The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©

UK Documentary Maker Wins TV Licensing Court Case Proving BBC Had Prior Knowledge of Bldg. 7 Collapse
April 15, 2013 (Forward courtesy of DB)

UK Documentary Maker Wins TV Licensing Court Case Proving BBC Had Prior Knowledge of Bldg. 7 Collapse (April 15, 2013)

UK man wins court case against BBC for 9/11 cover up
Posted: April 11th, 2013 ˑ

Tony RookeTony 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.!

Published on Feb 25, 2013

If you want to learn more:

Tony Rooke's Court hearing on not paying his TV license at the Magistrates' Court in Horsham, 25 February 2013.

Tony Rooke, Tony Farrell, Ian Henshall and Peter Drew share their insights and opinions on today's verdict.


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

BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TWICE

Comment on Youtube:

canucks fan 5 days ago

Something is not right if the media knew a building that was never struck by a plane was going to collapse. Innocent American people were killed and the US media and government knew of this event prior. Buildings do not free fall by fire ever in history. Human life is no longer valued. It is a sad time we live in.


Adjective: Not able to be denied or disputed: "incontrovertible proof"

Synonyms: indisputable - incontestable - undeniable - irrefutable

The 9/11 Truth vs.The BBC Court Case


"I'd like to report to a crime, please"…

That's what this film is all about.

On July 25th 2011, I'd decided I'd had enough and visited my local Police Station, where, for 30 years, my Father had worked as an honest and hard-working detective. My Dad had worked in 'forensics', the field of technical and scientific application in the investigation of crime. I'd not long finished my first attempt at a documentary; a compilation of stolen and borrowed work by the pioneers of 9/11 film-making such as Dylan Avery and Dave Von Kleist: 'REASONABLE CAUSE – Edited by Tony Rooke'. It had a borrowed title also. It's taken from British Law:

THE TERRORISM ACT 2000 - Section 15 Fund-raising

(1) A person commits an offence if he —

(a) invites another to provide money or other property, and

(b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

(2) A person commits an offence if he —

(a) receives money or other property, and

(b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

(3) A person commits an offence if he —

(a) provides money or other property, and

(b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

And that's how and why I found myself standing in the lobby of Chichester Police Station. I had 'Reasonable Cause' to believe I was funding terrorism. I just had different ideas to most people as to WHO the terrorists were.

If the man behind the station desk that day had not been an old colleague of my Father, had my surname not been recognised and the question asked what my retired copper Dad thought of my 'interesting' assertions, I would never have been permitted the 20 minute interview I was graciously given with a young, female PC. But my Dad was a trained detective; he had seen the collapse of WTC 7.

Rat's smell…

And so I filed my report with the Police like a good citizen. Not long after, I emailed the female officer who had sat and listened to me with the same non-committal expression that psychiatrists so successfully adopt when listening to madmen, she took not ONE written note, save my mobile number - probably so she could pass it on to the relevant medical authority when the time came…

Since that day I have submitted hard copy files, electronically communicated files, video after video and made too many trips to low-level courts in what (until recently) would prove fruitless attempts to prove me and millions of others RIGHT.

I hardly remember saying this in court on February 25th of this year, but some kind soul managed to scribble it down as I stood accused of observing our Terrorism Laws for the 3rd time in as any months.

'I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the licence fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect. I do not use this word lightly given where I am'. Oxford English Dictionary: Definition of incontrovertible: adjective / 'not able to be denied or disputed'.

I DID, I DO, we ALL have INCONTROVERTIBLE proof that The BBC are liars and ARE furthering the purposes of terrorism. And I’ll go back to court tomorrow if they wish to defend such a 'slur' against their dark joke of a 'good reputation'. I won't write 'Bugger the judge, too'. Because Judge Stephen Nicholls did this Country a HUGE favour that day. Whilst his hands were tied by jurisdictional and legal boundaries, ('this is NOT an inquiry in to 9/11, Mr Rooke') he, and like most of the 35 or so packed into Court Number 1 at Horsham Magistrates Court, and the 100 outside who couldn't fit in, had seen what I was talking about. I'd spent the last 3 months assembling the evidence for him, the INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence and his decision NOT to fine me, NOT to convict me, NOT to order me to repay the God –knows how long since I'd paid the ridiculous monies to the BBC to fund their lies, lies, lies about 9/11, spoke louder than any bullhorn-protestor outside Parliament.

Judge Nicholls, (and thank God for him) could NOT deny what so many already knew. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and there wasn't a scientist on earth who prove otherwise.

My expert witnesses on the day, all now firm friends, all brave, some, far-longer than I, world-weary fighters against a toxic media that protects the war machine purporting to be 'Government', an elitist club where decent folk are barred, were indeed not permitted to speak on the day. But their intellectual presence and weight, and the crowd the case had drawn did the job. NO Judge dare contradict Isaac Newton – NOT in public. Besides, he didn't need to. Not even The American Government had tried – not for long anyway.

In 2008, The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published their final account of WTC 7's demise. Page 48, final paragraph, in act of intellectual suicide forced upon them by the unsung greats of the 9/11 Movement such as Drs. David Chandler and David Ray Griffin, Jimmy Walter, Alex Jones, et al, and spelt it out for all who can be bothered to read it , let alone, have heard of it. The BBC treats The Final Report on WTC 7 like it were venereal disease…

World Trade Center building 7 mid collapse


Page 48, final paragraph, (2)

'[WTC 7] a free-fall descent of over approximately 8 stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds'

And THAT, (excuse my French) is how is you screw 'Auntie' in a courtroom.

For the non-British reader, or those young enough not to understand the materteral soubriquet of 'Auntie', this was how I and many of my generation referred to The BBC. 'She' was to be trusted. She was addressed in the feminine because she truly represented (in a naive post-war national psyche) the epitome of a kindly and reliable relative like your mum's sister. There was genuine affection for the BBC when I was young. Hence 'Auntie Beeb' would be understood by anyone born here in the 50's onwards.

How things change. 'Auntie' can't even be trusted with her nieces and nephews anymore.

It took exactly 19 months to get from my local police station to stood in front of Judge Nicholls at Horsham – a geographical distance of some 40 miles, but a legal outcome of something that has the potential to reach around the planet – I hope. How long it took Isaac Newton to define and understand gravity is something beyond the likes of me, but I know a man who does understand it. When we (me, at any rate) were all a little drunk in the pub after court, Dr Niels Harrit (an even bigger hero of mine, now I knows he plays the sax') pointed at me and warned rhetorically:


That he may have borrowed this truth from Bertolt Brecht didn't matter. We HADN'T lost. We hadn't brought down the United States AND British Governments in one fell swoop either, but the first drop of the axe had penetrated the tree. I like to think of Isaac Newton now when I see a tree, because I knew bugger all about gravity until 9/11 and I'm sorry it took the loss of nearly 3000 souls, 67 of them British, for me to find an interest in physics.

But I did. And so did Judge Nicholls. Even if The BBC continue to deny and LIE about it, (see you in court), and despite the undoubtedly lardaceous pseudo-intellectuals who troll the 9/11 sites 24/7 in tragic pursuit of denting our efforts, who describe us as 'tin foil hat wearers', 'disrespectful to those who died' and whatever other, desperate crap they resort to in their pitifully, witless rants against scientific immutabilities – WE WON!

You can successfully contradict The BBC. You can't contradict Sir Isaac Newton.

On 9/11 we have incontrovertible proof from the US Government themselves that 8 floors of WTC 7 disappeared for 2 and a quarter seconds. That's an awful lot of skyscraper. It didn't go shopping at Bloomingdales and it didn't make its way on to the BBC's seemingly endless attempts to discredit the irrefutable fact 'someone' blew those floors out of the way. This will be the film of HOW this case came to court and how one, now very popular / unpopular (pick your team) District Judge was faced with the literally impossible task of overruling FACTS.

I was in VERY good company on February 25th.

Professor Niels Harrit

Prof. Niels Harrit
Peer reviewed scientist and researcher on the explosive residues found in WTC dust.

Tony Farrell

Tony Farrell
Former Principal Intelligence Analyst for South Yorkshire Police for over a decade. Fired for his professional conclusions about 9/11.

Ray Savage

Ray Savage
Retired Anti-Terrorist Officer WSPC.

Ian Henshall

Ian Henshall
UK's leading author on the CIA and FBI's damning paper trail leading up to 9/11.

Peter Drew

Peter Drew
UK Facilitator for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Expert on the BBC's cover-up of all the evidence available on 9/11.

Adrian Mallett

Adrian Mallett
Former UK Fire-fighter and holds a Degree in Civil Engineering.

Sir Isaac Newton

Sir Isaac Newton
Tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist (apparetly!)


INCONTROVERTIBLE isn't just a film about the first trial to receive legal confirmation that the Official 9/11 story is unsafe and thoroughly unscientific. It's a film, (that we hope) will encourage others to do the same. Anti-terror Laws are global. Just as we utilised their own legislation against them, so too can Americans, all Europeans, ANYONE in the World who doesn't want to let this carry on anymore! Because it's ILLEGAL to pay money towards those you believe and have GOOD REASON to believe are lying to you and killing people. Not to mention the demonization of an entire religion, or the illegal wars have were born and contrived on and 'because' of 9/11...


Legless in Iraq

INCONTROVERTIBLE is the story of the small guys against the giant corporation and the small guys won the battle. The war isn't over yet, but the other side have had a vulnerability exposed. Just a slingshot of TRUTH and some British scientific history is sufficient to slay some giants.


We want to tell this story properly and that takes time and, sadly, the god of many – MONEY.


We will invite 12 retired Police Officers and Judges to the 'home of free speech', London's Conway Hall, and present them with the evidence Judge Nicholls saw at the Horsham 9/11 Truth vs BBC case – INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence that has been withheld from them and the British Public.

Whilst not legally binding, let's SEE what verdict a 'jury' comprised of a dozen former professional law enforcers make of the Horsham evidence – the expert witnesses, the video collection of WTC7 and BBC propaganda - EVERYTHING.

Let's find out what our Police and Judges have to say about 9/11 when there is no risk of losing their jobs and security.

We will attempt to film at TV Centre and (as is only fair) AGAIN invite The BBC to give their reaction to the non-conviction of those of us who DARE withhold their blood money.

Interview with April Gallop. The last individual prior to Tony Rooke to get 9/11 Truth in to a courtroom - only to be confronted by a cousin of GW Bush as a presiding judge.

The story of the long campaign to force The BBC to admit what they KNOW about 9/11 and WHY they refuse to give us the real SOURCE for their prescient collapse of WTC 7 and WHY they refuse to cover the eyewitnesses who would testify to the explosions around the building as it fell.

This story is worth telling if it encourages even just a handful to do the same and point blank REFUSE to fund the murders of 9/11, the subsequent illegal wars, the paedophilia, the theft and the criminal, plain evil behaviour of those covering up the Truth which one British Judge could not find fault with



Thank You!

Tony Rooke: (Defendant)
The BBC v 9/11 Court Case