Everyone - Formally Complain to the BBC Online - NOW!

[Andrew Johnson]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml

I just sent this!

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I have a general complaint about the impartiality of the BBC on some extremely important issues.

 

Over nearly the last 18 months, it has come to my attention that there are grave and serious problems regarding the official story of the 9-11 attacks. Since I first became aware of these problems in approximately August 2004, a number of significant things have happened and these have not been covered by the BBC:

 

1)      In September 2004, an event, organised by Florida Millionaire Jimmy Walter called “Confronting the Evidence” was held in New York City where researchers presented to the public some of the facts which were not addressed by Kean Commission.

 

·        Facts such as the collapse times of the World Trade Centre Towers 1, 2 & 7 being close to those for “free-fall”.

·        Facts such as the collapse of WTC 7 happening at 5:30 in the evening when no plane had hit this building.

·        Facts such as the WTC Owner Larry Silverstein saying building 7 had been “pulled” by the FDNY, even though the FDNY do not “pull” buildings.

·        Facts such as the FEMA report about WTC 7 saying (essentially) the cause of the collapse was “unknown” (despite the *owner’s* comments above)

2)      In November 2004, a group of people presented a Citizen’s Complaint to the Attorney General of New York (Elliot Spitzer) regarding the Unsolved Crimes committed in New York City on Sept 11^th 2001 (including those committed by the EPA stating that the air was safe to breathe).

3)      In May 2005, Jimmy Walter organised a number of public hearings in London and other European cities discussing the evidence raised above.

4)      A new group has formed (of which I am privileged to be a member)  called Scholars for 9-11 Truth.

 

There are a great many other issues  and facts and questions which news researchers at the BBC ought to be seriously looking at, especially now. The BBC ought to be looking at our Website (www.st911.org). It ought to be reporting facts rather than fear-mongering rumour about “1 or 2 dead swans in Europe”.

 

Whoever is stopping this reporting, it seems, has a fair degree of control. I suggest that whomever is reading this stop whatever they are doing and look at a selection of facts, data and video evidence presented on either the above site or www.st911.org,  www.reopen911.org.

 

I submitted the Press Release below to many addresses at the BBC and have repeatedly advised them of significant stories which they have not researched and reported on. There stories involve former US Bush Administration people, for example. What on Earth do you think you are doing? I can not for the life of me understand what has got into you. Why aren’t you researching and reporting this? Why am I out on the streets (literally) giving this information to people – spending 100’s of pounds of my own money - when I pay a licence fee so that you can do this?

 

I am now lodging a formal complaint about impartiality and expect a response in 2 weeks. If an appropriate response is not forthcoming, I will be taking legal advice over this issue and finding out how I can get the BBC to report this verifiable evidence in a measured and appropriate manner. The pattern of events that is now unfolding necessitates that action of this sort is taken as quickly as possible. (For this reason, I have kept a copy of this complaint on my computer).

 

You must take this issue seriously, because you need to catch up with people who already know what is happening. Time is running short. Please act quickly and appropriately.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Andrew Johnson

22 Mear Drive

Borrowash

Derbyshire

DE72 3QW

 

 

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

http://www.st911.org/

 

OP/ED: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11

Claim government's account violates laws of physics and engineering

27 January  2006

An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.

The society includes U.S. and international faculty and students of history, science, military affairs, psychology, and even philosophy. According to its spokesmen, S9/11T represents a concerted effort to uphold the standards of truth and justice and to strengthen democracy in this nation, which has taken a terrible hit in the aftermath of 9/11, when "everything changed." Its function is to bring scientific rigor to the study of 9/11 phenomena.

The members of this group are dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11, "letting the chips fall where they may." The evidence has become sufficiently strong that they are speaking out. They are actively devoting themselves to reporting the results of their research to the public by means of lectures, articles, and other venues.

The society includes numerous notable professors and scholars, including:

·  Morgan Reynolds, Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis
 

·  Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
 

·  Robert M. Bowman, former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions
 

·  Lloyd DeMause, Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory
 

·  James H. Fetzer, Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than 20 books and co-chair of S9/11T
 

·  Andreas Von Buelow, former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years

The society, founded by Professors Fetzer and Jones, who serve as its co-chairs, is approaching 50 members to date. Fetzer, a philosopher of science, observed that the government's "official account" is not even physically possible, because it violates laws of nature. "What we have been told is fine," he said, "if you are willing to believe impossible things. Serious scholars don't believe in tooth fairies."

Beyond encouraging its members to vigorously express their concerns on this score through lectures, conferences, symposia, articles, and books as well as other access routes that publicize their findings,the society's initial activities, which are expected to increase in frequency and intensity, include the following projects and endeavors:

·  Professor Jones is refining his influential analysis of the physics of the collapse of buildings at the World Trade Center.
 

·  Professor Fetzer is editing a collection of new studies about 9/11 that will include contributions from the members of S9/11T.
 

·  A major conference is being planned for this fall to further inform the American public about the group's most recent findings

Studies by the society's founders and by prominent theologian David Ray Griffin, who has taken a leading role in exposing false claims about 9/11, are accessible from the association's home page, scholarsfor911truth.org. Information for those who may want to join S9/11T can also be found there.

---

OP/ED: THE OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX

We call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

29 January 2006

We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. We are therefore joining together in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because we are convinced, based on our own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

We believe these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor." We appreciate that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and would prefer to believe that the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely wishful thinking.

We encourage news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify our discoveries. Extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures. If this were done, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

We trust this might include The New York Times, which, in our opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership we expect from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. Perhaps it might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of our knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidentiary data. There appear to be good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation. The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that are profoundly troubling to objective reason:

·  In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?
 

·  The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
 

·  Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
 

·  Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800° under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
 

·  Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
 

·  Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
 

·  Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
 

·  A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
 

·  A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
 

·  The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible? Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints. We are obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

• Robert M. Bowman • James H. Fetzer • 
• Wayne Madsen • John McMurtry • 
• Morgan Reynolds • Andreas von Buelow •

 

 

 

 

 

[KennyM]

done andrew, good job!

i just used yours as a template and changed a few details. anyone else who sends them an email, could they make a wee post here

Peace

Kenny

[Pikey]

Nice one Andrew!

Just fired in my complaint as follows:-

[xmasdale]

I haven't written mine yet, but I think I shall draw their attention to the fact that the BBC Charter demands impartiality and that they normally claim to deal with that by presenting both sides of an argument. They are therefore in breach of their charter on the 911 issue.

Noel

[kookomula]

I've been reading alot about Saddam's request to be paid in Euros and the Iranian Oil Bourse, both of which have gone completely unreported by the BBC. I formally complained and was told that although they understand my concerns, they had to be selective in the news that they reported as in so many words there was so much news and so little time. Stupidly, I deleted the email but that was what I was told.

[Pikey]

[Pikey]

Has anyone received a response yet from the BBC?

[Andrew Johnson]

I haven't received a response - they said 10 working days (or 10 days) I am going to give them 10 working days (too long for something like this) and then ring them up and ask to convene a special meeting of the governors - either that or I will be pursuing the legal angle - I encourage others to do this - or write additional letters saying that they will do this.

The BBC is in breach of its charter and we must now act quickly to bring them into line.

[sonic]

Well Done Andrew

You are a credit to the 9/11 Truth Campaign along with all the other good people.

Peace,

Sonic.

[Pikey]

Yes Sonic, Andrew would be the no. 1 choice in my team!

Based on the content of your posts to date Sonic, I think I would also choose you!

I have no doubt that the truth does unite people and I feel that before the end of 2006 we will all meet at a huge gathering of the 911 Truth campaign (Britain & Ireland). I look forward to that!

Peace & truth

[Andrew Johnson]

Thanks for those kind comments, peeps. I greatly appreciate them - and I draw great strength from them, and from your own collective and individual efforts in our campaign for the future humanity.

Take care

Andrew

[sonic]

Pikey said:Yes Sonic, Andrew would be the no. 1 choice in my team!

Based on the content of your posts to date Sonic, I think I would also choose you!

I have no doubt that the truth does unite people and I feel that before the end of 2006 we will all meet at a huge gathering of the 911 Truth campaign (Britain & Ireland). I look forward to that!

Peace & truth

You are very kind Pikey, but overgenerous in your selection.

I too hope we will all meet before the end of 2006, in the meantime I will just keep doing my little bit for the truth campaign.

Peace to you all,

Sonic.

[Garrett Cooke]

Very rapid research finds that the BBC Charter and Agreement can be found at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/

To quote from this page:

[Andrew Johnson]

Garrett - super - I had only heard the terms of the charter - good to have a link to the actual copy!!

[Sinclair]

The BBC lost their teeth after Hutton & there is a decreasing amount of serious reporting which examines the issues without just dishing out the government line. (We saw last night on Channel 4 Despatches how the media plays along with the governments Spin Machine).

I recommend the MediaLens site for (as it states) 'correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media'

Their article of today points out the inherent bias in their reporting of the 'news' in Iraq. The article is quoted below.

The message board is also useful - if anyone ever sends any e-mails etc. to journalists in response to articles, you should copy them to Medialens.

& a fact that I found out just recently, Paul Reynolds, the current BBC World Affairs correspondent who is behind the recent proclamations on the seriousness of the IRAN NUCLEAR ISSUE (i.e the drive to a strike on Iran -there is no mention whatsoever of the Iranian Oil Bourse on any BBC page - except in the submitted public comments pages here), was the BBC correspondent in Washington DC in September 2001. Is it a coincidence that the same BBC reporter is the gatekeeper of information relating to activities directly responsible (or not - you decide, or he decides for you) for the drive to war.


From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php

[Pikey]

The response from the BBC remains one of silence.

Does anyone have a rational and logical explanation of why a media which proclaims to be professional and independent would react to such information in this way?

By the way Sonic, just read your post on your latest contribution to the campaign, supplying dvds, that justifies what I stated about you, you'd be in my team!

Vision and ACTION can make a difference, a talking shop cannot.

Peace & truth

[KennyM]

Just got an email from the BBC

Dear Mr McGuire

Thank you for your e-mail.

I understand that you feel that the BBC has not covered developments
regarding the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York in enough
depth.

However, BBC News teams have been committed to covering the events of 11 September 2001 impartially, factually and fairly and have devoted
considerable time to the issue over the years. I can assure you that we
will continue to do so and have registered your feedback for the attention
of Senior BBC News teams.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

Rory Egan
BBC Information
__________________________________________
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - World Wide Wonderland

[Pikey]

Hi Kenny,

Thanks for sharing the response.

[Andrew Johnson]

I have only received 1 response after perhaps 20 communications in the last year. This was the response (from last April):


19 April 2005

Dear Mr Johnson

Thank you for your letter of 16 April. I should explain that the remit of the Editorial Complaints Unit is confined to cases which give reason to believe there may have been a breach of editorial standards in a specific item broadcast or published by the BBC. As you complaint doesn't fall into that category, I'm passing it to BBC Information, who will ensure that your concerns arc noted and arrange for a reply if appropriate.

Yours sincerely
Douglas Evans

Editor
Editorial Complaints
=====
Unlike Kenny, I have not received any response to my e-mails. I have therefore composed a new letter - based on the old one, but more strongly worded (and it is going by recorded delivery). Have included their response to Kenny as an example of one which will trigger legal action.

RE: News Cover-up and Denial – Serious Breach of BBC’s Charter.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am not sure whether I have sent this to the correct address/department. After reading and inwardly digesting the information contained herein, please can you forward this letter to the appropriate department/person.

I have a general complaint about the impartiality of the BBC on some extremely important issues. I have written to many people, mainly by e-mail - on a number of occasions – about these issues. I have e-mailed BBC radio presenters, News Feedback and Helen Boaden with many of the details included below. I have telephoned the number on the complaints web page (08700 1002222) and basically was told that, as my complaint related to news coverage (or rather lack thereof), it was up to news editors to make a decision on what can easily be verified as fact (kind of fair enough, but not really fair when the time periods involved are considered). I have informed local BBC radio and had my messages deleted without being read. This stone-walling will come to an end soon – it’s only a matter of time, because you are in breach of your charter.

The BBC Charter and Agreement (found at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/ ) states:

The BBC is constitutionally established by a Royal Charter. An accompanying Agreement recognises its editorial independence and sets out its public obligations in detail.

To quote from section 3 (Programme Content) of the Agreement:

3.2 The requirements referred to in subclause 3.1 are that the Home Services -

(c) contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate at local, regional and national levels

With this in mind, I am now presenting you with a few easily verifiable facts. Further information can be found in the enclosed DVD Presentation “9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions” given by Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University. I am doing this because I am a member of the Scholars for 9-11 Truth group and in this capacity, and that of a person with 20 years technical experience in the fields of Software Engineering, Development and Education, I will not be marginalized by sketchy, glib and inaccurate news coverage which, it seems, is ill-informed, to say the least. Our group includes at least 3 distinguished Professors – one of whom served as an economist in the 2000 GW Bush Administration. All are stating categorically that the Official Story of 9-11 is seriously in error in a number of key areas. Now, let me make 1 thing clear – I originally assumed (for at least 2 years) that the Official Story was correct in the most important details. It wasn’t until I became aware of a number of salient facts, that I realised the truth of the matter.

To mention some specific points, then, it has come to my attention (over nearly the last 18 months), that there are grave and serious problems regarding the official story of the 9-11 attacks. Since I first became aware of these problems in approximately August 2004, a number of significant things have happened and these have not been adequately covered (or even covered at all) by the BBC:

1)       In September 2004, an event, organised by Florida Millionaire Jimmy Walter called “Confronting the Evidence” was held in New York City where researchers presented to the public some of the facts which were not addressed by Kean Commission.

·         Facts such as the collapse times of the World Trade Centre Towers 1, 2 & 7 being close to those for “free-fall”.

·         Facts such as the collapse of WTC 7 happening at 5:30 in the evening when no plane had hit this building.

·         Facts such as the WTC Owner Larry Silverstein saying building 7 had been “pulled” by the FDNY, even though the FDNY do not “pull” buildings.

·         Facts such as the FEMA report about WTC 7 saying (essentially) the cause of the collapse was “unknown” (despite the *owner’s* comments above)

2)                              In November 2004, a group of people presented a Citizen’s Complaint to the Attorney General of New York (Elliot Spitzer) regarding the Unsolved Crimes committed in New York City on Sept 11^th 2001 (including those committed by the EPA stating that the air was safe to breathe).

3)                              In May 2005, Jimmy Walter organised a number of public hearings in London and other European cities discussing the evidence raised above.

4)                              In December 2005, a new group formed (of which I am privileged to be a member)  called Scholars for 9-11 Truth.

There are a great many other issues and facts and questions which news researchers at the BBC ought to be seriously looking at, especially now. The BBC ought to be looking at our Website (www.st911.org). It ought to be reporting facts rather than fear-mongering rumour about “1 or 2 dead swans in Europe” etc

I suggest that whomever is reading this stop whatever they are doing and look at a selection of facts, data and video evidence presented on either the above site or www.st911.org,  www.reopen911.org.

I submitted the Press Releases (below) to many addresses at the BBC and have repeatedly advised them of significant stories which they have not researched and reported on. These stories involve former US Bush Administration people, for example. The only reason I can see that you are not researching and reporting these issues is that you are being prevented from doing so, or have an enormous fear of this.

I am now lodging a formal complaint about impartiality regarding the information presented above and below and expect a rapid response - due to the most serious nature of the facts outlined above.

 The BBC is now, it is proven, in breach of its charter and I am now going to begin the process of examining legal avenues for prosecution. The pattern of events that is now unfolding necessitates that action of this sort is taken as quickly as possible, even though I would not normally consider it necessary to resort to such extreme measures.  I hope to prove from a legal standpoint that you have something to a "Duty of Care" and I hope to show that you have failed in this duty and need to address this failure in a short time period - by prominently and repeatedly broadcasting the video evidence that is available, with a suitable analysis.

Once such broadcasts have taken place (and they will be taking place, of that I can assure you), perhaps you can then begin to discuss the lack of any real evidence to back up official stories of 9/11 and 7-7 and the lack of charges being brought or convictions being made for any of the crimes involved in these events. We can look at correcting the significantly erroneous reporting of these events – which is of grave cause for concern to me.

You must take this issue seriously, because you need to catch up with people who already know what is happening. Time is running short. You need to act quickly and appropriately - I am already doing what I can, having sent out approximately 500 DVD's (many free of charge) all over the country. I have been out on the streets (literally) giving this information to people – spending 100’s of pounds of my own money. If you are wondering what has been going on for the last 4 years, studying the above should put it all in context for you. Simply speaking, lack of a prompt response from yourselves will result in a prompt escalation of action by me against the Corporation.

Assuming you react positively to this information, and you do need to put together an initial 5 or 10 minute bulletin at 1,6 and 10pm for broadcast within 2 weeks or receipt of this letter. I am happy to give as much information as you require and act as an initial point of contact and liaison, or please contact Professor Jim Fetzer, Professor Morgan Reynolds or Professor Griffin through the website. If your response is any less than this, I will be taking legal advice and trying to work out the best way of getting you to present this evidence before the public in an appropriate manner. The cover up and marginalisation of this issue is going to be ended soon – bet on it.

It's hard enough getting through to politicians - I expected the BBC to be a bit more open-minded to verifiable evidence. Sadly, judging by recent experiences, it looks as though this isn't the case, and a legal case will need to be brought against the Corporation in order that it responds with appropriate coverage of the issues concerned. I would be pleased if you were able to prove me wrong on this one. (Please note that any mention of the words "Conspiracy Theory" in your response will cause me to assume you have disregarded verifiable scientific evidence and I will therefore feel compelled to take this matter further – and explore legal avenues with all due vigour and expediency.)

I expect a serious written response to this letter within 2 weeks of the date of receipt – and I am sending it by recorded delivery. Any kind of “brush-off” or glib response (such as the one given below the press releases - which was received by a fellow campaigner) will not be acceptable – and it will, essentially, be ignored. Your response must include reference to specific facts and points of evidence to which I have referred here - anything less will, essentially, be ignored and legal action will result.

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Johnson

[andrewwatson]

That is impressive, hard-hitting stuff, Andrew. I feel these people are living in a fool's paradise, unaware that every day the neocons tighten their grip on the media and prepare to control even what we read here on the internet. It is almost a new Dark Ages that looms, if we do not act now.

I am also mightily impressed by your titanic 426-page battle with the closed minds of the US world of academic physics. Check it out everyone .
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108

[sonic]

I fully agree with Andrew Watson's comment and congratulations to those kind souls making sterling efforts to get the BBC to address the 9/11 issue justly.

I personally think the way that things are panning out these days are both amazing and frightening. It is positively Orwellian.

It takes brave (and special) people to stand out in this age of propagated and engineered fear.

So I add want to add my heartfelt thanks to all of the 911 truth seekers, researchers and activists here in the UK and around the globe,

Peace,

Sonic.

[xmasdale]

My congratulations to Andrew J too. A show trial of the BBC should be just what we need to get the truth out to the public.

Noel

[Andrew Johnson]

Thanks for the moral support and kind comments guys - I appreciate it. This isn't the sort of thing I enjoy doing and I find it much harder to be this "firm"/assertive in person than I do in writing.

Letter was sent today - recorder deliv. I suppose there is always a worry that if you rattle the cage bars too much, you never now what animal will break out of the cage and chase you down the street....

[Pikey]

Andrew that letter you have sent to the BEEB, its awesome. Well done and thank you comrade your an inspiration and a shining light to the 911 truth campaign!

[Andrew Johnson]

Interestingly, I just received this response from Helen Boaden - she mentions the Simon Mayo programme, but this is not mentioned in the message I sent to her (below her response). My response to this is then at the bottom.


Dear Mr Johnson

[KennyM]

Hmm, why did she reply with that, I wonder? it's an attempt to fob you off and i think she's not taking your threat of legal action very seriously. though it does seem like the programme editor for the Mayo show has been talking to her about this...

by the way loving your work Andrew good buddy. Keep it up