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

23/04/2012 - Letter to Lucy Tristam of the BBC Trust Unit

Dear Ms Tristam

I recently received the findings of two complaints I had submitted to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit. These are documents referenced CT/1200091 and CT/1200092 and supplied to you by email. Having read through the findings from Mr Colin Tregear (CT) it is abundantly clear that his investigations were badly flawed. I have covered some of the main problems with his findings below but first may I briefly state why I made the complaints in the first place.

UK service personnel killed and Injured as the results of a lie

The BBC coverage of the events of 11th September 2001 and subsequent official investigations has been clearly biased towards propping up the flawed versions of events broadcast and promoted by the Bush administration.

Evidence and statements from Doctor Shyam Sunder, the Lead Investigator for the National Institute for Science and Technology, proves the official explanation for 9/11 is scientifically impossible. This is an event in history where there is a whole range of smoking guns together with hundreds of absurd coincidences. The evidence is present to scientifically prove that World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were brought down within hours of each other using controlled demolition which in turn proves, at the very least, prior knowledge by elements of the US government.

The events of 9/11 provided the circumstances required by the Bush and Blair governments as the basis for two wars costing the lives of hundreds of British Armed Forces Personnel and injury to thousands more and all to make a small group of very rich people even richer.

The BBC has a solid reputation for honesty and integrity nurtured over decades of broadcasting excellent programming to the general public. However, the BBCs coverage of 9/11 has nearly all been productions which have sought to prop up the official story and ridicule those people, like myself, calling for a real investigation. I personally spend time working for the Truth Movement to try to stop any more of our service personnel dying as the result of a lie.

The format of the BBC complaints process only allows the general public to report concerns about material contained in programs which have already been broadcast. This makes it very difficult to address the main deficiencies with the BBC coverage because those areas in which scientific evidence conclusively proves the official story to be impossible are carefully avoided by BBC program makers. For this reason I have had to limit myself to complaints about the many issues with the material which the BBC has actually broadcast.

CT/1200092 - 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip, BBC3, 8 September 2011

1. The programme made it clear from the start that its approach was not open minded and those who doubt the official version of events are delusional.

It seems to me that the premise of this programme was clearly established at the start and the audience would have been in little doubt that Mr Maxwell’s aim was to challenge the views of the five and persuade them round to his way of thinking. As he put it “Will I end up changing their minds?” In my view, it was reasonable for Mr Maxwell to express his views on the various conspiracy theories, and his views of those who hold such theories, just as it was reasonable for the programme to include the contrasting views of the five people on the road trip. Viewers would have understood that the premise of the programme was to see whether Mr Marshall was able to change the minds of the five and would have judged the content accordingly. The programme was not an attempt to analyse each and every theory about 9/11, nor was it a typical investigative-style documentary weighing the evidence for and against various theories.

CT states that the program was not an attempt to create an investigative-style documentary. Well if the program was not a documentary then what was it? The format described by CT above seems to me to be more in keeping with an appallingly bad taste game show. If that was the case then it should have been clearly indicated at the start of the program that the BBC did not endorse any of the views expressed by anyone in the program. The producers should also have let Andrew Maxwell (AM) argue his own case instead of providing a variety of ‘experts’ to give ‘evidence’ for his views.

Since there was no initial notice and the BBC clearly did everything it could to try to help AM prop up his arguments then the BBC should have been fully bound by the BBC editorial guidelines. According to the guidelines the two primary objectives for the BBC should be impartiality and accuracy. In his reports CT has done his best to obfuscate any issues concerning impartiality and he hardly addressed the issues of accuracy at all.

2. The programme deliberately chose five young people who did not have the knowledge or experience to be able to counter technical opinion put forward by the programme’s experts.

The nature of this programme was clearly set out; the five people featured in this programme were “ordinary” individuals who find aspects of the official version hard to accept, and Mr Maxwell was trying to convince them they were wrong. Viewers would have judged the content of the programme accordingly.

Again the comments from CT would be suitable if the program was a game show format but I am sure that most viewers would come to the same conclusion as myself that the program format was that of a documentary and therefore any content should have been checked thoroughly to ensure as high a standard of factual accuracy and balance as possible.

I must admit I found the final comment about viewers judging the content quite unbelievable. I can only conclude that CT is unaware of the shear lack of accurate 9/11 information available to the public from the mainstream media. How can viewers make balanced decisions if they are never made aware of the real facts?

3. The demonstration to show that a person with no flying experience can pilot a 4 engine Boeing 767-200 Airliner was flawed; it did not reflect the view of qualified airline pilots who have proved using a simulator that even an experienced pilot could not have flown a passenger plane into the Twin Towers or Pentagon in the manner described in the official story. It also did not mention the fact that according to accurate radar tracking information the flights which hit the towers 1 and 2 were travelling speeds well in excess of their capabilities.

CT had a really hard task here to defend the program. He had to try and argue that by the program showing someone having, what is effectively, a trial lesson in a single engine Cessna with an instructor by the side of them that was reasonable proof that the hijackers could have flown the four engine Boeing 767-200s into targets equivalent to the skill required for landing on a aircraft carrier. This is clearly ridiculous and my reasons for this are stated in my original complaint.

CT actually used a comment from the Cessna flight instructor Robert Hadlow to form a basis for his argument.

Robert Hadlow: All they had to do is fly straight and level towards a, a target.

In fact this comment demonstrates my own complaint extremely well. If the aircraft had flown slowly, in straight lines towards their targets it would have made the official story more believable but they did not. The aircraft were flown in complicated paths at impossible speeds (for standard commercial jets) and numerous professional pilots have stated on record that they do not believe it was possible for most fully qualified and experienced pilots.

In this point CT again states that viewers could draw their own conclusions. This would be a fair comment if the program had started with the notice about the BBC not endorsing the programs content but since it did not then there is a responsibility for the BBC to ensure all arguments presented had a basis in fact. The program makers could have simply asked an actual, qualified airline pilot if they thought someone with a few lessons in a Cessna could fly an aircraft they spend hundreds of hours qualifying on. Of course the answer would have destroyed the implied legitimacy the program makers were relying on to promote their propaganda.

4. The explanation of how the Twin Towers collapsed did not include a contribution from an engineer from the truth movement to offer an alternative theory.

Most of CT’s arguments when responding to points in both reports are along the lines of the ones expressed here. So long as an expert can be found to present some form of contrary testimony it does not matter if that testimony is factually inaccurate. I understand the BBCs problem when making documentary programs. While they have experts on all aspects of program making they often lack experts in subject areas within specific programs. With a lot of program content this is not a problem. The BBC does not need an expert to state that the Earth is round so no second expert is required to present an alternative ‘flat earth’ argument.

However, when the BBC is trying to argue a case which as sensitive and complicated as the building collapses on 9/11 by using a single ‘expert’ then according to its own guidelines on accuracy it should provide at least an additional expert to give balance to the views expressed. The expert in this program stated to the group that once the top of the tower had started to topple it would inevitably continue on its path all the way down to the ground. I have an honours degree in Civil Engineering. I can tell you that the statements made by the expert were wrong on very basic levels. The main function of the structure of a building is to counteract the force of gravity. This is achieved by making the structural supports at least several times stronger than they need to be. The centre of the building is the path of most resistance but according to the BBC expert the top section fell directly through it at nearly free fall speed and in defiance of several laws of physics including the law of conservation of momentum.

The public relies on the BBC to select suitable experts to supply accurate program content. Experts who promote impossible scenarios should be balanced with other experts who are qualified to question them. It is not acceptable to assume the viewer has sufficient knowledge to be able to be able to see the flaws in what the BBC presents as ‘expert’ testimony. In this aspect, as with most of this program, the BBC is guilty not just of gross incompetence but also of wilfully misleading the public to facilitate a political objective.

5. The programme did not explain that World Trade Centre Tower 7 (WTC7) collapsed in free fall and that this could only have occurred if the tower was brought down in a controlled demolition using explosives.

None of the five people on the road trip raised concerns about the collapse of WTC7 and so I cannot conclude that there was a requirement to consider this point.


There are dozens of ‘smoking guns’ for 9/11 such as at least six of the hijackers still being alive or the aircraft flying at impossible speeds or a paper passport surviving the explosion of AA Flight 11 which destroyed the aircrafts black boxes. But by far the greatest smoking gun of them all is the free fall collapse of WTC 7. The NIST report has the building documented as collapsing in free fall (gravitational acceleration) for at least 2.25 seconds. Free fall is impossible for a gravitational collapse and even Dr Shyam Sunder stated that fact at a televised NIST technical briefing in August 2008.

The BBC has steered well clear of the 9/11 smoking guns and has never addressed the free fall collapse of WTC 7 despite devoting an entire program to WTC 7 in the conspiracy files series. It seems that the BBC has never looked at this aspect because it is impossible to obfuscate. Very simple facts can be used to prove the official story for 9/11 is wrong. This is not rocket science...

  • WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds in free fall.
  • For any object to fall in free fall all the potential energy available MUST be converted to kinetic energy. No energy is available to perform any additional work.
  • Therefore there must be an additional source of rapidly applicable, controllable energy available to destroy thousands of welded and bolted connections, buckle and deform steel members and pulverise concrete to very fine dust.
  • The only possible type of additional energy source capable of providing sufficient energy in the rapid, controlled method required is explosives.
  • It takes months to prepare the explosives needed to destroy a 47 storey steel frames sky scraper.
  • Given the kinds of tenants in WTC 7 it is very unlikely al-qaeda could have had anything like the required access to plant explosives so at the very least the official story cannot be correct and at worst elements of the US government were involved.

The same basic laws of physics are the reason why a stone chucked in a pool falls slower than it does in air. WTC 7 is scientific proof that the official story for 9/11 cannot be true and the UK has invaded Afghanistan on the basis of a lie. A BBC documentary carried an interview with ‘Curve ball’, the infamous Iraqi whose sole information formed the basis for the Iraq war, in which he freely admitted that he had lied. Do we not have an obligation to our service personnel not to send them into harms way without very good cause?

The road trip program said the group were interested in all aspects of the events of 9/11. It is ridiculous for the issue of WTC 7 to be ignored unless it was wilfully ignored by the producers for the reasons stated above. CT side stepped the issue of WTC 7 by stating that it had not been mentioned. For a factually accurate 9/11 program to ignore WTC 7 just proves how biased the program was. For CT not to address this item reveals his investigation objectives far more clearly than anything else. CT was either freely helping, or was instructed to help, elements at the BBC whose objective is to prop up the official story in clear breach of the BBC editorial guidelines and at the cost of UK service personnel’s lives.

6. The demonstration to show that thermite could not have been used to demolish the towers was flawed and misleading. It did not draw on evidence freely available from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth that proves thermite can do all the things the program stated it could not do when used in simple containment vessels to efficiently direct its energy.

CT used a red herring in his argument to this point. He cited the brief conversation between Charlotte and Tony Szamboti as evidence of balance in the question of the thermite experiment. Szamboti talked about thermite but not address the specific experiment the BBC tried to employ as evidence that thermite could not have been used to cut steel. Had Szamboti been asked to observe and comment on the experiment he could have quickly and easily showed the BBCs ‘expert’ how to use the thermite to do exactly what the BBC was trying to show could not be done.

A member of Architect and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had already made a film showing experiments which directly contradicted a similar attempt by National Geographic to obfuscate the truth. It would have been very easy to re-create his experiment and add some much needed realism to the BBCs effort. The fact this was not done shows at least incompetence by the program producers in presenting information which was already out of date. If they were not incompetent then it shows a clear objective of presenting a false argument to the viewers.

CT watched the video I referenced and made the following comment.

It may well be that thermite packed in small steel containers could have a more damaging effect on beams and girders. I have watched the video you have cited2 and it does appear to show that, contained in a specific way, thermite could burn through, or seriously weaken, steel girders (although I am not in a position to assess or verify the manner in which the tests in the video were carried out). However, I cannot conclude that the evidence of one “DIY” experiment should be given significantly more weight than another.

I would like to point out here that thermite used in small steel containers has been used for years to weld sections of railway lines together so the point in CT’s first sentence was proven long ago. CT then states that he is not in a position to assess or verify the manner of the tests. Only the BBCs test was included in the program so the viewer only had one side of the argument anyway. Also, if CT, having seen the evidence both for and against the use of thermite, does not feel able to assess the information then why does he keep falling back on the viewers ability to make up their own mind up when they are only shown the BBCs fictional ‘evidence’.

The final comment about not being able to conclude that the evidence of one ‘DIY’ experiment should be given more weight than the other is redundant. The program makers already decided to give their DIY experiment more significance than the one conducted by a qualified engineer by simply including it in the program. They had already indicated what they wanted the public to think by that choice. If CT cannot see that is a clear breach of BBC impartiality then why is he still in his job?

A picture of the DIY experiment conducted by the BBC to prove thermite cannot cut a steel beam

Scene from the BBC Road Trip experiment ‘proving’ thermite cannot possibly cut steel beams. This is the results of simply lighting a pile of thermite and not directing the energy at all.

A picture of the a steel beam cut using a small amount of thermite

Scene from the AE911Truth film showing the effects of enclosing a small amount of thermite in a slotted steel tube to enable its energy to be directed to easily cut through steel beams and columns.

7. The program made no mention of molten iron found under WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 for weeks afterwards and offered no explanation for it. Office fires and jet fuel cannot reach the temperatures in ideal circumstances to melt steel. There had to be a high energy substance such as thermite present in large quantities to achieve this.

The molten iron is yet another smoking gun as it is impossible for office or jet fuel fires to reach the temperatures required to melt steel. That fact cannot be easily obfuscated in the program so again it is ignored. It is also proof of my argument earlier that the program makers selected the group in order to create a predefined outcome. Either the group were lacking the sufficient knowledge to know about the molten metal (widely known about and documented in the Truth Movement) or the program makers chose to ignore it. Either way it shows clear bias towards a set objective which breaches the BBC guidelines on impartiality and accuracy.

In his summing up CT states that although he cannot uphold my complaint he hoped he had gone some way to allaying my concerns. He actually had the opposite effect. His report is so clearly biased in favour or the program makers that I almost wonder if there is a BBC directive somewhere that all employees shall support the government story or lose their jobs?

CT never even touches on the parts of the guidelines dealing with accuracy that I had cited in my complaint. I understand that he had to do that. In what kind of world would a single Cessna taster lesson qualify as proof that an untrained pilot could fly a 767 better than most experts? A program made up of ridiculous arguments, experiments long since proved false and all the really difficult areas avoided. To have stated such a program was factually accurate would have given his report the same level of legitimacy as an episode of Dad’s Army.

CT/1200091 - The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On, BBC2, 29 August 2011

Many of the points CT raised about this program are explained away using similar arguments to those used for the road trip. It does not seem to matter if something is factually correct so long as the producers have someone who will either state it or state the fact is not worth even looking at. As such while I disagree with nearly all of CT’s report on the conspiracy files I will only pick out a few items to avoid repeating my arguments from earlier.

1. The explanation and analysis of the collapse of World Trade Centre Tower 7 (WTC7) failed to report that it collapsed in free fall and that this could only have occurred if the tower was brought down in a controlled demolition using explosives.

As has been explained above the free fall of WTC 7, which is scientifically impossible without the use of explosives, is the biggest smoking gun of them all. Professor Harrit took the wise precaution of insisting that he film his interview with the BBC and I have seen the full interview. Professor Harrit repeatedly states the problems with the free fall of WTC 7 but the program makers chose to exclude any mention of it. In fact Michael Rudin of the BBC conducts an extremely aggressive interview of Harrit. I have no problem with this kind of interview so long as both sides of an argument are exposed to similar tactics. However Shyam Sunder has never been re-interviewed by the BBC to explain why the free fall he stated is impossible appears in the final NIST report.

CT even seems to acknowledge the importance of the free fall point to some degree in his report. Maybe CT does not have the scientific understanding required to fully grasp the importance of the free fall argument but he does try to use it to judge the impartiality of the program. I have explained why the free fall is so important and the program choosing to ignore it is clear evidence of impartiality. The fact it has never been addressed by the BBC in any of its 9/11 coverage is also a very clear evidence of the BBC bias towards propping up the official explanation by avoiding difficult areas.

CT actually tries to argue that NIST had considered the possibility of explosives being used for WTC 7. In fact NIST never looked for evidence of explosives because it stated that it had no evidence of explosions. If you do not look for evidence then of course you will never find it. NISTs actions were in breach of the standard US codes for investigations. Also, a film has recently been released by NIST following a freedom of information act (FOIA) request which shows emergency workers using a payphone near the base of WTC 7 prior to its collapse when a large explosion is heard very close by. None of these ‘difficult to explain’ items of information ever make it into BBC programs.

4. The programme said the official version of events was “unequivocal” but the explanation has changed, with each version contradicting the previous one.

I am unaware that any aspect of the official version of events, as described by this section of the programme, has changed in any material way and so I cannot conclude that it was inaccurate or misleading to suggest that the official version of what happened was “unequivocal”, regardless of whether other aspects of official explanation may have been changed or amended.

CT states that he is unaware of any aspect of the official story which has changed. I have covered such areas in my previous complaints but let me repeat one here as an example.

The original explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was due to steel weakening in the heat from the fires. That was the conclusion of a very brief investigation carried out by the American Institute of Civil Engineers. That explanation would mean that the original building designers were at fault and Larry Silverstein would have had to sue them for damages rather than claiming off the extensive insurance he had spent a lot of time and effort setting up.

FEMA then carried out the next investigation and their conclusions formed the basis of the pancake collapse theory. This second theory was accepted as fact for several years and formed the basis of Silverstein’s insurance claim and payout. The pancake collapse relied on the ‘proven’ fact that the connections between the floor beams and the columns were too weak to hold the floors when they sagged in the heat and so had failed. The History Channel produced a documentary explaining the pancake collapse theory in detail.

The pancake collapse theory was eventually rejected by NIST on the basis that it would have left a pile of largely intact stacked floors and most of both central cores still standing. The explanation NIST came up with relied on the same floor beam to column connections having a strength far exceeding their design specifications and in direct contradiction to the requirements of the pancake collapse theory. In the third theory’s case the floor beams sagging 42 inches pulled the columns in causing an initiation of collapse. In tests conducted by Underwriters Laboratory with twice the loading, using higher temperatures than the ideal maximum and with no fireproofing at all the most the beams could be made to sag was 3 inches. NIST handled this by inconvenient fact by ignoring it.

So the explanation for the initiation of collapse of the towers has changed three times so far. It is a similar story for the explanation as to why the aircraft were not intercepted that day. In that case people testified under oath for one version of events then testified again under oath for an opposite version of events.

5. The programme did not report that the procedure for the interception of hijacked aircraft changed just before 9/11 and was changed back again shortly afterwards.

I pick this point out because it is typical of a general answer used by CT. The program makers only have a set amount of time so cannot include everything. I understand this and also understand that different Truth Movement members will have different areas of 9/11 which they consider the most important. However, if the BBC were to conduct an honest survey of the 9/11 Truth Movement they would find approximately ten smoking gun areas consistently at the top of the list. The BBC never addresses these areas but rather cherry picks easier areas to question and blur.

One such area is mentioned here. One of the most ridiculous parts of the BBCs 9/11 coverage is the way in which it follows the latest version of the official story and portrays it as absolute fact until the next version is released which then again becomes absolute fact even though it often directly contradicts the previous version.

The Conspiracy Files program tries to put forward the theory that the main reason the 9/11 hijackers were so successful was because of the confusion on the day. When the full story is considered it becomes clear that a lot of the confusion was manufactured and the response ability of the US military was deliberately handicapped. None of this information was included in the BBC program. If CT is unable to judge which areas of 9/11 are important and which are used as smoke screens by BBC program makers then he should not be conducting these investigations.

15. The conclusion of the programme was intentionally designed to make members of the truth movement look like “heartless individuals”.

CT completely fails to grasp one very important point on this one. The program tried to imply that the Truth Movement was causing pain to members of the victim’s families by not accepting the official explanation as the complete truth.

While that may unfortunately be true it was family members who asked questions initially and helped form the truth movement. It is still the family members who are some of the most prominent advocates for the truth. I do not do this in order to hurt people. I do this to try to help bring an end to the suffering of all those directly affected by the wars started as a result of 9/11.

In Conclusion

I have only picked out a few of the points from CT’s investigation into the Conspiracy Files program as a lot of the arguments have been made previously. I would like to state that I disagree with every one of CTs points in both reports.

I would like to take my complaint forward to the BBC Trust. I would also like to link my complaint to that of Mr Paul Warburton and Mr Peter Drew. This is mainly because our complaints are of a similar nature and linking them should save some time for the Trust and therefore speed up the process.

If you have any questions then please let me know.

Yours Faithfully,

Adrian Mallett

« Previous item

^ Return to index ^

Next item »