Home » BBC » Peter Drew's full complaint

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

08/05/2012 - Email to Lucy Tristam of the BBC Trust Unit

Dear Ms Tristram

I recently received the findings of the investigations into two complaints I had submitted to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit regarding the BBC’s coverage of 9/11. These are documents referenced CT/1200138 and CT/1200137. Having read through the findings from Mr Colin Tregear it is very clear that these investigations were very much flawed and did not adequately address the clear beaches of the BBC Royal Charter and Agreement that were highlighted. This is the same for the findings of Mr Tregear for the similar complaints also lodged by UK Civil Rights lawyer Paul Warburton and Mr Adrian Mallett. The information within my complaint and the complaints of Mr Warburton and Mr Mallett have been backed up and supported by numerous experts from all over the world, including a pilot who had previously flown two of the actual airliners allegedly involved in 9/11, and ‘Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth’ made up of 1,600 professional architects and engineers who are seeking a new and independent investigation into 9/11.

My complaint with the BBC in general is that the overall coverage that the BBC has given to the issue of 9/11 over the past 10 years has been to withhold an enormous amount of scientific facts and information, and withhold numerous confirmed eye witness statements and other statements from expert pilots, first responder fire fighters and police officers, journalists, professional architects and engineers, intelligence personnel, and even many of the official 9/11 investigation panel themselves, which individually and collectively quite simply makes the official version of events of 9/11 a physical and scientific impossibility. However, the BBC has refused to show this information to the public and has instead steadfastly supported the official impossible version of events to the extent that it has had to take a very biased approach and factually incorrect approach in order to continue to support this impossible version of events. These are clear breaches of the BBC’s Royal Charter and Agreement. The BBC has a responsibility to report on and inform the paying public about important facts and information relating to important world issues, and to report that information in a factual and impartial manner. On the issue of 9/11 the BBC has failed on all counts according to its Royal Charter and Agreement. Due to the BBC’s approach to covering the events of 9/11, the public have not received a true representation of the events of 9/11, an event which has been used as the basis for waging at least two illegal wars killing over a million innocent people, and for the stripping away of many of our most basic human rights and freedoms. All these deaths of innocent people and the stripping away of our human rights on the basis of 9/11 still continues today, so that makes this a very important and very relevant issue indeed.

While this is my position with regards my general view of the BBC’s coverage of 9/11, my complaints have also been more specifically directed towards the two specific documentaries shown by the BBC last year as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’.

Both documentaries are in serious breach of the BBC’s Royal Charter and Agreement, and Mr Tregear’s investigations have failed to acknowledge this. I will not repeat here the various points of issue that I have raised in my complaints in terms of the biased way that the BBC has portrayed various issues relating to 9/11, however I will reinforce several points here about both documentaries. I will also highlight further in this letter some of the glaring omissions of facts, not speculation, about 9/11 that the BBC have simply failed to inform the public about.

Documentary 1: 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip

As Colin Tregear has himself stated in his review of my complaint, this documentary was intentionally produced by the BBC from the point of view of the host of the show strongly believing that the official story of 9/11 was correct and that his objective on the show was to try to convince the 5 participants on the show to change their opinion about 9/11 and to agree that the official story was correct. This is very clearly a biased approach from the BBC to support the official story. The presenter of the show even made the following comments:

“Unbelievably there are many people who doubt the conclusions of the original investigation and want to believe the American Government was in some way responsible for this tragic event. I’m taking five of them to America on an extraordinary journey to see if I can change their minds. It’ll be a tough mission”

“Personally I’m as certain as certain can be that the attacks were ordered by Osama bin Laden.”

How can this approach by the BBC possibly be considered unbiased and impartial? If public scepticism in the official story of 9/11 was only held by a small fringe minority, then this type of approach by the BBC could perhaps be more acceptable. But public scepticism of the official 9/11 story is anything but a fringe minority opinion. Even the BBC itself has reported that one third of the public do not believe the official story, and other evidence from around the world suggests that this figure is much higher than one third. Therefore how can the BBC possibly take this approach to this documentary when public opinion is so split on this issue? The unbiased and impartial approach for an issue where public opinion is very divided would be to provide both sides of opinion with equal emphasis, and present and discuss the evidence from both sides. But the BBC simply has not done this. Where does the BBC present and discuss the evidence that supports the official story? It doesn’t because there is no hard evidence at all that supports the official story which is why the FBI never placed Osama Bin Laden on their wanted list for 9/11. There literally is no evidence to support the official story. The BBC have even admitted that many of the supposed 19 hijackers are still alive today, there was no plane wreckage at either the Pentagon or Shanksville, there are no passenger lists with the hijackers on them, there is no video footage of the hijackers getting on the planes, no evidence of the supposed phone calls made by passengers, and there is no video footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon despite it being the most secure building on the planet with 80 security cameras that would have shown a plane hitting it. The FBI have officially admitted that there is no evidence of any of this and no evidence at all for the official story, which is why the FBI never put Osama Bin Laden on a wanted list for 9/11. Therefore why has the BBC not challenged this in one of their documentaries as is their responsibility to the public rather than just steadfastly supporting a story which has absolutely no evidence to back it up, and meanwhile casting personal dispersions against those people who question this and who can see the abundant scientific evidence that clearly contradicts the official story and in fact shows the official story to be physically impossible?

9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip only presented things from one point of view, that being that the official story was correct. Where was the balanced approach where the presenter of a show does not believe the official story and attempts to change the minds of 5 participants who believe the official story is correct? This type of approach is at least as valid due to the split opinion of the public on this issue. Therefore the BBC is clearly in breach of its Royal Charter and Agreement.

Documentary 2: The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On

The BBC’s Royal Charter and Agreement states that if the BBC reports a fact that subsequently is found to be incorrect, it is legally required to publicly correct that error. In the BBC’s 2007 Conspiracy Files documentary the BBC demonstrated its belief that WCT Building 7 did not collapse at free fall speed. In 2008 NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) officially and publicly stated that it had now been proven that Building 7 did in fact fall at free fall speed for part of its descent. This is absolutely critical information for the 9/11 discussion because any qualified architect in the world will confirm that a high rise building can only achieve free fall collapse through controlled explosive demolition. The BBC is legally required to publicly correct its critical error of 2007, but it has not done so. Every time the BBC now shows anything to do with the collapse of Building 7 without correcting that error, they are in serious breach of the Royal Charter and Agreement, including this 2011 documentary in question. Why has the BBC refused to correct this absolutely critical error that has such massive ramifications for the world?

At the end of ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’, the presenter states that the alternative theories about 9/11 is having a negative impact on the families of victims. But the BBC does not mention that many of the most passionate campaigners for a new investigation into 9/11 are actually the family members of the victims. So this is a grossly unfair and inaccurate statement by the BBC and is actually an insult to those family members, not to mention an insult to the other activists for 9/11 truth. Has the BBC considered the negative impact on the families of the victims who want a new investigation into 9/11, caused by the BBC continually reinforcing the official story and failing to present the true facts about 9/11 which could create the necessary pressure required to achieve a new investigation?

Crucial facts about 9/11 that the BBC have not shown to the public The following are just a few of the absolutely crucial facts about 9/11 that the BBC have simply failed to disclose to the public at all, thereby being in breach of its Royal Charter and Agreement.

1. World Trade Centre Building 7 fell at free fall speed for at least 2.25 seconds (as confirmed by NIST, the official investigators, in 2008). Any professional architect in the world will be able to explain to the BBC that the only way a high rise building can collapse at free fall speed is controlled explosive demolition.
2. 118 eye witnesses are on record stating that they saw or heard explosions going off in all three WCT towers before and after the planes struck.
3. William Rodriguez, a security officer in the Twin Towers and the last man to get out of the Twin Towers alive, has stated repeatedly to audiences all over the world that he assisted people who were badly injured by bomb blasts in the basement of one of the Twin Towers before the first plane struck
4. Numerous first responder fire fighters have reported seeing rivers of molten iron pouring out from the bottom of the three towers before they collapsed, and this can also be seen clearly in video footage. Burning jet fuel and office fires cannot come anywhere near the temperature required to do this and the office fires were burning high up in the buildings far above where this molten iron could be seen
5. Police and fire fighters are on video prior to the collapse of Building 7 showing clearly that they knew that Building 7 was going to collapse. No one is stating that they had anything to do with this, but they clearly knew the building was going to come down. Who told them?
6. Numerous expert airline pilots, including pilots who have previously flown the exact same planes as supposedly hit the Twin Towers, have stated on the record that it would be physically impossible for Flight 11 and Flight 175 to have flown at the speeds that they did at that height. Therefore they must have been some kind of different type of plane, as many eye witnesses have stated.
7. April Gallop, an employee at the Pentagon, has testified in US court that she walked out of the Pentagon through the small hole in the wall that the airliner supposedly made, and that there was no plane wreckage there.
8. At least one reporter for a mainstream US TV Station stated in his original live report, which is still available to view on youtube, that he could see no plane wreckage at all at the Pentagon and could see no sign that a plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon
9. The FBI have officially confirmed that no phone calls were made from passengers on any of the hijacked flights despite the official story claiming that many calls were made, including the ones describing how Arab hijackers had used box cutters to take control of the planes

These are just a few of the absolutely crucial facts that the BBC have simply failed to inform the public about. How can that possibly be justified when the BBC Royal Charter and Agreement requires the BBC to inform the public about important matters?

In addition to these facts that the BBC has failed to inform the public about, here is a short list of anecdotal evidence clearly demonstrating numerous different potential motives and method for alternative views about what really happened on 9/11. The BBC has also failed to inform the public about any of these facts:

1. Larry Silverstein (owner of all 7 World Trade Centre towers)
Would have had to pay out many billions of dollars to have the asbestos stripped out of all the towers, but instead, just weeks before 9/11 he took out insurance policies for all WCT towers to cover destruction by terrorist activity. So instead of paying out billions of dollars for removing the asbestos, he received $5 billion in insurance pay outs and hundreds of first responders are now dying from lung disease from the dust that they were told was safe. Mr Silverstein has admitted on camera that he gave the order to “pull it, and then we watched the building collapse”

2. Marvin Bush ( cousin of George W Bush)
Was put in charge of security of the World Trade Centre towers in the lead up to 9/11. This included overseeing major engineering works all through the infrastructure of the twin towers in the weeks before 9/11 with security cameras being turned off and the standard explosive sniffing dogs being removed

3. Donald Rumsfeld (US Secretary of Defence)
Announced on September 10th, 2001 that the Pentagon had ‘misplaced’ $2.3 trillion. Not only did 9/11 distract all attention away from this bombshell announcement, it also destroyed all the evidence of the paper trail that would have been found in both the Pentagon and WCT Building 7.

4. Dick Cheney (US Vice President)
Was a previous senior employee of Haliburton and still a major shareholder. Much of the contract work to rebuild Iraq was awarded to Haliburton resulting in profits to Haliburton of tens of billions of dollars.

5. Norman Minneta (Head of US Transportation)
Testified in US court under oath during the official 9/11 investigation that he witnessed Dick Cheney essentially give the stand down order to the air force preventing the airliner that was heading towards the Pentagon from being shot down. Mr Minneta’s testimony was stricken from the record but it is recorded on video and available on youtube.

6. PNAC (US Govt strategic document called ‘Project for a New American Century)
PNAC was published in 2000 and its desired ambitions included all of the geo-political actions that have directly and indirectly taken place as a result of 9/11 eg. the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. In discussions about PNAC in 2000, it was stated that ‘achieving the objectives of PNAC would be a long and slow process absent some catalysing catastrophe’. That catalysing catastrophe occurred less that one year later.

7. US Stock Market
In the week before 9/11, share market activity for the two airlines involved in 9/11 rose by 9000%. So obviously some people had advanced foreknowledge

Once again, these are all facts of huge relevance, especially when combined together, and yet the BBC has failed to inform the public about these facts.

Where to from here?

The public is very rapidly reaching the point of critical mass where it simply will no longer accept the official version of events of 9/11. This has very large implications for the BBC and mainstream media who have steadfastly supported the official story and withheld crucial facts and information from the public.

No one is saying that the BBC or other media outlets were part of the 9/11 conspiracy, in whatever form that conspiracy was. But what the global 9/11 truth movement is saying in very large and very rapidly growing numbers is that it is time for the BBC and other mainstream media to start being more forthcoming with all the information and facts about 9/11 and to present information in a more balanced and impartial manner. In 2011 approximately 10 million people just in New York State alone saw the huge ‘Remember Building 7’ advertising campaign which showed professional experts and families of the victims of 9/11 challenging the official 9/11 story and asking for a new investigation. In 2009 80,000 New Yorkers signed a petition asking the New York City Council for a new investigation into 9/11, and public awareness has increased hugely even since then. Hundreds of millions of people around the world are seeing the true facts about 9/11 through alternative means to the mainstream media. In 2011 the mainstream media in both France and Italy showed documentaries which put forwards much of the challenging facts and information about 9/11 which have been described here. It is time for the BBC to do likewise.

It is time for the BBC and mainstream media to more accurately reflect the desire of a huge number of the public to have a new and independent investigation into 9/11. Mainstream media is today in serious danger of becoming irrelevant as viewers turn away from it in mass and seek more complete and true information elsewhere. Myself, Mr Warburton, and Mr Mallett would like to meet with representatives of the BBC Trust to discuss how the BBC might be able to put forwards some of this missing information to the public and balance the ledger a little more on this subject. There are some very simple ways that this could be done without the BBC appearing as if it has been negligent or is back tracking on this issue, and we would like to discuss these options with the BBC Trust.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Drew

CC’d
Lord Patten - BBC Trust Chair
Miss Alison Hastings - Chair, BBC Editorial Committee
Mr Richard Ayre - Trustee, BBC Editorial Committee
Mr David Liddiment - Trustee, BBC Editorial Committee
Mrs Elan Closs Stephens - Trustee, BBC Editorial Committee
Mr Anthony Fry Trustee - Trustee, BBC Editorial Committee
Mrs Mehmuda Mian - Trustee, BBC Editorial Committee
Paul Warburton - BBC complainant, UK Civil Rights lawyer, and 9/11 Truth Activist
Adrian Mallett - BBC complainant and 9/11 Truth Activist
Tom Watson MP - Member of Parliament's House Media Committee
Michael Meacher MP - Member of Parliament