listen here

Patriot Broadcast From the Trenches Schedule 

buy gold scottsdale

Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage

Can 9/11 truth history be made in a simple building like the Horsham Magistrates’ Court?

Architechs and Engineers for 9/11 Truth – by Peter Drew

AE911Truth Evidence Goes to Court Feb 25, 2013

On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST’s 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.

Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, 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. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official versionof the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

Rooke 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 put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:

Professor Niels Harrit

Professor Niels Harrit, Ph.D, led the team of scientists that discovered thermitic material in the WTC dust

Dr. 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 that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit’s team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.

Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit’s team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC

Tony Farrell

Former UK intelligence official Tony Farrell has publicly questioned the official 9/11 story, and has been granted 3 hours to present the 9/11 evidence in a UK court of law.

Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that 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 evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.

Other members of Rooke’s presentation team include:

Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK group ‘Re-investigate 9/11’

Ray Savage: Former counterterrorism officer who demonstrates the official 9/11 story is not true

Peter Drew: UK AE911Truth Action Group Facilitator

In addition to these presenters, there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from four other 9/11 researchers which will be deployed to bolster to Tony’s defence:

Richard Gage, AIA: Founder/CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Erik Lawyer: Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot and member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.

We encourage all AE911Truth supporters and petition signers in the UK to attend this court hearing – the more the better. An outpouring of support will strengthen the message that the 9/11 truth movement needs to be heard and that there needs to be a new and independent 9/11 investigation.

The date and location of the hearing are as follows:

February 25th at 10:00 am

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

For further information, please contact Peter Drew, AE911Truth UK Action Group Leader, at truthfor911 [at] hotmail.co.uk

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/711-historic-case-to-challenge-bbcs-911-coverage.html

 

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
2462
Don't forget to answer the Security Question before you post comment.

3 Responses to Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage

  1. No JOJO says:

    I wish 911 truthers would STOP referring to WTC 7 as the only building that did free fall and second not only base the sole explosions on nano thermite. WTC1 and 2 had semi nuke bomb devices on each floors–as to concrete bunker basting bombs-which were approved funding by Bill Clinton. Get this–Bush’it was only in office 8 months–his thugs could not have planned the whole operation. Blii Clinton and aerial sharon were the pukes behand the whole affair. Bush was the mule–get go boy :^(

    • Butch says:

      Please get a grip. When people like you sound really uneducated, it hurts our cause. Anyway, of course Bush jr didn’t it. He couldn’t plan on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. He allowed it to happen as did many other higher ups. The Rothschilds are behind the NWO. This is their brain child. As for who implemented everything, its the shadow govt within our govt, meaning the FBI, CIA, Mossad and various other agencies like FEMA. Many important people conveniently changed their routines that day or missed work to survive. Who warned them? There has NEVER been any video or photos showing airplane wreckage, bodies, luggage or airplane seats at the Pennsylvania site or the Pentagon. The FBI confiscated ALL video that showed the Pentagon that day including the gas station across the street. Why, if there’s nothing to hide? It could only support your story that a plane hit the Pentagon if you released the photos. It was a drone or a missile. There was more money spent on the Monica Lewinsky scandal than was given to the 9-11 Commission for the investigation. Some people don’t want to believe because they’re scared. I’m scared but that doesn’t mean we should accept it. Inform others. Be alert and ready. Get organized. cuz Obumma is gonna pull martial law.

  2. Darth Cheney says:

    where do I begin?
    I think one of the most damning things that should be brought to light are the put option winners. The SEC is not required to disclose this information and the evidence has been magically deliciously destroyed.

    Then Silverstein writes a carte-blanche Jewish Lightning policy for a mere 150 Million he nets Billions. That simply does not happen.

    Osama did not have access to weapons grade Anthrax.
    Osama did not have access to nano-thermite.
    Osama did not have access to the WTC Complex.
    Osama and Hussein did not like each other. The west does not even comprehend the significance of this.
    What does any gumshoe detective want to know?
    CUI BONO CUI BONO CUI BONO.
    Whether Odigo warned a certain nationality or not, Silverstein and his kids surviving is HIGHLY SUSPECT.
    The way the dancing Israeli’s were let go and the Bin Ladens allowed out of the country, Bush not wanting an investigation, Where specifically did Flight 77 hit? The office investigating 2.7 Trillion dollars missing! THANKS OSAMA.
    The UK reporter botching the timeline of the building collapsing, and an American reporter for that matter- he actually turns around to look at the building… as he reported its collapse. HIGHLY SUSPECT. The counter argument is that the Fire Dept knew all day. But my counter counter argument is the Truss / Beam that was shot into the American Express building like a missile or a bullet. The force that takes does not sit well with NIST’s feeble minded explanations.
    Bush and Cheney not testifying about anything, nor under oath.
    Cheney watched Flight 77 on the Jumbtron coming in to the Pentagon. Some of the most valuable information leaked was the Norman Mineta testimony.
    The order was to STAND DOWN and let the SOB hit the building.
    The evidence carted off to China in a big hurry.
    The buildings being pulverized to dust. HELLO? ANYBODY IN THERE?
    ok, planes hits, building, building catches on fire, building falls… still does not explain how the concrete was turned into a fine dust.
    William Rodriguez.
    Barry Jennings original comments… I was stepping over dead bodies IN WTC7! Explosions in WTC7 PRIOR TO TWINS COLLAPSE!
    ANYBODY AWAKE YET?
    and on and on and on… yeah, Lucy, you have some ‘splainin’ to do alright.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

What is 9 + 6 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)