Brother of 9-11 Victim Sues BBC

13_14_BBC_Sued_911

By Victor Thorn —

For over a decade, 9-11 truth researchers have demonstrated that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks unfolded as a false-flag event coordinated by sinister elements inside the Bush administration along with Israel’s Mossad, foreign intelligence services and the corporate media. Now, the brother of a 9-11 victim, who was killed in the North Tower on that day, has come forward to back this assertion.

On March 23, Matt Campbell of Sussex, England entered a British court, claiming that certain individuals at the BBC not only assisted in the 9-11 coverup, but also possessed foreknowledge of the false-flag attack. Campbell’s brother, Geoff, died on 9-11 when the building he was in—World Trade Center (WTC) 1—collapsed.

Specifically, Campbell cites a well-known broadcast in which reporter Jane Standley revealed at 5 p.m. EDT that WTC Building 7 had recently collapsed.




There’s a problem, though. WTC 7 didn’t crash to the ground at freefall speed until 5:20 p.m. EDT. To corroborate this, Campbell has footage showing Ms. Standley providing her live-feed to a BBC audience, while WTC 7—also known as the Salomon Brothers Building—stood directly behind her in the shot.

When confronted with this damning evidence, BBC representatives blamed it on a misunderstanding between Ms. Standley and those in her studio. But let’s be clear: Before BBC anchorman Philip Hayton cut to Ms. Standley, he offered a slew of details.

“We’re now being told,” Hayton began, “that yet another enormous building has collapsed. It’s the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building.”

He continued: “WTC 7 collapsed not as a result of an attack, but because the building had been weakened from this morning’s attacks. Presumably, there were very few people in the Salomon Building when it collapsed.”

Obviously, there didn’t appear to be any confusion as to which structure Hayton and Ms. Standley were referring.

The question to be asked is, why would anybody assume that WTC 7—a perfectly sound 47-story, steel-framed building, which had not been struck by any airliners, had not exhibited any sign of exterior damage and had not been consumed by fire—would suddenly collapse within seven seconds?

Skyscrapers do not fall to the ground for no reason. There is no precedence for this type of disaster. Consequently, the only possible explanation is controlled demolition via pre-planted explosives.

Campbell concurs, stating in legal filings that the BBC was “willfully complicit in the deliberate coverup of vital and incontrovertible evidence relating to how his brother Geoff was killed.”




 
 
 

BBC conspirators weren’t the only ones who let information slip too hastily that day.

CNN’s Aaron Brown announced WTC 7’s collapse at 4:14 p.m. EDT, one hour and six minutes before it occurred.

At 9:04 a.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, Liz Foreman of Cincinnati’s WCPO Channel 9 claimed that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon. Yet, according to official reports, this so-called “event” didn’t transpire until 33 minutes later, at 9:37 a.m. When interviewed by this AMERICAN FREE PRESS reporter on August 4, 2008, Ms. Foreman admitted that the Associated Press had fed this story through their news lines at 9:04 a.m.

To add some much needed perspective, on March 18 AFP interviewed Dean Hartwell, author of several books, including Questions I Wasn’t Supposed to Ask.

Hartwell commented on the subject of foreknowledge: “Certain media outlets, including the BBC, knew ahead of time that WTC 7 was going to fall. What we saw that day with Jane Standley was a seam splitting open in the script they were using. The timing of what they divulged to the public in terms of concealing the truth got all screwed up, and as a reporter, Standley stepped out of line due to the information being presented to her.”

As for the big picture, Hartwell said confidently: “Most people don’t want to believe that the powers-that-be would lie to us about something this big. So, when we see examples like that of Jane Standley, it opens up a Pandora’s Box.”

Those who feel that these types of suspicions are only common to 9-11 truthers may be surprised to learn that the son of the world’s most famous astronomer, Carl Sagan, also doesn’t believe the lies fed to us by government and mainstream media sources.

On February 26, Andrew Steele, host of the online radio show “9/11 Free Fall,” spoke with Jeremy Sagan, who described how his eyes were opened.

“I think it was New Year’s 2002,” said Sagan. “I was at a friend’s house, and some parents of another friend were saying that Bush could never do something like this [9-11] because he was incompetent. But in retrospect, now that I think about it, it’s true. I don’t think Bush could really do it. That’s why they had him skirted off to Florida, to get him a bit out of the way. In retrospect, you look at that [the collapse of WTC 1 and 2] and it’s obvious it was a controlled demolition.”

Sagan, a computer programmer, added more ammunition. He told Steele: “Look at Building 7, the way everything was known before it happened, and the way it was reported in the media before it happened.”

Sagan referenced his deceased mother, biologist Lynn Margulis, who had been married to his father Carl for eight years. Convinced that the 9-11 Commission existed as little more than a ruse, Ms. Margulis told the group Scientists for 9-11 Truth in 2007: “19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9-11. . . . I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly enormous official account of 9-11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough and impartial investigation be undertaken.”

Victor Thorn

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 50 books.

image_print

19 Responses to Brother of 9-11 Victim Sues BBC

  1. Albury Smith says:
    Jay Zak:

    The BBC’s Jane Standley simply misread a report that WTC 7 was expected to collapse, based on FDNY and other observations:

    Eyewitness Accounts of WTC 7 Fires

    Accounts of WTC 7 Damage

    Eyewitness accounts of the withdrawal from WTC 7

    From the FDNY’s (now) Commissioner Daniel Nigro:

    Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited U.S. Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

    The reasons are as follows:

    1. Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
    2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
    3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open atrium on the lower levels.
    4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

    For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else—as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

    Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.
    Regards,
    Dan Nigro
    Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

  2. Jay Zak says:
    After she had a look over her shoulder to see WTC7 still standing you can clearly see her doing her utmost to hide the building with her head.

    It’s horrible and terrifying to think they had prior knowledge, and in my opinion the whole event on that dreadful day were orchestrated by higher powers.

    The U.S. government has tapes of the Pentagon from that day but choose to release a few seconds that show nothing (certainly no plane). They’ve had almost 15 years to do so. Skyscrapers made of steel and concrete don’t collapse at full speed without resistance.

    People are entitled to their opinions but my opinion is that it was 100% an inside job, and 80% of the world’s public agree with me.

  3. Albury Smith says:
    Hey Ted Danger, I just figured out that you remove comments when you can’t reply to them intelligently. No big surprise—it’s a common tactic of your 9/11 “truth movement.”
  4. Ted Danger says:
    Hey Albury Smith. I can’t figure if you’re a shill, a liar, or just someone with no sense. Most likely a combination. You said Jane Standley read the report wrong? If you can figure out how to click this link, you can see why I make those remarks. Did the ticker tape and the previous announcer “read” something wrong too?
  5. Albury Smith says:
    Kelly Lee:

    I have no idea what “something there is that doesn’t love a wall . . .” means in English, but at least one thing would be “obvious” to you if you ever bothered to read the NIST WTC reports: no steel melted in any NIST WTC hi-rise collapse hypotheses. I’d suggest visiting the new National 9/11 Memorial and Museum on the site of the WTC buildings that were destroyed in the al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11/2001 if you’re wondering whether there’s an appropriate memorial to the victims. Not to be too “snide” or anything, but leaving hundreds of thousands of tons of debris steel there indefinitely would’ve seemed a lot more odd to me than spending around eight months examining and removing it “immediately” and then years rebuilding.

    Please feel free to read my comments here if you’re as confused as you sound. Secret controlled demolitions in Lower Manhattan are a 9/11 “truth movement” fantasy.

  6. Kelly Lee says:
    Albury darling, NOTHING about this is obvious. You are way too snide to be a real scientist. I am married to a real scientist. Get off your high horse. In this case “something there is that doesn’t love a wall…” and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a puny airplane. Lots of buildings have been engulfed in flames and the steel did not melt. Ever notice the steel skeleton that withstood the atomic blast at Hiroshima, hmmmm? I believe it has been left as a part of a memorial to those killed there. Instead, the steel from the WTC? Shipped off immediately. Doesn’t that seem a little odd to you?
  7. Albury Smith says:
    Mark:

    Have you ever seen the amorphous yellowish mess thermite or other incendiaries make of steel? They won’t even work on vertical surfaces without huge bulky fireproof contraptions in place to keep them from falling off, and the quantities needed are enormous.

    Try it in a 24/7 secured and occupied NYC office hi-rise on massive steel columns coated with SFRM and inside architectural enclosures, and if you ever manage to sever one without getting busted, try telling a union iron worker that he’s looking at a factory-cut end.

    What lunacy.

  8. Albury Smith says:
    Mark:

    I’ve spent a lot more than “a bit of time” looking at both “sides” of this, and simply suggested a great way for you to do the same. If eleven W14 X 730 core columns and 70 other WTC 7 core and exterior columns no lighter than 500# per lineal foot (3.5″ flanges, 2.19″ web) were all secretly severed nearly simultaneously with explosives or whatever in NYC on 9/11, then let’s see how it works on JUST ONE of them.

    Richard Gage would like you to think that architects are “a lot smarter in that field [of structural engineering] than us,” but many of them definitely aren’t, and his crackpots represent only a small % of the AIA, which totally ignores him and them.

    The RIBA has no use for them either.

    The members of the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, SEAoNY, etc. are a lot smarter in this field than architects, and they totally ignore him and his 9/11 crackpots too, as do the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, structuremag.org, ENR, and all other relevant professional publications. (A few of his signatories CLAIM to be degreed SEs, but let’s hope they’re working in other fields or just kidding us.)

    This ~$314.5 million lawsuit over the collapse of WTC 7 doesn’t even mention Richard Gage or his ae911″truth.”

    The Local 40 and 361 Ironworkers’ Unions have no interest in his paranoid junk science either, nor does the FDNY, and many of them saw the debris steel up close and personal for ~8 months.

    The NIST WTC collapse hypotheses are entirely consistent with all principles of physics, so it’s your understanding of that basic natural science that needs some enhancement. Be as skeptical of real frauds as you are of legitimate experts.

  9. mark says:
    Sorry Al.

    Also you asked about seeing the beams being cut. Have a look at thermite. There was plenty of this found in the pulverized concrete dust.

  10. mark says:
    Albury:

    You seem well-educated. I generally look at both sides of a story. Spend a bit of time looking at both sides of this. There just seems to be too many things that don’t add up. It doesn’t bother me which way you think about this. Each to their own. Maybe one day we finally get the whole truth about this and it will certainly clear up my mind.

    In regards to Richard Gage and the other crackpots. I’d say that being architects and engineers they would be a lot smarter in that field than us.

    At the end of the day I feel that physics actually disproves the official story. Pancake theory = bollocks.

  11. Albury Smith says:
    Mark:

    I believe it was too, since they’ve admitted to their 9/11/2001 Planes Operation suicide attacks on the evil U.S. infidel numerous times since then, and have provided plenty of motive:

    ABC reporter John Miller asks Shaykh OBL 1998

    Osama Bin Laden Talks About the 9/11 Attacks

    Video of 911 Hijacker Reveals al-Qaida Propaganda Efforts

    From OBL’s 1998 (second) fatwa: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God [blah, blah, blah…]'”

    I didn’t present any scientific evidence; I simply asked you to question crackpots like Richard Gage and his “experts.” Wouldn’t you like to see how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges and 3.07″ webs of typical W14 X 730 WTC hi-rise core columns? I certainly would.

  12. mark says:
    Albury:

    Thanks for your comment. I think my perspective on this subject has changed completely now. Especially with all the scientific evidence you just presented. I now believe it was just those naughty terrorists that did this. I am glad that I now can trust our government again.

    Thanks,

    Al.

  13. Albury Smith says:
    Mark:

    I’m not the topic here, and will “head back” to any information source I want. Since you apparently enjoy being spoon-fed unscientific gibberish by libelous charlatans, ask Box Boy* and his “more than 2300 [9/11 crackpots]” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core.

    If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.

    *Box Boy’s ONLY 9/11 “research.”

  14. Mark says:
    Albury Smith:

    Why are you so curious about this story? Only people that believe there is a different narrative to what happened that day research this information? Probably best if you just head back to mainstream news where you can be spoon-fed what you would like to hear. Thank you for your time.

  15. Albury Smith says:
    Gary Anderson:

    The “evidence” took nearly eight months to remove from the WTC site, during which time it was handled by numerous people including Local 40 and 361 Ironworkers, and inspected by SEAoNY, PANYNJ, FEMA BPAT, NSF, and other structural engineers. Stevie Wonder would’ve spotted C/D evidence on the steel in seconds, and there simply wasn’t any.

    9/11 was the THIRD al Qaeda SUICIDE attack on the U.S. in just over three years, not a “false flag” or a whodunit.

  16. Gary Anderson says:
    Watching the Squibs and collapse of the twin towers, watching the implosion of WTC7, and watching the lies and obvious destruction of evidence as it was sent off to China was truly disgusting and disheartening.

    It motivated me to write a little ebook/audiobook, False Flag Murdering Neocon Crazies. There was a reason, and motive for 9/11. And calls for False Flags have not ended.

  17. jojo says:
    Planning of 9/11 attacks took years prior to Bush and team taking office. Bill Clinton was the go-ahead master. Israel Firsters proposed to him—7 middle East countries need to be destroyed 1996.

    Ever heard a USA president taking time off to visit a day care centre? Whole thing was a set up—G.W. Bush did it purposely chose a day care—and reading about himself—goat book :^(

  18. Albury Smith says:
    On a very hectic news day that was extended five hours by the time difference between NYC and the UK, Ms. Standley obviously misread a news bulletin stating that WTC 7 was expected to collapse:

    Eyewitness Accounts of WTC 7 Fires
    Accounts of WTC 7 Damage
    Eyewitness accounts of the withdrawal from WTC 7

    Does this sadly misguided individual want to indict the entire FDNY too? His Sacred Tower Seven collapsed nearly seven hours after the collapse that took his brother’s life, and no one died in it because of the FDNY’s prudent actions.

  19. Dan Peterman says:

    New investigation, hell. It’s time for indictments of treason and murder.

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked with an *. Your email address will not be published. All comments containing hyperlinks will be held in moderation until they are formatted properly, but will be posted. All comments containing obscenities will be amended and posted, unless they are too obscene and nonsensical, in which case they will be deleted.