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)

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

Editorial Complaints Unit
White City
201 Wood Lane
W12 7TS

16th February 2012

Dear Mr Tregear,

Thank you for your letter of 10th February 2012. You ask if I have any comments on your brief summary of my complaints before you set about resolving them against the BBC's standards of impartiality. I would like to expand slightly on your summary, by again making reference to my previous letters and by adding to a couple of your summary points. You have missed a couple of crucial points of complaint I had made. I raise these points again below in point 4.

You have eight numbered points and I shall refer to them by number.

1. Jean O'Connor and the "no plane" viewpoint

I would like to refine your summary by adding to your summary the names of the "no plane" viewpoint. April Gallop worked in the Pentagon and said she stepped out of the hole without seeing any substantial remains of aircraft wreckage. Bob Pugh, a long time news photographer, turned up 5 minutes after the strike and also said he saw no remains of an aircraft. Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski who worked at the Pentagon said there was a visible dearth of aircraft wreckage minutes after the strike. Lt Robert Medairos of the Arlington County Police, on arrival at the scene, said he "couldn't believe a plane had struck it." So why didn't the BBC put, view or reference by name the alternative balancing viewpoints if it is being impartial? Neither did the BBC show the initial photos after the strike on the Pentagon wall which clearly show windows still in place around the small impact hole. On that photo, where you expect to see two Rolls Royce engines embedded in the wall, there is nothing. Neither did the BBC show the startling comment which was quickly corrected by Timothy Roemer, a 9/11 Commissioner, when he said a "missile .. plane prised open the Pentagon." These are very critical points the BBC failed to show.

2. Pilot who saw a plane and pilots who say the manoeuvre would have been impossible

I agree with your summary and add that Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a large organisation of professionals who are trusted and respected. After all, they fly us around the world. With their expert opinions and non mention by the BBC a serious lapse was committed on the BBC's part on the issue of how a poor Cessna pilot Hani Hanjour could perform an "impossible" jet manoeuvre to hit the Pentagon.

3. Fairness of Prof Harrit's interview conducted by the BBC

I watched the entire raw footage of that interview supplied to me directly by Prof Harrit. Whilst the BBC only transmitted a fraction of it I would again urge you to watch all of it to see the aggressive nature of some of Mr Rudin's questions and many interruptions. Prof Harrit felt suitably aggrieved to post it on Youtube where it has now tallied over 8,000 views for the 2 hr plus interview. If on the other hand you are going to robustly question 9/11 experts and witnesses did the BBC treat Jean O'Connor the same way? How long was Jean O'Connor interviewed for bearing in mind the controversy surrounding point 1. above?

4. Supporting evidence for Prof Harrit's views. No written proof rebutting his views

I agree with your summary and add that 118 First Responders on 9/11 stated they heard and saw explosions prior to the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. The vast majority were not called to give evidence at the Official Commission. The ones called say their evidence was ignored. This testimony adds great weight to what Prof Harrit (and indeed Richard Gage, the architect, from a previous BBC programme of Conspiracy Files) was saying, but the BBC chose not to link it therefore giving more credence to the allegation of the BBC's bias to the Official Account. William Rodriguez the world famous and decorated hero from 9/11 says he heard a massive explosion before the plane strike. Why didn't you interview him? If you put Prof Harrit, Richard Gage, Barry Jennings and William Rodriguez all in the same " 9/11-10 years on" programme you would have had something that looked completely opposite to what you broadcast. You fail to mention in your summary my previous complaint of 10th October I made about the BBC not having an explosives expert that contradicted the Official version. You showed one who backed it but you didn't show one, like the late Danny Jowenko, who stated WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. I would like you to deal with that particular complaint please. You have also failed to pick up my complaint of the non mention of the seismic proof issue from my letter of 13th December.

5. No discrediting shown from Official 9/11 Commission staff

Considering the heavyweight nature of that 9/11 Commission's standing, any subsequent dissenting views expressed by its members was surely worthy of inclusion by the BBC. The Chair and Vice Chair, Kean and Hamilton, wrote a book about the inside story of the 9/11 Commission, "Without Precedent", which was very critical of the process. That deserved comment by the BBC.

6. The growing number of suspicious deaths in the 9/11 Truth movement

Like the large and swift number of deaths of key witnesses around the JFK assassination nothing can be proved from that alone but the BBC's non inclusion of the growing list of 9/11 Truthers’ deaths adds to the growing feeling that the BBC was again biased by simply not mentioning it. Key examples are Barry Jennings who said explosions occurred in WTC 7, Danny Jowenko, an explosives expert, who said WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and Paul Wellstone the only senator investigating suspicious Put Options immediately prior to 9/11.

7. No contribution from the 9/11 Consensus panel

I agree with your summary. This is a group of experts working blind to each other coming up with the same observations on the failings of the Official 9/11 Account.

8. Crucially and fundamentally the BBC avoided reporting of family members of lost loved ones on 9/11 who still campaign for a proper inquiry

I agree with your summary and add the following to help you make your assessment. Bill Doyle who lost a son in North Tower said "I honestly don't believe the Govt story." Other names of family members calling for a proper investigation are; Donna Marsh O'Connor, Christina Kminek, Michelle Little, Bob McIIvaine, Colleen Kelly, Barry Zelman, Jean Canavan, Manny Badillo, Eileen Torres, Marisol Torres, Rosaleen Tallon DaRos, Gordon and Kathleen Haberman. There are many more names. 80,000 New Yorkers voted in a ballot in 2008 calling for a fresh investigation into 9/11. 96 of those signatures were from family members of victims. Why did the BBC not report this when you closed your "9/11-10 years on" documentary with the views of some people who want closure?

Any one omission by the BBC of one of the above points, with the exception of point 8, I think could be overlooked, but taken in totality it does show in my opinion a complete bias by the BBC in favour of the now discredited Official Account. That is the crux of my complaint. The BBC's coverage of " 9/11 - 10 years on" was so overtly biased that I believe an apology is warranted on air and a major reworking is required this year which should be aired on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. After all we went to war as a country over this with a continuing catastrophic loss of life.

I attach again the two letters of support written by two MPs asking the BBC to deal with my concerns about the BBC's broadcast of 9/11 events. I have also sent them a copy of this letter to keep them abreast of progress. Also receiving my correspondence are friends and colleagues within the 9/11Truth movement referenced above. I know of at least three other people who are in a complaints process with the BBC over ‘9/11 - 10 years on’; Peter Drew, Adrian Mallett and John Yates. They have raised some similar and some different points with the BBC. We all stay in contact with each other for the sole reason that we believe a great wrong has been covered up regarding 9/11. We want the BBC to portray all the facts and all the views commensurate with the crime of the century.

You have indicated in your letter that you will attempt to reply to me by the 30th March. I appreciate a deadline being given. However in view of the length of time to deal with this complaint, which you reference in your letter and for which you apologise, may I ask that you reply by that date and no later. Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Warburton

« Previous item

^ Return to index ^

Next item »