No surprise that the complaint was not upheld, The finding is a joke as you would imagine. For example, the BBC’s idea of ‘investigation’ regarding Mayor Willie Brown not flying on 911 is to phone his office and ask if the reports of a tip off were true!

The entire results below:

FINDING BY THE EDITORIAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE

9/11: The Conspiracy Files, BBC Two, 18 February 2007

Summary of finding

The Committee, in its consideration, noted that four complainants had complained

about this programme. Three complaints appeals are addressed in this finding.

The Committee noted all of the concerns raised by the appellants and from their

complaints grouped the issues raised under five broad headings:

- Did the programme consider the most significant 9/11 conspiracy theories?

- Did the programme ensure appropriate representation from both sides of

the argument?

- Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

- Were the arguments articulated clearly?

- Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy theories?

- Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

The appeals were considered against the editorial guidelines concerning accuracy and impartiality.

The Committee concluded:

- Did the programme ensure appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

· it was not a requirement for all theories to be considered in the programme;

September 2001or to deliver an in depth analysis of each theory or

verdict on the veracity of each theory;

majority of the audience would have had some awareness of and, as

such, was editorially justified; and

of deceit” to satisfy the guideline to “weigh all relevant facts”

- Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

by providing sufficient information on each theory mentioned to

enable the viewer to have had enough understanding of the different

arguments to have formed an opinion as to the accuracy of the

various statements made;

every argument to achieve due impartiality;

representatives from both sides of the argument to articulate the

various views;

the ‘truth movement’ had the appropriate credentials to provide an

authoritative view of the various arguments; and

out” was used fairly as that was a description he used to describe

himself;

- Were the arguments articulated clearly?

representations, the production team had accurately put forward the

broad details of each of the theories in way that did not mislead the

audience;

checked;

- Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy

theories?

phenomenon of conspiracy theories to talk to someone who was

publicly known and associated with conspiracy theories;

balanced as there was sufficient concerns raised by those in the truth

movement to offset those of Mr Spotnitz;

- Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

the theorists in a negative way either in the way the individual

contributors were referred to or presented.

The complaints were not upheld.

The Conspiracy Files was a series of four programmes exploring the conspiracy

theories that have entered the mainstream surrounding some of the biggest Western

number of conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 11 September 2001. The

programme travelled across the United States, speaking to eyewitnesses and

attempting to separate fact from fiction.

Three complainants made a similar complaint concerning 9/11: The Conspiracy Files,

details of which are below (section 2.1). The individual complainants also made

complaints in addition to these which are captured in section 2.2.

The 9/11 truth movement

describe themselves as the 9/11 truth movement.

movement. These show beyond doubt that the official US government version of

events of that day was fraudulent. The producers of the programme had no

intention of supporting a version of events of that day which conflicted with the

official US report.

· There were 13 debunkers interviewed and only 3 9/11 truthers.

proven by scientists in the truth movement to be unscientific and in violation of

the laws of physics. If the towers had collapsed in pancake form, large floor

areas would have remained intact with pieces of concrete of varying sizes. There

was no mention in the programme that all three buildings fell at freefall velocity

and that no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fires prior to or since

9/11.

graphic demonstration they would have taken more than 50 seconds to fall.

temperature needed to melt the central support columns of the twin towers.

The Pentagon attack

too simplistic to be accepted. A 757 cannot fly at ground level. It would also have

been physically impossible for any large aircraft to have hit the Pentagon without

leaving devastation in its wake. Instead there was a neat, near-perfect hole and

no traces of the large fuselage, the wings, engines or seats, luggage and passenger

remains. The programme did not explain these issues.

Washington cannot be relied on. The programme did not mention or question

him about the Pentagon’s missile defences which failed to be deployed that day.

Flight 93

The evidence of eye-witnesses lacked credibility. If the Boeing 757 had crashed at

that location there would have been substantial debris.

original story.

officials and the FBI clearly stated that it was.

Programme interviews

researchers as a leading analyst of the events of that day. Neither he nor

Professor Steven Jones was included in the programme.

personnel, government officials, survivors and families of the victims who dispute

the official version of events. Witnesses who heard bombs exploding within the

buildings before and after they were hit by the aircraft weren’t mentioned.

was an attempt to discredit the truth movement in the eyes of the audience.

ranking people were warned not to go to work or to fly that day but this was

never mentioned.

were dubious or sinister.

unnecessary and used up valuable footage time. They were shot without

additional lighting to create a negative impression. The close-up technique used

to film Professor Fetzer was disrespectful.

even though he never attended college.

true. The secret services of many governments had warned the US

administration of possible attacks.

deceit or operation Northwoods.

New York as having had prior warning of the collapse of Building 7. This is

further evidence that the building did not collapse as a result of structural failure.

casualties. However a secret service agent Craig Miller died as a result of that

collapse.

admitting that the authorities decided to ‘pull’ Building 7?

due to two separate bomb threats, and that Flight 93 was one of those reported

to have landed by locals.

that those undertaking independent investigations of 9/11 are somehow anti-

Semitic.

accounts were given, save for the view of Dylan Avery

found 8 miles away in New Baltimore

world trade centre, eye witness accounts, a conspiracy theory concerning the

Mayor of San Francisco and any interview with the head of the largest 9/11

victims group for the film.

movement than “debunkers”.

determined to examine the many conspiracy theories in detail and subject them to

forensic examination.

The programme chose three prominent and influential people to make the case that

the official account of 9/11 is wrong and to propose an alternative. The programmemakers

did ask Professor Steven Jones for an interview but he declined.

The programme found much evidence which supported the official version of events

and which contradicted the various conspiracy theories.

Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover up

intelligence failures, this was included in the programme.

The programme was 59 minutes long and therefore could not deal with every issue

and every possible argument. The programme-makers chose the strongest and most

widely reported arguments for inclusion. They also spoke to and considered many

witnesses and experts but in the end made an editorial judgement as to who to

include in the programme.

Frank Spotnitz was included to help viewers understand why so many people believe

in conspiracy theories generally.

The 9/11 truth movement

The programme was in production for nine months and the producers carried out

extensive research in that time. The final programme contained a number of

interviews with leading members of the 9/11 truth movement and gave them the

opportunity to explain their theories of what happened on the day.

The programme also included interviews with people challenging these theories to

provide the necessary balance on such a controversial subject.

The programme-makers made a conscious decision to concentrate on the opinions

of three people who are well regarded in the truth movement and spend time

establishing why their views were worthy of consideration. This was considered

preferable to covering a greater variety of views in a more cursory manner.

It is true that more people were interviewed to support the official explanation of

events – but this in itself did not lead to an imbalance. Throughout the programme a

great deal of time was spent explaining the theories of the three men, often using

material which they had provided. Their contribution amounted to more than eight

minutes of the programme. This compares to just over ten minutes devoted to

those putting opposing views.

“In many cases where there was an exchange of views, the programme-makers gave

analysis of the main theories and I do not believe there is evidence of bias against the

9/11 truth movement.”

rather than a negative inference about the truth movement.

The collapse of the twin towers

There are a number of explanations as to why the twin towers collapsed and some

of these were examined by the programme. Dylan Avery put forward his theory that

the buildings were brought down by a series of controlled explosions. This was

balanced by the official Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) report

that said that a combination of the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires

weakened the load-bearing beams. The programme-makers had to decide which

aspects of the collapse to investigate in the time available, and so included the two

most widely discussed explanations.

Davin Coburn has carried out his own research into the collapse and his explanation

is shared by many, including FEMA. The purpose of the graphic used to illustrate the

official explanation was to show a complicated process in a way that is simple to

understand. The programme-makers say that their intention in using the graphic was

to clarify one theory rather than to prove its validity.

The graphic was run in slow motion and was not designed to show the actual speed

at which the collapse occurred. If the graphic had been shown in ‘real time’ it would

have been too quick to understand. Therefore this was not misleading or inaccurate.

It is true to say that no other steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire but it

is equally true that no other buildings have been hit at speed by a large passenger jet

laden with fuel. It is hard to see how an analysis of other skyscraper fires would

have proved what caused the twin towers to collapse.

The Pentagon attack

Professor Hoffman’s computer animation was shown to help illustrate his

explanation for why the hole in the Pentagon wall was so small. The programme did

not endorse this view and made it clear it had been challenged by many experts.

Professor Jim Fetzer and Dylan Avery spoke at length to cast doubt on the official

version. The programme examined the evidence on both sides but did not draw any

conclusions.

The interview with Col. Steve O’Brien who explained that he saw an unidentified jet

turn and crash into the Pentagon was balanced with an interview with Professor Jim

Fetzer who highlighted a number of inconsistencies. The programme therefore

offered both sides of the argument and left the viewer to draw his own conclusion.

Flight 93

Flight 93. It accurately reflected the concerns of many people that the lack of any

substantial aircraft wreckage casts doubt on the official explanation. The coverage

included both sides of the argument.

They spoke to people directly involved in the investigation to check known facts.

The programme-makers spoke directly to the FBI in Pennsylvania to check what

claims had been made by the Bureau. The FBI confirmed that the only debris from

the plane found within an eight mile radius was light material such as paper and foam.

The programme gave the last word on this issue to Professor Jim Fetzer and Dylan

Avery, so the viewer was given plenty of opportunity to consider the sceptical view.

The coroner Wally Miller has gone on record to say that he was misquoted when it

programme also included an interview with Dylan Avery in which he questioned Mr

Miller’s reliability.

Programme Interviews

concentrate on three other prominent members of the 9/11 truth movement.

Professor Stephen Jones was approached to take part in the programme but was

unavailable.

The programme-makers interviewed many witnesses and experts and sought out

viewpoints on the most widely-held theories. They then made an editorial judgment

to include what they believed were the strongest and most relevant views.

Eyewitness accounts provide interesting background information but cannot be

regarded as providing conclusive evidence. The programme did however address

the issue of secondary explosions and gave Dylan Avery an opportunity to explain

his theory.

The interview with Frank Spotnitz was included to help the viewer understand why

so many people believe in conspiracy theories. In the same section of the

programme Alex Jones explained why many people are increasingly willing to

challenge the official version of events.

The programme-makers say that they could find no convincing evidence that some

senior people had been warned not to go to work at the World Trade Centre that

day. They also spoke directly to the office of Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco

who told the programme that he made no changes to his itinerary on the morning of

9/11.

There is no evidence to suggest that film-making techniques were used with an

‘oppressive sinister intent.’ The mood was sombre but consistent throughout the

programme.

A variety of lighting techniques and framing were used throughout the programme

and many of the interviewees who oppose the views of the truth movement were

also filmed in similar ways.

The programme sought to establish the background of the three members of the

truth movement. Far from being a ploy to waste time, this was a way to reinforce

their credibility.

think it reasonable to suggest that Dylan Avery has rejected conventional society.

He walked away from a secure job and moved to Washington DC to pursue his

ambition to make films. There are also a number of positive descriptions to establish

Mr Avery’s credibility and explain to viewers why his views are worthy of inclusion.

He was described as “the most prominent voice in the self-styled 9/11 truth movement”

The programme did not claim that the CIA and the FBI did not have forewarning of

the attacks. The script states:

The programme went on to examine the failure of the intelligence services.

All three of the main interviewees made a number of claims in the programme

accusing the US government of being involved in the events of 9/11. The

programme-makers were entirely justified in letting the leading voices of the truth

movement put forward their case without referring to previous unrelated events.

BBC World’s Head of News, Richard Porter, has explained at length the sequence of

events which led to the BBC report about the collapse of Building 7. His blog had

already been sent to the complainants.

On the issue of casualties in Building 7, the programme-makers were quoting from

the official FEMA report into WTC 7. This was an independent investigation and noone

seems to have yet provided proof that on this particular point it is wrong.

has since issued a statement saying that what he was referring to was the need to

pull the fire-fighting contingent out of the building, not pull the building down itself.

The theory that Flight 93 and another aircraft were diverted to Ohio because of

bomb threats was well documented in the programme.

The claim that thousands of Jewish people stayed at home that day was examined in

the programme, but the script treated the allegations in the same dispassionate way

as other claims. The origin of this particular story was explained in the programme.

There was no suggestion that any of the conspiracy theorists in the programme

supported this claim. I do not believe that any average member of the audience

would conclude that the programme implied that anyone questioning the official

version of events on 9/11 was anti-Semitic.

comment from the narrator goes even further to make it clear that the final

conclusion of the programme is that the truth of what happened on 9/11 will remain

a subject of great controversy:

Yet you give time for, and go into graphic and scientific detail of, the official

account of the twin towers collapse.

cover-up.

Flight 93 was found 8 miles away – in New Baltimore, not Indian Lake. The

documentary misleads the viewer and misrepresents the 9/11 truth movement

stating it’s only 1 mile away as the crow flies. The truth movement though isn’t

referring to Indian lake but to New Baltimore.

Truth and Accuracy

We strive to be accurate and establish the truth of what has happened. Accuracy is

more important than speed and it is often more than a question of getting the facts

right. We will weigh all relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output

will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in

clear, precise language. We will be honest and open about what we don’t know and

avoid unfounded speculation.

Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion

We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by

exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in

our approach to a subject. We will provide professional judgments where

appropriate, but we will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of

public policy or political or industrial controversy.

Introduction

The BBC’s commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value and fundamental to our

reputation. Our output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly

tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open

about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation.

For the BBC accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a

question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information should be

weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as

facts may need to be considered.

We aim to achieve accuracy by:

· the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever possible.

· checking and cross checking the facts.

· validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material.

Fact checking

We must check and verify information, facts and documents, particularly those

researched on the internet. This may include confirming with an individual or

organisation that they posted material and that it is accurate. Even the most

convincing material on the web may not be what it seems.

Misleading audiences

We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly

do anything to mislead our audiences. We may need to label material to avoid doing

so.

Introduction

Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies

across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins

via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to

reflecting a diversity of opinion.

we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news

services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political

or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an

opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting.

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:…

any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial

reasons for doing so.

opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not

misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply…

values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and

voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our

impartiality…

Achieving impartiality

Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to

achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of

output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and

approach is signposted to our audiences.

Impartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be

fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material

2006 Agreement and Charter

facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does

not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on

every occasion or an equal division of time for each view.

The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards,

including the BBC’s values and other standards set out in the Editorial Guidelines.

The Committee took into account all the material before it relating to the appeal;

this included submissions from all the relevant parties to the complaint who were

asked to comment on the material going before the Committee.

interviewees to express opinions, content producers to include information and

ideas in their output, and audiences to receive them as long as the law, regulation

and, in the BBC’s case, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines were complied with.

The Committee at the outset noted that the programme had not been an

investigation which aimed to solve what had happened on 11 September 2001. It

recognised that it was one of a series of programmes looking at the phenomenon of

the conspiracy theory and in doing so had highlighted a number of specific events

where well publicised and popular theories had arisen to contradict the official

version of events.

The Committee also noted that it was not within its remit to come to a view as to

which, if any of the versions, may or may not have been correct. Its task was to

determine whether the programme had been in breach of the BBC’s Editorial

Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.

In considering impartiality the Committee noted that the guidelines required that it

must be adequate and appropriate to the output. The Committee took into account

1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include

freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas

without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This

Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,

television or cinema enterprises.

2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and

responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or

penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society,

in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for

the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,

for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing

the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the

authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

that in assessing whether the guidelines were complied with the Committee should

consider what impartiality was due to a programme about conspiracy theories taking

into account the audience expectation for such a programme and the extent to

which the content and approach was signposted to the audience.

The Committee set out five questions it would consider in its finding:

A) Were the most significant theories considered?

B) Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

C) Were the arguments articulated clearly?

D) Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy

theories?

E) Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

A) Were the most significant theories considered?

The Committee was aware that there are a number of conspiracy theories

concerning the events leading up to/on the day of /on the days after 11 September

2001. The Committee noted the six theories the programme concentrated on:

i) The attack on the Twin Towers

- Did the planes bring down the Twin Towers or were

explosives used by government agencies?

ii) World Trade Centre Building 7

- Did WTC7 collapse as a result of the damage and collapse of

the Twin Towers or was it deliberately demolished by

government agencies?

iii) Attack on the Pentagon

- Did a commercial passenger plane crash into the Pentagon or not?

Was this incident a self-inflicted attack?

iv) Flight United 93

- Did Flight United 93 crash as stated officially or was it blown

up in mid-air?

v) The Jewish community in New York

- Did the Jewish community in New York go to work as planned or

had the Jewish community been “tipped-off” by Israeli intelligence

to stay away from work?

vi) FBI/CIA Conspiracy

- Did the agencies know of the attacks in advance and ignore

them?

- Was there subsequent cover up of failures by the agencies to

act on information prior to 9/11?

The Committee noted that impartiality:

“… does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every

argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view”.

The Committee was satisfied that whilst some viewers would not have agreed with

the choice of theories included in the programme, the ones that had been included

reflected mainstream theories that the majority of the audience would have some

awareness of. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had complied with

the guideline on impartiality that allowed the programme:

“[..] the editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point

on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for

doing so.”

The Committee recognised that the inclusion of the theory regarding the absence of

members of the Jewish community from work on the day of 9/11 was not one that

was supported by the main body of conspiracy theorists. It had originated in the

Middle East and the programme accurately reflected this. However, the Committee

recognised that it was a widely known theory and was established as a theory to

those not in the main community of conspiracy theorists. The Committee was

therefore satisfied that there was a good editorial reason for considering this theory

alongside the other theories included within the programme and no anti-Semitism

was implied.

The Committee did not consider it necessary to explore the “history of deceit” of

the US government or Operation Northwood to satisfy the accuracy guideline to

“weigh all relevant facts…to get at the truth”. The Committee was satisfied that the

theories covered in the programme were sufficient to provide the audience with

enough relevant information for them to draw their own conclusions with regard to

the activities of the US government in the incidents relating to 9/11. The purpose of

the programme was to consider specific theories related to the incidents on 9/11

and not conspiracy theories relating to other events in US history.

The Committee was therefore satisfied that the programme had presented an

appropriate selection of conspiracy theories.

B) Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

The Committee considered how the programme had set about presenting the

different theories and rebuttals in looking at the various arguments and theories as

to how the event unfolded and who was to blame. In doing so the Committee

considered whether the guideline had been met that required the BBC:

“… to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all

the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach

to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or

facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for

each view.

The Committee noted how the production team had set out its proposition for the

programme:

Voice over (V/O):

Alex Jones (AJ):

President Bush:

V/O:

Overlay:

V/O:

Jim Fetzer (JF):

V/O:

Dylan Avery (DA):

DA:

V/O:

AJ:

V/O:

JF:

The Committee also considered how the programme looked at the various theories

included within the programme. The Committee noted other sections of dialogue

within the programme. The first section looked at the collapse of the Twin Towers:

V/O:

Clip from Dylan Avery’s film (Loose Change):

V/O:

V/O:

Davin Coburn (Popular Mechanics):

DA:

Mechanics is the last company that should be “investigating” 9-11.

The Committee also considered a later section of dialogue where American Airlines

flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. The programme stated:

V/O:

JF:

V/O:

V/O:

SB:

V/O:

NORAD ATC RECORDING:

SB:

V/O:

SB:

JF:

The Committee was satisfied that in these example extracts and throughout the

programme views from both sides of the argument relating to each theory set out

above were put forward in a manner that ensured that the programme had achieved

due impartiality. The Committee recognised that for those who felt strongly on

either side of the argument the programme’s treatment of each theory may have

been less detailed than they would have liked, but it was not the purpose of this

programme to deliver an in depth analysis of each theory nor a verdict on the

veracity of each theory. It was the view of the Committee that the impartiality due

to this subject matter, which had been clearly signposted to the audience, was to

give sufficient information both in support of the various theories and in support of

the official view, to enable the viewer to have a reasonable understanding of the

various arguments. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had been “fair

and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing the material facts”. As

to whether equal time should have been given to both sides of the arguments, the

Committee noted that as long as the programme was objective and even handed it

was not required to “represent every argument” or provide “an equal division of

time for each view”. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had been

objective and even handed in its presentation of the various theories.

With regard to some of the complainants’ specific complaints the Committee was

satisfied that it was not necessary to include the detail relating to the debris of Flight

93 in New Baltimore to meet the guideline on accuracy or to explore this issue

further to satisfy impartiality. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had

provided sufficient information on the spread of debris of Flight 93 without it being

necessary to consider every facet of every theory about the debris to ensure

impartiality. The Committee considered the information presented by the

production team was sufficiently accurate to have provided viewers with enough

detail to understand the general view of the dispute about the area of the debris

field. The Committee did not consider it necessary to include additional theories on

the spread of debris in order to achieve impartiality. The guidelines state that it is

not a requirement for programmes to:

“[represent] every argument or every facet of every argument on every

occasion”

The Committee considered the same guideline applied to the complainants concerns

that Larry Silverstein and the emergency workers at the scene of the collapse of the

WTC7 building were not included or the testimony of the fire-fighters or the theory

relating to the Mayor of San Francisco or an interview with Bill Coyle of the coalition

of 9/11 families. The Committee was satisfied that the programme team was entitled

to:

“produce content about any subject at any point on the spectrum of debate,

as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so”

The Committee was, therefore, satisfied that considering the difficulty and

complexity of the programme’s subject matter the programme had provided a fair

and open minded presentation of the various theories and that it had successfully

met the guidelines on due impartiality.

As to the choice of contributors, the Committee was satisfied that the programme

had provided appropriate and relevant representatives from both sides of the

argument to articulate the various views. The Committee recognised that with such

contentious views being presented not every viewer would be pleased with the

choice of contributors. Nevertheless, the Committee was satisfied having

considered the programme as a whole that the various arguments of the theories

highlighted had been sufficiently articulated to ensure that the lay viewer would have

been provided with enough information to have had a basic understanding of the

arguments for each of the theories presented.. The Committee considered Dylan

Avery, Professor Jim Fetzer and Talk-show host Alex Jones appropriate

representatives for the “truth movement”. They had achieved a level of recognition

and authority within the pro-theorist groups to be able to articulate the views of the

movement in relation to each of the presented theories (with the exception of the

theory relating to the Jewish community which was not a view promoted or

supported by the majority of those involved in the “truth movement”). The

Committee, whilst it accepted that the individual complainants did not necessarily

agree with the choice of representative for their views, was satisfied that the

production team had ensured that the contributors had appropriate credentials to

provide an authoritative view of the conspiracy theorists arguments.

The Committee noted how the programme had introduced Dylan Avery:

V/O:

Upstate New York – home to the most prominent voice in the self-styled

9/11 truth movement.

Clip from Loose Change Dylan Avery’s internet film:

V/O:

Loose Change…….is the internet film, which, more than anything else, has

fanned the flames of 9/11 conspiracies.

Dylan Avery (DA):

V/O:

And Dylan Avery is the wunderkind behind that film.

DA:

Interviewer:

So this is where you work?

DA:

V/O:

DA:

V/O:

The Committee was satisfied that it was reasonable for the programme as part of

introducing one of the most famous conspiracy theorists to explain who he is and his

background. It is a recognised technique of introducing a significant contributor to a

programme and one which was used throughout the programme, one way or

another, when introducing the other main contributors to the programme.

The Committee was also satisfied that the description of Dylan Avery as a “23 year

old self-confessed drop out” was used accurately and fairly as that was a description

he used to describe himself. The Committee also considered the introduction

appropriate as it provided specific information as to the contributor’s background

and skills as a modern film maker using the internet as a resource for his research as

well as an outlet for his film.

A) Were the arguments articulated clearly?

The Committee was satisfied that in the presentation of the various theories

referred to above, including the graphic representations, the production team had

accurately put forward the broad details of each of the theories and, therefore, did

not mislead. The facts as much as they could be established had been thoroughly

checked. The inclusion or exclusion of facts and interviewees was for the BBC to

determine as long as the guidelines were complied with. The Committee was

satisfied that the programme’s choice of contributors, whilst not to the liking of all

the viewers, had ensured that the various theories and rebuttals had been clearly and

appropriately articulated to enable the audience to come to an appropriate

understanding of the various arguments.

The Committee was also satisfied that the programme in choosing the contributors

to articulate the various arguments, both for and against each theory, had carried

out appropriate checks on the contributors suitability and understanding of the

issues to ensure that each view was presented clearly and accurately.

The complaint was not upheld.

As to the individual theories presented by the programme:

(1) ATTACK ON TWIN TOWERS:

The Committee was satisfied that the programme had provided an accurate

description of the official explanation of how the Twin Towers collapsed. The

Committee was also satisfied that the accompanying graphic had clearly set out

the official version of the Twin Towers collapse. The Committee recognised that

the explanation (which included the graphic) had, by its nature, been relatively

simple, but this had been acceptable given the time that the programme could

devote to the theory. The Committee also noted that an alternative explanation

for the collapse had been put forward by the programme. As to whether equal

time should have been given to both of these views, the Committee did not

believe it was necessary to achieve impartiality. The relevant BBC guideline

makes clear in order to achieve due impartiality:

“It requires us (the BBC) to be fair and opened minded when examining the

evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and

even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the

representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every

occasion or an equal division of time for each view”

The Committee also noted that it was not a requirement for the programme to

present every argument or every facet of an argument to achieve impartiality.

The programme had put forward an opposing argument regarding the collapse of

the Twin Towers and from that the audience would have had sufficient

information to have understood that there were alternative opinions to the

official version of the event.

(2) BUILDING 7

The Committee noted that the description of this theory was similar in form to

that of the collapse of the Twin Towers with first a conspiracy theory being put

forward and then the official explanation. The Committee was satisfied that the

narrative of the theory and the official version of events were even-handed. The

Committee noted that the alternative view which was given further context by

the suggestion that a number of Government agencies had offices in the WTC 7

and was demolished to hide evidence of a deliberate policy by the US

government to bring down the Towers and blame external forces, was raised

without rebuttal. The Committee was also satisfied given the context and time

in which to provide detail of both views that the arguments had been accurately

presented.

As to the issue of whether it had been accurate for the programme to state:

“The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties”

The Committee noted that the source for this statement had been the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As such, in the face of no other

evidence to disprove this report the Committee was satisfied that this statement

was accurate as far as was known, but it did accept that others took a different

view to the official statement.

Nevertheless the Committee was satisfied that the reporting of the lack of

injuries was not evidence of bias by the programme in favour of the authorities

or part of a cover-up.

(3) ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

The Committee noted that in the programme one theory concerning the attack

on the Pentagon was presented. It noted how the two views were addressed

and was satisfied that the presentation of both arguments relating to this

particular theory was accurately and impartially portrayed. It also considered the

narrative for either view provided sufficient opportunity to ensure that the

viewer was not misled as to the explanation of the varying opinions.

The Committee noted that this was not the only theory relating to the Pentagon

attack but was one which many people viewing the programme would have been

aware of. The Committee also noted that the choice of which theory to be

considered within a programme was for the programme makers to decide, it was

not a requirement of the programme to consider all theories or issues related to

a particular event as stated in the BBC’s editorial guideline on achieving

impartiality

“[impartiality] does not require the representation of every argument or

facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for

each view”.

Therefore the Committee was satisfied that it was not necessary for the

programme to raise the question as to whether the Pentagon was protected

from attack with a missile defence or that a Boeing 757 could not physically fly at

ground level.

(4) PENTAGON PART 2

The Committee was also satisfied that the differing opinions of the official

version and “truth movement” were clearly and fairly presented in the

programme and that both views were provided with sufficient time to put their

case. The Committee considered the presentation of the theory was accurate

and impartial.

(5) FLIGHT UNITED 93

The Committee was also satisfied that the two theories presented about Flight

93, plus the official version of the events, were given sufficient time to enable the

viewer to understand each version and that the arguments had been presented

accurately and impartially.

The Committee did not agree that the programme, in looking at the incident of

Flight 93 was required to consider all theories and reports relating to the

wreckage of this plane to ensure accuracy and impartiality regarding this

particular incident. The Committee recognised that it was up to the programme

makers and BBC management to decide as to which theories it would consider

in order to provide a reasonable representation of the theories surrounding the

incidents related to 9/11 as stated in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines:

“we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at

any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial

reasons for doing so”

(6) FBI/CIA CONSPIRACY

The Committee noted how the programme considered the involvement of the

FBI/CIA with regard to the events of 9/11. It noted how the programme set out

its investigation:

Voice over:

The theory being investigated was one of governmental cover up following 9/11

into what the FBI/CIA had known of the hijackers in the period before 9/11.

The Committee then noted how the programme presented this argument with

the testimonies of officers from both agencies and with the comments of Bob

Graham the Co-Chair of the Congressional inquiry into 9/11.

The Committee recognised that in the presentation of this theory a conspiracy

theorist had not been included to offset the views expressed by the officers of

the two agencies. However, the Committee did not consider it was necessary

for a theorist to be included in this section of the programme to ensure balance.

The question was whether the agencies had known of the hijackers prior to 9/11

and if they had, was the US government honest in what it said about the extent

of its knowledge after the event?

The Committee noted some of contributions made to the programme:

Dale Watson (Head of Counter Terrorism 1999-2002 FBI):

Voice over:

Michael Scheuer (Chief of Osama Bin Laden Unit 1996-1999 CIA):

The Committee also noted the following exchange:

Voice over:

Bob Graham (Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11):

Voice over:

Bob Graham:

Interviewer:

Bob Graham:

The Committee was satisfied that the theory the programme it had set out to

consider i.e. US government cover up as to what the two agencies had known of

the hijackers prior to 9/11, had been handled appropriately. Opinions from

people working with the agencies at the time of 9/11 showed the varying views

on culpability of the two agencies as to how much information was known and

what could have been done to prevent the attacks from happening. In terms of

what happened after 9/11 Senator Graham was entitled to express his opinion as

chair of the congressional inquiry as to whether the administration had been ‘less

than open’. A conspiracy theorist’s view was not required here.

The Committee recognised that this was only one of a number of theories

surrounding the possible involvement of the FBI/CIA into the events of 9/11. But

noted that the choice of which theory to be considered within a programme was

for the programme makers to decide, it was not a requirement of the

programme to consider all theories or issues related to a particular event to

ensure impartiality.

As to whether the agencies had actually been involved in masterminding the

events of 9/11 the Committee noted that the “truth movement’s” perspective on

this issue had been raised in an earlier section of the programme which referred

to the alleged deliberate demolition of both the CIA’s and FBI’s offices in WTC7.

The Committee recognised that whilst this issue had not been expounded upon

beyond the reference in the earlier part of the programme, to not mention it

further was not a breach of guidelines as the programme was left to decide what

it could and could not cover in the time it had to put forward the range of

theories surrounding 9/11.

D) Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy theories?

The Committee noted the dialogue and the introductory contribution of Frank

Spotnitz:

V/O:

Frank Spotnitz (FS):

The Committee was satisfied that there was a good editorial reason for a

programme looking at the phenomenon of conspiracy theories to talk to someone

who was publicly known and associated with conspiracy theories. The Committee

considered Mr Spotnitz’s contribution was relevant to the subject matter being

discussed and that his credentials as a suitable contributor spoke for themselves.

The Committee also recognised that as Mr Spotnitz was himself associated to a

specific conspiracy theory concerning the incidents of 11 September 2001 it was

reasonable for the programme to include his views on the background to the

rationale of why conspiracy theories arise. As to whether his views were balanced

the Committee was satisfied that looking at the programme as a whole there was

sufficient concerns raised by those in the truth movement to offset those of Mr

Spotnitz. His contribution had not been a breach of guidelines.

The complaint was not upheld.

E) Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

The Committee was satisfied that there was no evidence to suggest that the

programme had presented the theorists in a negative way either in the way the

individual contributors were referred to or in how they were presented i.e. filmed.

The Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate to refer to Dylan Avery as a

“self confessed drop-out” as that was a description he had given himself. As to the

suggestion that the programme had filmed the conspiracy theorists in a negative

manner, the Committee was satisfied, having viewed the programme, that that there

was no evidence to support that complaint.

The complaint was not upheld.

In conclusion, the Committee did not uphold any of the complaints raised against the

programme regarding issues of accuracy or impartiality. The Committee noted that

the programme had presented some of the most well known theories in a fair and

accurate manner, ensuring that the arguments had been articulated clearly. The

choice of contributors was credible and appropriate including that of Mr Spotnitz,

who provided a relevant contribution to the understanding of the nature and

phenomenon of the conspiracy theory - the purpose of the programme. The

Committee found that there was no evidence that the editorial independence of the

BBC had been compromised.