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

Date

Title

13/04/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

04/05/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

10/05/2011

Letter to BBC Complaints

08/06/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

17/06/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

01/07/2011

Letter to the BBC Trustees

07/07/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

16/07/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

13/08/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

30/08/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

12/09/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

07/11/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

13/12/2011

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

03/01/2012

Letter to the BBC Trust

04/02/2012

Letter to the BBC Trust

08/02/2012

Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

16/02/2012

Letter to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit

02/04/2012

Letter to the BBC Trust

16/06/2012

Letter to the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

13/06/2012

Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Warburton (PDF)

13/06/2012

Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Annex 2 (PDF)


13/12/2011 - Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

BBC Trustees
Editorial Standards Committee
Alison Hastings (Chair), Richard Ayre,
Anthony Fry, David Liddiment,
Mehmuda Mian, Elan Closs Stephens
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ

13th December 2011

Dear

The BBC's coverage of the 9/11 Attacks

Laws can embody standards; Govts can enforce laws - but the final task is not a task for Govt. It is a task for each and every one of us. Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted - when we tolerate what we know to be wrong - when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy, or too frightened - when we fail to speak up and speak out - we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice.
Robert F Kennedy

I would like to bring to you my escalated complaint from the Director General's letter dated 5th December and received by me yesterday. I would like your Editorial Standards Committee to investigate the BBC's coverage of the 9/11 attacks. I want to challenge Mr Thompson's assertion that your presentation of those attacks has been "fair, impartial and accurate". I flatly refute that. I focus on one particular programme, although all of your 9/11 programmes are biased in my opinion. The films made by the BBC around the 10th anniversary of 9/11 did cement your position of upholding the official account. You will remember that I wrote to you in the Spring asking that you not continue upholding the Official version of 9/11 as it was obviously false. The ramifications of the media upholding the official story of 9/11 is that it keeps the public from calling for the return of a standing British army in Afghanistan which continues daily to cause the loss of life on both sides. Apart from this letter I attach two excellent letters; one by Mr Adrian Mallett of 8 pages and one by Mr Peter Drew of 3 pages. They also complained to the BBC over its coverage and cc'd me the letters. To the extent I do not want to repeat their arguments or to take credit for their style and content I acknowledge that here and say I agree with all their arguments. In replying to me I would also like you to therefore consider their arguments even if not specifically alluded to in this letter.

CC'd to this letter is a group of experts and supporters who all say to varying degrees that the Official version is profoundly wrong. To that extent I strongly urge you to resist the temptation of writing back to me saying my complaint is "vexatious" and as such you will not attempt to answer my questions below. The people at the foot of this letter have supported me over the past 10 months and have encouraged me in this process. I thank them and state on record in all of this I am just a messenger. They have all done far more work on this issue than I have. If you fail to investigate the BBC's coverage of the 9/11 attacks you not only reject me but also the people below and most importantly our cause.

On the basis that the BBC's coverage has been impartial let me show you some of the following inconsistencies.

In "Conspiracy Files- 9/11 - 10 years on" you interview a Jean O Connor, an FBI agent who said she boxed up parts of aircraft wreckage from the Pentagon strike. I have no problem that you included that interview but if you are being impartial you should have also put in the counter argument from the no plane point of view i.e. you could have interviewed April Gallop who was in the Pentagon at the time of the strike and who stepped through the hole saying she saw no wreckage. Even if Miss Gallop was unavailable to give an interview to the BBC you could have said "however some witnesses state seeing no plane despite being on the scene" eg Miss Gallop or Bob Pugh or indeed the CNN reporter standing outside the smouldering walls stating there was no sign of a jet. I am also surprised, if you were impartial, why you didn't ask the FBI why film footage of the strike was not available - simple for such a filmed building. If I steal a gallon of petrol from any pump in England the police will be at my door in 24 hours because they will have the video footage from the petrol forecourt!

On the subject of the Pentagon strike you interviewed a pilot who saw the alleged hijack jet going down towards the Pentagon although he didn't say he saw the impact. Again I have no issues with you including that but considering the hot debate around 9/11 over the past 10 years and your stated stand on impartiality you should have put the counter argument from people like Russ Wittenberg who actually flew the 9/11 jets prior to 9/11 - he is on record as stating the Pentagon flight manoeuvre could not have been accomplished by any pilot let alone a novice one.

In the same programme you interview Prof Niels Harrit. I have seen the raw footage of that interview and do not consider that to be a "fair" interview of any person let alone an expert. It is very aggressive and I invite you to watch it if you haven't already done so. It is freely available on You-tube. Your presenters and producers should not be cross examination Barristers if you are trying to be "fair and impartial". Or to put it another way - did you grill Jean O Connor for 3 hours as to whether she did actually see aircraft parts? No I don't think you did and I don't think it would have been appropriate. It is for the British public to make their own minds up once presented with both sides of the argument.

What Niels' evidence alluded to and needed checking by you and broadcasting by you was this; if there were traces of some kind of explosive material within that dust it very much confirms the opinions of Richard Gage who you interviewed in a previous Conspiracy Files programme made earlier. It also resonates with the testimony of 118 first responders who heard explosions prior to the collapse/disintegration of the Twin Towers. You will be aware that evidence was not called by the Official Commission and that should worry us all. You did not reference that evidence in your programme. Neither included in the Official Commission's findings was the stunning testimony of William Rodriguez who heard an explosion prior to the plane strike in his Tower. You interviewed this hero on Radio Devon, why didn't you interview him on the much more widely broadcast Conspiracy Files? In the same vein you interview explosives experts who buttress the official version and who had a conflict of interest but not explosive experts who hold a dissenting view. What I saw in your latest edition of Conspiracy files was a biased account in favour of the official version. You did not present this chain of evidence; Chemistry Professor's team shows evidence of explosive residues, which could confirm Architect's informed views of controlled demolitions, which echoes Firefighters direct testimony of explosions, which accords with irrefutable seismic proof (Source: Furlong and Ross, Journal of 911Studies) of explosion in WTC prior to jet strike which confirms Caretaker's first hand evidence. The only evidence you put forward in "9/11 - 10 years on" was Niels testimony - you did not link it to any of the easily available evidence just listed above. You did not refer to the Firefighters testimony, or that of William, or the seismic evidence. How can that be accurate and impartial? What the BBC did with Niels was to harangue him and try to knock him off balance in the raw footage interview. The evidence of Prof Pistorious was not backed by a scientific paper or any tests. On balance it was not as strong as Niels evidence. If anything, potentially exploding paint is a contradiction in terms.

You also failed to broadcast that the Official account of 9/11 has now been largely discredited by many of the panel members themselves. This is on public record. John Farmer, senior legal counsel to the 9/11 Commission has said "The public had been seriously misled. At some level of government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened. I was shocked about how different the truth was from the way it was described."

You also failed to mention the growing number of suspicious deaths around any 9/11 investigations or questions. Senator Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash at a time when he was inquiring into suspicious stock movements before the 9/11 attacks. There have been many other strange deaths of key witnesses and activists within the 9/11 Truth environment. I do think that should have been at least mentioned. What struck me profoundly from the aerial views of Ground Zero after the dust moved off was the incredible lack of wreckage for two such enormous buildings. Paul Smith would have observed that from his helicopter. The photos really do beg that question and again point to some kind of super explosive. Paul died in a car smash in New York. Danny Jowenko who stated WTC7 was a controlled demolition died just before your programme was aired. He too died in a car accident.

Most recently a group of experts have formed a 9/11 Consensus panel. They have released 13 Consensus points challenging the official account of the events of September 11th 2001. The points were produced using a methodology designed to identify "best evidence"; The Delphi method. The panel is made up of citizens and experts from a variety of fields and the points they raise directly contradict the official account.

The thing that concerned me most was you didn't interview and broadcast any of the many victims family members who still demand a fresh investigation of 9/11. Are they delusional? Adrian has dealt well with that point in his letter of 12th September and referenced above.

There is currently a sitting televised Public Inquiry into media ethics. The inquiry invited people to make representations to it on a number of issues. This was one question/invitation posited;

"The issue of stories that attract a high degree of press attention but subsequently turn out to be false was raised at the seminars. The inquiry would be interested in submissions from editors, reporters and subjects of such stories - why they occur (what the pressures that drive press interest), and how they occur (what checks and balances are or should be in place to stop this happening and why do they sometimes not operate)?Ē

Some people have asked me where I think I am going with this letter writing to you. After all you self regulate and you may not bring this issue before your Editorial Standards committee. My standing before you at the start of this correspondence may have looked weak. However we now have a national televised Public Inquiry into media ethics. We have heard how Steve Coogan's car was scratched by journalists. We have heard how Sienna Miller was spat upon by journalists. We have even heard of the despicable hacking of Milly Dowler's phone. As much as I have sympathy for these people, especially Mr and Mrs Dowler, they would be horrified to learn of any hint of a potential cover up of a major crime that led this country into war. I am offering you an opportunity to do a thorough investigation at the BBC, to take any disciplinary action against any members of staff and to make a statement to the nation on your 10 years of coverage correcting any errors. I fully appreciate how difficult that path of turning back will be but going on in the midst of mounting evidence is going to take all of us into darker and deeper depths. You, no doubt, may wish to take external advice as to the fall out of such an investigation. I am fully aware it is not just elements of the BBC who will be in for a hard time in the coming months. Nor is the issue just isolated to 9/11. Failing a fair inquiry by yourselves we in the 9/11 Truth movement will continue our strong representations to the Leveson Inquiry to be heard. I am also aware of the Inquiry's fear of a "Floodgates principle". However I believe we will be heard simply because we have a strong case and because we are being fair, impartial and accurate quite apart from being ordinary, decent human beings who want to live in a world of peace and justice for all. We do not do this out of any sense of vindictiveness. There is no joy in this work. 9/11 and all that followed in its wake was wicked. I use that word in its original sense. We just want a return to a saner more honest world.

The questions again are, if you are presenting fair, impartial and accurate coverage;

  1. Where is the film footage of the Boeing striking the Pentagon ?
  2. Why haven't your journalists asked the US authorities to see it ? Why is it secret ?
  3. Why haven't you interviewed people like April Gallop who stepped through that hole after the attack and said there was no plane there ?
  4. Why haven't you interviewed firefighters who heard explosions in the Twin Towers ?
  5. Why havent you been able to show substantial wreckage (or photos of) from the Shanksville site ?
  6. Why do you only interview explosives experts that back the official version ?
  7. Why don't you speak to any pilots from pilots for 9/11truth ?
  8. Why don't you speak to victim's family members who still demand an independent investigation ?
  9. Why are 5 of the alleged hijackers alive and well according to your own news reporting ? Who then did hijack the planes ?
  10. Why aren't you seeking written scientific evidence to rebut the compelling claims of the teams of Richard Gage and Niels Harrit ?
  11. Why are your programmes "conspiracy files" on 9/11 so overtly biased as to not withstand scrutiny as fair and objective ie they don't address any of the above issues ?

Please also address the issues raised in Adrianís and Peterís attached letters.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Warburton


« Previous item

^ Return to index ^

Next item »