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

16/02/2012 - Letter to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit

Re: Complaint about the BBC breaching the editorial guidelines with its biased coverage of 9/11.

Introduction

At the start of the BBC Editorial Guidelines it states:

1.2.1 Trust
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences.

This has always been the case. The BBC has made mistakes but they are usually admitted and corrected as soon as possible and because of this the BBC has maintained a high level of public trust. People trust what the BBC says and public opinion is often formed as a direct consequence of a BBC broadcast. In turn that same public opinion influences political decisions including those which send our service personnel into harms way. Because of this it is vital that the BBC strives to meet the conditions of the editorial guidelines. This is also why the BBCs coverage of the 9/11 attacks has been so deplorable. It is not far off blatant propaganda for the Bush administration as most of the important facts have been incorrectly reported or actively avoided. There has also been considerable effort put into ridiculing anyone who dares to question the official explanation for the events that day.

Anyone creating a BBC production which influences public opinion about military actions has the most serious responsibility possible to get their facts correct and unbiased. There will always be mistakes but making entire programs which actively promote a particular political position must not be tolerated and is a sure way to lose the public trust when the facts are eventually exposed. Initially the world was confused by the speed and efficiency of the story put out by the Bush administration but the worst part is that over 10 years later it is still carrying on and the BBC has actively avoided asking the difficult questions the Government wants to avoid

In the events of 9/11 the BBC has most definitely not met the commitment described in clause 1.2.1.

Just one of the official story problem areas ignored and avoided by the BBC

Since 9/11 a huge amount of evidence has come to light which either casts doubt on, or directly contradicts the official explanation provided by the Bush administration. The official explanation is its self a conspiracy theory and areas of it have changed several times over the years. Here is an example of one area which never featured in any of the BBCs 10th anniversary programs. It is the key smoking gun which makes the official explanation of 9/11 scientifically impossible. The collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) in free fall.

WTC7 was a 47 storey high rise which would have been the highest building in most countries in the world. It was dwarfed by the twin towers and officially ignored as much as possible so is not well know. It was a steel frame building with moment resisting connections and because of its construction it was five times stronger than it needed to be. Indeed its strength was one reason why it was chosen to house the NY Mayor’s emergency response bunker. It also housed units of the CIA, NSA, NYPD, FBI and several other security agencies. It was also used to store all the evidence of the largest fraud cases such as Enron. Considering the kinds of tenants and uses for WTC7 it was by necessity a very secure building. On 9/11 it was not hit by a plane but still it collapsed into its own foot print five hours after the towers fell. It is the only steel framed building ever to collapse from fire alone and the collapse was reported by the BBC half an hour before it actually happened.

The Bush administration managed to delay any sort of investigation into the collapse of WTC7 for several years by which time all the evidence had been destroyed. It was ignored in the 911 Commission Report. After considerable pressure the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) carried out an investigation but it was given half the $30 million funding used to investigate Bill Clinton’s sexual misdemeanour.

In August 2008 NIST released its draft report into the collapse of WTC7 and held a press conference. At the press conference the NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder was asked if WTC7 had collapsed in free fall. He stated that it was impossible for WTC7 to have collapsed in free fall as the steel structure of the building would have provided resistance to the collapse and so would slow the decent acceleration. He was completely correct in what he said and any independent Civil Engineer would be happy to corroborate that statement.

The reason any building cannot collapse in free fall is simple. The only form of energy a stationary building has prior to collapse is called potential energy. All the potential energy in the building must be converted to kinetic energy for it to fall at gravitational acceleration (free fall). There is no energy available to carry out the actions of deforming the steel frame, fracturing the thousands of welded and bolted joints and pulverising the concrete and other structural materials which form the floors and walls. To explain another way; a brick dropped in air will fall in free fall but a brick dropped in water will fall more slowly. This is due to some of the bricks potential energy being required to move the water out of its way as it falls.

There are lots of videos of WTC7 collapsing on the Internet. Using basic high school physics it is easy to calculate the rate of acceleration of the collapse by choosing a point on the roof and following it down. By comparing time and distance the downward acceleration can be calculated. For WTC7 this was found to be 9.8m/s² or gravitational acceleration or ‘Free fall’ as it is most commonly known.

The evidence for free fall was so strong and so obvious that NIST was forced to include it in its final report released in November 2008. It states:

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 travelled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

So even NIST was forced to admit that WTC7 collapsed in free fall for at least 2.25 seconds during which it fell a distance of 17 floors. The fact that WTC7 collapsed in free fall creates a big problem for the official story. In order to collapse in free fall there can be no potential energy available to remove the resistance of the steel structure or crush any of the concrete. But equally, in order to collapse in free fall there has to be no resistance from the structure so another form of energy had to do the considerable work of destroying the steel and pulverising the concrete. Also, whatever energy source did that work had to do so almost instantly and in a very specific sequence so that the building would fall neatly into its own foot print.

The only thing capable of fulfilling all the requirements for the extra energy source is explosives. Scientifically WTC7 had to have been brought down in a controlled demolition. To set up such a controlled demolition takes months of work and it is extremely unlikely that it could have been carried out by terrorists considering the building security. That in turn means that elements of the US Government and Military had to have organised at least a part of the events of that day and done so over a considerable length of time prior to the day.

There are several other smoking guns from the day such as the ground to air missiles surrounding the Pentagon that had to be stood down in order for flight 77 to get through or that the twin towers fell in near free fall in defiance of the principle of conservation of momentum or the fact that the dust cloud generated alone required at least 10 times the potential energy available from the towers. When the evidence for any part of the events that day is analysed it quickly becomes clear that this was a false flag operation motivated by greed for power, money and oil.

The BBC states that it is impartial but Shyam Sunder was interviewed by the Conspiracy Files program on WTC7. This was before 2008 and he stated in the interview that WTC7 did not collapse in free fall. The program even tried to help prove his point by showing timed video which it said was evidence that free fall was not a factor. Since then the BBC has made no attempt to correct that error or re-interview Sunder and ask him about his U turn. Addressing the WTC7 free fall problem has been avoided in every 9/11 program since then.

Does this approach fit in with the independent, impartial and honest view point the BBC is striving for? Would you trust someone who distorts the way they report in order to fit a clear agenda? Is this the kind of reporting designed to gain the public trust in accordance with clause 1.2.1?

The BBC complaints process

I am a card carrying member of the 9/11 truth movement. I believe it is extremely important that the truth about 9/11 finally comes out because our politicians keep basing decisions on it and our service personnel are sent to die as a result. If the US has its way then yet another war, this time against Iran, will be started soon. The least I can do is try and campaign for the truth to be heard. I am also disgusted with the lack of courage the UK mainstream media shows to publish the truth and hold those in power to account.

I was disgusted with the overtly biased view put out by BBC programs supposedly covering the subject of 9/11. The BBC has a responsibility to broadcast the facts and it has not done so. I complained to the BBC about the biased nature of the programs and the incorrect facts included but was fobbed of with a series of letters and emails stating that my comments had been passed on to the relevant producers and there was nothing else that could be done. Since it was the same producers who created the programs in the first place this is like allowing a criminal to conduct their own trial. After writing one eight page letter about the program ‘Conspiracy theories 10 years on’ I actually received a letter about a completely different program so whoever wrote the stock reply that time did not even bother to read my letter. I have included copies of the letters I sent and the BBC replies. I was finally referred to the Editorial Complaints Unit and so I am writing yet again. I am an ex serviceman, ex fireman and have a degree in Civil Engineering and I see it as my duty to write and complain when others are risking their lives for a lie.

My previous letters already cover some of the programs in details but in this one I have compared BBC programs about 9/11 with the editorial standards the producers are supposed to follow as published on the BBC website. One program in particular was such a blatant breach of the standards that it was almost laughable. This was the 9/11 road trip.

The 9/11 Road Trip

This program had a very clear agenda right from the start. The intension was to take a small group of ‘Truthers’ and try to fix them using ‘evidence’ and a variety of ‘Experts’. I find it hard to believe the program was even allowed to be shown as it was not impartial in any way. It avoided covering any of the major questions such as the one detailed above and instead cherry picked a few areas to try to provide its proof. The arguments and ‘evidence’ put forward for the areas it did cover were mostly ridiculous.

The group chosen for this program was clearly selected to give them the least chance of being able to argue back against the program experts. Instead of choosing a group of highly qualified and well informed members of the truth movement to provide balance the producers chose a group of young people with little or no technical background. It is hard to argue with someone qualified in engineering unless you understand the background to what they are talking about but this was clearly the intension all along.

At one point one of the BBC experts explained that when the top of the WTC South Tower started to topple over this would have resulted in its immediate collapse straight down through the path of most resistance. Anyone with civil engineering knowledge would have known that statement was ridiculous but the program portrayed the group as having been ‘fixed’ on that point.

The top of the South Tower started to lean over and gained rotational momentum. It then dropped straight down through the building as it collapsed even righting itself slightly as it fell. The central core of the tower formed the fulcrum of the tip so for the rotation to stop the fulcrum had to be destroyed very rapidly as the top section dropped. The central core also gets steadily stronger at the lower levels so even if it had collapsed it would have provided sufficient resistance to maintain the angular momentum of the top. This would have resulted in the top falling off to one side of the remaining tower with at least a third of it left. Both towers collapsed so completely that the rubble pile was only a few floors high and all the non steel elements were pulverised.

Another problem with the official collapse story is conservation of momentum. Gravitational collapse is used widely in France as a form of controlled demolition. First the building has to be weakened by cutting columns and reducing the number of connections then several floors midway up the building are pulled to start the collapse. As the top section falls its bottom edge impacts on the top floor of the bottom section. The downward force destroys the top floor of the bottom section but there is an equal and opposite force which destroys the bottom floor of the top section. The remaining part of the top section continues to fall destroying the bottom section but also being itself destroyed at the same rate. This is what makes the ‘top down, bottom up’ explanation for the collapse of towers 1 and 2 so ridiculous.

Comparison with the BBC standards

I will now continue by pointing out specific points where BBC programs on 9/11 violate the editorial standards.

1.2.1 Trust
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences.

1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy
We seek to establish the truth of what has happened and are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output. Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We will strive to be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation.

In the 9/11 road trip Andrew Maxwell sets out the clear intent of the program right from the start. “Unbelievably there are many people who doubt the conclusions of the official investigation”. The program was not independent, impartial or honest. It did not evaluate the view points of the group and then see if there was any merit in them. It did not research specific claims to be able to put forward the full facts before allowing the group to draw a conclusion. It sought purely to ‘fix’ them or pity them when they maintained their views. An example of this is the expert the BBC used to demonstrate that thermite could not have damaged the steel beams in any of the towers. National Geographic tried a similar ‘conspiracy debunking’ experiment a few years back. They placed a large quantity of thermite in an open container around a steel column and lit it to show that it did nothing at all to the steel. The BBC version was even more basic and blatant. In the program an expert placed a small pile of thermite on the web of a large steel beam and lit it. It was never going to do anything in a million years. The pile was not contained in any way so the energy generated simply dissipated straight up and away from the beam.

After the National Geographic program one of the guys from AE911Truth conducted an excellent set of experiments to show that small quantities of thermite can easily be used to cut beams and destroy bolt heads if it is enclosed in very simple steel containers. The results can be viewed on the web at www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g if you would like to see the research the BBC chose to ignore. He used less thermite than the BBC ‘expert’ used and managed to do all the things the BBC claimed could not be done. That video evidence was clearly available to the BBC prior to the making of the road trip program and even rudimentary research would have un-earthed it so why was it ignored. A truly impartial program intending to present all the facts would have tried to recreate the enclosed thermite experiments. Considering how basic they are and some of the BBCs excellent past achievements this would not have posed much of a challenge so the only conclusion which can be drawn is that it was intentionally ignored which is evidence of bias.

By using the pile of thermite on the beam the producer’s intention was not to provide evidence based on all the facts but rather to skew the experiment to suit their own objectives. I have used the thermite section of the program to make this point but the sections covering the tower toppling and the ability to fly a Boeing 767 based on flying a single engine Cessna would also apply. The 9/11 road trip program was clearly in contravention of both points 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.

1.2.3 Impartiality
Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. We will apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or underrepresented. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts.

Right from the start the 9/11 road trip cast the group of truthers as delusional. Some of their view points were aired but never explored to see if there was any evidence to back them up. There was a brief section where Tony Zamboni from AE911Truth was filmed talking to two of the group but this was portrayed as a ‘set back’ in the groups ‘rehabilitation’.

Tony Zamboni could have been a very useful asset to the program to help provide the impartiality required by clause 1.2.3 but that would have gone against the clear aim of the producer. He could have provided a more balanced program by bringing him in from the start and allowing him to debate with the BBCs experts on the tower collapse and thermite but this was not done. All the way through the program the BBC set its experts against the non technically minded truthers and how can using any expert to argue against a layman be impartial. The program clearly breached clause 1.2.3 on numerous occasions.

1.2.4 Editorial Integrity and Independence
The BBC is independent of outside interests and arrangements that could undermine our editorial integrity. Our audiences should be confident that our decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests.

I address this clause against the BBCs 9/11 coverage as a whole. Shortly after 9/11 the BBC broadcast a story about several members of the 19 alleged hijackers who were found to be still alive. At least four have since been found to be alive and well but the original 19 names and faces are still portrayed by the official story as being responsible. All coverage since this story has backed up the official version of events and ridiculed the truth movement.

On the 8th June 2011 I wrote to the BBC Today program. I wake up to it every morning and enjoy the way it seems to ask the politicians the hard questions. It may not always get answers but at least it tries and is usually a very good example of all the editorial guidelines. The reason I wrote was that they were planning to interview Jonathon Kay about his new book ‘Among the Truthers’. In his book Kay portrays all truthers as delusional and need of psychiatric help. Being a member of the 9/11 Truth movement and not considering myself in need of such help I wrote in to inform the program that Richard Gage, the founder of ‘Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth’ was in London on the day of the interview and would help provide a balanced discussion. The BBC never replied and declined to use Richard but rather provide yet another dose of Bush propaganda.

The continued refusal to ask the difficult questions or analyse the events of that day from an independent and impartial view point clearly indicates that either the BBC is reacting to some form of outside influence or is following the personal agendas of one or more of its senior staff. This contravenes clause 1.2.4.

1.2.6 Serving the Public Interest
We seek to report stories of significance to our audiences. We will be rigorous in establishing the truth of the story and well informed when explaining it. Our specialist expertise will bring authority and analysis to the complex world in which we live. We will ask searching questions of those who hold public office and others who are accountable, and provide a comprehensive forum for public debate.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost the lives of hundreds of our service men and women. Thousands more have been injured not to mention all the millions of civilian casualties. The UK Government has spent over 18 Billion pounds on the Afghan war alone which is enough money to bail out Ireland three times over. The result of our foreign policy is an increased risk of terrorism in the UK and abroad and more of the world hating us and our ideals. Clause 1.2.6 states that the BBC will ask ‘searching questions of those who hold public office’ but that has not happened in the case of 9/11. Not once has the BBC questioned our politicians on why they are still making decisions based on an event for which the official explanation has so many holes.

The BBC broadcast a special episode of Question Time asking if it was right to kill Osama Bin Laden or not. At no time during that program or in any other have the questions been asked:

• Why did we help to kill someone who was not wanted for 9/11. The FBI never issued an arrest warrant for him as ‘there is no evidence to link him to the crime’.
• Why was Bin Laden not arrested when he attended a US military hospital in Saudi Arabia a few weeks before 9/11 to have treatment.
• Why did we go to war in Afghanistan over Bin Laden even though Tony Blair stated at the dispatch box in Parliament that “we do not have the evidence to try him in a court of law”.

The BBC coverage of 9/11 is serving the interest of a small minority to help them perpetrate the myth and feed their greed. By not asking our politicians the searching questions about 9/11 it is not serving the public interest and is therefore in contravention of clause 1.2.6.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth.

Where appropriate to the output, we should:
- gather material using first hand sources wherever possible
- check and cross check facts
- validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material
- corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.

The clause on accuracy was clearly ignored by the producer of the ‘9/11 road trip’ program. The program tried to show that a novice could pilot a Boeing 767 by allowing one of the group to fly a single engine Cessna. She carried out a few simple manoeuvres with an instructor by the side of her and while not having to worry about getting shot down. She also flew the aircraft at slow speed and not at the 40% above maximum speed which the 767s achieved on the day. The program producers could have contacted Pilots for 911 Truth and sought the viewpoint of Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret) who has over 30,000 hours as a professional pilot and actually flew two of the four aircraft allegedly used that day. Since they did not do so the producer chose to ignore the first bullet point above.

My earlier explanation of the problems regarding the thermite test demonstrates that the program facts were not checked. A basic search or a phone call to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth would have found the footage of the contained thermite tests and the clear evidence that it was very possible to use thermite in the ways which the program tried to portray as impossible. This demonstrates that the second bullet point was also ignored.

During the program ‘9/11 conspiracy, 10 years on’ footage was used which showed a demonstration of pancake collapse. Pancake collapse was the second theory regarding the collapse of the towers and was dismissed by NIST long before the program was aired. Therefore the third bullet point was ignored.

The Cessna instructor claimed that it would have been easier for the hijackers to fly the 767s than for the member of the group to fly the Cessna. This could have been easily corroborated by taking the instructor to a 767 simulator and asking him to fly the flight plans for the alleged planes on the day. Nothing like this was ever done. I state the ‘alleged’ planes because the planes which hit the towers were never forensically identified. Officially no flight data recorders or voice recorders were ever found and the evidence was removed and destroyed as quickly as possible in direct contravention of the US standards for investigations. This is yet another fact the BBC chooses to ignore. It also shows the final bullet point from clause 3.1 was ignored.

3.4.2 In all our content we must check and verify information, facts and documents, where required to achieve due accuracy. If we have been unable to verify material sufficiently, we should say so and attribute the information.

The program was clearly in breach of this clause on multiple occasions. For example; a simple search would have indicated that piling a heap of thermite on a beam and igniting it to show that thermite could not damage steel beams was at the least misleading and would more correctly be defined as propaganda.

Avoiding Misleading Audiences
3.4.11 We must not knowingly and materially mislead our audiences with our content. We may need to clarify the nature of some content by labeling (for example, verbally, in text or with visual or audio cues) to avoid being misleading.

Pretty much all the BBC 9/11 coverage falls foul of this clause. The official version of events for 9/11 is only one version. It falls down when compared to available evidence and actively avoids any areas or testimony which creates problems with the portrayed illusion of the US being attacked by some ‘nasty’ foreigners. The BBC helps this by only broadcasting programs which seek to prop up the official story and ridicule anyone who tries to question it.

Correcting Mistakes
3.4.26 We should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct such mistakes quickly, clearly and appropriately. Inaccuracy may lead to a complaint of unfairness. An effective way of correcting a mistake is saying what was wrong as well as putting it right. Where we may have broadcast a defamatory inaccuracy Programme Legal Advice should be consulted.

There has never been any attempt to correct the mistakes portrayed in the BBC 9/11 coverage. Even the more ridiculous ones have been ignored. I originally wrote to the BBC about the mistakes in the coverage but the stock reply I got was that it was the producer’s responsibility. It is very dangerous to allow producers to create programs promoting information which is incorrect and misleading and then have no method of stopping them do so.

4.2.1 We must do all we can to ensure that ‘controversial subjects’3 are treated with due impartiality in all our output.

The events of 9/11 are about as controversial a subject as is possible. The constant information war raging between the people promoting the official version of events, or no coverage at all if possible, and those wanting a proper, independent investigation has grown considerably. Since the initial report questioning the hijackers who were still alive the BBC has done its best to support the official story and ridicule anyone who questions it. If you do not believe this to be the case then where are the BBC programs examining the controversial subjects of 9/11? All the programs to date mention each area by introducing it as a conspiracy theory then produce some very dubious ‘evidence’ to try to disprove it.

When Professor Neils Harritt produced a paper containing evidence of thermite at the WTC the BBC Conspiracy Theory program chose to interview some experts who said his paper was so ridiculous it was not even worth looking at. They made no attempt to examine the evidence of iron micro spheres found throughout WTC dust, particles of thermite or the pools of molten iron found under WTC 1, 2 and 7. No explanation for the micro spheres or molten iron has ever been put forward by NIST yet the BBC only sought to try to dismiss Professor Harritt’s research. How can that possibly be impartial in the manner 4.2.1 states? Professor Harritt’s full interview with the BBC is available on Youtube and when compared with the edited BBC version it shows a clear attempt to discredit him. Not quite the impartial view point the BBC is supposed to broadcast according to the editorial guidelines.

11.2.1 Our reports of war, terror, emergencies and similar events must meet the Editorial Guidelines’ Principles on Accuracy and Impartiality.

There is no doubt that the events of 9/11 were a terror attack. Who the actual perpetrators were is another question. Clause 11.2.1 states that the same principles must be applied to a terror event as with any other broadcast. This is hard to believe given the 9/11 coverage the BBC chooses to broadcast.

11.4.21 There is a legal obligation under the Terrorism Acts to disclose to the police, as soon as reasonably practicable, any information which we know or believe might be of material assistance in:
- preventing the commission of an act of terrorism anywhere in the world
- securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person in the UK, for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.

The events of 9/11 were a classic false flag operation intended to help a small group of individuals attain more power and wealth. There may also have been some very misguided ideology behind it but the main intensions were based on greed. They have so far got away with it and the BBC has done nothing to prevent this. While organisations such as the BBC continue to help them this will stay the case. The media in other countries are starting to wake up to the lies they have previously been broadcasting. Mainstream French television recently ran a series looking at the questions arising with WTC7 and their coverage was all the things the BBC editorial guidelines claim to be. It was impartial and balanced and only presented the facts. The difference was that it presented all the facts not just those of the official story.

The US has already made a few attempts to vilify Iran. In a recent US court trial a link was proclaimed to have been found between Iran and the hijackers in so far as Iran is alleged to have provided financial help to the hijackers prior to 9/11. The 9/11 Commission actually documented evidence that the Pakistan SIS sent one hundred thousand dollars to the hijackers in a similar manner. This fact was dismissed because the Commission said it was not interested in motive. It was mentioned on a BBC report early on but has since been consigned to the ‘do not touch’ subjects.

The US needs a new 9/11 to justify military action against Iran. By continuing to broadcast programs such as the 9/11 road trip the BBC is not doing anything to stop them. Clause 11.4.21 states that if anyone at the BBC know a crime is about to take place they should try to stop it. The BBC 9/11 coverage is helping to give the perpetrators cover so allowing further crimes to be planned.

Areas of 9/11 the BBC chooses to ignore

The following is a selection of 9/11 issues the BBC chooses to avoid in its coverage.

• The official explanation for the collapse of WTC7 conflicting with the laws of physics.
• Any of the three official explanations for the initiation of collapse of WTC towers 1 and 2 conflicting with the laws of physics, available evidence, witness testimony and experiments requested by NIST.
• The missing flight data and voice recorders for flights 11 and 175.
• The impossible flight speeds and manoeuvres achieved by flights 11, 175 and 77.
• The refusal of the US government to release footage of flight 77 from any of the 85+ cameras which covered its flight path and subsequent crash.
• The fact that a Boeing 757 could not fit into the 5m diameter hole initially present in the Pentagon before the section of the building collapsed or the intact windows where the wings and tail apparently hit.
• The total failure of the US military to prevent an attack on the most heavily defended building in the world when the US was fully in the knowledge it was under attack.
• The 2.3 trillion dollars unaccounted for by the US military and reported by Donald Rumsfeld on September 10th 2001.
• The large number of co-incidences which happened on 9/11 such as the destroyed section of the pentagon containing the team of accountants investigating the missing 2.3 trillion dollars or the fact that their data backup was stored in WTC7.
• The method of speedy disposal of the evidence and the total failure to comply with standard investigation procedures.
• The fact that there has been no updating of UK building regulations as a result of the collapse of WTC7 from fire alone. If the official story is correct then this should have caused a lot of amendments.
• The US rules and procedures altered to facilitate the attacks on 9/11. Examples would be the air intercept rules changed just prior to 9/11 and reverted shortly afterwards.

Conclusion

I hope I have clearly demonstrated how the BBC coverage of 9/11 has breached a wide range of clauses in the editorial guidelines. The fact 9/11 was a false flag operation is something people do not want to contemplate. It is horrible to think that elements of the US Government and military could kill 3,000 of its own people in order to start wars and kerb people’s rights but unfortunately that is exactly what happened. The evidence is present and massive to illuminate the official story for the farce it is. The BBC is not acting as an impartial information service when covering the subject of 9/11 but rather a promoter for Bush administration propaganda.

If I were to summarise this complaint in a single paragraph it would be this:

The BBC coverage of 9/11 has been crafted to promote an explanation for the events which is impossible according to the laws of physics. Therefore the BBC is not complying with its own editorial guidelines.

There needs to be a proper, impartial investigation into the events that day and it is the responsibility of mainstream media to ask the difficult questions that have been avoided up to now.

If you have any questions then please feel free to contact me. Please also acknowledge receipt of this complaint as soon as possible.

Yours Faithfully,

Adrian Mallett B.Eng. (Hons)