Home » BBC » Adrian Mallett's full complaint

Full details of the BBC complaint from Adrian Mallett

After watching the BBC Conspiracy Files program called '9/11 Ten Years On' Adrian Mallett, a member of the 9/11 truth movement, decided to complain to the BBC. The program distorted or avoided the facts in order to cast members of the 9/11 Truth Movement in the worst possible light.

The BBC then broadcast a further program called '9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip' which can only be described as blatant propaganda in support of the official story. It was full of truly ridiculous 'demonstrated' and 'experimental' evidence heavily stacked to make a group of carefully selected young people, not fooled by the official story, look callous and delusional. The program was so bad that even people who had no idea of any of the problems with the official story thought it was daft.

The BBC is governed by it own charter in which it states it is dedicated to the principles of accuracy and impartiality. Both programs mentioned above, and especially the Road Trip propaganda, ignored the BBC charter. If you care to read through the complaint correspondence that follows you will see that the BBC charter is nothing more than a paper exercise and the BBC itself has no interest in ensuring its producers comply with the rules.

Index of complaint correspondence

02/12/2011 - Letter to Gemma McCartan of BBC Complaints

Dear Ms McCartan

Re: CAS-927900-GS71RV / CAS-990119-DZS7WB / CAS-1028278-6DFXXR

Thank you for your letter of the November 7th though I’m not entirely sure why you bothered to write it. It didn’t address any of the many errors I pointed out in the BBC’s programs.

Clearly my letters are either not being understood or, as with my letter of September 12th, not being read. The replies seem to be stock answers that could be used for any number of complaints. Let me try a much shorter letter with only a couple of questions to see if anyone at the BBC will actually address the issues I’m raising.

The reason I continue to write in is that every week our service men and women are being killed in Afghanistan in a war initiated following the events of 9/11. It is our duty to them to ensure they are not risking their necks for the wrong reasons. The BBC should be at the forefront of that drive instead of acting like the UK branch of the US government propaganda machine.

The problems with the official explanations for 9/11 are numerous but, unlike most events that develop conspiracy theories, a large proportion of the problems here are caused because the official explanations given are not physically possible. People’s opinions or witness statements can be wrong but when the official explanation defies the laws of physics there’s no doubt it’s erroneous. The BBC’s coverage of 9/11 always avoids such questions or uses false explanations to obfuscate them.

Let me ask you the following two questions and I’ll even provide you with the answers first. You need to answer “Yes” to both questions if you believe the official explanation of 9/11. By the way, none of the BBC’s 9/11 coverage has ever addressed either question. I’ve only listed two questions here but there are plenty more like these. Indeed, as more information is released to the public and more high officials come forward its actually becoming easier to list the parts of the official story which are not disputed.

Aircraft that fly at impossible speeds

The two aircraft which hit WTC towers 1 and 2 were reported as being unmodified Boeing 767-200s. They were never forensically identified and the data and voice recorders where never officially found. All physical evidence of them was removed and destroyed as fast as possible. Despite this there is accurate information available regarding their speeds when they hit the towers. This information came from radar and was reported by the NTSB. They stated that flight AA11 was travelling at 430 knots and flight UA175 was travelling at 510 knots at impact.

According to Boeing, the maximum speed for a 767-200 at ground level is 385 knots. The aircraft fly faster at altitude but at ground level the air is much denser so 385 knots is the maximum speed achievable from the engine power available. This means that the aircraft on 9/11 were exceeding their maximum design speed by 11% and 32%. Boeing was asked if those speeds were possible and their representative just laughed and said “of course not”.

So here’s my first question to you. I don’t know what type of car you drive but let’s assume it’s a standard family saloon with a typical top speed of 110 MPH. Do you think it would be possible for that car to achieve a speed of 145 MPH on an autobahn? N.B. answer “yes” to conform to the official explanation for 9/11.

Buildings that defy the laws of physics

Three WTC buildings collapsed on 9/11. The third was WTC 7 which collapsed into it’s own footprint after five hours. It was not hit by an aircraft so it is the first and only multi-storey, steel framed building in history ever to collapse from fire alone. According to the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) the building experienced a gravitational collapse during which it fell for 2.25 seconds at gravitational acceleration (free fall). Free fall is impossible for a gravitational collapse as the building structure creates resistance and slows the rate of collapse or often stops it completely. Even the lead NIST investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated that free fall was impossible at a press conference in August 2008. The problem for NIST was that it is easy to measure the rate of collapse and show that it was in free fall for 2.25 seconds. See this video produced by David Chandler of AE911Truth for a full account of this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA .

NIST was forced to do a U turn and actually stated the building fell in free fall in their final report issued a few months later in November 2008. They did not attempt to explain it however, just stated that it fitted with their explanation and have refused to answer any questions on it ever since.

Here’s my second question to you. Hold two bricks at shoulder height. One brick should have a clear path to the ground but the other should have a tower of similar bricks under it. Drop both bricks at the same time. Do you think it’s possible for both bricks to hit the ground at the exact same moment even with one of the bricks having to smash its way through the brick pile first? N.B. answer “yes” to conform to the official explanation for 9/11. If you answered “no” then Newton and Einstein would agree with you.

Policing program content at the BBC

Who is the person at the BBC that has the job of stopping a program being broadcast if it states that the planet is made of cheese? The BBC’s coverage of 9/11 has consistently contained information which directly contradicts basic high school maths and physics yet this has been allowed to continue and then be defended by yourself and Ms McKee (in a previous letter).

The BBC’s coverage of 9/11 seems to have a very clear agenda of propping up the official version of events. This in itself has caused the BBC a few problems as the official version has changed several times with each new version often directly contradicting the previous one. For example, the pancake collapse explanation required the beam to column connections to be very weak while the latest beam sag explanation requires the very same connections to carry huge loads they were never designed for.

The BBC is starting to look silly now as the media in other countries is finally asking the right questions. French main stream television recently ran a series looking at the problems surrounding the explanation for WTC 7. A recent UK poll showed that over half the people asked either did not believe either some or all of the official version of events.

The US Government is gearing up to go into Iran. If they do the chances are our own Government will want to follow them. The job of the BBC is to hold our politicians to account when no one else will. Start doing it.

Please don’t just fob me off again with stock answers

I’d like a reply that addresses the points raised in this letter rather than fobbing me off again. If you can’t address these points directly then please tell me who has the responsibility at the BBC to ensure factual programs do not contain numerous errors.

Adrian Mallett B.Eng (Hons).