The above picture is of a BBC reporter announcing the collapse of World Trade Centre Building Seven (The Salomon Brothers Building), on September 11th 2001. Building Seven is however still visible in the background, as the BBC managed to announced the collapse over twenty minutes before it actually happened. They have never been able to offer an explanation as to how they were able to do this.
Yesterday a man named Tony Rooke was taken to court by the BBC for refusing to pay his licence fee. The morality of that aside, Mr. Rooke's reason for refusing was that he believed he would be committing a crime by giving money to an organisation that is supporting terrorism. Mr. Rooke contends that the BBC's coverage of the events of September 11th has consistently distorted what really happened that day, and therefore protected the actual perpetrators of the crime.
Leaving the question of September 11th aside for one moment, that the BBC supports terrorism is surely beyond all doubt, just look at the way it covered the invasions of Iraq or Libya. In fact don't take my word for it, here's a quote from veteran journalist John Pilger on the Corporations historic role as the propaganda wing of the British Government:
“Unknown to the public, Reith [Lord John Reith, founder of the BBC] had been the prime minister's speech writer. Ambitious to become Viceroy of India, he ensured the BBC became an evangelist of imperial power, with "impartiality" duly suspended whenever that power was threatened. This "principle" has applied to the BBC's coverage of every colonial war of the modern era: from the covered-up genocide in Indonesia and suppression of eyewitness film of the American bombing of North Vietnam to support for the illegal Blair/Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the now familiar echo of Israeli propaganda whenever that lawless state abuses its captive, Palestine.”
So in my opinion Tony Rooke is in principal right, supporting the BBC is supporting terrorism, the state terrorism of the British and American Governments. Returning now to 9/11, Mr. Rooke seems to be centring his case around the mysterious collapse of World Trade Centre Building Seven, the third building to collapse that day in a way that appears entirely consistent with the way a building collapses due to controlled demolition. At this point seventeen hundred architects and engineers have signed a petition indicating their support of this position. The video below gives a brief account of why this is, in a way you won't see on the BBC.
Poking around the internet I notice that already Tony Rooke is being referred to by a whole variety of derogatory terms, a loon, an idiot and barmy to name but three. No doubt the people referring to him a such are experts on September 11th and the wider history of US imperialism and false flag terrorism. Perhaps not. It's very easy to take a conservative position on these kind of controversial issues, no one's ever going to be accused of stupidity for saying they don't believe 9/11 was an inside job. Indeed I can feel in myself a slight reluctance to writing this post, it's much easier to play it safe with posts about the economics of the minimum wage or philosophise on the nature of government etc. No one wants to be the nail that stands out and I'd like to finish by saying that whether he's right or wrong, I respect Mr. Rooke and anyone else who is prepared to stand up, put their credibility on the line and say the unpopular thing.
Video of Tony Rooke speaking outside of court:
Article from Global Research on the court case:
Daily Mail article on the court case
Link to full article by John Pilger:http://johnpilger.com/articles/as-gaza-is-savaged-again-understanding-the-bbc-s-historical-role-is-vital