... and it's a load of tosh on just about every single count.
It just proves that a complete load of RUBBISH can go round
& round the Internet and never stop.
First of all: Tony Rooke LOST THE CASE.
It was earlier this year (February as a recall ... check the scarves
round their necks for crying out loud! You need a scarf in
September??????? People who send this out as 'recent' need to use
'eyes' ... preferably connected to a thing called 'a brain')
Tony Rooke (assisted by Tony Farrell ... oh God ... and a Dutch
pratt called Neils Harrit) LOST "medium-time" ... as opposed to
"big-time" ... because Rooke was very, VERY, lucky (obviously the
Judge had had a good night with his Dominatrix, the night before).
Rooke was FINED.
Rooke was told to "Get himself a TV Licence IMMEDIATELY ... or
be in SERIOUS shit"
The BBC walked away without any damage to a hair on their collective
Is that called 'winning'?
Rooke picked the WRONG argument ... in the WRONG place ... at the
WRONG time ...
... but encountered an 'overly-lenient' Judge. As I said, he was
VERY lucky ... he could have been fined £1,000 instead of just a few
The Judge even said: "I cannot find any Defence in what you've
argued Mr. Rooke"
And, although is grieves me to agree with a Judge, in this instance
the Judge was absolutely right.
Rooke's 'defence' was a NON-defence ... even for the Star Chamber he
was in at the time.
And the reason is this: THE FACT THAT THE BBC REPORTED THE DEMISE OF
BUILDING 7, ON 9/11, 20 MINUTES BEFORE IT WAS ACTUALLY DEMOLISHED
... PROVES NOTHING ... nothing of any consequence.
It certainly doesn't prove "Inside Job".
What it proves is the BBC didn't know which building
was "the Saloman Brothers Building" ... on the 11th September, 2001.
Did you? On that date?
Yes ... I'm sure you do now ... BUT DID YOU ... ON THE 11TH
You didn't? Then how can you criticise the BBC, then?
And that's all it proves.
And here's why. And here's why it doesn't prove "Inside Job".
Because there is a perfectly rational, reasonable, and logical
explanation for what happened ... that's why.
The explanation is:
1. The BBC are a news-gathering organisation. So they are told that
"the Saloman Brothers Building" is going to be demolished at such
& such a time.
2. The clock ticks.
3. At the time the BBC were given, Jane Stanley
4. Unfortunately - for all concerned - there's an unexpected 'hitch'
... which means the building isn't demolished for a further 20
5. Either the BBC weren't told about the 'hitch' (there wasn't time)
OR the BBC didn't know which building was "the Saloman Brothers
Building" ... so they had no idea that their report was
There ... now ... how does that amount to "Inside Job"?