UK man wins court case against BBC for 911 cover up



Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World

Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

Below is the broadcast where the BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 while it was still standing behind the reporter.

Leave Comments


Recommended for you

  • Pingback: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory in under 5 minutes | The Top Information Post()

  • Pingback: In the news - Page 503 - London Fixed-gear and Single-speed()

  • Ray

    Hopefully the main stream media will eventually commit to doing an honest and complete investigation into what appears to be a controlled demolition of all three towers.


    NEXT: But what do the firefighters, police and FBI have to say?

  • Al Gagnon

    the lame-stream “media” are bought and paid off
    just look at who owns what and it comes down to very few men who hold all the cards as far as information dissemination is concerned , how do you think an illegal alien muslim camels ass made it into our white house ??

    • Tom

      Nice to see you’re obviously very open to opinions and the correct use of facts. You ignorant, racist fool.

  • LAguy323

    Ask questions, demand answers. The laws of physics are immutable. Go to

  • normy11

    You do all realize that all the court ruled was that he had a right to use the footage, correct? They didn’t actually find anything about the accuracy of the claim. Also, the idea that in the midst of the madness of 9/11 ( I was right across the river from the WTC that morning) that a news station got something wrong is not far fetched. To think that a network incorrectly reporting the collapse of a building that later in fact did collapse is the same as their knowing it would happen is to abandon any critical thinking process.

    FinAlly, the lack of a “why?” jumps out at me. Assuming for the moment that it was a planned demolition, why the hell would anyone tell the BBC? It is not like they would have given the biggest story of the day and the year – and a major worldwide development – less air time or covered it differently if they HADN’T known. They have a saying at the CIA that a secret stops being a secret as soon as three people know it. No one planning a covert op, especially on that scale, would tell anyone that did not need to know. Why the hell would the BBC need to know in advance? It just doesn’t make any rational sense.

    • ratagonia

      Don’t confuse them with reasonableness.

    • Jason Whattam

      You do realize that them reporting the collapse of a tower that had not been struck by anything but falling debris, and then for said tower to actually collapse is actually quite damning, wouldn’t you say!! Especially as it’s wtc7, I mean wtf dude!! We are not talking about rational events here, the whole thing stinks to high hell of a massive conspiracy!! the evidence is compelling, anybody who has looked at the alternative stories and still believes the govenment official story is somebody with there head in the sand!

      • normy11

        “To think that a network incorrectly reporting the collapse of a building
        that later in fact did collapse is the same as their knowing it would
        happen is to abandon any critical thinking process.” – thanks for proving my point.

        • Jason Whattam

          Buildings don’t just fall down due to fire though. this is the point you are missing/evading. Doesn’t the fact that it was reported to have collapsed before it did bother you at all?? This is where my critical thinking process kicks in my friend,, I have to question why it was reported, I admit it must have been a very chaotic scene. But to mistake a full building collapsing when it is stood in plain sight is pretty bad, where did the report come from and why did only this building collapse, there were other buildings affected surely!!! and how come it came down in it’s own footprint and in almost freefall (same for all 3 buildings that day)… the fact that the bbc reported this , is not the only reason people suspect a conspiracy,, the evidence is clear to anybody who looks with an open mind.

          • normy11

            The whole freefall/conmspiracy concept is based on two falsehoods. The first is that when they started to come down the beams of the top floors of the towers came down squarely on the beams below them. This would only be possible if the beams had sustained no impact shifting and the top floors had no shift of location. As soon as you take that absurdity out of the equation and relaize that you have flooring crashing into flooring, not just beams into beams, the physics show an extremely low delta v and a collapse towards the weakest point, in this case (and by design) the center. The second is that the fire on the second floor of WTC7 did not result in an explosion of the propane tanks in the basement – also an impossibility since the lines to those tanks ran along the inner sheath of the outside walls of the second floor – and that there was no structural damage below the building at that time – also demonstrably false as the Path tunnels had been observed as damaged by the conductor who backed his train out rather than go in shortly after the first collision, long before the towers came down.
            And that is the extent to which I will debate it. The crazy places you conspiracy theorists go off to from there are not worth the effort.

          • Jason Whattam

            Did you copy and paste that shit from the official report??? I don’t want to debate with you either, You’re to quick to question people’s lacking of critical thinking and as soon as anyone displays any, they are labelled a conspiracy therist, You sir are a conformist hypocrite!

          • normy11

            No sir, I am an engineer.

          • Jason Whattam

            stop labelling people mate,, ”truthers” ,, ”conspiracy theorist” ,, what next ”tin hat brigade”.. I’ve seen many demolition experts reports, i’ve seen bombs going off during the collapse, i’ve heard eye witness reports of bombs going off on lower floors, testimony by firefighters of the same things. evidence of thermite. No plane parts (at all) found at the pentagon!! flight 93 nothing found but amazingly one of the hijackers passport found in the rubble.. No mate, this stinks of conspiracy, I don’t know if you have an agenda or not, but spouting that you’re an engineer bear no relavance whatsoever. Do you not think the American gov is capableof pulling this ogff, Tell me, where was your air-force that day. Why didn’t any of the planes get taken down.. I’ve seen both sides and i know what i will always believe to be true. It’s just far to convenient for The U.S.A’s empire building in the middle east,, or what, you think we’rethere fighting for freedom!!! psmslf!

          • normy11

            I have no illusions about the US and what we are capable of, and no doubt that we are in the middle east for all of the wrong reasons and none of the right ones. I also think the US government is not so stupid as to stage an event to justify war with Iraq and Afghanistan and not claim that even a single one of the twelve people they identified as the highjackers was an Iraqi or Afghani

            I cannot assign motives to anyone who claims to be an eyewitness that saw explosions on lower floors. All I can tell you is that I was an eyewitness and no such thing occurred. At the time I was living in Downtown Jersey City, 5 blocks off the Hudson directly West of the tower. I woke up that morning to the news on the “Today” show that a plane had apparently hit, perhaps a private plane, and ran the two doors down to the intersection where I could see the towers overhead, clear as day. There I stood as the second plane hit all the way until the second tower fell. The sound the second plane made when it hit is with me forever, and is still what I hear in my mind’s ear every time a car or truck backfires. There were no other explosions.

            As for you “seeing” demolitions going off during the attacks, I don’t know what you have seen that you were told, out of context, were bombs going off during the collapse, but it just didn’t happen. Since I have no doubt that you have believed this for a very long time, and that your belief is probably in many ways religion at this point, I won’t humor myself that I can convince you otherwise. Nonetheless what you chose to believe is flat out empirically false.

          • Jason Whattam

            Fair enough Normy. I have no argument with you my friend. As for my earlier posts, I feel i might have been a little obnoxious towards you. I apologize for that. I really don’t want to believe any of this shit mate but (wether i’ve been manipulated or not) I see massive incosistencies in whats being reported. I wish you peace and I hope you don’t think i was being disrespectful. I can’t imagine what it must have been like that day for anyone who saw it first hand.

          • normy11

            Thank you. That is much appreciated.

          • Gaz Kendall

            Tin hat brigade would be suitable!

            If the twat cap fits, wear it!

          • Jason Whattam

            Great comment Gaz,, really getting to the point. Thanx you’ve given me a lot to think about. it’s lazy shites like you, who without a moment of investigation other than what you’ve seen on telly. Lets see, maybe you could tell me what happened to flight 93 (no plane wreckage) ?? or what happened at the Pentagon. (no plane wreckage) or haow 3 buildings came down due to fire and jet fuel the only 3 to ever come doen and they’re all owned by the same dudes. Maybe you can and maybe you can’t, but till you stop lazy comments like your last one, you’ll forever have your head stuck in the sand! dik!

          • Yarightok
          • normy11

            Person. Only one person is actually identified as a member of that “organization” and he is an architect, not an engineer. That is like saying a weatherman is the same thing as a climatologist.

          • Lanky Muddled Exuberance

            I call bullshit. What kind of engineer?

            That ‘delta-v’ line was the most amusing science nonsense I have heard in while I had to laugh.53cret#disqus

          • normy11

            Oh, and repeating the same lines that “Truthers” repeat over and over without providing any affirmative story of what did happen is the height of choosing conformity over critical thinking.

          • Gaz Kendall

            Here is something i cut and pasted…the REAL outcome of the case.

            Found guilty, given a bill for £200 costs and a conditional discharge! And i bet the judge had to leave quickly to stop from pissing himself at hearing such a load of bullshit in his courtroom!


          • Gaz Kendall

            I like you! You have a brain…and the ability to use it! :-)

          • normy11


          • Andrew Clinton

            nice one normy, well put

      • Gaz Kendall

        And do you realise that the twat who wrote this story is a fucking liar???

        He was given a bill for £200 costs and a conditional discharge!

        In England that only happens to people after being found guilty!

        • Jason Whattam

          do you realize the bbc reported a building to have collapsed 20 minutes before it did. nah, lets comment on the outcome of a tv licence dispute instead. I have seen much more than enough evidence and heard enough expert testimony that this was an inside job. Don’t believe me, then prove me wrong. I’d be happy to be proved wrong. Your gonna have to find the wreck of 2 planes tho, flight 93 and the pentaggon. Then your gonna have to explain how 2 towers came down in freefall. I can’t be assed having this argument. You’ve obviously never seen anything but official reports, and You call me a raving loon.. ha ha ha.. you believe the government is fighting for our freedoms. what a jerk!

          • normy11

            1 – I don’t believe our government is fighting for our freedoms, not for one second.
            2 – I have read and viewed hours of stuff about alternative theories to 9/11. None of them actually hold any scientific water, the scientists who support them are quacks, and those who point to them and say “look – a scientist says so” simple knows little or nothing about engineering.
            3 – The BBC thing is a red herring. Seriousyl. Watch the news during any major cirses and see how many things are reported as happeninjg that later it is found didn’t. A reporter saying a building has already fallen that hasn’t in the middle of a catastrophe is meaningless. The fact that it actually did fall later is by no rational extension “proof” that they “somehow knew”. Seriously, if you were part of a conspiracy to cover something like that up, would you start telling your street reporters to report what you know is going to happen 20 minutes before it actually happened, rather than waiting for the building to fall 20 minutes later and just let them actually report it? It defies even the most basic common sense test.
            4 – I already explained the “near free fall”. It is called low delta V due to impacting on floors, not beams. Go talk to an 8th grade science teacher. I am sure he can explain it.
            5 – It is hard to take your apologies seriously when you are straw manning people and calling them jerks two posts later.

          • Jason Whattam

            I wasn’t replying to you mate. Listen Normy, you can spin whatever tail you want about the events. I know you believe the official report. That’s your conncern. I don’t believe it for a minute. not one moment. I posted a link which raises better than i can my concerns, now can you tell me what happened to the pentagon plane, or flight 93, no you can’t. trying to baffle people with science aint so great mate. bombs literally seen going off as towers come down in its own footprint. Honestlly. and we’re the crackpots. The only people to have gained anything fom this are rich Americans. The people whp supposedly orchestrated these attacks, well they didn’t fair to well either. So who gained from the attacks. Just follow the money. You claim to be this expert engineer, why should i listen to you. low delt v,, bullshit, how come all the concrete turned to dust. the steel frames just melted all the way down. Not a thing left standing. Mate, you can talk as much blarney as you want but you can never, never tell me how a plane that flew into a building, was instantly obliterated, black box and everything. Yet a paper passport was found in the street. Not to mention that at leats 9 of the would be hijackers are still alive.

          • normy11

            No one BUT the conspiracy theorists have ever claimed that all the concrete was dust and the beams melted completely. They didn’t. I know because I walked among them and the chunks of concrete in the days after the attack. What do you think iron workers were on site for for weeks dismantling if there was no iron left? Have you not seen the photos, as I saw with my own eyes, of the outer structures of both towers, twisted and horrible but still standing? “You claim to be this expert engineer, why should I listen to you. low delt v bullshit” Have you ever said that about the people you are listening to? Of course not. What they have to say fits your world view – which by the way sounds to be almost the same if not the same as mine – so you believe them. The problem you have is not with the science. You have just made it abundantly clear you don’t understand the science regardless of if it comes from me or from the people you believe. The problem you have is that you blindly accept the science that supports what you chose to believe would be the reasoning behind the attack and reject that that does not. The technical term is that you have a “reducible delusion”, which BTW is NOT the same as saying you are delusional – which I am sure is how you will take it.

            You are a believing pablum being spoon-fed to you. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but not to your own set of facts. You are spouting things as facts that are just not true.

          • Jason Whattam

            Ok Normy, i’m willing to go with you on this theory if you can explain someof the other stuff I mentioned. Seriously, I am willing to listen to both sides of this. But there’s more than just the towers coming down to contend with, there’s 2 missing planes man?? And the whole episode at the pentagon is beyond belief. Why do’n t they just release the tapes that were confiscated that would have shown the plane as it came towards the pentagon. It’s not that i’m aconspiracy theorist mate.. it’s that there is a lot of shit that just don’t add up, for a lot of people and if you could clear it all up then i’m ready to be educated. peace!

          • normy11

            There are no missing planes – remains of both planes (PA and the Pentagon) were recovered. In the case of the PA plane, most of it. In the case of the Pentagon, less – but we are talking about THE PENTAGON. Do you really think there is another building anywhere in the world better prepared to withstand a missile strike than the Pentagon?

            As for the incompetency shown that day in dealing with the fact that we were under attack, it is easy to forget how quickly things were unfolding and how many planes are in the air in the US at any given moment. It is not like we have not fucked up on an enormous scale before. We allowed a Space Shuttle to blow up because no one allowed for it ever getting below 40 degrees in FL, for christ’s sakes.

            Again, the problem is not that you and I have different explanations for what happened. The problem is you seem to be under the belief that things happened that simply did not. Again, your own set of facts.

          • normy11

            It is also easy to forget the level of incompetency of those running things under Bush. We are talking about a government that literally never got anything right.

          • Jason Whattam

            None of what i’ve said have been ‘facts’ littlemore ‘my own set of facts’ I’m afraid you havn’t convinced me. If you choose to believe the official story, that’s your perogative but I am gonna keepmy mind open and I’m gonna need some serious convincing that this was at best a massive cover up. The space shuttle analogy doesn’treally work either, we are talking about space exporation and there’s so much potential for disaster. No for me in this, its to damn fishy mate. Everywhere you look there is collusion and in my mind it was an inside job. Now you can call my a conspiracy theorist or whatever,I don’t mind. You say both planes were recovered I’m pretty sure they weren’t. goodbye Normy, nice talking to you.

          • normy11

            It was a bad gasket – a giant bad gasket, for the ground rocket part.

            You say you are going to keep your mind open when you are doing anything but. You say you are “pretty sure” the planes weren’t recovered. What is your source?

          • Jason Whattam

            This is going nowhere fast mate. Neither of us is for budging. take it easy Normy.

          • Stuffinpup

            You MUST be joking. No one of rational mind could believe what you are suggesting here.
            It’s like, sure, they “misspoke” about WTC 7, and just by coincidence, IT HAPPENED. The BBC is really a great predictive news station. Everyone knows that. (What BS!!!)

            Controlled demolitions have many signatures – and WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 had ALL of them.

          • normy11

            Actually no, they don’t. For starters, the demolitions themselves would have produced a specific sustainable noise that no one heard and no one recorded.

            It is not a matter of being predictive. It is a matter of getting it wrong. The logic is circular. No doubt if WTC 7 had never collapsed people like you, rather than accepting that the BBC got it wrong, would be screaming about the conspiracy to bring down WTC 7 also that failed – and the fact that the BBC knew a building would fall that didn’t proved a conspiracy.

            The idea that the BBC knew the building would collapse, and then told a reporter it would before it actually had – doesn’t even pass the laugh test. The NIST explanation is perfectly reasonable, and easily reproducible in lab conditions.

            What no one of rational mind can believe is a false flag operation in which you blame all Saudis so you can invade countries other than Saudi Arabia.

            If you look at the history of false flag operations, and I do not deny that they exist, they too have many signatures, none of which are present on 9/11.

          • Rod Martin, Jr.

            Good points about the BBC and “foreknowledge,” but you don’t know squat about science and scientists on 9/11. The NIST scientists actually tried to sell the world on the notion that solid steel could offer zero resistance implied by the perfect free fall of WTC7. That’s fraudulent. Thousands of scientists, engineers and architects have agreed that the “official” conspiracy theory is bogus. It shouldn’t even take an 8th grade teacher for you to understand perfect free fall and the concept of zero resistance.


          • normy11

            You have to argue that something is “implied” to make your point. The report never claims zero resistance or perfect freefall. Even a controlled demolition from below, as you and others claim to have occurred, does not result in zero resistance or perfect freefall. So if you are actually claiming, as NIST does NOT, that there was freefall with zero resistance you are actually arguing against a controlled demolition.

            What the report is discussing is low delta-V. If you would like I am sure an eighth grade science teacher can explain it to you.

          • Paul Grover

            Just for the record, I’m going to tell you how I operate. Have you ever seen a TV show or a movie where the detective has items of interest pinned up on a cork-board with ribbons connecting certain photos and scraps of paper into a pattern? That is how I approach the entire issue of 9/11. I do not allow myself the luxury of having a bias because that would cloud the purity of my deductive reasoning. I also reserve judgment on most of these items until new shit has come to light to confirm or deny them as a legitimate source. On the other hand, the only thing I have to examine are hundreds of newscasts, eye witness testimony and testimony of “professionals” on both sides of the line.

            A couple of items (that will stay pinned) on my virtual cork-board. These are two news broadcasts that reported the collapse of building 7 before it actually did. First up, the BBC:


            I think you see why it stays on the cork-board. It’s a weird anomaly. And by itself, it may not amount to much. But it happened again, some 25 or so minutes later, when a FOX news affiliate also reported the collapse early:


            The female reporter seems very confused when she sees the image of building 7, with the black smoke behind it (assuming the collapsed building was behind it, maybe?) But that isn’t even the most curious thing about this broadcast. It’s what the male reporter says mere seconds after building 7 collapses. He says, “Uh, this is not from an explosion or an aircraft at this point, from our knowledge, the information that we have…”

            Yes, and where did he get that information in the first place? The same place the BBC got theirs; the one source that they both have in common and which every reporter on the planet depends on for their jobs: The Associated Press feed!

            The reporters had no idea they were in on the gag; only the person who posted that information on the AP feed had to know what was really going on. After all, the person had clairvoyant like knowledge that the building would collapse. Also, that it was “not from an explosion.” I mean, not from an aircraft flying into it is obvious. But how the hell, before it collapses, does anybody know for a fact (or why post it on the AP feed?) that it was “not from an explosion?” Not only BEFORE any investigation, but BEFORE the building even collapses?

          • normy11

            So you copped your method from TV and that somehow makes your deductive reasoning “pure?” You just described exactly how most erroneous reporting occurs – one party gets it wrong and then other parties carry it without validating it. It happens all of the time, yet simply because the misreported event later occurred – as well as the overall paranoia surrounding 9/11 – people have latched onto this. Of course the idea that there is no reason to plant a story about a building falling down that you already know is going to fall down is lost in your “deductive reasoning.” To believe that you have to start with the assumption that there was something to leak early, so it is not actually deductive at all. It is in fact what is known as inductive reasoning.

            About 17 years ago got to take a “behind the scenes” tour of CNN. As you can imagine a portion of the newsroom was a series of monitors tuned to other news sources with people assigned to watch them. The person showing me around explained that ever since the Richard Jewell fiasco they did not run with something they had not independently verified unless they saw it appear in two different sources. Previous to the Jewell incident it had only been one. I asked what to me was an obvious question, “how do you verify that the second outlet isn’t considering the first outlet as validation?” He said they did not. I pointed out that meant they were essentially doing the exact same thing as they used to, only slower. He had no response.

            An awful lot of what passes as conspiracy is really just stupidity and/or incompetency. I think it is easy for many to believe that people can be that evil, but not that incompetent.

          • Paul Grover

            Yup; you’re a fucking troll! Nothing more nothing less. Waste of time.


          • Roman Marquez

            So you copped your method from TV and that somehow makes your deductive reasoning “

          • Roman Marquez

            Obviously you’re a paid troll,you’re rhetoric and excuses,give you away.

          • normy11

            Paid by who? You really think people are being paid to troll truther articles? Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a paid troll.

          • Roman Marquez

            I don’t answer to the likes of you especially when you know damn well the answers .

          • Roman Marquez

            You claim to be an “engineer” and an” eyewitness”and then you come up with some BS delta V. Crap you still haven’t explained why building 7 imploded!

          • normy11

            Just finished paging through your Disqus comments. Your calling me a troll would be hilarious if not for your sad paranoia that someone would actually pay me to rebuke a nutter like you on a site like this. I did not “come up with some low dealt a V crap” You just don’t understand the explanation I gave, and clearly if you don’t understand something you attack it rather than learn from it. That must leave you in a constantly angry place, Sorry about that.

            But please, do keep on attacking everything you don’t understand. I would hate to see you left with nothing to do.

          • Roman Marquez

            You make no sense, you seriously lack any understanding, there’s no need for yoread to assess mine,your use of names like truther and nutter as disparaging remarks is dumb because only a nut would hide from the truth ,you should pay back your salary and work for free,because you’re as easy too read as mother goose!

          • normy11

            I suppose the term self-sustaining delusion means nothing to you. You don’t even know that low delta-v is a “real thing” that relates to the rate of fall of structures, calling it some BS, but I am the one at mother goose levels?

            I call you a truther and a nutter because you are both of those things. That you do not believe you are does not make them any less true. That you rely on bogus science to allow yourself to believe something was a controlled demolition that was not, dos not change the fact that it is bogus science.

            But hey, since you are obviously not interested in anyone or anything that doesn’t feed your paranoid world view have at it.

          • Roman Marquez

            What? I never said what I believed it was! Caught you again! You’re an overpaid troll!

          • Roman Marquez

            Low felt a v or whatever you want to call motion geometry doesn’t happen at terminal velocity.

          • normy11


          • Roman Marquez

            What troll leaves his previous comments open?

          • normy11

            Thank you. I am sure you did not mean to, but by your own definition you just said I am not a troll.

          • Roman Marquez

            I said you should give your salary back because you’re as easy to read as mother goose,you’re just a wannabe

          • Roman Marquez

            Who mentioned paranoia?

          • phil

            Well said

        • Jason Whattam

 That’s a link for an alternative look at some of the shit that happened on 911.its an hour long,, If you can be bothered to watch it, I’d be happy to have a debate with you. Otherwise, leave the mud slinging alone. If you’ve nothing to bring to the table in terms of debate, then just stick to your bycicle laws mate!

    • Sansome

      Hidden in plain sight. Who did provide the information to the news reader? Maybe there lies the answer.

    • Gaz Kendall

      Yeah, couple that with the fact that he was actually found guilty by the courts and this whole website looses all credibility (not that it ever had any)

    • Stuffinpup

      Yes, with all the morning madness of 9/11 in New York, it was so easy to mistake a third building that hadn’t fallen down, for one that had completely collapsed into a pancake. Especially when it happened . . . at 5:20 IN THE EVENING!!!

    • David Christie

      You’re applying a confirmation bias. First, you have a phenomenon that needs to be explained. You need to use deductive reasoning in your investigative technique instead of inducing an explanation in reverse, You start with your own premise, ie: that the BBC must be innocent. Then, you work backwards to confirm it, ie: why would anyone tell the BBC, Then you judge all the facts in that context and dismiss them because they don’t support your preset conclusion. Clearly, in the WTC 7 case, someone wrote the story before the event actually happened.That is absolutely undeniable. That’s a simple fact of life so start there. It won’t change with your opinion. Work with that instead of spinning up excuses as to why everybody’s observation can’t be true. It is true. Period. And there’s something wrong – in a big way. When people in the news start being able to forecast the future – you should start asking some hard questions and demand to look behind the curtain instead of cavalierly dismissing it for the sake of convenience.

      • normy11

        You start with the BBC had the rewritten story, upon which the entire premise of a conspiracy is based, and then say that *I* have a confirmation bias? Don’t be absurd. All I did is point out why what they said does not require there to be a pre-written story. You just decide there is one. Talk about working backwards.

        Would you like a list of everything that has ever been prematurely reported as having taken place that either didn’t or didn’t until well after someone mistakenly reported it? Were you here that day as rumors flew around violently? I was. I have a critical thinking bias – question everything, then look at which answers stand up better than others to the evidence. You have a confirmation bias – why look at all the science that says the building was not intentionally knocked down when it is so much easier to just say a reporter from the BBC knew better?

        • Martin

          normy, you are spending a great deal of time on this, something about that makes me realise you are not really an aviation crash sight inspector, nor are you a busty working engineer. Something tells me you are fraudulent. If you wish to dismiss others accounts of the facts as they find them, with Ad-Homs such as you use. Please do not expect back eloquence. You are nothing short of a big mouthed bully, shouting at other people that they are wrong….read a whole load of stuff you’ve responded to others with. Where’s your credentials? Where’s your properly cited referenced research. Please provide your bibliography before you start trying to diss’ others for same. You are a vile piece of work. As to the BBC report, it ‘had’ to be written before…. ask any 3rd grade teacher, if national news stories are written, ore just made up live in front the cameras…. you sir are intellectually dishonest. Instead of physiologically trying to profile people and then attack that straw man, concentrate on the issues at hand, or carry on ranting from your soap box.Let’s see some evidence you was there that day…..any idiot can say they were…and so you was there and saw it, that’s your whole story…..jesus wept you are a moron….this is about a UK TV channel, that broadcast on the day, i watched it, with my own 2 eyes. yOU DIDNT, WERE YOU IN THE uk, AT THE TIME WATCHING THE BROADCAST? nO…SO YOU CAN’T COMMENT BY THAT VERY SAME LOGIC…. YOU REALLY NEED TO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT YOUR ANUS, AND STOP BEGIN SUCH A DORK. Maybe you are paid to come here and do this, maybe you just have a super large ego? Either way we aren’t going to listen cause you type the same thign again and again. and again and again. With no recourse to logic.

          • normy11

            I can assure you that a post every couple of days is not a great deal of time, but as you all have made it clear that you do not wish to engage in a rational matter I shall refrain from continuing to be a “dork” (are you 12?)

          • Fred Fred

            Having been involved in the demolition of buildings, no one can convince me that it could be done in secret (considering the scale of the work).

      • Roman Marquez

        Thank you David ,for explaining how we profiled this paid troll.

    • J. Nev

      EVIL TRUTH is only visible to those who are able to QUESTION EVERYTHING they have been TOLD/TAUGHT TO BELIEVE.

      Bush Caught Lying About September 11th

      George Bush New World Order

      • normy11

        I question what I have been taught, and particularly authority, all the time. It is possible to do so and not reach the same conclusioms as you.

  • Pingback: UK man wins case for non payment of TV license()

  • Rahmatullah aryoubi

    it has proved that 9/11 was not committed by muslims and it was planed by US government itself but unfortunatly no news channel have broadcast that 9/11 attacks were not carried buy muslims, muslims are not terrorist, islam is the religion which is against killing innocent people and condemn the killing human being wehter he muslim or non muslim, please stop voilence against muslim in afghanistan, iraq, libya, egypt and other muslim countries

  • Gaz Kendall

    This story is total BULLSHIT!
    He was given a bill for £200 costs and a conditional discharge!

    In England thats whats known as being found guilty!

  • OldUncleDave

    this 12th anniversary of 9/11, ask yourself if you really want to
    believe that temperatures half those reached by your self-cleaning oven
    caused three massive steel structures to crumble into dust.

    “Then ask yourself why your government thinks you are so totally stupid
    as to believe such a fairy tale as your government has told you about

  • Pingback: Be Careful What You Say | Real Street()

  • Pingback: Be Careful What You Say | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG()

  • Pingback: Be Careful What You Say | The Libertarian Alliance()

  • Pingback: Big Victory! UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC for 9/11 Cover Up! |()

  • Pingback: UK man wins court case against BBC for 911 cover up « The Progressive Mind()

  • Pingback: Big Victory! UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC for 9/11 Cover Up | From the Trenches World Report()

  • Pingback: False Flag 9/11: UK Man Beats BBC In Court Over Building 7! | Verum Et Inventa()

  • Pingback: UK man wins court case against BBC for 911 cover up - Kickass-Cookies()

  • Pingback: UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC for 9/11 Cover Up! |

  • Pingback: BBC WTC 7 – Problem loading page |()

  • Pingback: BBC – WTC 7 – Part of the conspiracy? Richard Porter part one |()

  • Pingback: Fake News!! CNN & BBC Busted!! ISIS Is A Fake Threat!! 2014 (AS I HAVE SAID) | shaunynews()

  • Pingback: UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC for 9/11 Cover Up.()

  • Ali Sinan Tüzün

    So, basicly what the conspiracy theorists say USA planned all these attacks in secrecy but also informed foreign media in advance!!!! Right….

  • Andy B.

    It amazes me that people still put trust in the BBC for any news! There are many example of cover-ups by the bbc. Jimmy Savile raped and molested young children for years and the bbc covered it up, others people are still coming out the woodwork today! Now we hear that the bbc had fore knowledge of the attacks of 911 and misrepresented the coverage!

    There has been much evidence to back up the conspiracy that 911 was an inside job! Open your mind, have a look at some of the many documentaries and see for yourself. Most people who dont believe it was an inside job will not spend the time to research for themselves. Its a scary thought when we realise the very people who are trying to protect us are the ones sending us to war and putting us in danger!

  • Andy B.

    It amazes me that people still put trust in the BBC for any news! There are many example of cover-ups by the bbc. Jimmy Savile raped and molested young children for years and the bbc covered it up, others people are still coming out the woodwork today! Now we hear that the bbc had fore knowledge of the attacks of 911 and misrepresented the coverage!

    There has been much evidence to back up the conspiracy that 911 was an inside job! Open your mind, have a look at some of the many documentaries and see for yourself. Most people who dont believe it was an inside job will not spend the time to research for themselves. Its a scary thought when we realise the very people who trying to protect us are the ones sending us to war and putting us in danger!