By Peter Drew
Date: Monday March 23rd, 2015
Venue: Court 1 Hastings Magistrates Court, Bohemia Rd, Hastings TN34 1ND
Contact Details: UK AE911Truth firstname.lastname@example.org
On 23rd March Matt Campbell of Sussex, United Kingdom, will go to court against the BBC and will claim that the BBC is in violation of UK anti-terrorist legislation in the way that they have covered up evidence relating to 9/11 and evidence relating to the murder of his brother Geoff. Geoff Campbell was killed while inside the North Tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11th, 2001. Mr Campbell will claim that he has reasonable cause to believe that the BBC has been wilfully complicit in the deliberate cover up of vital and incontrovertible evidence relating to how his brother Geoff was killed and that as such the BBC is guilty of complicity with terrorism.
Representing Mr Campbell’s case against the BBC is senior litigation solicitor and human rights activist Mahtab Aziz who has represented a number of well-known public figures such as Imran Khan, the former Pakistan cricketer captain turned politician, Herbie Hide the former 2 time World Heavyweight boxing champion and a number of other internationally well-known artists, singers and sportsmen. Mr Aziz also advised British Film Director Tony Rooke at Horsham Magistrates Court in 2013 for his similar case against the BBC’s alleged cover up of 9/11 evidence. That particular court case between Mr Rooke and the BBC was attended by several hundred members of the public and by independent journalists from across Europe where they witnessed Mr Rooke achieve a partial victory against the BBC.
Mr Campbell will also be calling on the support of a number of expert witnesses.
See below for further details of this court case.
Legal details of Mr Campbell’s court case
Mr Campbell claims that the BBC is refusing to inform the public of incontrovertible scientific evidence relating to free fall acceleration during the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7, and the BBC appears to be supporting a cover up of the true events of that day. He is therefore pleading “Not Guilty” to having an appropriate TV licence as he has ”reasonable cause” to suspect that by funding the BBC through his TV Licence Fees he would be supporting the purposes of terrorism and he would be guilty of breaking the law under Article 15 Section 3 of the Terrorism Act.
He will also claim that the BBC is guilty of an offence under Section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000 as amended by Section 117 of Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Under Section 38B(2) of the TA 2000 if a person without reasonable excuse, fails to disclose information falling within Section 38B(1). A person may commit this offence through total inactivity (by not answering police questions or by not volunteering information), through the partial suppression of information, or by relating a false account when the true facts are known.
The cover-up of 9/11 evidence and Geoff Campbell’s murder
Mr Campbell’s brother, Geoff, was on business in the North Tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 when the tower was struck by an aircraft and later collapsed killing everyone who was still inside. The official reason provided for the collapse of both the Twin Towers that day was that fire resulting from the crashed airliners caused a weakening of the structure of the buildings which eventually led to their complete collapse. The official explanation given to Mr Campbell for who was responsible for the aircraft hitting the North Tower was that it was due to Al Qaeda terrorists who hijacked the aircraft and then deliberately flew it into the tower, and that therefore it was the alleged Al Qaeda hijackers who were responsible for the murder of Mr Campbell’s brother.
However, over the last several years Mr Campbell has been conducting a detailed investigation into the death of his brother and has come up with some startling information and evidence which he believes casts huge doubts about the official explanation he has been provided with for his brother’s murder. Through Mr Campbell’s own investigations, as well as the scientific analysis of dozens of professional physicists, architects, engineers, demolition experts, and other scientists, Mr Campbell, as well as thousands of professional and technical experts, believes that both the Twin Towers and World Trade Centre Building 7 (a 47 storey tower not hit by an aircraft) collapsed as a result of controlled, explosive, demolition, rather than from fires from the crashed aircraft. If Mr Campbell’s assertion is correct then it creates a very different picture about what really took place on 9/11, who was potentially involved, and who was actually responsible for his brother’s murder.
Mr Campbell’s court case against the BBC is based upon the allegation that he has reasonable cause to believe that the BBC has been deliberately withholding the available evidence which supposedly proves his belief that the three towers were brought down through controlled demolition. Mr Campbell claims that numerous professional experts from around the world and more than 500 members of the public have provided detailed evidence and written requests to the BBC demanding that they adhere to their Editorial Guidelines and their Royal Charter and show the public what he claims is incontrovertible scientific evidence and eye-witness evidence. He claims that this evidence proves beyond any doubt that his brother Geoff was murdered in a way that is very different to what he has been told by government officials and by the coroner. Mr Campbell aims to present to the court in Sussex evidence showing that the BBC has been deliberately covering up this vital information from the public.
Mr Campbell believes that by covering up this evidence the BBC are supporting those terrorists to get away with their crime which included the murder of his brother. Therefore, according to Mr Campbell, to pay his TV Licence Fee to the BBC would in fact be a criminal act according to Section 15, Article 3 of the Terrorism Act. Mr Campbell believes that he has a situation of conflict of law whereby he is prepared to continue paying his TV Licence Fee, but not if it goes to the BBC, because to provide funds to the BBC would be to provide funds to an organisation that is supporting an act of terrorism, according to Mr Campbell and his lawyers.
Evidence to support Mr Campbell’s allegation of controlled demolition
The following are some of the points of evidence that Mr Campbell cites as supporting the allegation that the three towers that collapsed on 9/11 collapsed due to controlled, explosive demolition. This is not a complete list of Mr Campbell’s evidence:
1. Confirmed free fall of WTC Building 7
World Trade Centre Building 7 fell at free-fall acceleration for at least 2.25 seconds (105 feet/8 stories) as confirmed in 2008 by the official investigators NIST (National Institute for Standards & Technology). This means that at least 8 stories of the building collapsed with absolutely zero structural resistance within them, and that all 80 of the core steel columns, and all of the steel beam cross connections for those 8 stories had to have been completely severed, all within a split second of each other in order to achieve the perfectly symmetrical free fall collapse that is seen in WTC Building 7. The only thing that can achieve this is controlled-demolition using carefully placed explosives and perfectly timed detonation. Controlled Demolition of a high rise tower cannot be prepared within a few hours. It takes weeks or months to plan and implement
2. BBC foreknowledge of the unprecedented collapse of WTC Building 7
Apart from the three towers that collapsed on 9/11, no steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire in history, either before or since 9/11. High rise towers are designed specifically so that this cannot happen. However on that day the BBC reported on live television that WTC Building 7 had collapsed more than 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. While the buildings collapse was being reported to the world by a BBC journalist, the fully intact building could still be seen standing in the background in what appeared to be a relatively uncompromised state and no obvious fires of any consequence. This footage is still available to see on YouTube. This would suggest that someone likely knew that the building was going to come down in a controlled manner and that the BBC reporter had inadvertently been given this information a little too early.
How did anyone know that the building was going to collapse as a result of simple office fires, as is NIST’s official explanation, when fire has never caused this to happen to any other building in history, apart from on that day, and it is physically impossible for fires to reach even close to the required temperature to even begin to weaken steel? Why did the BBC not actively investigate where that foreknowledge of collapse came from and inform the police or investigators, and the public? How did the source of that information know that the building was going to come down if a symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration is impossible from office fires and is unprecedented in history?
3. The BBC’s misinformation & refusal to notify the public about critical and incontrovertible evidence
In 2007 the BBC ran a documentary which claimed that despite what hundreds of professional engineers, physicists, demolition experts, and scientists were claiming about free fall of WTC Building 7, they were in fact wrong and there was no free fall of WTC Building 7. Even after NIST, the official investigators, officially confirmed the existence of free fall in 2008 the BBC has refused to comply with the requirements of their own Editorial Guidelines and publicly correct their error about this absolutely vital issue. This is despite a number of professional experts and more than 500 members of the public making written requests in 2012 to the BBC for them to do so. The BBC still has not corrected this error and still has not informed the public of the quite incredible fact that in 2008 NIST officially confirmed the existence of free fall of WTC Building 7, which can only occur through controlled demolition.
In addition to this, a great deal more incontrovertible evidence supporting the controlled demolition of the three towers has been forwarded to the BBC by numerous professional experts and hundreds of the public, but the BBC has refused to show this evidence to the public. This includes eye witness testimonies from 118 first responder fire fighters on 9/11 who reported hearing or seeing explosions going off in all three towers. These eye witness reports were originally suppressed by the US government, but were later forced to be released through the Freedom of Information Act.
4. BBC deliberately misleading the public with biased and inaccurate reporting
Despite having hundreds of people demanding that the BBC show the evidence described above, the BBC has refused to do this and have instead shown documentaries which are seemingly designed only to smear and discredit the reputation of the professional individuals and organisations bringing this evidence forward, and the BBC has instead presented information that is based on methodology that runs in direct contradiction to the BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines for providing accurate and impartial information. This has included such things as removing the sounds of huge explosions going off in WTC Building 7 moments before it collapsed during one of the BBC’s documentaries which was examining the claims of hundreds of professional experts that WTC Building 7 was brought down with explosives in a controlled demolition. Why would the BBC remove these sounds of explosions going off in a documentary aimed specifically at examining the claims that the collapse of the towers on 9/11 may have been due to explosives?
Mr Campbell and his support team will be asking these questions and more in the upcoming court case.