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

Date

Title

08/08/2011

Initial email to the BBC Editorial Standards Committee

22/08/2011

Reply email from the BBC Trust Unit

20/09/2011

Email to the BBC Trust Unit

11/10/2011

Letter to the Director General of the BBC

18/11/2011

Letter to the BBC Trust Unit

21/12/2011

Email from Andrew Hannah of the BBC Audience Services

23/01/2012

Email to BBC Audience Services

24/02/2012

Email to Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU

28/02/2012

Email from Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU

21/03/2012

Email to Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU

21/03/2012

Email from Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU

21/03/2012

Further email to Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU

19/04/2012

Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Road Trip Drew (PDF)

19/04/2012

Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Drew (PDF)

08/05/2012

Email to Lucy Tristam of the BBC Trust Unit


21/03/2012 - Email from Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU

Dear Mr Drew

Thank you for your email. I appreciate the concerns you have raised about the programme which was broadcast in 2007. However, I regret to say that your point of concern is not one which I am able to investigate. The remit of the ECU is confined to considering whether there was a serious breach of editorial standards in content published or broadcast by the BBC. The BBCs complaints process applies a time limit on making complaints about programmes and so it would not be possible to begin an investigation into a programme first shown in 2007. That means I can only consider the content of the two programmes we have identified, not what was broadcast in a previous programme.

Im sorry if that seems rather bureaucratic and process-driven, but I hope you can see why it would be impractical for the BBC to entertain complaints about any programme, no matter how much time had passed since it was broadcast.

Yours sincerely

Colin Tregear


« Previous item

^ Return to index ^

Next item »