INCONTROVERTIBLE: New 9/11 Film by First Responders of 9/11 for First Responders from Tony Rooke

[nationalize the fed]

INCONTROVERTIBLE is the first and only feature length documentary we have which portrays the frank and candid views of Police Officers, Firefighters and Soldiers as they express their grave concerns about the official explanation for the events of 9/11. The film is intended to act as a practical aid in combating the mainstream media's propaganda and outright lies concerning the attacks on September 11th 2001.

This film is intended to be viewed by Police Officers, Firefighters and all those serving in the Armed Forces as they are the among the best placed members of our society to have the ability to change things for the better. If you have friends or family who are serving then please pass this film onto them.

Published on Nov 27, 2015

http://www.incontrovertible911evidence.co.uk/

TV licence evader refused to pay because the 'BBC covered up facts about 9/11 and claimed tower fell 20 minutes before it did'

25 February 2013: A 49-year-old man refused to pay his TV licence because he believed the BBC covered up facts about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.


Fan base: Around 100 supporters of Tony Rooke arrived at Horsham Magistrates' Court in West Sussex to watch the court case - although only 40 could pack into the public gallery

Tony Rooke, who represented himself today at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, said he did not want to give money to an organisation 'funding the practice of terrorism'.

Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.

He was visited in May 2012 by an inspector after withdrawing his licence in March, but said he was withholding the funds under the Terrorism Act...snip
more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html

She's back 3 hours later and Surprise! She's cut off again

BBC: We "Lost" the 911 tapes, then "found" them (kind of like how NASA "Lost" the moon landing tapes only different because the NASA moon tapes are still "lost".)

Part of the conspiracy?

BBC 2007: 4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

(NTF: Is that the funniest thing you've ever read from the BBC?)

Controversy and conspiracies III

BBC 2008: The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

Some people are saying that 911 truth is dead. Quite the contrary, more people than ever before question the Bush/Cheney lies. And here's a Brit that cares more about the truth than many Americans. Thanks, Mr. Rooke, for making a difference.

[cantbeserious]

1. Thank You For Sharing These Truths

eom

[William Seger]

2. SSDD

I watched up to the point where, after showing the news clips saying WTC7 had already collapsed before it had, they show the infamous clip of the fireman on the phone when an explosion is heard. Then they show a "closed caption" of another fireman allegedly saying, "We gotta get back! Seven's exploding!" However, the shadows in the video prove that it was taken around 10:25 AM, nearly 7 hours before WTC7 collapsed; it wasn't even on fire at that point. Was it one of those magical delayed action explosives?

Why do you expect anyone to believe the "truth movement" when it keeps lying to them?

[wildbilln864]

3. " it wasn't even on fire at that point"

so the last tower collapsed at what time? 9 am?
yet #7 wasn't even on fire at 10:25? So what started the fire in 7 in your opinion? and how?
Thermit?!

[William Seger]

4. 10:05 south tower, 10:28 north tower

The north tower collapse started the fire.

[wildbilln864]

5. ok thanks. n/t

[Juicy_Bellows]

6. Just finished watching Incontrovertible.

Sobering. Really powerful.

Thanks for posting.

[William Seger]

7. Uh-huh, very powerful

... provided you believe in the maxim "They couldn't say that in a YouTube video if it wasn't true."

[Juicy_Bellows]

8. Well if you bothered watching there are some heartfelt

Moments of parents and siblings of the deceased. Right or wrong that's powerful. I guess it is true that you are DUs official 911 govment mouthpiece.

Happy holidays.

[William Seger]

9. Well I guess you do a lot of guessing

... but I guess you aren't very good at it. Did you know that most of what we know about 9/11 doesn't come from the government? Believing that the government controls everything we know is one of the first steps down the delusional spiral of conspiracism.

How do you honor and respect the parents and siblings of the deceased by trying to exonerate the murderers and instead blame it on some of their own neighbors who just happen to work for the government? Why do you think it's okay to do that with perfectly idiotic theories and imaginary physics that have no basis whatsoever in fact? And then you want to tell me how much you care about the parents and siblings of the deceased? Uh-huh.

[nationalize the fed]

10. 911 families speak

How do you honor and respect the parents and siblings of the deceased by trying to exonerate the murderers and instead blame it on some of their own neighbors who just happen to work for the government?

Why not listen to their own words. If you remember, Bush didn't want an investigation into the biggest crime against the US in history. But the Jersey Girls persisted.

Why do you think the Bush admin didn't want an investigation?

9/11 Widows Speak-Kleinberg, Breitweiser, Casazza & Van Auken 9/12/2003


9/12/2003--Two years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, thousands of families are still wondering what could have been done to save their loved ones. In "Unanswered Questions," NOW profiles four New Jersey widows demanding answers to questions about what our government knew before and after the terrorist attacks — and what's being done to protect us today.

Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza and Lori Van Auken were widowed by the September 11 terrorist attacks. The four came together as they sought answers and explanations for the tragedy. In their perseverance they helped push for the establishment of an independent commission to investigate 9/11, a request Congress fulfilled last fall.

All four women are mothers and all four lost their husbands in the World Trade Center attacks. Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg's husbands were both as securities traders. Mindy's and Patty Casazza's husbands worked for the Cantor Fitzgerald group, which lost 658 employees. Kristen Breitweiser's husband was a vice president at Fiduciary Trust. The women all reside in New Jersey. They and others in that area touched by September 11 are featured in author Gail Sheehy's new book MIDDLETOWN, AMERICA: ONE TOWN'S PASSAGE FROM TRAUMA TO HOPE.

Read more from NOW
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/911widows.html

[William Seger]

13. "Why do you think the Bush admin didn't want an investigation?"

The most obvious reason is that they didn't want the political fallout from the intelligence failures and from their own failure to properly react to the clear warnings that we did have. Duh. You conclude something different because you start with the conclusion and try to make it sound reasonable, which is what "truthers" think "reasoning" means.

Got any details on those magical silent explosives yet?

[Juicy_Bellows]

11. You didn't watch it.

There was a very moving piece regarding suicide rates of returning soldiers and the father of one soldier that took his life.

The cause of the war doesn't matter. Again, I made no mention of CT or anything else. I said it was moving and then you got all worked up over a video you didn't watch in its entirety.

[William Seger]

12. So you triggered on that and ignored the bullshit?

Do you understand the purpose of the bullshit?

[Juicy_Bellows]

14. What bullshit did I ignore specifically?

Please tell me what you think the purpose is of whatever "bullshit" you cite as that would be my next question.

[William Seger]

15. I thought you said you watched it?

The purpose is spelled out pretty clearly right in the introduction: to make you believe that the WTC 7 collapse was not caused by fire, and to tell you that you're a gullible fool if you believe the "official story."

As for "what bullshit," I gave an example in post #2, which is where I stopped watching because it is such a ridiculous lie. I debunked that one myself many years ago by figuring out what time the video had actually been shot, many hours before WTC 7 collapsed. I stopped watching at that point because that was a clue that I could predict what other "truth movement" lies to expect. I do believe I've heard them all, and they just keep getting recycled no matter how many times they are debunked. But by that point, I had already waded through the bullshit about WTC 7 being reported as collapsed before it had; about Silverman calling his insurance company on the afternoon of 9/11 to "ask about a controlled demolition"; and the claim that the NIST report has "now been proved to be riddled with lies and fraud." That first claim is true, but it's used to make a bullshit implication whereas the explanation is known: Fire department officials had been predicting all afternoon that 7 would fall because they could see a bulge on one side and the building was creaking and groaning. At some point, like the "Whisper Down the Lane" game, that got misunderstood as 7 had already collapsed, and once one news agency (BBC), in their rush to report any news, reported that without verifying it (which they admitted), a then few others repeated it because the BBC was reporting it. The second claim is also true, but it's bullshit because the reason Silverman called the insurance company was because he thought he would need to bring 7 down with a controlled demolition after that fire and he wanted to know if they would cover it. Why would he do that if all the work had already been done and it had been rigged to look like fire caused it? The video just throws that in hoping you will think it sounds suspicious, but in fact it does the exact opposite if you bother to THINK about it. The third claim is just bullshit: no such "proof" exists exists except in the delusional minds of "truthers" who apparently don't understand what the word means. There are actual experts who question some details of the NIST report, as might be expected, but the "lies and fraud" claim is just abject slander to poison the well, to tell you not to believe the NIST conclusions, and specifically to make you think there must be a reason behind all that fraud.

You could investigate all these claims yourself if you had a mind to, but that's about all the time I feel like spending on this bullshit video and someone who wants to play dumb.

[Juicy_Bellows]

16. Thanks for taking the time to respond with such detail.

I enjoyed the film and don't believe all of the claims made inside the video. I enjoyed the British perspective but felt it was disjointed in parts. I have never read any of this sub group on DU before Pharoahs post brought me here. I didn't even know it was here to be honest. I've discussed 911 many times in the past and perhaps I will get involved more with this sub group. My opinions on that day are quite nuanced but speculative. Maybe we can get into it. I can't say I've seen you around GDP which is where I spend the bulk of my time. I will have to check in here on occasion. Cheers.

[William Seger]

17. I rarely read and never post in either GD or GDP

Too wild and crazy for my taste, and I'm not much interested in discussing my personal subjective opinions. They are what they are and I don't feel the need to convince anyone that my subjective opinion is better than theirs. Facts are a different matter. I mainly read LBN and Science to keep up with stuff, and Weird News and this subforum for entertainment. Debunking "truther" bullshit is an easy job, but somebody's gotta do it.

[wildbilln864]

19. a very interesting statement William...so please tell me...

why does "...somebody's gotta do it."?
What do you expect will happen if no one does "do it"?
And you have yet to debunk anything though I will give you that you do deny plenty! Yet you convince no one thus far.

[William Seger]

20. Somebody's gotta do it because

... bullshit that's ignored doesn't disappear, it procreates in dark places, and bullshit never did anyone any good.

Now your turn: Why do you think the actual truth about what happened on 9/11 doesn't really matter?

[wildbilln864]

21. nonsense!

even if you believe it's indeed bullshit and you don't, you don't slow anything down one bit!

[wildbilln864]

22. so let's say...

no one ever tried to debunk/deny any of the truth seeker's assertions William. What do you think would be the worst outcome of not attempting to debunk them? Just trying to understand why you put so much effort into your futile endeavors 24/7 for ten or so years now.

[zappaman]

23. "Just trying to understand why you put so much effort into your futile endeavors 24/7 for ten or so"

[wildbilln864]

26. my reasons are simple!

I want to see the entire event investigated and any questions answered. Nothing ironic about it. So you don't want the questions answered. That's been obvious for a while too. I want to know how and why there was molten steel under all three buildings. You want to claim based on some foolish speculation and contrary to eyewitnesses that there wasn't any. I believe them over you and Seger and anyone else who wasn't there and bases their beliefs on JREF speculators or plants. So I want to see that investigated to the fullest. You obviously don't want to know. Or naively you deny it need to be done. You're satisfied with the government's version. I am not.

[William Seger]

24. That's two different questions

... and I already answered the first one: bullshit procreates in dark places, and bullshit never did anyone any good.

And I have never understood why someone who considers himself to be a "truth seeker" is baffled by attempts to remove the bullshit from the picture, which is why I always put "truther" and "truth movement" in quotes.

[wildbilln864]

25. so answer the second question please? n/t

[wildbilln864]

18. great! Thanks for sharing!

well worth watching!