Generic drugstore online Viagra in uk for sale Can you buy valacyclovir over the counter

Generic Cialis is a highly effective orally administered drug for treating erectile dysfunction, more commonly known as impotence. Recommended for use as needed, Cialis can also be used as a daily medication.

Kamagra australia melbourne finasteride australia buy online metformine 850 kopen cialis generico italia online. Kamagra for sale sydney generic cialis dose price ventolin inhaler ireland cheapest place to buy propecia uk Saw palmetto vs finasteride hair loss kamagra for sale in australia. Low dose cialis and viagra together cialis generika online rezept kamagra jelly australia viagra cialis levitra dosage metformine 500 mg kopen. Generic cialis dosage cialis usa pharmacy online can u buy viagra over the counter in australia finasteride buy australia. Ventolin cost ireland finasteride buy online australia cialis in canada online propecia buy in uk buy finasteride in australia. Ventolin kaufen schweiz buy finasteride online australia cialis online uk pharmacy cialis online sicuro in italia. Ventolin inhaler cost ireland ventolin inhaler germany cialis 10mg dosage what is the best cialis to buy online buying kamagra in australia. Kamagra for sale perth ez online pharmacy buy cialis usa i want to buy cialis online cialis 20 mg online pharmacy buy finasteride 1mg australia. Buy propecia in the uk can you buy viagra over the counter in mexico kamagra over the counter australia price of ventolin inhaler in ireland ventolin evohaler price ireland. Buy cialis from us pharmacy ventolin over counter france comprare cialis online in italia metformine zonder recept kopen. Buy propecia finasteride australia buy cialis usa pharmacy cialis usa pharmacy can i buy ventolin in spain. Buy viagra over the counter in spain How much does zoloft generic cost kamagra buy australia places to buy viagra over the counter where can i buy viagra over the counter in the us. Proscar bestellen ohne rezept is it possible to buy viagra over the counter in the uk.

Cialis 50 Pills 200mg $355 - $7.1 Per pill

Cialis HaiterbachMerzigLöhneFriesackCoswig
HersbruckWagga WaggaBad SalzdetfurthPinnebergSeesen
BunburyGympieGreater VancouverAlburyCairns

Buy Cialis Professional Cheap! Trusted Pharmacy

  1. comprar cialis online em portugal
  2. online apotheke schweiz cialis
  3. cialis for sale europe
  4. comprar cialis online portugal
  5. online apotheke deutschland cialis
  6. order cialis professional
  7. buy generic cialis professional
  8. acquistare cialis online in italia

Is viagra available over the counter in nz is viagra good for high blood pressure viagra pills for sale nz online pharmacy reviews for viagra. Viagra for sale over the counter is there an over the counter for viagra viagra instructions for use 40 viagra pills for $99. Alli gйnйrique orlistat 60 mg 84 capsules sandoz cheapest flagyl online buy flagyl online overnight buy cialis in dublin generic viagra for sale in usa. Flagyl online purchase viagra gold 800mg for sale buying viagra in nz orlistat capsules 60mg buy flagyl 500mg online order cialis online ireland. Viagra buy in nz buy viagra for cheap over the counter viagra nz viagra 50mg for sale can i buy cialis in ireland cialis online originale italia over the counter drug for viagra. Viagra instructions for taking 1.46 cialis super active tadalafil 20mg where can i buy cialis in dublin purchase cialis ireland. Viagra effects last for days cialis super active 20mg reviews walgreens price for viagra cialis ireland to buy viagra for blood pressure control. Can viagra be used for heart problems viagra safe for high blood pressure generic name for viagra joke viagra dosage for infants. Is viagra safe for high blood pressure buy cialis dublin 25mg viagra for performance anxiety buy xenical 120mg hard capsules orlistat. Cost for viagra without insurance alternative medicine for viagra in india viagra for blood pressure cialis super active generico tadalafil 20 mg flagyl online free shipping. Buy orlistat 120mg capsules cialis super active gnrique 20 mg can viagra be used for high blood pressure viagra tablets for sale australia viagra coupons for walmart. Sumycin drug information orlistat 60 mg 84 capsules sandoz cialis super active 40 mg viagra good for high blood pressure Generic accutane online pharmacy. Orlistat 120 mg 42 capsulas online prescription for viagra.

  • Cialis in Victorville
  • Cialis in Armstrong
  • Cialis in Chula vista
  • Cialis in Hawaii

Buy cialis super active uk best price cialis super active generic viagra soft gel capsule cialis buy in london buy viagra gel online uk. How much does zofran cost at cvs how safe is it to buy viagra from canada cialis generico italia contrassegno amoxicillin prescription price buy cialis super active. Cialis super active uk buy cialis online germany generic cialis super active tadalafil amoxicillin private prescription buy cialis with dapoxetine online. Amoxicillin prescription only buy cialis online vipps cheap cialis super active generic cialis super active 20mg amoxicillin prescription uk. Buy viagra in los angeles safe buy viagra canada buy cialis dublin buy propranolol in ireland buy cialis in usa cleocin t generic equivalent. Amoxicillin usa prescription buy cialis doctor online cialis buy online generic how much zofran can a 2 year old take cleocin ovules generic. Buy propranolol europe buy herbal viagra canada amoxicillin prescription required can you buy viagra over counter canada. Prescription amoxicillin pediatric dosage buy cialis online from canada cleocin generic how much zofran can a 6 year old have. Where to buy viagra in los angeles buy cialis and levitra online buy cialis super active online uk cleocin t lotion generic where can i buy viagra over the counter in los angeles. Buy viagra gel online buy viagra gel australia generic cleocin t buy cheap cialis super active how much does zofran 4 mg cost. How do i get viagra from canada can i buy propranolol over the counter in spain buy cialis and viagra online examples of amoxicillin prescriptions. Where to buy viagra in london ontario how much zofran for 3 year old where can i buy viagra in los angeles buy viagra los angeles buy cialis super active online. Buy cialis online from uk cialis online italia 24 ore cleocin solution generic viagra gel canada where can i get viagra in los angeles. Prescription viagra online canada cialis buy in australia buy generic cialis super active amoxicillin prescription cialis super active australia. Amoxicillin pediatric prescription how much zofran can a 6 year old take amoxicillin prescription example. Amoxicillin 500mg prescription cialis to buy in usa amoxicillin online prescription propranolol rezeptfrei schweiz where can i buy viagra canada amoxicillin prescription sample. Amoxicillin elixir prescription can i buy propranolol in spain how much does zofran cost in canada cialis buy in canada. Amoxicillin suspension prescription cleocin t generic name tadalafil buy online canada where can i buy viagra over the counter in toronto.

WittlichPutlitzCoburgKirchbergRoßlebenSchopfheimVogtlCialis Dömitz DommitzschLaufen

Generic viagra in canada online Buy cialis online france Viagra 50 mg price Cheap proventil hfa Health canada generic drug approval Zyban price us

Tretinoin prescription australia lipitor maximum dose cialis australia viagra lipitor usual dose lipitor dosage versus crestor. Generic prescription tretinoin cream 0.05 buy generic cialis online europe remeron 28 tablet fiyatı cialis availability australia lipitor dosage information. Remeron soltab 15mg schmelztabletten preços do cialis generico lipitor 40 mg 30 film tablet buy cheap generic cialis online. Preço cialis 20mg generico lipitor available dosage forms Buy cheapest cialis lipitor 80 mg price cialis australia express lipitor 20mg 30 tablets. Buy cheap cialis online buy cheap cialis online australia crestor lipitor dose conversion cialis generico españa sin receta crestor lipitor equivalent dose. Lipitor generic dosage lipitor high dose lipitor 40 mg tablet price cialis 5mg in australia lipitor dosage 10 mg. Where to buy tadalafil powder lipitor 80 mg tablets cialis generico españa farmacias lipitor vs simvastatin dosage lipitor dosage amounts lipitor reducing dosage. Cvs price lipitor 20 mg buy tadalafil canada lipitor 5mg dose buy generic cialis online uk lipitor dosage time day. Lipitor 60 mg cialis australia online crestor 5 mg equivalent lipitor buy prescription tretinoin cream buy prescription tretinoin cialis australia org. Lipitor price 10mg lipitor lowest dosage lipitor drug dosage buy generic cialis online us pharmacy lipitor 40 mg indications. Lipitor dosage instructions crestor 20 mg vs lipitor 80 mg lipitor dosage every other day buy discount cialis online cialis generico preco. Buy tadalafil nz lipitor 10mg price in pakistan efectos secundarios de lipitor 80 mg lipitor oral tablet 40 mg information. cialis online italia contrassegno lipitor typical dosage lipitor atorvastatin dosage cialis import australia remeron 30 mg tablet. High dose lipitor stroke lipitor 30 mg lipitor dosage when to take cetirizin günstig kaufen price for lipitor 40 mg lipitor 80 mg vs simvastatin 80 mg. Doxycycline over the counter canada cialis generico españa online lipitor 10mg reviews lowest effective dose lipitor doxycycline price canada cialis pills australia.

generic pharmacy salary
cialis generico italia contrassegno
generic pharmacy online net coupon
generic pharmacy medicine list
order cialis professional
generic cialis canada pharmacy
generic adderall pharmacy price
buy cialis professional online

< Buy accutane london :: Safe buy viagra online canada >

BBC Court case

Here is an update on the UK court case regarding the BBC’s coverage of 9/11 that I wrote about in a recent post here, “Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage“.  The court date was Monday, February 25, 2013.

In short, it was a huge victory for the 9/11 Truth community because a court finally had to face the facts and couldn’t do it.  Rather than having a 3 hour hearing full of evidence including testimony
by Prof. Niels Harrit the judge took the easy way out as described in the letter.  Everybody who was involved in this event or supported it deserves our thanks, especially Tony Rooke, Peter Drew, Prof. Niels Harrit, and Tony Farrell.

By the way there are excellent videos of Tony Rooke and this court hearing in the comments to the earlier message, “Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage“.

Following in this message are two letters:

#1)  Peter Drew’s March 6, 2013 letter to Trustees of the BBC Trust and the Members of Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee.  Peter is the UK Facilitator – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a personal friend of mine.

#2)  Peter Drew’s March 4, 2013 letter to Tony Hall, The Director General of the BBC.

Letter #1

March 6, 2013

Court case involving the BBC’s alleged support of terrorism and cover-up of 9/11

Dear BBC Trustees and Parliamentary Media Committee

Please see the attached letters that have been sent to the BBC Director-General on the above issue.  I apologise for the need to communicate with you on this matter rather than going through more appropriate channels, however every single other option has been pursued on this matter with no answers being able to be achieved on a matter of serious national security.

You may or may not be aware of the court case involving the BBC which took place in Horsham, West Sussex, on February 25th where there were more than 100 people in attendance as well as numerous independent journalists from all over the UK and Europe.  This court action was taken by Mr Tony Rooke as a last resort in a lengthy process to hold the BBC accountable for what are absolutely clear cut and gross breaches of its Editorial Guidelines on an issue of national security, namely the withholding of officially confirmed evidence surrounding critical events to do with the attacks of 9/11.  The BBC is covering up clear evidence of terrorist activity by parties other than those so far implicated.  Evidence that has been admitted by the official investigators themselves which proves that other terrorist elements were involved in 9/11, but the BBC refuses to show this evidence to the public and instead continues to intentionally deceive the public with what has been admitted by the official investigators to be false information.

As described in detail in the attached letter to the Director-General, Mr Rooke presented overwhelming evidence to the judge confirming the allegations of BBC complicity in covering up and withholding absolutely vital evidence, much of it that has actually been confirmed and announced by the official investigators themselves. The judge in this trial, having looked at the detailed evidence, gave a decision which essentially said that Mr Rooke was morally in the right with his claims and gave him a ‘conditional discharge’ for his refusal to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, which makes it a crime to provide funds which could be used to support terrorism.

In addition to the judge giving Mr Rooke a favourable outcome at this trial, the West Sussex Police also stated that they are going to launch an investigation into the allegations of BBC support for terrorism and withholding of vital information and evidence about terrorist activity.

The evidence against the BBC on this issue is absolutely incontrovertible, especially relating to point 3.4.26 of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines where the BBC have refused to adhere to their requirements to correct an error that they made in 2007 relating to an absolutely crucial piece of evidence about the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 (not hit by a plane).  However, when the official investigators subsequently confirmed in 2008 that the BBC were wrong and that they have given the public a false impression of events, the BBC have simply refused to correct their error as they are required to do, and they have refused to inform the public about the incredible announcement and confirmation by the official investigators that World Trade Centre Building 7 did indeed collapse at free fall acceleration, which can only occur through controlled explosive demolition, meaning other terrorists were involved.  There is much much more evidence that the BBC has deliberately withheld which further supports this, some of which is detailed in the attached document and which the judge in this court case was able to assess.  This includes over 100 eye witness accounts from the fire fighters, police officers, and public verifying that explosives were going off in the three towers, including in the basements and lobbies of the towers, and including explosives going off before the first plane hit.  Despite these eye witness accounts being forced to be released through the freedom of information act, the BBC has refused to show this evidence to the public.  They have instead done everything they can to block this information and have blatantly and deliberately misrepresented the events of 9/11 according to the evidence that is now available.  Using the word treason here would not be misplaced.

As has been stated, every possible avenue has been tried to get the BBC to show this information to the public, and the system simply seems to be such that it is not possible to actually hold the BBC to account if it decides to breach its operating requirements and provide false information to the public about an issue of national security.  Here is a summary of that process that we have gone through to attempt to get the BBC to show this information:

1.  2011 BBC shows two documentaries about 9/11 which are in gross breach of their editorial requirements on an issue of national security

2. Three members of the public follow standard processes and lodge formal complaints with the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) detailing the clear breaches by the BBC on an issue of national security

3.  The ECU rejects the complaints on every point, including stating that it is not within the remit of the ECU to assess the issue of the BBC failing to correct their blatant and officially confirmed error about the free fall of WTC Building 7, which is a clear and gross breach of 3.4.26 of the BBC Editorial Guidelines.  If it is not the remit of the ECU to assess something like this, then whose remit is it??

4.  The three complainants get four world leaders on 9/11 scientific evidence to submit supporting evidence to the ECU.  The ECU ignores all this evidence

5.  The complainants, the four world experts, and more than 500 members of the public send letters to the BBC Trust and Parliamentary Media Committee asking for the BBC to adhere to its stipulated editorial requirements and show the evidence and information to the public as they are required to do

6.  The BBC Trust requests the three complainants to ask the public to stop sending letters to the BBC Trust because so many letters is causing an inconvenience and they should be sent to the ECU instead.  The BBC is in gross breach of its editorial requirements on an issue of serious national security and the ECU is doing absolutely nothing about it, so what else are the public supposed to do?

7.  The Parliamentary Media Committee make a statement that it is not within their remit to assess such requests from the public and that his can only be done by the public approaching their local MP

8.  Several dozen members of the public do as the Parliamentary Media Committee suggest and contact their local MP about this issue

9.  The local MPs inform their constituents that the BBC has a formal complaints process in place through the ECU and that they should use this process to deal with such issues.  And so we have gone full circle and are back to square one with the ECU who will not acknowledge or accept that there has been any wrong doing.

So my question to the BBC Trust and the Parliamentary Media Committee is, if you were to hypothetically accept that what we are stating here about this evidence is correct and that the BBC is deliberately withholding vital information on an issue of national security, and the ECU refuses to address the situation, could someone please explain to me and the 500 other people, what the process would be for holding the BBC accountable?  Because the 9 points listed above have provided a real life demonstration that there is actually no way for the BBC to be held accountable if it were to decide to engage in an act of treason such as has been outlined here.

This is why the public now feel that there is no other option but to pursue this through legal channels as Mr Rooke did in Horsham last week.  This will not be the last court case of this nature against the BBC and their cover up of 9/11 evidence.  Many other individuals will now be following suit with legal challenges either through the Terrorism Act as Mr Rooke has, or by withholding their TV licence fee due to the BBC’s clear breaches of their Editorial Guidelines, or through direct criminal charges against the BBC for withholding evidence of terrorist activity.  The West Sussex Police have already stated that they will be looking into matters in this way.

So my request of you is to please look at the attached information that has been sent to the BBC Director-General and please could either the BBC Trust or Parliamentary Media Committee explain to me and all the other 500 plus members of the public who have written in on this matter, how the BBC can be held to account for such clear and gross breaches of their operating requirements in a way that directly supports the cover up of some of the most serious terrorist activity ever unleashed on the world.

Thank you very much for your time.

Kind Regards

Peter Drew

UK Facilitator – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Letter #2

4th March 2013


Tony Hall
The Director General
180 Great Portland Street
London W1W 5QZ


Court Case in Horsham Regarding The BBC’s Alleged Cover-Up Of 9/11

And Support Of Terrorism

Dear Mr Hall

I would like to draw your attention to and seek your thoughts on the issues highlighted in the title above.

On February 25th, 2013 a unique court case took place in Horsham, West Sussex, which involved the BBC’s alleged cover up of 9/11 and support of terrorism.  The enclosed document provides more details about this case, but in summary, the evidence that has been produced to support this claim is extremely detailed, powerful, and overwhelming.  It was also backed up by a formidable defence team including a former UK Intelligence Analyst, former UK Counter Terrorism Officer, and a leading Professor of Chemistry from Copenhagen University who is an expert in explosives.

This court case involved the defendant refusing to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of Section 15 of the Terrorism Act.  The outcome of the case was that the judge was favourable to the evidence that he saw, and whilst the judge was legally obliged to find the defendant guilty of the charge of refusing to pay his TV licence fee, he found morally in favour of the defendant and gave him a ‘conditional discharge’ as well as imposing the minimum possible court fee.  In addition, as a result of this trial, West Sussex Police have stated that they will be launching an investigation into the BBC’s alleged support of terrorism.

Public interest in this issue is huge.  More than 100 people attended this trial from all over the UK. Independent journalists attended from all over the UK and from across other parts of Europe, and more than 500 members of the public wrote to the BBC in 2012 asking the BBC to address this situation.  The awareness of this case amongst the public, and the outrage that they have, is such that the precedent and inspiration that this court case has now set is certainly going to result in many more similar legal challenges being made against the BBC.

The enclosed document provides more details about this court case, the evidence against the BBC, and the implications for the BBC.  I draw the attention of the BBC to this case in the hope that they will begin to take significant actions to remedy the situation and begin to show the public the true information and evidence that they possess about this issue, as is their job and moral responsibility.

Yours sincerely


Peter Drew

Court Case Regarding The BBC’s Alleged Cover-Up Of 9/11 And Support Of Terrorism

Wide Interest In Horsham Court Case

This trial generated a large amount of interest from the public and from independent media all over the world, with over 100 members of the public attending the trial from all over the UK and numerous independent media attending from across the UK and from around other parts of Europe.  See enclosed media stories about this case, including the Daily Mail.

Court Case Involving BBC Likely To Be Repeated

This court case involving the BBC is now very likely to be repeated by other members of the public in either the same manner or similar manner, unless of course the BBC adequately addresses the significant problems highlighted in this case.   Because on the issue of 9/11, the BBC can be shown to be in clear and gross breach of paragraph 44 of its ‘Agreement’ (requirement to be impartial and accurate) and point 3.4.26 of its Editorial Guidelines (requirement to correct errors)

Tony Rooke Refused to Pay TV Licence Fee

This court case involved Mr Tony Rooke refusing to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, which states that it is illegal for someone to provide funds to something which is supporting terrorism.  The claim by Mr Rooke was that the BBC has manipulated the way that it has presented important information about 9/11, and has deliberately withheld vital evidence and vital information from the public which proves conclusively that the official story of 9/11 is impossible and that other terrorist elements must have been involved in some way.  By manipulating that information and by withholding that vital evidence and vital information from the public, not only is the BBC grossly in breach of its editorial requirements and in breach of public trust, but it is also helping to cover up the true facts of 9/11 and is in effect assisting an element of the 9/11 terrorists to get away with the crime.

Overwhelming Evidence Produced By Formidable Defence Team

Mr Rooke was charged with a crime for not paying his TV licence and was granted a Magistrate’s hearing on February 25th to defend himself against the charges.  He submitted detailed and powerful evidence in his defence, showing exactly how the BBC has supported an element of the terrorists involved in 9/11, and he formed a formidable defence team to help present this evidence, including the following individuals:

Tony Farrell – former UK Intelligence Analyst

Ray Savage – former UK Counter Terrorism Officer

Professor Niels Harrit – Professor of Chemistry, Copenhagen University

Ian Henshall – leading UK author on 9/11

Adrian Mallett – former UK fire fighter and qualified Civil Engineer

Peter Drew – UK Facilitator for ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’

Richard Gage AIA – CEO and founder of ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ (provided evidence to support Mr Rooke)

Erik Lawyer – founder of ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’ (provided evidence to support Mr Rooke)

Dwain Deets – former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects (provided evidence to support Mr Rooke)

Jake Jacobs – veteran US airline pilot who has flown the same airliners as allegedly involved on 9/11 (provided evidence to support Mr Rooke)

Paul Warburton – Civil Rights Lawyer (provided legal consultancy)

The Judge Sided With Mr Rooke

The pre-trial evidence that was put forwards to the judge and prosecution from the individuals above was detailed, powerful, and comprehensive against the BBC’s coverage of 9/11, to say the least.  The judge is now aware of this evidence and whilst he stated that he had no option but to technically find Mr Rooke guilty of not paying his TV licence fee, he ‘conditionally discharged’ the conviction against Mr Rooke and imposed the minimum possible court fees permissible.  So this essentially represented the judge deciding not to convict Mr Rooke on the basis that he had justifiable moral grounds for doing what he did.  This is after Mr Rooke had accused the BBC of supporting terrorism.  So the finding by the judge is a very big statement.

West Sussex Police Are Launching An Investigation Into The BBC’s Support Of Terrorism?

On the basis of the trial in Horsham, West Sussex Police Department have stated that they will be launching an investigation into the claims made by Mr Rooke about the BBC’s support of terrorism.  So my question to you is, what is the BBC going to do about its very clear breaches of its Agreement (paragraph 44) and Editorial Guidelines (3.4.26)?  Because if the BBC does not adequately address these points then further legal action is surely going to be coming for the BBC on this.

A Vital Point Of Evidence Proving the BBC’s Cover-Up Of 9/11

There are a huge number of points of complaint from the public about the BBC’s coverage of 9/11 which has led to these accusations of supporting terrorism, but one of the most obvious and significant points relates to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines 3.4.26 whereby the BBC is required to correct mistakes.  The BBC is in clear and gross breach of this point on the absolutely critical issue of confirmed Free Fall of World Trade Centre Building 7.

The issue of Free Fall is so critical because if Free Fall of a high rise tower is confirmed, then according to the basic laws of physics and the basic law of gravity, the only way that this can occur is through very carefully and precisely controlled, explosive demolition.  For many years following 9/11, literally thousands of professional scientists, architects, and engineers had all been saying that according to the scientific analysis, WTC Building 7 collapsed at Free Fall acceleration, meaning controlled demolition.  However, in 2007 in the BBC’s documentary ‘The Conspiracy Files: the truth behind the third tower’ the BBC went out of its way to tell the public that all these scientists and professionals were wrong and that Free Fall of WTC Building 7 did not occur.  But in 2008, due to the continued work and pressure from these scientists, NIST, the official investigators into the collapse of the three towers, officially conceded that WTC Building 7 had indeed collapsed at Free Fall acceleration for at least part of its collapse (See the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48, which states: “A more detailed analysis of the decent of the north face found….(2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds….).

This was a huge announcement by NIST because it was essentially official confirmation that WTC Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.  This  means that there were other terrorists involved in 9/11 other than the alleged Al Qaeda hijackers.

Why Is The BBC Deliberately Misleading The Public On Such An Important Point?

According to the BBC’s Agreement and Editorial Guidelines, the BBC should have publicly corrected the error that it made in 2007 on an issue of absolutely enormous public relevance and importance.  It should have informed the public about this bombshell announcement by NIST and looked into the enormous implications of this announcement.  However, nearly 5 years after NISTs official announcement about the Free Fall of WTC Building 7, the BBC has still not corrected its error of 2007 and has still not informed the public about this hugely important announcement by the official investigators of 9/11.  Why is that?  By withholding this information from the public and maintaining a position with the public that has now been officially exposed as absolutely false, the BBC is effectively covering up the information that other terrorist elements were involved in 9/11.

Evidence Of The BBC’s Deliberate Obstruction

Tony Rooke’s defence team has evidence available of e-mail exchanges with the BBC asking for the BBC to adhere to their Editorial Guidelines and correct their error about Free Fall that they made in 2007.  The BBC’s response to this request was that this was not within the remit of the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit.  So we have a confirmed breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on an issue of huge importance to the public and which is an issue of National Security, and we have the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit informing us that addressing that issue is not part of its remit.  One would have to ask the question then, what is the role of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit and whose responsibility is it to hold the BBC accountable to serious breaches of public trust on an issue of national security?

Having had that response from the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit, more than 500 members of the public sent letters of complaint directly to the BBC Trustees instead.  The response from the BBC Trust was that these letters should be sent to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit rather than the BBC Trust, and that all those letters were proving an inconvenience for the BBC Trustees.  The defence team has the e-mail exchanges proving all of this.

Perhaps you can see how the public has gotten to the end of their tether on this issue and now as a last resort are launching the kind of legal action seen here by Tony Rooke in Horsham.

Other Important Points Of Evidence Of The BBC Supporting Terrorism

Here are several other key points of evidence that the BBC has either completely withheld from the public or failed to adequately explain, are as follows:

#1)  118 eye witness accounts from 9/11 first responder fire fighters, police officers, and members of the public about seeing and hearing explosives going off in the towers, including explosions in the basements of the buildings, and including explosions going off before the first plane hit.  This information was only made available to the public by the New York Times forcing them to be released through the ‘freedom of information act’.  But the BBC has refused to show this damning eye witness evidence to the public or even inform them that it exists.  Instead the BBC maintains the blatantly false line that no evidence of explosives exists.  Why?

#2)  The BBC reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 on live TV 26 minutes before it actually happened.  In fact the video footage of the BBC breaking this news about the supposed collapse shows WTC Building 7 still standing in the background in apparently near perfect physical condition with no significant fires visible.

Why was this announcement made 26 minutes before the building had even collapsed, and how did the BBC know it was going to collapse when it was not even hit by a plane, did not seem to have any significant fires burning, and not once in history had a steel framed building ever collapsed from fire damage?  Obviously the BBC was given a report from a source who knew that the building was going to be demolished, albeit that report was given to the BBC a little too early.  But whoever scripted that report and gave it to the BBC is clearly complicit in the wilful destruction of WTC Building 7.  Why did the BBC not thoroughly investigate this matter and find out where that report came from?  Once again, to not do this and to not inform the public about this is in gross breach of the BBC’s requirements and is supporting the cover-up of the terrorists who deliberately demolished WTC Building 7.

#3)  Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC Building 7 and the other World Trade Centre towers, is on video admitting that he gave the order to ‘pull’ WTC Building 7.   The term ‘pull’ is standard jargon in demolition circles for ‘hit the detonate button’ for a controlled demolition.  Why has the BBC not shown this to the public and why has the BBC not informed the public that just weeks before 9/11, Larry Silverstein took out new insurance policies on the World Trade Centre towers to cover them specifically for the act of total destruction from terrorist actions?  And why has the BBC not informed the public that as a result of the total destruction of the three towers on 9/11, Larry Silverstein has received a pay out of approximately $5 billion, when if 9/11 had not occurred he would have been up for costs of approximately $1 billion to have the asbestos removed from all of the World Trade Centre towers?

So to summarise the three points above, we have the BBC inadvertently reporting the demolition of WTC Building 7 26 minutes before it actually happened, we have NIST, the official investigators, informing us that WTC Building 7 did in fact collapse at Free Fall acceleration, which is only possible through controlled demolition, we have 118 eye witness accounts of explosives going off, we have the owner of WTC Building 7 admitting on camera that he gave the order to ‘pull’ the building, and we have that same person receiving $5 billion compensation instead of having to pay $1 billion.  Why is the BBC withholding this information from the public and is instead demonising and discrediting those who are trying to bring this information forwards to the public?

#4)  In 2011, Richard Clarke, the Head of US Counter Terrorism at the time of 9/11, made a bombshell announcement that in the weeks leading up to 9/11, the CIA prevented several of the 9/11 hijackers from being exposed and potentially arrested.  He said that if the CIA had informed the FBI and the US government about these hijackers then 9/11 could have been prevented.  But the BBC has refused to inform the public about this announcement.  Why?

Why has the BBC not informed the public about all these points above and numerous other crucial pieces of information and evidence about 9/11 that we can confirm the BBC has in their possession?  Why has the BBC not adhered to its requirements and ‘seriously challenged officials’ over the incredible points above?  Instead the BBC has withheld this information and has actively attempted to discredit those individuals attempting to have this information brought forwards to the public.  As Mr Rooke has rightly stated, this is wilful complicity and support for terrorists, and the judge at Horsham seems to have at least somewhat agreed with Mr Rooke.

Huge Support From The Public For the BBC To Tell Truth About 9/11

As previously stated, there were more than 100 people present at the Horsham trial and more than 500 people have written to the BBC asking them the same questions as Mr Rooke asked the judge in Horsham.  With the level of public outrage at this situation and the level of damning evidence available against the BBC, other legal challenges such as this will no doubt soon be coming from other members of the public.

Over one million innocent civilians have died so far from the illegal wars waged on Iraq and Afghanistan on the back of 9/11 and the subsequent supposed global war on terror.  Our British troops are still dying in Afghanistan on the basis of a proven lie, and the rights and freedoms of people in the UK and around the world continue to be stripped away on the back of the proven lies of 9/11.  Lies which the BBC has been knowingly supporting and promoting.  Is it any wonder that the public have had enough of the BBC on this issue and are taking these kinds of drastic legal actions as a last resort?  If you doubt the feeling of the public on this, just check the 360 comments from the public underneath the Daily Mail article about Tony Rooke’s court case.  The vast majority of them were totally supportive of Mr Rooke and were scathing towards the BBC on this issue.

In Conclusion

In conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming to support the claim that the BBC is in gross breach of its editorial requirements and that it is supporting terrorism.  This has now been tested in a UK court of law and the judge has been favourable towards supporting this evidence.  The public have supported this issue in mass with more than 100 people attending the trial and more than 500 people writing to the BBC.

So in the interests of the BBC, and in the interests of public trust, I am asking you to consider this matter seriously and to start considering taking some appropriate actions that will mean that the public do not have to initiate further legal action of this kind.  There are numerous excellent documentaries available that the BBC could begin showing to the public which provide excellent scientific analysis and eye witness accounts of the points described here.  The public should be allowed to see this information so that they can make up their own minds about what really did happen on 9/11.  It is the public’s right to see this information and it is the legal and moral responsibility for the BBC to show the public this information.

Kind Regards,


Peter Drew

Copied to:

All Members of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee

All BBC Trustees

Tony Rooke – defendant at Horsham

Tony Farrell – former UK Intelligence Analyst

Ray Savage – former UK Counter Terrorism Officer

Professor Niels Harrit – University of Copenhagen

Ian Henshall – UK author on 9/11

Adrian Mallett – former UK fire fighter

Paul Warburton – Civil Rights lawyer

Richard Gage AIA – founder and CEO of ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’

Erik Lawyer – founder of ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’

Dwain Deets – former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects

Jake Jacobs – veteran US Airline pilot