An email I received from the BBC re: Conspiracy Files 9/11

[David WJ Sherlock]

Here is the email I sent to BBC. The top one is the one I sent. The bottom section is their reply.


Dear Guy.
>
>I apologise for the 2 email replies you may have received with no
>message. I had a fault with my mouse and for some reason kept sending.
>
>Regarding what is being said on the internet about there being
>alternative versions, I cannot speculate. Apparently, this is a leaked
>memo or email. I do not even know who leaked the information.
>Allegations state, that pressure is being applied to run a hit-piece. As
>a researcher in the 9/11 truth movement I would like to be assured this
>will not be an attempt to discredit 9/11 researchers as having paranoid
>delusions. The movement has a very high number of scholars,
>http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html#AssociateMembers
>skilled journalist, researchers and scientist. As well as massive
>general public support. We are accused of being crackpots and oddballs.
>Well, If we are crackpots, how do we label the men in this world who
>have killed 655,000 innocent men, Women and Children since the start of
>conflict. Not forgetting the half a million before start of conflict due
>to
>sanctions. My opinion is, if they can kill that many, then to them,
>3,000 of their own must be a drop in the ocean.
>
>With Regards
>
>Dave Sherlock


Dear David

Thank you for your e-mail regarding '9/11: The Conspiracy Files' broadcast on 18 February.

I appreciate that you had pre-transmission concerns that the programme would be biased in favour of the official 9/11 findings.

Mike Rudin, Series Producer, 'The Conspiracy Files' has written several blogs which we hope will outline the difficulties in producing a programme on such a controversial topic. These are located here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/911_questions.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/answering_conspiracy_que stions.html

We would like to make it clear that we must ensure that our replies to everyone explain the BBC's position accurately and consistently, and therefore if different people contact us with identical or very similar points the BBC's response will naturally be the same in each case.

Nevertheless, thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC with the strength of your views which have been registered and made available to the programme makers.

Regards

Dermot Lynn
BBC Information
______________________________________
http://www.bbc.co.uk/welcome/

-----Original Message-----


>From: david.sherlock63 [mailto:david.sherlock63@ntlworld.com]
>Sent: 16 February 2007 21:49
>To: Guy Smith
>Subject: Reply to your email
>
>


http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

[TonyGosling]

>Dear Dave Sherlock,
>
>
>I apologise for the 9/11 Conspiracy Files programme which addressed
>none of the real 9/11 issues.
>
>I had a fault with my privatisation mouse which for some reason
>deleted the serious research and the film veered from its own
>stated subject.
>
>I realise you will be dissapointed by this reply but who gives a * when
>we're about to solve the world's overpopulation problem in Iran.
>
>As I'm sure you'll agree - the ends justify the means.
>
>
>Guy Smith