According to the 9/11 commissioners themselves, the investigation into the events of 9/11 was buried by the Bush administration by stonewalling and whitewashing the investigation so no one in the administration would be found complicit.Despite the many efforts over the years to squash the 9/11 truth movement, the debate rages on, but this time across the pond in the UK. On Monday, February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, an unusual opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement comes to bear. For three hours, detailed evidence surrounding the 911 terror attacks will be presented to a court of law, where British citizens will be challenging the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on the validity of two documentaries that were shown on the BBC in September of 2011, marking the 10 year anniversary of the tragedy. According to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911Truth), the activists said to be largely responsible for establishing the court appearance, by showing a set of documentaries that were marred with inaccuracies and biased towards the establishment’s version of the events, “the BBC was therefore in breach of the operating requirements of the BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public.” Regarding the alleged breach of contract, AE911Truth recently stated that “Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is an offense to provide funds for public programming if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism.” Their claim is that “the BBC withheld scientific evidence that demonstrates the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that the BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public.” But by doing this, they claim, “the BBC is also supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 that have not yet been identified and held to account.” The twist to the story, however, is that the producer of the documentaries, Tony Rooke, is one of the individuals actually helping to shed light on the version of the events that have been supported by the 9/11 truth movement for over a decade. Because the people in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV license fee which is used to fund these types of documentaries, according to AE911Truth, Tony has refused to pay his TV license fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation. Because Rooke has been subsequently charged with a crime for not paying his TV license fee, by issuing a legal challenge to this charge, Tony has successfully garnered an opportunity for an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. In order to beat the rap and avoid being convicted for failing to pay his annual TV license fee, Tony has no choice but to prove the documentaries in question are not subject to the licensing fees, due to the fact that they were inaccurate and supported a flawed official version of the events and may actually be aiding and abetting the real criminals behind the attacks. Considering the British government fell in perfect lockstep with the Americans and became a willing participant in subsequent military invasions and occupations of countries that would eventually be seen as having nothing to do with the attacks, Rooke’s claim that the very documentaries he helped produce with British taxpayer money happen to be knowingly flawed with lies and distortions, becomes a very serious claim. If successfully argued Monday, this would not only potentially allow Rooke to escape any charges and subsequent penalties for not paying the TV tax, proving the programs were delegating false and inaccurate information that was bias toward the official version of the events would also give credence to the 9/11 truth movement itsef and its attempt for a long-awaited, truly independent investigation into the events and the social disaster that was created in the wake of the attack. The Aftermath The crime that occurred on September 11, 2001, in the heart of New York City, was more than just an attack on the city itself, it was an attack on the heart of the American people. Far more than just a staggering loss of life and the rest of the day off for everyone else that wasn’t breathing an immense amount of poison pouring from an epic pile of toxic rubble, the tragedy of that day would end up being the excuse for the, just-as-tragic, loss of a more innocent day and age in American history, as well as many other parts of the Western world. Subsequently reacting in as draconian a fashion as any actions taken by a government, monarchy or dictatorship in recent history, Americans would ultimately be forced by their own government and media to relinquish the very way of life that had come to be known as the freest and the most prosperous nation the world had ever seen. Since that day, what has emerged in it’s place is a gigantic growth in the size of government, thanks to the advent of multiple enormous federal policing agencies like the TSA, followed by an always proportionally equal loss of liberty and an ever-intensifying police state that is literally beginning to resemble more a dystopian nightmare novel than the free society once prospering within “US” borders. Thanks to legislation like the so-called “Patriot” Act, strangely prepared prior to the event actually occurring, people from all walks of life and from every square inch of the country are now being publicly tracked and traced. From the places they go to the purchases they make to the conversations taking place on cell phones and computers, using the mind-bending justification, “if you have nothing to hide then you should have nothing to worry about,” everything Americans do is admittedly being monitored, recorded and stored in monstrous databases for future government use. For those who would ass-u-me it couldn’t get any worse or it wouldn’t happen here, the US is now set to resemble a war zone as “officials” propose the use of unmanned drones that, even the same media who swore it would never come to this is now admitting, are likely to fill the skies over America in the very near future. The America people knew only one short generation ago is now, less than a decade later, appearing to look more like a scene from inside the USSR during its heyday, but from a futuristic, sci-fi perspective instead. Despite strict warnings by the founders to never relinquish liberty for the promise of a safety that can never be truly provided, Americans largely stood by as, much like the gun-rights argument of today, Washington politicians stripped some of the most basic and fundamental, prosperity-producing, rights and liberties once afforded by the Constitution, in the name of events used and overused as justification. If whoever it was that attacked us truly did it because they “hate us for our freedoms,” as President Bush so eloquently illustrated during the many speeches given in response to the attacks and during the fraudulent buildup to the Iraq war, now ironically even being admitted by the mainstream media itself, politicians all over the country did just as much to erode those freedoms with legislation, after the fact, than any terrorist could have ever done with weapons of any size and scope. The Investigation For the first half of the decade, following the most grandiose crime America had ever seen, the media drowned the airwaves with the constant drumming of an ever-present threat of terror. Teleprompter-puppets in every corner of the Western world were proselytizing a regurgitated form of official propaganda to the point the people in the US were wrapping their houses in plastic, in fear of the next terror attack that also never came. While the eventually-admitted made-up terror threat levels continued to peak and valley, as the months following the attacks began to mount, so too did the cries for an investigation into events being used as an excuse to treat the American people like a group of 300 million potential terrorists. But while the people continued to demand an investigation, despite 9/11 being the biggest crime perpetrated on American soil in the country’s history, the Bush administration would do everything it could to prevent one from occurring. It wasn’t until after months of mounting pressure when those in charge of taking the next step finally felt it necessary to begin forming a committee that would ultimately end up being the 9/11 Commission. Despite an equally odd way in which the committee was formed and the very controversial figures that were first pushed as who should head the investigation, the Kean-Hamilton National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) was assembled to handle the task. Almost a full year after a crime so grand it would change the very way in which Americans would live out their daily lives, the victims and families of that tragic day would finally be getting the information they deserved, so they hoped. Months into the two-year investigation however, it became clear the commission was being met with great resistance. An original reluctance to even begin an investigation in the first place transformed into a campaign that would be seen by those paying attention as some of the most suspicious activities ever seen acted out by public officials, supposedly having nothing to do with the events, other than dealing with them once they happened. As the commission co-chairs would eventually write in books released after the so-called investigation came to pass, every step was met with a complete reluctance to participate or cooperate with investigators along the way and the “underfunded, understaffed and overburdened” committee was completely unable to perform the duties prescribed. In addition to refusing to testify under oath, both Bush and Cheney also refused to testify separately and never truly answered any of the most important questions they were given. The commission even threatened at one point to bring charges forth against certain Pentagon officials that had been caught lying under oath about events that had transpired during the attack on the Pentagon, but ultimately that too became an eventual non-issue, was swept under the rug, with the only thing transpiring being the further deconstruction of any remaining assemblance of a legitimate investigation. While dealing with the impossible task of embarking on a journey that was doomed to failure from its very foundation, it didn’t take long before the commission itself began having internal problems of their own. A few months into the investigation, 9/11 Commissioner, Senator Max Cleland, abruptly resigned as a commissioner on the grounds that the entire investigation was a hoax and was therefore a total waste of time and taxpayer money. After all was said and done, what the commission did ultimately end up releasing as the “9/11 Commission Report” was a totally whitewashed version of the events, merely parroting much of the same story that was told by the media on the day the events transpired, during on the spot media analysis and assumptions being made, prior to any actual official investigating. Nothing but pure speculation. What We Know Since the investigation ended and the commission was disbanded after its final recommendation on August 21, 2004, more than half of the individuals who served on the original 9/11 Commission have made statements in favor of re-opening the investigation or, bare minimum, having admitted to the original “investigation” being fatally flawed from the beginning. According to Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, investigators were barred from viewing any of the evidence that truly mattered, the commission was underfunded, undermanned and ultimately not allowed to carry out the task for which is had been supposedly assigned. Summing up the dire circumstances, during an interview with the CBC, committee Co-Chair Lee Hamilton made the statement, “We thought we were set up to fail. We got started late. We had a very short time-frame… Indeed we had to get it extended and we did not have enough money.” Coming to the conclusion it was all because “they were afraid we were going to hang somebody… That we would point the finger.” Chairman Thomas Kean, during a subsequent book tour, reiterated those same sentiments by making the claim, “we think the commission, in many ways, was set up to fail because we didn’t have enough money, we didn’t have enough time and we’d been appointed by some of the most partisan people in Washington.” As if all that weren’t startling enough, while pulling the all-too-common “national security” card on the American people, the Bush administration even combed through the final report before it was released to the American people, editing it down ever further, to a version that could almost be used as the script for a Disney movie. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts and any of the evidence that contradicted what would be eventually released as the final report was discarded to the cutting room floor and memory-holed as if it never existed. Multiple other commissioners have since come forward as well, making statements that vary from being suggestive to coming right out and saying that a new, truly independent, investigation should be attempted by the American people. Even making the charge, in some cases, that Americans still don’t know what actually happened and the victims and their families deserve to know a truth that has yet to told. From the shocking admissions by the commission that the entirety of the commission itself was a group of individuals that all had moderate to severe conflicts of interest, with regard to the investigation and corporations that were tied in various ways to the event itself, any vestige of hope that the American people were given any real answers to who, what, where, when and why the events took place, other than the obvious, can be thrown out the window in its entirety. Tony Rooke has persuaded the courts that the BBC must answer the allegation that, in covering up information on the 9/11 attacks, they are colluding with terrorism. Many truth activists are planning to attend the three hour hearing in front of a judge at Horsham magistrates court this Monday 25 February at 9.00am. There are only 30 seats available in the court room and they will be on a first come first serve basis. Some activists will be flying long distance. The hearing will be at The Law Courts, Hurst Road, Horsham West Sussex England RH12 2ET. 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. 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. He says the Jimmy Saville scandal shows that the BBC were unable to investigate a child molester in their midst, so it is hardly surprising that they do not have the courage to impartially investigate the crime of the century. ‘Despite recent offers from mainstream sources, Tony Rooke and his defence team feel that this has come all too late and is not consistent with far too many years of indifference towards the scientific facts that incontrovertibly disprove the official account of 9/11. Illegal wars have come and continue to be fought under the pretext of that day. Civil liberties have been erased along with the countless lives of troops, civilians and children abroad. These overtures of ‘friendly’ interest are not to be trusted. This court case has happened only BECAUSE of mainstream media’s indifference, antipathy and often ridicule towards those who have researched and found the truth of 9/11, in tandem with a conspicuous silence in the face of such overwhelming evidence that disproves the official version. The mainstream press are to be treated with the contempt they deserve. This case is being fought by those whose ONLY interest is in seeing the science of the 9/11 event analysed by a court, a scrutiny of FACTS that SHOULD have been undertaken by the commercial press and the BBC a long time ago. Any individual who engages in conversation with a demonstrably deceptive mainstream media at Horsham, does NOT speak for myself or the defence team and we disassociate ourselves from those who cannot resist such insincere overtures. Win, lose or draw, we hope that this court case prompts all those who mistrust our media, to engage in similar, peaceful action, until such numbers become impossible to ignore. The time for ‘research’ is long over. The obvious suspects, complicit in the orchestration and cover-up of 9/11, now need to be questioned by uncorrupted police officers. This will NOT be achieved sat in front of your PC. Ignore ITN, ignore ANY mainstream journalist. They have earned your suspicion.’ Thank you to all who have supported this stand for progress. Tony Rooke We will support any new investigation of the 9/11 attacks so long as *it is run by uncompromised people with a range of opinion including those inclined to disbelieve the official 9/11 story, *it follows the evidence wherever it leads if it takes place in the US to be credible it will need *full legal authority to demand immediate access to any evidence and any witness it chooses *the resources it requires to carry out its investigation Reinvestigate 911 is supported by Coffee Plant ( suppliers of organic and Fairtrade coffees to caterers and retail customers. ]]>

Opt In for E-Mails