a room temperature chemical process not involving any Nuke components and these elements were indeed detected after 911 and but now cited as proof of conventional Nukes going off (Silently, without any Heat or Light or fall-out?) really Jim Ftezer?

    It’s quite telling to see how Jim Fetzer treated this scientist (John Hutchinson) on his show and how often Kevin has mentioned or had this amazing person on also?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I invited John Hutchinson on my show but he didn't answer my email.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now this for KB and the UK folks...

    John Anthony Hill, was found “not guilty” of the charge of “perverting the course of justice” by a jury in Britain.
    He supposed crime was mailing a video to a court to be used as evidence in a trial.
    The video was considered “not allowable” for British (or Americans) to see.
    Thus, his “crime” was placing a copied Youtube video in a mail box in Ireland, that contains information that makes a slam dunk case for British government involvement in killing British citizens, with a little help from Israel.
    This may be the single biggest violation of international standards of freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the United Nations, in history. However, a British jury wasn’t buying.
    Thank you good citizens of Britain!
    Better still, the trial wasn’t legal maneuvering about illegal extradition or abuse of free speech.
    Instead, Hill took the stand and explained to the jury, under vigorous cross examination, pretty much what the video’s above tell us, that the US with Britain and Israel staged terror attacks, 7/7, 9/11 and so many more themselves and blamed it on an imaginary group called “Al Qaeda” and a CIA operative and lifelong friend of the Bush family, Osama bin Laden.
    What happened in this trial, what will not be reported, is that the real case was a presentation of facts by the British government and John Anthony Hill.
    Hill postulated that both 7/7 and 9/11 were false flag terror attacks, perpetrated with full complicity by the British and American governments.
    The “crown” attacked Hill as a “conspiracy nut.”
    The jury sided with Hill, finding the American and British governments, who were not on trial, complicit in the murders of thousands of their own people.
    Find this on the news if you can?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Speechless about the Courts in UK and us of hay .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Folks,
    Just resending, as ‘Comments’ are still open and it is an opportunity to put some info into the press.
    Paul
    http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/local/9-11-controversy-in-horsham-court-1-4829773
    9/11 controversy in Horsham court

    ReplyDelete