The 9/11 Deception and False Flag Terror by Terence Smart (best ereader for pdf txt) 📖

side of his head, once, he was lying on his back with the gun underneath but Marshall was right handed.

According to Madsen the side door was wide open when the officials found his body, however, that was a door the family never used.

The crime scene was illegally cleaned up by professionals before any investigation took place. The repeated professional-clean-ups of Marshall’s house after the murder suggest that the killers, and the agency or agencies employing them, were looking for a specific piece of evidence or information which they probably found because Marshall’s computer mysteriously disappeared after the killings, and its whereabouts remain unknown.

The police have no motive, no suicide note, and no indication that Marshall fits the profile of someone who murdered the two people closest to him, his own flesh and blood.

A neighbour named Mike Brown described Mr. Marshall as a dedicated father and Merita Calloway of the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors said Marshall was very involved with his kids.

Joel Metzger, of Calaveras Enterprises.com, reports that Calloway also said, “the actions don’t match the person we know” and “he loved his children.” Next door neighbour Carolyn Greenwood said, “I knew him long enough to know he was a regular guy. He was a good father, always there for his kids and a helpful neighbour.”

There is no suicide note and no motive. Also, no one heard any gun shots between Thursday, January 31st and Saturday February 2nd, 2013.

US National Security Agency Officer Wayne Madsen says the author was working on his fourth book at the time; a book he claimed was going to 'blow the 9/11 conspiracy wide open'.

Why would Marshall just kill himself and his family without reason? He wouldn’t. This man was working hard to expose the lies behind 9/11 and appears to have gotten far too close to the truth. Marshall was working on a fourth book in which he was going to reveal much more than we have been given thus far, however, he and his family met their end before this could happen, coincidence? I think not.

The BBC and the 9/11 Lies

On February 25 2013, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there was a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence was presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

The BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to support the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST's 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV license fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony refused to pay his TV license fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.

Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

Rooke was charged with a crime for not paying his TV License Fee. However, he lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in a court of law. Tony Rooke withheld payment of his government-mandated BBC license fee because the BBC is violating UK anti-terror laws. By withholding evidence that the official 9/11 story is not true, which in turn shields the real perpetrators of 9/11. While the judge in the case was legally obliged to find Rooke guilty of not paying his TV license fee, the judge “conditionally discharged” the conviction against Rooke and did not fine him, did not ask him to repay the license fees that had already been withheld, and only charged him the lowest level of court fees legally possible under the circumstances (£200).

The judge had privately seen summaries of all the evidence that Rooke was planning to present, and we believe that this evidence and the experts (Architects and Engineers) he brought in his defense, plus the overwhelming support for him outside the courtroom, had a significant influence on the judge’s decision.

As part of his effort to expose the public to 9/11 Truth, Rooke created Incontrovertible, a new documentary that chronicles his legal battle against the UK’s most powerful news agency. (He is also the producer of Offensive, a film about former UK police intelligence analyst Tony Farrell and the persecution he endured after questioning the official explanation for 9/11 and the 2005 London terror attacks.)

According to Rooke, the primary goal of Incontrovertible is to motivate people to follow his lead. “It’s a film that we hope will encourage others to do the same,” he explained. “Anti-terror laws are global. Just as we utilized [the British government’s] own legislation against them, so too can Americans, all Europeans, and anyone in the world who doesn’t want to let the 9/11 lies carry on anymore.”

Below a link to Mr Rooke’s 9/11 documentary ‘Incontrovertible’

https://incontrovertible911evidence.co.uk

The following is from the article titled ‘9/11 and the Collapse of WTC Building 7: The BBC’s Role in Distorting the Evidence and Misleading the Public’

The public relies heavily on the mainstream media as its means of finding out information about the world and for forming its opinions about global political events. So are we getting the information that we should be from these corporate media networks?

How can it be then, that on the vital issue of the on-going global war on terror, and the event that sparked this war, namely 9/11, the BBC is guilty beyond question of deliberately and actively supporting the cover up of irrefutable evidence which would help bring the true perpetrators of 9/11 to justice and most likely bring an immediate end to the global war on terror as we know it.

So overwhelming is the evidence against the BBC on this issue that it has recently been challenged in a British court of law. It lost, and yet the vast majority of the public would have absolutely no idea about this. It has also been demonstrated conclusively and repeatedly all around the world that if the BBC would simply show the public the damning evidence that it is deliberately withholding, the vast majority of the public would instantly understand and believe that they have been lied to about 9/11 on a truly grand scale and that what really happened on that day is in fact very different to what we have been told, as the judge in the courtroom in Sussex, South-East England, quickly realised when he saw this evidence in February 2013

However uncomfortable it may be, the unpalatable facts of the matter are that the BBC has been very deliberately complicit in the cover up of one of the greatest crimes in history, and that this cover up has allowed the deaths of more than one million innocent people to occur. This includes over 600 needless deaths of British service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The BBC has the blood of these people on their hands because it could and should have ended the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it could have ended the global war on terror overnight if it had just done its job and presented the now officially acknowledged facts and evidence of 9/11 to the public. But instead of doing this it has chosen to bury the evidence, wage a campaign of twisted and distorted information, and to actively smear and discredit the thousands of professional experts from all around the world who have tried to bring this evidence forward, not to mention hundreds of the BBC’s fee paying public who have tried in vain to get the BBC to show this evidence so that the public can simply make up their own minds.

Once again the facts are devastating for the BBC. Over the course of the last 5 years since NIST’s bombshell announcement of free fall, the BBC has run a number of additional documentaries looking at the so called ‘conspiracy theories’ about 9/11. While continuing to ignore the issue of confirmed free fall of WTC Building 7, the BBC has repeatedly reported to the public that there is no evidence to support the claims of the so called ‘conspiracy theorists’ that there were explosives used to bring down the three towers. This is exactly the same line that NIST has also tried to maintain. Why then is there a lengthy list of absolutely incontrovertible evidence and eye-witness accounts which clearly shows that what the BBC and NIST are saying about this is complete nonsense and that explosions were clearly going off throughout all three towers?

Below a link to the full article which I suggest you read which shows how the BBC lies and misinforms the public about 9/11. The BBC is helping the perpetrators of 9/11 by covering up the truth. Also part of the 9/11 cover are the other T.V networks in the U.K ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 which are all owned by Jews.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/911-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-the-bbcs-role-in-distorting-the-evidence-and-misleading-the-public/5359036?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=911-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-the-bbcs-role-in-distorting-the-evidence-and-misleading-the-public

9/11 - Conclusion

There is so many holes in the official story about 9/11 it is safe to assume that it is just a fabricated cover story done in order to fool the public so that they can start their war on terror and destroy or severely weaken the Islamic countries in the middle east as well as keep the western world in fear of terror against them. Even the members of PNAC stated one year before 9/11 that regime change in Iraq, Libya and Syria would follow after a Pearl Harbor type event. It is important that people get a grasp of this information because if 9/11 was a lie (which looks very likely) to be blamed on Muslims then all the terror events since 9/11 such as the Spain train bombings of 2004, 7/7 London, Paris, Belgium are all false flag events designed to take away our freedoms and keep is all in fear of terrorist events. Because if they can plan a sophisticated event like 9/11 and fool