British Man Wins Small Victory For 9/11 Truthers

World Trade Center Aftermath

A British 9/11 truther is claiming victory following a court ruling that said he did not have to pay a fine over his refusal to pay his annual £130 TV license fee.

Tony Rooke claimed the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks when it reported that World Trade Center 7 collapsed “due to an office fire, which, even the NIST report says, fell at free-fall speed for eight floors in 2.5 seconds. That is absolutely impossible without a controlled demolition being involved.” The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the U.S. government agency charged with investigating collapses.

In an act of civil disobedience, Rooke refused to support the BBC and pay the license fee because he believed the BBC has covered up the events of that day. To pay the license fee, he said, would be tantamount to supporting the terrorists responsible for the controlled demolition. He also argued that supporting terrorists would violate the UK’s Terrorism Act, which states: “It is an offence for someone to invite another to provide money, intending that it should be used, or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for terrorism purposes.”

Rooke was charged with not paying the license fee. Prior to his hearing, Rooke provided the court with evidence that both WTC towers and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition rather than by the airliner impacts and subsequent fires. The judge gave Rooke an unconditional discharge, which in British legal parlance means he was convicted but he does not suffer the consequences of a conviction and the conviction will be erased if he is not brought before the court for six months. He was not required to pay the fee and non-payment fine but had to pay court costs of £200.

Peter Drew, an AE911Truth UK action group facilitator, told Digital Journal he is organizing a campaign against the BBC because its royal charter requires it to present evidence that is impartial and accurate. Drew claims the BBC ignored reports from investigators who in 2008 claimed WTC 7 did indeed fall at freefall speed.

“Today was an historic day for the 9/11 truth movement,” Drew told Digital Journal, “with over 100 members of the public attending, including numerous journalists from around the UK as well as from across other parts of Europe.”

The BBC first reported the collapse of WTC 7 about 20 minutes before it occurred. The “official line” from the U.S. government is the building fell due to fire damage. But it collapsed into its own footprint and was the first steel-reinforced high-rise to ever collapse due to an uncontrolled fire. Explosions were heard and reported prior to the collapse.

Personal Liberty

Bob Livingston

founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Warrior

    Uh, oh. Something tells me Directv and Comcast stocks are about to plummet. Better cancel that msnbc channel from the lineup and fast!

  • CongressWorksForUs

    Umm, I distinctly remember on the day the news media reporting that WT7 was brought down deliberately in order for it to not damage any of its surrounding buildings. Assessors on the scene already stated it will come down and will damage other properties if it is not brought down in a controlled manner.

    Am I the only one who remember that?

    • Toy Pupanbai

      Don’t recall that comment, sorry.
      Do you concede that explosives were used?
      Rush job?
      Pity so many huge swindles will not be examined now that the paperwork is destroyed.

      • Aaron

        right, so they just hurried on in while the building was on fire and did a rush demolition job. Wow, and we’re the ones looked at as “stupid”.

    • Mark Fitzpatrick

      It would take weeks of Proper Prior Planning to prevent poor performance for a controlled demolition of this magnitude and complexity ,

      • Randy Hitt

        If the building was pre-rigged for demolition WITHOUT prior warnings to the public that the building was being prepared for demolition, then demolished without public prior notification, then the city of NY and the owner of the WTC are obviously guilty of neglect of a treasonous nature, even without the rest of 9/11…

    • WynstonSmith


    • Simon

      Do you know how long it takes to set up charges to bring down a building like that?

    • John S.

      It’s like in V for Vendetta, after V blows up the first building the news media is required to report about “the scheduled controlled demolition” xD

    • PK

      I remember those reports late in the afternoon central time.

    • AJ13

      SO….NOW WHAT ?

    • itookredpill

      Yes the owner of world trade center said on a live interview that “We decided to pull the building down.” a demolition like that takes about 6 weeks to prepare, meaning 9/11 was planned well in advance. The fact BBC reported it 20 minutes before it happened also shows the script was in place, but bbc anchors screwed up the timing. Theres also multiple videos available of police warning “we are bringing down the building.”
      Not to mention- just this week a massive tower fire in russia that burned far longer and failed to compromise the structure.

  • B-rrad

    When is America gonna wake up to all 911 cover-up lies.

    • nc

      Brrad, the Brit was brought into a British court> He made his plea about the “cover up”> He was still convicted> and that “proves” his point that there was a cover up in America???? Even a “Not Guilty” verdict under those circumstances would make 9/11 a false flag!
      But you keep reading and PLD will keep feeding you the kool aid!

    • Undecider

      Likely never. They still haven’t figured out Pearl Harbor.

  • Oliver_K_Manuel

    Government deception is the primary reason for the present demise of society worldwide, as explained here:

    Driven by a fear and loathing of the destructive nature of humans, leaders united to form the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945, to subjugate and deceive humans to prevent them from destroying life on earth with the forbidden knowledge of the power that vaporized Hiroshima – “neutron repulsion” [1]

    With deep regrets,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    [1] Oliver K. Manuel, “Neutron repulsion,” The Apeiron Journal 19, 123-150 (2012)

  • Whisper Atnight


  • mark

    Tony Rooke has completely misstated and fabricated what the NIST Report actually said. See the report at:

    • Gimmesumadat Whatyougot

      He’s not misstating NIST, he’s refuting them, claiming that only by controlled demolition can a building come down into it’s own footprint. NIST cannot explain #7 collapsing due to fire only (no plane hitting it) and falling at free-fall speed. All 58 perimeter and 25 core columns being collapsed. His claim also states that the BBC is guilty of aiding terrorists in the cover-up of terrorist activity, by allowing false information to be reported to the public.

      NIST never explained how the twin towers’ 47 steel core columns that were welded together on-site and anchored into the bedrock were destroyed to the ground as well as the 240 perimeter wall structure columns. All at free-fall speed.

      Some have posed that since the modern highrise buildings are 90% air space, they are as light and only as strong as balsa wood! Are people really that dumb?

      • K Bright

        No, it is just the paid trolls.

    • K Bright

      Did you see the Russian highrise fire video and pics? That highrise was covered in a plastic coating and the fire was intense and substatially more then what happened at the twin towers and building 7.

      Surprise, surprise – it did NOT collapse.

      • Gimmesumadat Whatyougot

        Thanks K.B.! I doubt Mark will admit to anything.

        But I saw it and many more.

        Fire Marshals nation wide were calling for new building codes and fire ratings, if indeed the buildings collapsed due to said fire. They were later told there would be no need for investigating any need for code changes.

        Read between the lines! To steal a quote from the “Project for the New American Century (pg. 51, 9/2000), 9/11 was “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. Welcome to the New World Order!

      • Randy Hitt

        Prior to 9/11(and after) no steel girder frame skyscraper EVER collapsed from an internal fire, ON 9/11 the government claims that 3 of them did.

        The statistical likelihood of such an event is so astronomically small that to not question seems almost suicidal.

  • 1American1st


    Both parties, Republicans & Democrats + Obama, are poised to dump 11 to 20 MILLION Illegal Aliens onto our citizenship which will make them eligible for even MORE Welfare benefits & will probably destroy our Social Security system that YOU & I paid into all our working lives.


    This is nothing but a POWER GRAB for our greedy, self-serving politicians in Washington. This is the largest, most devastating piece of legislation ever forced onto the American citizens! EVER!

    TELL THEM NO! We have until May 5th to get 100,000 signatures on a petition on the White House site, although they are trying to pass the legislation now. WE MUST STOP THEM!

    American Taxpayers are already paying $125+ BILLION per year in Welfare to these Foreign citizens. HELP STOP THE MADNESS!




  • Tom

    I’m tipping a beer to this guy tonight after work! Good Job.

  • Vigilant

    “Rooke provided the court with evidence that both
    WTC towers and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition rather than by the airliner impacts and subsequent fires.”

    The gullibility of the true believers always amuses

    You can watch the videos of the Trade Tower collapses ten, fifty, one hundred times, and you will NEVER see evidence of controlled demolition. On the contrary, it’s plain to see that:

    (1) The collapses begin at the place where the remains
    of the aircraft were embedded.

    (2) The floors below the impact areas were sturdy and
    unmolested by any explosions or demolition whatsoever.

    (3) In order for controlled demolition to have
    occurred, the pilots of the aircraft would have to have been so accurate as to
    have crashed the planes at the EXACT places where pre-positioned explosive
    existed. If you can believe that, I’ve
    got a bridge for sale.

    (4) The videos show absolutely no explosions prior to
    the collapses at the point where the collapses begin.

    One simply has to suspend all belief in reality (and evidence of plain sight) to subscribe to a theory that claims the two towers were destroyed by ANYTHING but structural weakening of the buildings at the points of aircraft entry. Doesn’t
    matter a damn what “evidence” you present, I know what I saw and you must have seen something else.

    • tod

      And what part of the Government do you work for

    • ChuckS123

      He’s talking about building 7, which does look like a controlled collapse. You’re talking about buildings 1 and 2. I’m skeptical about truthers also, but I wanted you to know what they’re talking about here.

      • Vigilant

        “He’s talking about building 7, which does look
        like a controlled collapse. You’re talking about buildings 1 and 2.”

        Sorry, the quote was, and I repeat, “Rooke provided the court with evidence that both WTC towers and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition…”

        • ChuckS123

          Paragraphs 2,3 and 5 are about only WT7. I missed that paragraph 4 briefly mentions the towers. I agree with Vigilant that the towers definetely look like they were’nt controlled collapse.

          • vicki

            WTC towers 1 and 2 appear to have been destroyed by a “pancake” collapse of the lower floors when the weight of the upper floors fell into them.

            WTC bldg 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. Anyone, fireman or ex-fireman in particular who was watching intently the live coverage that day heard the discussion over the available radios.

          • poorpatriot

            If the twin towers pancaked WITHOUT any controlled demolition, then please explain how the inner cores were not left standing, but were obliterated…

        • Randy Hitt

          The twin towers were exploded floor by floor from the top down, WTC7 was ‘pulled’ by the personal admission of the owner of the world trade center.

          Only an idiot or a liar could claim that the camel jockeys fingered as the culprits ‘brought down’ the twin towers on the same day, THE VERY DAY, that WTC7 was going to be pulled unannounced…

          There is absolutely NO WAY that WTC7 could have been wired for explosion controlled demolition without EVERYBODY in NYC being warned FOR MONTHS IN ADVANCE.

          Unless the official version is BS, and the pulling of WTC7 was all part of the 9/11 plan…

          • poorpatriot

            It also conveniently took care of the asbestos problem the towers had to boot…

    • Mark Fitzpatrick

      Are you kidding?The towers were Vaporized!

    • RP1776

      Why don’t you talk to the engineers for 9/11 and see if you can convince them of your theory,there are hundreds if not thousands of them.

      Do you really base all your evidence just on what you see?You are either very ignorant or you work for the Government.

      • Vigilant

        I gave four specific points, to which absolutely NONE have been addressed by you or any other conspiracy theorist. I need to convince no one of a theory because I have no theory. I use my eyesight, knowledge of gravity, plain logic and scientific reasoning. All you do is make sweeping comments.

        C’mon, you (non) experts, address just ONE of my points or STFU.

        • Randy Hitt

          The towers didn’t collapse, they exploded. From the top down.

          Watch again as the twin towers explode, from the top down, floor by floor. If as you claim the buildings collapsed, there would be bodies, office furniture and equipment, and building material to confirm the collapse. If on the other hand the buildings exploded, the only thing left would be only tiny fragments of bodies, office equipment and furniture, and building material.

          Guess what? Yep, no bodies or airplanes, or skyscrapers were recovered from any of the ‘plane crash’ sites from 9/11.

          And what ‘pilots’ are you talking about? Those weren’t planes they were UNMANNED Drones. The explosives were placed throughout the buildings, So no, it makes no difference where the drones hit the buildings.

          Yes the floors below were sturdy, each floor was made sturdier than the floor above it to prevent the ‘pancaking’ that you ‘government/media trusters’ just accept without question.

          Government media ‘trusters’ are all cowards who are just too afraid of the what truth of means…everyone of you act like our federal government can do no wrong and to even contemplate that our government is capable of committing a FALSE FLAG EVENT, to you is treason.

          Wake your ass up fool, and quit trying to blow your ‘government is God’ smoke up everyone’s ass, there is a mountain of evidence disproving the official story and nothing but TINY FRAGMENTS to support it.

          • Vigilant

            “Guess what? Yep, no bodies or airplanes, or skyscrapers were recovered from any of the ‘plane crash’ sites from 9/11.”
            Absolutely false! Pieces of fuselage remained intact and DNA evidence has confirmed presence of passengers on manifests. Making a statement such as you just did confirms the completely irrational disorder of your “brain.”

          • Aaron Milewski

            Then where are the black boxes? We’ve gotten from the bottom of the Atlantic, but not from any of the 3 planes that “crashed” that day… “Vigilant,” There are too many simple questions that go unanswered to ever accept what the “9/11 commision” published. TOO MUCH. From blacked out witnesses, evidence found and destroyed or hidden. A lot of things changed after 9/11, and the largest clue for me is the transfer of wealth that has happened since then.

    • Trevor

      The problem with what you said is that it is all assumptions based on imperfect visual evidence. It doesn’t matter. The failure of other “truthers” to prove their case is not evidence that the government’s story is correct.

      Importantly, there is evidence that is not visual. How do you explain the seismic evidence which showed that there were events which did NOT correspond to the the plane impacts, but after that, around the time of the collapse?

      And while you are at it, why don’t you explain why the government did not do a forensic, criminal investigation into the attacks? They did not find evidence of explosions, because they openly admit they did not test for them! Why did they declare that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks within days of the attacks? How did they possibly know that in that time frame? Why have they still not released all information related to the collapse of the towers because of “national security?” If the official story is correct, how is it possible that “national security” could be threatened by opening all calculations and physical analysis of the causes of the crash?

      • Vigilant

        You say, “The problem with what you said is that it is all assumptions based on imperfect visual evidence. It doesn’t matter. The failure of other “truthers” to prove their case is not evidence that the government’s story is correct.”

        To address your third sentence first, who is saying that the government version is correct? Not I. I have no concern whatsoever
        that the govt “version” is correct or incorrect. I’m simply commenting on what I saw, and I draw no esoteric conclusions beyond what my eyesight and logic tell me.

        Take my first statement: “The collapses begin at the place where the
        remains of the aircraft were embedded.” There can be no doubt of that whatsoever. Now to accept an incredulous theory that the
        beginning of that “pancake” effect as Vicki calls it, was caused by controlled demolition at PRECISELY the points at which it began strains not just unreasoned belief but sanity itself. Are you
        telling me that some persons rushed to the corners of those towers on those floors and implanted demolition charges in the midst of an inferno?

        Then I said, “The floors below the impact areas were sturdy and unmolested by any explosions or demolition whatsoever.” Am I to believe that on 9/11 explosives experts thought they would experiment with bringing down a building by a new top
        down “pancake” effect rather than the proven bottom up method? Again, I’ve got a bridge to sell you if you believe that.

        To say that what I sad “is all assumptions based on imperfect visual evidence” is patently false. The faulty assumptions, I would say, are squarely on your side of the argument.

        Lastly, I have no interest in explaining government
        deficiencies/falsehoods because it is not germane to my comments. The government may very well be, and probably was, untruthful in some aspects. That contention, however, does not logically lead to a conclusion that all sorts of physics- and gravity-defying events occurred that morning.

        It’s obvious by two comments so far that hatred of the government is the motivation for asking the question of whether I work for the government, which I do not. There is no logical persuasion between calling out people for faulty/incredulous theories and support for the official story. It’s a non sequitur argument, apples and oranges.

        • Aaron Milewski

          What about the things you didn’t see, things that the govt did, destroyed, or otherwise hid is what I’M (and most Americans) concerned with. From the event leading up to 9/11 to all the debauchery of the story afterwards. It’s all bs. you claim such common sense but ask NO questions yourself. you accept you you’ve seen and have heard.

      • Vigilant

        Trevor says, “Why did they declare that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks within days of the attacks? How did they
        possibly know that in that time frame?”

        Hell, I made that assumption that morning before ever hearing it on the news. Those of us who kept up on the news knew exactly who it was. We remembered the February 1993 World Trade Center, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, 1998 U.S.-embassy bombings and 2000 USS Cole bombing.

        The names of the hijackers were known and it was a matter of 2 + 2 =4 to come up with the responsible party. Ain’t rocket science.

        • Randy Hitt

          Of course you made that assumption, everyone knows the best way to get to the truth is to just believe what the government WANTS you to believe.

          Since YOU immediately just accepted this conclusion the government/media offered, you have proven yourself to be a HORRIBLE American.

          Questioning official versions of events is the AMERICAN WAY.

          • Vigilant

            A guy goes into a bar where there’s a robot bartender! The robot says, “What will you have?”

            The guy says, “Whiskey.”

            The robot brings back his drink and says to the man, “What’s your IQ?”

            The guy says, “168.”

            The robot then proceeds to talk about physics, space exploration and medical technology.

            The guy leaves, . .. . but he is curious . . . So he goes back into the bar.

            The robot bartender says, “What will you have?”

            The guy says, “Whiskey.”

            Again, the robot brings the man his drink and says, “What’s your IQ?”

            The guy says, “100.”

            The robot then starts to talk about Nascar, Budweiser, the Saints and LSU Tigers.

            The guy leaves, but finds it very interesting, so he thinks he will try it one more time. He goes back into the bar.

            The robot says, “What will you have?”

            The guy says, “Whiskey,” and the robot brings him his whiskey.

            The robot then says, “What’s your IQ?”

            The guy says, “Uh, about 50.”

            The robot leans in real close and says, “SO, . . . you people . . .still believe . . .. in the 9/11 conspiracy theory?

          • Bob666

            Yo Vigilant,
            That was good!

        • Aaron Milewski

          Oh you mean the guy that worked for the C.I.A in the 80s but turned coat once we wouldn’t touch Saudi. mmmhmmmm.

  • Truelitistnot

    Regardless of what you believe there’s the inescapable fact that every government on earth has proven itself to be pathological and psychotic, manipulative and dangerous: only fools would trust government without questioning everything. Only fools and abused codependent girls that is.

  • Randy Hitt

    The twin towers exploded, from the top down, each floor timed to vaporize just moments before the one below it.

    Watch again the videos and then try to deny the obvious truth of what I claim.

    The official story says the buildings ‘pancaked’, but the person who managed the construction of the WTC says that there is no way possible for the twin towers to have pancaked, why should someone just take the governments word for it when such a person refutes the governments claim?

    Doesn’t a prudent patriotic American ALWAYS question his/her government?