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

28/02/2012 - Email from Colin Tregear of the BBC ECU

Dear Mr Drew

Further to my email of 28 February, I have reviewed the previous correspondence between you and the BBC on the coverage of 9/11 last year and I would now like to propose a way forward.

As you may know, the remit of the Editorial Complaints Unit only extends to considering potential breaches of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines in items broadcast or published by the BBC; I am not, therefore, able to consider any general concerns about what the BBC did, and perhaps more importantly did not, broadcast in the period on and around the tenth anniversary of 9/11. It is also written into the BBC’s policy for handling complaints that the ECU is only able to investigate complaints where the programme-makers have been given the opportunity to offer a substantive response to any points raised. My reading of your emails is that you are principally concerned about the omission of various facts and views in the BBC’s coverage as a whole and have not raised particular concerns about particular programme, and so have not had a first stage response to any specific programme-related concerns. I therefore don’t believe that I am in a position to consider your complaints because they do not refer to specific programmes.

However, I am aware that you mentioned two programmes in your email of 24 February; The Conspiracy Files, 9/11 Ten Years On which was broadcast on 29 August and Conspiracy: 9/11 Road Trip which was broadcast on 8 September 2011. As I assume you are aware, the ECU is already considering a complaint made by Mr Paul Warburton (and others) about the first programme and so I hope you will be reassured that the ECU is investigating the accuracy and due impartiality of that programme. Mr Warburton has made a number of detailed points and we will respond to each of those. It may be that Mr Warburton will be happy to share our finding with you in due course.

The ECU has also entertained a separate complaint about the second programme and so we will also be carrying out a full, independent investigation into that programme.

I hope I have been able to explain my position and I apologise if the BBC’s complaints process may appear rather bureaucratic. However, I

I also understand that your broad complaints have been passed to the BBC Executive and you should receive a response in due course.

Yours sincerely

Colin Tregear
Complaints Director
BBC Editorial Complaints Unit