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 Paul Warburton

Index of complaint correspondence




Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to BBC Complaints


Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to the BBC Trustees


Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to the BBC Trust


Letter to the BBC Trust


Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Letter to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit


Letter to the BBC Trust


Letter to the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Warburton (PDF)


Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Annex 2 (PDF)

13/04/2011 - Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

BBC Trustees
Editorial Standards Committee
180 Great Portland Street

13th April 2011


I have sent the attached paper to a number of TV news presenters, politicians and senior ranking churchmen. I have also sent a copy to Mr Mark Thompson and asked him to read it and urged him, in view of the profound nature of the subject, to ask his top researcher to spend half a day looking at the evidence listed. To us in the 911 Truth movement mainstream media has not been a good friend to us over the years and more importantly to the truth.

I write to you as trustees on the Editorial Standards Committee and respectfully ask that you conduct an investigation into why the Editors within the BBC are not widely airing this alternative view to 9/11 as opposed to the official version which is strewn with errors and lies. As a lawyer I can assure you that I and thousands of others within the movement who have assessed the evidence believe at least the US Govt is hiding something and at worst perpetrated the events of 9/11 themselves.

One of the reactions I get to my views is " Why havent I heard this (alternative view) on the BBC ?" It is for this reason that I request you conduct the investigation as I sincerely believe the official line the BBC has put out over the past 10 years is profoundly wrong and a disgrace to true investigative journalism and news reporting.

I remind you of Richard Dimbeley's heart wrenching speech as he entered Belsen prison camp. He would be horrified to know that we now in the west are perpetrating new horrors and twisting events to fit the dialogue.

There is only one issue here - how long can the truth be suppressed ? I invite you, in spite of all the political fallout that will ensue, to place the BBC at the forefront of courageous reporting. To fail in this endeavour will hugely undermine trust in you when the news does finally break.

If you only view one website on my paper please read what the survivors and family members have to say on their site (highlighted). Thank you.

Yours Sincerely,

Paul Warburton

cc the other 5 Trustee Editorial Standards Committee members the 911 Truth movement

A Conspiracy Of Silence ?

or a tacit agreement not to speak out 10 Years after 9/11


This paper is addressed and sent to presenters in the media news world, politicians and church leaders. Of all sections of a country's workforce you ultimately form the opinions of others to a much greater extent than shopworkers, teachers, taxi drivers, hairdressers, housewives, etc simply because you are part of large organisations with access to vast communication channels. You either do that with an opinion or belief based upon evidence or you do that by communicating a piece of news presenting it as fact. I have spent much time over many years listening to you and I have noticed a common silence over one very important event, which is why I write to you all.

Despite the raging debate over the Internet in the past 10 years about the events of 9/11 and the huge output of work from dedicated people seeking the truth little has been openly discussed in the mainstream communication channels over such a major historic event. This paper looks at why the major organs of UK society; media, politicians and church have been silent on this issue when there is without doubt a plethora of material out there to suggest a proper independent investigation of 9/11 is warranted at least and at most that there has been a mammoth cover up.

This is not intended as an academic work first and foremost but a moral challenge to each person in a position of societal leadership to consider in their own role why in the context of the story of the Good Samaritan they have walked by on the other side of the road and turned a blind eye to the most calculated and brazen act of terrorism in modern history. Maybe you have not deliberately intended to do that, but the consequence to the victims has been the same.

By way of a brief introduction to the outstanding doubts of the day the following questions indicate why 9/11 is still an unresolved issue in many minds including the survivors. According to the official version of the day 4 hijacked jets destroyed the Twin Towers, a section of the Pentagon and one failed to reach its target and was brought down over a field in Shanksville. These are some of the problems with those propositions.

  1. The hijackers names did not appear on the flight lists.
  2. The hijackers could only just fly light aircraft - how could they fly airliners with such skill and accuracy ?
  3. Why did firemen in the Towers report hearing explosions prior to the collapses ? Why do some people report hearing explosions before the plane strike ?
  4. Why did the buildings collapse at near freefall speed and why was no internal resistance offered by the lower stronger floors ?
  5. Why has evidence of high explosives residue been discovered in the dust of Ground Zero ?
  6. Why in the case of the Twin Towers was there little wreckage after the collapses ?
  7. In the case of the Pentagon strike why is there no clear image from the many CCTV surrounding the building of a plane striking the wall ?
  8. In the cases of the Pentagon and Shanksville why is there no discernable wreckage remains at the crash sites ?
  9. In the case of WTC 7 which was not struck by a jet why did it fall at all and why so quickly and with the appearance of a controlled demolition ?
  10. Crucially why did the 9/11 Commission, long held off by the US Govt., avoid addressing all the above questions ?

There are many other questions but these are some of the main ones.

The following websites give much more information on these issues. I invite you to spend some quality time in this lead up to the 10th Anniversary looking at those professional sites. These people either speak from first hand experience or from scientific evidence. As I say this is not meant as an academic work but more as a moral challenge to our leaders in western society to ask questions over the most pivotal event of our century. If there is only one site you look at please look at the one in bold.

9/11 Survivors and Family Members -
William Rodriguez -
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth -
Pilots for 911 Truth -
Firefighters for truth -

To The Media

One would think that a primary role of media, apart from its entertainment wing, is to inform, to challenge, to alert and to freely debate and question major issues of our time. When a newsreader is given an auto-cue to read out and that person is also well known to the viewing public as a celebrity in other areas such as being a gameshow host or a presenter for a charity event there are huge levels of trust there. We would hope the news they read is correct and contains no lies or bias. We trust from the friendly and usually handsome/pretty face of the presenter that there would be no way in which that person would be used to deceive us the public. But is that trust well founded ? It would seem horrible to assume we have all been taken in or deceived in some way. Lets however just hold that trust issue to one side. Why would somebody like a Director of the CIA (William Colby) say ; " The Central Intelligence Agency owns everybody of any significance in the major media. " Do the general public know who the media owners are ? Do they know if they have any political agendas ? Do the public know how editorial control is exercised ? Do the individual news presenters check out the information they are handed to read out ?

All I am asking in this brief section is for all the media workers in TV who genuinely believe they work for a genuine news organisation committed to informing the public about the truth to look at the above questions and websites and to ask for themselves does that tie up with the news you have been continuallly presenting to us for 10 years. Have we been attacked without provocation by Arab Terrorists ? Is that continuing justification for a war on innocent countries ever since ? Or to put it another way: Why do the people listed in the introduction find it nearly impossible to get main media attention and have instead had to resort to touring the world giving lectures to hundreds of people at a time in small lecture theatres. In the case of the UK some people are aired in the graveyard shift of a radio show. From US experiences whenever anyone has appeared on a show to question the events of 9/11 they have usually been riduculed by the anchorman. Youtube holds some examples of this behaviour. Shouldn't issues of such magnitude be prime time viewing and conducted with grace. You may like to think about issues of editorial control.

If you look at the above sites carefully I thank you in advance for doing so. If you can reconcile the above questions with the official version then all well and good. But if you feel uncomfortable about what you have seen written and presented in these sites then I invite you to make your own informed decisions about the kind of world we are living in and the way you have, until now, been presenting the news to us the ordinary public. To continue to present news about the War on Terror in the way to which we have become accustomed, which if based on a profound lie, merely buttresses that lie.

If I were to address this paper to an editor who would be a final arbiter of what goes on the news or what goes into a documentary it could be consigned to the waste bin in the fairly sure knowledge that anonymity of the editor in his or her public role protects him or her. Instead by contacting a known face of an organisation makes it more difficult for that front man to dispose of this uncomfortable piece of reading. It has been this writer's experience that the written press do not want to run/investigate stories/articles/letters along the lines I am now writing. It is much easier writing to somebody who you know what they look like. Finally when you see the huge disparity between the official version of 9/11 set against the wealth of various qualified people listed in the websites above I know some of you will not be able to continue to present the news in the way you do without asking your editors why this submerged news is not getting out there. It comes down to the question of what kind of society do we think we are building.

To The Politicians

Media presenters of the news and current affairs, are paid to do their jobs and you would think they would carry a degree of responsibility considering the amount of influence they exert. But a group who have a far higher calling are politicians who are elected by the masses in good faith to represent them and one would hope, decency in all their country's dealings. How have they fared on the 9/11 issue ? From correspondence received so far they have nearly all avoided the contradictions listed in the introduction. Whether through fear, ignorance or evil intent they have accepted the official line. Very few have stepped out to question that version which is leaking with holes.

One would think under no circumstance would you want a politician to be in office who is cowardly, ignorant or evil. Yet to this day those in the public arena cannot answer those difficult questions above which will not go away about 9/11. To support or vote to go to war or continue support for that war on arguably a false premise not only calls into account the politician's intelligence and integrity in understanding how the world works, but brings untold suffering to the victims. To continue to ignore truth is the height of ignorance and betrays a protection of face saving.

I invite politicians to look again at the issues raised in the introduction and to answer those questions for themselves, once you have looked at those websites. No one asked you to be a representative of the people. No one expects perfection of you. But once in office we do expect integrity in the face of compelling evidence and testimony already placed before you.

In this 10th Anniversary year I would ask you to review your assumptions about 9/11 and all you have been told. An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.

To The Church

Of all people in Society the greatest responsiblity falls on church leaders. They say after all they know the truth and claim to speak on God's behalf. Whatever their particular beliefs a unifying view of the church from inside and outside is that it would stand up for the poor and oppressed. It is clear from its book the Bible that a role of the church is to stand up against injustice. Historically it has either done that or not done that based on will, desire and choice. One of the most quoted books of the Bible, Isaiah, is riven with statements from God about speaking out for the oppressed and speaking for justice. 9/11 and its awkward implications has generally not been spoken of from the pulpit. Most churches conveniently use the excuse of "we don't do politics" as a veil for not facing potential evil and injustice on its own doorstep. It's one thing saying a big sorry for slavery 200 years after the event but where are you on the great social ill of the day - a war based on arguably a false premise ? Again I invite all church leaders to read and study the above introduction and its websites from your computer. Of course the moral high ground can be shared by all other faiths and individuals who claim to speak up for the oppressed and for justice.

For this group you are on the thinnest ice if you have been wrong throughout this decade. You have failed to discern a spirit of the age. To claim to adopt a moral high ground and be wrong or silent on it must be an uncomfortable place to be. To be church leaders you will have positions of trust and privilege. People look to you for a lead. Please remember the high calling you each have and review the above material.


Not so long ago, just before some of you were born, the world witnessed an horrific conflagration that engulfed many innocent cilivians; The Second World War. 50 million people lost their lives in that conflict. Many survivors, especilaly those from the Holocaust, speak a unifying message - " it must not happen again. " Any sane, rational, normal human being who has read Primo Levi's book "If This is a Man" cannot be failed to be moved by his moral injunction to protect your era from such horrors happening again. To our children and Grandchildren what kind of world do we want to hand on to them ? What kind of checking and vetting do we do of world events to say this is right or this is wrong. How much are we setting up our future generations for an even bigger fall than the one we have witnessed over the past 10 years ? To just be an individual citizen you may not have much power. To be a TV news presenter/personality, a politician, a church leader you exert phenomenal influence which I dont think you fully appreciate. Are you using it well ?

Paul Warburton

^ Return to index ^

Next item »