'Complete INSANITY, ZERO Evidence!' Piers Morgan vs Roger Waters on 9/11 Conspiracies

Summary

Podcast Summary: Piers Morgan Uncensored

Episode: 'Complete INSANITY, ZERO Evidence!' Piers Morgan vs Roger Waters on 9/11 Conspiracies

Date: July 9, 2026
Host: Piers Morgan
Guests: Roger Waters (Pink Floyd musician & activist) & Matt Campbell (9/11 bereaved brother & campaigner)

---

Episode Overview

This charged episode centers on the controversial topic of 9/11 conspiracies, focusing on efforts by Matt Campbell, whose brother Geoff died on 9/11, to reopen the inquest into his brother’s death. Rock legend Roger Waters joins, having financially supported the legal campaign. Piers Morgan presses both guests on the credibility of "controlled demolition" theories and Waters’ outspoken suspicions, leading to a fiery yet revealing discussion about grief, skepticism, and the consequences of public conspiracy discourse.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Matt Campbell’s Campaign for a New Inquest

• [01:58] Matt shares his brother’s story:
  Geoff Campbell, attending a conference in the North Tower, was killed during the attacks.

  “He was attending a conference run by RiskWaters on the 106th floor...sadly died that day.” — Matt Campbell [01:58]

• Early doubts arise:
  Matt says his skepticism began after reading John Pilger’s article, which questioned the rationale for bombing Afghanistan when most hijackers were Saudi.

  "It was also the first time I'd really thought about what was being effectively done in my brother’s name..." — Matt Campbell [03:31]

• Focus on Building 7 and cause of death:
  Years after the attacks, Matt’s doubts grew, especially concerning the collapse of WTC 7—a building not hit by aircraft. His campaign centers on new evidence (including eyewitness and expert testimony) not considered in the 2013 inquest.

  “I'm not looking to address who did it. It’s specifically how did my brother die…” — Matt Campbell [06:41]

• Scope of legal effort:
  Matt clarifies his aim is for the Supreme Court to review whether evidence related to alternative collapse mechanisms (i.e., possible explosives) should be tested under oath in court.

  “All I want is for that evidence to make its way into a coroner's court and for it to be tested under oath.” — Matt Campbell [25:11]

2. Roger Waters’ Support and Theories

• [09:51] Waters’ motivation:
  Waters explains his financial support is rooted in his belief that true accountability has not been sought and that the Attorney General should not be “above the law.”

  “What Matt has done to his eternal credit, is to fight...to get his case to open an inquest on his brother's death in front of the Supreme Court.” — Roger Waters [10:21]

• Broader implications:
  Waters ties the lack of investigation to the U.S.-led “war on terror,” referencing claims of a U.S. plan to dominate countries in the Middle East, drawing on the infamous “Seven countries in five years” narrative.

  “The truth of what happened on September 11, 2001, is supremely important to every one of us in the human race…” — Roger Waters [11:15]

• Belief in controlled demolition:
  Waters doubles down on his view that WTC buildings came down via controlled demolition, a claim rejected by Morgan.

  “Thousands upon thousands of architects and physicists…stated entirely clearly…that Building One And Building Two and Building Seven…fell as controlled demolitions.” — Roger Waters [13:23]

• Refusal to name “who” or “how”:
  Waters refuses to speculate on perpetrators, claiming the facts are not “heard in court,” and attributes the lack of mainstream acceptance to media suppression.

  “A lot of people would have to know...and they’ve kept it quiet by employing people like you to spread their propaganda…” — Roger Waters [15:24]

3. Confrontational Debate on Evidence and Motivation

• Morgan challenges “inside job” theory:
  Piers Morgan paints Waters’ belief as extreme and “insane,” highlighting the lack of insider whistleblowers and the sheer scale of coordination such a conspiracy would entail.

  “You have to make me buy into a theory that...the CIA plotted and planned the mass murder of thousands of its own citizens...I say to you that is complete insanity, for which there is zero evidence.” — Piers Morgan [18:02]

• Waters responds to accusations: Waters insists that all he and Matt are demanding is an impartial investigation, but maintains controlled demolition as the only explanation fitting “the laws of physics.”

  “I believe those buildings were destroyed by a controlled demolition. All the evidence of our eyes and the laws of physics points to the probability.” — Roger Waters [19:07]

• Piers' direct rebuttals:
  Morgan repeatedly hammers the absence of credible evidence, and calls out Waters for making wild accusations, including accusing Howard Lutnick (incorrectly identified by Waters) of benefiting from 9/11. Morgan clarifies Lutnick's own loss and role.

  “For you to casually throw that out...is utterly disgusting. You did your normal Roger Waters thing, you just…threw it out there...You've no evidence whatsoever.” — Piers Morgan [23:17]

• The “conspiracy ecosystem”:
  Piers asserts that figures like Waters exploit tragedies for a conspiracy platform, accusing him directly:

  “It worries me that you want to use this case as your own personal little platform for continuing to air this bonkers conspiracy theory.” — Piers Morgan [31:27]

4. Returning Focus to the Inquest and Legal Process

• Matt’s defense of his motives:
  Matt stresses the inquest is driven by the lack of a real investigation at his brother’s 2013 coroner’s court, not by Waters’ beliefs or funding.

  “Roger’s not using me to get where I’ve got today...All I want is for that evidence to make its way into a coroner’s court and for it to be tested under oath.” — Matt Campbell [25:11]

• The Supreme Court timeline:
  Matt hopes for a hearing in October with a decision possibly in early 2027, seeking a judicial review of the Attorney General’s power to block an inquest.

  “I expect a decision probably wouldn’t be made until early 2027, which is a long time to wait, but, hey, we’re 25 years on already.” — Matt Campbell [27:58]

• Why no whistleblowers?:
  Both Matt and Roger argue that legal processes often do not begin with whistleblowers, but that official scrutiny can encourage people to come forward.

  “Once the ball starts rolling...then is when we may find people coming forward...” — Roger Waters [28:20]

5. Notable Exchanges and Quotes

• Repeated Insults and Jabs:
  The tone gets personal, with Waters repeatedly calling Morgan a “moron” [20:37], and Morgan calling Waters conspiratorial and unhinged [18:02, 31:13].

• On media, motive, and fundraising:
  Waters bristles at questions about him finishing the crowdfunding himself:

  “Why don't you mind your own business?...It's none of your effing business.” — Roger Waters [29:55–30:21]

• Final Summations:
  Waters insists his support is about the inquest, not promoting conspiracy theories:

  “Although you keep repeating what you call a bonkers conspiracy theory, I haven't actually said that on your program…” — Roger Waters [31:37]

  Morgan summarizes the stakes:

  “It was very illuminating. Thank you very much. And thank you, Matt, for coming in.” — Piers Morgan [32:22]

---

Memorable Moments

• [13:23] Waters’ assertive claim: “Thousands upon thousands of architects and physicists...stated...the buildings...fell as controlled demolitions.”
• [18:02] Morgan: “That is complete insanity, for which there is zero evidence that that is ever the case.”
• [23:17] Morgan calls out Waters for “utterly disgusting” smears regarding insurance and 9/11.
• [29:55] Waters bristles over personal finances: “Why don’t you mind your own business?”
• [31:13] Morgan's summing up: “You believe the American government did this to its people...which I think is a heinous, totally ridiculous claim…”

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:58 — Matt Campbell describes his brother Geoff’s death and the origins of his skepticism.
• 09:51 — Roger Waters explains his motivation and support for the inquest.
• 13:23 — Waters details his beliefs about controlled demolition.
• 17:00 — Waters challenges Morgan on whether he opposes an inquest.
• 18:02 — Morgan accuses Waters’ theory of being “complete insanity.”
• 19:07 — Waters maintains his controlled demolition claim.
• 23:17 — Exchange over insurance and who benefited from 9/11.
• 25:11 — Matt clarifies his campaign’s intent and process.
• 27:58 — Matt discusses the Supreme Court timeline.
• 29:55 — Waters reacts to questions about his personal contributions.
• 31:13 — Morgan summarizes his concerns with Waters’ motives.
• 32:22 — Closing remarks.

---

Conclusion & Overall Tone

This episode is a prime example of Piers Morgan Uncensored’s blend of confrontational debate and headline-grabbing controversy. Matt Campbell’s campaign is treated with empathy but skepticism, while Roger Waters is openly goaded as a conspiracy theorist yet allowed substantial time to present his views. The repeated clashes, accusations, and pushbacks result in a vigorous—sometimes caustic—yet illuminating debate on post-9/11 skepticism, the boundaries of inquiry, and the risks and responsibilities of public figures fueling conspiracy movements.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Are you looking for a beach read this summer? May I suggest your big wireless build? It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat emotional arc and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time. Fortunately though, Mint's story is better. Every plan, $15 a month, even unlimited.

[B]

That's it.

[A]

Happy ending, zero tears.

[B]

Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment

[C]

of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for a 12 month plan. Required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only greater than 50gb. Me slow when network is busy. See terms.

[B]

Piers, you're well known for being a moron, so you don't have to explain.

[A]

One of us is definitely well known for being a moron. This bile's conspiracy theories. The American government, the CIA plotted and planned the mass murder of thousands of its own citizens so they could go to war.

[B]

Piers, as usual, you're just 100% wrong. Those buildings came down by controlled demolition. We all know it.

[A]

Who planted the explosives?

[B]

You won't.

[A]

You won't.

[B]

Hang on, hang on. Let me finish. You hang on. Don't shout me down. You always try and do that.

[A]

You're the one shouting. Out of interest, you're worth a reputed 300 million. Why don't you just finish off the crowd fundraising yourself?

[B]

Why don't you mind your own business?

[A]

There are many legitimate unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding 9 11, the gravest terror attack in US history. We've discussed them previously on this show. It's when the answers to those questions are positive that rational inquiry can sometimes stray into crackpot conspiracies. Fair to say that Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters dabbles with both sides of that coin. A musician and activist has adopted the cause of Matt Campbell. His brother Jeff died on 9 11. He's fighting a landmark case before the UK Supreme Court in a bid to reopen the inquest into his brother's death. And they both join me now. Well, welcome to both of you. Welcome back, Roger. So Matt, just first of all, tell me about the tragic circumstances of your brother's death.

[D]

Yeah, so my brother didn't work at the World Trade Center. He was attending a conference run by RiskWaters on the 106th floor of the North Tower. And you know, Geoff, along with many other British victims, because it was a British company, sadly died that day.

[A]

And he was just 31 years old. I mean, a devastating moment for you, for everyone who lost somebody that day, Huge number of people whose lives were taken. At what point did you believe that you were not getting the answers you thought you should get about what happened that day?

[D]

I mean, after, you know, the initial shock, which was very hard for all of us. It was actually an article that John Pilger had written towards the end of October 2001. And I think the article was called this War Is a Farce. And it basically went on to sort of say that, you know, we're bombing Afghanistan. 15 of the 19 hijackers are Saudi. They seem to have done most of their training in Germany and the U.S. you know, and yet we're. We're bombing people in Afghanistan. Obviously, the British.

[A]

I think you wrote that for me. I was editor of a Daily Mirror, and I hired him. I think that was the piece, his comeback piece, actually. I cleared the front page for Pilger. We had other people, we had Christopher Hitchens saying the opposite. But I remember Pilger returned to the Daily Mirror to write what you're talking about.

[D]

Yeah. And it was also the first time I'd really thought about what was being effectively done in my brother's name and the consequences of what the Americans and obviously British were doing as direct result of those attacks.

[A]

Now, the narrative obviously, has been that 911 happened and that the Americans and the British concluded a number of things. One, that the training had almost certainly happened in Afghanistan of the people that were behind this, but that also there were, as a consequence of all this, that people like Saddam Hussein were running rogue states and had weapons of mass destruction and would use them, and they had to be dealt with, too. So the cycle of events that came out of 911 were extraordinarily big, and you could argue the history will say pretty devastating. But let's divorce that from what happened on, because that seems to me a side issue, if you like, unless you believe, and we'll come to this with Roger in a moment, that there was a reason why they connected. Like I said, when you. When you look to what happened and as a. As a relative of somebody who died, what to you were the alarm bells that said, other than the fact that war was being waged as a retaliation, what were the alarm bells to you that made you believe enough to launch a legal action, that this was not what people thought in terms of how it happened?

[D]

Are you talking specifically how the towers collapsed?

[A]

Yes or.

[D]

Yeah. I mean, that's obviously the scope of what I'm trying to do to get my brother's inquest reopened. It was probably around sort of 2006, 2007, where Building 7 came onto my radar. And, you know, I think there was a growing body of evidence that was being built where, you know, you basically it seemed to be in contradicting what the official narrative was saying how the towers had come down, but it wasn't in isolation. But for me, and what I'm trying to do in my brother's inquest is establish, you know, what basically causes his death.

[A]

I mean, look, it's a massive, it's a massive thing to suggest stroke, believe that it wasn't what we thought. In other words, a bunch of predominantly Saudi hijackers, you know, jihadists who wanted to kill themselves as they took down the Twin Towers at this great sign of imperialism at the instigation of Osama bin Laden, who ran Al Qaeda, had tried to block the World Trade center before. You know, it's a pretty clear narrative which, you know, I would argue from a journalistic point of view is a narrative that's been proven by events that followed this. Why are you so certain that the accepted narrative which most journalists believe is the genuine true story? Why are you fundamentally of the belief that's not what happened?

[D]

Well, I'm not certain about it and you know, I'm not looking to address who did it. It's specifically how did my brother die and how did he come about his, his death. And that, that is what I'm trying to do is secure a new inquest. You know, I think you've got to establish what happened and how it happened before you go into who's responsible for that particular part of the attacks.

[A]

But just finally, before I go to Roger, you. You believe that the towers didn't come down because the planes hit them.

[D]

What I have in the application that we submitted to the Attorney General is evidence that points towards a different mechanism being used and I want that evidence seen and heard in court.

[A]

That's what you're talking about, explosives being put in the towers.

[D]

There is evidence of that. There's also the categories of evidence that we submitted in our.

[A]

But what is the evidence that you're talking about which says that explosives were put in the towers?

[D]

I'm not setting up being put in there. Obviously they would be there if they bring you down the towers, but essentially you've got eyewitness testimony. So I've got first responders, including police officers who, you know, basically had took statements in the, in the days and the hours after 9, 11. You've got expert testimony I've got just observations by physicists, by chemists, et cetera. These are experts. I'm not an expert. I'm just relaying the.

[A]

And who do you think put these explosives there if that's what happened?

[D]

Again, that's not the purpose of what an inquest is. It's not even looking to apportion blame. It's trying to establish the cause of death of my brother.

[A]

Okay, so let me bring Roger in. So, Roger, look, I completely understand why Matt wants to get answers to questions that he believe remain unanswered or are certainly being questioned by people. And there are myriad conspiracy theories about 9 11. So I don't view as a conspiracy theorist. What he's just said to me is, I think a lot of people who lose loved ones in horrific tragedies like this or terror attacks, whatever it may be, they're gonna read so much about what's happened, particularly since the advent of the Internet, that you can go off on all sorts of tangents in your mind about what may or may not have done it. And I think he's been careful not to subscribe to any particular blame or anything else. He just says he wants answers. I understand that. As a grieving relative of someone who died in that terror attack, I get it. What I find slightly less not acceptable but less understandable is why someone like you, who, as far as I know, didn't lose anybody in the Twin Towers. Let me just clarify that you had nobody you knew who died that day, right?

[B]

Nobody.

[A]

Right. So you've contributed. It's been reported. You can confirm this or not, that you. £100,000 towards Matt's. I think the aim is 150,000 to take the case to the Supreme Court. So you clearly support what he's doing, but what do you think actually happened here, then? If you don't think it was the official narrative, what do you think happened?

[B]

Well, it's very. I'm glad you asked me that question. Very nice to see you again, and thank you for reminding us all of John Pilger and the stories you wrote at the time, what a great journalist he was. Why is it. Why have I given some money to this, to this case, to this court case? Because I think it's extremely important, English as I am, that the Attorney General in England is not a. Or should not be allowed to be above the law, which is what several attorney generals since 2001 have suggested. So that they say we don't have to answer to the law or the Supreme Court. What Matt has done to his eternal credit, is to fight and fight and fight and fight for 25 years to get his case to open an inquest on his brother's desk in front of the Supreme Court. And that case is going to happen in. In London on October 14th, 15th this year. Why am I supporting it? Because, as you rightly pointed out in your introduction to this conversation, what happened, the truth of what happened on September 11, 2001, is supremely important to every one of us in the human race. Human, because it affected all our lives from that date for the 25 years. Intervening up until now with the war on terror that was based on it, with the destruction of five of the seven countries that Paul Wolfowitz told Wesley Clark about in the Pentagon in November of that year, 2001, where they said, it is our plan to destroy all these countries in North Africa and the Middle east. And they've succeeded with all but Lebanon and Iran so far, thank goodness. But that they might be allowed to do this without there ever being even an inquest into the death of an innocent Englishman who by chance happened to be on the 106th floor of Tower One, is anathema to me as an Englishman, and that is why I'm supporting this case. Hang on, I haven't finished, but my private theories about. I am. My theories may seem a little bit more extreme than Matt's, but Matt, quite rightly, is being very, very careful in what he says. Just saying he wants an inquest. So that's my prime motivation.

[A]

Right. But as you've hinted, you have more extreme theories which are clearly also part of your motivation. So what are your theories about what happened? If it wasn't what we all believe happened, what do you think happened? I believe Osama bin Laden arranged for a bunch of his Al Qaeda terrorists to train to be pilots, to hijack planes and crash them into twin towers and bring them down and kill thousands of people. And I believe that what happened afterwards, in terms of the war in Afghanistan and then the war in Iraq, were a consequence. No doubt there were neocons that were very happy to go and have those wars, but I absolutely cannot fathom for one second that this was any kind of inside job. So is your theory that there were people who did this deliberately so they could then have the excuse to go to war?

[B]

That's part of it, yeah. Within weeks of the event, thousands upon thousands of architects and physicists had come out of the woodwork and stated entirely clearly, and I'm absolutely certain that they were correct, that Building One And Building two and Building seven of the World Trade center in southern New York City fell as controlled demolitions. Now, who planted the explosives to control the demos? And nobody with an IQ above room temperature disputes this. But it has never been allowed to be heard in a court of law.

[A]

Well, actually, loads of people have disputed it. Come on, these are not new theories. They've been.

[B]

You disputed this. People like you would dispute it, but you do. You, you, you go along with the.

[A]

The buildings felt. No, I just think it's entirely logical. The buildings around the World Trade center obviously, obviously came down because of the destruction of the World Trade Center.

[B]

Yes, as usual, you're just 100% wrong. Let's talk about something else. Let's talk about, you know, the football or something. Nonsense. Those buildings came down by controlled demolition. We all know it. You can argue against it as much.

[A]

Who planted the explosives?

[B]

We don't know. That's what we want.

[A]

Well, hazard a guess.

[B]

No, I'm not going to hazard a guess. I have no idea.

[A]

Some random people. So let's just. Okay, let's take your. Take your theory that random people who you're not prepared to name planted explosives to bring down the Twin Towers and buildings around it as an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and who knows where else, right? Who could it be? I mean, let's just theorize. Let's game this out, right? Who would do that? And by the way, how many people would have to know? And how did they keep it quiet?

[B]

A lot of people would have to know is my guess. And they've kept it quiet by employing people like you to spread their propaganda over the mainstream media, like you're doing today. But that's okay. We're used to that.

[A]

I'm just asking you for any facts. Where are the facts?

[B]

Just. Are you blind?

[A]

I know I'm the loony here, so let's assume I'm the lunatic with mad ideas. Let's assume that I think a bunch of hijackers crashed two planes into the World Trade center that precipitated a number of buildings crashing down. That's my theory. If your theory is that someone planted explosives to do all this, my question is, who was it and why?

[B]

And my question is, how is it that you can't understand the simple fact that Matt and I are on your TV show? Because we would like there to be an investigation into this started by the Attorney General in the UK accepting that he is not above the law, and by the Supreme Court in the UK saying that Matt Campbell has a right to know why and how his brother.

[A]

100%. 100%. But you on record with Jimmy Dore as saying that it was the American government that were behind it. So is that what you believe? I haven't.

[B]

You know, that's one possibility. It could have been the American government.

[C]

We.

[B]

Why don't we have an investigation, Pierce, to find out?

[A]

That's all you want.

[B]

No, you hang on. Don't shout me down. You always try and do that.

[A]

You're the one shouting.

[B]

Paez, I want to ask you a question. Are you against there being an inquest?

[A]

No.

[C]

Good.

[B]

There we are. That's the end of this program.

[A]

Thank you very much. It's not because. It's not. No, it's not. I'm never against any inquest and I absolutely understand why. Matt wants answers to questions he believes remain unanswered. My question is about your motivation in bankrolling his case, because I believe that, unlike Matt, he. You do have people you blame. You've gone on record as blaming, potentially the American government, CIA. I think that's what you believe happened. And also, who else could it possibly be if the motivation was to go to war? For the Americans to go to war with Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, it obviously would have to be an inside job by the American government. At which point you lose me, because at that point you have to make me buy into a theory that. That the American government, the CIA, plotted and planned the mass murder of thousands of its own citizens so they could go to war. And I say to you that that is complete insanity, for which there is zero evidence that that is ever the case.

[B]

Well, I say to you that you're very welcome to your opinion.

[A]

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

[B]

Here you go. There's Piers going, doing his normal thing. He says something and then says it's a fact. You've no idea whether it's a fact or not. What you seem to be refusing to accept is that Matt Campbell, and I am correct in demanding of the Attorney General in the UK that there is an investigation into it. Now, if this inquest into the death of Jeff Campbell leads to a similar investigation in the United States, which I very much doubt it will, but I hope it does, then we, the people, not just of England or the United States, but of the world, may get to the truth of what actually happened. I believe that those buildings were destroyed by a controlled demolition. All the evidence of our eyes and the laws of physics points to the probability.

[A]

Well, actually,

[B]

you were wrong.

[A]

Well, unfortunately. Unfortunately, my eyes do not point to that. My eyes pointed to Tim. Well, I was watching it live at the time when I watched two planes crashing into the World Trade Center. I was lying on a sofa recovering from back surgery as it happened and saw it all happen in real time. So I think you're talking complete gobbledygook. And my problem with that is whilst I understand why Matt wants to find answers for his brother, and I would want the same if it was my brother, in your case, I think there's a slightly more insidious reason why you're bankrolling him. I think because of your long history of attacking the American government and the CIA and your huge number of conspiracies that you like to air about what they have and haven't done. And I'm not claiming for a moment either is perfect. But you want me to believe, unless I'm misunderstanding what you said on the record before, that the American government stroke CIA plotted to blow up with explosives the World Trade center and the buildings around it and use the planes as some kind of COVID up for it having recruited a bunch of jihadists from Al Qaeda, right, to do the plane part of it. So that would cover up the fact that they'd actually planted loads of explosives at lower levels of these buildings, which is the real reason they came down. At which point I say, bullshit, Piers,

[B]

you're well known for being a moron, so you don't have to explain.

[A]

One of us is definitely well known for being a moron who espouses conspiracy theories. Yes.

[B]

Let me ask you this, Piers, and I've asked you it before. I'm going to say it again. Should there be an investigation into how the World Trade center buildings 1, 2 and 7 came down or not? Yes, there should. I say. What do you say?

[A]

There have been numerous investigations into this. There have been numerous investigations into everything that happened on 9 11. You just refused to even acknowledge it, which is extraordinary. You think no one's investigating what happened on the biggest terror attack in. In the history of America.

[B]

I'm sure many, many thousands of people have been involved in investigations of it. What I'm saying is that none of it has been heard in public where evidence has been given before a serious congregation of legal minds to say, all right, let's find out what happened. Everybody with half an ounce of sense knows that neither Building 1 nor Building 2 nor Building 7 fell down because there were fires caused by aviation fuel.

[A]

All right, who. Who ordered this? Let's go with your theory. Who Ordered this. Was it President Bush?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Was it President Bush?

[B]

How would you expect me to guess?

[A]

Don't be so cowardly. If you have a theory that people do misdelivery.

[B]

Most obvious culprit, and I don't believe this to be true, by the way, in case he get upset, is the guy who collected billions and billions of dollars in insurance money the next day and didn't go into work that day in his office. And I've forgotten his name now, but the whole thing is. That's a crazy.

[A]

Well, you're talking about Howard Lutnick. Well, hang on, I know who you're talking about. I know who you're talking about. His name is Howard Lutnick. He's in the United States government now. He's part of the cabinet with Donald Trump. He lost his brother that day.

[B]

Well, hang on.

[A]

He lost his brother that day and many hundreds of his employees at Cantor Fitzgerald. He then worked tirelessly to get the families of those who had died proper compensation and got them millions each in compensation. In terms of his work with what happened on 9 11, he was an absolute hero. For you to casually throw that out as some suggestion that because he claimed insurance money, having lost his brother and I think 700 employees. I don't know why you're laughing, that somehow, that somehow that makes him obviously guilty of some kind, kind of complicity in causing this to happen is utterly disgusting. You did your normal Roger Waters thing, you just. You just threw it out there. Who was that guy that made billions from insurance? Oh, yeah, Well, I happen to know who you're talking about, so I won't let you smear him in absentia because actually what you just said, it was disgusting and you know it. You've no evidence whatsoever.

[B]

Don't think it was him. I think it was.

[A]

What are you talking about?

[B]

I have no idea.

[A]

I know. So why do you say things? Why do you say things when you clearly have no idea?

[B]

We know it wasn't caused by Muhammad Atta and his mates, all 15 of them.

[A]

We literally do know that's how it was caused.

[B]

No, we know that's not how.

[A]

That is how it was caused.

[B]

Well, there you go. Let's have an agreement to disagree. I'm supporting Matt Campbell and yes, I've given him a few quid so that to give him a proper legal team to persuade the Attorney General to grant Matt Campbell the right, his right to have an inquest into the death of his brother.

[A]

Let me bring Matt back in here. So, Matt, look, I don't know you. Roger and I have locked horns numerous times. And this is entirely in keeping with the tone of our previous encounters. That's fine. I don't mind robust debate. My concern about your situation is on a human emotional level. I completely understand your burning desire to get answers about what happened to your brother. I would feel the same. I have two brothers. My problem is, I think that Roger is not quite the knight in shining armor that you may think he is. Because I do think he operates from a clear conspiracy theory perspective that the American government were behind what happened on 9 11. And my concern for you is that he might be using you in some way. Are you concerned about that?

[D]

I mean, Roger's not using me to get where I've got today, which is a live case at the Supreme Court. It's taken a lot of money and that's come from all areas, the public, private donors, et cetera. Because it's not cheap doing litigation, particularly things like judicial review and then obviously Supreme Court. I mean, to your point about there being an investigation, what I am concerned about is my brother. In his original inquest that he had in 2013. I've seen what was put in front of the coroner. There was no investigation whatsoever into what caused his death, how he came about his death. Obviously, all the evidence that has been amassed over the years wasn't put in front of the coroner, has been put into the application to the Attorney General. And all I want is for that evidence to make its way into a coroner's court and for it to be tested under oath.

[A]

I understand that my issue is this. I'm not claiming that the 911 Commission was completely, you know, perfect in every way. A lot of people have had criticisms of the way it was set up, the way it was conducted, the findings and so on. But there is general consensus by most people who I would categorize as experts in their field that it is what happened is what we think. If it was the American government, Matt, as Roger clearly believes that in some way they created this so that they could go on a war frenzy. If it was them, thousands of people would have had to have known that. And not one of them has ever come forward to say that's what happened. Not one, not one person involved in this gigantic conspiracy has ever come forward to say this is what really happened. Why?

[D]

There's two things I'd like to say. Number one, the 911 Commission did not look into at all how the Towers came down. They weren't responsible for that. The second thing is plenty of Legal inquiries begin without having whistleblowers or people speaking out. You just follow the evidence. And so what I'm asking for again is for the supreme court to look at this issue of the superpower that the attorney general has, which is essentially, it can block evidence from ever reaching a court of law. And then I want my brother to get a new inquest reopened so this evidence can be examined rather than having sort of endless TV debates or Internet debates, put it in a court of law because that's where it should be.

[A]

Do you think you're going to be successful?

[D]

I hope I am.

[A]

When will you know? Do you think?

[D]

Well, the hearings. 14th, 15th. Because it's a fairly major constitutional issue that's being debated here. You know, basically the gatekeeping power of the attorney general. And is it able to be amenable to judicial review? I expect a decision probably wouldn't be made until early 2027, which is a long time to wait, but, hey, we're 25 years on already.

[A]

Okay, Roger, you know, to my point, I raised to Matt, if it was the American government that was behind this, and thousands of people would have obviously had to have known, why has not one of them ever come forward as a whistleblower to say, this is what happened in every other thing of this nature where there's been some kind of COVID up we eventually get to hear.

[B]

Matt just answered that question more eloquently than I could, and I thought his answer was very good. And he said, in lots of judicial proceedings, there is no whistleblower who starts the ball rolling and comes forward. But that once the ball starts rolling and you have to start the ball rolling in a court of law, then is when we may find people coming forward and giving evidence. When don't feel that if they do, people like you will leap out of the woodwork and call them insane like you do me.

[A]

Well, actually, I've given you guys something wrong. Hang on, hang on.

[B]

The buildings were. The buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

[A]

Just to be clear, so that viewers are under no illusion about the sequence of events. You wanted to do this show. You wanted to come on here with Matt and do this.

[B]

I wanted to support Matt and thank Piers. To give you your absolute credit that you're absolutely due. You don't mind a bit of a barney. And so you sometimes, very occasionally allow me on to your. To your show to have my say about things and which I've done gratefully in the past. So thank you very much again. It's very nice to see you again. And I support Matt absolutely in this. And let's wait and see what happens on October 14th and 15th. And just to speak to all the who haven't yet contributed, there's a crowdfunder running. We need more cash. We need more cash, okay? Please. Oh, look, there it is.

[A]

Out of interest, you're worth A repeated 300 million. Why don't you just finish off the crowd fundraising yourself?

[B]

Why don't you mind your own business?

[A]

Why are you being so tight about it?

[B]

Oh, I very nearly used the F word.

[A]

You can do that. We're uncensored. We're uncensored. So we, like.

[B]

Listen, I, as you quite rightly point out, have a decent sized war chest, but there are a lot of demands on that war chest.

[A]

If this one's.

[B]

Whether I give Matt Campbell any more money for this case in the forthcoming months or years to come remains to be seen. But it's none of your effing business. All right, well, sorry, Matt, I didn't mean to get.

[A]

You're being very over defensive. All I asked you was why? If he's trying to raise more money, why aren't you helping him? If it's that important to.

[B]

I might say you're being very over attacky, Piers.

[A]

No, really, it's asking questions, as always.

[B]

It's how you make your living. I don't mind.

[A]

I just ask questions. You don't have to answer them. You can be over defensive and tell me. Just fuck off. I don't care.

[B]

Okay. I think we've dealt with all your questions. Matt's been.

[A]

Well, you haven't dealt with the fundamental question which goes to your motivation, which was if you. If you believe. No, I understand that, but I think it's. Your motivation for supporting him is because you believe.

[B]

You believe.

[A]

You believe. You believe the American government did this to its own people, which I think is a heinous, totally ridiculous claim to make for which you have zero evidence. And it worries me that you want to use this case as your own personal little platform for continuing to air this bonkers conspiracy theory.

[B]

Well, although you keep repeating what you call a bonkers conspiracy theory, I haven't actually said that on your program, and I'm not going.

[A]

You said it on other programs.

[B]

I'm not going to. I'm not saying it to you, Piers. That's not what I'm.

[A]

We know you said it on other programs, so why would you hesitate to repeat yourself unless you lied last time.

[B]

No, he's going on. What? It's all right. I've got 22. It's only 22. Sorry, what were you saying?

[A]

You're talking to yourself again. Roger, you.

[B]

You're sharp, aren't you? Piers Morgan? I think we're done here, but thank you so much for having us on.

[A]

No, no, thank you. It was very illuminating. Very illuminating. Thank you very much. And thank you, Matt, for coming in. Piers Morgan Osinson is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan uncensored on Spotify and Apple podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical. And we couldn't do it without you.

[C]

When you're a maintenance engineer in a beverage manufacturing plant, you keep production lines moving and quality on track because there is no room for slowdowns. With Grainger's vast selection of high quality motors, sensors, belts and hard to find parts, you can get what you need fast and all in one place. So nothing gets in the way of getting the job done. Call 1-800-granger clickranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.