11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

[NeonLX]

Yeah, it's been one helluva learning experience, this RI stuff. Wait...it continues to be one helluva learning experience, don't it.

"...drawn to Jeff as though a flame in the night..."

True, that.

[FourthBase]

So, the president mentioned P-TECH in the State of the Union!

It's a technical school in NYC, however.

(Ripe for a YouTube edit that inserts P-Tech in his sentences about security and enemies, etc.)

(Could maybe re-arrange and piece together enough to approximate an alt-universe utopian SOTU wherein the president boasts that the real criminals behind 9/11 have finally been brought to justice, or something.)

[brainpanhandler]

Yeah, it's been one helluva learning experience, this RI stuff. Wait...it continues to be one helluva learning experience, don't it.

"...drawn to Jeff as though a flame in the night..."

True, that.

More like a black light.

[8bitagent]

So, the president mentioned P-TECH in the State of the Union!

It's a technical school in NYC, however.

(Ripe for a YouTube edit that inserts P-Tech in his sentences about security and enemies, etc.)

(Could maybe re-arrange and piece together enough to approximate an alt-universe utopian SOTU wherein the president boasts that the real criminals behind 9/11 have finally been brought to justice, or something.)

Could Lawrence King make an impromptu singing cameo, with OJ, KSM, Madoff and Dorner doing a conga line?

[conniption]

Renegades Blog

AUNTIE IN THE DOCK….

Posted by Outlaw
February 15, 2013

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.



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 2013 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.

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 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 have the opportunity, 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.

On behalf of Tony Rooke

[Hammer of Los]

...

Thanks for that one conniption.

They ain't gonna get away with it, you know.

And death will not spare them, either.

...

[elfismiles]

Renegades Blog

AUNTIE IN THE DOCK….

Posted by Outlaw
February 15, 2013

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.

Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage
Written by Peter Drew
Thursday, 14 February 2013 17:20

AE911Truth Evidence Goes to Court Feb 25, 2013

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

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 version of 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:

MORE> http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-secti ... erage.html

[slimmouse]

The latest posts on here are probably worth a couple of threads on their own. One with ongoing details of the case, and another perhaps concerning the evidence presented, and questions asked.

Meanwhile the omen's for anyone intetested in the truth of 9/11 don't appear promising :

Trust people are aware by now that the Court has said there are no places for the public to attend:

Here is an email I receied:


I have just telephoned Brighton Mags. Ct. (01273-811625/811648) who now do the admin for Horsham Mags. Ct. to ask how many spaces there are in the public gallery in Court 3 at Horsham. I told them why and exactly what case it was in reference to, but before giving all the details, I was told there are no seats for public in court 3.

I wonder why Tony's case has been listed for court 3!!!

Initially, before the woman put me on hold to find out the information I was asking for, I explained that there was a case listed for court 3 that I would like to attend and I expected that there would be quite a few people who would want to go. She asked me, "How many?" I said I had no idea but it could be quite a lot.

When she returned to me she told me that although there are no public seats in court 3, there are about 25 seats in the public gallery in courts 1 and 2.

I then told her exactly which case it was in reference to, then summarised the case and why I thought there would be a lot of public interest. I said that I would "talk to my sources" to get an estimate of the numbers likely to want to be there and we might write to the court asking them to re-list the case for one of the other courtrooms. She gave me the address to write to.

I have posted on lunatic outpost, where I have found (a copy of?) the original article came, asking for anyone who intends to go to signify on that forum topic thread.

If by any chance, you are in direct contact with Tony Rooke. If so please forward my e-mail to him. I have not been able to find an e-mail address for him.

Link ; http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=21758

I like the idea of this case, despite it being inevitably doomed to fail, in the abscence of what will essentially be required here. Namely an appointee of the real 0.00001%, refusing to honor his/her sovereign pledges of allegiance.

This is actually a real in your face showtest for the honesty of world renowned "British impartiality and Justice". It will probably end in the same favourable result for the tiny few as the Princess Diana inquest, which should give anyone with half a brain a clue.

If Mr Rooke actually does understand how it works, then I admire him all the more.

[conniption]

conniption wrote:
...
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.

Other members of Tony’s presentation team include: ...

LINK

Saturday, July 16, 2011
Comedy Infiltration?

There's a new character currently doing the rounds on the Conspiraloon Circuit...



Tony Farrell was senior intelligence analyst for South Yorkshire police for 17 years, who underwent a Truth Epiphany in July 2010, submitted an intelligence report to management which identified the New World Order as a bigger terrorist threat than Radical Islam and was subsequently fired for his beliefs

So far, he's told his tale on the Alex Jones show and an orbiting starship, as well as being written about in several blogs and Conspiranoid websites

What interests me about Farrell's treatment by the alternative media thus far is just how easy a ride and warm a reception he's been getting

This is, after all, a milieu where it is normal to be accused of being a government operative or Zionist shill on the flimsiest of pretexts

Unless, that is, you are an ex(?)-police employee with an inconsistent back-story who appears from out of nowhere and says he's one of You now

Apparently, he's just got to be OK

Here's a provisional list of issues I have about this character which will doubtlessly change as he continues to ply his meagre wares...

continued

??

[8bitagent]

Funny how the BBC and American cable shows always do debunking 9/11 conspiracy specials on the "physical anomaly" arguments and never
on real evidence you could take into a courtroom. However, as we saw with Philip Marshall or Dr David Graham, that line of inquiry can be dangerous.

[Hunter]

I have developed my own theory over the years and havent heard anyone else really come close to looking at it this way but I am pretty convinced that it may have happened this way.

Consider there were terror drills going on that day, we do know there were, I believe it was announced to everyone in the industry, air controllers, military leaders etc, that there would be drills that day and anything they saw out of the ordinary would be part of that, in otherwords stand down. These drills from what I understand were supposed to simulate hijacked planes hitting buildings.

I believe that the 19 hijackers were part of these drills, they were funded, trained, wined and dined by various intelligence agencies and their job on that day was to actually ACT the role of hijackers, it was a simulation and they were supposed to take the planes over etc and IN THEIR MINDS it was all a drill, but at some point the drill went live using remote control technology and the planes were flown in to buildings with the hijackers as double crossed as the rest of us.

They were just supposed to play the role of hijackers for this drill and had no idea they were going to die that day.

This may or may not be what happened, I am not married to it but I have read everything (even just finished The Big Bamboozle--GREAT BOOK by the way, and Marshel's other book) and this is really the best I can do at this time to really make sense of it.

In any case, I am currently working on a sceenplay with this as the plot, whether this is what happened or not I do believe it is close, very close to how this went down the question is of course the who and why etc, those are a little more difficult to answer but various researchers have certainly gotten much closer over the years.

Obviously a lot of people were in on it, of course it doesnt have to be that many, but my point is I do not believe the actual hijackers were, I believe they felt and were tricked in to believing it was going to be a drill, a simulation of a hijack and from there it went live without their knowledge and it is further clear to me the planes were without a doubt flown using RC technology.

[Hunter]

But I must ask...when all is said or done, what were some of the more strange facts about 9/11 you uncovered?

This indeed incredible information.

Is it just me or does anyone else see a SKELETON in the eye of that cane LOL. I see a head, arms flailing, rib cage and legs, it is a literal skeleton LOL.

[FourthBase]

That sounds utterly plausible, Alchemy.

One question, though. What would account for any passengers or flight crew being murdered, if the hijackers were merely hired as performers in a drill? Would that element somehow have been vital to the drill's supposed effectiveness, i.e., "We have to run a drill, but in order for it to be believable, you'll have to slit the throats of some civilians"? Or, uh, maybe it was just Hollywood Blood on the neck of Lewin and the attendants? Or, maybe the accounts of those murders were just phantom, nobody was hurt, and the murders were merely reported as part of the drill, etc.? I have a hard time seeing anything but actual hijackers actually murdering people.

Good luck with the screenplay! But, it's kind of been done before. Scenario 12-D.

[FourthBase]

Holyfuckingshit @ the hurricane.

[Hunter]

That sounds utterly plausible, Alchemy.

One question, though. What would account for any passengers or flight crew being murdered, if the hijackers were merely hired as performers in a drill? Would that element somehow have been vital to the drill's supposed effectiveness, i.e., "We have to run a drill, but in order for it to be believable, you'll have to slit the throats of some civilians"? Or, uh, maybe it was just Hollywood Blood on the neck of Lewin and the attendants? Or, maybe the accounts of those murders were just phantom, nobody was hurt, and the murders were merely reported as part of the drill, etc.? I have a hard time seeing anything but actual hijackers actually murdering people.

Good luck with the screenplay! But, it's kind of been done before. Scenario 12-D.

Yea I dont know that anyone was actually killed, reports could just be BS and part of the drill, I really dont know, there are so many fucking variables involved in this whole plot it is just hard to pin it down. This is just something that I have been working on trying to make sense of it. It is pretty clear to me that those hijackers were NOT devout muslims, they were known to do coke, drink, strippers, all of it, NOT THE KIND of extreme islamic believers that would be easily led to take part in a suicide mission, they were all pretty educated guys from what I have seen so I just think for some reason they were led to believe it was a drill and they would be home for dinner that night, they just dont seem to fit the profile of your average suicide bomber hoping to get his 99 virgins. You know what I mean.

Like I said I am not married to this idea, it is just a working theory that I started to write a screen play about to work it out in my head. I am sure nothing will come of y screenplay that isnt really the intention for it, its more just for my own use to try and work out how this may have went down.

I am not a professional writer yet, I have done some small local stuff and published a few things here and there, I am an attorney by trade so I put the two together and have tried to use those skills from my legal profession and writing hobby to make sense of that day, mostly just for my own curiosity.