Yan: Hi everyone, I want to welcome you back to FutureTalk on Altsider.com. My guest today is documentary filmmaker Tony Rooke. It appears that for a decade or so he has been slightly concerned that 9/11 in 2001 and 7/7 later on in 2005 might have been false flag operations and this is a concern, which he and I, ..well, we share this concern. So I am happy to say: Hi Tony, I want to ask you how have you been doing and do you still believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation?

TR: Hi Yan, I am very well, thank you. Yes, I do, unfortunately – the evidence since then has just got stronger and stronger.. more of it.. almost by the month. My father was a detective and I have an interest in criminology so at least from the forensic science side of things we are certain that 9/11 is not as advertized and you could say the same for the London bombings.. not to the same degree.. but there are certainly very big question marks over the London bombings but as far as 9/11 is concerned I am certain that it was an insider job, personally…

Yan: Have you ever come across information, which might indicate that that it was actually as advertized – that it was a terrorist operation, performed by al-Qaeda, the 19 hijackers – have you come across such information?

TR: Well, I have come cross that information by watching the mainstream news.. but when you go beyond that information and you actually look at the background, you look at the wider picture – it renders that information false. The notion that it was committed by 19 hijackers.. were there 19 hijackers? Well, there could well have been 19 individuals from the Middle East who were operating within the US, planning to hijack airplanes even but we now know for a fact and I mean a fact that they were being <shuttled around?> around by the CIA and I suspect that they were set up in what we call a sting operation or a false flag operation and they had no idea what was about to happen. But they were certainly being protected by the CIA – we know this for a fact – Richard Clarke who was the head of counter-terrorism in the US has said as much. So I am going to take him at his word.

Yan: Right, and you mentioned the 19 hijackers – as far as I know about 15 of them were citizens of Saudi Arabia and none of them were from Afghanistan, which is a strange thing – was the Saudi Arabia link investigated?

TR: I am not an expert on this, Yan, so I wouldn’t want to speak about it too much but I certainly know that the Saudi Arabian link would go on to be highlighted later on in the 9/11 story when you look at the appointment of Henry Kissinger as the head of the investigating commission who had direct business links with the Bin Laden family so, yes – there were links to the Middle East. Some of the information out on the internet about the Middle East I wouldn’t want to comment upon, because it is not my area of expertise.

Yan: Right, but you mentioned Kissinger and this is interesting, because it is actually knew information for me as well – it appears that he was the originally appointed chairman of the 9/11 Commission – why was he let go?

TR: Well, because of a group of ladies now known collectively as the Jersey girls – Lorie Van Auken – one of the spokesladies for that group whose husband Ken died in WTC on 9/11 – they did a little bit of background research on Henry Kissinger and found that he had business links with the Bin Laden family and therefore the conflict of interest should have forbidden him from being the head of the commission to begin with but they found out after the fact and when he was confronted with that he stood down. That is not to say the 9/11 commission was impartial afterwards because it wasn’t, far from it.

Yan: How long did it take for the 9/11 Commission to set up and start working?

TR: I think it was around about 4 years before they really got to grips with it. Probably jumping ahead a little but.. before they got down to the really big questions – Building 7 in particular – that took them another 7 years before they came up with an answer for that one and that really is the smoking gun on 9/11 – that is the area in which I became very, very interested and, I would say, from a forensic point of view, proves without question that there was foreknowledge of the attacks.

Yan: You mentioned Building 7 and we should remind our listeners that there were 3 tall buildings, which fell on that day and one of them was this Building 7, which was a decently high skyscraper – it was a 47 story skyscraper, which would be a very tall building in almost any city – it was a little bit shorter than the Twin Towers – and it also fell on that day, and it was not hit by an airplane. What is some of the evidence, which makes you think that Building 7, specifically, was brought down by a controlled demolition.

TR: Oh, crikey – where do you want to start? Ultimately the evidence.. and I suggest to anyone listening to this who has never seen Building 7 fall down to just google WTC 7, watch it fall, which is symmetrically into its own footprint. 47 story skyscraper held up by about 40 000 tons worth of structural steel with relatively minor fires – the first building in history to fall down.. steel structure to fall down because of fire. And then to realize that it actually fell down for a 100 ft in free fall – free fall being gravitational acceleration, which is the same as you dropping a bowling ball off the side of a table – it is basically falling through fresh air. For a building to fall through fresh air for a 100 ft. means only one thing and that’s that the structure was removed and for 2 ¼ seconds that building fell through fresh air. There is no argument around it. There is desperate need for a new inquiry into the collapse of Building 7. It certainly implies foreknowledge.

Yan: And Building 7 – was that mentioned in the original 9/11 Report?

TR: No, not at all!

Yan: .. which is strange.. You mentioned that there was a second report – was that report specifically for Building 7?

TR: Yes, there was a final report on Building 7 in November 2008. There was a preliminary report on it, in which they denied that the building went into free-fall and this is actually pivotal. I am not a scientist or a physicist so for a little while this was slightly confusing to me but the physics of it literally are sort of secondary school level, what we would call in England – that’s sort of 15 year old kids – this is physics for 15-year-olds – that the building fell at gravitational speed. It was measured by a high-school physicist in America called David Chandler who sent his findings into NIST, which is the National Institute for Standards and Technology who were tasked with investigating the collapse of WTC7 and initially they turned around and they said “It is impossible for that building to have fallen at free-fall acceleration because that would mean there was nothing supporting it” and David Chandler, God bless him, turned around and said “Well I can prove it did.” And so in the end, I don’t know why, possibly to avoid a court case, they accommodated the free-fall of Building 7 in the Final Report some months later but they don’t acknowledge the implications of free-fall.. Basically they fudged the figure work.

Yan: Right, and I suspect that they have used some calculations, and some models to predict that situation, to run that situation again to see what happened – have they made that information public?

TR: No, they’ve withheld the information, their input data. Well, they cannot have come to the conclusion that the Building fell down as they described. In the Final Report they say that one particular column – column 79 in the building became unseated due to thermal expansion, because of the fires heating it up and expanding it fell off its seat.. And then the rest of the building came down like a house of cards. Unfortunately, they cannot explaining how they came to that conclusion, because by their own admission, they actually didn’t have any other wreckage [to examine] – that was shipped off to China rather quickly. So the input data, which was done purely on a computer, they have withheld and try not to laugh “In the interest of public safety.” Now that means that every fireman and every office worker in the world now runs the risk of being in a high-rise skyscraper.. if there is a fire in it, it could fall down on their head but we can’t tell you why, because it is against public safety.

Yan: It is National security..

TR: It is National security rather, yeah..

Yan: I’ve actually seen a few buildings burn quite badly after Building 7 fell down. And, obviously, buildings, even skyscrapers, are built in different ways but we’ve seen what happened in Madrid.. I think it was – a building was burning for a couple of days or something like that..

TR: Yes, the Windsor Tower..

Yan: There was a building in China, there was a building in the Philippines – quite a few buildings and none of them fell at free-fall speed into its own footprint – I am right in this assumption?

TR: Building 7 was the first tower, if you discount the Twin Towers, which were hit by aircraft – we will give them a little bit of rope on this one.. but certainly with World Trade Center 7 it wasn’t hit by an aircraft, it didn’t have any major fires. The fires were such that a reporter was able to get into the building only a few hours before [it collapsed] and that’s available on video.. and says so: “I was in that building only a couple of hours ago” and it is the one that comes down, you know, in around-about 7 seconds a hundred ft. of it via fresh air and that’s the pivotal thing that people need to remember, which is incontrovertible evidence that that building went into free-fall. So you have to image that all the structure failed at exactly the same time and that’s just not possible with fires..

Yan: This is quite strange. Is there anything else, which makes you think that it was a controlled demolition – any other evidence, specifically for Building 7?

TR: There were firefighters on the street in New York, which is readily available on video, who, I think one of them is on the phone to a family member trying to tell them he is ok and they hear this massive explosion. There is three of them there – they all turn around and one of them turns around and says “Listen, 7’s exploding.” I don’t know what else that could mean.. We’ve had people like Craig Bartmer who is a New York police officer – he was very near the building – he said that he heard explosion. That’s not necessarily at the same time, Yan, I think that there were probably, and this is my opinion, there were charges going off in the building throughout the day. I think Building 7 was a failed demolition to some degree. I think it should have gone down earlier in the day but it didn’t – that’s just my opinion, I can’t prove that.

Yan: It’s a very strange situation but yes – people should probably go and see the footage of Building 7 – it is now readily available on the internet so people should at least see that.. Do you think that many people know about this building?

TR: The eye witnesses – people like Barry Jennings who worked in it and another guy called Michael Hess who was a lawyer for Mayor Giuliani were in the building earlier in the day around about the same time as the towers exploded but there were reports by Barry Jennings of explosions going off in Building 7 before the South Tower went down, which was the first tower to collapse, which is rather strange – he describes, I think, the 6 or 7th floor, which would be consistent with the pieces, which disappeared, vanishing form beneath his seat “There was an explosion, the floor went beneath us,” etc,  Michael Hess said the same, although, later he recanted his testimony.. And people like the police officer who was nearby, the firefighters that were nearby. We have video footage of emergency workers walking away from the Building saying “Get away from this building, it is about to blow up.” You also have the famous piece of footage of Larry Silverstein who was the leaseholder of the building saying “We made a decision to pull it,” for which there are huge debates on the internet – did he mean pull it in the demolition terms, did he mean pull the firefighters out.. He can’t have been referring to the firefighters – they had been removed earlier than when he said it.. There is an awful lot of conjecture around Building 7 but it is very easy to cut trough – a building cannot go into free fall without demolition involved. It is as simple as that and then there is no two ways round it – I defy anyone to explain it otherwise.

Yan: And we recently celebrated 13 years since the event – I am still not seeing much discussion about Building 7 on mainstream TV or mainstream radio – I feel that many people in the general population are not even aware of this building – what do you think about?

TR: Well, no, it is true! It is, unfortunately, painfully true. The BBC certainly in England have gone to great pains to keep Building 7 a secret and when they do cover Building 7 it is only to really smear anybody who suggests that it was brought down in a controlled demolition.. despite the fact that it looks like a controlled demolition, there were people who were witnesses to explosives going off, all the physics of WTC7 implied controlled demolition but the BBC.. when they show it, which is very rarely.. always show it in one of those conspiracy programmes and anyone who believes anything but the official story is always described in pejorative terms – we are always conspiracy theorists or nutters or some sort of derogatory…

Yan: Well, obviously, you are a conspiracy theorist…

TR: Yes, absolutely..

Yan: .. but other than that are you aware of any experts – architects or engineers who are involved with this topic and who share some of your concerns about it?

TR: Absolutely – the organization Architects&Engineers for 9/11 Truth now have around 2500 members who are qualified architects or engineers who are petitioning for a new investigation.. and they should know about buildings – they design them and build them and they want a new investigation into Building 7 to say the least. It is plainly obvious for anyone who sees it for the first time or the hundredth time that that building is falling down because it was meant to fall down and it is not a natural occurrence – it is impossible to be a natural occurrence. And I’d certainly urge anyone to go to Architects&Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s website and look at the films that’s on there and all the available evidence.

Yan: Now, there is quite a lot of evidence and people should just take a look at at least some of that.. and there is this good site by the Architects&Engineers.. but I am also interested in your personal story – when did you start doubting the official story of 9/11?

TR: Well, at the risk of repetition: when I first saw Building 7, I really started to doubt it, which was round about 2004, 2005. Prior to that I had an interest in criminology – my father.. I come from a police background.. my family are police officers, I am not, but I saw some work by a guy called Michael Ruppert who was a detective from Los Angeles and he was talking about the CIA’s involvement in drugs smuggling, etc and then he touched on 9/11 rather briefly in the film I saw so that piqued my interest and then I saw films like Loose Change, which some of your listeners may have heard of – probably the biggest 9/11 movie there is.. 9/11 Truth movie.. and so it went on from there but as soon as NIST – the National Institute for Standards and Technology admitted that Building 7 came down in free-fall then that was that and it was like “ok, so why did it come down…” or rather “who..” we know why it came down but who was responsible. And the one thing we can say about 9/11 is the people who are covering it up and it is the American government covering it up. Who did it? That’s another story but the American government are certainly covering it up. And from the criminology point of view that became very interesting for me and so I went on from there. So I have been interested in it for about 10 years.

Yan: Right, and over the years there have been a number of movies and articles, and research papers trying to debunk the conspiracy theories – have you come across anything convincing, which might reverse your opinion on 9/11 being a false flag operation?

TR: No

Yan: Nothing? Not even a single article?

TR: To be brutally honest – no! Because once you get to free-fall, Yan, that’s it.. then either.. and this isn’t because I am British – one of the greatest scientists who have lived – Isaac Newton – then he has to be wrong for the official story to be true he has to be wrong and I can’t see how he is wrong!

Yan: So what you are saying is that there is no going back – once you learn the difficult to reject evidence…

TR: It is not difficult – it is impossible!

Yan: It is impossible?

TR: It is impossible to reject free-fall as anything other than that all the structural resistance in that building was removed at the same time for it to behave like that! All the structure had to go at the same time. It could be the most miraculous fire in history.. but I don’t believe that.

Yan: But, in any case, in order to bring down a building and do a controlled demolition you need to put in charges and this produces quite a lot of heat – is there any evidence that there was a lot of heat involved in this event?

TR: There is certainly a lot of evidence to suggest there is heat involved at ground zero. What scans they did of WTC7 I am not particularly sure of… I’ve certainly spoken to people who worked in the fire department underneath the Twin Towers – it is the longest burning fire in history – there were fires burning up until December of 2001. For World Trade Center 7 – again very difficult because they took away all the evidence – it was shipped off to China – nothing was left to scrutinize and we know that for a fact. Although the original team tasked with investigating WTC7, which is my area of focus – the Federal Emergency Management Agency did retain two pieces of steel from WTC7 but then NIST turned around and said “No, we didn’t” so there is that discrepancy to deal with for starters. And the more you look at it, it becomes blatantly obvious that they are trying to cover it up. But there is lots of evidence of heat – certainly around the Twin Towers; the videos of WTC7 – we don’t have so many..; there is certainly evidence for a shockwave; there is eye witness evidence to suggest that there was noise but then again we are probably talking about very sophisticated types of incendiary.. Again, I can’t prove that, because we don’t have any samples with which we could prove a good chain of custody or providence. But I am sure NIST have got lots. In fact I know NIST have got lots.. unfortunately, they won’t release them to the public for scrutiny. They probably lost them all anyway..

Yan: And the public does not know because this topic is not covered on mainstream TV and it is also not covered on the BBC but at the same time you guys in the UK – you are asked to pay a license fee every year to help fund the BBC – are you paying your fee, Tony?

TR: No.

Yan: How so?

TR: No, and I haven’t done for a while as you know, because of that. Because we have a law in the UK, Yan, I am sure you have one that says you are not allowed to fund terrorism – you are not allowed to fund for the purposes of terrorism, which, of course, makes common sense – I don’t want to give money to anybody to do that sort of thing.. but the BBC is so blatantly covering up all the available evidence of 9/11 that it amounts to protecting what I suspect are the real perpetrators and so that is furthering the purposes of terrorism as prescribed in the law so I decided not to pay them anymore and I ended up in court.. The judge saw the evidence and was actually quite kind to me.

Yan: Have you been asked to pay any fees [retroactively]?

TR: Yes, I’ve had people come around and send me letters “If you don’t pay it then we will get very cross” but I haven’t paid it and I am not going to pay it because I don’t want to break that particular law.. But quite a few people are doing it now, which is good and I actually think that the TV license within two or three years will be gone.. Not because of anything I’ve done or 9/11 but because of other things with the BBC – the pedophile scandal and just because they are not very good anymore.. and the people are seeing that.

Yan: The BBC used to be quite an institution and it was well respected all over the world but this Jimmy Savile situation – it is quite strange and quite damaging to the reputation of the BBC – has there been any inquiry, have there been any people in court.. indicted?

TR: Well, there have been people of that era, from that period that have gone to jail for it. Whether there will be a proper investigation into it, I very much doubt, because that’s generally what happens with pedophile cases – again this is not an area where I am particularly knowledgeable but I know some people who are and unfortunately the pedophile problem in the UK is a lot wider than just the BBC and hopefully that will come to light, maybe it won’t..

Yan: Obviously, the BBC won’t help us to spread the interesting information about 9/11 but people such as yourself are doing that work for them.. and you have a few very good documentary movies, which are available on your site, which is called www.killingauntiefilms.co.uk– what does that mean “killing auntie films”?

TR: All right, killing auntie, yeah. Auntie is as in auntie and uncle – you mother or father’s sister and in the old days, Yan, when I was a kid in the 60s the BBC were known as “Auntie” and it was a term of affection. It was term [implying] they were trustworthy, that they were someone you loved.. It was a self-appointed title – they gave it to themselves but the BBC were known as Auntie Beeb so you have to be over a certain age to be able to understand what that means and obviously “killing auntie” is the notion of getting rid of her..

Yan: Right, I know that you are working on a new movie – a new documentary movie. The topic is again 9/11 and the title is “Incontrovertible” – what does Incontrovertible mean and how is the progress going on this documentary?

TR: Incontrovertible is a a bit of a mouthful even for English people – it is a long word! And I actually do on the titles put on the definition of it underneath from the dictionary. Incontrovertible means beyond question – it cannot be argued against – it’s like the grass is green. That’s the title of it and that really stems from the free fall of Building 7 – that film is centered around the physics of Building 7 and the fact that it went into free-fall but yes, the idea is or the film is about police officers in America and in the UK who have seen it – seen building 7 who are very unhappy about it and want a new investigation. Like most people who are “9/11 Truthers” but these people are either serving police officers or retired police officers, which is an interesting dynamic to watch. You and I could talk about 9/11 till midnight but when you hear a policemen talking about in such terms that is slightly different so to watch it is quite interesting.

Yan: As far as I know the release of this documentary was delayed slightly – you are still working on this movie – when do you expect you will be able to release the movie?

TR: It is not being delayed, Yan.. I always knew it was going to take a long time.. so it is not being delayed at all! I am hoping it will be ready for September next year.

Yan: This is probably because I know about this movie now for a long time.. and I was hoping it would be ready already..

TR: No, it is very difficult. I had to interview a lady – Cynthia McKinney who was presidential candidate in 2008 in America..

Yan: You were able to speak with her, to talk to her?

TR: Yeah, I went around to her house and we had a cup of tea together..

Yan: That’s incredible – I’ve seen her – wasn’t she arrested in Palestine..?

TR: Yeah, she got her boat rammed over there and she’s been in all sorts of trouble. She has been very unpopular with the American government and she is an extraordinary woman – she is the modern day version of Martin Luther King to my mind and I was awestruck to meet her and it was such an honor. But, yes, she agreed to do a little speech for the film and talked about the murder of Martin Luther King.

Yan: And she will be in the movie?

TR: Yes, she is in it, absolutely.

Yan: That’s incredible – now I can’t wait.. even more.

TR: Good, good! Well, I had to wait a year to get Cynthia so now you know why it takes such a long time.

Yan: I know.. So you have already material but is it post-production work or do you still have to interview some people?

TR: There is still some more people.. I am contacting people all the time. I had a long list that was supplied to me of police officers who had spoken out about it. I contacted as many as I could.You can’t put them all in. There are literally hundreds. And that means thousands, because I’ve spoken to some and even on film you ask them “are there any other of your friends who have trouble with the official story of 9/11” and they say “Yeah, lots, lots” But they dare not do anything about it. It is like living in Nazi Germany – nobody wants to talk about this problem. So I know that there are many, many more out there that I can’t talk to and some come forward all the time. And so you think “oh, I’ve got to make 5 minutes for that person” because the more there are the more impactful it is to watch. If you just had one that wouldn’t have been so interesting but when you’ve got lots it is far more interesting.

Yan: As far as I remember the original idea of this documentary was to show some evidence to people of integrity and of some authority.. is that the case? You present some evidence and then you ask for their opinion?

TR: Yeah, the original idea of the the film was to gather a jury – 12 people like judges, police officers, soldiers, priests – what I would describe as law enforcers – policemen are obviously law enforcers, soldiers are military law enforcers, and priest are moral law enforcers and obviously judges, etc. and gather them all in a hall in London and show them some 9/11 footage and film them but then I realized that was going to be rather dull – it is not going to make a very interesting film so.. I may still do that – in my mind I still have sort of ten minutes set aside where that could be accomplished quite quickly and then maybe just show them the film and then just tag it on at the end and see what they have to say.. but certainly I am going to have 12 anyway in the film talking about what they feel about the official story and that in itself is very interesting but yeah, there still is that possibility of getting a jury, if you like, together and watching the evidence against the official story of 9/11.

Yan: Now, this documentary – it obviously takes a little bit of time and a lot of effort, and it requires some financing – some money.. Are you supported by any major corporations or movements or…anything like that?

TR: Yeah, the BBC put in a million! Sadly not. Obviously a film like this would never get on mainstream television and it is not made with that hope in mind. It would be nice if it was but it would never be shown, because, unfortunately, these people are very, very culpable in the cover-up of 9/11 so it is made really for the internet. How long it will stay up on the internet – who knows? Obviously, you have to start looking at foreign servers and things like that, because I’ve had little films that I’ve made here and they’ve been taken down off Utube very quickly. If you just use the wrong piece of footage then they can take it down if it looks like it is going to upsets them or wake anybody up. We will cross that bridge when we come to it but.. yeah.. it is a difficult one to pitch, Yan, what market you are going for..? Hopefully, we can show it at film festivals but how many people go to film festivals so obviously you rely on the internet and things like that. But certainly, yeah, if anyone.. there is a donation page on the web site – if anybody is sweet enough to want to go on an donate some money to it then you know it all goes on the screen..

Yan: I will put a link to your site and the list of movies and I will provide some information about your previous movies as well so people know what we are talking about.. and if I have ten quid, I’ll chip in!

TR: Yeah, that would be great – I won’t waste it down the pub!

Yan: Right, just two quid, no more than that! Well, I have a few more questions regarding 9/11. I am interested in the funding for the terrorists and the hijackers – did the Commission after so many years find out who provided the money?

TR: No, there is a chap in Switzerland called Daniel Ganso? who I actually interviewed – he is in the film – a very intelligent man who did a paper on this with another guy called professor Mark Chesney from the University of Zurich… The 9/11 Commission report says.. I am paraphrasing but it’s pretty accurate that “the funding of 9/11 is of no practical significance,” which is very interesting when you think about it, you know, who actually funded these guys but, no, they have no interest in that at all. But the financing behind 9/11 is an interesting story on its own. We know that Mohamed Atta who was allegedly the pilot that flew the plane into the North Tower had, I think, it was a hundred thousand dollars wired to him from the head of the Pakistani security service ISI not long before 9/11 and we also know that there were put options, which if you are not familiar with the trading market – a put option is a bet that a share can fall, a call option is a bet that a share can go up and if your bet comes off on the day and you can make lots of money. Of course, there was an awful lot of money made on put options specifically on American Airlines and United Airlines and only those airlines and those bets have been traced back to some very interesting sources, which I actually can’t say because it is not legally sound and you don’t want to get sued but there is some interesting footage on RT about put options on 9/11 and people should certainly have a look on there..

Yan: As far as I remember that was investigated by the Commission at least partially..

TR: Well, very partially..

Yan: ..but no accusations were made and nobody went to court..

TR: No, well the FCC and SEC did a very partial investigation as you said and because the money or any potential profit couldn’t be traced back to al-Qaeda that was the end of that but well, hang on a minute, well, it can’t be traced back to al-Qaeda so who can it be traced back to and that is, unfortunately, where the investigation stops.. so because it didn’t fit their preassigned story, they weren’t interested.

Yan: And it is basically of little practical importance..

TR: Little practical significance, yeah, little practical importance so there was no investigation into the put options on 9/11 where some individuals made an inordinary… there is an awful lot of money unclaimed – b/n 2 and 5 million dollars are unclaimed to this day but we have an idea of where it went let’s put it that way. And I would suggest any of your listeners just do a basic research on it.

Yan: Were any drills scheduled for the same day as 9/11?

TR: Yes, as is common with an awful lot of these incidents – London as well – there were so called terror drills going on.. I think there were 4 war games going on on the day of 9/11 – Vigilant Guardian being one of them where American aircraft, US aircraft were flown away from the area that ended up in danger and left it very, very vulnerable. Actually Loose Change is probably as good as any film on highlighting that problem and Rumsfeld was questioned directly by Cynthia McKinney on this and I think he is yet to come up with a decent explanation for it but yes – an awful lot of aircraft were directed out of the area of New York and Washington on that day, which seemed very strange.. And the same with the London bombings as well.

Yan: It is a little bit… and eventually were any jets scrambled to intercept the [planes]?

TR: Yes, after about 90 minutes, I think.

Yan: But they never got to them, I suspect?

TR: No, no, unfortunately, the authorization for scrambling aircraft was assigned I think to, was it to Rumsfeld.. That rule was changed very shortly before 9/11 and they couldn’t get hold of him – he was on the Pentagon lawn or somewhere..

Yan: He was in front of the Pentagon collecting bits and pieces from the rocket, which hit the Pentagon…

TR: It goes on and on, the more you look at the 9/11 story from all angles – forensic, criminological, documentary, documentation,etc it just doesn’t stand up.. And we have to say that the main culprits in all of this for why people don’t know is the mainstream media – they have just been absolutely shocking.

Yan: Well, I suspect that learning about 9/11 in general when we finally get to the truth.. this would shock a few people and it would change a lot of things – have you thought about that? In what ways do you think the world would change after we finally learn about the truth behind 9/11?

TR: Your children might have a future – that would be a start – there would be lots of good things.. but it depends on who you put in place.. I am not some naïve hippie – you have to replace these people with decent individuals – people like Cynthia McKinney, I think, would make a good American president, because she has a soul and she has a heart and she genuinely cares about human beings. I believe that the people who are running America now don’t – they keep sending their young people off to war, illegal wars, so the only real way to get rid of them is for people to learn about 9/11, I agree.

Yan: There will be commotion, and markets will crash, and strange things will happen but I guess we have to get over it and move on…

TR: There would be a huge void created, I suppose, to have all these major governments crash all of a sudden and all these people dragged off to jail, whether that’s going to happen I don’t know. But, unfortunately, you have to have a little bit of pain before you can have any cure in these situations but that’s going to take mass awareness and obviously it is good that people like yourself are talking about it but it really does need the mainstream media to wake up… well not wake up.. but just to be honest but I can’t see that happening for a while.

Yan: Do you think that learning about 9/11 eventually – that that would finally kill auntie…?

TR: Will it kill the BBC? Yeah, well it’s a strange one, Yan, isn’t it.. my family know what I do.. whenever they come round to my house I am showing them clips of the documentary, etc. and they know – you only have to look at building 7 to know but for some people they just can’t get past that inertia – what they call cognitive dissonance.. I call it the father Christmas syndrome: if you tell a child at five that father Christmas isn’t real it will maybe take them a year or so to actually believe that father Christmas isn’t real and it is the same with adults with 9/11 – they just really don’t want to know.. But nobody likes to be proven a sucker.. No, they don’t – it is the worst thing to be proven a sucker. Being proven wrong is one thing but to be proven that you are gullible, that you’re stupid, that you have been fooled – now that’s even worse…It would be like someone said to me that Jesus didn’t exists and we can prove it – I would be like heart-broken – nobody’s done that so far but with 9/11 it is actually very easy to prove that this is a false story.

Yan: I think Mark Twain actually said that “It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

TR: Absolutely

Yan: If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

TR: That’s what he said about patriots that “the patriot is the man who shouts the loudest and knows the least” and that’s unfortunately what these people count on very, very much. They start waving an American flag or they start waving a British flag and people in this country just go nuts – they start crying, we’ve just had the anniversary of the War over here and it is terrible to watch people get swept away in this wave of patriotism – it is ludicrous.. and you are thinking “well why? We should be trying to achieve peace, not celebrating war”.. it is not celebrating war but the glorification of it in some ways, the romanticism of it and, of course, war isn’t romantic and the wars that have sprung out of 9/11 are absolutely awful. I mean, this country just through the use of depleted uranium.. I am on my soap box now, do forgive me.. will kill more people than the Nazi ever did and yet Britain is very proud of its World War II record and rightly so but those men – my grandfather – people like that and I am sure yours as well fought for wars to stop not to have another one..

Yan: They did. I have noticed, Tony, that in your documentaries you use quite a few shocking images of people with limbs torn apart – why is that? I usually don’t see that in documentaries about 9/11 – why do you do that?

TR: Because I think people should know what they are paying for! If you are going to give money to the government to go to war and we all do.. I am not saying people do it consciously like that “well, I am going to pay a pound of my income tax and blow some kids leg off” but unfortunately that is what you are paying for. We can’t go to war without money. In England we had a million people in London marching against the war in Iraq and unfortunately Tony Blair decided to ignore everybody and go anyway based on a lie.. And the picture you’re referring to – I have a picture of a little boy in Iraq who I think is next to his bicycle with his father or a grown-up next to him – his leg has just been blown off below the knee and this is exposed, gaping wound – it is horrible to look at, it is horrible and the little boy is screaming his head off and probably dies, I don’t know but that is what you pay for so you should see it. You are paying for it – see it, watch it. That’s the reality of what has come out of 9/11. 9/11 on its own is an absolute abomination but what comes out of it afterwards and for people to.. I don’t people to get away with it. I mean if you are going to be dumb enough to pay these scumbags to go war then you should be forced to watch it, so that’s why I include it, some people say I shouldn’t but I think we should…

Yan: Yes, these are shocking images… You are actually using terror tactics, Tony, to terrorize people..

TR: Call it just propaganda, couldn’t you? Propaganda originally was a religious thing. It was actually used for good reasons. It is not terror tactics, it is honesty actually, I think it is honesty..

Yan: It is. People should grow up and learn what’s actually being done in their name right at the moment! We are still fighting wars all over the place – now in Syria and recently in Libya and wherever we think we should drop some bombs so it is quite astonishing that we still believe those guys – the politicians, I mean, and the media.. Tony, I would like thank you very much for this interview. I am, obviously, looking forward to seeing to final result and I can’t wait.. did you say September 2015?

TR: I am really hoping to have it ready for September. I am really hoping. Unless somebody rings me up in August and says, “well, hang on, I want to talk to you” then it might get delayed but you can only put so many people in but so far it has attracted a few interesting people and hopefully it is an interesting film. But it does take a long time.

Yan: Well, fingers crossed for early summer 2015! I can’t wait to see this movie instead of, say, Transformers 5 or whatever it is on in the movie theaters at the time,  you know, the crap that they put out. So thank you once again, I wish you all the best with this movie, I will try to help as much as possible and, Tony, please keep up the good work!

TR: Cheers, Yan, nice to talk talk to you.

Yan: Thank you very much.

 

Tony Rooke Interview main page

Tagged with:
 

Comments are closed.

FutureTalk »

Documentary Filmmaker Tony Rooke on his movie Incontrovertible »»