Please wait

British troops risk their lives to protect the UK and our way of life

but what about the people who should be watching their backs?

Unfortunately, it seems very few are actually doing their jobs...

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




Initial complaint sent by email to the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Reply by email from Gareth Brennan of the BBC Audience Services


Further email to Gareth Brennan of the BBC Audience Services


Email to Gareth Brennan of BBC Complaints


Letter from Tanya McKee of BBC Complaints (PDF)


Email to Tanya McKee of BBC Complaints


Letter from Gemma McCartan of BBC Complaints (PDF)


Letter to Gemma McCartan of BBC Complaints


Email from Patrick Clyde of BBC Complaints


Email to Patrick Clyde of BBC Complaints


Further letter to Gemma McCartan of BBC Complaints


Email from Stuart Webb of BBC Complaints


Email from Jamie Patterson of BBC Complaints


Letter to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit


No further comments reply from the BBC (PDF)


Letter from Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU (PDF)


1200092 911 Conspiracy Road Trip ECU Finding (PDF)


1200091 The Conspiracy Files 911 Ten Years On ECU Finding (PDF)


Letter to Lucy Tristam of the BBC Trust Unit


Email reply from John Hamer of the BBC Trust Unit


Email from Lucy Tristam of the BBC Trust Unit


Email to Lucy Tristam of the BBC Trust Unit


Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Mallett (PDF)


Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Annex 2 (PDF)


Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Road Trip Mallett (PDF)


Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Road Trip Annex 2 (PDF)


Letter to Lucy Tristam of the BBC Trust Unit

09/08/2011 - Initial complaint sent by email to the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

Dear Sir/Madam

I watched with interest and disgust a BBC program shown recently on the collapse of World Trade Centre building 7 on 9/11. I have been researching what actually happened on that day for a few years now so know a fair amount about the evidence that has been found and the huge number of problems with the official conspiracy theory story created by the Bush government.

The information given by the program was years out of date and seemed to be intended to discredit Richard Gage AIA and others who are merely seeking the truth by asking for a new unbiased investigation. There needs to be a new investigation because the original NIST investigation was a farce. Most of the members of the original investigation committee are now on record stating that it was under funded, under resourced and set up to fail. To give some perspective on this; the budget to investigate the collapse of WTC building 7 (the first steel framed building ever to collapse from fire alone according to NIST) was allocated $15M while the investigation into Bill Clinton’s Oval Office Blow Job had a budget of $30M.

In the program the question was addressed of how fast building 7 collapsed. This is important because building 7 actually fell at free fall acceleration for 2.6 seconds which is physically impossible in any building collapse were explosives are not used. In August 2008 NIST released their draft report into the collapse of building 7 and in it they tried to deny the building fell in free fall at all. In fact in a press conference given at the time NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder stated that it would be impossible for the building to fall at free fall acceleration due to the resistance from the structure below. In that statement at least, he was completely correct. The only energy available to the building according to NIST was potential energy and in order to fall at free fall all the potential energy must be available to be converted to kinetic energy. This leaves no energy available to do the work of crushing supporting concrete and buckling structural steel. In a similar manner if a brick is dropped in a swimming pool then some of its potential energy is required to move the water out of the way and that slows down its fall. The problem is that anyone with good maths, a paper and pencil and access to the videos of building 7 (freely available on the Internet) can work out that the building did fall in free fall for at least 2.6 seconds.

NIST eventually had to admit this and the final NIST report actually includes the line...

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

This report was published before the BBC program was shown but not mentioned in the program and Shyam was not questioned about the U turn in his interview. Nearly all the information given in the program was out of date for example Richard Gage is head of an organisation called ‘Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth’ and the program stated that he had the support of 700 Architects and Engineers but at the time the program was shown that figure was over 1,500. My point is that the programme used out of date information to misrepresent the current position and help prop up the official US government conspiracy theory.

By the way, if you are wondering, NIST wrote off the free fall in their report by stating that it was in keeping with their theories. However, they have not explained to this day how something they had previously stated was impossible could have occurred. All inquiries made on the subject have been steadfastly ignored by NIST.

Also, in June this year, the radio 4 Today programme interviewed Jonathon Kay about his new book ‘Among the Truthers’. The gist of the discussion tended to make out that all truthers were deluded in some way and there was no substance to anything they said. I wrote to the program and have attached a copy of the letter I wrote. The BBC had an excellent opportunity to put both sides of the argument as Richard Gage was in London at the time to present a lecture on 911 at the Royal Institute of British Architects.

The BBC is supposed to give an unbiased view point on current affairs and ask tough questions were they need to be asked. By showing out of date information and conducting one sided interviews they are failing in their duties.

Yours Sincerly,
Adrian Mallett B. Eng. (Hons)

^ Return to index ^

Next item »