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)

12/09/2011 - Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

BBC Trustees
Editorial Standards Committee
180 Great Portland Street

12th September 2011


The BBC's Coverage of the 9/11 Attacks

Truth is stating the obvious, courage is applying it

This is my 9th letter to the Trustees in 6 months. The reason I again write to you is that the management side of your organisation is failing to respond to my complaints of your coverage of the 9/11 attacks. I have asked you for the name of the person handling it but you will not tell me. I also note that having reached the 10th anniversary of those attacks the BBC has chosen, against my advice, to entrench itself further in buttressing the official version whilst at the same time sidelining compelling evidence to show the attacks were orchestrated by elements of the US administration. Your editorial standards have appalled me over the past 10 days of TV coverage. I cite in particular the Conspiracy Files programme - 9/11 - 10 years on and the 9/11 special BBC Question Time. In essence your continued coverage is biased to the point of political compliance. It has dishonoured victims of 9/11 and those of the wars resulting from 9/11.

As we are 6 months into this correspondence and as 1000s more activists begin to be cc'd into this flow of letters I want to neatly summarise again our two opposite positions. The real crux of my letter is to be found half way down.

Whilst I in law and the BBC in its news presentation function are in two different fields we nevertheless share a common practice and that is the assessment of evidence.

Irrespective of who did what on 9/11 it is manifestly obvious you have biased your presentation of the 9/11 news story to the official US version. The cogent and damning bits of the story I listed in my previous letters to the BBC have received no coverage by the BBC ever.

You as a so called Independent news broadcaster under a Royal Charter and taking money from every TV set owner in the country have shown yourselves to be very partial to the US admin story at the expense of the accounts of April Gallop, the firefighters who heard explosions in the Twin Towers who you never interviewed and pilots like Russ Wittenberg who flew two of the Boeings used in the attacks prior to the attacks, who said the alleged hijackers could not perform those manoeuvres on 9/11. Even someone like William Rodriguez you only manage to air on Radio Devon as opposed to prime time viewing considering his stunning testimony. As a lawyer who has won hundreds of cases in court and who is also very successful at appealing judge's decisions on errors of law there is no way I could say your presentation of the evidence is fair. That's not my opinion alone it would stand in any objective tribunal or to put it another way - why did you interview Jean O Connor (FBI agent) but not April Gallop (a Pentagon employee) who contradicts Miss O Connor ? Why did you interview Steve O Brien (a pilot) and not Russ Wittenberg (another experienced pilot who contradicts Mr O Brien) ? Why did you not interview Erik Lawyer, a fireman and spokeman for scores of firefighters whose evidence on 9/11 was not called before the official commission ? Why did you not interview Bob Mcilvane of the "Building What campaign" who lost a son at WTC and who calls 9/11 "an inside job". ? Instead you only interview family members of victims who want to forget about this whole debate. You see the people you primarily put up for the 9/11 truth movement in your programmes are advocates. Good as Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer and Dylan Avery are in their own way they are not as close to the scene as eye witnesses or experts and it is these people that a court of law and your viewers would want to hear from. My view of your coverage was finally confirmed in the brutal interviewing of my friend Professor Niels Harrit in his home in Denmark by your Mr Rudin. I saw the raw footage of that long interview and it was disgusting. It was like a cruel cross examination. Somebody had the sense at the BBC not to show the bad bits. Even when you set your experts against ours - ie Prof Pistorious vs Niels you do not have the back up of a scientific paper such as Niels and his colleagues have produced all that time ago. The best Prof Pistorious can say is that "the scientific community hasn't bothered to take the time to rebut Prof Harrit" ! This is said in the context of the crime and debate of the century !

Now we come to the crux of this whole issue. Say for arguments sake the US administration were behind the attacks. We instantly see where that leaves the BBC, the Guardian, Channel 4, Sky, etc and indeed our own Parliament and the UK SIS. It leaves you and them in a profoundly dangerous place with the ordinary millions of decent folk of this country who would not hurt a fly. You however have bent over backwards to avoid telling the truth about the most despicable act of treason this century. And I believe that is why it is taking the BBC all this time to deal with my complaint - because you know where it is going if you engage with it in your editorial standards committee. You are going to have to face Mrs Schmid and all other familiy members who have lost loved ones in the armed forces and say 9/11 as we portrayed it to you for 10 years was a lie. (9/11 was the excuse for those wars) That will destroy trust in the BBC just as it will destroy trust in Parliament and the UK SIS. Your saving will be that you all bandied together in the playground to protect the bully by your complicity. Frankly that is a cowardly position but you are in that situation whether you confess it or not. That means because of the sheer size of the numbers in the playground you have some security.

What we need instead is a complete clean start. Or to put it in another way; we all probably have something in our murky pasts we dont wish broadcast. Or some threat has been made to us so that we are kept silent. Lets grow up and call a spade a spade and lets have a new generation of decency, respect and integrity in high places. For the record I have a file of correspondence from Labour MPs over the years who were or are in the best tradition of the old left wing and for the people. Yet to a man and a woman they have refuted the claims of the 9/11 Truth movement. They cannot or do not want to see it. That is how adrift we are as a country. Our best do not want to deal with it. There are only two names of MPs at the foot of this letter who have had the decency to support me by asking you to respond to my letters. All MPs should be seeking the truth on this seminal event. No one at the top can see this or is prepared to say anything about it !

Did you know hundreds of delegates of the 9/11 Truth movement have organised themselves this anniversary to produce a report grading the evidence against the official version. It is called the Toronto Hearings. 72,000 people watched those proceedings over the anniversary on UStream. We are not likely to fizzle out considering the numbers of experts and professionals involved. Neither will it fizzle out with intimidation. You may or may not be aware our movement has been hit with a number of mysterious deaths. Thousands of activists wont stop at exposing the lie and we refuse "to live in a lie" (Vaclav Havel). Whatever you do with this train of correspondence the truth will not go away. I urge you again to sit down and work out plan B - an operation to turn this huge oil tanker around in the seas before it finally hits the rocks. You can see the mood on the streets of Athens, Madrid and even London. Things dont need to get much worse before there is a huge outpouring of anger. You cannot predict when it will happen or how but it will happen. Manage the problem now and you may have options. Reject this offer and you may find at some point in the future you have no choices left. Do you want to review your 9/11 coverage in your editorial standards committee ?

Yours Sincerely,

Paul Warburton

cc the other 5 Trustee members on the Editorial Standards committee, The 9/11 Truth movement, Mr Michael Meacher MP and Miss Stella Creasy MP. Lord Patten BBC Trust Chair

« Previous item

^ Return to index ^

Next item »