The family of a British man killed in the 9/11 terror attacks is fighting for a new inquest into his death, claiming the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives and not by the hijacked airliners flown into them.
Geoff Campbell, 31, was one of nearly 3,000 people who died at the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.
His relatives are challenging the official narrative that the collapse and destruction of Tower One was caused by the impact of American Airlines Flight 11.
Instead, they say ‘significant evidence’ indicates the towers, as well as the nearby Building 7, were ‘destroyed by explosives and incendiaries’.
Geoff’s brother Matt Campbell said: ‘For more than a decade my family has had to live knowing the official cause of death for my brother Geoff was wrong.’
He is preparing to submit a 7,500-word application to the new attorney general, Richard Hermer, to challenge a decision by his predecessor to deny a new inquest.
Speaking to Metro, he went on: ‘I feel that the truth about everything that happened that day is yet to come out.
‘Instead of the planes, which caused fires, causing the building’s collapse, which is what is described in the summary of my brother’s original inquest in 2013, we’re asserting that all of the evidence seems to point towards the use of explosives and incendiaries bringing down the towers, which is a different cause of death than the planes being responsible.’
Matt described how Geoff’s presence at the Risk Waters conference at the Windows on the World on top of Tower One (WTC 1) on September 11 was ‘one of those Sliding Doors things’.
‘My brother didn’t work at the World Trade Centre,’ he said. ‘Essentially, he was there because myself and two co-directors of a company I had at the time were looking to open a New York office and Geoff would have headed that up.’
Another co-director was initially meant to go, but Geoff replaced him at the last minute.
Matt, who was on holiday in Lanzarote with his family at the time, said: ‘I didn’t really know he was at this conference when I first tried to find out what was going on.
‘He’d been living in New York for a couple of years. He’d met and girl and they’d just got engaged. He’d come back to the UK about three weeks before he was killed. So, I’m glad that we all had that chance to see him.’
It was not until the following June that the first piece of Geoff’s remains was identified.
Inquests into his death and those of nine other Brits killed in the destruction of the Twin Towers were held at West London Coroners’ Court in January 2013.
In their conclusion, the coroner said: ‘At 8.46am on September 11, 2001, the deceased was on the 106th floor of the North Tower of World Trade Centre when an aircraft (AA11) was deliberately flown into the building, causing its collapse at 10.28am. This even was part of a co-ordinated attack by the Islamist militant group Al-Qaeda.’
Matt and his family are making their application under section 13 of the Coroner’s Act 1988 which allows an inquest to be re-opened in the ‘interests of justice’ if substantial new evidence comes to light.
They seek a fresh hearing ‘on the basis of substantial evidence not considered at the first inquest’ that ‘overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the destruction of WTC 1 – as well as the destruction of WTC 2 and WTC 7 – was caused by the use of explosives and incendiaries’.
That includes peer-reviewed research showing dust from the destroyed buildings contains microscopic traces of nano-thermite explosives, which can be tailored for use in controlled demolitions.
The dossier also examines the way the buildings appeared to collapse in ‘free fall’ with little to no resistance from the floors below – suggesting they had already been destroyed by another force.
‘What I’m trying to do is get evidence into a court of law which really should have been there in the first place which looks like explosives were used,’ Matt said.
‘I know that opens up a whole can of worms of who would have been able to have planted them and all the rest of it, but the point of an inquest is not to blame anyone – it’s to establish the true cause of death.
‘And that’s all I am asking for, because it clearly wasn’t done in the first inquest.’
Former attorney general Victoria Prentice denied the request earlier this year.
In a letter to the family’s barrister, the attorney general’s office wrote that ‘the events leading up to the attack on the World Trade Centre were thoroughly investigated’ and the conclusions ‘widely known and accepted’.
It adds that ‘on a common-sense view’ the hypothesis put forward in the application is ‘fanciful’ and ‘therefore unable to discredit the consensus view on what caused the collapse of the Twin Towers’.
The idea of some kind of controlled demolition feature in the majority of 9/11 conspiracy theories, with the claim ‘jet fuel cannot melt steel beams’ widely shared online.
The official report into the atrocity concluded the crashed planes damaged the support columns of both towers and dislodged fire-proofing.
It added that fires in some parts of the building reached 1,000C, causing the steel beams to warp and the building to eventually collapse.
The destruction of Building 7 is a lightning rod for conspiracy theorists. It collapsed hours after the Twin Towers despite not being hit by a plane or otherwise directly targeted.
But the National Institute of Standards and Technology later concluded it came down as a result of intense fires sparked by falling debris from the North Tower.
Matt, who has three degrees, including two Masters’ degrees, denies he is any kind of ‘conspiracy theorist’, calling it ‘a lazy term’.
‘Look back at some of the historical cases – Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough,’ he said. ‘I don’t know the details of those cases but I can imagine the press would have poured scorn on anything other than what was coming out as the official narrative in those early days.’
He added: The last thing they want, I’m sure, is a real one going through the legal system and stuff being scrutinised that otherwise wouldn’t see the light of day, so I’m sure that’s a bit of a headache for them but frankly I don’t care.’
Matt is now almost ready to submit a challenge against the decision to the High Court, putting Labour’s new attorney general, Mr Hermer, in the position of having either to defend his predecessor’s decision in court or withdraw it and give the family’s application a fresh review.
He said: ‘I’m confident because it’s the first time fresh eyes are going to be looking at this from a different government and that they are going to do the right thing. I’ve got to keep that hope.’
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at [email protected].
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE : Trump shakes hands with Harris and flashes fake smile while reaching over Biden
MORE : Heartbreaking letter from only American not on Earth during 9/11 revealed
MORE : Remembering the children who lost their lives on the fateful 9/11 flights
Share this with