ECU "Verdict"

British Broadcasting Corporation 

White City, 201 Wood Lane, 

London, W12 7TS

Telephone: 020 8743 8000

Editorial Complaints Unit

Email: ecu@bbc.co.uk

14 March 2012

Dear Mr Yates

Ref: CT/1200059

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On, BBC2, 29 August 2011

I am writing as promised to let you know the outcome of the Editorial Complaints Unit’s investigation into your various complaints about the above programme. As I explained previously, I have watched the programme, carried out some additional research into the issues which you have raised, discussed your concerns with the programme-makers and assessed the points you have raised against the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines1 on Accuracy and Impartiality.

I propose to address each point of complaint in turn using the summary I set out in my letter of 27 January, amended to take account of the additional points you raised in the attachment to your email of 8 February. I hope I have captured all of the salient points you have raised. However, before I do respond to each aspect of your complaint, there are three points which I would like to make to avoid any confusion about the nature or scope of my investigation.

Firstly, I think it is important to reiterate that the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust has already carried out its own investigation into the original version of this programme which was broadcast in 2007.2 The Trust is the final arbiter of the application of the BBC’s editorial standards and so the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) is bound by its findings. You may regard the Trust’s report as “superficial and poorly referenced” and believe that it has ignored “vast swathes of verifiable evidence” but it has established the position of the BBC’s senior editorial body on this matter. That means my finding on the updated programme has had to take into consideration the broad conclusions that the Trust reached about the approach the programme-makers took towards this subject, the requirements it set out for due impartiality as they relate to a programme of this kind, the manner in which interviewees were chosen and, of course, aspects of the revised programme which were the same as (or broadly similar to) the original programme. As you will recall, there were some aspects of the 2011 programme which had been updated from the original, some entirely new sequences and some of the programme was essentially the same.

1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/ 2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/nov07.pdf

Secondly, I do not propose to consider comments or complaints you have made about the original programme, whether in correspondence or in your online blog. As I hope I have made clear, the ECU is not in a position to revisit the content of the original programme; the BBC Trust has reached its own finding on the due accuracy and impartiality of this programme and the ECU is bound by that decision. Any new points about the 2007 programme would inevitably fall outside the time allowed for complaints to be brought under the BBC’s complaints process.

Finally, I have noted the concerns you have raised about the requirements for BBC content to achieve “due accuracy” and “due impartiality”. I think the guidelines give a clear explanation of what the word “due” means in this context, namely that accuracy and impartiality “must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation”. The Accuracy guidelines give some further clarification of what this means in practice: “The due accuracy required of, for example, drama, entertainment and comedy, will not usually be the same as for factual content. The requirements may even vary within a genre, so the due accuracy required of factual content may differ depending on whether it is, for example, factual entertainment, historical documentary, current affairs or news”.

The Impartiality guidelines also say “Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles”. You may regard these as “get out of jail free cards” but they are the standards which the BBC Trust has approved and therefore provide the context in which the ECU investigation must be conducted. You have also asked for an explanation of what “signposting” means in this context. It is generally understood to refer to the various ways in which information about the content of a programme is made available to the audience; this includes TV listings, electronic programme guides, trails, pre-transmission publicity and pre-transmission announcements.

I would now like to respond to the points you have raised about the updated programme:

1. The programme did not include contributions from survivors, first responders, relatives of victims or from academics, scientists, architects etc. who have been critical of the official version of events. The programme repeatedly denigrated such people as “conspiracy theorists”.

a. How does the BBC explain its absolute silence concerning family members fighting a David and Goliath battle against officialdom?

b. How does the BBC explain its absolute silence concerning the over one hundred fire-fighters’ tapes that have been released after legal battles with the authorities who tried to restrict access to this revealing information?

The original finding of the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust concluded that the programme broadcast in 2007 reflected the mainstream theories about the events leading up to 9 September 2001, what happened on the day itself and what took place in the days that followed. It recognised that some viewers might not agree with the choice of theories which were included but was satisfied that the theories covered in the programme were sufficient to provide the audience with enough relevant information for them to draw their own conclusions with regard to the activities of the US government in the incidents related to 9/11.

As you may recall, the original programme focussed on six leading “conspiracy theories”:

i. What caused the Twin Towers to collapse? Did the planes bring down the towers or were explosives used by government agencies?

ii. What caused World Trade Centre Tower 7 (WTC7) to collapse?

iii. What happened in the attack on the Pentagon? Did a commercial plane crash into the building or not?

iv. What happened on Flight United 93? v. Was the Jewish community “tipped off” about events in advance?

vi. Did the FBI and CIA know of the attacks in advance and ignore this information?

The re-edited programme took a similar approach but removed the theory about the Jewish community and extended the section on the collapse of WTC7 by adding one of the more high- profile new theories.

I therefore think it is reasonable to conclude that the approach of the revised programme to the various “conspiracy theories” was appropriate, since it broadly mirrored the original. It extended one of the most widely discussed new theories, presenting the views on both sides; it included some new contributions on theories which featured in the original programme; and all those who were in the original programme were contacted to ensure they were happy for their original contributions to be reused. All those included in the 2007 programme, with the exception of Dylan Avery, confirmed that their original contributions accurately reflected their present views. For the record, Mr Avery did not respond to the programme-makers’ approach.

Taking these points together, I cannot conclude that the 2011 programme failed to achieve the necessary due impartiality. I appreciate that you believe the programme should have interviewed a wide range of other people, including survivors, first responders, victims’ relatives, academics, scientists and architects, and I accept that the programme could have included a wider range of contributors (or different contributors). It could also have considered the fire-fighters’ tapes to which you refer. However, the BBC Trust concluded that it was reasonable for the programme to limit the scope of its investigation to the mainstream theories listed above and ruled that the programme presented the views of both sides on each of those theories in a manner which ensured due impartiality. It decided the programme gave sufficient information in support of both the various theories and the official view to enable the audience to have a reasonable understanding of the various arguments. The Trust also noted that the programme had been fair and open-minded in examining the evidence, weighing the material facts and presenting the various theories.

I am therefore satisfied that the various contributors included in this programme were adequate to achieve the required due impartiality and their contributions were presented in such a way as to ensure that both sides of the argument were presented appropriately. The programme chose to include contributions from those who have a well-established reputation as leading voices in the truth movement, individuals who have achieved a level of recognition and authority among those who oppose the official version of events. These contributors were able to put across a credible and authoritative view of the “conspiracy theory” arguments and to challenge the official version of events. I note that the programme included numerous comments from contributors who expressed their view of the official version of events in robust and forthright terms. For example:

Alex Jones: We don’t know the full story of exactly what happened. We know the official story is completely disproven and a fairy tale.

Jim Fetzer: We all took an oath to protect, defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. And it is a devastating realisation to me, as a former Marine Corps officer, that some of our enemies have indeed been domestic rather than foreign.

Alex Jones: Private, corporate, rogue networks working in US and British and Israeli intelligence. All three groups have been found to have fingerprints, but the main driver was rogue networks at the top of the US government. Here’ s the thing. The government admits they’ve staged events before. The official story doesn’t add up. I’m saying that it needs to be investigated.

Dylan Avery (Loose Change): Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the Twin Towers? In almost all the videos of the collapses, violent ejections appear 20 to 60 storeys below the demolition wave.

Niels Harrit: There were three high rises but there are only two airliners. Now you don’ t have to a PhD in physics to count to 3, OK? So what happened to Building 7 what was roughly a little less than half the height of the twin towers? It collapsed on its own seven hours after the north tower and the way it came down indicates that it was a controlled demolition, there is no way a steel framed high riser can come down due to fire.

Alex Jones: That crater they show me looks like looks like no aircraft crash I’ve ever seen in my life.

Jim Fetzer: This whole thing is stage managed. There’ s no evidence, no mass of debris etc., no tail, no wings, not even luggage or bodies there.

Alex Jones: I love my country. I fear my Government. So I’m one of those guys that follow with the founding Fathers, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson said, and I think I’m in good company, not trusting a Government and questioning, especially with the long history of Governments lying, even when the truth would suit them.

There was no requirement to interview the kind of additional contributors to which you have referred. I think it is important to acknowledge that in an hour-long programme, there is a limited amount of time which can be devoted to various contributors. It is a matter of editorial judgement for the programme-makers to decide which contributors to include and I am satisfied that the programme gave due weight to those who oppose the official version of events. I do not regard the fact that this programme omitted interviews with eye-witnesses, fire-fighters, relatives or the like as evidence of a lack of due impartiality.

You have also said that the programme denigrated these contributors by referring to them as “conspiracy theorists”. That is not a view I share because I am not persuaded that the description is one which would be understood by a general audience to be necessarily negative or derogatory. I think a “conspiracy theory” is generally understood to refer to a situation where an official version of events is challenged, often with the suggestion of a cover-up or a secret plot hidden from the public. Those who support such theories can legitimately be described as “conspiracy theorists” without such terminology being prejudicial or denigrating.

2. The programme cherry-picked information and hypotheses which support the official version of events and included contributors “tied to the establishment by money, career and contract”. It included facts and conclusions which have been withdrawn by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and as a result the programme presented information the official bodies no longer support.

As I have indicated in my response to Point 1, the requirement of due impartiality is to ensure that a breadth and diversity of opinion is reflected and to give due weight to the diverse areas of an argument. The BBC Trust has previously ruled that the approach of the original programme met the requirements of due impartiality in relation to the theories which it chose to address. The programme presented the views of both sides in its consideration of the main “conspiracy theories” (and I think it is reasonable to say that the majority of those who oppose the official version of events would cite the issues listed above in Point 1 as among the main examples of events that did not take place as described by the establishment) and this approach ensured the audience had a reasonable understanding of the various arguments.

I think it follows that in reflecting the views of both sides of the debate it was necessary to include contributions from those who support the official version of events. I appreciate that you regard many of these contributors to be biased because of their association with the establishment or the US government, but that does not mean that such views should not be included. The requirement is to ensure that such contributors are appropriately and accurately described so that the audience can judge their comments accordingly. I am satisfied that was the case. For example, Leslie Robertson was introduced as “the original structural engineer” of the Twin Towers; Abolhassan Astaneh was described as a “leading structural engineer... who has studied the full structural drawings of the Twin Towers”; Allyn Kilsheimer was “a leading structural engineer who saw the damage and later was one of the first to see inside the Pentagon”; viewers were told that Jean O’Connor of the FBI “arrived within an hour of the crash and took charge as every piece of evidence was collected and catalogued by the FBI’ s evidence response team”; Richard Fruehan and Chris Pistorius were described as “two experts from Carnegie Mellon University”.

You have also suggested that the programme included facts and conclusions which have been withdrawn by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).3 You don’t appear to say specifically which facts or conclusions have been withdrawn and although I am aware of the public debate which followed the publication of both NIST reports (2005 and 2008), I am not aware that the Institute has withdrawn the primary conclusions it published.

It seems to me that the issue here is whether the manner in which the programme explained the official explanation for the collapse of the towers was a reasonable and accurate summary of the official version of events. This is what the programme said:

Narrator: The official report into the collapse concluded that when the planes slammed into the towers they severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fireproofing. Purdue University modelled how 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was spewed over many floors starting widespread fires. Temperatures reaching up to a thousand degrees Celsius weakened the floors and columns.

Leslie Robertson: The fires don’t have to melt the steel in order to bring the building down, all they have to do is raise it high enough so that the strength of the steel is reduced to the point where failure takes place.

Narrator: Steel melts at around 1,500 degrees Celsius, but at 600 degrees it loses half its strength. Eventually the floors sagged and the perimeter columns bent, starting the collapse and creating the sounds of explosions. Suddenly the massive weight of the floors above dropped, creating a dynamic load far beyond what the columns were designed for.

Leslie Robertson: There’ s plenty of weight up there to bring the building down.

Narrator: And the floors below caved in, causing those puffs of smoke.

The NIST report4 into the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 includes an Executive Summary which offers an explanation for what caused both towers to collapse:

3 http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 (NCSTAR 1A) http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017 (NCSTAR 1) http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.

In WTC1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighbouring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floor.

In WTC2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inwards, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighbouring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.

The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by the aircraft impact.

4 http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

It seems to me that the summary provided by the programme into “The official report into the collapse” was accurate; it reflected the fact that fires in the towers weakened the columns, this caused the floors to sag, this pulled the columns inwards and reduced their capacity to support the building above. As a result, the top of the building tilted and began its descent. There was no reference to the “pancake theory” and only a fleeting use of a graphic which had previously been used to demonstrate that theory. I don’t believe the graphic was misleading in this context since it contributed to a simple, visual illustration of how the towers collapsed.

a. The programme used computer simulations which were not based on peer reviewed data.

The computer simulations used in the programme were designed to provide a simple, visual illustration of what happened when the planes hit the towers. Those used in this section of the programme demonstrated the official version of what happened, just as other graphic representations from the Loose Change documentary were used to demonstrate other explanations for what took place. I think most viewers would be familiar with the use of graphics and understand their purpose in the context of a programme such as this.

b. The programme dismissed a published scientific paper by Niels Harrit because it was “irrelevant” and had not been challenged in peer review.

The programme included a comment from Professor Chris Pistorius in which he explained why he thought scientists had not challenged the conclusions of Professor Harrit’s published paper. It was Professor Pistorius who described Professor Harrit’s paper or conclusions as “frankly irrelevant”. Viewers would have been aware that was his professional opinion. The programme had previously included a lengthy contribution from Professor Harrit in which he set out his theory and went on to give the final word on this issue to Professor Harrit. That was sufficient to ensure the necessary due impartiality. See also the response to Point 11.

c. How does the BBC explain that it is broadcasting an analysis that the official investigators have refuted - i.e. the pancake theory?

Please see my response to Point 2 above.

d. How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the audience that the US government funded the Purdue University computer animations for both the WTC and the Pentagon?

There were two references to Purdue University. The programme said that “Purdue University modelled how 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was spewed over many floors, starting widespread fires” and “Purdue University has built a computer model to show how the damage inside the Pentagon is likely to have happened”.5 The University may receive funding from government bodies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) but I am unaware of any evidence that the university received a commission from the government to undertake this research or that the research was specifically funded by any government body. Furthermore, although organisations like the NSF may be funded by the US government and its board members may be appointed by the President, they act independently (much in the same way that most public bodies are funded and operate). In order for me to conclude that the programme should have explained the source of the University’s funding, I would have to be persuaded that this funding (which does not appear to come directly from government) had influenced the research findings, and in the absence of such evidence, I cannot conclude that the omission of this information would have given the audience a materially misleading impression.

5 http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

I also think it is important to bear in mind that the computer animation was used to illustrate the official version of what happened and that this was made clear to viewers. The graphic was not presented as the definitive version of events.

e. How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the audience that the US government funded the research of Abolhassan Astaneh?

Abolhassan Astaneh is a professor at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California. His work into the Twin Towers was sponsored by the National Science Foundation.6 As I explained in my previous response to Point 2d, I don’t believe the fact that an individual received funding from an independent government agency was relevant information that the programme should have made clear. 6 http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/WTC/wtc-studies.html

f. How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the audience that Richard Fruehan and Chris Pistorius benefit indirectly from government grants? Carnegie Mellon University is reliant on government grants.

Please see my response to Points 2d and 2e.

g. How does the BBC explain that in the 2007 9/11 Conspiracy File, Caroline Catz introduces and signs off Hoffman extremely inaccurately and why has this breach of Charter and Editorial Guidelines not been corrected?

This point of complaint refers to the 2007 programme and so I am unable to address it for the reasons I have explained previously.

3. The programme excluded writing and thinking in answering the question “what makes conspiracy theories so persist and so powerful”. It was dishonest to ignore the fact that the behaviour of the human animal in political history, in literature etc. is shown to be team, group, tribe, clan, family orientated.

The choice of which information and which contributors to include in a programme is a matter of editorial judgement and discretion for programme-makers. In this case, the programme reflected the views of Frank Spotnitz on why some people may question a version of events or an explanation offered by a government or officials. It also included a comment from Alex Jones as to why he believes people do not trust their politicians and authorities. I cannot agree that the omission of a reference to the writings of the likes of Shakespeare or Machiavelli contributed towards a lack of balance or would have misled the audience. I fail to see the relevance of your reference to “cliquish, partisan” human behaviour; the programme reflected that there are, at least, two conflicting versions of what happened on 9/11 and viewers would have been in no doubt that there is a genuine group of people who believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

4. The programme ignored evidence of the US government’s involvement in previous conspiracies.

The BBC Trust previously ruled that it did not consider it necessary to explore “the ‘history of deceit’ of the US government” in order to satisfy the requirement of the accuracy guidelines to “weigh all relevant facts... to get at the truth”. The Editorial Standards Committee said that the purpose of the original programme (and equally, I think, of the revised version) was to consider specific theories related to the incidents on 9/11 and not conspiracy theories relating to other events in US history. There was, therefore, no requirement to make reference to previous conspiracy theories related to the US government.

5. The programme acknowledged other US Government conspiracies (Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, WMD/Iraq) but said questioning of the official version of events in relation to 9/11 was “out of bounds”.

The programme included the following comment from Alex Jones:

I think I’m in good company, not trusting a Government and questioning, especially with the long history of Governments lying, even when the truth would suit them.

This was followed by brief news clips referencing Presidents Nixon, Clinton and Bush and Oliver North. It seems to me that this gave some credence and context to the case that had been made by Mr Jones. The sequence was then followed by a comment from Frank Spotnitz in which he offered a different view:

When you can’t trust your leaders that creates anxiety and fear and people want to know what to believe, understandably. And if you can’t trust the official leaders of your government, where do you turn?

I regard that as appropriately balanced. The programme ended by offering a summary of the evidence put forward by both sides on the theories it had considered.

This is what the programme said:

Narrator: The evidence points to intelligence mistakes before 9/11. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are just that – theories. The evidence doesn’t support them. But their authors insist they will fight on against what they see as a dangerous and ruthless government conspiracy.

Alex Jones: If they kill me, that will turn me into a martyr. So the system attempts to assassinate my character and to edit and misrepresent what I’ve said and done as an attempt to assassinate the ideas that I put out, but that doesn’t work because ideas are bullet proof.

Niels Harrit: I have no way back. If you fight you might lose but if you don’ t fight you have lost. There is no way that our civilisation can continue without facing these unsolved questions of 9/11.

The Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality allow for programmes to provide “provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence” and so I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the programme to conclude by offering a considered assessment while also including the views of those who take a different view.

6. The programme misrepresented key facts, including:

a. The programme referred to a “routine military exercise” but the authorities now admit there was an unprecedented number of manoeuvres and exercises underway. How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the viewer of the unprecedented list of military and emergency service exercises on the very day of 9/11?

This is what the programme said:

Now the military were looking for one plane among thousands on radar. And the plane was being taken off course. What’ s more a routine military training exercise was taking place at the US air defence command. So it was another 27 minutes before the interceptors were scrambled.

I cannot conclude that this section of the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading when considered in context. It seems to me that the audience would have understood that the fact a military training exercise was underway added to the confusion and contributed to the delay in responding to the hijacking. I take your point about the evidence there were a number of exercises and drills taking place on the day, which might not be considered routine, but I am not persuaded that the extent of the training exercise would have had a material effect on the audience’s understanding.

b. It was incorrect to say the FBI and CIA “insist they had no specific warnings of the hijackings on 9/11”. Using the word “specific” obscured the known situation that this information was known to the various agencies.

This is the relevant section of the programme:

But is there a story where the evidence stacks up against the government? The FBI and CIA insist they had no specific warnings of the hijackings on 9/11. But it seems they did have important intelligence about Al Qaeda before the attacks.

The programme went on to explain that although the CIA was aware of the arrival of Nawaf al- Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar in California in January 2000, this information was not passed to the FBI. It explained that the FBI had intelligence that al-Qaeda could be planning an attack “but there was nothing specific for the FBI to go on”. I think this established that although the agencies were aware of an impending threat, the lack of co-ordination or intelligence sharing meant that there was no information about the particulars of any attack. I also think it is clear that the claim about a lack of specific warnings was clearly attributed to the CIA and FBI (“The FBI and CIA insist they had no specific warnings) and so audiences would have been aware that this was the view of the agencies rather than an established fact.

7. The frequent repetition of the phrase “conspiracy theory” was used subliminally to condition the audience to support the UK and US government policy.

As I explained in my response to Point 1, I do not believe that there is anything inherently negative in the use of the phrase “conspiracy theory” or “conspiracy theorists”. The programme presented the views of those who maintain there has been a government conspiracy to hide the truth about what happened and the views of those who support the official version of events. This ensured the necessary due impartiality.

8. The programme featured 15 contributors who supported the official version of events and 4 who disagreed. This was evidence of lack of balance.

It is certainly the case that the programme concentrated on the opinions of four leading figures who are well known and well regarded in the 9/11 truth movement. This was a conscious decision by the programme-makers who have told me that they felt it would be more informative to allow a smaller number of individuals more time to explain their ideas and theories, rather than attempt to cover a wider range of views in a more cursory manner.

I think it is reasonable to say that the four individuals who featured in the programme, Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer and Niels Harrit are among the most prominent figures in the 9/11 movement and represent the more credible and widely-held theories. They are regarded as influential and are respected by the majority of their peers. I am satisfied that the contributors featured in the programme were able to put forward their views and theories in detail, and at length, and this ensured that the audience was aware of the arguments put forward by those who oppose the official version of events.

I should also make it clear that due impartiality is not simply a question of equal time or numbers. The fact that more individuals were included in the programme than support the official version of events would not necessarily lead to a lack of balance. The question is whether the programme featured a wide range of significant views and perspectives and gave due weight to those views and perspectives. I note that the programme gave the four “conspiracy theorists” ample time to explain their views, often using their own material, and in many cases where there was an exchange of views, the final word was given to the 9/11 theorists.

9. The programme did not include contributions from relevant informed experts (such as Thomas Kean, Bob Kerrey et al) who have questioned the findings of official investigations and inquiries. How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the viewer of the statements of the majority of the 9/11 Commission members condemning various failures of the 9/11 Commission Report due to conflicting evidence from FAA, NORAD, White House etc.?

As I have explained in my response to Points 1 and 8, I do not believe that the omission of certain views or contributions from certain individuals, such as those you have named, would amount to a lack of due impartiality. Viewers would have been in no doubt that there are those who question the official findings about the events of 9/11 and the contributors chosen by the programme are, as I have said previously, recognised and respected within the 9/11 movement.

I appreciate that members of the 9/11 Commission have expressed concern about aspects of the Commission’s work and the co-operation it received (or perhaps, more accurately, didn’t receive) from agencies such as the CIA.7 However, I am unaware of statements which suggest that any key or significant individuals have called into question the over-arching findings of the 9/11 Commission.8

7 For example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=thomas+kean&st=nyt 8 http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22_07_04911Report.pdf

10. The inclusion of a CIA agent swearing allegiance at the start of the programme gave the misleading impression that the CIA is above reproach when it is accepted that the agencies activities are “absolutely anchored in immorality and unethical behaviour”.

I assume you are referring to the contribution from former CIA analyst, Philip Mudd, in which he said:

I served at CIA for 24 years. We’re smart, we’re good. To believe that we’d orchestrate a 10 year conspiracy, forget about the fact that would be immoral unethical and simply unbelievable except in the movies.

I cannot agree that this single contribution would have given the impression you suggest. Mr Mudd was clearly expressing his view about the notion that there was a cover-up of what actually happened on 9/11. What’s more, there were seven separate contributions from interviewees in the opening section of this programme. The six others came from the four interviewees who support the idea of a conspiracy, effectively rejecting Mr Mudd’s claim that the idea of a CIA conspiracy was preposterous. The balance of this section of the programme was, if anything, skewed towards the views of those who reject Mr Mudd’s version.

11. Professor Niels Harrit was discredited as a witness and he was not given an opportunity to respond to criticism of his paper on the collapse of Building 7. This was evidence of lack of balance.

The programme devoted a significant amount of time to considering the latest theories as to what caused the collapse of WTC7. The programme summarised the opposing views as follows:

Now a new theory has evolved about a third huge skyscraper that was destroyed on 9/11. But this one was not hit by a plane. World Trade Centre 7 has become the focus for conspiracy theories. The New York City command centre for civil emergencies was based here. The Secret Service, Pentagon and the CIA all had offices in the building. Some argue that’ s just too suspicious. The official explanation is that it collapsed because of uncontrolled fires which burnt for seven hours. But if that is the case this is the first time a steel framed skyscraper has collapsed because of fire.

The programme then introduced Professor Niels Harrit as follows:

Narrator: Now a retired Danish chemistry professor thinks he has discovered the smoking gun that will unlock the biggest conspiracy ever perpetrated.

Niels Harrit: There were 3 high rises but there are only two airliners. Now you don’t have to a PhD in physics to count to three, OK? So what happened to building 7 what was roughly a little less than half the height of the Twin Towers? It collapsed on its own seven hours after the north tower and the way it came down indicates that it was a controlled demolition. There is no way a steel framed high riser can come down due to fire.

The programme went on to explain that the collapse of WTC7 appears similar to buildings brought down by controlled demolition, that Professor Harrit has worked with Professor Steven Jones analysing dust found in downtown Manhattan and that as a result “thinks there’ s evidence that tonnes of thermite were planted in the world trade centre buildings. And that both incendiaries and explosives were used”.

The programme then went on to include a section of the interview conducted with Professor Harrit in which he explained his theory in more detail and explained that the paper he had written had been well received by his peers:

Niels Harrit: When you heat the chips up they take off, they react, I would not call it an explosion. We do not know but they react violently and show all the characteristics of thermite reaction.

Interviewer: And what has been the reaction of scientists to your conclusions?

Niels Harrit: None. None. It is beyond doubt the best peer reviewed paper ever in my career. I would like to know how many times it had been downloaded, how many people have actually read it. Nobody has challenged its conclusions.

It seems to me that Professor Harrit was, therefore, afforded the opportunity to put forward his theory and to comment on how it has been received. The programme went on to include balancing contributions from Professor Richard Fruehan and Professor Chris Pistorius in which they offered an alternative explanation for Professor Harrit’s results. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach to take, consistent with the approach taken to other theories explored in this programme and one with which most viewers would be familiar. I note as well that Professor Harrit was given the last word on the matter, as follows:

There’ s something wrong here. If you had seen Building 7, there’ s no way back. So you can try to cheat on yourself or you can speak up and live with dignity.

I therefore cannot agree that the programme discredited Professor Harrit or failed to give him an appropriate opportunity to put forward his views.

12. The programme consistently stated the official version of events as fact. This was evidence of lack of balance.

The programme clearly reflected the fact that there are a range of views on what happened on 9/11 and viewers would have been in no doubt that there are those who believe the official version of events is a work of fiction. I imagine that viewers would also have understood that the various contributors were expressing their own, genuinely held, beliefs about what happened and who was responsible. The audience would have been able to judge the various views and versions of events and draw their own conclusions. (See also my response to Points 1, 2 and 8)

13. It was inaccurate to say that all that remains of 9/11 is consigned to a hangar in New York state. Steel girders have been recycled and much of the building was pulverised into dust.

The programme showed a hanger full of twisted and burned steel girders and other debris with the accompanying line of script:

This is all that remains of America’s biggest crime scene. The World Trade Centre consigned to a hanger in a New York suburb.

I do not accept that this was misleading or that, in this context, there was any requirement to provide the further information you suggest about the removal of material from the World Trade Centre or the two other sites.

14. It was inaccurate to say that “When air traffic control tried to find them [hijacked planes] there were like 4500 blips that looked identical across the United States”. All four planes should have been identifiable.

This what the programme actually said:

Colin Scoggins (FAA): There were multiple hijacks, four hijacks. They turned off the transponder, and it also sounded as if there might have been some violence on the aircraft.

Narrator: Now the military were looking for one plane among thousands on radar. And the plane was being taken off course.

I am not in a position to know what air traffic controllers or the military could see on their screens at the time in question but I cannot conclude that what was said was materially inaccurate or misleading in the context of the programme. The broad point that was being made (and which I think it is reasonable to assume the audience would understand) was that there was a high degree of confusion and lack of specific information available at the time. The script suggested that the military were searching for one plane among many, and that the plane in question was off course and had turned off its transponder. These were circumstances which would presumably make the plane more difficult to locate and track.

15. The programme was misleading when it said military equipment and procedure

“was designed and their procedures were designed to look out over the ocean, their equipment wasn’t designed to look inside the United States”.

You have said that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is responsible for aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America and viewers should have been made aware that it has regularly scrambled fighter jets in response to perceived air threat. You have said it was misleading to suggest that military equipment “wasn’ t designed to look inside the United States”. I take your point but I cannot agree that this section of the programme was materially misleading.

The comment you have cited was made by Colin Scoggins and so I think it is reasonable to assume that the audience would understand that this was his informed view, based on his experience as an air traffic controller with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). I also think the recordings from the day appear to support the view that there was a lack of communication between the FAA and NORAD, there was a delay in getting planes off the ground and pilots were not clear where they were meant to be heading. Taking these points together, I do not believed that Mr Scoggins’ view about NORAD equipment was likely to give a materially misleading impression.

16. The programme included a contribution from Abolhassan Astaneh who was paid by the US government to draw up a report on the structural failures of the Twin Towers. His hypothesis about the structural integrity of the towers being dependent on thin load bearing walls has been discredited by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and others. Other views should have been included to achieve due impartiality.

The contribution from Professor Astaneh came during the section of the programme on the collapse of the Twin Towers. The programme summarised one of the main theories, as put forward by Dylan Avery, that the towers were brought down by controlled explosions, rather than any consequences of being hit by the two planes. The programme then interviewed Leslie Robertson, the original structural engineer on the building of the towers, who put forward his view as to why the towers came down and offered an alternative explanation for the “violent ejections” which Mr Avery says are evidence of explosions:

The fires don’t have to melt the steel in order to bring the building down all they have to do is raise it high enough so that the strength of the steel is reduced to the point where failure takes place... There’ s air inside and as the building comes down it creates very high pressures inside the building itself. It tries to break the glass out into and sure you’re gonna get gas omitted from the building without question.

The programme then included a further contribution, this time from Professor Astaneh, a structural engineer who takes issues with Mr Robertson’s explanation for the collapse of the towers. He believes that the use of thin load-bearing walls around the perimeter of the tower structure, rather than more conventional columns and beams, was the reason for the towers collapsing in a particular manner. This theory was then rebutted by Mr Robertson:

It’ s preposterous. Those walls were stronger and more air tight than the walls that were used in the past. I know of no case in the World Trade Centre where the structural design did not exceed the requirements of the building code of the city of New York. There’s a lot of misinformation out there and not only that, these are extremely complex issues.

As you can see, the programme did, therefore, offer an alternative view to Professor Astaneh’s theory and so I am satisfied that the programme did achieve the necessary due impartiality.

a. Why does the BBC not examine the official NIST report and inform the viewer that the report only refers to the “collapse” of the floors immediately involved with the aircraft impacts, not the disintegration of the whole building down to below ground level?

Although it is true that the focus of the NIST report “was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower” and “includes little analysis of the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable”, I cannot agree that it was necessary to provide this somewhat detailed information to the audience. As I have explained elsewhere, the NIST report gave a detailed explanation for what caused WTC and WTC2 (and WTC7) to collapse. It said it found “no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives” and so there is no doubt that the official version of events rejects the theory put forward in the programme by Mr Avery. Having said that, the programme included three different theories as to what caused the towers to come down and also reflected the view of the official report and therefore achieved the necessary balance.

17. Richard Fruehan and Chris Pistorius were included in the programme but had a vested interest in the official version of events. This was not made clear.

Please see my response to Points 2d and 2e.

18. The programme did not explain that the Twin Towers contained 47 uprights intermeshed with steel beams accredited to withstand 2000 degrees. This was misleading.

As I explained in my response to Point 16, the programme presented three theories which have been put forward to explain why the towers collapsed in the manner in which they did so, and also summarised the finding of the official inquiry which was conducted by NIST. This was sufficient to ensure the audience had an understanding of the debate around this issue. I cannot conclude that the omission of the information you have highlighted was misleading.

19. The programme did not report that there were explosions in the basements of the towers prior to the planes hitting and afterwards while fire crews were on site.

There is no conclusive evidence that there were explosions in the basement of either or both towers either before or after the two planes hit WTC1 and WTC2. Eye-witnesses have reported hearing explosions, or what they took to be explosions, and this was reflected in the programme as follows:

Reports of loud bangs and the sudden collapse of the buildings are taken as proof of explosives.

20. The explanation provided by the programme as to why the towers collapsed was presented as fact but the cause is disputed and this was not reflected. Why is the BBC presenting a theory about the disintegration that is not supported by NIST or any other authority?

Please see my response to Points 2, 11, 16 and 16a.

21. The programme did not mention the failure of the missile batteries protecting the Pentagon or the fact no CCTV footage from the area was released by the Pentagon and other footage was confiscated by the FBI.

The programme included contributions from Professor Jim Fetzer and footage from the Loose Change documentary to explain the theories of those who say there is no evidence that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon. I do not believe that the omission of the information you have highlighted would have led to a materially misleading impression being given to the audience; viewers would have understood that there are those who say the damage at the Pentagon is inconsistent with being hit by a passenger plane, and video and photographic evidence fails to show any evidence of such a plane.

I would add that the programme did refer to the lack of available video footage. It said:

The FBI has released some video of the attack on the Pentagon. It comes from two low quality security cameras... There are calls for the FBI to release more video. Critics have focused instead on pictures which don’t show wreckage.

22. The programme did not mention that data from the black box of Flight 77 has been analysed by independent experts and it does not match the official explanation.

The report by the National Transportation Safety Board into the Cockpit Voice Recorder9 found that “No undamaged or usable segments of recording tape were found in the CVR recorder”.

I appreciate the Pilots for 9/11 Truth has “concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001”. However, since the programme explained the leading theory among the 9/11 truth movement that no passenger plane hit the Pentagon, I cannot conclude that it was necessary to include details of a “black box” which is either genuine (in which case a passenger jet must have hit the Pentagon) or is in no way related to whatever did hit the building.

23. The programme included a contribution from Allyn Kilsheimer without making it clear that he “has made a good living out of his close association with the Pentagon and Dept of Defense”. Why is the BBC deliberately concealing Kilsheimer’s extensive vested interest in the official theory and his long term involvement with the Pentagon, FBI etc.?

I have reviewed the information you have provided about Mr Kilsheimer10 but I do not believe there is sufficient persuasive evidence of any association with the Pentagon or US government departments to make it necessary to refer to this in the programme.

24. The programme did not make it clear that the Pentagon was a crime scene in US criminal law and so no wreckage should have been touched or removed.

I do not regard this as relevant to a consideration of the various theories about what happened at the Pentagon (or any of the other sites).

25. The programme included a contribution from Jean O’Connor of the FBI in which she denigrated those who question the official version of events. This was evidence of a lack of due impartiality.

Special Agent O’Connor was clearly putting forward a personal view and viewers would have therefore judged her comments in this light. The programme included numerous contributions from those who dispute the official version of events and question those who support that view (see my response to Point 1) and so I am satisfied that the programme achieved the required balance and due impartiality.

9 http://www.scribd.com/doc/14780831/T8-B18-NTSB-Documents-1-of-3-Fdr-CVR-Cockpit-Voice-Recorder- Reports-AA-77-and-UA-93-Paperclipped-Together260 10 http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/06/allyn-kilsheimer.html

26. The programme did not include any of the various theories about the collapse of the towers which questioned the original NIST evaluation.

Please see my response to Points 2, 11, 16, 16a and 20.

27. The programme misrepresented the findings of the RE Lee Group.

This is what the programme said:

1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverised. The US Geological Survey took 38 dust samples. Later the research group R J Lee took about 100,000 samples and analysed them all thoroughly.

The programme did not present any “findings” that R E Lee Group may or may not have published and so I cannot agree that the programme misrepresented any such findings.

Although I do not feel able to uphold your complaint on this occasion I hope I have been able to go at least some way to addressing your concerns. Nevertheless, if you are not satisfied with my decision I would be happy to consider any points you might wish to make on my finding. I would be grateful if you could let me have any comments within ten working days of this letter.

You can also ask the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust to review my finding. Correspondence for the Committee should be addressed to Lucy Tristram, Complaints Advisor, BBC Trust Unit, 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ or you can send an email to trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. The Trust normally expects to receive an appeal within four weeks of the date of this letter, or of any further substantive correspondence between us, and expects complainants to limit the details of their appeal to no more than one thousand words.

Yours sincerely

Colin Tregear

Complaints Director

The BBC Trust is proposing some changes to the complaints service. Have your say at: http://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk/bbc/complaints_framework

18