1.     28th February 2007. Formal letter of complaint to the BBC.
2.     2nd March 2007. The BBC's reply, (and enclosing blog messages from Richard Porter and Mike Rudin.)
3.     19th March 2007 - formal complaint to Ofcom about BBC.
4.     20th March 2007 - formal complaint to Ofcom about BBC World News program of 11th September 2001.
5.     22nd March 2007 - addendum to letter of 20th March 2007 sent to Ofcom.
6.    23rd March 2007 - letter from Ofcom.
7.     26th March 2007 - Formal letter of complaint to the BBC Governors.
8.     24th April 2007 - BBC's reply to letter to Governors of 26th March 2007.
9.     30th May 2007 - Formal letter of complaint to BBC Editorial Complaints Unit.
10.  18th June 2007 - BBC reply from Editorial Complaints Unit (9 pages).
11.   3rd August 2007 - BBC Trust reply.
12.   20th November 2007 - Letter to BBC Trust, Chairman, Editorial Standards Committee.
13.   21st November 2007 - Addendum to Letter to BBC Trust, Chairman, Editorial Standards Committee.

The following letter was sent to Ofcom by Recorded Delivery post:
 

Ofcom
Riverside House
2a, Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA

19^th March 2007

Your ref: xxxxxxxxx 

Re: Formal Complaint to the BBC relating to:
BBC2 - Panorama - The Conspiracy Files – 9/11, 9.0pm 18th February 2007

To Whom It May Concern: 

Further to my email on 8^th March 2007, I herewith lodge a formal complaint against the BBC relating to the above matter. 

Background
I sent a letter of formal complaint by Registered Post to the BBC dated 28^th February 2007, concerning the above, a copy of which is enclosed.  

The BBC’s reply was received on 8^th March, the content of which is an insult to average intelligence.  

In common with BBC practice in such matters, their reply was in a standard stereotypical format, written in a patronizing and condescending manner in an endeavour to placate the complainant, whom ever they may be.  

The BBC made no attempt to address the nature of the formal complaint, painstakingly detailed in my letter, but purposefully brushed the matter aside with futile explanations of defence. The BBC neither admitted blame nor responsibility. Therefore there is no accountability for their actions. Their inclusion of the blog messages from Richard Porter and Mike Rudin was a further insult.  

The BBC blog inclusions
Mr Porter
Mr Porter’s deliberate obfuscations in drawing attention to the BBC World news report of 11^th September 2001, (reported live by Jane Stanley), had nothing to do with said documentary, but was a ploy to deflect attention from the real issue, namely the documentary.  

The BBC World news footage of 11^th September 2001 is a completely separate issue that cannot be properly addressed here, for the reason that it does not come within the scope of this formal complaint.

However, it must be said that Mr Porter’s claims are a further and deliberate fabrication of the truth:

1.    Mr Porter wrote under section 1 of his message: “We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.” 
Irrespective of what he claims, Jane Stanley stated that building 7 had collapsed twenty-three minutes before its actual collapse. She would not have said that unless she had previously been given scripted information stating as such.
a.  Reading from a script, the London new anchor said: “Now more on the latest
     buildings collapse in New York… a few moments ago we were talking about
     the Salomon Brothers building collapsing. And indeed it has. Apparently it is
     only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Centre Towers
     were, and it seems that this was not a result of a new attack, it was because
     the building had been weakened during this morning’s attacks.”
b.  In a separate live news feed from CNN, the news anchor gave the same information, but
     ten minutes before building 7 had collapsed.
c.  In both the BBC World and CNN news footage, each of which are date and time
     stamped, building 7 can still be seen in the background with smoke rising. 

It is not possible that two separate live news reports at different times stated that building 7 had collapsed, without a third party source having previously disclosed that information to them (and no doubt others*). This is further born out by the fact that various fire-fighters and police officers were warned before the collapse of building 7 that it was going to be ‘pulled.’ These various reports were recorded on different video footage sources at the time. 

2.     Mr Porter wrote under section 4: “We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of a cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it.”
a.  Mr Porter’s reference to the news item implies that he has already seen it on one of the
     websites running it. His fatuous request for a copy of the tape gives the impression that he
     has not seen it.       

It can therefore only be concluded that Mr Porter’s obfuscations were an endeavour to
      cover his untruths!

* It should be noted that pre-scripting news was given out to certain news media at the
   time. This is confirmed by a remark the London anchor made at the time that the BBC   
   World news report was pulled whilst Jane Stanley was in mid-sentence. It was also
   confirmed by comments made by Channel 5 News concerning the collapse of the twin
   towers. This latter confirmation can be found at:
   www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/120307mediascripting.htm .

In concluding the BBC World news footage above referred, it is not suggested that they were involved in any conspiracy with the authorities in the U.S., as suggested. But concerns the BBC news item that building 7 had collapsed before its actual collapse. Nevertheless, it is clear from these news threads that ‘some source,’ (it is assumed from New York at Ground Zero), gave out pre-scripted information to the BBC, CNN and Channel 5, and no doubt other organisations, which was then transmitted to the respective news editors, and from them to the news casters to read out.

That Jane Stanley’s live report was cut before she had completed, implies that someone was monitoring her report and became aware that building 7 was still standing, and gave the order to cut her connection in mid-sentence. No technical failure, as was stated at the time, can be accepted as the reason for cutting her connection. 

Mr Mike Rudin
       Mr Rudin’s blog piece was another attempt to deflect the reader away from the point of focus, namely
       said documentary, and is standard practise of a lower order when the respondent wishes to slither
       around the point under charge. 

He commenced by introducing the disinformation piece put out by a claimed ex-BBC employee Ian Crane, given him by a BBC insider, about two versions of The Conspiracy Files – 9/11. Then in the eighth paragraph he wrote: “…if we had found convincing evidence of a conspiracy before 9/11 no one could have held us back from broadcasting such an important story.”  

The evidence for a government conspiracy is an irrefutable fact, and is common knowledge to any person of average intelligence having done a modicum of research. This does not mean reading blogs. The main body of real evidence has been put into numerous well known DVDs, videos and books. It is further substantiated by well documented scientific research and forensic investigation. Mr Rudin’s statement therefore can only be based upon one of two possibilities.

a.   That the BBC researchers were only reading the lower level 9/11 blogs, wherein are embedded
      the main government-supported disinformation-mongers who congregate to write their false
      meanderings, along with the wild conspiracy theorists and scatterbrain freaks.
b.   That the BBC researchers do not have the common intelligence to differentiate between truth and
      fantasy; like the delusory piece put out by the pro-government supporters Popular Mechanic’s. 

However, this writer does not suggest nor believe either of the above two possibilities to have any foundation in reality. 

In Mr Rudin’s next paragraph he wrote: “We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories.” 

The so-called ‘evidence’ supporting the official version disintegrates after very simple forensic investigation, and certainly would not stand up in any court of law! It cannot be said that Mr Rudin is stupid enough to believe in the official government line. Nevertheless, in light of the ‘hard evidence’ to the contrary it can only be said that Mr Rudin’s statement is a blatant fabrication!  

His citing of an opinion poll survey conducted by GfK NOP in the UK was a further deflection and a time wasting justification in his closing stages. In the main, the British public are fed information by the mostly ‘compliant’ news media, which, on major events of this nature, write distorted or fabricated accounts of national or international events. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were two notable instances of recent tragic history. And Mr Rudin’s sabotage documentary on the 9/11 movement is another.  

Were Mr Rudin to have investigated opinion polls carried out in New York and the wider public in the U.S. concerning culpability for 9/11, the conclusions would have proved the reverse, that an increasing number of Americans do not believe nor accept the official version of those tragic events. 

Mr Rudin is therefore a blatant liar of the first order! 

History
      This is not the first time that a BBC documentary program was engineered by certain elements within its
      organisation, in a conspiratorial agenda to create news to fit their corrupt plans. One particular matter
      concerns a series of events that took place around the years 2000 and 2001, of which this writer was
      involved and received information at the time. Copies of this correspondence are attached as Notes A,
      B and C.  

Returning to The Conspiracy Files – 9/11 Documentary
My accusation is that the producers of said program made no attempt to address the causes of the 9/11 attacks or the 9/11 truth movement in an unbiased way. Instead, they did deliberately and purposefully go about their task to orchestrate a hatchet job, otherwise known in U.S. jargon as a ‘hit piece.’ By so doing they gave their considered ‘authoritative’ conclusion that the whole 9/11 movement is divided by more than fifty wild ‘conspiracy theories,’ and that there is no consensus or science-based accord pertaining to the fact that September 11^th 2001 was planned and coordinated by elements at the highest levels from within the United States government.

        (Recent news, 15^th March 2007, from the U.S. secret military kangaroo court at
      Guantanamo Bay, of the claimed admission by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in orchestrating the
      9/11 attacks, is a barefaced fabrication. This admission was obtained by torture and no doubt
      with mind-altering drugs. The CIA and U.S. military are well experienced in such dastardly
      crimes to obtain compliance and faked admissions of guilt. One has to wonder at their brazen
      and bald stupidity in pulling such a stunt! This is further born out by the recent article “True
      Confessions? The Amazing Tale of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed”
      www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17340.htm . And from an historic level, the Allied
      Powers’ kangaroo court, called the Nuremberg Trials, will go down in infamy.) 

The producers disregarded the overwhelming science-based evidence concerning the following that:
      1.       The twin towers and building 7 were brought down by pre-planted controlled demolition charges.
      2.       Photos taken at the time of the impact at the Pentagon did not show any evidence of having been
             impacted by a Boeing 757 passenger jetliner. But in fact showed a hole and debris created by
             some smaller travelling explosive object.
      3.       Photos taken shortly after the Pennsylvania impact did not show any evidence of having been
             created by a passenger jetliner. But showed evidence of an impact by a smaller travelling explosive
             projectile. 

The above facts are based upon the following:
      4.       Forensic evidence of video film footage and still photographs of the WTC, all of which came from
            diverse sources, taken within the timescale of the crimes on the day and photographs taken after
            the events.
      5.       On-the-spot eye-witness testimony from fire-fighters, ambulance personnel, police officers and
             media reporters at the WTC, who individually stated that bombs were going off on many levels of
             the twin towers prior to their collapse. Further, that a janitor and carpenter of the twin towers
             stated that bombs were going off in the sub-basement levels of the buildings even before they
             were hit by the planes.
      6.       Scientific investigation was carried out by a respected U.S. scientist who proved that thermite and
             or thermate were used as part of the demolition process to bring down the twin towers.
             a.   This was further corroborated by several independent demolition experts who attesting to the
                   fact that the twin towers and building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition charges.
             b.   The voluminous amount and number of pools of molten metal discovered at Ground Zero by
                   contractors and fire-fighters, which were still molten several days after the collapse of the twin
                   towers. (Only a dim-wit or liar will claim that the steel was melted by airline fuel.)
             c.   Satellite X-Ray photographs taken of the WTC complex in the days after the collapses
                   showed the locations of the hot-spots at Ground Zero; scientific analysis show temperature
                   gradients at the different locations. Three of these areas are extensive, showing the locations of
                   the hot-spots of molten metal.
      7.       More than two hundred high government officials, military officers and respected academics
             covering a broad spectrum of the sciences, as well as heads of state and government officials of
             foreign countries have stated that the U.S. government’s official version of the events of 9/11 are
             without any doubt fraudulent. 

Notwithstanding these confirmations of a cover-up at the highest levels of the American administration, the above touches only on a small fraction of the real scientific evidence.  

The BBC producers chose beforehand to dismiss such irrefutable hard evidence, in order to produce a documentary in support of the official fraudulent version of events of that day.  

Thus the BBC chose to support this falsified version by screening the sham documentary.  

The BBC, thought of as a world respected upstanding broadcasting body, is but a microcosm of the greater whole, and of the government in particular. Insofar as its governors set policy, the management administers those policies and the various levels of employees down the line work to manifest those policies and decisions. But also it is the individual employees at every level down who make the day-to-day decisions, based upon their personal level of integrity and professional ambitions and goals. 

Where corruption erupts history shows that the executive branch brings out all the stoppers to cover it up; sometimes it works and other times it does not. Occasionally their cover-up comes home to roost, and hits them in the face. Sadly only occasionally, an individual with a higher sense of justice and integrity than his or her colleagues resigns or becomes a whistle-blower when confronted with the internal fraud. The case of Andrew Gilligan relating to the murder of Dr David Kelly is a notable example.  

I therefore request that Ofcom institutes a formal and thorough investigation of the BBC in relation to the documentary The Conspiracy Files – 9/11 above referred, and its series producer Mr Mike Rudin, its producer Mr Guy Smith and its narrator Ms Helen Boaden, thereupon to arrive at an authoritative and just verdict. 

Yours sincerely,
Signed:  Philip Dawes

Enclosures:

1.       Formal Complaint to the BBC
Annex A
Annex B

2.       Copy of reply from BBC dated 2^nd March 2007
Blogs from Messrs Porter and Rudin.

      3.   Notes A, B & C. 

 --------------------------------------

Notes A, B & C 

The Dr Hulda Clark case. 

Note A. 

On 4^th October 2000 the writer submitted a formal complaint to the BBC concerning the documentary “The Crime Squad - Complimentary Medicine,” BBC1, 2^nd October 2000 at 7.30pm.  

The formal complaint concerned the superficial and destructive analysis of certain aspects of Complementary Medicine. But in particular, the documentary’s focus centred upon Dr Hulda Clark, a pioneering medical research scientist of international repute.  

Following the above submission to the BBC, the writer, acting as proxy on behalf of the Dr Clark Research Association, U.S.A., submitted a formal complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Commission, dated 20^th November 2000.  

In the weeks and months after the submission, certain BBC staff connected in some way with the producers of said documentary, were involved in what can only be described as dubious, corrupt and unlawful activities in orchestrating the closure of Dr Clark’s Tijuana clinic in Mexico, by a posse of approximately twenty armed Mexican police and other officials. The episode was being filmed by a BBC camera crew at the time.  

Information transpired that BBC personnel were giving fabricated information to the Mexican authorities, the purpose of which was to film the staging of the attack on the clinic by the police and authorities. The BBC personnel were given the date and time of the attack by the authorities. Thus they were ready with their camera crew at the scene. 

The writer was receiving direct information of the events at the time, as well as from another person who had been representing the interests of Dr Clark. 

In the aftermath of these incidents efforts were being made through official diplomatic channels in Mexico to lodge a formal complaint against the BBC’s in London. According to the source those efforts were being blocked. It is therefore unknown what the outcome was.  

Background
The writer previously read the published books written by Dr Clark and had also developed a product based upon her invention, called the Zapper, which was proven to perform as she claimed. The writer also produced another product, both of which he promoted on the Internet.  

It was therefore through his deeper interest in the superiority of Alternative Medicine over mainstream drug-based medicine, going back more than thirty years that he found The Crime Squad documentary deliberately negatively biased from the outset, and was the basis for his representations to the BBC. 

Following the writer’s formal complaint to the BBC and the BSC, and around the time of the BBC’s activities in Tijuana, the writer experienced several attempts by certain individuals via the telephone and email, endeavouring to legally compromise him. These agent’s provocateurs soon realised that the writer was not unfamiliar with the legal aspects related to his services, and their activities soon diminished. 

As no hard evidentiary proof could be established as to the source of those actions, the writer had strong impressions that the agent’s provocateurs were BBC personnel, acting in retaliation against his formal complaint. 

---------------------------- 

Note B.

Attached – Supplementary to Note A.
 

Closure of Dr Clark Clinic by FEDS 
Email correspondence, header dated 7^th March 2001, between the writer and other parties in the UK concerning the attacks upon the reputation of Dr Clark and her Tijuana clinic in Mexican.

---------------------------- 

Note C.

Attached – Supplementary to Note A. 

Clark Update – The clinic closure, and more…

Opinion by Tim Bolen.

Return to lead page