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 Peter Drew

After watching the two BBC documentaries '9/11 Ten Years On' and '9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip' in September 2011, Peter Drew decided that what the BBC was showing to the public with those two documentaries was so clearly inaccurate and biased towards supporting the official story of 9/11 and smearing the legitimate questions asked by the 9/11 truth movement, that he decided to challenge the documentaries through the BBC's formal complaints processes which is in place to ensure that the BBC adheres to its 'Royal Charter' and 'Agreement' with the British public. This requires the BBC to present important items of news in a manner that is factually accurate, impartial, and fair.

Peter Drew is a member of the 'volunteer team' for the US based organisation 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth' (AE911truth), an organisation which includes 1,700 professional architects and engineers as well as 14,000 other individuals, who all question the official version of events for the collapse of the three towers on 9/11 and who are calling for a new and independent investigation. As such, through this organisation there was abundant scientific and professional evidence available which could prove that what the BBC was telling the public in those two documentaries was at best extremely misleading and inaccurate, and at worst was part of an intentional and wilful cover up of one of the biggest crimes in history.

The main elements of Mr Drew's complaint surround the following issues:

  1. The BBC has refused to address the bombshell admission in 2008 by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) who were forced to reverse their position with regards free fall speed of WTC Building 7. NIST, who conducted the official investigation into the collapse of the three towers, originally stated that WTC Building 7 did not collapse at free fall speed. However, due to the scientific evidence provided by AE911truth, NIST was forced to reverse this position in 2008 and concede that free fall speed did in fact occur.

    The significance of this admission by NIST cannot be understated because it is a scientific fact that the only way a high rise building can collapse at free fall speed is through a very well planned and executed controlled demolition using carefully placed and perfectly timed explosives. NIST now refuse to even discuss the implications of their statement about free fall because they know full well what those implications are.

    If the BBC had one ounce of real interest in the truth about 9/11 they would be all over this announcement by NIST, and yet instead of this they work very hard to totally ignore and sweep under the rug this bombshell proof of controlled demolition.

  2. The host of the documentary '9/11:Conspiracy Road Trip' is so blatantly biased in his approach to 9/11 and condescending towards any contrary view or piece of evidence it was very obvious that this documentary was made with the clear intention of simply discrediting the 9/11 truth movement. This is despite the fact that there is an absolute abundance of scientific evidence proving that the official 9/11 story is impossible and not one single shred of physical evidence to support any part of the official story. The clearly biased approach of the host of this show is well documented and proven in this complaints process.

  3. Not only did the BBC make numerous factually inaccurate and incorrect statements and demonstrations, but they also completely left out numerous hugely important pieces of evidence which challenges the official story. The issue in point 1 above is just one example of this. The BBC claimed that they could not address this part of the complaint because their complaints process could only deal with items that actually appeared in the show, not what was left out. This is clearly not in keeping with the BBC's Royal Charter requiring accurate reporting. If a Level 5 hurricane was about to smash into Britain and the BBC refused to tell people it was coming then they would quite rightly be held to account for not doing their job properly. This logic however does not seem to extend to issues surrounding evidence proving that the official story of 9/11 is impossible. How else could you explain the Head of US Counter-Terrorism at the time of 9/11 coming out and admitting that the CIA knew the hijackers were in the US and planning a major event and they intentionally withheld that information which prevented the arrest of those individuals. How can the BBC honestly say it is doing its job to accurately inform the public about world events when it refuses to tell the public a story as big as that and refuses to tell the public the incredible information described in point 1 above. These are just two of numerous such examples and between them all they cannot possibly be dismissed as inadvertent oversights.

These are the three main areas of focus of Mr Drew's complaint and all the details are shown within the various communications below.

Index of complaint correspondence




Initial email to the BBC Editorial Standards Committee


Reply email from the BBC Trust Unit


Email to the BBC Trust Unit


Letter to the Director General of the BBC


Letter to the BBC Trust Unit


Email from Andrew Hannah of the BBC Audience Services


Email to BBC Audience Services


Email to Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU


Email from Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU


Email to Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU


Email from Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU


Further email to Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU


Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Road Trip Drew (PDF)


Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Drew (PDF)


Email to Lucy Tristam of the BBC Trust Unit

21/12/2011 - Email from Andrew Hannah of the BBC Audience Services

Dear Peter

Reference CAS-1004468-63G62X

Thanks for contacting the BBC.

We write in reference to two emails you submitted to the BBC Trust regarding 9/11 which have been passed to BBC Audience Services to respond to. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.

We very much appreciate the obvious time and effort you have taken to get in touch and we also appreciate that you clearly have strong personal views on this issue.

The reality is, of course, that 9/11 – perhaps like no other event in history – has brought about literally countless theories, opinions, beliefs, claims and counter claims on every single facet.

Every individual person across the entire globe will have their own personal opinion on the matter and neither the BBC nor anyone else could possibly hope to reflect every single opinion on every single issue, that is simply not practical.

We acknowledge that you very strongly believe that we should have covered some specific points but the reality is that whatever we do or don’t mention we will never be able to match every individual is expectations of us. And of course, whatever we do or don’t report, people will variously passionately agree or disagree. You passionately describe your points as facts but clearly other people will dispute them on a factual basis or would classify them as opinion – thus again, whatever we do we simply cannot accord with everyone’s personal view here.

We do our best to reflect a range of opinions both official and "so called conspiracy theorists" but the BBC itself has no view on this or indeed any matter of controversy – we simply report upon the views of others as best we can. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the BBC feels that the 9/11 Truth Movement needs to be stopped – there is absolutely no reason why we should and the reality is that we do not. You go on to suggest that the BBC has seemingly deliberately gone out of its way to falsely support the official story and wilfully support the cover up but such an accusation is most unfair. We are impartial and independent of government and politics – fuurthermore we are a UK national broadcaster and are completely removed from the US government which body is who we presume you mean when referring to the official position.

As you absolutely correctly say, the sharing of information on this event will continue, doubtless for as long as 9/11 remains in the public consciousness, and views and opinions and understandings will continue to emerge and evolve and we hope to continue to reflect these but it must be appreciated that it’s simply not possible to reflect every single point that every person would wish us to. Every version of events is open to conjecture and theorisation, some facts may simply never be known and some may continue to be disputed for years to come whilst new evidence may lead to a consensus on others. We have to reflect the fact that there are official positions on any matter, but also that there are opposing views, and this is what we have set out to achieve albeit not in as much detail as you evidently would have liked and we can only apologise for any disappointment in this regard. Our actions simply do not accord with your description of wilful compliance with supporting the official story and to suggest that the BBC is, in your words wilfully supporting one of the greatest crimes against the people in history is inappropriate.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.

Kind Regards

Andrew Hannah

BBC Audience Services

« Previous item

^ Return to index ^

Next item »