Sildenafil generic brands Tretinoin 1 cream cost Lexapro generic cost rite aid Viagra online in deutschland kaufen Valtrex buy online Cheapest viagra for sale uk Cialis online uk pharmacy


Albuterol is a bronchodilator that relaxes muscles in the airways and increases air flow to the lungs. Albuterol inhalation is used to treat or prevent bronchospasm in people with reversible obstructive airway disease. It is also used to prevent exercise-induced bronchospasm.

Can you buy viagra or cialis over the counter viagra increase or decrease blood pressure albuterol tablets online where can i buy generic albuterol inhaler. Famvir tablets over the counter viagra or cialis famvir tablets for cold sores viagra 50 or 100mg famvir tablets for shingles. Buy albuterol tablets viagra 25mg or 50mg buy albuterol tablets uk viagra dosage 50 or 100 famvir cold sore tablets viagra dosage 25 or 50 orlistat otc australia. Can i buy real viagra online famvir 3 tablets can i buy viagra online can you buy orlistat over the counter in australia which drug is more effective viagra or cialis. Albuterol online uk viagra dosage 50 mg or 100mg prednisolone interactions with other drugs canadian non prescription viagra levitra or cialis. Viagra 50 or 100 mg where to buy real viagra cialis online where to buy real viagra online famvir 500mg tablets 3 can i buy orlistat over the counter in australia. Where can you buy genuine viagra online generic albuterol tablets buy albuterol tablets australia viagra 25 50 or 100mg. Which is stronger 20mg cialis or 100mg viagra which drug is better viagra or cialis can you really buy viagra online how much does viagra or cialis cost famvir tabletten katze. Viagra tablets good or bad prednisolone drug uses Where to buy viagra with a prescription buy liquid albuterol for nebulizer generic for albuterol inhaler. Can you get viagra or cialis over the counter buy albuterol tablets weight loss prednisolone dosage drugs.com. Famvir 125 mg tablets generic albuterol for nebulizer buy viagra cialis or levitra famvir tablets for cats reputable place to buy viagra online. Viagra or cialis cost buy albuterol for weight loss prednisolone sodium phosphate drug bank does viagra increase or decrease blood pressure. Albuterol tablets online pharmacy albuterol tablets online australia which pill is better viagra or cialis where can i buy albuterol for nebulizer. Famvir 250 mg 21 tablet prospektüs Buy orlistat online prescription does viagra raise or lower blood pressure famvir 250 mg tablet orlistat over the counter australia. How can i buy real viagra online Amitriptyline hcl 25 mg price buy albuterol for nebulizer online generic for albuterol sulfate cost viagra or cialis buy real pfizer viagra online.

Albuterol 20mg $255.19 - $1.42 Per pill



BurnieLeonoraWilunaCourtenayPalmerston
LogansportHindmanPomonaFaulktonWeston
LafayettePine GroveIndianolaJohnstownRancho Santa Fe


Buy Albuterol Online Canada! Trusted Pharmacy



  • buy albuterol sulfate inhalation solution 0.083 online
  • buy albuterol for nebulizer online
  • albuterol inhaler online canada
  • buy albuterol sulfate online
  • albuterol online uk


Celebrex vs advil for pain viagra england kaufen is there a generic albuterol hfa generic albuterol mdi cialis generico online consegna rapida. Phentermine 37.5 mg capsules vs tablets phentermine pills vs capsules cialis generico online farmacia italiana celebrex vs tylenol 3. Celebrex vs naproxen for pain relief generic albuterol sulfate hfa non generic albuterol is there a generic albuterol sulfate inhaler. Cialis generico acquisto online celebrex vs ibuprofen back pain phentermine 37.5 vs phentermine 30 mg meloxicam 15 mg vs celebrex 200mg. Celebrex vs ibuprofen for arthritis meloxicam 15 mg vs celebrex cymbalta vs celebrex for pain Buy metformin in usa phentermine vs topamax weight loss. Adderall xr vs phentermine for weight loss viagra uk cheap online co cialis generico online recensioni generic albuterol canada viagra uk london. Phendimetrazine 105 mg vs phentermine 37.5 cialis generico online dall'europa phentermine 30mg capsule vs 37.5 mg zyrtec gel caps vs pills generic albuterol rescue inhaler. Cialis generico online europa albuterol inhaler online pharmacy generic to albuterol ritalin vs phentermine for weight loss. Generic albuterol inhaler price phentermine vs generic cialis generico online italia consegna veloce albuterol generic brand. Can you get high off zyrtec pills mobic 15 mg vs celebrex phendimetrazine 35mg vs phentermine cialis generico online senza ricetta. Generic albuterol tablets liquid viagra kamagra uk viagra jelly kamagra uk Albuterol 2mg $34.2 - $0.57 Per pill. Adipex diet pills vs phentermine Zovirax 5 cream generic viagra uk pharmacy celebrex vs 800 mg ibuprofen phentermine generic vs brand zyrtec 10 mg white pill zyrtec pill markings. Cheap viagra kamagra uk generic albuterol solution celebrex vs advil for back pain generic albuterol inhalers available generic albuterol inhaler dosage. Viagra uk kamagra generic albuterol nebulizer phentermine tablets vs capsules generic albuterol cost phentermine 30 vs 37.5mg no generic albuterol over the counter fastin vs phentermine. Amaryl generic albuterol going generic generic albuterol inhaler cost generic brand albuterol inhaler cialis generico online mexico. Amaryl generic equivalent where can i buy generic albuterol inhaler buy albuterol pills uk online pharmacy uk generic cialis. Phentermine 30 mg vs 37.5 mg cialis generic buy online Lexapro cost help phentermine vs phendimetrazine 35mg phentermine vs over the counter amaryl generic drug. Generic for albuterol sulfate celebrex vs zoloft cialis generico online farmacia albuterol inhaler generic online buy generic albuterol. Viagra uk pharmacy online viagra uk kaufen generic albuterol inhaler.

  • Albuterol in Toowoomba
  • Albuterol in Billings
  • Albuterol in Jackson


Voltaren gel buy online usa buy voltaren online uk cordarone x dose buy albuterol inhalers online Proscar cost uk. Haldol used for pain aldactone for hair loss dosage buy albuterol for nebulizer online aldactone 100mg for acne abilify generic price cong dung cua thuoc cordarone 200mg. Buy albuterol solution online abilify generic aldactone dose for edema cheap generic viagra co uk kamagra tablets. Albuterol cheap online aldactone for hair loss albuterol inhaler generic online buy albuterol vials online buy albuterol tablets weight loss. Spironolactone generic for aldactone aldactone dosage for acne aldactone for hair loss reviews get albuterol online buy albuterol online uk aldactone dose for chf. Voltaren gel buy online cordarone 100 mg bijsluiter haldol dosage for agitation albuterol sulfate online pharmacy cordarone max dose. Cordarone dosage form buy albuterol sulfate online buy albuterol sulfate inhalation solution 0.083 online albuterol tablets online australia. Order generic abilify voltaren tabletten online kaufen aldactone 150 mg for acne buy albuterol sulfate inhaler online albuterol sulfate order online. Cordarone dose drip buy albuterol liquid online cordarone 200 mg pret albuterol pills online albuterol buy online australia. Can i buy albuterol inhaler online buy albuterol tablets australia aldactone for weight loss aldactone for acne before and after. Generic albuterol cost cheap kamagra tablets uk buy albuterol pills uk buy voltaren suppositories online albuterol pills buy online haldol for anxiety treatment. Albuterol sulfate inhalation solution buy online haldol used for anxiety albuterol nebulizer solution online haldol for anxiety dosage albuterol sulfate inhalation solution buy online. Aldactone for acne results albuterol for sale online albuterol buy online cordarone dose iv cordarone x dosage haldol dosage for schizophrenia. Albuterol sulfate buy online generic for aldactone cordarone dose de charge aldactone for acne treatment haldol dosing for nausea aldactone tablets for acne. Online coupons canada drug pharmacy buy voltaren emulgel online voltaren gel to buy online buy albuterol inhaler online canada aldactone 50 for hair loss. Buy voltaren tablets online aldactone for high blood pressure aldactone for hair loss in females buy albuterol online uk aldactone for acne weight albuterol sulfate buy online. Buy albuterol inhaler online canada buy albuterol australia albuterol order online buy generic abilify online buy albuterol tablets online. Albuterol 30 Pills 100mg $121 - $4.03 Per pill cordarone dosage buy albuterol for weight loss cordarone x 200 mg buy albuterol solution online buy albuterol liquid online. Cheap super kamagra uk cordarone dose oral aldactone dosage for bodybuilding where can i buy kamagra in manchester.

MilduraCoquitlamWollongongAlbuterol BathurstCapitalArmidaleTrailAlbuterol La TrobePort Alberni


Canada generic viagra price Buy acyclovir 5 cream Online viagra canada Viagra vente libre au quebec Best and cheapest place to buy viagra Where to buy cialis in france Generic topamax online Avodart buy online Buy accutane eu


Plavix 600 mg dose nombre generico de orlistat en mexico omeprazole 20 mg and plavix albuterol online purchase plavix oral dose uses plavix 75 mg. Order cialis uk plavix 10mg buy albuterol tablets uk buy albuterol ar-r orlistat precio mexico plavix 75 mg indication. Albuterol 120 Pills $86 - $79 Per pill plavix 75 mg manufacturer plavix 75 mg 90 film tablet fiyatı. Buy albuterol pills uk plavix usual dosage plavix dosage duration what is normal dosage of plavix buy albuterol weight loss. Buy albuterol inhaler online canada dose of plavix in stemi dosage of plavix drug plavix 75 mg buy online cheap valtrex generic. Buy albuterol from canada buy an albuterol inhaler online plavix 75mg tablets price buy albuterol sulfate inhalation solution 0.083 online. Dose of plavix for nstemi generic valtrex online pharmacy plavix dosage stemi plavix 25 mg buy liquid albuterol australia plavix 75mg price in usa buy albuterol usa. Orlistat marcas mexico plavix low dose cialis generic 100mg best price for plavix 75 mg buy cheap albuterol inhaler aspirin dose with plavix plavix for cats dosage. Plavix 75 mg 90 ftb cheap plavix online plavix 75mg 90 film tablet orlistat se vende sin receta en mexico albuterol buy online cheap generic valtrex online. Order valtrex generic online buy albuterol vials online post nasal drip medicine flonase uses of plavix 75 mg cost of plavix 300 mg. Minimum dosage of plavix plavix dose unstable angina dosage and administration of plavix plavix 75 mg espaņol order valtrex generic. Brilinta 90 mg vs plavix cialis generic cheap plavix 300 mg wirkung plavix 300 mg price plavix max dosage buy albuterol sulfate online Cialis online kaufen deutschland. Plavix 900 mg loading dose plavix dosage stent orlistat generico mexico plavix clopidogrel 75mg price plavix dose in nstemi plavix 75 mg generic name. Plavix therapeutic dose buy albuterol sulfate inhalation solution 0.083 online plavix 75 mg tablet price in india. Plavix 75 mg price india plavix maximum dosage plavix 150 mg plavix online prices order generic valtrex online cheapest plavix online. Buy generic valtrex plavix loading dose pci buy albuterol online uk generic cialis toronto plavix 75 mg online kaufen albuterol inhaler online. Plavix 300 mg pret plavix 50 mg plavix dosage and route clopidogrel plavix 300 mg.

  1. albuterol online pharmacy
  2. buy albuterol inhaler online cheap
  3. canada pharmacy coupon code free shipping
  4. canada pharmacy coupon promo code
  5. northwest pharmacy canada coupons
  6. global pharmacy canada coupon codes
  7. coupon code northwest pharmacy canada
  8. canada pharmacy online coupon
  9. buy albuterol sulfate inhaler online
  10. canada drug pharmacy coupon codes


< Viagra and cialis online pharmacy :: Valtrex buy canada >

BBC

This page describes the BBC’s (British Broadcasting Corporation) inaccurate and biased reporting on 9/11, its  written commitment to quality reporting through its Editorial Guidelines and Editorial Values, and contains a sample letter that you can send to the Members of Parliament on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee asking them to meet with three 9/11 Truth activists in the UK to hear the evidence that Britain, like the U.S., was led into war on a lie.  The letter also asks the MPs to investigate the BBC for its violation of its Editorial Guidelines and Editorial Standards.
This summer 160 people sent this letter to the MPs.  Many of them received a response from Victoria Butt on behalf of this Committee.  If you send the sample letter, or any letter, to the MPs about this BBC campaign you may receive this reply from Ms. Butt.  It said:
From: “Culture, Media & Sport Committee” <CMSCOM@parliament.uk>
To: (redacted)
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012
Subject: RE: Hold BBC accountable for biased reporting
Thank you for your email regarding the BBC’s coverage of 9/11. The BBC’s main responsibility is to provide an impartial public broadcasting service particularly regarding news and current affairs content; the Committee must therefore refrain from commenting on or attempting to influence the news stories the BBC covers. These decisions are made by the BBC and the BBC Trust. It is not the role of the Committee to interfere with the Corporation’s broadcasting of current affairs.
The Committee does, however, hold an annual evidence session scrutinising the financial accounts and performance of the BBC. Further details can be found on our website at www.parliament.uk/cmscom.
Kind regards,
Victoria Butt
Senior Committee Assistant
Culture, Media and Sport
I                     BBC is part of the worldwide media cover up of 9/11
We have a unique and potentially powerful opportunity with this action.
The corporate media across the western world is not allowing the full facts about 9/11 to be shown to the public. This is a major reason why the 9/11 truth movement has not yet been successful in creating sufficiently widespread knowledge and political pressure to force the new and independent investigation that we are all seeking.
II                 BBC has a legal obligation to present accurate and impartial news
We have a unique opportunity here to try to break this media blockade through one of the largest and most publicly trusted mainstream media outlets in the western world, namely the BBC in Britain. Unlike all the other large corporate media outlets in the western world, the BBC is publicly funded by the people of Britain. Because of this, the BBC has a responsibility to the public and operates according to a legal ‘Royal Charter’ that requires the BBC to provide information to the public in a fair, accurate, impartial, and independent manner.
The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines include Editorial Values promise truth, accuracy, impartiality, editorial integrity and independence, fairness, transparency and accountability. The Editorial Values also require the BBC to “ask searching questions of those who hold public office and others who are accountable, and provide a comprehensive forum for public debate,” and to “be rigorous in establishing the truth of the story and well informed when explaining it.”
III              Complaints and appeals allowed
If the public ever feels that the BBC does not meet these criteria on something then there is a formal complaints process for the public which the BBC Trust must adhere to. Through the complaints process, if it can be proven that the BBC has not met the required criteria of its Royal Charter then it must take suitable action to address this. It only takes one major media network to crack a little on 9/11 and the global ripple effect could be huge.
IV              BBC coverage of 9/11 has been very biased
Over the past few years the BBC has aired numerous documentaries about 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Last year the BBC aired two documentaries about 9/11 to coincide with the tenth anniversary, namely ‘Conspiracy Files: 9/11 ten years on’, and ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip‘.
These documentaries have mentioned some of the issues raised by the 9/11 truth movement but they have very much been biased towards supporting the official story of 9/11 and they have withheld or misrepresented crucial facts and information that challenges the official story. The sample letter below gives some specifics on the BBC’s bias in these programs.
V                  Three 9/11 Truth activists in the UK have filed formal complaints and are asking for help
As a result of these two documentaries, three individuals in the UK, including UK Civil Rights lawyer, Paul Warburton, lodged three separate and formal complaints with the BBC over these two documentaries citing the numerous breaches of the BBC’s Royal Charter to be fair, accurate, impartial, and independent. These complaints have also had some support from several Members of Parliament. These three complaints have now reached the top level of the BBC complaints and investigation process but have been apparently stonewalled within the BBC. At this point there is little to be gained from continuing to write to the BBC or BBC Trust. Rather, our 3 petition signers have decided to ask for a meeting with the House Media Committee.
The rest of this is new as of June 30, 2012
VI              250 + 9/11 Truth activists wrote letters to the BBC Trust and MP Tom Watson in June
In June, 2012 over 250 9/11 Truth activists wrote to the BBC Trust and MP Tom Watson in support of the BBC campaign.
VII           BBC bureaucracy / gatekeeper has kept these letters of support and the appeal itself from being seen by the BBC Trust
There was a reasonable expectation that letters on this subject to the BBC Trust would actually reach the BBC Trust.  However Fran O’Brien, head of Editorial Standards for the BBC (part of the BBC Executive Branch) recently wrote to Peter Drew (one of our 3 activists who filed complaints with the BBC) about his appeal against the BBC’s findings relating to his complaints about the following two BBC documentaries:
1. Ref: 1445671 The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On — 29 August 2011 — BBC Two
2. Ref: 1445671 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip — 8 September 2011 — BBC Three
Miss O’Brien’s letter states that her responsibility in this complaints process is to check that appeals qualify for consideration by the Trust. In her opinion, the BBC Trust would not be interested in Peter’s complaint and therefore it will not be passed on to the Trust.  This is what the ESC did with all 3 appeals.
Peter Drew wrote a follow up letter challenging Miss O’Brien’s decision but there is more that we can do.
VIII       Change in strategy:  write directly to the House Media Committee in support of this campaign
For this reason we have a change in strategy.  It is clear that the BBC is the problem.  They are not going to admit their own wrongdoing – their violation of their Royal Charter, Agreement and Editorial Guidelines in the 2 documentaries aired last September – and provide accurate and impartial information about the 9/11 attacks.  The BBC gatekeeper has effectively prevented this appeal and our probably our letters related to the appeal from even reaching the BBC Trust.
However the UK Parliament has a Committee – the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (the “Media Committee”) – which has oversight authority over the BBC.  This Committee can investigate the BBC’s biased and inaccurate reporting of 9/11 as well as other topics.
For this reason the three 9/11 Truth activists in the UK who are running this campaign are now asking for help from the Committee.  It is the MPs on this Media Committee who can really hold the BBC accountable to their Royal Charter and Agreement.
IX               What can you do to support this BBC campaign?
Read all of these instructions before moving on.  Don’t worry – they are as short as practical.
#1)  Select the sample letter in the box below.  That will highlight it.  Then copy it with a right click, then copy.
#2)  Compose a new email message in your email program.
#3)  Paste the contents of your clipboard (which will be the sample letter) into the body of your email message.
#4)  Write a subject line for your email message.
#5)  Insert the date of your letter into the body of your email message.
#6)  Insert your name, your city, state and country if you feel comfortable providing it, and your email address in your letter.  These go about 1/5 of the way down in the letter, not at the end.
#7)  The recipients of your email message (you can copy and paste these) are:
To:
“louise.mensch.mp@parliament.uk” <louise.mensch.mp@parliament.uk>,
“tom.watson.mp@parliament.uk” <tom.watson.mp@parliament.uk>,
“john.whittingdale.mp@parliament.uk” <john.whittingdale.mp@parliament.uk>,
“sutcliffeg@parliament.uk” <sutcliffeg@parliament.uk>,
“jim@jimsheridanmp.org.uk” <jim@jimsheridanmp.org.uk>,
“Sandersa@parliament.uk” <Sandersa@parliament.uk>,
“steve.rotheram.mp@parliament.uk” <steve.rotheram.mp@parliament.uk>,
“paul.farrelly.mp@parliament.uk” <paul.farrelly.mp@parliament.uk>,
“daviesp@parliament.uk” <daviesp@parliament.uk>,
“damian.collins.mp@parliament.uk” <damian.collins.mp@parliament.uk>,
“therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk” <therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk>,
“BBC_Action@ae911truth.org” <BBC_Action@ae911truth.org>
cc:
“trust.secretariat@bbc.co.uk” <trust.secretariat@bbc.co.uk>,
“chris.patten@bbc.co.uk” <chris.patten@bbc.co.uk>,
“richard.ayre@bbc.co.uk” <richard.ayre@bbc.co.uk>,
“anthony.fry@bbc.co.uk” <anthony.fry@bbc.co.uk>,
“Alison.hastings@bbc.co.uk” <Alison.hastings@bbc.co.uk>,
“Rotha.johnston@bbc.co.uk” <Rotha.johnston@bbc.co.uk>,
“Bill.matthews@bbc.co.uk” <Bill.matthews@bbc.co.uk>,
“mehmuda.mian@bbc.co.uk” <mehmuda.mian@bbc.co.uk>,
“elan.stephens@bbc.co.uk” <elan.stephens@bbc.co.uk>,
“suzanna.taverne@bbc.co.uk” <suzanna.taverne@bbc.co.uk>,
“diane@enlightenmenteconomics.com” <diane@enlightenmenteconomics.com>
#8)  Personalize your letter by saying something about who you are and why this matters to you (if you want) and send it.
The sample letter is the rest of the page – it goes all the way to the end of this page.
Sample letter to the Members of Parliament on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee
[insert date of your email]
Dear MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee,
I write this to you as a member of the 9/11 Truth movement.  Along with thousands of others I have signed a petition requesting  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 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:
The BBC is conducting a cover up of information about the 9/11 attacks and the Media Committee should get involved
This summer more than 600 letters were 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.