- SRA Survivor's Amazing Story
- EARLYBIRD! Hear Exclusive Sonia Poulton Interview Kaya Jones
- Why Your Body NEEDS Cannabidiol (CBD) - POWERFUL Message By Joe Saxby of Healthy Place Botanicals
- Retired Therapist Describes How SRA's Become Multiple Personalities
- PROOF Agencies Sell Babies - Caught On Tape!!
Tony Rooke, a UK citizen, in an act of civil disobedience, refused to pay his TV licensing fee (in the UK, they must pay a tax for owning and watching TV), claiming he was withholding the fee under Section 15 of Terrorism Act 2000- This act states it is an offense for someone to provide funds to be used for terrorism. He told the Magistrate he would not give money to an organization who funds terrorism.
He was able to use this defense because he claims the BBC covered up facts around the 9/11 terror attacks by claiming the World Trade Center Building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did collapse. 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. That obviously means that BBC had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack, according to Tony Rooke.
Rooke told the court, “I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the licence fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect. I do not use this word lightly given where I am.” He also made reference to a theory about the way the skyscraper was said to have fallen in on itself, which some people believe showed signs of a controlled demolition.
Rooke continued, “They have made programs making fools of and ridiculing those of us who believe in the laws of gravity. American reports have shown that the fall was nothing but a controlled demolition.”
He further clarified by saying, “I am not looking at who demolished it – that is impossible – but the BBC actively tried to hide this from the public.”
The prosecutor in the case reminded the court that not paying a TV licence under Section 363 of the Communications Act is a strict liability offence, he then asked Rooke why he continued to watch the BBC with no licence.
Rooke stated, “You are asking me to commit a crime if you are asking me to pay.”
While it was not a public inquiry into 9/11, the judge did accept Rooke’s argument, and the recognition of the BBC’s actions on September 11th are considered a small victory- one that was never reported in the US.
The fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty-three minutes before it actually fell indicates that the UK was aware of the attacks on 9/11 before they actually happened. The direct implication is that they were working with the “terrorists”, all arguments as to who the terrorists actually were aside.
Meanwhile, back in ‘Murica…
According to CNN, a bipartisan bill to let families victimized by the 9/11 terrorist attacks sue Saudi Arabia ran into sharp setbacks Monday, as the White House threatened a veto and a GOP senator privately sought to block the measure.