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)

16/06/2012 - Letter to the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

Alison Hastings
Chair of the Editorial Standards Committee
BBC Trust
180 Great Portland Street

BBC Ref: 1385587

16th June 2012

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On

Dear Miss Hastings,

I do not believe that any of my year long correspondence with you is reaching you or the Editorial Standards Committee. I have not received any replies from you to my 18 letters addressed to you. I believe they are being blocked by delay, process and perversity. I believe there is a small element within the BBC that is engaged in a process of keeping an important fact from the British public. To that extent in escalating yet another appeal to the BBC Trustees from Miss Roses's letter of 13th June I am also writing to the House of Commons Media Committee. I am asking them to conduct their own separate investigation into the serious allegation that the BBC has profoundly breached its standards on accuracy, fairness and impartiality. It is such a serious breach it has taken this country to war on a lie and kept us there to this day.

With my two friends, known to your complaints process, who are also running joint complaints against the BBC, we have between us collated about 25 points of serious breaches of your Editorial Guidelines. Your complaints dept has not upheld any of those complaints. What I am saying in this letter is that the BBC have so misrepresented the facts of 9/11 to the British Public that we have basically gone to war on a lie. To this day British Soldiers are still dying as a result of that lie. Your appeal process has resisted every complaint/concern/observation we have raised over the past year. You as a major news provider and opinion former have a professional responsibility and a moral one to present facts as clearly and as fairly as possible. To the extent the BBC have lied over the past 10 years they must share some of the guilt for the deaths that have ensued from the British side on the War on Terror. The BBC has covered for murderers and this letter is an invitation to you as individuals and the MPs on the Media Committee to separate themselves now from an element that is lying to you and the country. If you don't make that separation you must then also share in that responsibilty for wrong doing.

For the sake of brevity for the MP readership who are reading this for the first time, you have failed to cover or show to the British public key stunning witness testimony that fatally undermines the Official Account of 9/11.

1. You did not interview or show April Gallop and Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski who worked at the Pentagon on that day and who both say there was no aircraft wreckage after the strike. April stepped through that hole with her toddler in her arms saying there was no debris. You did show an FBI agent, Jean O Connor, who after the event "boxed " up aircraft parts for shipping out from the crime scene. Is it impartial to present such a contentious point in such a lopsided manner ? In narration you alert to a "no plane theory" but you don't ask to speak to these witnesses who said there was no aircraft. Let the British public see both sides of the case and let them make their minds up.

2. You did not interview or show the 9/11 Hero Willaim Rodriguez who says he heard a massive explosion in his Tower before the Strike of the first jet. That goes some way to confirming the theory that explosives were already placed in the building prior to 9/11. Again let the British public make their minds up about the integrity of Willaim Rodriguez.

3. Also you did not interview or show any of the 118 first responders who saw and heard explosions in the Towers before their destruction. Again this lends weight to the theory the Towers were pre laced with explosives.

4. You have not reported NIST's retraction about the collapse of WTC 3. They now accept WTC 3 fell at freefall for 2.25 secs. This indicates use of explosives in a controlled demolition.

5. Finally the planes. Photo footage at the Pentagon and Shanksville shows a manifest lack of wreckage. However what is also fundamentally damning to the Official Account is the testimony of Russ Wittenberg, a pilot who flew the jet that was flight 175 prior to 9/11. You did not interview or show him. His clear testimony is that the plane could not fly at 500 knots at 700 feet ! It is physically impossible. This is confirmed by Boeing engineers. Eye witnesses on the street say that it was not a commercial airliner. This is apart from any skill issue of the novice pilots alleged to be the hijackers. What you have is a decoy aircraft. Therefore the weigth shifts conclusively to the parallel argument that the Towers came down through controlled demolitions meaning 9/11 was an "inside job".

British soldiers are dying at the rate of one a week in Afghanistan. This war was premised on the 9/11 attacks. With a draw down of military operations by December 2014 that means you can expect a death toll of a further 130 troops. You can save those deaths at the BBC and in Parliament by simply alerting the British Public to both sides of the 9/11 account and see what effect that has on public opinion for our continued presence in Afghanistan.

I am alleging that elements of the BBC are part of a media cover up over 9/11. They have lied to the British Public by withholding key elements of evidence. Where do you and your committee stand on this Miss Hastings ? Where do the MPs stand on this in the Media Committee ? If you think hacking was a scandal how much worse is leading a country to war on a lie ?

I am inviting the Editorial Standards Comittee at the BBC to investigate my alleagtions based on a years correspondence including that of my two friends who you know already. I also invite the Media Committee at the House of Commons to conduct your own investigation separate to the that of the BBC and find out which conclusion you both come to. A helpful starting point would be my five points above seeing as they are not generally known to the British public.

Finally I politely remind you that you are public servants. This matter goes above party politics. Few members of the public have the time to investigate matters like this. The BBC does have an investigation unit. It is a cornerstone of good investigative journalism to ask difficult questions and find answers. MPs are also expected to lead the country with honour and integrity especially when war is the issue. It is clearly within both your remits to investigate this and you have a moral duty not to send troops and civilians to their deaths based on a lie.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Warburton

Bcc also to

All Members of the Editorial Standatrds Committee and all members of the MPs House of Commons Select Committee on Media.

« Previous item

^ Return to index ^

Next item »