Home » BBC » Adrian Mallett's full complaint

Full details of the BBC complaint from Adrian Mallett

After watching the BBC Conspiracy Files program called '9/11 Ten Years On' Adrian Mallett, a member of the 9/11 truth movement, decided to complain to the BBC. The program distorted or avoided the facts in order to cast members of the 9/11 Truth Movement in the worst possible light.

The BBC then broadcast a further program called '9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip' which can only be described as blatant propaganda in support of the official story. It was full of truly ridiculous 'demonstrated' and 'experimental' evidence heavily stacked to make a group of carefully selected young people, not fooled by the official story, look callous and delusional. The program was so bad that even people who had no idea of any of the problems with the official story thought it was daft.

The BBC is governed by it own charter in which it states it is dedicated to the principles of accuracy and impartiality. Both programs mentioned above, and especially the Road Trip propaganda, ignored the BBC charter. If you care to read through the complaint correspondence that follows you will see that the BBC charter is nothing more than a paper exercise and the BBC itself has no interest in ensuring its producers comply with the rules.

Index of complaint correspondence

25/08/2011 - Further email to Gareth Brennan of the BBC Audience Services

Hi Gareth

That is an interesting setup you have there. I write to the Editorial Standards Committee and they tell me that they set the standards but do not enforce them. They pass my complaint on to BBC Complaints who tell me the complaint is made available for the film makers and their bosses to take notice of or ignore as they see fit. So who actually is accountable for policing the standards?

Let me repeat one of the main issues surrounding the program broadcast on WTC building 7 in particular...

AUGUST 2008 - NIST held a press conference in which Shyam Sunder (Lead Investigator for NIST) correctly stated that it was impossible for building 7 to achieve free fall acceleration in a gravitational collapse from fire. He made the statement to dismiss any claims of free fall collapse and gave reasons why it was impossible. The fact that NIST had failed to even measure the acceleration of the decent was highlighted by others at the press conference and NIST stated this would be clarified in the final edition of the report.

NOVEMBER 2008 - NIST released the final edition of their report on the collapse of building 7. They claim it fell due to a progressive collapse from fire alone and the report contained the lines:

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance travelled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

2011 – The BBC broadcasts a program on the collapse of building 7 in which Shyam Sunder is interviewed. In the program Sunder is asked about the claim that building 7 collapsed in free fall. He states that it took longer than the time required for free fall collapse and the film shows a very inaccurate and un-scientific clip to back up his claim.

Forget the fact that NISTs explanation in their final report is ridiculous (thousands of tons of structural steel and concrete 5 times stronger than it needed to be provides considerably more than ‘negligible’ resistance as it is bent and pulverised into rubble). My complaint is that the program was badly out of date. The BBC broadcast a program in 2011 in which Shyam Sunder made statements in his interview which directly contradicts the NIST report for which he was LEAD INVESTIGATOR. Why was he not asked about it? I suspect the explanation is that the program was made prior to 2008 and simply repeated. The wealth of evidence that has come to light since then has changed the situation so much that showing an out of date documentary without stating at the start that it is years out of date is extremely misleading.

There are so many problems with the official version of the events of 911 that the mainstream media has generally ignored. The BBC did do a documentary pointing out that at least 6 of the 19 hijackers are still alive even though their details still appear on the FBU website and for that it should be commended. Now how about picking up on some of the other issues. Here’s a few suggestions for you:

1. The FBI has never listed Bin Laden as wanted for 911. When asked why the FBI directors said they did not have enough evidence. The main reason Bin Laden was blamed for 911 was that the Bush Administration said he did it and they would provide the evidence later. They never did provide anything to link him to the events. The 911 commission heard evidence that the head of the Pakistani secret service gave the hijackers $100,000 but this was discarded as they said they were not investigating motives. Bin Laden was accused of loads of atrocities but could not be charged with 911.
2. The plane that hit the South Tower was travelling at 510 knots at the point of impact. The maximum stated speed for a Boeing 767 at ground level is 385 knots (due to the denser air). When Egypt Air 990 broke up it had reached 490 knots in a steep dive at high level in much thinner air. Ask Boeing if a standard 767 can fly at 500 knots at ground level and they will laugh at you. The video evidence of the planes hitting towers 1 and 2 clearly show pods under the aircraft which should not have been there on a commercial aircraft and bright flashes just before impact. The flash is clearly before impact because the aircraft shadows on the buildings have not reached the aircraft yet.
3. The plane that hit the Pentagon flew in a wide circle for 45 minutes over the capital before it hit. Instead of diving into the back of the pentagon where the high ranking personnel sit it hit the only part which had recently been reinforced. It wiped out an accounting team which was investigating the 2.3 trillion dollars which the US military could not account for announced by Donald Rumsfeld on 10th September 2001. The 6 ton titanium engines were not recovered from the debris and the official explanation was that they were evaporated by the fuel fireball. This is the same fuel they were designed to burn and even though it burnt so hot that it evaporated titanium several pentagon employees managed to walk through the hole to safety a few minutes after the collision.
4. The sequence of collapse of towers 1, 2 and 7 are in keeping with all the mechanisms of a controlled demolition. See blueprint for truth by ae911truth.org for a huge amount of evidence to back that up. How were the explosives placed in towers 1 and 2? There happened to be the largest lift overhaul in history carried out shortly before hand for which no New York building permits can be found. This allowed access to the building cores.
5. Flight 93 crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Passengers on the flight made mobile phone calls from a flight at over 20,000 feet when mobile phones do not work above 2000 feet at the time. Several years later Boeing announced it had fitted new aircraft with a relay which would allow the use of mobile phones at altitude. The wing shaped crater where the plane was supposed to have impacted can be seen on a 1994 geographical survey map with the only difference being the small circular crater at the center.

There are so many problems with the official version of events that an investigation of any aspect of it will provide the kind of sensational content that the BBC thrives on. Architects, Engineers, Airline Pilots, high ranking Military Officers, Scientists, Academics and a whole host of others are laying their profession credibility on the line calling for a new investigation. When are the BBC going to catch up?

Thanks,

Adrian Mallett B. Eng. (Hons)