BBC First Stage Complaints Team. Date sent 06.10.2011
Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On
Fri 9 Sep 2011 BBC HD
Dear Ms/Sir,
My complaint is founded on the understanding that the public has a legitimate expectation that BBC documentary producers and directors should respect the clauses in the Royal Charter and abide by the stated intentions of the BBC Trust.
BBC management and the Trust are responsible for ensuring that stated guidelines and public pledges are followed, most recently Sir Michael Lyons assured the public that the Corporation would respect the Royal Charter and ensure "the essential fuel [for] an informed democracy".
“The public purpose of "sustaining citizenship" implies the provision of high quality impartial coverage of news and current affairs. This is the essential fuel of an informed democracy.”
Sir Michael Lyons’ July 08 Strasbourg speech
The events of September 11th 2001 were the basis for wide spread restrictions on civil liberties and to the "War on Terror" which has lead directly to two major wars, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The public needs the BBC to present a fair representation of reality as recorded in published and broadcast material. The people have a legitimate expectation that the BBC honour its pledges and be :-
"fair and open minded" …. "objective and even handed" …… "we will never promote a particular view on controversial [political] matters political" …… "make it clear to our audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint.”
http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/06/aide-memoire-to-key-bbc-guidelines.html
Impartiality & diversity of opinion.
Editorial Guidelines in Full Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion
9/11 is an issue of enormous importance to the British people and the world community that the BBC serves. The BBC shapes what people think and what people feel about this pivotal moment in 21st Century history.
We have a right to honest reporting.
The Corporation's responsibilities to the public were specifically disregarded time after time in the Conspiracy Files: "9/11 Ten Years On", a programme advertised as a factual documentary.
I have listed below some of the abuses of the Royal Charter that reveal the programme was a fiction peddled as documentary fact.
It was intelligently designed to discredit all citizens that question officialdom over 9/11. The opening frames shows a horse's ass, slang meaning, noun: an oblivious idiot who generally says and does things that draw laughter at him, for being such an unbelievable moron. What place has this slur, presented with all the global authority of the BBC, in an investigation that was presented as balanced investigative documentary. "objective and even handed"
From: Impartiality & diversity of opinion.
It was a fiction because it deliberately ignored, obscured and confused the most pertinent issues and facts concerning the official account of what happened. It was a fiction because it presented highly speculative hypotheses as fact.
This was supposed to be a "programme [that] analyses the evidence and looks at what makes conspiracy theories so persistent and so powerful". BBC web site.
The points below highlight just some of the issues in which the BBC is in gross violation of Royal Charter clauses - specifically:
(1) The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.
(v) (l) (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, or fully aware, of what has occurred)
A brief overview of the BBC abuse of the Charter.
1.Despite the fact that there are hundreds of witnesses prepared to give evidence among World Trade Center survivors, first responders, and relatives of the victims, no first hand witness who had been present on the day were actually interviewed.
The very long list of academics, scientists, architects, engineers, pilots, air traffic personnel, 9/11 Commissioners, whistleblowers from US intelligence services, the military, public servants and politicians (US and world wide) etc. all highly critical of all or specific aspects of the official conspiracy theory, was ignored.
The voice of Caroline Catz repeatedly denigrates all these people as "conspiracy theorists", mostly without naming them or mention of their expertise or their unanswered questions.
2. What was purported as supportive independent analysis, backing the official story, was presented by persons tied to the establishment by money, career and contract. The BBC cherry picked establishment insiders to present various snippets of information and/or hypotheses supportive of the official position.
A number of these "facts" / "conclusions" have been withdraw by NIST, either replaced with new information or simply ignored. The BBC is presenting documentary information that the official bodies no longer support.
3. Unproven computer gimmickry was deployed. The base data for the simulations has not been released for peer review. This gimmickry was funded by the establishment. Value judgements were repeatedly aired about dissident opinion without evidence or investigation. This included dismissing a published scientific paper (by Niels Harrit) because it was "irrelevant" and had not been challenged in peer review.
4. To answer the question "what makes conspiracy theories so persistent and so powerful" the BBC fails to report the writings of Shakespeare, Robert Graves (I Claudius), Machiavelli etc. or of modern evolutionary anthropologists, ethologists and cognitive scientists.
5. It is dishonest to ignore the fact that the behaviour of the human animal in political history, in literature, in evolutional anthropology and in many other academic disciplines studying humans, is shown to be team, group, tribe, clan, family orientated. We are naturally cliquish, partisan, communal, collaborative, schemers, deceivers and conspiratorial.
It is a fiction to suggest that conspiracies are not part of human behaviour. History is replete with uncovered conspiracies.
The Pentagon Papers and Operation Northwood should be prominent in an initial look at US authority government's involvement in conspiracies. Then there is Oliver North and the Iran Contra scandal, Bay of Tonkin, Battleship Maine, Lusitania and Gladio for starters and lets not forget Norther Ireland "The Troubles" with MI 6 et al entanglement with republican terrorist forces. Please see the attached lists for a few more.
6. The BBC Conspiracy File programme caused confusion by on the one hand reminding viewers of the conspiracies of the Nixon, Clinton and Bush (Watergate, Monica Lewinsky and WMD/Iraq) but reassuring viewers on the other hand that any questioning of the official theory on 9/11 was out of bounds and simply the ramblings of weak minds seeking reassurance in a conspiracy theory so monstrous that most cannot believe it exists.
7. The File totally misrepresented key facts that have become public knowledge since 9/11. Two clear examples of presenting such misinformation are:
* Timeline 07:30 minutes into Ten Years On, Caroline Catz states there was a routine military training exercise taking place at the US Air Defense Command on that day.
This may be true but conceals the real story now admitted by US authorities that there were an unprecedented number of major “military manoeuvres” and “exercises” underway on the 11th Sept. 2001.
* Timeline 51:45 minutes into Ten Years On, Catz states as fact "the FBI & the CIA insist they had no specific warnings of the hijackings on 9/11"
This was part of the official White House and Pentagon line after 9/11. Using the word "specific" obscures the known situation that despite repeated statements by Bush and the administration that there was no warning of attacks by hijacked planes, this information had been flooding in and the "system was blinking red".
That Bush and the White House attempted to deny the fact is a fact worthy of BBC investigation.
8. The BBC is guilty of gross deception and manipulation in a programme designed to condition our minds to reject further inquiry.
The frequent repetition of the phrase - "conspiracy theory" was used subliminally to condition us to react, in a predictable Pavlovian manner, to support US & UK government policy and to consider anyone who asks important questions as a moron.
9. Based on interviews, the programme featured 13 believers in the official conspiracy theory and 4 independent critics who were denigrated to varying degrees. This is not "impartiality".
(1) The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.
To try and estimate "balance", by timing exposure of proponents of the official conspiracy theory against those seeking answers and/or presenting evidence that conflicts with official theory, reveals the inherent partisanship with the official theory shown by the BBC.
The whole programme, including the title, is designed to paint 9/11 as a closed case where the official theory is "proved" and all critics of it suffer from an unhealthy paranoid mental condition as is implied by the BBC’s repeated use of the term “conspiracy theorists” to describe them.
This is not an honest or accurate assessment of the issue.
10. Below are a few links to the ever growing numbers of global citizens who are standing up to challenge the history as presented by the White House and the 911 Commission. The BBC fails even to note the commissioners e.g. Bob Kerry and Commission administrators like John Farmer, who have questioned the validity of the findings and those calling for a new inquiry.
9/11 Commission chair and vice chair, the Hon. Thomas H. Kean and the Hon. Lee H. Hamilton in their 2006 book Without Precedent: the Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission and in interviews with journalists stated:
"We, to this day, don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, 9/11 Commission chair "It was just so far from the truth. ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue." Thomas Kean told the Washington Post
Referring to the CIA Hamilton said. "Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes. Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge."
Kean also said, "I'm upset that they didn't tell us the truth."
Referring to CIA videotapes of interrogation of Al Qaeda suspects Hamilton said “Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.”
Is the BBC asking the British public to accept that they should be shielded from the comments of those US insiders, or does the BBC maintain it was unaware of these criticisms of the 9/11 Commission’s work?
220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
1,500+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
400+ Medical Professionals
This year, 2011, White House terrorism tsar at the time of the 9/11 attacks, Richard Clarke, has given a bombshell interview to film makers providing more evidence for what many 9/11 sceptics have been saying for years: the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen by officials in the CIA who could have stopped them, and mere incompetence cannot be the explanation.
Now Ali Soufan, former FBI investigator with special responsibility for investigating Al Qaeda has blown the whistle, alleging he has been gagged and had been blocked from receiving from the CIA information about Al Qaeda essential to his investigations. But he gave that information in an interview with BBC Newsnight, so is this the beginning of a change within the BBC towards broadcasting more of the truth about 9/11?
The "Ten Years On" Conspiracy File recycled footage from the 2007 BBC 911 Conspiracy Files. My complaints about clips not specifically highlighted below are to be found on a review I made of this 2007 programme. These are to be considered as part of this current complaint concerning the Ten Years On File. http://bbcmot.blogspot.com/
Please accept them as part of this formal complaint against the Conspiracy Files "Ten Years On" programme makers, particularly Mike Rudin.
Specific instances from the time line of "Ten Years On"
These relate to
"accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output" and
"techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a [subliminal] message
To focus on some obvious partisan and inaccurate reporting:
1:34 The BBC starts it's "impartial" assessment of the events of September 11th 2001 by presenting a CIA agent swearing the morality, and high ethical code of the secret service personnel.
With so many history books and current exposures on the shelves, it is audacious in the extreme to leave Philip Mudd's remark unchallenged. It is not a theory but matter of accepted and recorded history that the CIA activities are absolutely anchored in immorality and unethical behaviour.
In connection with the CIA, should not the BBC have warned the viewer that from waterboarding suspected "terrorists" to "extraordinary rendition" to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan etc. for more serious torture / murder sanctioned by President Obama, the CIA is a dark force that operates beyond the law and way beyond a moral standard that might be recognised as civilised?
The Conspiracy File continues by offering 12 more witnesses supporting the official theory and disparaging any critic that is targeted by the Conspiracy File for attack.
The treatment of Professor Neils Harrit is an example of this use of "expert witnesses" to discredit the extremely brief critical statements that were broadcast.
Immediately after the Niels Harrit clip on the scientific paper he has published on WTC and active thermite particulates, the BBC uses Professor Pistorius to discredit Neil Harrit. Pistorius says that published scientific papers don't count if not criticised in peer review and to make a veiled attack on the intellectual capabilities of Neils Harrit by saying the paper was "irrelevant … easy to rebut … but everybody has more interesting things to do"
This is turning logic on its head especially as the normal process of publishing papers is to have them reviewed for acceptance as a serious scientific finding / theory valid for peer review.
02:30 Caroline Catz states the official conspiracy theory as fact. This uncritical endorsement of official "conclusions" continues thoughout the hour programme occasionally prefixed by the word "official". This is not impartial.
02:45 Catz - "all that remains of 9/11 consigned to a hanger in NY State" this gives the lie about "remains" and can only be regarded as a deliberate ploy to hide the truth: that the mainly 30ft steel girders were recycled to the Far East, as the due legal process of investigation of crime and accident scenes was uniquely abandoned. It avoids the question of the pulverisation of the majority of the building parts into fine dust never before experienced in structural failure of high rise buildings. http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/07/laws-of-physics-suspended.html
07:00 Air traffic control repeat segment from 2007.
Both the military and civilian air traffic control have sophisticated radar monitoring of air traffic by limited local regions. No controller would have massive numbers of blips on their screens. All 4 planes should have been clearly identifiable according to military insiders.
911 Commission’s Jamie Gorelick contradicts the BBC assertion stating that one of NORAD’s missions “is control of the airspace above the domestic United States”
The radar was working according to Transport Secretary Norman Mineta ….
Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission about his experience in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as American Airlines flight 77 approached the Pentagon, was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report.[4] In one colloquy testified by Mineta, he states that the vice president refers to orders concerning the plane approaching the Pentagon:
There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant.
— Norman Mineta,
The BBC ignored this in their fictional tale of "equipment not designed to look inwards but out over the ocean" and made no mention of Norman Mineta.
A former USAF fighter pilot writes "Soviet bombers would not be expected to leave their transponders on. Even if a plane turned its transponder off it would be “monitored like a hawk”. Pilots for Truth
This begs a question not asked here or in the Pentagon coverage as to why the Pentagon's own air defence missile systems failed to shoot down Flight 77. LINK
07:30 Caroline Catz states there was a routine military training exercise taking place at the US Air Defense Command on that day.
This may be true but conceals the real story which is that there were an unprecedented number of major “military manoeuvres” and “exercises” underway on the 11th Sept. 2001. Fighter Command, Military & intelligence services, NORAD, FEMA, FBI etc, were all conducting an unprecedented variety and complexity of training exercises and manoeuvres.
Please see:
Charlie Skelton, writing in the Guardian quotes Webster Tarpley's investigations as revealing the names and details of 46 drills and training exercises involving the intelligence & emergency services and the military.
For the BBC say there was a routine training exercise limited to US Air Defense Command on 9/11 is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The exercises in play that day were neither routine nor singular.
The BBC fails to inform the viewer that the statements of NORAD and FAA are still contradictory as are comments by senior military officials. The official record has been revised and is one of the issues being challenged [More]
13:00 The BBC presents an analysis by Abolhassan Astaneh who was/is in the pay of the US government to draw up reports on the structural failure of the towers. He earns money by "proving" the official theory. Following the discredited and now withdrawn position of NIST, that the centre of the towers was a hollow shaft containing the stairs and lifts, Astaneh is allowed to repeat this discredited hypothesis, that the structural integrity of the towers was dependent on a thin "bearing wall" system only 6mm thick at point of impact.
The Twin Towers were pioneers of a system based on massively strong core columns with lighter closely spaced columns and cross beams as the external structure. The BBC was duty bound to consult and air the opinions of the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth or experts from the list of architects and engineers registered at: http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
To present and back two "expert reports", i.e. "findings" of Abolhassan Astaneh and the computer simulations of Purdue University together with the unsubstansiated gossip of Richard Fruehan & Chris Pistorius, without any comments from those who have scientific criticism of these "findings", is not "impartial".
Abolhassan Astaneh's WTC work and the computer simulations of Purdue University had direct government funding. The WTC & Pentagon computer simulation have been criticised and as yet the raw data base on which these simulations were based has not been released.
Richard Fruehan & Chris Pistorius at Carnegie Mellon University are reliant on government grants. The institute receives $100 million in federal grants with Engineering and research grants accounting for approximately half of the total.
They all have vested interest in the official staory which was not declared by the BBC
When covering the destruction of the Twin Towers the BBC was duty bound to present a realistic representation of the strength of the cores which contained 47 huge uprights intermeshed with steel beams all accredited to withstand 2000 degrees.
The BBC was duty bound to report the information in the public domain of explosions in the basements prior to the planes hitting, of explosions while firemen were going up staircases in the towers, as well as evacuees reporting explosions, and journalists, and police. Not as Catz states that due to fire "floors sagged and perimeter columns bent starting the collapse and creating the sounds of explosions".
Catz continues with the BBC's very own engineering hypothesis as to how the towers collapsed below the floors immediately involved with the planes impacts.
"Suddenly the massive weight of the floors above dropped creating a dynamic load far beyond what the columns were designed for" ….. and the floors below caved in causing those puffs of smoke"
To achieve this miracle other laws of physics would have to be suspended for the day; the law of conservation of momentum, the law of thermal conductivity, the basic law in physics that you don't get something for nothing. [Gordon Ross] engineer.
The NIST team admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12.)
How was the energy produced to crush virtually everything, concrete, the furniture, computers, lifts, carpets, plumbing, electrics mostly to minute dust particles.
How were human bodies minced into thousands of "bits" and distributed over a wide area far from the Towers?
How was the energy produced to create molten steel that stayed hot for weeks after September 11th?
How wall to wall soft metal was supposed to create explosion like sounds the BBC did not elaborate.
How was it possible that firefighters reached the damaged floors in the South tower and reported the fires were minor just moments before the tower disintegrated? Listen to Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer, who was organising the evacuation of injured people with Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca.
How was it possible for a woman to be standing in the jagged hole made by F11 where the fires were supposed to be so hot they caused the structural steel to fail absolutely.
See: http://bbcmot.blogspot.com/ Photo right hand column.
These are questions that the BBC has the duty to ask.
20:30 Flight 77 / Pentagon
See http://bbcstory.blogspot.com/2008/07/story-line-2.html for full complaint in detail based on the 2007 Conspiracy File documentary.
The BBC omits to inform the viewer that the Pentagon is one of the most strongly defended and monitored buildings in the world.
The BBC fails to mention the complete failure of the missile batteries protecting the Pentagon. P56 Air Defence: Identification Zones at 50 - 17 - 3 miles
"It's an aviation no-mans-land. Nobody goes there - nobody"
"Except military planes with IFF "Identify Friend or Foe" transponders."
Robin Hordon ATC Boston.
The BBC omits to inform the viewer that the Pentagon is bristling with cameras. FBI agents confiscated the video tapes from several hotels and petrol station CCTV systems immediately after the attack. The Pentagon has never released its own tapes. The BBC did not inquire what the Pentagon may wish to hide?
No mention is made of the analysis by professional pilots, air traffic controllers and military officers, who succeeded in obtaining the flight data recording of F77 by legal means. The data from the black box does not match the official explanation. [More]
For full complaint concerning the use of the Rosen Centre computer simulation and the fact that they are tied to government and military by contract and official secrets act. See: http://bbcstory.blogspot.com/2008/07/story-line-2.html
Hoffman, who heads the Rosen Centre, was responsible for both Pentagon & WTC simulations. He was presented in the 2007 9/11 Conspiracy File "investigation" into the Pentagon damage as an "independent analyst".
After playing the play computer simulation Catz ends the clip by saying
[22:53] (CC) [2007 911 Conspiracy File] “Their research was not funded by the government. It was an independent academic project.”
This is not true ....
The Hoffman project was government funded through the National Science Foundation. [NSF]
September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations
Using LS-Dyna
Phase I, Completed September 11, 2002
Mete A. Sozen, Sami A. Kilic and Christoph M. Hoffmann
for documents backing this complaint.
23:40 Kilsheimer is presented as he was in the 2007 Conspiracy File although the BBC has added quotes about "parts of stewards bodies" for extra effect. Kilsheimer is one voice of those with vested interest in the official theory. Others that were not immediately in the official loop told it how they really saw it.
"There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon" James McIntrye CNN reporter & eye witness. [More] (three years later this man's memory turned 180 degrees but the quote above is on record)
Allyn Kilsheimer has made a good living out of his close association with the Pentagon and Dept of Defense over the years. It would make sense to claim to have seen bits of an aeroplane. This man is so closely "connected" that the Pentagon Comptroller (Dom Zakheim) didn’t bother with contracts when millions of dollars were at stake. Kilsheimer is "on the firm" thus influenced by an immense conflict of interest. [More]
There has been no air crash investigation. Absolutely nothing has been released to link any parts allegedly cleared up at the Pentagon to F77. No information has been released connecting any wreckage to the Boeing 757 although virtually every aeroplane part has an identification code stamped on to it by law. [More]
The Pentagon was a crime scene in US criminal law and an accident site in terms of aviation and civil disaster legal code. Nothing should have been touched. Yet we see military and civilians clearing up even while the smoke poured from the wrecked building. This is absolutely forbidden and very senior authority must have ordered and co-ordinated this immediate clean up after the explosion.
Why did the BBC not investigate this unprecedented breach of federal law?
Instead the BBC presents a new witness only just come forward.
25:45 Jean O'Connor of the FBI is introduced. She was responsible, according to the BBC, for cataloguing every bit of debris and wreckage at the Pentagon. Independent researchers are still waiting for the reports of the "clean-up" to be made public. Instead the BBC cuts in yet another denigration of anyone who questions the official conspiracy theory. O'Connor tells us the effects of conspiracy theorists are "unfair to the families and friends of the victims" and that questioning "belittles the lives of the victims"
The BBC is tasked by its Charter specifically not to use the medium of television to implant ideas into the minds of viewers without them being aware that they are being programmed with a subliminal message. Constant repetition of the catch phrase "conspiracy theorist" connected to the slur of nasty, cruel, unfair "horse's asses" is the ritual chant of all who promote the official theory.
(v) (l) (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, or fully aware, of what has occurred)
34:00 The File returns to the WTC disintegration and questions concerning Building 7 with Professors Richard Fruehan and Chris Pistorius
Their comments about a published scientific paper by Prof. Neils Harrit were insulting value judgements not founded on a scientific basis. Neils Harrit has been mailing Pistorius seeking his cooperation / explanation on the points raised. He has had no reply since summer.
Sweeping statements about scientific papers should not be screened unchallenged by the injured party. It is quite out of place in a documentary dedicated to researching the facts about 9/11to allow one sided gossip to imitate scientific fact.
In a scientific investigation into the disintegration of the Twin Towers it is of no relevance to broadcast value judgements . i.e. not scientific analysis but slanderous insults, about a scientist who has no opportunity of reply.
Pistorius says it would be easy to rebut the Harrit paper but has not bothered.
Pistorius has failed to respond to papers sent direct to him by Prof. Harrit about his criticism. He has publicly criticised the science to the millions of BBC viewers but has failed to provide scientific evidence.
To broadcast Pistorius' comment that the paper was "frankly irrelevant" ….. and "fairly easy to rebut, but people have better things to do" is to give backing to unfounded unsubstantiated gossip.
The only effect is to discredit unfairly the findings of Prof. Harrit. Are we to believe this is unintentional?
(v) (l) (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, or fully aware, of what has occurred)
Value judgement cannot replace scientific argument about facts.
The BBC did not ask if any of the other samples had been investigated for explosive or thermitic material. NIST has stated that it did not look for this evidence as it did not fit their pre conceived partial explanation about fire and warm wobbly steel failing absolutely and concurrently at the impact point.
Kevin Ryan worked for the company that certified the structural steel used in the WTC. He was sacked for questioning the original NIST evaluation of fire effect on the steel structures. He continues to question and among his reports is the following "The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites"
These are issues of prime importance and the BBC did not make any mention of the various findings many of which conflict directly with NIST and now the more enveloping BBC total destruction theory.
See: KEVIN R. RYAN July 2, 2008.
The BBC also distorts the findings of the RE Lee Group. It states that RJ Lee took 100 000 samples "but found on evidence of thermite". R J Lee did find "iron rich" spheres which are a signature of thermite.
"RJ Lee Group, evaluating the contamination of the Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street, also described these iron-rich spheres, and actually used them as one of their signature markers. In other words, dust wasn’t regarded as WTC dust unless it contained these spheres. The chemical composition and micro-images of two WTC iron-rich spheres were documented by the US Geological Survey".
Scientific paper describes the need for extremely high temperatures to produce the iron spheres.
by: Steven E. Jones1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Gregory S. Jenkins3, Frank Legge4, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.
39:00 Flight 93. "The Ten Years On" File repeats the flawed coverage from the 2007 911 Conspiracy File. My complaint about this issue and the issue of F89 can be found here
Rather than investigate the evidence the BBC spins a repeat of its 2007 three minute red herring proving that Delta 89 landed at Cleveland when nobody is doubting the fact.
Delta 89 landing at Cleveland is half of the evidence that investigators present to indicate that two suspect planes were involved. One, Delta 89, landed at 10:10 with passengers released at 12:30 whereas the second plane Flight 93 or Flight X, landed at 10:45 with passengers released at 11:15.
47:00 Spotnitz wrote for the X Files TV drama series for 8 years. He was not credited as a psychologist or sociologist or any other profession that might bring relevant knowledge to the issue.
51:45 Catz states as fact "the FBI & the CIA insist they had no specific warnings of the hijackings on 9/11"
This was the official White House and Pentagon line after 9/11. Due to the determination and persistence of the relatives of 9/11 victims, especially the "Jersey Girls" (studiously ignored by the Conspiracy File) this claim of ignorance has been shown to be a false statement.
"I saw papers that showed US knew al Qaida would attack cities with airplanes" FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
"we would hijack a plane from JFK and fly it into a building.”
Niaz Khan
Then there is Randy Glass, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and a whole lot more brave individuals standing firm for justice and the truth.
The programme presented as a serious investigation of the evidence closes with Catz and Spotnitz telling the viewers that all who question the official conspiracy theory have "little substance behind them" and "the evidence does not support" them.
The BBC however has yet to publicly acknowledge the majority of the witness statements, or the material evidence that does not fit with official theory.
The last line is yet another denigration of all who seek the truth about 9/11. The BBC has a duty to interview and broadcast the opinion of the wives, mothers, fathers and relatives of 9/11 victims who are still striving to find out why their loved ones died that day. They say that what gives them the strength and commitment to keep on questioning is love and respect for those that died. To remain silent would be to disrespect their memory.
This is the exact opposite of the BBC's ritual chat that dissidents are causing distress to the victims relatives.
The complaints I detail above are but the tip of an iceberg of issues that are white washed by the BBC in the Conspiracy File programmes. This is an extremely serious issue. Over a million people, mostly civilians, have been killed since 9/11 and around 4 million have been displaced by fighting or having the infrastructure of their society utterly destroyed in the West's crusade against the straw man of Islamic terrorism.
All this suffering is justified on the basis of 9/11 being an attack on America by 19 Moslem hijackers lead by a man with a mobile phone from a cave in Afghanistan.
The official theory does not fit with real world evidence. It is contradicted at every turn. Why do all the major media corporations all sing from the same song sheet, including the BBC?
How can it be that the normal meat for viewer hungry broadcasters, the personal story, has been studiously avoided?
The TenYears On team may respond by claiming to have screened the personal hurt felt by CIA, FBI, and military figures facing questions about their involvement / honesty. They and the White House / Pentagon have had all the corporate air time to air their stories. However the BBC File purported to offer some balance in testing the questions and statements of dissidents & whistleblowers slandered & libelled as "conspiracy theorists" by state and corporate power.
The real on the ground story of 9/11 is the amazing composure, determination and unquestionable courage from "ordinary people" caught up in these dark events. There are many whistleblowers, relatives, professionals and academics who have declared themselves dissident of the official theory. They face losing job, pension, livelihood and liberty.
These inspiring heroes, that would provide a dramatically different perspective, are not even mentioned by the Conspiracy File programmes.
Only four critics, film makers, journalists challenging the official theory were screened and they were edited to fit a deceptive montage masquerading as a balanced investigative report.
What was the BBC's response to President Bush's threat "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists"?
Should an independent investigation by OFCOM be opened to inquire if the BBC is serving nation interests or those of a foreign power?
It's public knowledge that MI5 used to vet potential employees and that the BBC would be aware of the publicly stated intentions of the US Military - Foreign media are clearly targeted in a 2003 document entitled [Information Operation Roadmap.pdf]. The Council on Foreign Relations' web site notes that the Roadmap, “details the US military's information operations, including psychological operations, electronic warfare and involvement in foreign journalism”. [Full Spectrum Dominance] [More]
What Are Information Operations?
"The integrated employment of the core capabilities of Electronic Warfare, Computer Network Operations, Psychological Operations, Military Deception and Operations Security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decisions-making while protecting our own." IOR - p22
“Radio/TV/Print/Web media designed to directly modify behaviour ”. IOR Appendix C Distinguishing Tasks.
America’s war fighting policies target friend or foe in peace time, crisis or war. IOs or “Information Operations” can aggressively manipulate all populations for the furtherance of the administration’s plans.
Is there evidence that the BBC, uniquely among major broadcasting networks, has been excluded from this master plan for American dominance?
See: [Full Spectrum Dominance]
The BBC exploits its high reputation for accurate reporting to condition the public’s mind into thinking all the facts about 9/11 are known and it's only deranged, spiteful troublemakers that won't leave event alone. The BBC message to viewers is - no need for the public to worry and no need for any further inquiry.
The previous BBC Chairman said “The public purpose of "sustaining citizenship" implies the provision of high quality impartial coverage of news and current affairs. This is the essential fuel of an informed democracy.”
Sir Michael Lyons’ July 08 Strasbourg speech
The BBC is in gross violation its Royal Charter as this complaint and the linked evidence reveals. The Ten Years on programme makes a mockery of the responsibility for the BBC to speak the truth that Lyons acknowledged in Strasbourg.
(v) (l) (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, or fully aware, of what has occurred)
(1) The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.
It is a mockery of justice to have yourselves, BBC management, being the final arbiter of complaints concerning BBC output, but as that is the current position I can but complain as set out on the BBC web site and await your response.
John Yates
If my web references are not acceptable I will send hard copy upon your notification
A selection of links to public domain information that the BBC must be aware of are posted below. A fuller selection can be found on [Index]
Monitoring Authority home pages:
http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/
27.01.12. ECU Summarises my complaint
Entitled: "Ten Years On Entertainment Letter"
27.01.12. ECU Summarises my complaint
Entitled: "Ten Years On Entertainment Letter"
British Broadcasting Corporation
White City, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TS
Telephone: 020 8743 8000
Editorial Complaints Unit
Email: ecu@bbc.co.uk
27 January 2012
Dear Mr Yates
Thank you for your letter of 22 January regarding The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On which was broadcast on 9 September 2011. I’m sorry you’re dissatisfied with the BBC’s response to your complaint. We’ll now set our own investigation in motion which will include a review of the correspondence so far, a discussion with the programme-makers and any other enquiries that might be appropriate.
As you may know, the remit of the Editorial Complaints Unit is to investigate cases where there may have been a serious breach of the standards expressed in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/). The BBC’s Editorial Values and the Editorial Guidelines are rooted in the BBC’s Royal Charter and the Agreement which accompanies the Charter (see Section 1.3 of the Editorial Guidelines). I note that you have referred to the Charter but I should explain that it is the standards within the Editorial Guidelines which programme-makers are expected to observe and therefore I will judge your complaint against those standards.
Our usual practice is to set out the main points of complaint at this stage in order to ensure that we have a full understanding of the issues and have identified the most relevant sections of the guidelines against which we will consider your complaint. In this case, I have based my summary of your complaint on the numbered points (and others) included in your letter to us which begins with the heading “A brief overview of the BBC abuse of the Charter”. I will aim to summarise each aspect of your complaint briefly (avoiding repetition where possible) and occasionally using additional sub-numbers, but I will bear in mind all the relevant correspondence and evidence when reaching a final conclusion on the merits of your complaint. I have taken as a given your over-arching concern that the programme “was a fiction peddled as documentary fact” because it “deliberately ignored, obscured and confused the most pertinent issues and facts concerning the official account of what happened”. I will therefore consider whether the overall impression of the programme led to a breach of the guidelines on impartiality.
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”.
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.
3.
a. The programme used computer simulations which were not based on peer reviewed data.
b. The programme dismissed a published scientific paper by Niels Harrit because it was “irrelevant” and had not been challenged in peer review.
4. The programme excluded writing and thinking in answering the question “what makes conspiracy theories so persist and so powerful”.
5. The programme ignored evidence of the US government’s involvement in previous conspiracies.
6. 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”.
7. 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.
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.
8. The frequent repetition of the phrase “conspiracy theory” was used subliminally to condition the audience to support the UK and US government policy.
9. The programme featured 13 contributors who supported the official version of events and 4 who disagreed. This was evidence of lack of balance.
10. The programme did not include contributions from relevant informed experts (such as Thomas Kean, Bob Kerry et al) who have questioned the findings of official investigations and inquiries.
11. 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”.
2
12. 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.
13. The programme consistently stated the official version of events as fact. This was evidence of lack of balance.
14. It was inaccurate to say that all that remains of 9/11 is consigned to a hanger in New York state”. Steel girders have been recycled and much of the building was pulverised into dust.
15. 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.
16. 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”.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. The programme did not explain that the Twin Towers contained 47 uprights intermeshed with steel beams accredited to withstand 2000 degrees. This was misleading.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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”.
25. 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.
3
26. 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.
27. The programme did not include any of the various theories about the collapse of the towers which questioned the original NIST evaluation.
28. The programme misrepresented the findings of the RE Lee Group.
The relevant guidelines are therefore those on Accuracy and Impartiality. I won’t transcribe all the sections but I think it is worth referring you to the main sections as follows:
The BBC is committed to achieving due accuracy. This commitment is fundamental to our reputation and the trust of audiences, which is the foundation of the BBC. It is also a requirement under the Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter.
The term “due” means that the accuracy 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.
Therefore, we do all we can to achieve due accuracy in all our output, though its requirements may vary. 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.
Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth.
Principles:
We must do all we can to ensure due accuracy in all our output.
All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don’ t know and avoid unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed.
The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences. We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences’ trust in our content.
On Impartiality, the guidelines say:
Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’ s commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive,
4
considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.
The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects. However, its requirements will vary.
The term “due” means that the 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.
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.
There is also a section on Breadth and Diversity of Opinion:
Across our output as a whole, we must be inclusive, reflecting a breadth and diversity of opinion. We must be fair and open-minded when examining the evidence and weighing material facts. We must give due weight to the many and diverse areas of an argument.
Breadth and diversity of opinion may require not just a political and cultural range, but, on occasions, reflection of the variations between urban and rural, older and younger, poorer and wealthier, the innovative and the status quo, etc. It may involve exploration of perspectives in different communities, interest groups and geographic areas.
Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single programme, web page or item. Instead, we should seek to achieve “due weight”. For example, minority views should not necessarily be given equal weight to the prevailing consensus.
Nevertheless, the omission of an important perspective, in a particular context, may jeopardise perceptions of the BBC’ s impartiality. Decisions over whether to include or omit perspectives should be reasonable and carefully reached, with consistently applied editorial judgement across an appropriate range of output.
I should add that the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust has already carried out a review of the original version of this programme which was broadcast in 2007. It set out its finding in November 20071. As you may know, the Trust is the regulator of the BBC and has approved the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. It is also the final arbiter of complaints which raise potential breaches of the BBC’s editorial standards. I am therefore bound by the conclusions of the Editorial Standards Committee and so where issues you have raised about the revised version of this programme have already been addressed by the Trust (and in particular those areas which have not been edited from the original), I do not propose to include a specific response in my finding.
1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/nov07.pdf
5
If you have any comments on this summary of your complaint and the relevant guidelines, please let me have them by 10 February, so that I can take them into consideration in the course of my investigation. If there are any issues of concern which I have not covered I would be grateful if you could let me know within the above timeframe because we can only consider new points of complaint made at a later stage under exceptional circumstances. I will aim to let you know the outcome of my investigation by 16 March.
Yours sincerely
Colin Tregear
Complaints Director
6
(Covering letter and annotated copy of the ECU Summary followed by ECU clarification)
08. 02. 2012
To Colin Tregear
Complaints Director
BBC ECU
Ref your letter of the 27th Jan 2012
Ten Years On Entertainment Letter.pdf
Live links online at
http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/06/to-colin-tregear-complaints-director.html
Dear Mr Tregear,
Thank you for your Ten Years On "Entertainment Letter" of the 27th Jan.
As you will understand, there was no entertainment value for me in noting your lack of serious consideration for my 24 page document citing specific verifiable facts that substantially contradict specific statements made in the 911 Ten Years On programme.
I note that there is no reference to the additions analysis that is posted at www.bbcmot.blogspot.com. These complaints do pertain to my 24 page Oct complaint from which you have extracted and "summarised" some of the points I make. I would be grateful if they were considered as valid and relevant to this complaint.
Your letter suggests you are refusing to address the detail of my complaints and intend only to "consider whether the overall impression of the programme led to a breach of the guidelines on impartiality".
I want to make clear that the detailed and referenced comments I make regarding specific statements of fact made during the Ten Years On programme, are the issues that I am requesting the Editorial Unit address as the foundation of my complaints.
For the ECU to judge my complaint on an "overall impression" considered by Corporation insiders would be to deliberately evade the substance of my complaints.
Some of my complaints do concern "impressions" designed to be embedded by repetitive disparaging remarks about citizens that question the official theory. I do also challenge the editor/director in employing an actress to deliver powerful statements backed by the authority of the BBC.
e.g. to state that the official account of 9/11 was “unequivocal” when, without a "forensic examination" of the reliability of official statements and without an honest examination of the 911 Commission’s report (including the fact that the majority of the commissioners have criticised their report as inadequate) constitutes disinformation (otherwise known as “mendaciousness” or “lying”).
In the run up to the Iraq war, which Tony Blair told the Chilcot Inquiry became an imperative due to the 9/11 attacks, there were unequivocal statements about WMD in Iraq, about threats of attack in 45 minutes, about purchases of yellow cake uranium, about babies being thrown from incubators in Kuwait by Iraqi troops in 1990. All these statement and many more were stated unequivocally. They were all untrue, as was Christine Todd Whitman's [Director of the Environmental Protection Agency] statement on Sept. 18th 2001.
"I'm glad to reassure the people of New York that their air is safe to breathe."
Might it be appropriate for the government to lie in order to reassure the public? In logic it is clearly possible to be unequivocal but at the same time mendacious.
Asked the question “Could the US government be unequivocal but nonetheless actually be lying?” during a Court of Appeals hearing in Benzman vs. EPA, (Environmental Protection Agency) the case brought by New Yorkers exposed to toxic dust and sickened by the environmental hazards following 9/11, EPA lawyer Alisa Klein answered, "Yes."
Competing interests such as the economy or the "return to normalcy" [sic] might supersede that of public health, she argued. [Link]
It is necessary to establish the validity of many of the statements made by Caroline Catz before considering the overall impressions the programme makers created in Ten Years On.
I note also that you are drawing attention to the word "due" in the Editorial Guidelines you included in your letter. The Editorial Guidelines are, you state, drawn from the Royal Charter but, you imply, in practice are being used by the BBC to disregard the Charter's clauses.
I do note 19.4.2 Feedback and Complaints:
When considering complaints on substantive matters the BBC must provide adequate reasoning for its decision, setting this reasoning within the context of any relevant BBC guidelines.
I do not accept that the BBC management has any valid authority to use the guidelines to avoid "adequate reasoning" and thus dismiss charges against them with regard to accuracy, impartiality, or specious design on the basis of "due" considerations, "taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectations and any signposting that may influence that expectation." (3.1)
* I'd appreciate an explanation of what "signposting" means in this context.
This clause together, with the other guideline clauses mentioned, "Principles" 3.2.1 - 3.2.2 - "Impartiality" 4.1 - 4.4.1 and so on, are get out of jail free cards. They are used by the BBC to whitewash complaints.
These clauses and guidelines conflict with the letter and spirit of the BBC Royal Charter.
Re: ECU & Trust's whitewash of complaints about the 2007 911 Conspiracy File. I note your mention of the Trust's Editorial Standards Committee and your statement that you are bound to the conclusions made concerning the 2007 programme.
In law, appeals are granted on the basis of failure to properly investigate or even consider specific evidence as well as consideration of new evidence.
This is the appeal I am making to the ECU as a brief reading of the Trust's 2008 report reveals very little attention to detail and what little there is, is superficial and poorly referenced. The ECU and the Trust are ignoring vast swathes of verifiable evidence and are hiding behind generalised statements often repeating the statements broadcast by the many witnesses that are tied to the official theory by vested interest.
One issue here again concerns the CIA and its apparent failure to inform the FBI of al-Hazim and al Mihdhar. There is a great deal of new evidence that has to be considered that goes far beyond the Trust's superficial consideration of the issues involved.
The Trust refers to "the Report of the Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks" yet there is no reference and the only report that fits that bill happened in 2003 with Bob Graham and Porter Goss as Joint Chairs. This document is outdated and much new evidence exists that has to be examined in a forensic fashion.
Sibel Edmonds, is the FBI translator who is the most gagged US citizen ever, is the founder of "Whistleblowers Coalition" and is deeply involved in efforts to expose elements in the intelligence services complicit in the events of 911. The BBC does not mention her or her support for the research by Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy on their discovery of the identities of the two key CIA analysts who executed the Tenet-Black-Blee cover-up in the case of two key 9/11 hijackers.
On Thursday, September 8, 2011, the CIA issued legal threats against these two researchers. If the BBC acted true to its form it would denigrate them as "conspiracy theorists" and refuse to look seriously at the evidence that so concerns the CIA.
There is a mountain of evidence contradicting the Conspiracy Files presentations. What is mentioned here is just the tip of an iceberg. The BBC has a duty to investigate as set out in the Charter and Editorial Guidelines.
I would be grateful at this stage if you make clear whether the Ten Years On programme is a documentary about 911 ("separate fact from fiction") or about the so called psychology of conspiracy theories (As the "committee" deemed in 2008. page 42) or whether it is "entertainment" and thus considered by BBC management by some other "Editorial Guidelines" ?
What the BBC fails to investigate with integrity is the biggest conspiracy theory of the 21st Century - the official conspiracy theory concerning the events of 911. There has been no trial of bin Laden or the 19 alleged hijackers. The self described "planner" of 911 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has been tortured by waterboarding 183 times to gain his statements implicating him in the events.
The BBC has a duty to investigate the White House 911 conspiracy theories "forensically" and not to make programmes who's prime aim is to divert and confuse the issue whilst discrediting all that question as mentally unbalanced fools.
I say it is a fiction peddled as fact. Overall impressions can hide deliberate distortion of events. Forensic research has to focus on the facts not the shape and colour of the test tube or the technician holding the bunsen burner.
I've not had time to study in fine detail every frame in every cameo but a couple of examples of how the Conspiracy File cherry picks issues and information to present a seemingly plausible "answer" are manifest in its "investigation" of the failure to intercept the hijacked planes and the time allotted to Flight 93 and Boston airport.
At 6:45 minutes into the programme Caroline Catz asks" Why did the world's most powerful airforce fail to intercept [the hijacked planes]"
This is an extremely important issue. The evidence presented by NORAD and FAA conflict. Many officials, including the Joint Chairs, Kean and Hamilton who have published a book on the Commission, report that NORAD, FAA, DOD, the White House etc. either failed to answer questions accurately, presented information that was bound to confuse, presented conflicting & false evidence.
The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel’s chairmen say in a new book.
Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in their book Without Precedent
“Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue,” msnbc
The BBC with all it's worldly authority present one witness, Colin Scoggins, to offer a reassuring answer as an air traffic controller on duty on the day. "Eyewitness accounts provide interesting background information but cannot be regarded as providing conclusive evidence". (BBC Trust p38 3.2 response to complaints on 2007 911 Conspiracy File.)
Regarding F93. I have detailed many dubious issues connected with extensive coverage of this issue, which is secondary when compared to the destruction in New York in my analysis of the 2007 programme. I content that these comments & complaints are part of my current complaint but to save space I direct you to the web site page http://bbcstory.blogspot.com/2008/06/story-line-3.html which expands on my observation that undue time was allotted to tertiary and diversionary issues.
This is not serious journalism but the painting of a fiction that fits the predetermined intention of the Conspiracy File series which is to discredit any that question or challenge authority.
Re: "overarching concern". My complaint is specifically about the BBC and the Corporation’s responsibility to uphold the Royal Charter which is the principle legal document, authorised by Parliament, binding the Corporation to abide by the conditions laid down in that document.
While the immediate subject of my complaint is the team that produces the Conspiracy Files series, the Corporation is ultimately responsible for the intelligently designed manipulation of key events shaping our world, particularly 911 which is the cornerstone of the authorities’ policy (on both sides of the Atlantic) to pursue "war without end" which inevitably results in the killing of innocent people while gaining control of resources and of strategically important lands.
I contend that the events of 911 are of enormous importance. A general response quoting specious excuses from the guidelines will not suffice in meeting the requirements enshrined in law to guarantee a BBC that meets its responsibilities with integrity.
I attach my response to the summary made of my complaint. It includes a separate page with ten points of contention about so called facts.
I'd be grateful for a specific response to these examples as well as consideration of the many more challenging facts in my main complaint and the web based review of the 2007 File.
This letter, my response to your summary and the list of opinion polls should represent a start to a serious non partisan analysis of the BBC 911 Conspiracy File (2007) and the update entitled Ten Years On. They are posted online with links to public domain information backing my statements. See:
Covering letter to UCU re summary
Response to the ECU summary
Opinion Polls
2011 complaint re Ten Years On:
Original complaint re 2007 911 Conspiracy File:
http://bbcmot.blogspot.com/
Yours sincerely John Yates
My detailed response to ECU Summary as an annotated copy of the ECU Summary.
Response to summary of my complaints:
John Yates
COLOUR CODE AND ABBREVIATIONS
Purple: ECU summary
Brown: From my 24 page Oct complaint
Black: My Feb 2012 comments & corrections/additions to ECU summary
Blue: Specific questions about broadcast "facts" in the Ten Years On TYO programme and questions about editorial policy in cherry picking issues that distort any serious analysis of the US government's behaviour over 911 and subsequent dissent from a broad cross section of citizens.
(v) (l) (refraining from ….) = Royal Charter clause (v) (l) (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, or fully aware, of what has occurred)
(1) … controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy …. = Royal Charter clause (1) The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.
TYO = Ten Years On
NSF = National Science Foundation
WTC = World Trade Center
NORAD = North American Aerospace Defense Command
NIST = National Institute of Standards and Technology
Link to opinion polls: http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/06/opinion-polls.html
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”.
I wrote at point 1. "Despite the fact that there are hundreds of witnesses prepared to give evidence among World Trade Center survivors, first responders, and relatives of the victims, no first hand witness who had been present [at WTC] on the day, [or who was materially involved] was actually interviewed." I should have added the phrase in brackets.
The BBC went to extraordinary lengths to avoid talking to key witnesses. Why was that? Vanity Fair published that pressure from the “Jersey Girls” and other relatives of WTC 911 victims, together with key witnesses to the events, were acknowledged by 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean and many others to be primarily responsible for the setting up of the 911 Commission. William Rodrigues "Last man out alive" was a five times decorated national hero until he started asking questions. Hundreds of other key witnesses have been ignored. Not all were immediately present at WTC on 911 but many are still actively involved in the search for the truth. They state they have a duty to their loved ones who died on 911 to continue lobbying and campaigning to expose the official cover-up, as they call it.
They contradict the voice of the Conspiracy Files’ Caroline Catz when she ends Ten Years On by again casting aspersions on all who continue to ask legitimate pertinent questions as "unfair to family and friends". Again this is a disparaging phrase used by Jean O'Connor and other BBC favourites to denigrate dissidents by somehow slurring the victims.
This is just the first few of many extraordinary editorial decisions in shaping the "overall impression" of TYO not as an investigation but as a fiction. Viewers have a right to know the strength of feeling, courage and commitment amongst those materially involved as well as among citizens world wide who see something is very wrong with the official story.
(a) How does the BBC explain its absolute silence concerning family members fighting a David & Goliath battle against officialdom?
For the BBC to repeat its use of "due" this or that, to excuse a fundamental omission of prime relevance to the WTC attacks, will add to the evidence that TYO was a fiction designed to bolster the official account.
(b) How does the BBC explain its absolute silence concerning the over one hundred firefighters’ tapes that have been released after legal battles with the authorities who tried to restrict access to this revealing information?
The tapes support the assertions made by critics and the live TV and radio transmission from main stream media, that innumerable explosions were heard and seen in both towers before and during the disintegration of the towers and the Salomon Brothers Building 7. They also raise challenging questions as the tapes confirm the reports that:
Two firemen braved their way to the 78th floor of the South Tower!
They report that the fires were minor. Listen to Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer, who was organising the evacuation of injured people with Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca.
Above taken from my original net review of the 2007 Conspiracy File http://bbcstory.blogspot.com/
Still on point 1. I then drew attention to,
"The very long list of academics, scientists, architects, engineers, pilots, air traffic personnel, 9/11 Commissioners, whistleblowers from US intelligence services, the military, public servants and politicians (US and world wide) etc. all highly critical of all or specific aspects of the official conspiracy theory, was ignored"
Regarding scientists, yes Fetzer and Harrit were interviewed but the Fetzer clips were mostly five years old. There is much new evidence not considered and with regard to thermite, Harrit was slandered by the BBC's untrue statement that his published paper on the discovery of thermite residue in WTC dust had not been peer reviewed yet he was given no opportunity to respond, contrary to:
Editorial Guidelines in Full Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/
“we must rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views during an interview whilst giving them a fair chance to set out their full response to our questions.”
“we should not automatically assume that academics and journalists from other organizations are impartial and make it clear to our audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint.
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.
(c) How does the BBC explain that it is broadcasting an analysis that the official investigators have refuted - i.e. the pancake theory?
The NIST team admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12.)
3. a. The programme used computer simulations which were not based on peer reviewed data and funded by the US government - which was not revealed to the audience
Editorial Guidelines
“we should not automatically assume that academics and journalists from other organizations are impartial and make it clear to our audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint."
(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?
(e) How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the audience that the US government funded the research of Abolhassan Astaneh?
In 2001, Astaneh received another NSF grant to study the collapse of the World Trade Center towers right after the tragic Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He presented his findings before the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives in 2002.
(f) How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the audience that Richard Fruehan & Chris Pistorius benefit indirectly from government grants? Carnegie Mellon University are reliant on government grants.
The institute receives $100 million in federal grants with engineering and research grants accounting for approximately half of the total.
(g) How does the BBC explain that in the 2007 911 Conspiracy File, Caroline Catz introduces and signs off Hoffman extremely inaccurately and why has this breach of Charter and Editorial Guidelines not been corrected?
Below taken from http://bbcstory.blogspot.com/
[22:45] (Caroline Catz) "Independent analysts have stepped in. At Purdue University they have built a computer model to see if damage inside the Pentagon could prove what happened. First they modelled the building and its interior supporting columns. Then a Boeing 757, its wings, fuel tanks and fuselage ..."
It is not true that their work was independent
Purdue computing community is a major beneficiary of military funding.
Christopher Hoffmann is the Director of the Rosen Centre for Advanced Computing, Director of the Purdue University Dept. of Computer Science and co-director of the Computer Research Institute. These are all inter-linked and funded by the Department of Defense, The National Science Foundation (itself created to further military defence) and the Department of Homeland Security. [More]
The Pentagon is neither the key issue nor as clear cut and definitive as the WTC attack. Puzzling yes, but in this instance giving rise to diversionary and confused commentary from the BBC.
[22:53] (Caroline Catz) “Their research was not funded by the government. It was an independent academic project.”
This is not true
The Hoffman project was government funded through the National Science Foundation. [NSF]
September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations
Using LS-Dyna
Phase I, Completed September 11, 2002
Mete A. Sozen, Sami A. Kilic and Christoph M. Hoffmann
The National Science Foundation has defence as a major responsibility.
End of extract taken from: http://bbcstory.blogspot.com/
This you may consider as having been dealt with in the original complaint procedure but I cannot find any reference to this lack of attention to accuracy and although the disinformation was not repeated in the Ten Years On it has not been denied but has been seen by millions on the 2007 File and thus the lie is maintained even though it is not repeated. It is material to forming opinion about the attacks and should be acknowledged and corrected.
3. b. The programme dismissed a published scientific paper by Niels Harrit because it was “irrelevant” and had not been challenged in peer review.
To get a scientific paper published the publisher presents the paper to a number of peers for review. If the science is not substantially criticised it goes forward to be published. From then on it is open to criticism and comment from the broad readership of that publication. Therefore the language in the clips confuses the situation regarding peer review. The paper, co-authored by Harrit, Ryan and Jones, has been peer reviewed.
(h) How does the BBC explain the disinformation presented by Pistorius and given credibility by the TYO programme?
4. The programme excluded writing and thinking in answering the question “what makes conspiracy theories so persist and so powerful?”
I believe this relates to the paragraphs below from my 24 page complaint:
4. To answer the question "what makes conspiracy theories so persistent and so powerful" the BBC fails to report the writings of Shakespeare, Robert Graves (I Claudius), Machiavelli etc. or of modern evolutionary anthropologists, ethologists and cognitive scientists. Good point!
5. It is dishonest to ignore the fact that the behaviour of the human animal in political history, in literature, in evolutional anthropology and in many other academic disciplines studying humans, is shown to be team, group, tribe, clan, family orientated. We are naturally cliquish, partisan, communal, collaborative, schemers, deceivers and conspiratorial.
It is a fiction to suggest that conspiracies are not part of human behaviour. History is replete with conspiracies, both those known to historians and those as yet uncovered "officially". [ammendment for clarity]
The Pentagon Papers and Operation Northwood should be prominent in an initial look at US government's involvement in conspiracies. Then there is Oliver North and the Iran Contra scandal, Gulf of Tonkin, and Gladio for starters and lets not forget Northern Ireland "The Troubles" with MI 6 et al entanglement with republican terrorist forces.
(i) How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the audience that many "conspiracy theories" are now know to be proven manipulation by government to get the public to support otherwise unsupportable policies? ( Reichstag Fire, Operation Himmler etc.)
(j) How does the BBC explain its failure to offer an academic background to the nature of our minds re 5 above?
Spotnitz is employed by the Murdoch who's empire is at the forefront of obstructing any serious questioning of the White House's conspiracy theory blaming 19 Moslem men for the events of 911. Spotnitz is a fiction writer and fits well with the design of the Conspiracy Files as fiction but is inappropriate for throwing any academic light on the nature of man as a fundamentally dishonest tribal animal constantly immersed in conspiratorial activity. This failure is in disregard of Charter (v) (l) (refraining from ….) & Editorial Guideline.
I disagree with the BBC Trust's previous consideration re Spotnitz considerable contribution to the 2007 File. page 54
5. The programme ignored evidence of the US government’s involvement in previous conspiracies.
What I actually wrote was the following
6. The BBC Conspiracy File programme caused confusion by on the one hand reminding viewers of the conspiracies of the Nixon, Clinton and Bush (Watergate, Monica Lewinsky and WMD/Iraq) but reassuring viewers on the other hand that any questioning of the official theory on 9/11 was out of bounds and simply the ramblings of weak minds seeking reassurance in a conspiracy theory so monstrous that most cannot believe it exists.
Back to the ECU summary
6. 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”.
7. 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.
(k) 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? A list is here posted on:
Read and investigate the writings of Webster Tarpley. See below from my 24 page Nov complaint.
Charlie Skelton, writing in the Guardian quotes Webster Tarpley's investigations as revealing the names and details of 46 drills and training exercises involving the intelligence & emergency services and the military.
7 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.
l) How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the viewer of the long list of warnings of an attack or that several military and emergency service exercises specifically envisaged an attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon. http://www.historycommons.org/
A very interesting public sources report of events. Live links on web post and e-mail.
8. The frequent repetition of the phrase “conspiracy theory” was used subliminally to condition the audience to support the UK and US government policy.
9. The programme featured 13 contributors who supported the official version of events and 4 who disagreed. This was evidence of lack of balance.
I now count 15 if you include Richard Clarke and Robinson supporting the official theory more or less. The time the four dissidents were allotted was approximately 8:5 minutes. This includes them discribing their accommodation, staff, books etc. it includes Dylan Avery's voice-over on clips from Loose Change as well as the extraneous Bin Laden coverage.
The interviews were not used to form a framework to the reasons these citizens protest against what they see as, at best, a government cover-up. They were used as entertainment cameos to paint personalities and life styles into a programme that had promised to "investigate the facts". The 15 witnesses, supporting the BBC line of confusion due to the fog of war within the most powerful military, intelligence and technical force this world has ever seen, had approximately 14 minutes speaking time.
10. The programme did not include contributions from relevant informed experts (such as Thomas Kean, Bob Kerry et al) who have questioned the findings of official investigations and inquiries.
(m) How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the viewer of the statements of the majority of the 911 Commission members condemning various failures of the 911 Commission Report due to conflicting evidence from FAA, NORAD, White House, etc.?
11. 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”.
12. 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.
It was evidence of the deliberate manipulation of the facts to create the fiction that all who question the official conspiracy theory about 911 are irrelevant flawed people. By "official conspiracy theory" I mean the theory that 19 Arabs conspired with Osama bin Laden to attack the US and succeeded without in any way being aided by elements from within the US administration. It would appear that this TV programme maintains that those who subscribe to this conspiracy theory, that the crime was carried out by fanatical Muslims, are self-evidently not "conspiracy theorists" while those who question the evidence for this theory, although they do not claim to know what actually happened, are considered "conspiracy theorists". This attitude sadly resembles an item of Orwellian doublethink.
The Charter clause disregarded is (v) (l) (refraining from ….) also see 3b above.
13. The programme consistently stated the official version of events as fact.
This was evidence of lack of balance.
I note the word "due" in the quote below. I have attached a list of opinion polls which I trust you will give "due" consideration. http://bbc911confile.blogspot.com/2008/06/opinion-polls.html
4.4.7 When dealing with 'controversial subjects', we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.
14. It was inaccurate to say that all that remains of 9/11 is consigned to a hanger in New York state”. Steel girders have been recycled and much of the building was pulverised into dust.
It maybe accurate to make that statement but the BBC has a duty of journalistic integrity to explain that despite the WTC being a crime scene needing thorough forensic examination the steel and everything else was cleared at top speed and the steel sent to the far east for recycling.
The point is that the clearing up at World Trade Center, Pentagon and F93 was contrary to all federal and state law concerning accidents, terrorist and criminal incidents. It was an unprecedented breach of emergency codes, facts which in themselves must be relevant to any unbiased investigation.
(n) How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the audience of these most relevant and important facts concerning the disposal of vital evidence?
15. 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 issue also relates to the unprecedented number of exercises taking place on Sept. 11th that the BBC reports inaccurately as "a routine exercise".
See (k) above
"Both the military and civilian air traffic control have sophisticated radar monitoring of air traffic by limited local regions. No controller would have massive numbers of blips on their screens. All 4 planes should have been clearly identifiable according to military insiders."
16. 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”.
911 Commission’s Jamie Gorelick contradicts the BBC assertion stating that one of NORAD’s missions “is control of the airspace above the domestic United States”. Pilots for Truth state Soviet bombers would not be expected to leave their transponders on. Even if a plane turned its transponder off it would be “monitored like a hawk”.
The radar was working according to Transport Secretary Norman Mineta
Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission about his experience in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as American Airlines flight 77 approached the Pentagon, was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report.[4] In one colloquy testified by Mineta, he states that the vice president refers to orders concerning the plane approaching the Pentagon:
There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta#September_11
— Norman Mineta,
(o) How does the BBC explain its failure to inform the audience of these facts about responsibility for the domestic airspace or the history of interceptions.
See here Various accounts offer statistics about the number of times fighters are scrambled ?
1990-2001: NORAD Regularly Launches Fighters to Intercept Suspicious Aircraft before 9/11
Fighter jets are regularly scrambled by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in response to suspicious or unidentified aircraft flying in US airspace in the years preceding 9/11.
For this task, NORAD keeps a pair of fighters on “alert” at a number of sites around the US. These fighters are armed, fueled, and ready to take off within minutes of receiving a scramble order (Before September 11, 2001).
AMERICAN DEFENDER, 4/1998
AIR FORCE MAGAZINE, 2/2002;
BERGEN RECORD, 12/5/2003
17. 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.
(p) 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?
18. 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.
19. The programme did not explain that the Twin Towers contained 47 uprights intermeshed with steel beams accredited to withstand 2000 degrees. This was misleading.
20. 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.
21. 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.
(q) Why is the BBC presenting a theory about the disintegration that is not supported by NIST or any other authority?
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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”.
(r) 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.?
25. 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.
26. 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.
This is yet another example of the editorial direction to lead viewers away from consideration of the important facts and contradictions in the official report of the 911 Commission including the NIST report. What I wrote was - Independent researchers are still waiting for the reports of the "clean-up" to be made public. Instead the BBC cuts in yet another denigration of anyone who questions the official conspiracy theory. O'Connor tells us the effects of conspiracy theorists are "unfair to the families and friends of the victims" and that questioning "belittles the lives of the victims”.
It was evidence of the deliberate emotional manipulation to create the fiction that all that question the official account of 911 are irrelevant flawed people. The Charter clause disregarded is (v) (l) (refraining from ….)
27. The programme did not include any of the various theories about the collapse of the towers which questioned the original NIST evaluation.
I refer to scientists, architects and engineers who say that in their discipline 2 & 2 = 4. When these professions note the government making elementary mistakes they point it out only to be tarred as wacky outcasts. I did not complain that the BBC should have catalogued all the theories only to check the most pertinent and challenging facts.
28. The programme misrepresented the findings of the RE Lee Group.
Specifically
See: KEVIN R. RYAN July 2, 2008.
R J Lee did find "iron rich" spheres which are a signature of thermite.
"RJ Lee Group, evaluating the contamination of the Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street, also described these iron-rich spheres, and actually used them as one of their signature markers. In other words, dust wasn’t regarded as WTC dust unless it contained these spheres. The chemical composition and micro-images of two WTC iron-rich spheres were documented by the US Geological Survey".
Thus ends my comments on the summary made of my 24 page complaint. I am concerned that the numerous specific complaints made in the documents I have present be given proper consideration rather than the "due" consideration signposted. I do not want my complaints blanketed under a cloud of subjective generalised "overall impressions" on the part of ECU staff. I will remind any that read this communication of the words of Eric Fromm on objectivity "since Kant it has been widely maintained that objectively valid statements can only be made about facts and not about values. One test of objectivity is the exclusion of value statements".
I have made value judgements in my submission but seek in the first instance to concentrate on the facts. Only then is it worth the time to dismantle further the fiction that is the Conspiracy Files, based as it is on slick video tricks, crafty edits, plausible narrator weaving a web of a skewed set of issues with emphasis on peripheral issues whilst making ad hominem attacks on all that question in search of truth.
It is ironic that one of the comments made by the BBC Trust in the 2007 report focuses on the value of witnesses. "Eyewitness accounts provide interesting background information but cannot be regarded as providing conclusive evidence". (BBC Trust p38 3.2 response to complaints on 2007 911 Conspiracy File.)
The TYO programme uses interviewed witnesses mostly who have avested interest in supporting the official conspiracy theory or who arebound by government secrecy laws. They proffer unchallenged opinionas conclusive "evidence" backed up by the narrator and thus the BBC with all its intellectual clout. As I point out in over 300 pages on the site www.bbcmot.blogspot and in the documents I have mailed, much of what is presented is challenged by contrary and / or new information.
As all the BBC guidelines state, especially over such important and controversial issues as 911, this programme should be withdrawn and an apology issued to the viewing public.
John Yates Friday 10th Feb. 2012
10.02.12 ECU comment to my response on their "summary"
Dear Mr Yates
Thank you for your recent emails. I will be in touch in due course once I have completed my investigation into your various heads of complaint about The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to clarify a number of points to avoid any confusion in due course.
I will confine my investigation into the programme named above which was broadcast on 29 August 2011 (not 9 September as I mistaken put in my previous letter). I am not in a position to consider any complaints about the original programme which was broadcast in 2007; I note that you have referred below to your "web review of the 2007 File". The BBC Trust has already considered a number of complaints about this programme and reached a decision. Any fresh points of complaint about this programme would be outside the time limit allowed for complaints to be brought.
As I explained in my letter of 27 January, I was providing a "summary" of your complaint and I will bear in mind all the relevant correspondence and your postings on the web (where they apply to the 2011 programme).
I will consider all of the numbered points included in my summary and attempt to respond to each specific point you have raised.
i will consider the specific points in light of your over-arching concern that the programme "was a fiction peddled as documentary fact". I did not say, or certainly did not intend to convey, that I was refusing to address the detail of your complaints - I had hoped that was clear from the numbered summary contained in my letter.
Yours sincerely Colin Tregear
14.03.12 ECU Verdict on my complaint
Ref CT/1200059
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
1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/ 2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/nov07.pdf
which had been updated from the original, some entirely new sequences and some of the programme was essentially the same.
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.
2
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
3
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
4
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
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
5
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:
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
6
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
5 http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
7
the omission of this information would have given the audience a materially misleading impression.
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.
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.
6 http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/WTC/wtc-studies.html
8
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.
9
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.
10
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
11
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
12
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.
13
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.
14
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.
15
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:
16
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
17
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
1 comment:
Wow, you are a great writer and I thoroughly enjoyed this article. It hits the nail on the head in relation to BBC treatment of this subject. After all, they didn't get the nickname "Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation" for nothing ;)
Post a Comment