Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: 9/11 ‘Truth’ Loonies to take on the BBC in court

By Alexander Baron     Feb 21, 2013 in Entertainment
Horsham - A former police analyst and a man who holds a PhD in chemistry are set to challenge the official narrative of 9/11 in an English courtroom. As the man said, laughter is the best medicine.
If you are 25 or older, you will remember from live media coverage the terrible events of that day in September 2001 when the world changed forever. If you are younger, you will surely have heard about it, seen the horrific but spectacular crash of the second plane, rerun it in slow motion, watched the buildings collapse, heard the men shout and the women scream.
You will surely be aware of the significance of the number 343 - those heroic firefighters who went to their deaths even though they must have known they were in terrible danger. You will be familiar with the phrase "war on terror", and all manner of other things. If you are born next week, you will hear and learn about all this in time. But there are some people who were born yesterday, and there is no arguing nor reasoning with them.
One such person is Tony Rooke, a documentary maker, who is not to be confused with Tony Rooke the clown. Or perhaps he is. Mr Rooke has hit on a novel way of challenging what he considers to be BBC bias in their coverage of the 9/11 attacks. He has refused to pay his TV licence, and has goaded or otherwise convinced the relevant authorities to prosecute him for it. And his defence?
Under the Terrorism Act, 2000:
A person commits an offence if he—
(a) invites another to provide money or other property, and
(b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
(2) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) receives money or other property, and
(b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
Mr Rooke's reasoning is that by attempting to discredit the fearless crusaders of 9/11 Truth, the BBC is doing exactly that, it is aiding terrorists, and is therefore in breach of its charter.
Incredibly, he has been given three hours to attempt to persuade the magistrates that this is indeed the case. He has no chance of doing so, as he well knows, but the purpose of the exercise is to generate publicity which will portray this sorry parade of misfits, cranks and liars as latter day Galileos who are being persecuted by the state for daring to expose the greatest conspiracy and cover up of our time.
Clearly he and his fellow travellers believe they are putting the BBC on trial and exposing the wicked US Government, or whoever was really behind 9/11.
What did the BBC do that is so wrong? It explained some of the many contradictions and absurdities of those who claim 9/11 was not perpetrated by 19 men armed with boxcutters financed by evil Islamists from beyond America's shores, and it also attempted to demonstrate to them that what the world saw on that terrible day really happened, namely that two planes hit two tall buildings, and the combined impact, other damage and fires brought them down, and this in turn led to the collapse of another building - Building Seven.
In the process of explaining this, the BBC may well have helped make some people look foolish, as in the 9/11 road trip documentary. The big question is does every probable or possible explanation for what happened deserve both equal credibility and equal air time? Clearly not. Especially when most of them have been explained again and again. Does the "no planes" theory or Judy Wood's dustification nonsense deserve equal time with the official narrative?
So where will this freak show play out? At Horsham, West Sussex, population approximately 57,000.
Two heavyweights - or perhaps that should be two ex-heavyweights - will be attending.
Tony Farrell was a senior analyst working with South Yorkshire Police. Unfortunately his analysis led him to believe that "both 7/7 and 9/11 were false flag attacks".
Obviously the Illuminati couldn't tolerate him after that so he was killed in a staged road accident. Well, sacked actually, an assassination would have been one step too far, what with the Oklahoma City bombing, JFK and all that. Oh boy.
The other heavyweight is Niels Harrit, a professor of chemistry. Well, you wouldn't expect the leading lights of this movement to be shopkeepers or refuse collectors, would you? He will no doubt be focusing on Building 7, that 47 storey structure that collapsed mysteriously at free fall speed, even though it wasn't hit by a plane. Well, there was the little matter of the massive structural damage inflicted on it by the collapse of the Twin Towers, the fires that burned uncontrolled for seven hours, and the warnings by both the firefighters on the ground and the media well before it collapsed that it was going to do precisely that. Then there was the little matter of the inside of the building collapsing first and then the outer shell, but the entire building did collapse at free fall speed. Give or take eight seconds.
The 9/11 Truthers are calling for a big turn out at the Horsham Law Courts; they'll probably get it, but they won't get the justice they seek. The rest of us though can take comfort from the well-documented fact that for the past eleven and a half years the real perpetrators of 9/11 have been burning in everlasting Hell, where two years ago this May they were joined by their spiritual leader Osama Bin Laden.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
More about tony rooke, september 11 2001, Dr Niels Harrit, Tony Farrell
More news from
Entertainment Video
Latest News
Top News