A collage of two people

Description automatically generated
Geoff Campbell, left; Geoff and Matt on the right. [Source: theargus.co.uk]

Jeremy Kuzmarov

Faulty 2013 inquest incriminates UK government in an ongoing 9/11 cover-up

On September 11, 2001, Geoff Campbell, 31, was attending a business meeting at the Risk Waters Group publishing company on the 106th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan when a plane struck the tower, causing its collapse, and he was killed. At least that is the official story.

Campbell was a risk management consultant working for Reuters who grew up in Northampton, England. His brother Matt, now 55, has been trying to obtain justice for Geoff for years by pursuing a fresh inquest into his death by way of petitioning the UK Attorney General (AG) for England and Wales.

In 2013, after fragments of Geoff’s body parts were identified and repatriated, the West London coroner performed an initial inquest as was mandated by British law.

Matt and his parents and brother Rob believe that the inquest did not meet professional standards.

The inquest, which was also held for nine other British victims, was over in less than two hours. The coroner concluded on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that Geoff had died as a result of Flight 11 crashing into the north face of the North Tower between floors 93 and 99 causing it to collapse. There was no real inquiry into Geoff’s death, nor was there any examination of the abundant evidence of the use of explosives and incendiaries.

Through crowdfunding, Matt Campbell raised enough money to develop a 2,500-page dossier replete with eyewitness and expert statements challenging the coroner’s findings and calling for a reopening of the UK inquest.

The dossier included statements by physicists and chemists who pointed to the impossibility of the World Trade Center towers collapsing in the way authorities said that they had. It also had statements by First Responders who witnessed explosions and flashes of light in the Towers.


In an exclusive interview with CovertAction Magazine, Matt Campbell said that “what really convinced him was the 100+ First Responder statements, which were unprompted. That is, they were not asked directly about explosives but talked about them voluntarily when asked to give their recollections.”

After his brother’s death, Matt said that he started reading widely in the literature on 9/11.

Work by Michael Ruppert, David R Griffin, Nafeez Ahmed, Justin Raimondo, John Miller, Seymour Hersh, Craig Unger and of course the 9/11 Commission Report! And later books by Lawrence Wright, Ian Henshall, Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, Mark Gaffney, Kevin Ryan, Elias Davidsson, Webster Griffin Tarpley, Peter Lance, Lyn Spencer, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swann, among others.

Some of the authors listed are very, so called mainstream, and yet there is enough in their investigations, many backed up by public records or freedom of information requests, to know that many areas of the official narrative are simply wrong or at best, not the whole truth.

One key author that Campbell read was Richard Gage of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who punctured the official narrative about how the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

Matt told CAM that his reading into the topic convinced him that the observed manner and speed in which the Twin Towers, and Building 7, collapsed suggested that they were brought down through explosives. Further evidence of this lay in the extreme temperatures recorded in the aftermath, and in the downward motion of the North Tower as it fell.

Matt considers application of the label “conspiracy theorist”—which has long been promoted by the CIA to denigrate whistleblowers and truth-seekers on 9/11 and other government cover-ups—a “lazy way of avoiding any engagement in debate.”

Matt told the UK Mirror that the “initial story of 19 fundamentalist Muslims, directed by Bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan, is just such a simple, childlike way of trying to describe what went on.”


Besides the evidence pointing to the Twin Towers being brought down by explosives, Campbell said the books and other sources he read exposed the role that the CIA played in protecting two of the alleged hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were allowed to come into the U.S. even though they were on terrorist watchlists.

The CIA’s Alec Station withheld information from the FBI about the two Saudi terrorists, and suppressed information about their flights into the U.S. and whereabouts within the U.S. after they got in. (Once in the U.S., these terrorists received material support by Saudi Arabia which was also witheld).

Matt said that “the delay of over a year by the George Bush administration in launching an official inquiry into September 11” is suspect, as is the fact that, when the report was finally released, 28 pages of it were “blacked out….There’s a lot of parties involved, but it’s really, really simple. There’s been a 9/11 cover-up.”

In August 2021, Matt’s family submitted the 2,500-page dossier arguing the insufficiency of inquiry at the first inquest and providing significant evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives to the Attorney General (AG) for England and Wales.

The dossier included six expert testimonies and five eyewitness statements by First Responders who were prepared to testify under oath in a court of law.

After nearly a two-year wait, in June 2023, Matt received a short letter from the deputy in the AG’s office refusing their application for a reopening of the inquest into Geoff’s death.

After reading the decision, Matt said that he was shocked because the letter did not attempt any assessment, let alone refutation, of the detailed evidence that he had compiled or reason for refusing the application.

It merely referred to some irrelevant FBI documents and U.S. government reports that did not explain how the Twin Towers might have come down and had nothing to do with Geoff Campbell’s death.

Matt told CAM that his father’s first reaction to the AG’s office letter was to compare it to “a student who rushed his homework and did it very poorly.”

The family threatened judicial review with their barrister preparing and sending the AG the substantive grounds on which the litigation would be based, so overwhelming was our case that the AG had no option but to withdraw their June 2023 decision and agreed to reconsider our request.

In January this year, the AG again denied the family’s application.

The AG office’s letter claimed in a sentence that there was no possibility of the use of explosives because al-Qaeda would have nothing to gain by it.

This statement proves nothing because a) it is still unclear with 100% certainty if al-Qaeda was solely behind the World Trade Center attacks; and b) if they were, their motive as a terrorist group was to instill fear in the public, and explosives would have been the most realistic way to bring down the Twin Towers as they attempted unsuccessfully in 1993.

The legal barrister assisting Matt with his case described the decision as “unlawful and irrational.” He recommended that Matt and his family request a judicial review of the AG’s decision, which they filed in early April.

Matt’s petition for a judicial review argues that the AG’s report was flawed because of a) errors in public law made by the AG, including the absence of adequate reasoning; b) an unreasonable failure to have regard to relevant matters; c) unreasonable regard to irrelevant matters; and d) its reliance on documents not put before the coroner.

Notwithstanding the initial application for a fresh inquest should have been successful in the first place, as the threshold for new evidence and arguments for insufficiency of inquiry are actually quite low, a new inquest being granted should have been a formality.

However, Campbell knows that the topic of 9/11 is heavily politicized, which is why he has been stonewalled so far.

The Campbell family and their barrister are confident given the weight of evidence on their side that a High Court judge will side in their favor this time.

Matt made comparisons with investigations into the 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre, when it took a change in the political climate with the signing of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement for courts to recognize that the Irish killed by British troops were not terrorists.

British Prime Minister Edward Heath and Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice at the time, had engaged in a cover-up, according to Matt, that was exposed in leaked documents.

9/11 remains a sensitive topic politically since it was a basis for the invasion of Afghanistan and the waging of the Global War on Terror, and because powerful people in the U.S. and UK were involved in the cover-up of what really happened.

Matt Campbell’s case is significant because it shows that the UK government is unable to effectively defend its official position on 9/11 with evidence that would stand up in a court of law or to effectively refute alternative scenarios.

The UK system is unique, as all UK citizens are legally entitled to an official inquest into their deaths, which is not the case in the U.S., where family members of 9/11 victims are unable to obtain coroners’ inquests.


Via https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024/04/12/brother-of-9-11-victim-presses-forward-in-demand-for-justice/