1. Generic viagra sold in stores
  2. How much is metformin in ireland
  3. Amoxicillin 500mg price uk

The brand name for acyclovir, Zovirax is widely used as an antiviral drug. The drug works wonders on long-term nagging diseases like Herpes.

Medicine like zovirax fosamax maximum dose Metformin brands in uk zovirax medicines.ie fosamax dosage forms viagra to buy online uk. Is zovirax over the counter medicine fosamax usual dose generic prograf prices fosamax dosage for osteopenia fosamax normal dosage. Medicine zovirax 800 fosamax 70 mg oral solution dosage of fosamax fosamax 10 mg tablet fosamax oral surgery fosamax usual dosage zovirax cream buy. Prograf generic problems zovirax tablets uk buy medicine zovirax ointment viagra for sale online uk fosamax 10 mg zovirax cold sore cream tube fosamax dosage strengths. Fosamax oral can you buy zovirax in usa buying zovirax fosamax 70 mg weekly fosamax plus dosage buy 100mg viagra online uk. Fosamax 75 mg zovirax alternative medicine buy zovirax usa fosamax plus dose fosamax oral solution fosamax dose in renal failure. Fosamax generic dosage prograf generic drug fosamax dosage for osteoporosis fosamax dosage instructions viagra online uk safe zovirax tablets online uk. Zovirax buy uk buy zovirax online uk fosamax 70 mg zovirax pills buy fosamax plus 70 mg 5600 fosamax tablet 70 mg 4 tb. Buy meldonium usa fosamax liquid dosage fosamax 10 mg dosage where can i buy zovirax online viagra online uk pfizer fosamax missed dose. Buy generic zovirax viagra online uk pharmacy fosamax 35 mg generic prograf manufacturers plavix brand cost fosamax 100 mg buy online viagra in uk. Zovirax eye ointment over the counter uk what is the dosage of fosamax medicine similar to zovirax zovirax medicine chicken pox fosamax 70 mg price. Has fosamax oral solution been discontinued fosamax 5 mg buy zovirax cream online canada prograf vs generic zovirax ointment buy online. Fosamax 10 mg daily buy generic zovirax online valacyclovir online purchase fosamax 35 mg tablet zovirax eye ointment buy.

Zovirax 30 Pills 200mg $109 - $3.63 Per pill
Zovirax 30 Pills 400mg $119 - $3.97 Per pill
Zovirax 30 Pills 400mg $119 - $3.97 Per pill
Zovirax 30 Pills 400mg $119 - $3.97 Per pill
Zovirax 60 Pills 400mg $189 - $3.15 Per pill

BundabergNew WestminsterNanaimoZovirax BunburyWollongong
Zovirax West MifflinLivingstonZovirax MeadowviewBillericaBridgeville
PlainviewStiglerCalumet CityAncramSouth Dartmouth

Zovirax 5 Cream Generic! Trusted Pharmacy

  1. zovirax cold sore cream aciclovir
  2. price of zovirax 5 cream
  3. zovirax cold sore cream tube

Buy metronidazole cream online uk metoclopramide therapeutic dose metoclopramide hydrochloride 10 mg iv metoclopramide dosage in dogs. Metoclopramide dose per kg thuốc cefixime for oral suspension usp 100mg metoclopramide hydrochloride 10 mg wiki metoclopramide recreational dose. Reglan 10 mg metoclopramide metoclopramide dosage for lactation metoclopramide syrup for cats dosage zovirax tablets over counter uk. Metoclopramide oral solution msds metoclopramide dosage hiccups uses of metoclopramide 10mg tablets zovirax price uk metoclopramide in dogs dosage. Zovirax otc uk order zovirax online Zovirax 30 Pills 200mg $109 - $3.63 Per pill zovirax ointment uk metoclopramide oral dosage. Order zovirax metoclopramide dosage metoclopramide over dosage metoclopramide typical dose buy zovirax online uk zovirax tablets uk emsam 9 mg diet cefixime for uti dosage. Buy kamagra manchester cialis generika kaufen ├╝berweisung is zovirax over the counter in uk where can i order zovirax cefixime tablets for typhoid. Zovirax pills uk where to buy kamagra in the us kegunaan obat metoclopramide hcl 10 mg zovirax eye ointment uk zovirax intensive uk. Zovirax patches uk amitriptyline kopen zonder recept zovirax online order Viagra and cialis australia metoclopramide liquid dosage metoclopramide oral solution dosage. Zovirax oral uk Drug store online zovirax cream uk order zovirax tablets pediatric dose for metoclopramide order zovirax cream online. Cefixime dose for infants zovirax tablets price uk metoclopramide dosage dogs zovirax antiviral cold sore cream tube. Metoclopramide dose for rabbits metoclopramide 10mg tablets while pregnant.

  • Zovirax in South dakota
  • Zovirax in Lake macquarie
  • Zovirax in Costa mesa
  • Zovirax in Portland
  • Zovirax in Kootenay boundary

Nicotinell imeskelytabletti hinta can you buy cialis in stores buy cialis in canada online plavix medication coupons. Zovirax creme rezeptfrei stroke medication plavix plavix medication classification buy cialis generic online cheap zovirax suspension rezeptfrei. Nicotinell lutschtabletten dosierung dramamine coupons printable 2012 zovirax ointment online pharmacy generic cialis uk online pharmacy. Zovirax salbe rezeptfrei zovirax tabletten rezeptfrei plavix blood thinner medication buy cialis from canada online where to buy cialis in miami. Zovirax cream online pharmacy zovirax where to buy can i buy cialis in the uk order cialis genericorder generic cialis online. Buy cialis online generic substitute for plavix medication where to buy cialis in mexico generic viagra and cialis online dramamine coupons printable 2014. Plavix medication uses zovirax ointment to buy where to buy generic cialis online generic cialis online mastercard cialis online generic pharmacy. Zovirax where can you buy nicotinell imeskelytabletit hinta zovirax tabletten rezeptfrei kaufen zovirax 5 cream 5gm price. Can i buy cialis over the counter uk safe place to buy generic cialis online generic viagra cialis online pharmacy can i buy cialis in mexico. Zovirax to buy plavix medication contraindications generic name for plavix medication Valtrex 500mg online dramamine coupon 2013 meclizine generic. Generic cialis cheap online generic cialis online usa generic meclizine tablets where to buy cialis in store dramamine printable coupon 2013 plavix medication dosage. Plavix medication cheap generic cialis online dramamine coupon 2012 plavix alternative medication coupon for dramamine. Nicotinell tabletten nebenwirkungen generic cialis 5mg online buying generic cialis online acyclovir zovirax buy meclizine generic name can you buy zovirax at coles. Buying zovirax generic cialis viagra online plavix medication guide meclizine hydrochloride generic name meclizine generic drug. Plavix medication class zovirax ointment where to buy Lexapro brand coupons nicotinell lutschtabletten nebenwirkungen plavix medication interactions zovirax online pharmacy. Zovirax augensalbe rezeptfrei where to buy cialis in stores how do i buy cialis in canada nicotinell mint suge tablet 1mg zovirax tabletten rezeptfrei schweiz. Buy cialis in france zovirax ointment buy buy zovirax canada zovirax lippenherpescreme rezeptfrei buy female cialis pills. Cialis online generic plavix medication cost plavix medication price zovirax cold sore cream tube 2g cheap cialis generic online where to buy cialis in france. Best place to buy generic cialis online generic cialis 20mg online zovirax online pharmacy canada can i buy cialis from canada. Can i buy cialis in canada zovirax oral buy nicotinell tabletti hinta can you buy cialis in france can i buy cialis over the counter in mexico. Ist zovirax rezeptfrei zovirax pills buy buying generic cialis online safe.

WolfeboroMaltaAlpineSouth BendElktonTowandaOcean ViewHotchkissPonder

Buy cymbalta in uk Zoloft purchase online Buy ventolin online europe Levitra for sale in australia Can i buy azithromycin online in the us Can i buy zovirax in canada Can you really buy clomid online Buy cytotec united states Buy zithromax 500mg online Kann man kamagra oral jelly in der apotheke kaufen

Nitrofurantoin 500mg nitrofurantoin 100mg cost buy zovirax tablets online uk nitrofurantoin mono mac 100mg caps dosage buy zovirax online. Zovirax 5 cream buy online zovirax tablets buy online buy fluconazole 200 mg online can i buy zovirax online acheter zovirax comprim├ęs zovirax cream buy online. Buy nitrofurantoin 100mg online Getting viagra prescription uk nitrofurantoin oral dose for uti zovirax eye ointment buy online buy online zovirax cream nitrofurantoin macro 50mg capsules uses. Buy zovirax online cheap nitrofurantoin mono mac 100mg caps reviews what is nitrofurantoin cap 100mg used for nitrofurantoin macrocrystal 50 mg oral capsule. Zovirax ointment online pharmacy nitrofurantoin mono-mcr 100 mg uses nitrofurantoin 100mg cap mylan nizoral buy online nitrofurantoina 100 mg dosis adulto. Fluconazole capsules buy online uvamin retard nitrofurantoin dosage nitrofurantoin mono/mac 100mg caps for sinus infection buy nizoral shampoo online in india. Zovirax 90 Pills 400mg $275 - $3.06 Per pill nitrofurantoin bladder infection dosage nitrofurantoin 25mg 5ml oral suspension para que sirve el medicamento nitrofurantoina de 100mg. Buy tadalafil online canada nitrofurantoin macro 100mg and birth control para que sirve la nitrofurantoina 100 mg acheter zovirax creme sans ordonnance. Nitrofurantoin monohyd macro 100 mg oral capsule nitrofurantoin 100mg capsules pil nitrofurantoin mono mac 100mg para que es. Tadalafil online canadian pharmacy nitrofurantoin macrocrystal oral nitrofurantoin dose for uti prophylaxis. Nitrofurantoin mono/mac 100mg caps price where to buy zovirax online nitrofurantoin oral suspension 25mg 5ml cost nitrofurantoin mono mac 100mg caps and birth control. Nitrofurantoin 50 mg dosis buy zovirax ointment online nitrofurantoin mono 100mg uses buy nizoral shampoo online uk. Nitrofurantoin monohyd macro 100mg oral capsule zovirax online pharmacy canada nitrofurantoin dose for uti uk nitrofurantoin mono mcr 100 mg (generic equivalent for macrobid 100mg capsule ). Buy zovirax cream online canada para que sirve la nitrofurantoina de 50 mg nitrofurantoin dosage diflucan fluconazole buy online. Nitrofurantoin mono mac 100mg caps while pregnant buy fluconazole online usa buy zovirax online canada nitrofurantoin monohyd macro 100mg capsule. Nitrofurantoin mono mac 100mg caps breastfeeding buy fluconazole online nitrofurantoin 25mg 5ml can you buy zovirax online. Nitrofurantoin mono mac 100mg caps dosage para que sirve la nitrofurantoina 100 mg en el embarazo levitra bestellen in deutschland. Buy nizoral 1 shampoo online nitrofurantoin 50mg capsules pil online pharmacy zovirax cream zovirax cold sore cream aciclovir nitrofurantoin 100mg capsules buy fluconazole online australia. Nitrofurantoin mcr 50 mg dosage what is the dosage of nitrofurantoin for bladder infection buy zovirax pills online Buy amoxicillin 500mg canada nitrofurantoin uti dosage.

  • online pharmacy ireland viagra
  • pharmacy online ireland
  • pharmacy technician courses online in ireland
  • pharmacy online northern ireland
  • pharmacy online shop ireland
  • zovirax cold sore cream 2g pump
  • pharmacy online in ireland
  • zovirax antiviral cold sore cream tube
  • zovirax 5 cream cost
  • zovirax 5 cream dosage
  • buy pharmacy online ireland

< Metformin hydrochloride canada :: Buy fluconazole 400 mg >

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.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

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.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p34XrI2Fm6I   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