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

20/09/2011 - Email to the BBC Trust Unit

20 September 2011

Dear BBC Trust Unit

Thank you for your response below to my initial letter regarding the biased and unfair coverage by the BBC on the issue of 9/11. I have had no further correspondence on this matter and so was just enquiring as to the state of this process?

In addition, I would like to raise further serious issues with the BBC with regards their subsequent coverage of 9/11 during the period around the 10th anniversary. Firstly, the fact that the BBC and other mainstream media outlets ran so many items in both written and television media specifically aimed at debunking the so called ‘conspiracy theorists’. This would suggest that the BBC and other mainstream media have identified the global 9/11 Truth Movement as something that has a lot of people’s attention and which the BBC seemingly feels needs to be stopped.

Secondly, the nature and content of the various news items put forwards by the BBC was grossly misrepresentative of the various critical issues regarding problems with the official story, to put it mildly. Here is an article written by Emily Church who participated in the ‘BBC Road Trip’ programme where she outlines the clear bias and manipulation of the BBC http://911truthnews.com/911-conspiracy-roadtrip-a-participants-perspective/ .

None of the articles and programmes put forwards by the BBC address some of the absolute glaring FACTS that make the official story quite literally physically impossible, and I list just a very few key points here just to reinforce the point:

• While NIST initially attempted to say that Building 7 did not come down at free fall speed, it eventually was forced by independent scientists to change its story on this and agree that free fall occurred. The BBC does not cover this and does not cover the SCIENTIFIC FACT that the ONLY way a building can come down at free fall speed is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION (the words of the expert professionals, not mine). This point was not accurately covered by the BBC
• The wings of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon were 120 feet wide and travelling at 500 mph, and yet they did not so much as crack or scratch a single window on the front face of the Pentagon. This point was not accurately covered by the BBC
• If the nose of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon did in fact strike the Pentagon where the small, perfectly round, 15 foot wide hole was, then the engines of the plane would have been underground, and yet the front lawn directly in front of the Pentagon was immaculate and unscathed. Not to mention that it is physically impossible to fly an airliner at that speed at virtually ground level (the words of the expert pilots themselves, not mine). This point was not covered by the BBC
• 6 out of 10 of the original 9/11 Investigation Commission have gone on record as saying the investigation was a whitewash and that they were ‘set up to fail’ (their words, not mine). This point was not covered by the BBC
• Richard Clarke, the then US Head of Counter Terrorism, has now openly stated that the CIA new that the hijackers were in the US and planning something, and that the CIA deliberately withheld this information which could have prevented the attacks (his words, not mine). This point was not covered by the BBC

These are only a very few of the endless list of absolutely critical issues that were not covered by the BBC. These points are not in question, they are not ‘conspiracy theories’, they are verifiable facts which make an undeniable case for the fact that the official story is simply not true and that there needs to be a new investigation. But the BBC has not covered these issues at all and has seemingly deliberately gone out of its way to falsely support the official story and wilfully support the cover up.

The BBC has a major problem here. The 9/11 Truth Movement will eventually result in the truth coming out. It is only a question of exactly how that happens, and exactly when that happens. It may be that it has to be done almost exclusively through the current channels of alternative media and other methods of information sharing, or it could be that the process becomes fast tracked by the mainstream media shifting from a position of wilful compliance with supporting the official story solution to the problem. The impact on the mainstream media outlets of the truth finally reaching critical mass will depend on what stage the mainstream media determine that they have to make this shift in position. If the BBC waits too long to make this shift then the consequences of critical mass being reached may be very bleak for the BBC and other mainstream outlets when the public realise the level of wilful complicity that has taken place. The impact on the media will surely make the phone hacking scandal look like a minor nuisance in comparison. Judging by this article that the Guardian ran during the anniversary period, perhaps the Guardian is beginning to pave the way for them making this shift in position http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/sep/12/9-11-symposium-charlie-skelton .

Just to reinforce the point regarding critical mass, the point of critical mass is quickly getting closer as demonstrated by the recent survey conducted by ‘Reinvestigate 911’ in the UK and presented to the BBC on September 10th, 2011. Only 8% strongly agreed that they have been told the full story of the 9/11 attacks, and of those who expressed an opinion 37% agreed that rogue elements in the American intelligence services may have made a decision prior to 9/11 to allow a terrorist attack to take place. And the results of similar polls in France were even more dramatic with the results of an HEC poll published in France showing that 58% have doubts about the official story. Half of these people suspect that US authorities deliberately allowed the attacks to take place while a third suspect they were implicated in the execution of 9/11.

These are hugely significant statistics which the BBC should be taking as a clear reason to do some serious investigating and do some REAL reporting, which is what the people of the UK are paying their hard earned money to the BBC to do.

As I said in my initial letter, these questions being put to the BBC should not be seen as an attack against the BBC. The 9/11 Truth Movement is trying to help the BBC to realise the true nature of the situation here and where things are heading, and the need for the BBC to find a way of changing its approach to this situation before it is too late. The 9/11 Truth Movement urges the BBC to support the public, as they were created to do, rather than wilfully supporting one of the greatest crimes against the people in history.

Many thanks again for your time in considering this letter.

Kind Regards

Peter Drew