The Conspiracies That Won't Go Away
Brother of 9/11 victim claim the US orchestrated the atrocity as new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire
September 11, 2017
Next Monday afternoon, Matt Campbell will
stand outside BBC Broadcasting House in London’s Portland Place,
protesting about the killing of his brother, Geoff, and 66 other
Britons, in the 9/11 terror attack at the New York World Trade Centre.
After
the horror on September 11, 2001, there was no trace of Geoff. The
31-year-old risk analyst had been attending a conference on the 106th
floor in the North Tower, a short stroll from the Manhattan apartment
where he lived with his American fiancée, Caroline.
At
first, his family clung to the hope he was alive, until one year later
fragments of a shoulder blade bearing Geoff’s DNA were found among Trade
Centre rubble at a landfill site.
Matt
began asking questions. He has not stopped since. He, and others who
will be at the BBC protest, refuse to accept the official story about
9/11: that four U.S. airliners were hijacked by Islamist terror chief
Osama Bin Laden’s pilots. Two were flown into New York’s famous Twin
Towers, which collapsed.
Doubts continue to be cast on the official explanation for the 9/11 terror attacks in New York (pictured)
A
third rammed into the U.S. Defence Headquarters at the Pentagon in
Washington DC. The last went down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north
of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and passengers,
later portrayed in the Hollywood film United 93.
Seven
hours later, a third tower at the World Trade Centre, WTC7, fell to the
ground over seven seconds, even though no plane had hit it.
The
red building, 100 yards from the 110-storey Twin Towers, was less than
half their height at just 47 floors, and few people even know of its
existence. It had already been evacuated after the planes had hit the
main towers.
In total, 2,977 people
died, provoking President Bush to mount the ‘War On Terror’ that led to
the invasion of Iraq, with the UK in tow.
Share this article
Yet as Monday’s anniversary
approaches, Matt, a former City worker who is married with three
children and lives in Sussex, insists that 9/11 did not happen in the
way we have been told and that there has been a huge official cover-up
to disguise the truth.
‘There are so
many questions that the Americans and the British Establishment refuse
to answer,’ he says. ‘I believe that my brother and thousands of others
were murdered on 9/11 and there has been a cover-up. We, as a family,
are still overcoming this tragedy, but we will never stop seeking the
truth.’
He is not alone in his quest. A
survey in U.S. magazine Live Science last year revealed that most
Americans (53 per cent) believe the U.S. Government has concealed — and
continues to conceal — vital information about the 9/11 attacks.
Crucially, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska concluded
this week, after two years of forensic research, that fire could not
have caused the collapse of WTC7.
Indeed,
though the official story is that WTC7 was weakened by fires caused by
debris from the attack, it’s the only steel skyscraper in the world ever
to collapse purely as a result of a blaze.
Geoff Campbell (pictured with
fiancee Caroline Burbank) was one of 67 Britons killed in the attack.
His brother Matt refuses to believe the official 9/11 explanation
And
a new book by an academic who has become an authority on 9/11,
Professor David Ray Griffin, says that to believe that this building
fell to the ground without explosives being involved is asking the
public to believe in ‘miracles’.
Griffin,
a retired philosopher at Claremont School of Theology in California,
adds in his bestseller Bush And Cheney: How They Ruined America And The
World, about the ex-president and his vice-president Dick Cheney: ‘There
is a growing consensus that 9/11 allowed the U.S. to adopt extreme,
unwarranted policies. They include the War On Terror and the attacks on
Afghanistan and Iraq as first steps in taking control of the Middle
East.’
He, and other 9/11 sceptics such
as Matt, have asked if the attack was, in fact, a copy of Operation
Northwoods, an aborted plan during John F. Kennedy’s presidency to stage
terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext
for a U.S. invasion to overthrow dictator Fidel Castro.
In
other words, on that September morning in 2001, did the White House
fail to stop — or even fabricate — an outrage against its own civilians
so as to provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden?
Although
there have been countless conspiracy theories about 9/11, the idea that
the U.S. Government connived in it still appears utterly implausible
and has, of course, been denied by U.S. intelligence services and the
White House.
Initially — like most
people in America and Britain, including Matt Campbell — Professor
Griffin dismissed any notion that the attacks were an inside job aimed
at triggering the war on terror.
It was
a year later that he changed his mind, when he was writing about
American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic work.
This week a team of experts said
that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7 (circled), adding
further fuel to conspiracy theories
As
part of his research he had come across a ‘timeline’ of the day’s
events based on newspaper and television accounts. It raised several
anomalies that caused him to doubt the official version of events. And,
however outlandish it seems, his argument bears consideration.
One
of the most puzzling anomalies was that none of the hijacked planes was
intercepted by fighter jets, even though there would have been plenty
of time to do so and it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is
any suspicion of an air hijack.
In the
nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in
America. Then there were the irregular stock market dealings before the
tragedy.
An extremely high volume of
‘put options’ — bets on the price of shares falling — were purchased for
the stock of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, the international financier
that occupied 22 storeys of the World Trade Centre.
Even
more remarkable was the volume of ‘put options’ traded on American and
United Airlines, which operated the four aircraft hijacked by the
terrorists.
On these two airlines, and
only these, the level of share trade went up by 1,200 per cent in the
three days before the catastrophe. As the shares dropped in response to
9/11 the value of these options multiplied a hundredfold. Someone,
somewhere, made $10 million in profit.
But, of all the conundrums, the most perplexing is how the three World Trade Centre towers fell to the ground.
The
official version is that the Twin Towers collapsed because their steel
columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed
planes.
This explanation has been
repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks
by the U.S. intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the
attack in the U.S. and the UK.
However,
sceptics say the science does not stand up. They argue that steel does
not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800f, and open fires of jet
fuel — such as those in the Twin Towers inferno — cannot burn hotter
than 1,700f.
Official reports state the steel in the third tower reached a maximum of 1,100f.
Professor
Griffin and other sceptics believe the Twin Towers were deliberately
blown up. They claim their controversial theory is corroborated by
first-hand testimony from firefighters at the scene.
In
oral histories of 9/11 by New York Fire Department staff which have
been made public, almost a quarter suggest they heard explosions going
off before the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Of the South Tower,
firefighter Richard Banaciski said: ‘There was just an explosion. It
seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed
like it was going all the way round like a belt . . . all those
explosions.’
Colleague Kenneth Rogers
heard them, too. He said: ‘There was an explosion in the South Tower.
Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another . .
. I figured it was a bomb because it looked like a synchronised kind of
thing.
And Fire Captain Dennis Tardio
recalled: ‘I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building
is being imploded from the top floor down, boom, boom, boom. I stand in
amazement. I can’t believe what I am seeing. The building is coming
down.’
But a more extraordinary
challenge to scientific reason would happen on the day of the attacks in
respect of the third tower, WTC7, which contained the offices of the
secret service, and then mayor Rudy Giuliani’s emergency command centre,
fitted with bullet- and bomb-resistant windows as well as secure air
and water supplies.
In 2008, a U.S.
Government-ordered report by the prestigious National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded a six-year probe into the WTC7
attack.
Bystanders interviewed by U.S.
television that day said there were ‘bang, bang, bang’ sounds before it
fell down. Yet NIST insisted there was ‘no evidence’ of a controlled
explosion.
The fall was provoked by
fires on multiple levels. The heating of floor beams and girders had
caused a critical support column to fall, initiating the fire-induced
progressive collapse that brought the building down.
This
week, eminent Alaska University engineers dismissed this explanation.
Dr J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of the university’s Civil and Environmental
Engineering Department, said: ‘Fire did not and could not have caused
the failure of this building.’
Griffin
adds: ‘We are led to believe that for the first time in the known
universe, a steel-framed, high-rise building was brought down by fire
without the aid of explosives or incendiaries.
‘More
clearly miraculous was the precise way in which WTC7 collapsed
[straight down, with an almost perfectly horizontal roofline] into its
own footprint. This is the kind of free-fall implosion that can only be
caused by a world-class demolition company.’
But
there is another perplexing matter regarding this third building. It
concerns the bizarre TV reports in the U.S., and the rest of the world,
that it had collapsed when it was clearly still upright — announcements
made 23 minutes before it had actually fallen down.
One
piece of BBC World footage shows a studio anchor talking to news
correspondent Jane Standley, who is standing in front of the clearly
visible WTC7 tower.
The anchor says:
‘The 47-storey building, situated very close to the World Trade Centre,
has also just collapsed. It seems that this was not the result of a new
attack. It was because the building had been weakened during the morning
attacks.’
Then, oddly, the link to Standley breaks up and is lost.
Of course, this may just be a mistake made on one of the most hectic news days ever. Certainly, the BBC seems to think so.
In
a statement made in 2007, a spokesman said: ‘In the chaos and
confusion, I am sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or
inaccurate, but at the time were based on the best information we had.
We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage, for reasons
of cock-up, not conspiracy.’
This
response — and the question of why the BBC announced the fall of WTC7
before it actually happened — has enraged those fighting for the
‘truth’, such as Matt Campbell. They say a series of 9/11 documentaries
put out by the BBC have not been impartial or scientifically accurate.
It
is why he, and other Britons who disagree with the official version of
9/11, have chosen to make their protest outside BBC headquarters on
Monday.
This unlikely rebel, a trained
theoretical physicist, former IT expert in the City, and now a
reflexologist, has refused to pay his BBC licence fee for the past four
years.
He claims: ‘The BBC has
presented information to the public that breaks its own editorial
guidelines. In at least one documentary, it removed the sounds of huge
explosions going off in WTC7 moments before its collapse.
‘I think my brother Geoff and many others were murdered in an event that conflicts with what we have been officially told.
‘I
believe there has been BBC complicity in a deliberate cover-up about
how thousands died on that day nearly 16 years ago,’ he said yesterday
as he braced himself for the sad anniversary.
No comments:
Post a Comment