9/11 cover up "proven" in court...

Post Reply
User avatar
chaggle
Posts: 2260
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:01 am

9/11 cover up "proven" in court...

Post by chaggle » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:36 pm

I haven't checked this out yet and the publication looks dodgy so I apologise if it's complete idiocy.
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.
Don't blame me - I voted remain :con

User avatar
chaggle
Posts: 2260
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:01 am

Re: 9/11 cover up "proven" in court...

Post by chaggle » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:37 pm

Slightly different story from another dodgy publication

Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.
Don't blame me - I voted remain :con

Darklord
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:21 pm

Re: 9/11 cover up "proven" in court...

Post by Darklord » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:38 pm

chaggle wrote:Slightly different story from another dodgy publication

Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.
Worth a try I guess but you never win with Governments. On a side note I've seen some pretty convincing video footage that seems to point to it being a put-up job

User avatar
chaggle
Posts: 2260
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:01 am

Re: 9/11 cover up "proven" in court...

Post by chaggle » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:39 pm

Darklord wrote:
chaggle wrote:Slightly different story from another dodgy publication

Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.
Worth a try I guess but you never win with Governments. On a side note I've seen some pretty convincing video footage that seems to point to it being a put-up job
Can you post the footage?
Don't blame me - I voted remain :con

Darklord
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:21 pm

Re: 9/11 cover up "proven" in court...

Post by Darklord » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:40 pm

I've seen that many that I'm not sure whether this is the one I'm referring to or not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiusdy1miI

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlIUGqai81k

There are plenty results here if you have the time to go through them? Some are obviously fake, but others do leave the question hanging in your mind.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ocumentary

Post Reply