Tony 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.
Below is the broadcast where the BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 while it was still standing behind the reporter.
How the hell did that happen?
Does this mean there’s actually an honest judge on the bench in the Queen Lizard’s realm?
Not 1 mention of the verdict in the U.S. that I’m aware of as of yet. I’m not holding my breath either.