Prepare yourself through online legal training

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

bbc in law suit ?

Since July 2007 British scientist, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and RINF science correspondent, John A. Blacker, has been in an ongoing battle with the BBC over their lie infested hit piece programme ‘9/11: The Conspiracy Files’, which aired in February 2007 and was designed to present an unfair view of the 9/11 truth movement and prominent researchers. Mr Blacker is currently in ‘pre-action protocol’ with the BBC, meaning they have to try and settle the argument out of court.

In this latest update, Mr Blacker has been informed of a scheduled meeting, due to take place in October which has now been pushed back further to late November. This is the third time the BBC has bought more time by delaying the meeting. A clear sign they are struggling to piece together a legal case to defend their actions.

With the BBC desperately on the run, I am making available the latest letter Mr Blacker has sent them, in which he pin points even more of the faults contained in the programme and demands an apology for their blatant lies as their hit piece is a complete disrespect to the truth and an insult to all who died on 9/11.

Please take the time to read the letter published below. As stated many months ago, RINF Alternative News will not allow this issue to be dropped and we’ve only just begun the battle to see justice prevail and the BBC admit it is guilty of mass public deception in a court of law.

Pre action for damages without prejudice.

Thursday, 08 November 2007

Dear Chairman,

Thank you for your letter dated 31 October 2007 and the 6 section Cover notes for appeal of which accompanied said.

Firstly I request and Expect each and every member of the decision panel to disclose their affiliations such as to “Common Purpose” “Masons” etc, etc and to forward said disclosure to the Chair. I am a member of AE911 truth, STJ911 truth and also ST911 truth, I am not currently a member of any political party & I am 1 of three professional partners of Physical Systems, Lancaster England & a qualified Physicist & Mechanical Engineer.

I shall be going through the folder you sent in order stating from section 1 and making my comments & observations as I proceed if I may, as this is the first opportunity I have been given to these information resources in their current format.


(1) The Item

The Conspiracy files team spoke to and recorded the testimony of many eyewitnesses, fire fighters, police officers, and public high witnesses, plus also officialdom high witnesses and had access to written testimony from many high witnesses via official sites on the WWW.


If the documentary was not biases — WHY not one?

Take for example the evidence of Fire CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE who states on page 15 of the official report given to official government 911 investigators quote:


What sort of research did the BBC team do? How can a documentary ignore such clear damming evidence?


What checks and balances ensured impartiality & the delivery of FACTUAL & accurate information worthy of a BBC Documentary & BBC viewers ?????

Alex Jones stated that he was filmed for many many hours and forwarded documentary proof upon proof to the BBC documentary team, yet all of that proof was ignored in favour of what was shown – why? What selection criteria was used, if not to deliberately select out everything which was conclusive in favour of what was actually shown – which was nothing more than Hearsay, Opinion & NEGATIVE Stereotyping of truth members.

High witnesses, actual Fire fighters and actual police were ignored by the BBC crew in favour of 3rd hand 3rd rate information. Why? Where is the journalistic integrity in this so called documentary?

Prof Jim Fetzer states the BBC team recorded many hours with him yet showed next to nothing of what he explained were the key science issues of the truth movement & the key evidence – why – what has the BBC got to hide – perhaps the FACTS???

Why was all of this key evidence censored?


The truth movement

A point which is missing, is the fact NO actual Physics was mentioned either to back the official government (Physically Impossible) lies, or more importantly, to explain why so many informed “intelligent” professional people do not believe the government lies because the official story simply defies the laws of physics.

1 There was not enough energy in the “collapse sequence” to turn the 300,000 tonnes of concrete and all of the floor panels to DUST – by a factor of at least 10.

2 3 buildings came to ground at near freefall; hence the undamaged, heaviest and strongest lower floors offered near zero resistance which was consistent with falling through clear AIR only.

3 Falling bodies never take the path of greatest resistance, EVER, always the path of least resistance only! (without exception)

4 A 757 simply can not fit through a 20 foot hole at the Pentagon – the program did not show the hole prior to collapse at the Pentagon, but misled the public into thinking the Jet had caused the damage after collapse. (TOTAL DECEIT)

I will stick to just 4 points here, however there are more, please see the actual correspondence from myself re key omissions of key & important points.

The Collapse of the twin towers.

There was not a single mention that NIST, who were hired by the US government to explain why the towers came to ground – did not cover the actual collapse sequence AT ALL.

The NIST report’s title was:

“Final report on the collapse of the world trade centre towers.”

Yet the official report did not actually even mention the “collapse” of the world trade centre towers or anything to do with building 007 (demolition 003).

In summary MANY pieces of KEY DAMMING information were deliberately and methodically left out or deliberately & methodically removed from the documentary during editing because they were far too conclusive, and far too damaging to the official government lies peddled by this BBC documentary. Instead of reporting the bread & butter truth issues the program was bulked out with nonsense from a science fiction writer and some really dodgy reporting from “Popular Mechanics” et al who gave not one slither of proof to the statements they made.

NOT a single first hand account was shown or mentioned – why? What process lead to no first hand accounts being selected or deemed worthy to be included or reported on in what was supposed to be a factual documentary?

SECTION 002 correction:

A second version of the letter dated 07/072007 was sent to the BBC via email to replace the one with hand written maths, this second version had typo corrections and also clearer printed maths which was better suited to publication online for the whole world to see.


The original letter was intended to pursue action for damages and apology.
The response by the BBC was very positive as can be seen from the reply letters and it was at this point felt that whilst the documentary was a piece of yellow journalism designed to discredit the truth movement, it was perhaps not necessarily targeting and singling out any would be qualified scientist who was prepared to take a closer look at the evidence in detail, although it certainly did not encourage closer scrutiny as any fair and balanced documentary (considering all the evidence there is) should promote.

NOTE: What is the point of a BBC documentary if it does not promote learning and further research into the subject matter, as opposed to just reinforcing the “Physically Impossible” government lies?

As such after this point the Apology (for total public deception) and hopefully another program incorporating the actual key evidence and the actual first hand High witness testimony, would suffice.

May I complement the team on what was visually, an excellent piece, the problem lies with the integrity of other aspects of the program as stated in correspondence, including this.




On page 2.

“If a large passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon ….. why was the hole in the exterior wall apparently so small?”

Whilst this script was being spoken, Images of the damage at the pentagon was being flashed, the problem is, it shows the damage AFTER collapse, as being the actual damaged caused by the Jet impact. Only a knowledgeable person would know the image shown was “After Collapse” some 20 minutes later, and was not the damage caused by the jet impact as the sequence implies.

If only the 20 ft hole and the pre collapse images had been shown then this would have been honest journalism. As a result of confusing the viewer by flashing what was dishonest journalism and having those post collapse images associated with the initial jet impact, which was reinforced by the way in which the viewer was fed words and images together – this is propaganda Yellow Journalism portraying FALSE FACTS DECEPTION by stealth.

On page 2 again,

“Could a controlled demolition have caused this building to collapse at the World Trade Centre?”

How misleading could one short question statement & video combination be? The viewer sees a 47 story steel framed building descending straight down at near freefall of which is not one of the twin towers, it is not called by its name, Building WTC007, and the viewer is not informed the building came to ground on the actual day of 911 into its own footprint at near freefall speed.

Seeing as most of the population only know that 2 tall buildings were destroyed on the day of 911, would it not be honest journalism to actually name the building and mention the particular circumstances of which the building came to ground and of which is key to the truth movement perspective at the very least?

Again this is an example of deception by KEY FACT OMMISION.

On Page 12

19:22 into the documentary - the images are not of 5 Alleged Hijackers arriving and checking in at Dulles airport as the commentary suggests, but are in fact 2 young men checking in hundreds of miles from DULLES at 5.45:08 on 9-11-01 in a an alleged link flight.

Why was the misleading CCTV image used to totally deceive the unsuspecting Public viewer in combination with misleading narration? Why was the genuine actual image not shown, if they exist?

On Page 13.

Minutes later the façade of the building collapsed.
The military say there was limited damage to the exterior wall, ……cont
NO mention was made of the no fly zone around the pentagon and how large it is. No mention was made of the two rings of ground to air missile defence. No mention was made of the fact if any unauthorised aircraft reaches the outer zone jets are automatically scrambled to intercept and take under 10 seconds (YES UNDER 10 seconds) from lift-off to reach the Pentagon. No mention that if the unauthorised aircraft reaches the inner zone, regardless of transponder on or off, the missile batteries shoot until the target is destroyed.

These key omissions are clear evidence of deliberate bias in reporting by omitting key information essential for the viewer to make a knowledgeable informed assessment of the Pentagon FACTS.

On Page 14.

21:19 into the documentary an engineer states: “What I usually say is that is Bullshit, but what I’ll say is that it’s just flawed people that have something to dream about to make a name for themselves. It’s absolutely not true.

NOTE: AT no point in this Engineers statement does he once mention a 757 or large JET as hitting the Pentagon. A plane & plane wreckage at the pentagon is not the same as 757 plane wreckage at the Pentagon, indeed, there was an engine and plane wreckage found at the Pentagon.

This part of the documentary has to be one of the most deceitful parts. Pardon the pun.
Firstly the actual question relating to 757 wreckage was never put to the engineer on camera, for all the viewer knows the BBC crew could have asked the Engineer absolutely anything.

And What exactly is “ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE”?

The journalism here is of the lowest possible quality and is clearly “YELLOW” and a deliberate attempt to make members of the truth movement who question the evidence of a 757 at the Pentagon - look ridiculous - and not actually get to the bottom of the saga via irrefutable evidence etc.

A motorcycle fuel tank & bike parts (small engine & wheels) at a crash scene is not evidence of a Wagon has crashed.

EVEN the Engineer did not say he witnessed ANY parts off a 757 or large Jet - to suggest a qualified Engineer would not know the difference between parts off a BIG jet and parts off a small one would be the height of stupidity.

It would be like saying an Engineer would not know the difference between a motorcycle & a wagon engine or Motorcycle & wagon wheel.

So why did the BBC journalists not ask for specifics, such as how large were the parts etc, could the parts have come off a 757 or large jet, were they large enough to fit a 757?
On Page 17.

The pilot Steve O’ Brien not once states he observed a 757, does anyone suppose he would not know a 757? The man is a trained observer who’s job it is to know and identify every type of aircraft without exception, does anyone think he would not state 757 if he had actually observed a 757 at his 12 o clock?

If he was on a routine flight do you suppose a USAF pilot or any other pilot would not know that the Pentagon was in a defended air exclusion zone and off limits to unauthorised non military planes. Why did he not mention this in his video statement?
Does anyone think a 500mph 757 is not the easiest target for a missile defence system to shoot down?

Why were none of these types of questions put to the pilot as these and many like them had been informed to the BBC crew by Prof Fetzer and Alex Jones?

Is there anybody alive who believes commercial jets are permitted to pull 4 G turns by the onboard fly by wire system?

In conclusion the Conspiracy Files Documentary was a work of Total Public deception from start to end, perfectly crafted to stealthily deceive and forward nothing which was conclusive either one way or the other, in other words, perfect propaganda YELLOW journalism by stealth, omission & deception.

Kind regards

J A Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems)(Lancaster England)

PS: Why was Prof Judy Wood not asked to explain the 911 physics?

Monday, November 12, 2007

UK 'has longest' terror detention

Yahoo! My Yahoo Mail Search:

Welcome, jlerollin
[Sign Out, My Account] News Home - Help
NavigationPrimary NavigationHomeUKWorldPoliticsBusinessSportTechnologyScienceHealthEntertainmentOddly EnoughSecondary NavigationFull CoverageVideoMost PopularRoyal familyMessage BoardsSearchSearch: in All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos
UK 'has longest' terror detention
Press Assoc. - 2 hours 14 minutes agoThe pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects in Britain is already much longer than in comparable countries, according to a survey by human rights group Liberty.

As ministers prepare to controversially extend the current 28-day period, Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti described the comparison with 15 other countries as "astonishing".

The survey found that the next longest period for detention without charge was just 12 days in Australia.

European countries granted police an even shorter timescale - detectives in Turkey are given 7.5 days and those in France six days.

Ms Chakrabarti told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "All of these countries, many of them face very similar challenges from international terrorism to here.

"Spain suffered the Madrid bombings, they have five days, and there wasn't a great big row about pre-charge detention there."

While direct comparisons with foreign legal systems can be difficult, Ms Chakrabarti said Liberty had asked lawyers and academics in each country to use a similar yardstick.

On the comparatively short detention periods overseas, she added: "It's really quite astonishing given that this has been one of the most contested issues in British politics for more than two years now."

She suggested that, rather than extending the detention period still further, ministers should copy methods from abroad, including charging suspects with lesser crimes while continuing to investigate more complicated and serious offences.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

parralels between hitler s fire and ours

bastards are copying hitler uk is nazi germany in the making

the law that hitler passed blair tried to pass but was defeated though the same things are happening

Reichstag fire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Reichstag fire was a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany.The Reichstag fire was a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany. At 21:15 on the night of February 27, 1933, a Berlin fire station received an alarm call that the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament, was ablaze. The fire was started in the Session Chamber[1], and by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was in flames. Inside the building, the police quickly found a shirtless Marinus van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe was a Dutch Jewish insurrectionist council communist and unemployed bricklayer who had recently arrived in Germany, ostensibly to carry out his political activities. The fire was used as evidence that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government. Van der Lubbe and 4000 Communist leaders were arrested. Then-chancellor Adolf Hitler urged President Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree in order to counter the "ruthless confrontation of the KPD".

Meanwhile, investigation of the Reichstag Fire continued, with the National Socialists eager to uncover Comintern complicity. In early March 1933, three men were arrested who were to play pivotal roles during the Leipzig Trial, known also as "Reichstag Fire Trial," namely three Bulgarians: Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoi Popov. The Bulgarians were known to the Prussian police as senior Comintern operatives, but the police had no idea how senior they were: Dimitrov was head of all Comintern operations in Western Europe.

1 Prelude
2 The Fire
3 Political consequences of the Fire
4 The Reichstag Fire Trial
5 Van der Lubbe's execution
6 Dispute about van der Lubbe's role in the Reichstag Fire
6.1 Goering's commentary
6.2 'Counter-trial' organized by the German Communist Party
7 Footnote
8 References

[edit] Prelude
Hitler had been sworn in as Chancellor and head of the coalition government on January 30, 1933. As Chancellor, Hitler asked German President (Reichspräsident) Paul von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and call for a new parliamentary election. The date set for the elections was March 5, 1933. Hitler's aim was first to acquire a National Socialist majority in order to secure his position and eliminate the communist opposition. If prompted or desired, the President could remove the Chancellor. Hitler hoped to abolish democracy in a more or less legal fashion by passing the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was a special law which gave the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree without the involvement of the Reichstag. These special powers would remain in effect for four years, after which time they were eligible to be renewed. Under the existing Weimar constitution, under Article 48, the President could rule by decree in times of emergency. The unprecedented element of the Enabling Act was that the Chancellor himself possessed these powers. An Enabling Act was only supposed to be passed in times of extreme emergency, and in fact had only been used once before, in 1923-24 when the government used an Enabling Act to rescue Germany from hyperinflation. To pass an Enabling Act, a party required a vote by a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag. In January 1933, the Nazis had only 32% of the seats and thus were in no position to pass an Enabling Act.

During the election campaign, the Nazis alleged that Germany was on the verge of a Communist revolution and that the only way to stop the communists was to pass the Enabling Act. The message of the campaign was simple: increase the number of Nazi seats so that the Enabling Act could be passed. In order to decrease the number of opposition members of parliament who could vote against the Enabling Act, Hitler had planned to ban the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (the Communist Party of Germany or KPD), which at the time held 17% of the parliament's seats, after the elections and before the new Reichstag convened. The Reichstag Fire allowed Hitler to accelerate the banning of the Communist Party. The Nazis capitalized on the fear that the Reichstag fire supposed to serve as a signal launching the Communist revolution in Germany, and promoted this claim in their campaign.

[edit] The Fire
At 10:00 PM on February 27, 1933, the Berlin Fire Department received a message that the Reichstag was on fire. Despite the best efforts of the firemen, the building was gutted by the blaze. Only by 11:30 PM was the fire put out. The firemen and policemen inspected the ruins, and found twenty bundles of flammable material unburned laying about. At the time the fire was reported, Adolf Hitler was having dinner with Joseph Goebbels at Goebbels' apartment in Berlin. When Goebbels received a phone call informing him of the fire, he regarded it as a joke at first, and only after the second call did he report the news to Hitler. Hitler, Goebbels, the Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen and Prince Heinrich Günther von Hohenzollern were taken by car to the Reichstag where they were met by Hermann Göring. Göring told Hitler "This is a Communist outrage! One of the Communist culprits has been arrested". Hitler called the fire a "sign from heaven", and claimed the fire was a Fanal (signal) meant to mark the beginning of a Communist Putsch (coup). The next day, the Preussische Pressedienst (Prussian Press Service) reported that "this act of incendiarism is the most monstrous act of terrorism carried out by Bolshevism in Germany". The Vossische Zeitung newspaper warned its readers that "the government is of the opinion that the situation is such that a danger to the state and nation existed and still exists".[2]

[edit] Political consequences of the Fire
The day after the fire, Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany. As a consequence of the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Communist Party of Germany was banned on March 1, 1933 under the grounds that they were preparing a putsch. In the March 5, 1933 Reichstag elections, the Nazis increased their share of the vote to 44 percent, which gave the Nazis and their allies (the German National People's Party who won 8% of the vote) a majority of 52% in the Reichstag. The Nazis emerged as winners, but they had fallen short of their goal, which was 50%–55% of the vote. This would make it more difficult to obtain the two-thirds majority needed to pass the Enabling Act. Nevertheless, the Nazis were able to capitalize on national security concerns and obtain the additional support needed, thus granting Chancellor Hitler the right to rule by decree. The vote took place on March 23, 1933, and only the Social Democrats opposed the measure, which came into effect on March 27. Had the Communist Party participated, its representatives would have contributed 17% of the Reichstag votes. Instead, their representatives were under arrest for their suspect role in the Reichstag Fire.

[edit] The Reichstag Fire Trial
In July 1933, Marinus van der Lubbe, Ernst Torgler, Georgi Dimitrov, Blagoi Popov, and Vassil Tanev were indicted on charges of setting the Reichstag on fire. From September 21 to December 23, 1933, the Leipzig Trial took place and was presided over by judges from the old German Imperial High Court, the Reichsgericht. This was Germany's highest court. The presiding judge was Judge Dr. Wilhelm Bürger of the Fourth Criminal Court of the Fourth Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court. [3] The accused were charged with arson and with attempting to overthrow the government.

The Leipzig Trial was widely publicized and was broadcast on the radio. It was expected that the court would find the Communists guilty on all counts and approve the repression and terror exercised by the Nazis against all opposition forces in the country. At the end of the trial, however, only van der Lubbe was convicted, while his fellow defendants were found not guilty. In 1934, van der Lubbe was beheaded in a German prison yard. In 1981, a West German court posthumously overturned van der Lubbe's 1933 conviction and found him not guilty by reason of insanity.

The trial began at 8:45 on the morning of September 21, with van der Lubbe testifying. Van der Lubbe's testimony was very hard to follow as he spoke of losing his sight in one eye, wandering around Europe as a drifter, and that he had been a member of the Dutch Communist Party, which he quit in 1931, but still considered himself a Communist. Dimitrov began his testimony on the third day of the trial. Georgi Dimitrov gave up his right to a court appointed lawyer and defended himself successfully. When warned by Judge Bürger to behave himself in court, Dimitrov stated: "Herr President, if you were a man as innocent as myself and you have passed seven months in prison, five of them in chains night and day, you would understand it if one perhaps becomes a little strained". During the course of his defence, Dimitrov claimed that the organizers of the fire were senior members of the Nazi Party, and frequently verbally clashed with Göring at the trial. The highpoint of the trial occurred on November 4, 1933 when Göring took the stand, and was cross-examined by Dimitrov[4]. The following exchange took place:

Dimitrov: Herr Prime Minister Göring stated on February 28 that when arrested the "Dutch Communist van der Lubbe had on his person his passport and a membership card of the Communist Party". From whom was this information taken?
Göring: The police search all common criminals, and report the result to me.
Dimitrov: The three officials who arrested and examined van der Lubbe all agreed that no membership card of the Communist Party was found on him. I should like to know where the report that such a card had been found came from.
Göring: I was told by an official. Things which were reported to me on the night of the fire...could not be tested or proven. The report was made to me by a responsible official, and was accepted as a fact, and as it could not be tested immediately it was announced as a fact. When I issued the first report to the press on the morning after the fire the interrogation of van der Lubbe had not been concluded. In any case I do not see that anyone has any right to complain because it seems proved in this trial that van der Lubbe had no such card on him.
Dimitrov: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior what steps he took to make sure that van der Lubbe's route to Hennigsdorf, his stay and his meetings with other people there were investigated by the police to assist them in tracking down van der Lubbe's accomplices?
Göring: As I am not an official myself, but a responsible Minister it was not important that I should trouble myself with such petty, minor matters. It was my task to expose the Party, and the mentality, which was responsible for the crime.
Dimitrov: Is the Reichsminister aware of the fact that those that possess this alleged criminal mentality today control the destiny of a sixth part of the world - the Soviet Union?
Göring: I don't care what happens in Russia! I know that the Russians pay with bills, and I should prefer to know that their bills are paid! I care about the Communist Party here in Germany and about Communist crooks who come here to set the Reichstag on fire!
Dimitrov: This criminal mentality rules the Soviet Union, the greatest and best country in the world. Is Herr Prime Minister aware of that?
Göring: I shall tell you what the German people already know. They know that you are behaving in a disgraceful manner! They know that you are a Communist crook who came to Germany to set the Reichstag on fire! In my eyes you are nothing, but a scoundrel, a crook who belongs on the gallows![5].
Only Van Der Lubbe was found guilty and sentenced to death. The rest were acquitted, and (with the exception of Torgler, who was taken into “protective custody" by the Gestapo after the trial), were expelled to the Soviet Union, where they received a hero's welcome. Hitler was furious with the outcome of this trial. He decreed that henceforth treason – among many other offenses – would only be tried by a newly established People's Court (Volksgerichtshof). The People's Court later became associated with the number of death sentences it handed down, including those following the 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler. It was presided over by Judge-President Roland Freisler.

[edit] Van der Lubbe's execution
At his trial, Van der Lubbe was found guilty and

Thursday, November 1, 2007