Who is Tony Rooke?

From: Andrew Johnson

Date: 2013-04-21 23:14:10

This fellow is getting some attention – for no apparent reason. He had a hearing for not paying his TV licence, which is being hailed as “a victory”. But this does not seem to be true (see below).   Someone said to me that he was successful in illustrating that the BBC falsely reported the demise of WTC 7 20 mins before it actually happened. Whilst the BBC did indeed do this, Tony Rooke was not the first to bring it to the Public’s attention – the BBC was! This was, apparently, in order to “debunk” the story in their 2008 “Third Tower” programme – which was meant to be a “documentary” – but of course was complex propaganda. (See news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/…  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYPm8XzC3g)   Tony Rooke is now apparently making a film about 9/11.   killingauntiefilms.c…   (unusual title for a website/film).   Why are Rooke and his associates NOT talking about what actually happened on 9/11? Why are they not even mentioning the 2007 court cases of Dr’s Wood and Reynolds   tinyurl.com/911qtam   And, more importantly, the evidence these cases were based on?   Why is he including someone who ignores evidence and promotes a provably false story about what happened to the WTC (i.e. Neils Harrit talking about “thousands of tons” of Thermite being used).   www.youtube.com/watc…   Why does a chemist not understand how thermite cannot have had anything to do with the destruction of the WTC? Obviously he has not read my blog: 911thermitefree.blog…   For about the 50th time, if Neils Harrit and his buddies are so convinced that thermite was used, why didn’t they mention their own research when they submitted documents to NIST, which could’ve formed the basis for a legal challenge?   911thermitefree.blog…   Why did Tony Rooke have “no idea” who it was that was holding up a banner mentioning “thermite”, proudly displayed for the daily mail?   www.dailymail.co.uk/…   Why will these emails that I send NOT get circulated as widely as the ones about Tony Rooke?   Gosh! So many questions! I will be accused of “attacking” people again!!!       From: Veronica [mailto:Veronica@FMOTL.com] Sent: 25 February 2013 21:06To: undisclosed-recipients:Subject: Horsham Magistrates Court Follow-up to my previous e-mail about Tony Rooke & Co … refused to pay his TV Licence because the BBC ‘supports terrorism’.Well, he actually got slightly further than I predicted.Which means he was VERY, VERY, VERY LUCKY … because the original Maggot’s Circus (presumably) decided they ‘couldn’t handle the situation’ … as opposed to their normal mode of ‘just screwing people anyway’.So they adjourned until yesterday (Monday 24th February) … in order to give a District Judge ‘a go’.Yesterday the Judge told him to pay £200 costs, and handed down a ‘conditional discharge’. That means that – if Rooke still refuses to pay … then (presumably) he’ll be in serious shit.So … after all that … he’s £200 lighter, and didn’t exactly ‘get a win’.What DIDN’T happen is that the BBC were in any way censured (i.e. “The actual object of the exercise”) “He was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial”What was ‘relevant’ (as far as a Maggot’s Circus is concerned) was what I originally said: “Did you watch TV? Did you have a TV Licence?” Sentencing, Judge Nicholls said: ‘Mr Rooke puts the basis of his defence under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, effectively asking the court to find the BBC is a terrorist organisation and that if he continues to pay them he himself is committing a criminal offence.‘I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence I would be unable to find a defence.’ Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was ‘pleased’ with the outcome, ‘all things considered’.Which things, Tony?Vxxx    

Related articles...

Comments are closed.