Man in court for not paying TV Licence

[zoomee]

Interesting how not a single UK media outlet is covering this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/histor...rage-of-the-september-11-2001-attacks/5323881

Now before the conspiracy theorists jump aboard, this post isn't to discuss the various theories out there. More so to discuss why when so many valid questions have been posed invalidating the 'official' line of events portrayed to us, that this hasn't seen any media coverage. I'm sure we'd all like to know the truth - especially when we pay for that 'truth'!!

Court case is due to take place tommorow.

 

[Judgeneo]

This should be good.

*grabs popcorn*

So basically the BBC did some documentories of the conspiracy theories, and are now being taken to court because they failed to represent the evidence properly, and allegedly manipulation photographic evidence?

 

[aayzof]

Ooo mmm.

 

[Nitefly]

It does always amuse me that posters vigorously back official versions of events stating that facts are 'obvious', when really they have no first hand information and are simply placing faith in what they consider to be the more reasonable source of information. I guess you can extent that principle to anything, but it's particularly relevant with the endless 9/11 debates.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I watched the Road Trip one last week again and it featured 5 of the most gullible people ever. What got me was that all 5 had a completely different story of what Aliens are. It was really sad watching it.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

It does always amuse me that posters vigorously back official versions of events stating that facts are 'obvious', when really they have no first hand information and are simply placing faith in what they consider to be the more reasonable source of information. I guess you can extent that principle to anything, but it's particularly relevant with the endless 9/11 debates.

I'm shocked, I never ever thought you would be in the CT camp, you seem so sensible.

 

[Glaucus]

I watched the Road Trip one last week again and it featured 5 of the most gullible people ever. What got me was that all 5 had a completely different story of what Aliens are. It was really sad watching it.

Yep all the road trips are pretty shocking.

Oh and it sounds like crap.

He's been granted 3hrs to defend his non payment of TV license. This is not really a trial off the BBC.

 

[RDM]

It does always amuse me that posters vigorously back official versions of events stating that facts are 'obvious', when really they have no first hand information and are simply placing faith in what they consider to be the more reasonable source of information. I guess you can extent that principle to anything, but it's particularly relevant with the endless 9/11 debates.

As far as 9/11 goes it is probably because the official line is coherent and stable whereas with the CT line I would need to pick one of many contradicting and contrary theories that have no evidence, lack common sense and are generally falsifiable.

The "evidence" for most 9/11 conspiracies seem to be dodgy YouTube videos that cherry pick video and photographs to suit their agenda.

 

[Deceptor]

Crap out of popcorn.

 

[Nitefly]

I'm shocked, I never ever thought you would be in the CT camp, you seem so sensible.

I do happen to believe the official version of events, but I appreciate that somebody is telling me what happened and I'm choosing to believe them.

It's armchair expertism that I find funny in 9/11 debates.

 

[Jokester]

The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST’s 2008 admission of this fact.

If their case relies on this, then they're going to lose. NIST report makes it clear that the building didn't collapse at free-fall speeds.

 

[Robbo]

It's armchair expertism that I find funny in 9/11 debates.

Maybe, but the actual experts have verified what happened, it's just idiots on Youtube and people like Alex Jones that draw in the nutters and convince them it was all a big conspiracy.

It's alarming how many people believe such rubbish (not that you're one of them, of course).

 

[Longbow]

Court case is due to take place tommorow.

I would love to be the judge on this one.

 

[KIA]

He's one of the nut jobs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3wFMnMiWdQ

Thank god he was fired!

 

[Burned_Alive]

If I'm reading the article correctly, the BBC aren't actually in the dock, but this Tony Rooke fella for not paying his TV license?

And his plan is to somehow turn that hearing around to complain about how the BBC reported 9/11 events?

Presumeably no-one from the BBC will actually be there and couldn't care less about this.

 

[TJM]

I was wondering how this could possibly be the subject of a court hearing, and the answer was buried down the page:

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.

Laffo. His defence is ludicrous and the court will not allow him to bang on about 9/11 for three hours (which is the estimated time for the hearing, not a time allotted to the defence to talk about whatever they like). Trial of the century this ain't.

Also, being granted a MC hearing isn't a great victory. It's what happens when you contest any criminal charge.

 

[Glaucus]

If their case relies on this, then they're going to lose. NIST report makes it clear that the building didn't collapse at free-fall speeds.

Exactly the overall time was far slower than free fall.
NIST final report stated this

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

 

[Nitefly]

Maybe, but the actual experts have verified what happened, it's just idiots on Youtube and people like Alex Jones that draw in the nutters and convince them it was all a big conspiracy.

It's alarming how many people believe such rubbish (not that you're one of them, of course).

Idiots will be idiots of course.

On a semi-related note, I was speaking to somebody who shared with me something rather disturbing, which you can take or leave. When he has been involved with the interviewing of terrorist suspects, and there is military involvement, there can be 'indeterminate noise' on the recording tapes. Apparently this represents the guys from the CPS leaving the room the room and turning a blind eye whilst the military kick the living **** into said suspect.

Who knows what goes on behind all the closed doors in the world...

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Exactly the overall time was far slower than free fall.
NIST final report stated this

Stop bringing facts into it.

 

[Glaucus]

Stop bringing facts into it.

Sorry, shall I be like the OP and make misleading threads.