This is, apparently, still going around the Internet.
(That's just one example ... it's fucking EVERYWHERE).
For the NTH TIME:
1. He LOST the case. (Claiming "a moral victory" does
not excuse the fact that the FUCKING CUNT LOST the case, and was
FINED(*), and was told to get a TV Licence PRONTO!)
(* Actually not Fined ... but ordered to pay ... I seem to recall
... something like £250 COSTS. What's the difference between that
and a Fine? I see very little difference. He was VERY LUCKY to come
up against a Judge who was obviously in a good mood. VERY LUCKY ...
it does happen ... but very rarely)
2. His "BBC argument" was utter garbage ... even if the Judge had
accepted it ... which the Judge did not.
3. A Maggot's Circus was not even the correct venue to make that
kind of argument (if if the argument had been valid)
4. The "9/11 lie" was NOT supported by anything he said.
5. The BBC left with SMILES - NOT EGG - on their faces.
6. Tony Rooke is a fucking CUNT, and hasn't a fucking clue.
This just goes to show that there is no substitute for actually
scutinising the ACTUAL FACTS ... and not just proliferating "what
other people post" around the Internet ... by simply "taking someone
else's word" for things.
"Oh! It's in the papers ... it must be true!"
"Oh! It's on the TV ... it must be true!"
"Oh! It's on the Internet ... it must be true!"
Errr ... no.
This one had been round & round so many times it's reached the
status of "urban legend".
That just shows how many MILLIONS OF people have forgotten
what their brains are actually for.
I'm NOT 'getting' at anyone in particular (apart from Rooke, and his
followers like Tony Farrell) ... but anyone with a half a
functioning brain can - if you actually read what actually
happened - see that Tony Rooke & his mates were just
a bunch of fucking cunts, who hadn't a clue about anything very
FOR THE RECORD (yet again!)
The fact that the Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation announced the
demise of Building WTC7 - 20 minutes before it actually collapsed -
is IRRELEVANT to the "9/11 Lie".
Because they were undoubtedly told that WTC7 (Saloman Brothers
Building) was to be destroyed.
They were doubtlessly given an approximate time.
I can't imagine any of them actually KNEW which building was the
Saloman Brothers Building.
I certainly didn't on ... 11th September, 2001.
So ... there was delay in the demolition.
The BBC weren't told about the delay.
They announced it.
20 minutes later - after the unforeseen delay - WTC7 actually came
So what? So fucking what?
Is that a scenario that exposes the "9/11 Lie"?
Not ... it's not.
Not ... it is just a scenario that says "The BBC were not kept
entirely up-to-date with what was happening".
Does the fact that the "building was demolished" expose the "9/11
Not ... unless you think hard about it ... as
I did in 2004:
The WTC Building 7 was demolished at 5:30pm
on 911. It stands a block and a half away from the Twin Towers and
was not hit by any aircraft. Larry Silverstein (the WTC
leaseholder) has said on public TV that he agreed to demolish WTC7
on advice from the Fire Chief.
The Fire Chief had advised that there were fires in the building,
and that they could not be controlled. How, then, did they manage
to get in to the building, to lay all the demolition charges,
ready to pull the demolition switch at 5:30pm that same day? The
building would have been ‘pre-wired’, but the charges would not
have been ‘pre-laid’, because (a) explosive materials degrade over
time, and (b) who wants to work – day after day – in a building
that could have accidentally exploded at any time … due to a fire,
or electrical ‘short circuit’?
In order to ‘pull’ a building, fresh explosives
have to be positioned where designed, and this takes
considerable time and access. These activities must have taken
place before 911, therefore. This means prior knowledge.
Tony Rooke ... and all those CUNTS who follow you ... I was
way ahead of you ALL ... TEN YEARS ago!