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

23/01/2012 - Email to BBC Audience Services

Dear BBC Audience Services

Many thanks for your response to my complaint which is much appreciated. I take your point that there are many different thoughts, opinions, and theories regarding what happened on 9/11. That is without doubt correct. But your inference that this means that the BBC cannot adequately address my specific complaint because it is just one of numerous opinions is very much mistaken. In my complaint I have not even raised any opinion at all about what happened on 9/11 or who did what, all I have done is highlight the fact that many aspects of the official story have been proven to be incorrect or not possible, and of even more concern, many absolutely critical aspects of 9/11 have not even been reported by the BBC and other mainstream media outlets. This is negligence by the BBC according to what the BBC’s responsibility is to the paying public to inform them of important worldly events.

In the BBC’s response to my complaint, it states that what I have said to be factual information may not actually be factual and is just my opinion. This also is not correct.

It is not my OPINION that a 47 story skyscraper not even hit by a plane came down on that day at free fall speed, it is a fact which NIST have now reluctantly had to change their story on and admit this due to expert scientists proving this to be the case. This is an absolutely incredible fact that is now admitted by the officials, a fact that has truly enormous ramifications, and yet has not been covered at all by the BBC. This is negligence by the BBC in its responsibility to inform the public about extremely important worldly events especially when the science is quite clear on the fact that free fall collapse of a building can only occur as a result of controlled demolition. If the BBC doubts me on this, then anyone with any kind of journalist skill and integrity can quickly find this information out, which is really what journalists at the BBC should be doing if they have a potentially huge news story on their hands

• It is not my OPINION that the BBC somehow reported the collapse of Building 7 twenty minutes before it happened, this was shown on your own BBC News channel.
• It is not my OPINION that subsequently the BBC has not shown the public any of the numerous angles of the amazing video footage of this incredible collapse of Building 7 and that as a consequence of this negligence the majority of the public are still completely unaware that a third tower even collapsed on that day, an event of potentially monumental significance irrespective of the different theories about who did what. To have a situation where the majority of the public are not even aware of this collapse and have not been shown the damning video footage of it collapsing perfectly at free fall speed shows incredible negligence by the BBC according to their responsibilities. I would have thought that if the BBC were being true to their reporting responsibilities, this kind of story should be headline news, even just to explore it further and to ask some probing questions
• It is not my OPINION that the official 9/11 report did not even mention one single sentence about the collapse of Building 7 and that subsequently 6 out of the 10 official investigation team have since stated that they were prevented from doing their job, that the investigation was a whitewash, and that it was set up to fail. This is what they said, not me. But once again the BBC have been negligent and have not reported this amazing piece of news to the public.
• And it is not my OPINION that Richard Clarke, the then Head of US Counter Terrorism, has come out recently and publicly stated what he has said about the CIA having foreknowledge that the hijackers were in the US and planning something, and that they intentionally withheld this information, however, once again the BBC have not covered this absolutely incredible story at all and are once again guilty of negligence in their job of informing the public about important world matters

The above points are all indisputable facts, not individual opinion or theory, but indisputable occurrences. And they are occurrences that absolutely should be major items of news and which the public have a right and a requirement to be informed about. So my question to the BBC stands. Why have these extraordinarily important news stories listed above not even been mentioned by the BBC so that the vast majority of the public are not even aware that these things have occurred? As an additional point, and to further reinforce the strong feeling by many many people on this issue, I provide a link here to a letter/article recently posted on the ‘Veterans Today’ website in the US and addressed to Mrs. Shami Chakrabarti as part of the current Leveson Inquiry http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/20/rupert-murdoch-911-and-the-leveson-investigation-of-the-media-police-complex/ .

Thank you again for your response to my initial enquiries and I look forwards to receiving some further feedback as to why the BBC have not covered the very important news stories listed above and have therefore been negligent in their responsibilities to the public to inform them about these important issues.

Yours sincerely

Peter Drew