RE: [UK-911-Truth] Tony Rooke at the Magistrates’ Court refuses to pay BBC TV license, accuses BBC of 9/11 pre-knowledge and reports it as a crime – Allen J.


A letter to TV Licensing UK.

Please publish on UK-911-Truth in association with Tony Rooke’s action.



Thursday, 08 April 2013

Attn:   Customer Relations
TV Licensing
DL98 1TL
United Kingdom


Ref:    A Licensing Concern


Dear Sir or Madam,

                                 I am proud to say, at age 61, that I have never owned a Television set in my life and have not watched television on a regular basis since the early 1970s. I consider the Television to be a source of mental damage and a socially pernicious factor. While I see the potential benefits of Television I despise the commercial madness it promotes. However, I never seek to impose my views on others and so now that my wife has bought a Television Set I am faced with the question of purchasing a License.


I have long regarded the TV License and funding of the BBC thereby as a mechanism to maintain an independent public media option that serves as a benchmark standard for quality Television media (its potential) and a bulwark against the decadent, commercial madness of Television that would otherwise overwhelm society and turn us all into jabbering Americans. I also understand the many forces that seek to challenge the TV Licensing system as purely commercially motivated, seeking to cut off funding to the BBC and reduce it to a vestigial condition utterly dependent on ever-diminishing handouts from the government – such as is the situation in Australia with the Australian Broadcasting Commission – beholden to government and compliant. So I strongly support TV Licensing and do not object to contributing.


However, even though I do not, as I say, own a Television set or watch Television regularly, I nevertheless follow news and current affairs, which I consider to be one of the most important functions of Television. I follow it mostly on the Internet nowadays but I am aware of what is being presented on Television and particularly about BBC involvement in some issues such as most prominently, the 9/11 mis-reporting episode, the David Kelly affair and the recent Jimmy Saville Scandal. I am also attentive to what is NOT presented and what is lacking in the many debates of societal and national importance. I regret to say that in my view and those of many others, the Television media, and most conspicuously the BBC, is failing dismally in its role of informing and facilitating rich community awareness and discussion of the political matters that shape a democracy. The BBC consistently fails to present real challenge to the existing political ethos.


The past decade has seen us plunged into an Orwellian world of Illegal and continuous War, the law itself being transformed from a foundation of freedom into the bars of containment and the dogs of social intimidation and oppression are being muscled up as “robo-cop” with machine guns on display everywhere. Rights of the most fundamental kind, such as Habeus Corpus and right to protest are being taken away while Policing is being increasingly empowered by fear of artificial threats to security and Police thuggery is encouraged with impunity for murder, incompetent violence and suppression of political dissent. All of this seems to be occurring by obsequious coalescence in the arrogant, self-serving demands of the militarily-empowered American empire and the wealth-empowered Zionist lobby and with the dutiful compliance of an unprofessional and sycophantic journalism that fears to offend. This includes, conspicuously, tragically and regrettably, the BBC. The BBC has consistently failed to actively report on and challenge these societal changes of the past decade by giving objective rather than consistently disparaging coverage of dissenting views.


Some allege that the degradation of the BBC began under Margret Thatcher. Under her Prime Ministership, according to the then BBC Chairman Marmaduke Hussey, the sacking in 1987 of the last independent-minded Director General of the BBC was initiated by Lord Victor. It is argued that this was a castration from which the corporation never quite recovered. That aside, from what I have seen for myself in the past decade, it has been nauseating to witness – particularly post-Gilligan!


The September 11th event of 2001 was pivotal in all of this Orwellian transformation; it served as a pretext for two illegal wars of incalculable cost. Although at the time we were all ushered into acceptance of the scripted explanation of events, urged upon us by a servile media, that explanation is now in tatters. The 9/11 Truth Movement has a substantial, global following including many educated professionals and people in, or having been in official office, and has amassed so much evidence for controlled demolition being the cause of the WTC destruction that it is hard to understand that there can be anyone in the world, outside the media, who believes or even says otherwise. While this information abounds on the internet there is no meaningful discussion of it in mainstream media including the BBC.


Indeed, quite the contrary. I watched the BBC interview with Dr. Niels Harrit with frustration and dismay as this career scientist of 40+ years’ experience was consistently diverted from his explanation of the science he had applied and his results and conclusions into fending off repeated diversions and references to fragile and unsubstantiated criticisms of the work until Dr. Harrit simply invited detractors to publish their findings; the most understated mockery that anyone could imagine. My own background is science, I understand how it works and I have read the published papers of Dr. Harrit et al; I can assure you it is substantial. To see work of this value screened from the public in such a way to the point of Dr. Harrit’s frustration and his astutely dismissive remark was truly shocking.


The collapse of WTC 7 is of profound significance; it was not struck by an aircraft. Although reported on the day it was under-reported, given no special significance and has been conspicuously excluded from subsequent discussion. The BBC, I am sure you are aware, outrageously reported it 20 minutes before it occurred with the building still standing in the background!!


While the BBC has excused itself on the advance-reporting incident, passing it off as some sort of misunderstanding and laying the blame with Reuters, it should be the BBC who are actively leading the drive to know how it came to be that Reuters was reporting to the BBC 20 minutes ahead of the event; they are not. The public deserves a full examination of this matter because it strongly implies that somewhere there was fore-knowledge. In any reasonable examination this was not just a matter of speculation of the possibility of collapse because the words “has collapsed” align most vividly with the complete and uniform collapse that we have in fact observed. Attempting to understand how it could occur, was not, for example a source statement such as “part of the building is expected to collapse” transformed to “part of the building has collapsed” as one might expect of a speculation assumed to be confirmed, it was clearly based on an expectation that the entire building would uniformly collapse, which would have to be a very imaginative or uncannily astute speculation. The BBC has simply glossed over this episode when it has a very clear and particular responsibility to pursue it right to its source and make all details public.


Yet further, the collapse of WTC Building 7 is itself of profound significance, not only for having not been struck by any aircraft. Anyone with the least understanding of Physics and only minimal appreciation of what is involved in controlled demolition should see, it being brought to their attention, that WTC Building 7 was a controlled demolition. People who have that level of understanding do and their belief is readily confirmed by experts in the field. The official reporting body in the US, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, has itself reported that the building fell for the initial 120 feet of its collapse at free-fall acceleration. This means there could have been no physical resistance whatsoever, which is impossible except in circumstances of controlled demolition whereby carefully placed explosives uniformly destroy the structural supports that would otherwise provide resistance.


The implications of this are damning of the official theory, yet the subject is not at all discussed in the mainstream media and not with any exception of the BBC.


Aside from the plethora of information regarding 9/11 that has not been offered for public scrutiny by the media there also appears to be an effort on the part of the BBC and others to deny access to information that is already in the public space on the internet (see the example below). While I acknowledge that business has a right to preserve its copyrights there are obvious limits and where material is both dated and being presented in a non-commercial way the owners of Copyright should exercise some judgment and reasonableness, particularly with a view to the public interest:



On a matter no less significant or profound in its consequences, there is also a great deal in question concerning the London bombings of July 7th 2005. A purely coincidental connection with the exercises reported by Peter Power is so improbable as to be regarded as impossible. Additionally, the revelation that the only train that could have transported the alleged bombers from Luton to London in time to have been in the locations of the bombings was cancelled that day completely demolishes the explanation that has been provided to the public and clearly suggests that the four accused were not those responsible. The complete absence of any public examination of these and many other matters concerning 7/7 by the media in general and most conspicuously the BBC is a dereliction of professional responsibility.


For the important reasons outlined here in only the briefest of sketches, and other reasons also, the BBC is an abysmal disappointment as a public option with what I personally consider to be the desirable functions; failing to serve as a benchmark standard for quality or as a bulwark against the commercial madness that trivializes and sidelines matters of political and social importance.


So while I must say that I have no great objection to the £100 or so cost of a Television License for the sake of harmony at home there is for me, in respect to the matter of what I consider I am paying for in the purchase of a Television License, a very strong sense of getting absolutely none of what I pay for. Aside from this there is also a potent sense of rankle in the feeling that I am being coerced by law to pay for something fraudulent and that I will never receive what I am paying for. In a situation of this nature, while my natural inclination is to resist and protest, if this was the whole of it I probably would not bother even to write a letter of complaint that you have so far read and await some bland, form-letter reply.


However, recently I have been shocked by a matter revealed to me by the case of Tony Rooke, who faced a hearing in the Horsham Magistrate’s court on 25th February 2013 over his refusal to pay for a Television License. Rooke contended that he was not guilty of not having an appropriate license because the license is not appropriate. He went on to argue that supporting the BBC cover up would be tantamount to supporting the terrorists responsible for the controlled demolition. He further argued that anyone supporting terrorists is in violation of the Terrorism Act, Section 15, which states that

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.”

I am not sure specifically what Rooke is referring to as the “BBC cover up”; it may be to the alleged fore-knowledge of the WTC Building 7 collapse or the source of it, or other specific facts. He made reference to the BBC claim that Building 7 did not collapse at free-fall speed, which was later contradicted, as I have said, by video analysis and conceded by NIST. He may have been referring to just the general suppression of any proper examination, discussion or investigation of 9/11, but in any case he is, in my opinion, absolutely right. Funding the BBC is essentially supporting the efforts to conceal evidence incriminating those responsible for terrorism and it is a criminal act that I would not want to be responsible for; neither morally nor legally.


I am sure you can understand this, after all, the BBC did not want to advertise the fund collecting for the people of Gaza after the military incursion by Israel in 2008 for fear that the funds might end up in the hands of terrorist organisations. There is clear empathy with this position within the BBC itself.


It is obvious to me and apparently also to Rooke that the THREE WTC buildings collapsed by controlled demolition on September 11, 2001, and if this is the case then there were clearly parties other than or in addition to the alleged 19 hijackers involved in this act of terrorism. Any actions that contribute to preserving secrecy, suppressing information or hampering a proper investigation that would expose these people and their actions are quite obviously supporting them and their purposes.


This would also apply to the case of the London bombings; it is astonishing that the BBC has not, for example, interviewed Peter Power and pressed him further on the impossibility of coincidence and what information he may have of a connecting relationship or to challenge the authors of the official explanation regarding this conflict of video evidence placing the bombers at Luton at 07:21 and the train cancellation that therefore rendered their involvement logically impossible.


I hope you will not assume that I am simply casting about for some excuse not to pay the Television License; this is not the case. Indeed, I suggest a payment of an equivalent sum, by way of alternative, to a suitable charity, one that clearly is not associated in any way with terrorism (such as the Anti-Defamation League, for instance?).


I would appreciate if you could advise on how I can proceed regarding the matter of a Television License as we are expecting delivery of our Television within the next couple of weeks; if you consider that an alternative payment to a charity is an acceptable way out of the problem and if so, how we can arrange it? Alternatively, if you have other proposals, please let me know.


In addition to this I would also appreciate fulsome reply on the issues that I have raised: the failure of the BBC to challenge the societal changes of the past decade, the failure of the BBC to facilitate proper investigation and promote disclosure of information critical of the September 11th 2001 and July 7th 2005 terrorist events in New York and London and the BBC’s part in active suppression of evidence and of efforts to make public, information that contradicts official accounts of these events.


In particular, I would like to see an account of the TV Licensing official position relating to the problem for purchasers of the Television License that alleged BBC complicity in suppressing information that might expose the involvement of parties other than those already accused in these terrorist events amounts to supporting terrorism and is a crime under the Terrorism Act of 2006.


Please note that for the benefit of TV Licensing and myself, and many other Television owners who may be in difficulty over this matter I may decide to publish my letter and your reply on my website and in other places on the internet.

Thank you.



Yours Sincerely,




Allen L. Jasson




From: [] On Behalf Of Alex James
Sent: 16 April 2013 16:25
To: Alex James
Subject: [UK-911-Truth] Tony Rooke at the Magistrates’ Court refuses to pay BBC TV license, accuses BBC of 9/11 pre-knowledge and reports it as a crime


Subject: Tony Rooke at the Magistrates’ Court refuses to pay BBC TV license, accuses BBC of 9/11 pre-knowledge and reports it as a crime

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.


This video is a response to JUDGE TRIES TO HIDE 9/11 TRUTH TO SAVE CORRUPT BBC.



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…

Description: Description: 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.

Description: Description: Professor Niels Harrit

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

Description: Description: Tony Farrell

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

Description: Description: Ray Savage

Ray Savage
Retired Anti-Terrorist Officer WSPC.

Description: Description: Ian Henshall

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

Description: Description: 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.

Description: Description: Adrian Mallett

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

Description: Description: 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…


Description: Description: 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






*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only *** CAVEAT LECTOR *** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Posts archived at NOTE: Some links may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser. Please check for daily real news posts and support the truth!free book download:; Senders do not necessarily agree with contents;*** Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes only. ***  NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency (NSA) may have read emails without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse, nor protection………. IF anyone other than the addressee of this e-mail is reading it, you are in violation of the 1st & 4th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Patriot Act 5 & H.R. 1955 Disclaimer Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody & satire & are all intended for intellectual entertainment only.To be removed from the truth news list, please reply with the subject line “REMOVE”



Group owners do not necessarily agree with any of the views expressed in these emails. Please post any new 9/11 or 7/7 Truth info you find, or reminders, with links, to everyone via. this email group address

You are subscribed to Google Groups “UK 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Network” group.
Associated with the 9/11 Forum
We support the official UK Reinvestigate 9/11 Campaign which grew out of the UK 9/11 Truth campaign:

News sources

To unsubscribe from this group, visit
To subscribe

Fear not therefore: for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; and nothing hid that shall not be made known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in the light and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:26-27

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “UK 9/11 & 7/7 Truth” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
For more options, visit

Group owners do not necessarily agree with any of the views expressed in these emails. Please post any new 9/11 or 7/7 Truth info you find, or reminders, with links, to everyone via. this email group address

You are subscribed to Google Groups “UK 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Network” group.
Associated with the 9/11 Forum
We support the official UK Reinvestigate 9/11 Campaign which grew out of the UK 9/11 Truth campaign:

News sources

To unsubscribe from this group, visit
To subscribe

Fear not therefore: for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; and nothing hid that shall not be made known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in the light and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:26-27

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “UK 9/11 & 7/7 Truth” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
For more options, visit

Enhanced by Zemanta
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.