The BBC is being challenged strongly for its refusal to present to the British public the available scientific evidence which contradicts the official version of events of 9/11. Thank you very much to all those who have sent letters to their MPs asking that the BBC be held to account for withholding this evidence that the public must be allowed to see.

As a further progression of this campaign, a great opportunity has arisen. 9/11 truth documentary maker Tony Rooke has been granted a court hearing where he is challenging the BBC’s support of terrorist activity through supporting the cover up of the true evidence of 9/11. The court case will take place on February 25th at 10.00am at the address below. Real 9/11 evidence has rarely, if ever, been presented in a British court room, so this is a rare opportunity.Any support from the public on the day would be fantastic and will help to send the message that the people want to know, and deserve to know, the truth about 9/11.

Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts
Hurst Road
Horsham
West Sussex
England
RH12 2ET

This court case is based around Tony making a stand and refusing to pay his TV licence fee under Section 15 of The Terrorism Act 2000 Article 3 which states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. The BBC has withheld scientific evidence which clearly demonstrates that the official version of events of 9/11 is not possible and could not have been carried out in entirety by those who have been accused by our officials. In addition, the BBC has actively blocked and smeared those attempting to bring this evidence to the public. By doing this the BBC are supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and are therefore supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account. A new and independent investigation is required to determine what really did occur on 9/11, and by whom, otherwise these unidentified terrorist elements will remain free to potentially commit further terrorist activities.

Tony has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV licence fee, however, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has formed a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding individuals:

Professor Niels Harrit

Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence which contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit’s team of scientists proved that there was nano-thermite residue (high tech military explosive) all through the dust of all three towers and he got this study peer reviewed and published in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers. He was involved in a major interview with the BBC in 2011 where the BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit Professor Harrit rather than look at the devastating scientific evidence he had to offer. Professor Harrit’s team have video footage of this harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by the BBC both on camera and off camera as part of that interview.

Tony Farrell

Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for South Yorkshire Police Department. In 2010 he was fired because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that due to his extensive analysis of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the truth and he is challenging his dismissal through international court. Tony Rooke has recently produced an excellent documentary called ‘Offensive – the story of Tony Farrell’ based around the story of Tony Farrell. Here is the link to that documentary:

OFFENSIVE – THE STORY OF TONY FARRELL – YouTube

In addition, here is the other documentary that Tony has recently produced called ‘Reasonable Cause’ which gives a good insight into the type of work that Tony has been engaged in and the type of information and evidence that he will be presenting at his court case:

Other members of Tony’s presentation team include:

Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK based group ‘Reinvestigate9/11′
Ray Savage: Former Counter Terrorism Officer who believes the official 9/11 story is not reasonable to believe

As well as these presenters there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from our four other 9/11 experts:

Richard Gage: CEO of ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’
Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Erik Lawyer: Founder of ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’
Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot & member of ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’

If you happen to be in the UK or reside there, please consider attending this historic court case to support Tony in this rare opportunity to have some of the true facts of 9/11 presented in a court of law and to have the BBC held to account for their support of the cover up of the true scientific evidence of 9/11.

For our friends in the USA, you ALSO have laws prohibiting the funding of terrorism – namely:

18 USC § 2339C – Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism

(a) Offenses.—
(1) In general.— Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds with the intention that such funds be used, or with the knowledge that such funds are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out—
(A) an act which constitutes an offense within the scope of a treaty specified in subsection (e)(7), as implemented by the United States, or
(B) any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act,shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(1).

Many thanks

AE911Truth -UK Action Group – on behalf of Tony Rooke

Much as I personally don't think 911 conspiracies stack up, I say fair play to this guy for sticking up for what he believes is right.

Though didn't Tony Farrell just .look at the same conspiracy websites as everyone else and then be daft enough to submit his 'findings' as an intelligence analysis and wonder why he was sacked? And Richard Gage doesn't exactly ooze credibility.

What strikes me about this is what it really means - like is it the case this isn't actually about the actual truth of 911 theories but if it's reasonable to believe them, thus presenting 'reasonable cause to suspect'? Can anyone with legal knowledge clarify?
Because if so, I think I suddenly believe 911 theories again. Let the BBC prove I don't.

dogsmilk wrote:
Its not just so much that 'conspiracies' don't stack it, its that the official conspiracy theory doesn't stack up.
Its as simple as that imho, fair play to the guy to try but the judge ofc won't give a shit.

andyh wrote:
I don't think it matters what the judge thinks Andy. This is a propaganda exercise. I don't mean that in a pejorative sense.

dogsmilk wrote:
Propaganda for who?
For the state to show how nothing we do matters perhaps?

I have a theory that many of the theories about 9/11 were put out there to be debunked.
Kind of like a Russian doll set of conspiracies. Endless conspiracies against everybody until nobody knows wtf is going on and we all end up being assassinated for knowing too little.

andyh wrote:
Truth movement propaganda. When the case is lost people will claim it's part of the suppression of the truth. And either it will get some attention or if it doesn't this will be media complicity in the cover up that shows they were right all along irrespective of the verdict. But I guess that guy can end up with big costs so fair play to him for taking a stand he stands to lose a lot from. Could say he's stupid, but I guess he's trying to do some good in the world so good luck to him.

His personal cost so hardly truth movement propaganda.
Its also not something that would even make a court case...ergo I see it as propaganda for the other side tbh, for at least those intelligent enough to see it. Which is ofc its entire intent.

andyh wrote:
I'm guessing he thinks any cost to him is worth taking his stand over.

He's in magistrate's court. Unless there is information to the contrary, I'm guessing he is appearing there for refusing to pay his TV license. I am guessing the court is expecting to see him briefly, fine him and send him on his way. They probably have no idea what's being said on the internet about what I would think to them is a mundane, routine matter.
Happy to be corrected on that, but I reckon that's probably the size of it.

dogsmilk wrote:
He's lucky to even have it seen in a magistrates court
But yeah he'll have to pay for his defense costs (which will be completely ignored) plus the fine and that'll be the end of it.

andyh wrote:
What's lucky about it?

Most people who get caught not paying their TV license would see it as pretty unlucky. People are lucky when petty offences get dropped, surely?
Though I guess it's pretty lucky if he wants to make a big show about it; he'd be gutted if they decided to let him off at this stage.

dogsmilk wrote:
From his own POV, certainly the best course of action in his case was to either do away with a tv or pay the license tbh.
Or ofc move to a country where he didn't have to put up with all that crap in the first place

From his own POV, certainly the best course of action in his case was to either do away with a tv or pay the license tbh.
Or ofc move to a country where he didn't have to put up with all that crap in the first place

andyh wrote:
Or option C. Have a TV and don't pay them fuck all

andyh wrote:
Or option C. Have a TV and don't pay them fuck all

psketti wrote:
Until they pull you up for it :~)

I don't pay a tv license either but I do it 100% legally.

andyh wrote:
So do I. I also own a TV.