Tony Rooke and the BBC TV Licence Fee

Andrew Johnson (ad.johnson@ntlworld….
27th Apr 2013 
Further Analysis and Info from Richard D Hall:…

Recently, a posting has been made on Facebook and elsewhere claiming that Tony Rooke’s case against the BBC was a victory. Tony Rooke had previously refused to pay his TV licence because he had stated that the BBC was engaged in the act of supporting terrorism. He therefore refused to pay his TV Licence under the Terrorism Act (2000) – Section 15 Fund-raising. I agree with Tony Rooke on this idea – but I recently began to wonder if Tony Rooke was really interested in what happened on 911 and I wondered if he wanted to know the real truth.

Ian Henshall, who, among other things runs the website “Re-Investigate 911” has been disseminating information about Tony Rooke’s case. Just before Tony Rooke’s court hearing, Ian Henshall sent a message on 23 Feb 2013 to his email list entitled “Tony’s Plea to Activists”. In this message, Ian Henshall wrote:

At least one mainstream media crew will be present but Tony is asking activists not to talk to them and not to hold up placards which do not represent his views. Please go to bottom to see his message in full.


The message to the mainstream media is that Tony will be making a statement after the hearing and they should wait for that.


Campaigners are concerned that the media will seek out and interview whoever they can find pedalling a radical 9/11 theory and use them to attempt to discredit months of hard work. This has been a common tactic, for instance from the BBC in their Conspiracy Files programmes. To prevent this happening, organisers intend to physically obstruct interviews with mainstream media outside the court if necessary.


Activists attending the hearing are asked to make sure any signs represent the message of this campaign: that the BBC has covered up the truth on 9/11. Those with signs saying anything that would appear speculative to a general audience (eg 9/11 was an inside job) will be seen as undermining the court case and Tony’s campaign.

The message goes on to say 

On the factual side Tony is most concerned to highlight the symmetrical collapse of WTC Building 7, a large portion of which fell at free fall speed and which was announced by the BBC some half hour before it happened.

However, it does not make it clear . 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.

Tony Rooke is now apparently making a film about 9/11. I am not sure I like the title of his website – “Killing Auntie Films”. 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? And, more importantly, some of 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 "tons" of Thermite being used). 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

 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?

Richard D Hall wrote to Tony Rooke to ask who it was that was holding up a banner mentioning "thermite", proudly displayed for the Daily Mail. Rooke had "no idea" who it was – and neither did Ian Henshall.

As regards Tony Rooke’s case, Ian Henshall described it as a “moral victory” – my understanding of the verdict was that Rooke had to pay £200 costs, and handed down a ‘conditional discharge’. That means that – if Rooke still refuses to pay he could be prosecuted later on (not that I agree with the whole TV licencing arrangements in the UK) – but I expect to see things accurately reported by a site concerning itself with the truth of 9/11. What apparently did NOT happen was that the BBC were in any way censured (i.e. "The actual object of the exercise") Apparently Rooke was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial – and Neils Harrit and other witnesses never spoke at the hearing/trial.

I wrote the email below to Tony Rooke and cc’d Ian Henshall and other people who are apparently involved in Rooke’s proposed film. The only person that responded was Ian Henshall, who again claimed I had attacked him. This, of course, is untrue – I have questioned him on several occasions in a very similar manner to what is shown in the e-mail below.

Here again, we see the exact same pattern of wilfully ignoring the evidence of what actually happened to the WTC that I documented in my free book “911 Finding the Truth

Ian Henshall was the only person to respond to my message – and he lied in the process. I have included his response and the earlier one, to which he refers – so that people can see what the exact context is.

Beware of propaganda – in all its forms. Look for the evidence to find the truth. It seems like this article, laying out some facts, will NOT get circulated as widely as the ones about Tony Rooke’s case. Or will it?



From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld….]
Sent: 22 April 2013 08:50
 Tony Rooke 
 Ian Henshall ; ‘truthfor911@hotmail….‘; ‘ANTONY FARRELL’; ‘editor@thetruthseeke…
Subject: 911 Related Film – Evidence

cc: Ian Henshall, Peter Drew, Tony Farrell + 1 or 2 others

Dear Tony – and all,

I got your email [address] from Richard Hall – as had previously discussed what happened at Horsham. I received an email from Ian Henshall’s list about a new 9/11 related film you are making, as mentioned on your website at 


 I know you are likely quite busy, so I will try to keep this short. I am writing to advise you that Neils Harrit and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are, like the BBC, involved in a cover up. Here is the evidence:…

 Why did Neils Harrit, Richard Gage et al NOT include an appropriate reference to thermite in what could have become their legal challenge to NIST in 2007?

 Please check the documents referenced. I was "on the sidelines" of Dr Morgan Reynolds and Dr Judy Wood’s 2007 court case against NIST’s contractors for science fraud in relation to the technical reports they produced about the destruction of the WTC towers. You can read the court documents here:

 Like you, I found that the BBC did not want to talk about this:


 and Architects for 911 Truth did not want to talk about what happened to the WTC towers.


 Ian Henshall wrote me an email when I brought this up to him and said that I was possibly a "shill" and "personally the biggest single cause of the collapse of the 911 truth campaign in the UK." Yet Ian Henshall apparently does not want to talk about what is known – and who has been covering this up. Do you want to know? If so, you can use these links below (please note, this is not a theory or a hypothesis and it is inaccurate and dishonest to characterise it as such. It is a study of available evidence):

Video about the destruction of the WTC:…

Free ebook about the cover up of this evidence

A few people say to me "it doesn’t matter how the towers were destroyed – we just need to prove the official story is false". This is not correct – and you don’t prove something is untrue by using false information and disseminating, then protecting, a new false story. I can provide further copies of this information, in printed form, if required – such as in a copy of "Where Did the Towers Go?" though I would appreciate the cost of this being covered as we have funded these investigations out of our own pocket (as you probably have).

I do hope you find this information useful. Needless to say, it does need to be forwarded to all that are involved in your initiative (I could not find all the relevant e-mail addresses), otherwise, unwittingly, they too become part of the criminal 9/11 cover up. Perhaps it’s just too big for most people to handle. This is not a "theory" or a "view" or an "opinion" – it is what is proved by the available evidence – gathered over the last 12 years. Also be aware that there are quite a few people around the world – including the UK – that know about what I have written above.

Please feel free to post this email to any forums or websites – I think it is vitally important.

Best Wishes


Andrew Johnson

22 Mear Drive
DE72 3QW
Tel: 01332 674271

From: Ian Henshall [mailto:crisisnewsletter@pro…

Sent: 22 April 2013 10:10

To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….; tony rooke

Cc: truthfor911@hotmail….; ‘ANTONY FARRELL’; editor@thetruthseeke…

Subject: Re: 911 Related Film – Evidence

Just to place on record that I do not agree with Andrew’s science at all although I presume he is sincere.

Sadly Andrew was a hugely divisive figure in the old 9/11 truth group in the UK because he insisted we should all agree with his questionable space beam science when most of us thought we were trying to persuade the public that the official 9/11 story was wrong in the hope of stopping the wars.

The quotes he cites from me are highly selective and taken from private correspondence which followed on of his periodic attacks on me.


 PLEASE NOTE: I said I would not post this email on my site. However, I have changed my mind because I am absolutely fed up of people like Ian Henshall going around setting up campaigns and pretending they are interested in the truth and then making false claims and accusations about what the only forensic study into the destruction of the WTC has actually shown. They are part of the cover up – and here is the evidence which proves this is true.

From: Ian Henshall [mailto:crisisnewsletter@pro…]
Sent: 11 September 2012 11:32
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: RE: FW: 9/11: Eleven Years On And Still Many Questions Remain

No it was private. As I said if you continue to attack me I will go public. Just in case you don’t realise, you were personally the biggest single cause of the collapse of the 911 truth campaign in the UK.

You don;t understand the difference between campaigning and research.

Ian Henshall

At 10:33 11/09/2012, you wrote:

My I post your response on my website?
Please point out the part where I "attacked" you. Also, can you provide some evidence or even thoughts/ideas of why I might be a "shill" as you put it – thanks.
Is asking questions about someone’s omissions and actions now deemed attacking? Perhaps you’ve not read my book.It’s free
Please let me know whether I can post your response on my website.
Be assured, I’ve not had any challenges to the questions I posted.

PS Did you know about the "witchcraft" thing from Gage? Would you say that is an "attack" on someone’s character, or is it just a neutral question or observation? Sorry, I was only asking…

From: Ian Henshall [ mailto:crisisnewsletter@pro…]
Sent: 11 September 2012 10:18
To: ad.johnson@ntlworld….
Subject: Re: FW: 9/11: Eleven Years On And Still Many Questions Remain
If you are not a shill setting out to discredit and split the 9/11 truth movement you are certainly making a good impression of one.

This is not copied to anyone but if you continue to attack me in public it will be.

Ian Henshall


Related articles...

Comments are closed.