Appeal to BBC Trust to review ECU finding:

Appeal to BBC Trust to review ECU finding: CT/1200059
Conspiracy Files "Ten Years On" TYO

Dear Trust Members,

Since 9/11 it's been 10 years of war and dramatic restrictions on hard won civil rights, based on the claim of Islamic terrorist attacks on Western democracy. 9/11 was THE EVENT that steered the world to war without end. It's important - millions have died or been disabled or displaced.

Is there not an urgent epistemological duty to examine the sources of our knowledge,  analysis of that knowledge, and the status of skepticism when considering the events of 9/11? That is what I believe the BBC is tasked to do.

As JFK said

"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-- and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy".

Can you ask yourself why the BBC did not conduct a serious investigative, multi episode, documentary series on the many facets of 9/11? Ask yourself how important was it to "forensically" examine the public record or to "shrink from controversy".

The BBC has produced four hour long Conspiracy File programmes concerning 9/11 - focused on discrediting, with a broad brush, all that question the official conclusions about 9/11.
For me the pertinent focus should be the psychology of our species in the present age, where so many professionals, academics and government insiders can see, in plain sight, events could not have transpired as officially described.

110/47 floor towers cannot disintegrated into microscopic dust within seconds due to small fires. This contradicts the laws of physics.

But that is just the start of the irreconcilable conflicts in evidence surrounding 9/11. Of course many directly involved are bound by gagging orders, Sibyl Edmonds being one. But you may not know her story as it has not been reported by the BBC. Nor have most of the other challenging witness statements or their evidence that presents an entirely different narrative to the events of that day.

To commission just an hour long programme about this pivotal event focused on two extremes of opinion, 14 supporters of the official conspiracy theory against 4 committed dissidents, is an indication of the intention to confuse the issues and engineer acquiescence on key questions of every aspect of 9/11.

To frame the BBC investigation as examining conspiracy theories is to divert attention from the real issue i.e. "The Official Conspiracy Theory". The programme was designed to discredit those that question authority.

What place does the horse's ass (subliminal image of "brief duration") have in a supposedly unbiased documentary purported to be examining the facts about 9/11?

The events of 9/11 demand thorough investigation but even in the first week following 9/11 the BBC posted the outline of the eventual claims of the NIST report on your web site. Prescient indeed.

The public has a legitimate expectation that BBC documentary producers should respect the letter and spirit of the Royal Charter clauses and the statements of the Corporation and the BBC Trust.

Mr Tregear has considered my complaint under "accuracy and impartiality" guidelines. I repeatedly focused on Charter 46(2)(a)(v)1  (refraining from use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware of what has occurred)

Mr Tregear suggests this means "subliminal", as in unseen images or unheard audio. This is a lesser part, as with the horses ass and the discredited slow motion Nova simulation.

What I am principally charging those responsible for Ten Years On of is deliberately using the power of the BBC to affect the viewers mind without their being aware of it i.e. engineering acquiescence. 

This is effectively enacting the provisions of the US government's Full Spectrum Dominance strategy to propagandise it's position on 9/11 in crucial global broadcasting outlets.

TYO and Mr Tregear steer clear of central established facts and most important - their implications, Rumsfeld's whereabouts, Mineta and no warning for the Pentagon, direct funding of simulations, the laws of physics. The ridiculous evidence, ( hijacker passports found singed etc. ) challengeable evidence, (war games etc.) conflicting evidence, circumstantial evidence as well as a very long list of FBI, CIA, military, government administrators - whistleblowers and witnesses - together with those actually involved in the events like William Rodrigues - all raise such serious questions that any truly independent observer would acknowledge that deeper investigation was of paramount importance. All issue ignored by TYO.

It would be dishonourable for the Trust to consider this complaint solely within the restrictions of the Editorial Guidelines. The issues are far too important and the programme so outrageous in its selection of "available evidence".

As Trust members you will be advised by Corporation officials that the ECU findings are in accord with requirements.

However you all have a duty to investigate personally the complex issues of 9/11 and not forget about WMD, al Qaeda and Saddam, Kuwaiti babes thrown from incubators by Iraqi troops in 1990 - or Blair, the Gilligan "sexed up documents"  etc. You all must know that these were sabre rattling lies

As Einstein said "dismissal without investigation is the height of ignorance".

I request the opportunity to examine with you, The Trust, all the unresolved conflicts in my correspondence with Mr Tregear.

For example, Kilsheimer's background or Purdue computing directorates which are deeply enmeshed in the intelligence gathering and propaganda organisations of the US military. Is it simply chutzpah to portray these loyal Pentagon operators as independent observers?

But enough, 1000 words indeed. I have no illusions about the commitment you will have to your post but I do hope you will each delve deeper into the quagmire that is 9/11 and consider the implications of being wrong. Many questions are posted at I'll be pleased to furnish further information, or guidance to posted information as required.

John Yates 25.04.2012

No comments: