Home » BBC » Paul Warburton's full complaint

Full details of the BBC complaint from Paul Warburton

Index of complaint correspondence

08/06/2011 - Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

BBC Trustees
Editorial Standards Committee
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ

8th June 2011

Dear

"Do not deceive one another " Leviticus 19:11

I wrote to the Trustees on the Editorial Standards committee in April asking them to launch an internal investigation into your reporting of the 9/11 attacks. Your Secretary Miss Caroline Haydon wrote to me on the 3rd May saying my letter had been passed to the BBC complaints dept. Miss Haydon also sent me the BBC procedure on handling complaints.

On 6th May I received a letter from Mr Philip Young at the complaints dept (copy of letter attached).

On the 10th May I replied to that letter (copy attached with a photo)

when I didn't hear anything by 25th May I wrote another letter (copy attached). I cc'd that letter of 25th May to Miss Haydon.

To date I still do not have a reply to my letters of 10th May or 25th May from the complaints dept. To that extent the procedure outlined in the BBC complaints handling process is failing. I also have knowledge from friends who have likewise complained to the BBC on other sensitive issues where inordinate delays have taken place in replies to their complaints. In view of the foregoing I want to repeat my request to the Trustees on the Editorial Standards Committee to launch an urgent investigation into your portrayal of the 9/11 attacks. I am not complaining here about a brief scene of nudity I have seen on the BBC or a Jeremy Clarkson joke that was made in bad taste. I am addressing the most significant pivotal historical event of the 21st Century which has brought untold suffering to millions in its wake. Your part in describing that event I believe has failed your purported standards and I urge you to take this request seriously.

Before I make the case again for an investigation later in this letter there is another preliminary matter I need to address with you as Trustees.

This letter is in 3 parts; An introduction that looks at our different positions, a 2nd part contains the reasons why I am making this request to you and the final page is a list of people I have copied this letter to. They are all interested parties each with their own significant networks. They do not co sign this letter and they may not all agree with everything I write but we are united on one thing and that is that the official account of the 9/11 attacks is profoundly wrong and a truly independent inquiry is needed. To the extent to which you have broadcast that official version over the past 10 years you also have been in grave error. The BBC, its presenters and its editors, have misled people knowingly or unknowingly. Therefore in the first part of this letter I need to address this stark contrast between our two positions.

Introduction

We, the list of people on the final page of this letter, have become known as members of the 9/11 truth movement. You say in much of your literature that you also strive for the presentation of truth, that you are unbiased and that you are Independent yet our two positions on 9/11 are diametrically opposed. By profession I am a Barrister (non practising) who ends up doing a fair amount of practice. Whenever I present my evidence on 9/11 to interested parties a common reply is "why dont I hear this on the BBC ?" So that is a fundamental question that needs to be resolved. You would expect a widely respected organisation to represent all that is decent and fair. Is that expectation reasonable ? Yes it is but is it the case that your 9/11 presentation is correct ?

You would expect so called pillars of Society to do the work they are entrusted with and do what they say they are going to do. For example in my correspondence with Sir John Chilcot I repeatedly urged him, after Tony Blair gave his evidence in January 2010 stating 9/11 changed his view of Iraq as a threat, that the Iraq inquiry should invite my expert friends along to show that the official assumptions about the origins of the 9/11 attacks are wrong. Now considering Sir Chilcot is charged with getting to the truth about the Iraq War and the terrible loss of life you would think he would at least consider hearing our strong representations. For a year he held off our petitions. Recently the BBC broadcast a Wikileak that suggested Sir John's inquiry was not going to step on the toes of the US Administration if anything difficult came up. So one wonders to what extent people want to really get to the whole truth in that inquiry. His last letter to me said " the Inquiry is conscious that in its work it should not disclose information that would damage international relations." One wonders what damage will be done to the truth.

In the same vein I wrote to the 7/7 Inquest when it requested representations and suggested that they call as a witness Peter Power, who you interviewed on 7/7/05 and who stated he was running an exercise for a private client at the same time as the bombings at exactly the same stations as the bombs went off. You dont need to study forensic medicine with me to realise he should have been called. His knowledge indicated foreknowledge by someone on his team and therefore somebody with criminal intent within the exercise. He was not called as a witness and none of my colleagues at the Bar at the inquest picked up on that as indeed senior police officers at the time of 7/7 didnt. I dont believe that was an oversight of intellect. It may have been a lack of courage to do their jobs properly.

So you see when I ask a fine organisation with the public trust to look at 9/11 and its coverage of it I am already disapponted with supposedly Independent inquiries which have failed to ask extremely pertinent questions to discover the truth. These are not theories these are already established facts. Sir Chilcot is not interested in 9/11 and the 7/7 inquest did not call Mr Power and ask him how the stations came to be picked for his exercise. So we come to the BBC and my request for an investigation.

Firstly I note you may rebuff this letter and resist the call for an investigation. Secondly I note you may conduct an investigation (according to your terms of reference) and then find that your coverage is still fair and unbiased. What strikes me is how Independent can an investigation be when you are conducting it upon yourselves ? I personally have an intuition that whilst most (99%) of the BBC personnel work with integrity you have an element within you that is able to control and to influence to the extent it will lie and mislead people based on political influences when it comes to the crucial national interest and by that I mean the interests of a few. You dont need many people to do that within the BBC. That can be primarily dealt with in the editing of material. What I do know is that, having spent years looking at the 9/11 controversy, your position that 19 Arab hijackers caused 9/11 by themselves is an utterly untenable position based on all the evidence referenced in the websites I quoted to you in my paper "A Conspiracy of Silence ? " sent to you all and your news presenters in the Spring of this year. The BBC is even on record as reporting that some of those 19 hijackers are alive in the Arab world ! The reason I am copying my letters widely is this letter once in the BBC can be sidelined by 1, 2 or 3 people. Especially if those people do have an agenda that is not in line within your stated Charter. I invite you to prove me wrong by conducting a fair investigation into your coverage of 9/11. If I am wrong about the 1 % within the BBC you still need to ask yourselves why our two positions are diametrically opposed on the evidence below.

Reasons for you to investigate your coverage of 9/11

Since your broadcast of the " conspiracy files " a few years back which I felt was unbalanced new developments have taken place in the 9/11 truth movement. They are;

1. Professor Niels Harrit and his team of scientists have discovered remains of high explosives within the dust of ground zero and have produced a paper which is widely and freely available on the net. It has not been successfully challenged in the world of science. This evidence was not available for the official 9/11 Commission.
2. Aerial still photos of the 9/11 attacks were released in 2009 after a freedom of information act request. These clearly show the twin towers did not collapse on themselves as stated at page 305 of the 9/11 Commission report. I sent one such photo to Mr Young in your complaints dept in my letter dated 10th May. I enclose the same photo with this letter. From a forensic point of view it is one of the most remarkable and telling photos of the true nature of the 21st Century - deception.
3. The NYPD aerial 17 minute footage of the attacks was only released this Spring. In the first month it got over 9 million hits on Youtube. This footage again contradicts the official version of a pancake collapse.

Puting this new material together with the existing material, some of which you covered in your conspiracy files programme, we now have;

1. Richard Gage and hundreds of other Architects questioning the official version of the collapse of the Twin Towers with evidence.
2. Niels Harrit and his team stating explosives residue was found in the dust of ground zero with evidence.
3. 50+ New York Firefighters who gave witness statements at the time of September/October 2001 stating thay heard explosions in the buildings prior to collapse. This evidence was not called at the official 9/11 Commission, although it was available. The WTC Janitor William Rodriguez gives similar relevant evidence. You did interview him but that was on Radio Devon. I do not think that is giving a fair hearing to a key witness.
4. How did WTC 7 collapse ? Your reporter, Jane Standley, even reported its collapse when it was still standing in the background whilst she was speaking ! Has the BBC ever explained who provided Jane with that news prior to its collapse ? Again that shows foreknowledge by someone (as Peter Power point made above). Barry Jennings since now deceased stated he stepped over dead bodies on his exit from WTC 7. WTC 7 was not even discussed at the official 9/11 Commission. Demolition experts say it has all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition along with WTC 1 and 2.
5. Victims family members are still demanding an Indepedent inquiry into the events of 9/11. Some are currently running a campaign in New York City called "Building What ?"

For all these reasons I urge you to conduct a broad ranging Independent investigation and that you call in people who will be completely unbiased in their assessment of your coverage and the evidence listed above. You could even set up a studio audience to assess the two opposing views. They have done this on the continent.

All I am asking for a the end of the day is a fair documentary to be made and aired by you the BBC in the lead up to the 10th anniversary containing Richard Gage, Niels Harrit, William Rodriguez, The Firefighters testimony and a victim's family member in one programme. If on fair evidence you can rebut that case I welcome it but your argument must be based on evidence that can be tested. Until then I would also ask that whenever you speak of 9/11 in your broadcasts you always use the caveat " 9/11 - allegedly perpetrated by 19 Arab hijackers". These are not difficult requests I am making of you. They are fair. No open court of law has yet found them guilty.

In my spare time I do youth work at my local church. The number of young people I know who get the truth of 9/11 astounds me and fills me with hope. They have largely got that information from the internet. This is before they have spoken to me. I urge you, in these changing times as people become more empowered about the ability to find things out for themselves, to reassess your position on 9/11 in this 10th anniversary year.

Yours Sincerely,

Paul Warburton

cc the Trustee Editorial Standards Committee members; Richard Ayre, Anthony Fry, Alison Hastings, David Liddiment, Mehmuda Mian, Elan Closs Stephens, Caroline Hayford (Secretary)