Please wait
Home » BBC » Peter Drew's full complaint Full details of the BBC complaint from Peter DrewAfter 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:
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
11/10/2011 - Letter to the Director General of the BBC
Office of the Director - General of the BBC Dear Mr Thompson, I write this letter to you in support of the letter sent to you recently by Paul Warburton regarding the BBC’s biased and unbalanced coverage of 9/11, particularly over the period of the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Like Mr Warburton, I also lodged a letter of complaint with the BBC Trustees and have yet to receive a response, so I write this letter partly as support for the subsequent letter that Mr Warburton has submitted to you and partly as a follow up to my own letter of complaint to the BBC Trustees. You should also be aware that the BBC has received many other complaints from the public about their coverage of 9/11 during the period of the tenth anniversary through the standard BBC complaints procedure. Mr Warburton has raised some extremely valid points and offered some very constructive suggestions for helping the BBC to remove itself from the large hole that it is digging for itself on this issue which is rapidly getting deeper. Therefore I share Mr Warburton’s concerns that the response that he has so far been provided with from the BBC is very far from acceptable from the point of view of Mr Warburton, the entire global 9/11 truth movement, which is vast and rapidly growing, and from the point of view of the public who own and finance the BBC. The BBC is financed by the public and the public have a right to receive unbiased and accurate reporting, particularly on matters of such importance as 9/11. During the period leading up to the tenth anniversary of 9/11 it was very clear that the BBC was a) particularly worried about the rapidly increasing global 9/11 truth movement and therefore decided to run a number of items aimed at debunking the 9/11 truth movement, and b) that the news items that the BBC ran regarding 9/11 were very clearly biased towards reinforcing the official story and making the 9/11 truth movement look like a group of crazy conspiracy theorists. This is a clear breach of operating standards which are based around providing fair and unbiased reporting. As a quick example of what I have alluded to above, here are two quotes from the host of the BBC’s documentary ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’; the host describes the 5 participants on the show, who are all sceptical about the official 9/11 story, as “nice people but incredibly cynical, child like, and gullible” and he later goes on to say “you would think that a science graduate would be more rational”. These descriptions are given to people who have based their scepticism of the official story of 9/11 not on some flimsy conspiracy theory, but on factual scientific evidence and the basic laws of physics which makes the official story quite simply a physical impossibility. All this scientific evidence has been made available to the BBC but rather than cover this, the BBC instead showed what can only be described as embarrassing stunts which did not address one single piece of the scientific evidence which proves that the official story is impossible. But yet the participants on the show are labelled cynical, child like, gullible, and irrational by the host for choosing to believe scientific facts and the laws of physics over some embarrassing stunts such as throwing water bombs around, letting a young lady turn the steering wheel on a small plane, and playing around with lego skyscrapers. Please sir, the BBC has a responsibility to the public to be truthful and unbiased. Does this sound like this is what has happened? Emily Church, one of the 5 participants on the show was so upset at how biased and manipulated the show was that she felt compelled to write and publish this story which is now widely distributed around the world on the internet. http://911truthnews.com/911-conspiracy-roadtrip-a-participants-perspective/ . Just for your reference on the scientific evidence, here are just a very few absolutely critical points which none of the BBC’s news items covered with any kind of adequacy, if at all:
These points above are incredibly important issues and they are not in dispute, they are facts, pure and simple. Point number 5 is a relatively new development and is worthy of an entire show on its own. These are facts that the public who fund the BBC deserve to be informed about, not having their intelligence insulted with cheap stunts with water bombs, lego towers, and labelling people who disagree with the official story as cynical, child like, gullible, and irrational. There are numerous very high quality scientific documentaries that have been produced detailing the types of issues listed above. The public deserves to see these facts which have been presented by professionals in the field, without agenda, but simply as facts which demonstrate that the official story is not possible. The global 9/11 truth movement is growing rapidly and it is only a matter of time before critical mass is reached. Recent poll results across the UK and other parts of Europe and the world strongly support this. The current ‘Remember Building 7’ campaign in New York will reach an estimated 10 million New Yorkers where a large percentage of these people will get to see video footage of the free fall collapse of WTC Building 7 for the very first time because mainstream media, including the BBC, have refused to show it. 48% of New Yorkers already want a new investigation. How the BBC is perceived by the public when this critical mass is reached can still be shaped by the BBC’s actions that they take from here. The BBC can still find a way to become the ones who helped solve the problem. This is what we would like to assist the BBC with finding a way of doing. Or the BBC can continue to be complicit in what is perhaps the greatest cover up in history of one the greatest crimes in history. When critical mass is reached and the public discover that the BBC were actively complicit in this cover up, the outcome for the BBC and its leaders I’m sure will not be very pleasant. The evidence of this complicity is abundant. We would welcome any kind of meaningful dialogue with yourself and others about this issue and we are only looking for positive solutions to this problem, with positive outcomes for the BBC. Yours sincerely
Peter Drew
|