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

18/11/2011 - Letter to the BBC Trust Unit

BBC's 9/11 Coverage

Dear BBC Trust,

I write this letter to you in support of the letters sent to you recently by Human Rights lawyer and ‘Occupy London’ spokesperson Paul Warburton regarding the BBC’s unethical coverage of 9/11 over the past 10 years, and in particular over the recent 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 letters 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 the coverage of 9/11 during the period of the tenth anniversary through the standard BBC complaints procedure. Times are rapidly changing in our world and for the media, including the BBC. The ‘Occupy’ movement rising up in thousands of cities all over the world where people in huge numbers globally are becoming aware of how they are being deceived and manipulated by the system, and that the media are playing a major role in this. The BBC already has a serious case currently on its hands with its unethical handling of another major global political issue with its coverage of the uprising in Egypt. That issue will be absolutely minor for the BBC compared to 9/11 as the world gets closer and closer to critical mass on awareness and understanding of 9/11 and the complicit role that the media, in particular the BBC, have played in covering up this colossal crime.

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 and which is only 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 increasing, and from the point of view of the public who own and finance the BBC. As the BBC is financed by the public. 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, unbiased, and accurate 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, unbiased, and accurate. 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. http://911truthnews.com/911-conspiracy-roadtrip-a-participants-perspective/ .

Mr Warburton has put forwards a number of extremely relevant questions about 9/11 which he has asked the BBC to answer, so far without any response. As my own contribution to this, I make reference to just a few points below regarding the absolutely abundant scientific evidence available, none of which the BBC’s news items have covered with any kind of adequacy, if at all:

1. Despite NIST initially trying to claim that WTC Building 7 did not fall at free fall speed, it was reluctantly forced by independent scientists to change its position and admit that free fall did occur. The ONLY way a building can come down at free fall speed is by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. These are the laws of physics and cannot be changed by the BBC to suit certain agendas.
2. Molten steel was seen by numerous witnesses and recorded on video pouring out of the basement of the Twin Towers. How can this happen when the fires were 80 floors above, and even so, fire from jet fuel cannot come even close to causing this? This is a scientific fact.
3. It is impossible for a gravity collapse of these building to completely pulverise the entire mass of the buildings into nothing but fine dust. There would not be even close to enough energy involved. The only way this could occur is through some kind of additional massive explosive events. This is a scientific fact.
4. 118 eye witnesses, including numerous first responder fire fighters and police officers, have stated that they saw or heard explosives going off in all three buildings that collapsed. This includes eye witness accounts of bombs going off in the basement of the Twin Towers before the first airliner even struck the building.
5. Richard Clarke, the then Head of US Counter Terrorism, has now stated on record that the CIA new the hijackers were in the US and planning something, and that they deliberately withheld this information which could have prevented 9/11

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 by the BBC 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 and providing proper factual evidence. 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 huge and 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 recent ‘Remember Building 7’ campaign in New York will have now reached an estimated 10 million American citizens where a large percentage of these people will have got to see the damning 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 over the last ten years. 48% of New Yorkers already want a new investigation and these numbers are similar or higher in the UK and other parts of the world. The huge protests all around the world at the moment, the Occupy Wall Street campaign, the current Occupy London campaign, the recent UK protests, the even larger UK protests potentially looming on the horizon, and all the other current ‘Occupy’ protests in major cities all over the world are a clear indication that people no longer accept the current system of manipulation and deception from their politicians and media that they have been living under.

How the BBC is perceived by the public when critical mass is reached on 9/11 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 of 9/11 and its huge implications for the world. 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.

The 9/11 truth movement 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
9/11 Truth Campaigner