[insert date of your email]

Dear MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee,

I write this to you as a petition signer with the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) which is composed of 1,700 technical and building professionals and 14,000 other individuals who have signed their names in support of the request for a new and truly independent investigation, with subpoena power, into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on September 11, 2001 ("9/11"). This request is based on the extensive scientific and forensic evidence that has been gathered since the world-changing events of that day.

Publicly available information, much of it over 10 years old and confirmed by architects, engineers and physicists, contradicts the official account of the 9/11 attacks that has blamed Arab hijackers and upholds the view that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by explosive controlled demolition.

The BBC has withheld this information and instead provided biased, inaccurate and misleading coverage of the 9/11 attacks as recently as September, 2011 in 2 documentaries, (‘Conspiracy Files: 9/11 ten years on' and '9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip') and a 2008 program ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower' in breach of the Royal Charter, Agreement, Editorial Guidelines and Editorial Values.

The BBC Editorial Guidelines "apply to all of our content whoever creates or makes it and wherever and however it is received. They set out the standards expected of everyone making or presenting the BBC's output." The BBC's Editorial Values promise truth, accuracy, and impartiality in all of its programs.

Although BBC has a detailed editorial complaints procedure, complaints and appeals filed by 3 UK residents in connection with BBC's 9/11 coverage have been improperly rejected by the BBC Executive Board. Over 600 letters in support of these complaints were sent last month to the BBC Trust and to MP Tom Watson but the Executive Board has probably not allowed the Trustees to see them. The BBC Trust is supposed to hear certain appeals and ought to hear this one but 1 or 2 individuals on the Executive Board can prevent that, making the entire Editorial Guidelines inapplicable. The truth of 9/11 is too important a subject to be derailed and finally settled by ill-intentioned insiders in the Executive Board.

Britain has been taken into two wars on the basis of the official story of 9/11 that we have been told by the BBC and the rest of mainstream media. The BBC has so misrepresented the facts of 9/11 to the British public that we have basically gone to war on a lie. The net effect of the mainstream media's ongoing cover up of the 9/11 attacks has been to mislead the British public and foster support for the wars based on misinformation and lack of good information.

Over one million innocent people have died as a result, including over 400 British service men and women, and thousands more seriously injured. To this day British Soldiers are still dying as a result of that lie. The BBC and the rest of British mainstream media have willfully supported this version of events despite having all the evidence which proves it to be false.

The House Media Committee monitors the policy and administration of the BBC on behalf of the House of Commons and the electorate. The BBC has provided cover for murderers and must share in the responsibility for the deaths of those 400 soldiers and uncounted victims in the Middle East. Unless the Committee steps in to take swift, effective action you must also share in that blame. British soldiers are dying at the rate of 1 a week in Afghanistan. With a draw-down of military operations by December 2014 that means you can expect a death toll of a further 130 soldiers. You can save those deaths in Parliament by simply alerting the British public to both sides of the 9/11 account and see what effect that has on public opinion for our continued presence in Afghanistan. The electorate deserves to know this information.

This matter goes beyond party politics. MPs are expected to lead the country with honour and integrity especially when war is the issue. It is clearly within your remit to investigate this and you have a moral duty not to send further soldiers and civilians to their deaths based on a lie. I respectfully request:

#1) That Mr. Warburton, Mr. Mallett and Mr. Drew be allowed to meet with the Committee to present their arguments and evidence and answer your questions; and

#2) That the Committee hold its own inquiry into the bias, inaccuracy and withholding of significant scientific information in the BBC's reporting on the 9/11 attacks.

The rest of this message provides detailed facts that are among the reasons for these requests.

Will you reply so that I know you received this letter?

Thank you.

Cordially,"

[Your name]

[Your city, state and country if you feel comfortable providing it]

[Your email address]

cc: Trustees of the BBC

Following is detailed information supporting my requests to the House Media Committee

The BBC is conducting a cover up of information about the 9/11 attacks; the Media Committee should get involved

Over the last few weeks more than 600 letters have been sent to either the BBC or MP Tom Watson in support of the formal request made by three individuals from the UK, Paul Warburton, Adrian Mallett, and Peter Drew (the "Complainants") who have been challenging the BBC's adherence to it's own ‘Royal Charter' and ‘Agreement' with the British public. They have formally challenged the BBC on this in accordance with the BBC's complaints processes. They have challenged the BBC over two specific documentaries that they showed in 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, ‘Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On' and ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip.' They have demonstrated very clearly that the BBC has been in serious breach of its Royal Charter and Agreement on perhaps the most important issue of our time, the horrific and world changing events of September 11, 2001 by withholding from the public vital facts and evidence about 9/11 and by providing coverage of 9/11 in a very biased manner which supports the official story despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Mr. Warburton, Mr. Mallett and Mr. Drew have between them collated about 25 points of serious breaches of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines. If these individuals are correct, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they are, then a political Tsunami is coming and people of good conscience need to decide whether or not they are going to take the moral high ground. I am asking you to take the moral high ground now on this issue. The complaints have worked their way through the BBC complaints process to the top level of the BBC Complaints Department. The issues and questions raised in these complaints are not being addressed adequately by the BBC, which has not upheld any of those complaints. The complaints and now their appeals are being repeatedly delayed and denied by the BBC. I support these complaints and I am asking you as a member of the House Media Committee to look into this extremely serious matter. This Committee can hold the BBC accountable to their Royal Charter and Agreement and Editorial Guidelines.

The current Leveson Inquiry has demonstrated just how underhand and corrupt the mainstream media can be, and consequently this has become the biggest news story in Britain over the past year. The House Media Committee at the House of Commons should be truly commended for its role in the Leveson Inquiry. However, the willful cover up by the BBC, and the rest of the British media, of the true facts of 9/11 will dwarf the Leveson Inquiry in the level of political controversy. With this in mind, surely the House Media Committee should be interested in looking into this matter further.

Request for the complainants' meeting or hearing with the Media Committee and an inquiry into the BBC's bias and inaccuracy

I support the Complainants' request to meet with the full Culture, Media and Sport Committee and present their argument and evidence and answer your questions. They will show you clear, substantial evidence that the BBC has violated its Royal Charter, Agreement and Editorial Guidelines both in the information it provided and information it withheld about the 9/11 attacks. I also support Complainants' request that the Committee conduct your own inquiry into the serious allegation that the BBC has profoundly breached its standards on accuracy, fairness and impartiality. It is such a serious breach it has taken this country to war on a lie and kept it there to this day.

The BBC's biased, misleading reporting on 9/11 has led to war

The BBC has so misrepresented the facts of 9/11 to the British Public that Britain has basically gone to war on a lie. To this day British Soldiers are still dying as a result of that lie. The BBC's appeal process has resisted every complaint/concern/observation we have raised over the past year. The BBC as a major news provider and opinion former have a professional responsibility and a moral one to present facts as clearly and as fairly as possible. To the extent the BBC have lied over the past 10 years they must share some of the guilt for the deaths that have ensued from the British side on the War on Terror.

The BBC has covered for murderers and this letter is an invitation to you as MPs on the Media Committee to separate yourselves now from an element that is lying to you and the country. If you don't make that separation you must then also share in that responsibility for wrong doing. I am alleging that elements of the BBC are part of a media cover up over 9/11. They have lied to the British Public by withholding key elements of evidence. Where do the MPs in the Media Committee stand on this? If you think hacking was a scandal how much worse is leading a country to war on a lie?

I am inviting the Media Committee to conduct your own investigation and find out which conclusion you come to. A helpful starting point would be the points described in this letter seeing as they have not been presented to the British public by the mainstream media including the BBC. I also urge the Media Committee to meet with Mr. Warburton, Mr. Mallett and Mr. Drew to present their arguments and evidence and answer your questions.

For the MPs, this matter goes beyond party politics. Few members of the public have the time to investigate matters like this. The BBC does have an investigation unit. It is a cornerstone of good investigative journalism to ask difficult questions and find answers. MPs are also expected to lead the country with honour and integrity especially when war is the issue. It is clearly within your remit to investigate this and you have a moral duty not to send further soldiers and civilians to their deaths based on a lie.

A huge body of evidence contradicts the official story of the 9/11 attacks

Numerous scientists, expert airline pilots, architects, engineers, first responder fire fighters, first responder police officers, and other eye witnesses, have confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that the official version of events of 9/11 is completely impossible. A huge amount of scientific evidence and factual information which categorically proves that the official version of events is physically impossible has all been presented to the BBC and the rest of the media over the past few years and has been widely published across the global independent media outlets. Consequently there are many millions of people around the world who are now well aware that they are not being told the truth about 9/11 by the mainstream media.

In 30 seconds you can see perhaps the single most important piece of evidence about the 9/11 attacks

If you are not familiar with all the evidence I am referring to then it is precisely because of the problem I am referring to here. The BBC and the rest of the mainstream media have refused to show this information and have instead sought to smear the character of those people attempting to bring this evidence and factual information forwards for the public to see. Therefore the majority of the public, perhaps yourself included, have not seen all this evidence. If you are not aware of this evidence, as a very quick start, just look up ‘Building 7' on youTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o and you will see in just 30 seconds an excellent example of what is being referred to. The only mistake is that explosives other than dynamite are used in controlled demolitions of buildings. If this 30 second video has got your attention then please invest just another 15 minutes of your valuable time to watch this mini documentary "Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7" put together by numerous professional Architects and Engineers from the organization ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth' presenting just a small amount of the abundant scientific evidence into why the collapse of Building 7 is the smoking gun for a very different story about 9/11 that the BBC and the British media are wilfully covering up and preventing the public from seeing. Below I will describe in detail the requirements for BBC's programs and how it has not met those requirements.

The BBC's Editorial Guidelines and Values commit the BBC to integrity and quality

The first 3 paragraphs of the BBC's Editorial Values clearly describe that the BBC is committed to producing and airing only programs of high quality and integrity. In particular:

1.2.1 Trust Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences.

1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy We seek to establish the truth of what has happened and are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output. Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We will strive to be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation.

1.2.3 Impartiality Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. We will apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts.

How did the "9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip" measure up against these Editorial Guidelines and Values? Very poorly.

The program was a propaganda piece designed to intentionally mislead the BBC's viewers about the events of 9/11 and the strength and soundness of the arguments and supporting evidence of the "9/11 Truth movement". It did so by omitting key evidence, presenting unscientific evidence and experiments and a lot of unfounded claims. It was a violation of the intent and specific requirements of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and Editorial Values.

The entire premise of the program is that the 9/11 Truth movement is well represented by these 5 young people who have had sufficient time to prepare and present their evidence and have an adequate debate with the show's host (Mr. Andrew Maxwell) about the really key points of the 9/11 Truth movement. Therefore, the premise is that if the viewer is not convinced that these 5 young people are right then the viewer should dismiss the entire 9/11 Truth movement. In other words the program attempts to present and use these 5 young people as a reasonable proxy for the 9/11 Truth movement.

The conclusion advocated by Mr. Maxwell and this program (which was also the premise) was that Arab terrorists and nobody else were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This has not been proven by the American or British government or anybody else. In fact this claim, which is a conspiracy theory, is disputed by many scholars including 1,700 degreed architects and engineers (http://ae911truth.org/), physicists, former military, government and intelligence employees, (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/) many relatives of the 9/11 victims (http://911truth.org/downloads/Family_Steering_Cmte_review_of_Report.pdf), and several independent citizens' inquiries.

Each of these individuals has taken the risk of personal and professional condemnation that usually follows, since the majority, being unaware of the facts and exposed to 10 years of government and media propaganda on 9/11, believe the official story. Misled and unaware, the majority often heap undue criticism on anyone who challenges the official story, especially publicly. Had the BBC brought a qualified architect, engineer, chemist or physicist on the program and asked the same questions they would have got completely different answers such as, "No, the official account of the 9/11 attacks is not true and here is why (etc.)" and, "The events did not happen as described and they couldn't have."

Truthful and accurate? BBC omitted the free fall gravitational acceleration of World Trade Center Building 7 which even the U.S. government admitted

Neither documentary makes any mention of the absolutely critical point that in November, 2008 in its final report NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which was authorized by the U.S. government to determine "why and how WTC 7 collapsed") admitted that the collapse of WTC Building 7 did in fact occur at free fall gravitational acceleration for over 100 feet of the collapse. NIST wrote in its final report, "A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . ." and, "This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft) . . . ." (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48, 45)

This was a reversal of the original position taken by NIST on this issue in the August, 2008 draft of its report. This is an extremely important point that would have to be included in any fair and accurate discussion about the collapse of Building 7. For a symmetrical free fall collapse to occur means that all of the supporting columns of the building must have failed at almost exactly the same time, and this can only occur through carefully controlled demolition using well timed explosives. Why was this crucial point not even mentioned by either of the documentaries?

Also, why has the BBC failed to correct the error that was in a previous BBC documentary in 2008 "The Conspiracy Files — The Truth Behind the Third Tower"? In that documentary the BBC attempted to demonstrate that the pace of collapse of Building 7 was not at free fall acceleration. According to the BBC's Royal Charter they are required to correct any serious errors they make. This was a very serious error that they made because free fall can only be explained by controlled demolition. Therefore when the BBC discussed the collapse of the three towers in the subsequent 2011 documentary, they should have included in that discussion a correction of their previous error made in 2008. They did not do so despite Dr. Niels Harrit discussing it in detail during the interview they did with him for the 2011 documentary. They did not include this part of the interview.

Did the BBC ". . . establish the truth of what has happened" on 9/11?

When the Editorial Values say, "We seek to establish the truth of what has happened and are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output", as applied to the Conspiracy Road Trip program this means what happened in the U.S. on September 11, 2001, not what happened with the 5 young people on the program. The BBC started out with Mr. Maxwell's unfounded claim that "Personally I'm as certain as certain can be that the attacks were ordered by Osama bin Laden" without providing any evidence.

In fact one of the program's participants, Emily Church, pointed out on the Conspiracy Road Trip bus that the American FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) has never wanted Osama bin Laden in connection with the 9/11 attacks. The BBC edited that statement right out. You can view Emily's statement about bin Laden and the FBI and a thorough critique of the Conspiracy Road Trip program on a video on youTube called "Propaganda Defined: BBC Conspiracy Road Trip Review".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0YoKLFckJQ

The entire aim of the program was to back up Mr. Maxwell's predetermined conclusion. What the BBC should have done and could have done was to say, in effect, "We are going to interview some individuals who believe the 9/11 attacks have been misrepresented by the American and British governments and the media and present some of the research produced by the 9/11 Truth movement over the last 10 years and compare it to the official story" and then done an honest and sincere job of it. That would have been establishing the truth of what has happened and achieving due accuracy. Unfortunately there was very little effort to establish the truth.

"9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip" was biased from the start

The impartiality of this 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip program was compromised. The host of the show was clearly biased towards the official story of 9/11 right from the start and clearly thinks that people who are skeptical about the official story have something wrong with them, as demonstrated by the following comments that he made early on, such as:

"Unbelievably there are many people who doubt the conclusions of the original investigation and want to believe the American Government was in some way responsible for this tragic event. I'm taking five of them to America on an extraordinary journey to see if I can change their minds. It'll be a tough mission."

The 5 participants on the show are "nice people but incredibly cynical, child like, and gullible".

"You would think that a science graduate would be more rational".

Remember that the BBC's Editorial Values commit the BBC to ". . . apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts." The strand of thought that is unreflected and under-represented is the best of the 9/11 Truth movement. While it is broad there are some key facts about the impossibility of the official story — such as I have cited in this letter - that this program could have covered quickly or at least introduced.

118 eyewitnesses who saw, heard or felt explosions in the World Trade Center were omitted

The BBC did not interview and show the 9/11 Hero William Rodriguez who says he heard a massive explosion in his Tower before the jet strike. That goes some way to confirming the theory that explosives were already placed in the building prior to 9/11. Again let the British public make their minds up about the integrity of William Rodriguez. Also the BBC did not interview and show any of the 118 first responders who saw and heard explosions in the Towers before their destruction. Again this lends weight to the theory the Towers were pre-laced with explosives. The BBC refers to those people but did not show them or even quote them. This weighting of emphasis affects balance and is biased presentation.

Ridiculous experiments were used to model the 9/11 attacks

The 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip program used experiments such as throwing eggs up in the air and watching what happened when they hit the ground (they did not disappear as the "scientist" trying to explain things claimed they would) and tossing pebbles into small piles of flour in the ground to give an air of science to the official story. But these are unscientific, irrelevant and have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks

The program showed an experiment using thermite, an incendiary (heat producing) compound, in a blatantly unscientific attempt to prove that properly used it cannot cut through steel. But it can. This "experiment" was ridiculous, unscientific, and shed no light on what really happened. It did not help to "establish the truth of what has happened." Rather it served to divert attention away from some very well known facts.

The experiment presented to prove thermite cannot melt steel was misleading because the thermite in the experiment was not contained so its energy was allowed to escape and only a fraction was directed towards the steel. "Shaped charges" are well known in the military and in the demolition industry and can be used with a variety of explosives or with thermite to cut through steel beams, as amateur videos on the internet show. There is plenty of evidence to prove that thermite can easily melt steel including decades of use doing exactly that to weld railway rails together and demolish steel masts.

Here is what NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the U.S. agency in charge of doing a scientific investigation of the collapse of WTC 7, wrote about thermite: "Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound's thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature."

#14 of its "Frequently Asked Questions" on September 19, 2011. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

In other words, NIST says that thermite can melt steel. And yet the ridiculous experiment shown on the 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip "proved" that thermite cannot melt steel!

Furthermore, the program misled viewers about published scientific research on high tech energetic material found in the World Trade Center dust. It showed a brief clip of engineer Tony Szamboti describing and showing images from a peer reviewed scientific paper from April, 2009 describing the finding of unexploded pieces of red gray chips in the World Trade Center dust. ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2, 2009, pp 7-31) This material was nanothermite, not thermite. It is a military grade, highly energetic material. BBC then presented the above experiment as if to negate the research paper on nanothermite. The program misled viewers on this point by confusing thermite and nanothermite and omitting the use of shaped charges in the demolition industry.

One of the program's participants says the program was a well crafted hit piece

Emily Church, the one of the 5 participants on the program quoted earlier, wrote an article on September 8, 2011 titled "'9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip' — A Participant's Perspective" http://911truthnews.com/911-conspiracy-roadtrip-a-participants-perspective/ Ms. Church says that the BBC's editors made it appear that she is a mute.  She writes,

"They did a wonderful editing job. Anyone who has ever had a conversation with me or knows me personally will be very much aware of my opinions re: 9/11, and how outspoken I am about them. However, on this show I appear to be pretty much silent the entire way through.

I wasn't. 

Throughout my time on the show I asked question after question. I asked every single person we met whether they believed the official story to be true and the vast majority of them said no." "On the journey I was one of the most vocal contributors, consistently asking questions and receiving no answers whatsoever. I wonder why? Is it completely out of this world to assume that the answers to my questions might have made the truth about 9/11 a little too clear to the viewer?"

Ms. Church also had this to say about the program. "The fact that with multiple warnings, the US failed to prevent an attack on their own shores. The fact that so many people have been gagged from talking about 9/11 and revealing information they might know. The fact that the 9/11 commission report, by it's own ADMISSION was set up to fail. These are just a few of the facts that I brought up on the show. Were they shown? No.

"I asked why, with all of the foreknowledge that the US had, were precautions not taken to protect the innocent American people that tragically lost their lives. I didn't get an answer.

"In ten years, not one person has been held accountable for the events of 9/11, when it is now so evident that the attacks could have been prevented. Hell, even Ben Sliney said that the attacks could've been prevented.

"Maybe we should all remember that this was a well-crafted hit piece and the editing was designed to generate ill-feeling towards Rodney and Charlotte, the most head-strong people on the show (along with myself, obviously).

"And here we reach Andrew Maxwell, the Irish comedian who consistently ridiculed us and walked away in the middle of debates. See, the BBC don't want you to know that he complained throughout the entire shoot, laughed about us behind our backs and on more than one occasion said that he wished he'd never signed on to do the show. Personally, I'm disgusted at the documentary and I think participating in the show will always be one of my biggest regrets. But at the same time, I feel pretty lucky that I got to meet the people I did and ask the questions that I did, even though they weren't included in the show. It saddens me that I look like a dumb student who doesn't know a thing about 9/11 and it angers me that I barely have a voice in the entire 60 minutes that the show runs for."

Emily Church is telling us that the BBC violated its own Editorial Guidelines and Editorial Values for journalistic integrity and quality.

The BBC's Complaints Director is misapplying the Editorial Guidelines and Values

Colin Tregear, BBC Complaints Director, wrote a letter on April 3, 2012 in reply to Adrian Mallett's complaint dated February 24, 2012 about the BBC's coverage. Tregear has cherry picked certain words and phrases from the Editorial Values while ignoring others. He used the terms in the Editorial Values to defeat the purpose of the Editorial Values. He has subverted the overall intent of the Editorial Values by basically ignoring their requirements. It's as if he was looking for a way to use the Editorial Values to mean the direct opposite of what they mean. From reading his reply one would never know that the BBC is committed to accuracy, impartiality and truth. For example, the BBC's Editorial Values contain the following requirement:

"1.2.6 Serving the Public Interest

"We seek to report stories of significance to our audiences. We will be rigorous in establishing the truth of the story and well informed when explaining it. Our specialist expertise will bring authority and analysis to the complex world in which we live. We will ask searching questions of those who hold public office and others who are accountable, and provide a comprehensive forum for public debate."

There was minimal attempt to establish the truth of the story and great deliberate attempt to omit key facts. Although there are many very well informed and experienced advocates of the "9/11 Truth movement" the BBC made no attempt to contact and interview them. The searching questions of experts such as architects, engineers, chemists and physicists — not to mention participant Emily Church — were not asked or answered. There was a skewed and biased forum for public debate, if one can call it a debate at all.

Mr. Tregear essentially claimed that as long as the ostensible goal of the program was to see if the 5 young advocates for 9/11 Truth could be persuaded that they are wrong, and as long as this was stated up front, then all of the requirements in the Editorial Values don't matter. But the Editorial Values "apply to all our content, wherever and however it is received." Mr. Tregear's interpretation of the Editorial Values makes a mockery of them, completely removing their effect in preserving the quality and integrity of the BBC.  Overall Mr. Tregear's response to Mr. Mallett's complaint was from a very limited point of view that pretended that 9/11 is NOT a major public policy issue that has cost hundreds of British lives, over a million Iraqi and Afghan lives and many more injuries, and continues to this day. The government's lies about what happened on 9/11 have determined and continue to determine public policy in the UK and the U.S.

Conclusion: the Media Committee should meet with the Complainants

For there to be true freedom and democracy in our society we must have a media that is open, truthful, accurate, and independent of external influences and censoring. The Leveson Inquiry has demonstrated very clearly that there are some very major problems with the media in Britain. However, despite how bad the phone hacking scandal is being shown to be, this scandal is relatively minor in comparison to the real media scandal that the House Media Committee should also be investigating.

If the BBC is deliberately withholding evidence that proves that Britain has been taken into two wars on the basis of substantially false information, then surely that is an issue of extremely high importance for the issue of media ethics, and for the maintenance of freedom and democracy. Please look at some of the support and evidence we have for our request to the BBC and please support Mr. Drew, Mr. Warburton and Mr. Mallett in their efforts.

It has come down to this: Mr. Drew, Mr. Warburton and Mr. Mallett have been trying for months to get the BBC to acknowledge the obvious — that the BBC's 9/11 documentaries were biased, inaccurate and misleading. Yet the Executive Board has improperly rejected those complaints at every turn. It is up to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to step in and take decisive action because the BBC has failed to uphold its very important responsibilities and commitments to the public through their Royal Charter, Agreement and Editorial Guidelines.