BBC Discredited; Retractions on 9/11 Hit Piece Forthcoming?

BBC Discredited; Retractions on 9/11 Hit Piece Forthcoming?
Complaint responses suggest consternation within corporation on revelations of bias in Conspiracy Files documentary, indicates large number of complaints received

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

The BBC's response to complaints made against the bias and inaccuracy of the 9/11 Conspiracy Files documentary suggests that an overwhelming backlash has caused considerable consternation at the network and possible retractions or apologies may be forthcoming, with BBC bosses potentially fearing the company's credibility has been tarnished.

Following the airing of the show on Sunday evening, numerous websites representative of the 9/11 truth movement issued precise and detailed rebuttals to what many saw as nothing more than an outright hit piece that used crass emotional manipulation, concocted evidence and cynical bias in an attempt to dismiss questions about the official story behind 9/11.

Appearing on the Alex Jones show on Monday, the show's producer Guy Smith offered little to defend against allegations that the program represented nothing more than yellow journalism and an attempt to create a strawman argument in the interests of debunking 9/11 skeptics.

From what can be gleaned from how the BBC is treating complaints made against the show, it seems that the backlash has forced the complaints to be passed up the chain of command and that the overwhelming response is forcing bosses to consider whether it might be necessary to issue retractions or clarifications in an attempt to calm the furore.

Here's the BBC's standard response to complaints being made about the Conspiracy Files program.

Thank you for contacting the BBC.

This is to let you know that we are dealing with your recent complaint but are waiting to clarify some points with other colleagues in the BBC before we reply more fully to you.

We will of course respond as soon as possible but trust you will understand that the time taken can also depend on the nature and number of the other complaints we are currently investigating. The BBC also issues public responses to issues which prompt large numbers of significant complaints and these can be read on our website at

We would be grateful if you would not reply to this email and, in the meantime, would like to thank you for contacting us with details of your concerns.
BBC Information

Because the BBC is funded solely through taxpaying British citizens via their TV license fee, the corporation is obliged to issue retractions and apologies if complaints about a particular broadcast are high. On most occasions, they are at least forced to clarify their position on their editor's blog website. 9/11 truth websites across the spectrum are encouraging readers to make complaints and so it's safe to speculate that the BBC has been inundated with them.

There have been numerous instances where BBC investigative programs have had to issue retractions and apologies due to faulty research or deliberate bias, a notable example being a 1999 Horizons documentary which sought to debunk the research of controversial archeologist Graham Hancock. An investigation upheld Hancock's complaint that his response to debunkers was not included in the show, and the BBC had to air the re-edited documentary.

The BBC divides complaints into four different categories - accuracy, bias, taste/standards and other. Since the Conspiracy Files farce displayed overwhelming inaccuracy in several claims it made, most notably the "pancake collapse" animation which even official NIST authorities have backed away from, and also betrayed patent bias in pitting thirteen debunkers against just three 9/11 skeptics, while ridiculing the character of the skeptics by means of false accusations and stereotyping, it fits into at least two of these categories.

We must push now for a retraction, an apology, or at the very least a clarification from the BBC in regards to this blatant hit piece. The basis for our accusations that the program was a hit piece are documented here and here.

Go to and select "make an official complaint." Please be as polite as possible and remember that the person reading your complaint will most likely have no connection to the production of the hit piece. Be clear and concise in your complaint, and stick to the facts about the bias and inaccuracy of the program.

If the BBC are forced to respond to the backlash, it will deter other networks and producers from creating malicious hit pieces designed to discredit the 9/11 truth movement in future.

I am about to file a

I am about to file a complaint. I should have already done this.

go Here ->


they needed CLR a long time ago.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Have you seen the latest "crap"...

That the series producer "Mike Rudin" has posted in a new editors blog, "conspiracy on conspiracy"

This guy is annoying and peed me off !!!


I suppose it had to happen. First we’re accused of being spies. Then we’re told we’re getting our orders from others.

But then came an even more outlandish conspiracy theory suggesting there were two versions of the 9/11 programme which was broadcast last Sunday. Conspiracy piles on conspiracy.

Ian Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland, claimed last Friday that a source had told him that we were in a “in a quandary over which version of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be put out to air”.

He alleged: ”One version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.”

And the story was picked up on the Alex Jones’ website Prison Planet with the headline “BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece?

Only trouble is there weren’t two versions, no-one bothered to check with us and, what's more, we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced.

Behind it all there seems to be a concern that we wouldn’t run a story supporting a conspiracy theory if we found convincing evidence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

First, there was no editorial interference in the programme whatsoever. Second, 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.

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.

Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover-up intelligence failures, we included that in the programme, together with an interview with Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.

I know the 9/11 Truth Campaign in the UK and Prison Planet in the USA, among others, are encouraging their supporters to write in. And it’s great to see so many comments on the blog. They make fascinating reading and contain a lot of interesting information.

However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked:

“Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?”

16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.

In fact our opinion poll found much more widespread doubts of the official accounts of the deaths of Princess Diana and the British Government scientist Dr David Kelly. Almost one in three (31%) people questioned believed the car crash that killed Princess Diana was not an accident, 43% agreed it was an accident, and the rest did not know. Almost one in four (23%) people questioned believed the government scientist Dr Kelly did not commit suicide as against 39% who believed he did commit suicide, with the rest unsure.

And this Sunday, The Conspiracy Files series will examine the many questions that surround the death of Dr David Kelly and reveals new material that challenges the official account of his death.

Link :



I commented

wonder if they will post it.

I missed the relatives of victims who want a real investigation. Like shown in "911 Press for truth".

I missed any mentioning of molten metal in the basement of all three WTC buildings and how this was possible.

I missed that Osama Bin Laden was not wanted by FBI and there was no case and no court steady evidence against him.

I missed the explanation about how WTC7 fell.

I missed some real informations about the wargames.

I missed the 5 Dancing Israelis.

I missed the 8 FBI agents who were stopped from higher ups.

I missed that most of the alleged hijackers were tracked by several intelligence agencies for years.

And you have the guts to say:
"We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories"

Really? How serious did you look for it? What about the holes in the official conspiracy theory? There are hundreds.


F*** Forgot the PNAC, Team B, Macciavellian, Schmitt, Strauß shit...