Latest / UK Column Radio / Matt Campbell is forcing the British government to investigate 9/11 | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

Matt Campbell is forcing the British government to investigate 9/11 | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

0:35
None. Matt Campbell, thank you for
0:40
joining me in the trenches. Thanks, Joe.
0:43
Looking forward to. It Yeah.
0:44
It's been a while since we last chatted.
0:47
I must just tell you, every time I talk to you, I feel like I
0:50
need to go and listen to some prodigy.
0:59
God, it's, it's been a very interesting year.
1:03
But it might make sense if I go back back in time with stuff
1:06
that's come on. Yeah.
1:09
My brother Jeff with AG was on the 106th floor of the North
1:16
Tower on 9/11. And, you know, he was killed and
1:23
his remains were identified over a period of years, 2000 and two,
1:27
2000 and four, 2008, tiny sort of fragments, really.
1:32
And these remains were repatriated back to the UK and
1:39
because obviously he died in, you know, violent and natural
1:45
manner. If it was in the UK, there'd be
1:48
an automatic inquest. But only because we repatriated
1:51
the remains was he entitled to an inquest.
1:56
So after it was adjourned for quite a few years, Jeff, along
2:02
with nine other British victims, had an inquest at the West
2:07
London Coroner's Court in 2013. Which, I mean, the whole thing
2:14
was over in about an hour and 40.
2:16
I mean, I've listened to both the audio and obviously I have
2:19
the transcript as well. Only two out of the 10 victims
2:25
were represented by any family. You know, such a long time, I
2:29
guess after the after everyone had died.
2:35
But yeah, during that one hour, 40, you know, I think two or
2:38
three minutes were spent on my brother's life and death.
2:43
There was no certainly discussion during that one hour
2:49
and 40 about how any of these people came to their death.
2:53
And and anyway, it seemed like a very much, you know, quick,
2:56
let's go through the motions, gave a timeline of some of the,
3:01
you know, some of the events and, you know, from hijacking to
3:06
hitting the towers to the towers collapsing.
3:08
But there there really was no sort of what you'd expect in an
3:11
inquest, which is to establish how someone died.
3:14
Anyway, The they recorded an unlawful killing overseas in an
3:21
act of terrorism. But the the critical thing that
3:23
they said was his death was caused by American Airlines 11
3:30
hitting the tower and subsequently causing its
3:34
collapse. So they're solely putting his
3:37
death down to the impact of the plane bringing down the tower.
3:44
Which of course, is nonsense. Yeah.
3:46
I mean, you know, these, these towers were built to withstand
3:49
impacts of of planes into the towers.
3:52
But it was more the fact that there really was no
3:55
investigation done whatsoever. So bear that in mind when we
3:58
sort of go forward in in time. So sort of around 2020.
4:05
But I mean, so I should say almost immediately, I wanted to
4:11
basically have a new inquest and actually put together a lot of
4:17
the evidence over the years that essentially proves that the
4:20
towers did not come down naturally through fire.
4:25
And yeah, the 2020, along with architects and engineers for 911
4:32
Truth, we managed to raise enough money to basically do
4:37
what's called a Section 13 application.
4:40
That's Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988 Coroner's
4:43
Act, where we put forward, first of all, showing that there's an
4:49
insufficiency inquiry, which is one of the things that the
4:53
coroner's courts are supposed to do.
4:55
And sorry, this is an application to the attorney
4:57
general who have the power to to say yes or no to a new inquest.
5:03
And we also detailed new evidence that hadn't been put
5:08
before the coroner. This is things from eyewitness
5:15
accounts of first responders to explosives and explosions going
5:19
off. You've got expert testimony.
5:22
So this is from physicists, chemists, etcetera, who have
5:25
analysed the dust, who I mean basically spell out some of the
5:30
physical properties that you can see of the two towers.
5:33
You know, for example, the north tower collapsing at a constant
5:38
acceleration for about four seconds, which is impossible if
5:41
it's actually doing work and destroying stuff below.
5:44
And we also there's there's a lot of evidence put there put
5:50
into this application. It was 2 1/2 thousand pages.
5:53
And you know, the attorney general's supposed to look at
5:57
that application and make a decision.
6:01
You know, they, they, I wouldn't say it's routinely done, but
6:04
there's a lot of, you know, people in a year, any given year
6:07
either want an inquest or want an inquest reopened.
6:10
And they go down this path. It's a well trodden path for
6:13
particularly for victim family members of, of, you know,
6:17
someone who's died. And we waited a long time.
6:21
We, we really thought it would be sort of four to six months,
6:23
sorry, excuse me, you know, before we'd hear a decision.
6:30
And we kept waiting and it was 22 months before they actually
6:38
got back to us. And it was a kind of very terse
6:42
couple of paragraphs, rejection of our application, no real
6:47
reasons why apart from basically dismissing our application.
6:54
We at that time, and, and this is probably the first time I met
6:58
you, the only option we have is within 90 days.
7:02
If an authority has made a decision and you wish to
7:07
challenge it, the only real path you've got is to do this thing
7:13
called judicial review. Which is?
7:15
That's when you and I chattered, yes.
7:18
To, to get basically get the judiciary, the courts to look
7:22
into a decision that authority has given in this case, the
7:25
attorney general. And is it lawful?
7:28
Was it irrational? You know, these are kind of
7:30
legal tests that they can, they can do.
7:33
And you know, we managed to, to, to, to basically put together
7:38
our case. We fired it off to the attorney
7:42
general, effectively warning them of, of litigation that's
7:45
going to come. And they obviously at that point
7:48
realised that their decision was so flawed, wouldn't stand up to
7:54
legal scrutiny. They withdrew that first
7:58
decision and, and basically said we'd make a new one.
8:02
So litigation didn't continue, which was a, a victory of sorts.
8:07
You know that they, they obviously realised that their,
8:10
their arguments are very weak. So four months later, so we're
8:14
now talking January 2024, they came back with a second decision
8:21
and again it was a refusal. And to be honest, it wasn't much
8:24
better than the first. There's a little bit more
8:27
detail, but you know, it was something that would easily not
8:32
hold up to to scrutiny in the courts.
8:34
Does reopening this investigation change anything?
8:41
It won't bring my brother back, but you know, in do you mean in
8:46
terms of over in the States or in the Uki mean.
8:50
So first of all, it would change the the cause of death.
8:57
Yeah. And and without getting to that,
9:00
just to give you an indication, for example.
9:02
So if you remember Hillsborough disaster, yeah, that the first
9:07
verdicts there will return accidental death when they
9:11
subsequently, after fighting for 25 plus years, got new inquests,
9:16
which incidentally were blocked to the families through the same
9:19
mechanism I'm trying to do. But you know, eventually it did
9:22
come out through an inquiry. The cause of death was put down
9:27
as unlawful killing. Now again, it's not going to
9:31
bring any of their loved ones back, but it's it's precisely
9:33
what the families kept telling us, completely against what the
9:36
papers were telling us and what the police were telling us and
9:39
what the government was telling us that no, they were unlawfully
9:42
killed basically by actions and inactions of the police.
9:47
So it's about what's true. It's what's true that that's
9:50
what that's what it's about 100%.
9:53
You know, like I said, it's not going to bring my my brother
9:55
back. There are some obviously
9:59
geopolitical implications. Should, you know, for example,
10:03
the coroner's court, if we should be able to get there,
10:06
when we get there, actually say that it was explosives that
10:09
brought down the the towers and not fire.
10:13
Oh yeah. That changes.
10:15
That changes a lot of things. But yeah, so I guess I hope that
10:22
answers your your question about, you know, you know what
10:25
it what it doesn't, doesn't. So we've got this second
10:30
decision, which I said was, you know, very poor.
10:35
It's clear they hadn't engaged with any of our evidence and the
10:38
eyewitnesses and, and, and the like.
10:41
And so again, we have this 90 days where you, if you're going
10:49
to challenge it, you have to go and do it through the courts and
10:52
you have to do what's you have to apply for permission to have
10:57
a judicial review. So you, I mean, again, it's
11:02
obviously it's all costing money.
11:03
I mean, God bless. It's all being funded by the
11:06
very generous public because we're talking, you know, 10s of
11:08
thousands of pounds to do all this, this stuff to engage a
11:12
barrister. Sorry, excuse me.
11:17
So I mean, as has been the way with minutes to go for the
11:22
deadline in April 2024, we actually filed a application for
11:29
judicial review. And I think it was kind of
11:37
October, the Attorney General, they came back with their
11:41
arguments and it was the first time that they used their
11:46
so-called get out of jail free card, their trump card, which is
11:50
decisions of the attorney general are non justiciable,
11:54
which basically means they're above the law.
11:57
The law can't scrutinize any decision, particularly in our
12:01
case, a Section 13 inquest application, which, you know,
12:08
yes, that has been the case that they have relied on an
12:13
interpretation from a case back in the 70s, but it's certainly
12:19
not law. So anyway, our application was
12:23
obviously sitting there with the, the High Court judges and
12:27
they've obviously got the arguments of the Attorney
12:31
General. And you know, there, there is a
12:33
chance that the, there was a chance that the High Court could
12:35
have just said, Yep, the attorney general's right, they
12:40
are above the law. Their, their decisions can't be
12:43
looked at by the judiciary. But instead a justice called
12:51
Chamberlain decided very unusually to effectively break
12:58
our application into two hearings.
13:01
And the first one was going to be what's called a preliminary
13:04
issue hearing, which is essentially his argument was
13:08
from the court's perspective is before we go into, I should have
13:12
said our judicial review application is 9 1/2 thousand
13:16
pages long. So from the judiciary's point of
13:21
view, they basically said, OK, we need to look at this
13:24
preliminary issue of is the attorney general above the law
13:28
or not? And which is, you know,
13:32
frustrating because it's, it's another thing that we, it's got
13:36
nothing to do with what I'm trying to do, which is get my
13:38
brother's inquest reopened. We've already gone down this
13:40
path of, you know, sorting out some legal detail that really
13:47
has no bearing on my or shouldn't have any bearing on my
13:49
case. But it's obviously was an
13:51
important decision to, they'll make a decision on is whether
13:55
the attorney general is above the law or not.
13:58
So we had a hearing in June this year.
14:00
I went there with my 8 year old mother who was I think a week
14:03
before her, her 80th birthday. And you know, and I should say
14:09
we because of what we were trying to do, we had to engage
14:15
AKC, which is a King's council, which is kind of like a
14:19
barrister with bells and whistles.
14:22
They're they're more expensive than barristers.
14:25
But you know, we need that kind of level of knowledge and
14:31
experience because we were going against Sir Edie, who is the he
14:38
was the legal counsel for the attorney general, but he is the
14:41
government go to man for everything that's
14:44
constitutional. Anything that the government
14:46
needs to hide behind, they seem to use this guy.
14:49
Just hang on, Matt. What does what?
14:51
What does your mother think of all of this?
14:54
Mum is kind of like me, as in she wants to know the truth and
15:02
yet that's not affecting her memory of, of Jeff.
15:05
And so she's very pleased with I guess what I've been trying to
15:09
do. I mean, Mike from the early
15:11
days, you know, she'd be reading books that I'd recommend read,
15:15
she'd watch documentaries, etcetera.
15:18
My, my, you know, my brother and dad are brother.
15:20
Rob and dad are slightly different.
15:22
You know, they just, they, they're supportive of what I'm
15:25
doing. I mean, certainly Rob is, but
15:27
they kind of, you know, just remember Jeff how he wasn't
15:30
like, I acknowledge none of this is going to bring him back, but,
15:33
but I do think that the truth is important to, to bring out to,
15:38
to everyone, not least myself and my mum.
15:41
So, yeah, mum's been very supportive of what I've been
15:45
doing over the years. So, you know, we're in there.
15:48
It was a, it was a one day hearing and you know, my KC God
15:54
bless. A nice mix of self deprecating
15:57
humour, bit of sarcasm in the court, you know, taking the
16:02
Mickey out of really some of the arguments that the attorney
16:05
general's legal counsel were making.
16:08
I think at one point, because honestly, the the attorney
16:12
general, it didn't sound like he was making any arguments.
16:16
He talked for about an hour, threw a few Latin words in as as
16:21
the courts love to do the old legalese.
16:23
And, you know, basically after the attorney general finished,
16:26
he sort of just said thank you very much for that master class
16:30
in, you know, legalese mumbo jumbo kind of thing because it
16:33
was just no real substance behind the arguments.
16:36
But anyway, there, there are few other anecdotes I could tell,
16:40
but I don't know, probably haven't got enough time to go
16:42
through them. But essentially, I thought we
16:46
put a good case forward. We went back and examined law
16:49
that was, you know, from the 19th century that also affected
16:54
our case. And you know, what we
16:56
established is there is no law that says the attorney general
17:01
is above the law. What the courts and what the
17:04
attorney general were relying on, like I said, was the a
17:08
judge's interpretation of a case in the 70s to do with the post
17:14
office against the, the, the union.
17:19
And it has no real bearing on our case, but and particularly
17:22
anything to do with the Section 18, Section 13 application.
17:28
But you know, that's that they relied on that that finding
17:32
where basically they said that the attorney general is not a
17:36
amenable to judicial review. So anyway, we, we hearing ended
17:41
and we knew that there'd be, you know, at least a couple of weeks
17:44
before a decision was made. And we got that decision on the
17:48
1st of July. And unfortunately, the High
17:53
Court judges there, there were two of them.
17:55
I should have said the guy who actually ordered the primary
17:58
issue was a younger judge. And he seemed very much on side
18:01
throughout the whole of the proceedings, almost enjoying
18:06
some of the Mickey taking that Mike Casey was doing of the
18:10
attorney general's counsel. And there was an older judge.
18:13
He was very much more I, I, I think, stuck in his ways,
18:18
traditional conservatives sort of judge.
18:21
And anyway, we last they basically agreed that the
18:26
interpretation of the case in the 70s Gurrier still stood,
18:33
which, you know, we kind of expected might be an outcome.
18:37
But what we didn't expect was the wording that the judges used
18:43
throughout the, the judgement essentially saying, well, they
18:47
actually used the word twice, that this position in law that
18:51
they're having to, to, to kind of stand by because precedent
18:56
was set in, in a, in a higher court is anomalous.
19:01
And you know, that doesn't sound like a big word, but in law,
19:03
that's, that's massive. And certainly if you look back
19:07
historically, which was part of our argument, you know, the last
19:09
20-30 years, law has become very progressive.
19:12
I mean, certainly modern judicial review is different to
19:14
how it used to be, say 50 years, let alone 100 years ago.
19:20
And basically spelt it out that the only court that can deal
19:23
with this without having their hands tied from this strange
19:27
interpretation for this case in the 70s is the Supreme Court.
19:32
So after discussion with my, my counsel, we decided that it
19:41
looked like the High Court judges had left the door not
19:46
just a little bit open, but wide open for us to apply for what's
19:49
called a leapfrog certificate, which is a, you're applying to
19:55
basically leapfrog the normal path, which would be the Court
19:58
of Appeal and go straight up to the Supreme Court.
20:03
To apply to the Supreme Court, we're having to go through the
20:06
cost of the time. And frankly, it had the same
20:09
outcome at the Court of Appeal because it's it's not
20:12
sufficiently high enough. And so the judges basically said
20:16
the Supreme Court needs to deal with this.
20:18
So we applied for the leapfrog certificate.
20:22
It's kind of rare to do that. Only a few are granted or even
20:25
applied for each year. And it was granted, which
20:29
basically means, and that was against the objections made by
20:34
the attorney. And of course they objected.
20:37
So it completely ignored their objections and they granted
20:41
without any restrictions, the leapfrog certificate, which
20:44
basically paved the way for us to apply directly to the Supreme
20:50
Court for an appeal. And that's called a permission
20:53
to appeal. And so we did that in September.
20:56
Again, the Attorney General legal team objected, as of
21:01
course they're going to do. You think that they don't want
21:06
us to go ahead because they're hiding something or or do you
21:10
think that they just feel that's it's a waste of time?
21:15
No, I mean, so my KC only got involved January this year when
21:22
we had this preliminary hearing issue and he wasn't aware of our
21:27
inquest application. And, you know, everything had
21:29
gone before. And I mean, they're, they're
21:33
obviously they're from the same chambers.
21:35
Nick Bowen is the Casey and Nick Stanage is the barrister.
21:41
I mean, I think the first conversation with Bowen was he,
21:44
he couldn't understand why we were being blocked.
21:47
I mean, clearly we were well above the threshold that
21:50
normally would allow or trigger a new inquest.
21:53
I, the attorney general would grant permission.
21:56
I mean, he was so perplexed by this.
21:57
Actually one of the anecdotes I wasn't going to tell her, but
22:00
I'll tell her during the actual hearing we had at the High
22:03
Court. I mean, he's there and he just
22:06
musing out loud going, you know, for reasons unknown.
22:11
I don't, you know, why did it take 22 months for the attorney
22:15
general to make that first decision?
22:17
And then he said, why is the attorney general so insistent on
22:22
denying this family's right to an inquest, to a new inquest?
22:28
Is there some sort of trade deal being promised in the background
22:32
with Trump if they don't allow a new inquest to go ahead?
22:35
He's already sitting there. Just, you know, not coming up
22:39
with conspiracy theories because like he can't understand why
22:42
this hasn't just been stamped and, and put through because
22:45
we're so far above the threshold of what's required.
22:47
We can absolutely prove insufficiency of inquiry.
22:50
They did 0 investigations to my brother's death.
22:53
We've got all this new evidence that, you know, from first
22:56
responders that's including police officers and medics,
23:00
etcetera, that that's enough on its own, let alone the, the
23:05
evidence we have on the physics side, the chemistry side,
23:07
etcetera. So, yeah, I mean, they, they are
23:13
definitely blocking us having this new inquest.
23:16
It's, it's not because they think it's pointless.
23:20
It's because I think there's obviously like I talked about
23:23
earlier, obvious geopolitical ramifications or let alone
23:28
change the, the, the cause of death of my brother.
23:31
I'm not naive to that. I do appreciate that it's going
23:35
to rock the boat massively. Yeah.
23:38
So, yeah, where was I? Yeah.
23:41
So we were talking about the leapfrog certificate.
23:45
So we've we've got granted that we've applied to the Supreme
23:48
Court. The Attorney general's made
23:50
exactly the same arguments they made when trying to oppose the
23:54
leapfrog certificate, which frankly, they haven't got a leg
23:57
to stand on. And so, you know, whilst you can
24:00
never be confident, you know, God, if I ask my barristers,
24:03
they always go 5050 just because they know it's constitutional
24:06
and their experience goes, it's never straightforward.
24:09
Even on paper it looks like you're winning.
24:11
You never really know. But I was confident we were
24:14
going to get granted the the the right to appeal this at the
24:19
Supreme Court and actually have a hearing there, primarily
24:22
because a on paper arguments are sound.
24:25
But I think there was a a little bit of extra weight given to
24:30
that LEAP prop certificate because the justice that had
24:34
granted it is the head of the administrative courts of the
24:40
Royal Courts of Justice. So, you know, he deals with all
24:43
the judicial, he's the top of the judicial review justices.
24:48
Yeah. So, you know, to have that, I've
24:52
already gone through a legal lens, the highest in the High
24:56
Court for that to be rejected to the Supreme Court.
24:59
I mean, apart from it being a blatant block, you know, it
25:03
wasn't, you know, unless the hidden hand is doing stuff like
25:06
that. I wasn't expecting us not to get
25:08
permission granted. So it was pleasantly surprising
25:12
a couple of weeks ago to receive notification that we had been
25:17
granted permission to appeal. That's great news.
25:22
Yeah. I mean, you know, it's, it means
25:24
our case is still live and we had to scramble.
25:28
I mean, you know, to say I'm engaged in lawfare is is an
25:32
understatement. It's so expensive, it's taking
25:35
time that, you know, lawfare is, it's a function of trying to
25:38
kill you time wise, money wise, and, and also to a certain
25:42
extent, you know, energy wise, you know, because it's quite
25:47
draining to be doing this all the time and to, to keep coming
25:50
up with things. But you know, we're making
25:52
progress and, you know, for the reasons I can go into, you know,
25:57
if, if they wanted to kill this, they could have killed it and
25:59
they haven't. So we'll be on now Friday the
26:03
5th, on Wednesday the 3rd after a bit of a frantic crowdfunding
26:13
exercise because you only have two weeks from when you get the
26:16
permission to appeal granted to actually file what's called a
26:21
notice of an intention to proceed.
26:25
So you have to basically pay the court fees upfront and say you
26:28
want to proceed with a hearing. I mean, the cost, the cost of
26:34
access to justice in this country is, is frightening.
26:38
How much matter? It was so much of you.
26:41
So I'm sorry, how much have you spent in total on this?
26:44
Health or you mean? Well, I mean your you and your
26:47
team, I guess. We are already over 300,000 lbs.
26:52
Oh my goodness. I mean, it's, you know, what
26:55
should have been fairly straightforward, which would
26:58
have kept our costs, you know, down to that initial, you know,
27:02
whatever it was at 70,000 should have been sufficient and we
27:07
should be in a coroner's court now.
27:09
But we've had to go down this, this, you know?
27:13
Dude you are legit. That is a serious amount of
27:15
money. It's, it's properly serious
27:17
about money. So I mean, just going back to
27:18
the fees. So the fee alone to be able to
27:23
have a hearing in the Supreme Court is 7855 lbs.
27:27
Up until 2024, that was £800. Now, that's still a lot of
27:32
money, but, you know, it gives you some idea of, you know, but
27:36
not, yeah, I mean, you can't get justice at a certain level in
27:42
this country unless you've got access to money.
27:44
And I said, thankfully I've had a lot of support from from the
27:47
public in order to do this. So just to go through some of
27:52
the mechanisms of, of what's just happened.
27:55
So the permission to appeal stage and bear in mind this is
28:01
all to do with the justiciability.
28:02
I mean, it seems so ridiculous this day and age.
28:06
I know we still have a king, but you know, you're talking almost
28:09
regal powers that the attorney general has that they're still
28:12
above the law in certain decisions.
28:16
You know it, it seems crazy. But anyway, in our permission to
28:19
appeal what what went on is your application is is looked at by
28:25
three judges from the Supreme Court court panel.
28:28
I think there's 12 of them, I think, so we had three.
28:34
For the record. Their names were Lord, of
28:36
course, they're all Lords, Lord Lloyd Jones, Lord Burrows and
28:40
Lord Stevens. I think 1's Irishman, Englishman
28:44
and a a Welshman. There's probably a joke there
28:46
somewhere, but. They they walk into a bar.
28:53
They're doing, no pun intended, 5 Yeah.
28:56
And you know, so I, I do know that I think it's Lord Lloyd
29:01
Jones has written a pretty scathing piece attacking
29:06
effectively government immunity and how the judiciary isn't
29:11
allowed to to scrutinize such things.
29:13
So anyway, so we, we had these three judges, they've ruled in
29:17
our favour. As I said, I kind of expected
29:20
the next step. Well, first of all, the actual
29:23
hearing itself, it's a minimum of five Supreme Court judges on
29:29
major important constitutional matters.
29:32
It's normally a minimum of seven, always an odd number so
29:38
that that's some way down the line.
29:39
So our next step is to file what's called a statement of
29:49
facts and issues, which it's not actually our case.
29:54
It's it's essentially agreeing terms with the Attorney General
29:58
and the courts on the legal framework, what the issues are,
30:01
what we're trying to resolve, what we agree on, what we don't
30:04
agree on. And that needs to be done by the
30:07
25th of March. And then I think shortly
30:11
afterwards we get either the hearing date set, which could be
30:16
as early as July, probably going to push it out after the summer,
30:20
summer break, see probably looking September time frame,
30:23
which would be really odd because that'll be around the
30:25
25th anniversary seems quite astonishing.
30:30
And in between that we have to submit our full argued case and
30:37
and likewise the attorney general.
30:39
It's, it's a lot of work. I mean, both, they're both
30:45
called Nick, but both Barrister and Casey have said it's about a
30:49
month's work, you know, for each of them, which is if you know
30:53
the rates, what these guys charge, that's a lot of money.
30:58
And so, you know, I've got a set about trying to raise that over
31:03
the next couple of months to ensure that this fight still
31:06
still carries on. I mean, it's one of those things
31:08
on paper, for all the reasons why the leapfrog certificate was
31:15
granted, for all the reasons that the High Court in their
31:19
judgement, from our hearing back in June, basically pointing out
31:23
this is completely anomalous in modern judicial review.
31:28
You know, I'm as confident as I can be that the Supreme Court
31:32
will basically rule that the decision of the Attorney General
31:36
should be fit in matters relating to reopening inquests
31:42
should be amenable to judicial review, which would be, I mean,
31:47
that obviously has far reaching implications, not just for me
31:53
and my family, but for any family that is trying to get an
31:58
inquest reopened into a loved one's death.
32:00
And, and I've already cited Hillsborough, the families were
32:05
repeatedly blocked in the early years when the first inquest
32:08
were returned, saying it was an accidental death.
32:13
And I was going to ask you now. I was going to ask you now, have
32:16
you been fighting us alone or have you had other families
32:21
joining you? So in in my application, the
32:26
going back to the actual inquest application, I've got letters of
32:31
support from victim family members over in the US, in the
32:36
UK. So there was 67 British victims.
32:41
I mean, you know, a large percentage of those people
32:45
actually lived and worked over in the States.
32:48
So their remains were never repatriated.
32:50
And, you know, I've not had a chance to to meet any of those
32:53
families. I know about 20 of the victim
33:01
families in the UK. There used to be a sort of
33:04
regular annual meet up, you know, not least for the on the
33:09
anniversary with it's like a family support group in the UK
33:15
out of those 20. So I did try to raise it at one
33:18
of the Agms and, you know, the naming names, the the people who
33:24
sort of ran the group at the time weren't very enthusiastic
33:27
about me, you know, raising my concerns about the events of 911
33:33
and obviously, you know, ultimately the deaths of their
33:35
loved ones. But three people or three
33:38
representations of three victims did speak with me.
33:44
One very supportive what I'm doing, but their own personal
33:48
circumstance makes it awkward for them to a speak out and B,
33:52
be involved publicly what I'm doing. 1 chap.
33:56
I thought he was going to give me a letter of support, but at
33:59
last minute he bottled out because of peer pressure from
34:02
one of his brothers of, you know, don't get involved with
34:05
the, you know, so-called conspiracy theory type stuff.
34:10
And one of the family, you know, they're very old, not in great
34:16
health. He's very supportive but doesn't
34:19
want to go public. He but he's actually beat when
34:21
he went over to the states on one of the anniversaries, ended
34:24
up having a long chat with a fire fighter.
34:27
He was part of the a kind of 9/11 protest or, you know,
34:32
activism over there. And he's very aware of the
34:38
impossible elements of what we've been told, particularly
34:41
from a firefighter's perspective.
34:45
And yes. So yes, I've got support, but
34:47
not anything meaningful that can help my application legally.
34:54
That's so weird, Matt, that people are too scared to
34:58
challenge the official narrative.
35:00
Yeah, it's, it's a, it's a bit of that which it's frustrating,
35:04
but I, I totally get it because like I said, even in my own
35:07
family for just take it a cross section.
35:09
You know, my brother and my dad, whilst they're supportive, you
35:12
know, they've, I mean, Rob has done a few things, but you know,
35:15
to, to come out and, and talk about this is not something I'd
35:19
feel comfortable with. Certainly my dad, you can
35:23
remember it from it. It just keeps picking and
35:26
reopening A wound. So I'm basically, although I've,
35:29
I've done a lot of healing over the years, you know, even just
35:32
going back and talking about my brother or the events that day
35:36
and and to a lesser extent my fight sins is kind of almost
35:41
keeping that wound fresh. It's not completely healed.
35:45
I mean, it won't heal from me anyway if I don't find out, you
35:49
know, as best I can the truth. But I kind of get it that people
35:53
don't want to go there. It's frustrating if it's just
35:56
purely, you know, because they're afraid of what people
36:00
might think because you're challenging the official
36:02
narrative, you know, But I think some of it is, is more just it's
36:07
reopening old wounds and, and, and I'll tell you, it's not
36:11
easy. You know, I've lost count of the
36:14
amount of, you know, things I've watched films, dramas where, you
36:18
know, just casually 9/11's dropped in all the time or it's
36:22
given for a reason for this to to go and, you know, do war or
36:26
some intelligence dodgy stuff. You know, it's just dramas.
36:29
It's just, it's referenced all the time.
36:31
And you know, it's not as as heavy as it used to be.
36:34
But I mean, the first few years were just ridiculous.
36:36
You repeatedly see, you know, endless clips of of the attacks
36:42
and stuff. It's, it's not easy for people.
36:44
So I, I have respect for those that don't want to engage.
36:47
But but yeah, I mean, that's, it's not just victim family
36:51
members, it's anyone, isn't it? Like if, if something, if
36:55
you're, if you're being told that's a, you know, a brick,
36:58
it's something. No, it's not, it's a cup.
36:59
But you, you're frightened of saying it's a brick.
37:02
It's ridiculous. What?
37:06
So, OK, so now what do you think is going to happen?
37:09
So like I said, I'm as confident as I can be that should we
37:14
actually get this into the Supreme Court and that by that I
37:16
mean raising the funds that are required to, to do that, because
37:20
we already have the green light from the Supreme Court to do
37:23
this. I think we will win because it
37:28
is so anomalous and because it's, I mean, to give you an
37:31
idea, you know, other countries have been through this process
37:35
that were perhaps formerly part of the Commonwealth or have a
37:39
similar set up with an attorney general where this has been
37:43
challenged successfully. And now such decisions for
37:46
inquests are amenable to judicial review.
37:50
And this will obviously form, I'm guessing part of our
37:52
arguments to the Supreme Court that, you know, precedents are
37:56
already being set. You know, other countries don't
37:59
enjoy this. I said regal privilege.
38:02
I mean, it's, it's almost unthinkable in this day and age
38:05
that you've got someone, I mean, they're not even, they're elect
38:09
the government's elected, but we don't choose the attorney
38:11
general and they change every time with every government and
38:15
for to not be able to scrutinise their decisions, you know,
38:19
sticks out like a very sore thumb.
38:22
So I, I'm confident at that level the, the steps that that
38:27
would happen basically. So we win at the Supreme Court.
38:31
We go back to, it's like a game of snakes analysis.
38:34
We go all the way back to the High Court where we're, strictly
38:39
speaking, we're still at the permission stage.
38:41
So even though I've paid the fees for the full hearing,
38:43
because we had to for the preliminary issue hearing,
38:46
because it was split into two, it goes back to the High Court.
38:51
They need to consider permission on the papers and essentially
38:54
permission is granted for judicial review on on the simple
38:59
test, which is, is your case arguable?
39:03
Yeah, I can you argue that you need the courts to legally
39:08
scrutinize the decision made by the attorney general.
39:10
I mean, all day long. I mean, it's, it's so obvious
39:14
that they haven't engaged, they have acted unlawfully,
39:17
irrationally, all the, the standard measures of, of, of how
39:20
you would get a judicial review granted.
39:24
And, and, and also an important point, I do get asked this, you
39:27
know, a fair bit is when we first applied to the, for the
39:32
judicial review, the High Court had at its disposal one of the
39:38
measures which would have been to dismiss the application
39:42
totally without merit, which is basically, this is ludicrous and
39:46
they could have just thrown it out.
39:48
They didn't do that. So for me, we've already got
39:52
merit in our case and to even think about splitting it into a
39:57
preliminary issue with this issue of justice ability makes
40:01
no sense if they really wanted to Kick It Out at that that
40:03
first hurdle. So we we're expecting permission
40:06
to be straightforward. And remember this is going back
40:10
to the same judge that has basically opened the door to the
40:14
Supreme Court. So I'd be very surprised if we
40:17
don't get permission granted. Once permission's granted, we
40:22
then actually have the judicial review.
40:26
And I'm hoping at this stage we have successfully managed to
40:31
obtain a proportion of the funds that that we spent to get to the
40:37
Supreme Court because you can get costs awarded from the other
40:41
side, which would then fund the judicial review in, in
40:45
potentially even some of the inquest itself.
40:49
But at that judicial review would be the first time.
40:54
So it was, it was mentioned briefly in that premiership
40:58
hearing in June, some of the evidence that we have, but
41:01
obviously that wasn't the issue. It's just to see ability.
41:03
It wasn't anything to do with actually our evidence to do with
41:06
911. So that judicial review at the
41:09
High Court would be our first opportunity to go through the
41:15
huge amount of evidence that we have to basically show that we
41:20
are way above the threshold that's necessary to get a new
41:24
inquest reopened. And I said we can prove all day
41:28
that there was insufficiency inquiry.
41:30
I mean, there really was nothing.
41:33
I, I, I don't know if I've mentioned previously, but we, we
41:38
managed to get hold of as part of the process waiting for
41:42
application to be, you know, approved or not approved.
41:46
This is way back in 2122. We managed to obtain the police
41:52
report that had been hidden from me.
41:55
It was classed as exempt from disclosure by the police.
41:59
And this is counter terrorism essay 15.
42:02
He prepared a report for the coroner to look at and I, I
42:09
guess because I had legal representation at this point, we
42:13
were talking to the courts, we were talking to the attorney
42:14
general. This document was released to us
42:18
and I was expecting, you know, something quite substantial and
42:23
something hidden in there that they don't want us to know, you
42:26
know, some information about the attacks, etcetera and and how
42:31
the towers came down. It was the complete opposite.
42:35
I think they hid it from us because it's embarrassing.
42:37
It's about four pages, an executive summary, which you
42:43
know, it's, it's so ridiculous. It's like telling a story.
42:47
You had a timeline of events on for AA11 and UA175 and A1 page
42:54
summary of Zechariah Masui, who was one of the people who was
43:01
arrested prior to the attacks. And that was just a one page
43:04
report from the FBI, which has nothing to do or any bearing on
43:08
my brother's death or how he died.
43:10
That was it. I mean, that that was the extent
43:13
of what was put in front of the coroner for her to make her
43:15
decision on how he died. You know, that's embarrassing
43:19
for them for that to be exposed. And so, you know, for me, again,
43:26
I've got ridiculous optimism. You know, I can't see how we can
43:30
lose the judicial review because it's clear that they, there was
43:34
no investigation, they haven't engaged whatsoever with our
43:38
evidence, new evidence that is sold of the threshold that would
43:42
normally be required. I mean to give you an idea, Jim
43:44
how easy it is to get an inquest reopened.
43:48
Whilst we were waiting for the application to be deciding a
43:51
decision to be made, we submitted any new cases that
43:57
came up that could be supportive of our application.
44:00
So some of those were rulings that judges have made on
44:05
inquests being reopened. You know, and judges are saying
44:07
things like it should almost be sufficient that if a family
44:12
demands a new inquest be reopened, that's sufficient to
44:15
open a new inquest. Now, I mean, obviously that's a
44:18
little bit of a low threshold, but you get, you get the point.
44:21
That's a judge basically saying, of course a new inquest is going
44:23
to be opened because, you know, the family wanted it.
44:29
Yeah. So for us to have all this new
44:30
evidence and eyewitness testimony and, and, and the
44:33
like, and for it to not be sufficiently strong enough to
44:38
show that the Attorney General has acted unlawfully
44:41
irrationally in, in dismissing our application is, is going to
44:44
be. What do you think actually
44:47
happened on the day? Oh, that's, yeah, a kind of kind
44:53
of a big complicated question. I mean, the the answer to that
44:56
is what we, what we know right now.
44:59
So people ask me what like. Well, that's the official story.
45:02
Yes, I know. Yeah.
45:03
So what I think was involved, and you can kind of prove this
45:10
in a court of law, is the CIA were actively protecting 2 of
45:15
the hijackers. They knew they were, you know,
45:19
so-called Al Qaeda. From the Malaysian summit in
45:22
January 2000 to entering the US and withholding that from the
45:27
FBI. Those same 2 hijackers, alleged
45:32
hijackers were again protected, given material support by Saudi
45:41
Arabia and Saudi Arabia intelligence and Saudi Arabian
45:44
government officials who I believe were part of an
45:48
operation that the CIA were involved in.
45:51
And this is, this is all documents that have gone through
45:53
either Guantanamo courts or have been part of the, the Saudi
45:56
lawsuits. And then you've also got Israeli
45:59
foreknowledge and you know, there's this share share
46:03
memorandum, there's the, I mean, the amount of Mossad agents that
46:09
were living amongst the he terrorists is, is almost mind
46:12
boggling. You know, we're talking like 200
46:14
meters away in amongst all the DEA and they were watching the
46:18
the American DADEA agents. You know, for me, a lot of
46:26
people knew what what was happening, what was going to
46:29
happen that that I have no doubt.
46:32
And so, you know, at an absolute minimum, it was a let it happen
46:36
on purpose, you know, event kind of like Pearl Harbour.
46:40
However you want to historically frame that it.
46:46
And again, you can you can prove what's what's continued to go on
46:52
over the last 24 years is the cover up.
46:55
So you've got a cover up from the government's, you know,
46:59
successive governments in the US.
47:02
You've had the blocking of the Saudi trial that my father
47:07
became a plaintiff of in I think 2002.
47:10
He's with Motley Rice. You've got, I mean, Obama, I
47:16
think was he tried to veto the, the, the passing of the JASA
47:21
act, which allows you to sue a foreign state because up to that
47:26
point, you know, nations were immune.
47:28
You either, I guess you either went to war with them or you,
47:31
you didn't fight against them. I don't know what the, the
47:32
situation was then. And you know, so for me, the,
47:37
the most frustrating thing now again, is, is to try and get
47:40
access to the truth is it's still actively being covered up.
47:43
You've still got so many files redacted.
47:47
You know, that's frustrating to me.
47:50
You've got the trial, the never ending trial that will never get
47:54
to trial down at Guantanamo Bay, which, you know, for all its its
47:57
faults, you know, at the moment is the only live case to do with
48:03
the attacks. I mean, it is absolutely
48:06
unfathomable that 2425 years on, there's not been any legal Case,
48:13
No accountability for, for what went on that day.
48:16
And and that goes down to those that did fail, you know, on
48:20
paper, all of them got bloody promotions.
48:24
I mean, that that's just astonishing to me from, you
48:26
know, the intelligence side and defence side, they all went on
48:29
to do better things after, you know, failing so badly, whether
48:33
by design or accidentally because they're incompetent, who
48:36
knows, you know, So it's what exactly happened is hard to
48:43
know. I said what I'm trying to shine
48:45
a light on is the fact that those towers did not come down
48:48
naturally through fires. And I, and I think the most
48:50
controlled it, it, it, it was, yeah, it was controlled and it
48:54
was brought down. They were brought down
48:55
deliberately. And, and the easiest way into
48:58
that, if you, you know, have a block on that is to look at
49:00
Building 7. You know, if we're to believe
49:03
the official narrative and you know, that what NIST came up
49:07
with, the National Institute of Standards and Technologies, the
49:10
people who were tasked by the American authorities to look
49:13
into the collapse of the towers, but in particular Building 7 and
49:17
47 stories, if you believe what they said, Richie, was, it was a
49:22
natural progressive collapse. They've reinterpreted Luton's
49:27
Newton's Laws of Mechanics. You know, you just can't have
49:31
something falling at freefall acceleration and still think
49:34
there's something underneath supporting it.
49:36
And the only way that happens is when you deliberately take down
49:38
a building, you know, So, yeah, that, that's my area.
49:44
The scope of an inquest is about how my brother died.
49:47
It's not, you know, how the attacks were orchestrated, how
49:51
they were planned, how they were carried out.
49:53
It it's, it's all about how he was killed.
49:57
And and so, you know, that's, I guess what I'm trying to
50:00
establish and get to the truth of that through the mechanism of
50:04
an inquest. I mean, I think what's what's
50:06
interesting for me is when, not if we get to an actual new
50:11
inquest, it's not supposed to be adversarial.
50:15
So it's not me against the authorities.
50:17
It's supposed to be a coroner in a court of law looking at all
50:22
evidence that's put before before them.
50:25
So to have legal representation there is going to be critical
50:28
because they can't, you know, dismiss someone saying trying to
50:31
post ADVD to the the judge or sending a pile of papers.
50:35
It's like, no, no, we're going through legal representation.
50:38
The coroner has to deal with it. The authorities have to deal
50:41
with freefall. And, you know, good luck to any
50:44
physicist who wants to prostitute himself and basically
50:47
come up with a new, you know, Newton's laws and mechanics
50:49
version too. You know, good luck with that.
50:53
This is not something that's going to be overnight, but you
50:55
have spent so much money on this that there has to be an outcome
51:01
at some point. Yeah.
51:04
I mean, well, I mean, one outcome would be is how corrupt
51:07
the judiciary is if they don't basically side with us and
51:12
saying that the attorney general's above the law.
51:14
I mean, it'll be a very strange message to send out to the rest
51:16
of the world when like I've said, there's already countries
51:19
that have removed this regal power that the attorney general
51:24
has. I mean, just to give you a
51:26
flavour of, of, you know, some of the cases that have been
51:28
blocked, maybe remember David Kelly, the weapons inspector,
51:33
Iraq war, you know, they've blocked, they used the mechanism
51:37
to block an inquest being reopened.
51:40
So a group of doctors, pathologists who could see that
51:44
something's absolutely not right with David Kelly's death, trying
51:49
to get his inquest reopened that was blocked using the mechanism
51:52
that that was still in place. Now they didn't go down the path
51:56
I've gone because they didn't have a judge that was willing to
52:00
break this into a preliminary issue and have this thing
52:03
scrutinised once and for all. So, yeah, I mean, it's for me.
52:10
It, it, it will show whether that, you know, we've got an
52:14
open, fair judicial system or not, depending on where this
52:18
goes. Because I said on paper, we win
52:20
all the way, you know, the, the inquest and trying to, to get to
52:23
the truth of exactly what happened.
52:24
Like you say, that's going to take time.
52:26
And you know, we may not establish that even during my
52:29
inquest, there's going to be elements that we, we won't be
52:32
able to, to prove or disprove. But yeah, it is like JFK, this
52:36
is going to be. Going on, you said you said
52:39
earlier that you had an association with the What
52:43
Engineers Architects for 9/11 truth.
52:46
Have any of those individuals sided with you?
52:53
Well, I mean as an as an organization they obviously were
52:57
helping me out initially. I mean, a lot of the people who
53:01
have been involved in helping me without naming names, the
53:05
experts, etcetera have either been associated or at one part
53:09
or maybe part of A&E 911 tree, but not all.
53:14
You know, it's the the evidence stands on its own.
53:19
It I'm not linked with A&E at all.
53:21
If if that's what you're, you're asking, you know, the people who
53:24
have come forward are going to be underoath will be cross
53:27
examined etcetera. So you know, it won't actually
53:31
the the inquest itself. I mean, that's I guess true of
53:37
almost anything where you're challenging the official
53:39
narrative. I mean, what I would say, for
53:41
example, it's a lot easier to do if you're no longer working, you
53:44
no longer have responsibilities to look after kids, etcetera.
53:47
And I can cite a very brave firefighter who tried to do what
53:51
he could whilst he was still working and that's Paul Cayley.
53:55
Are you familiar with Paul Cayley?
53:57
He made the documentary calling out B7.
54:00
And if if people haven't seen that, go and check it out.
54:03
You can, you can get it on YouTube.
54:06
He's a firefighter who basically put together a, a documentary on
54:13
just the, the impossibilities of Building 7, but from the lens of
54:17
a firefighter. And you know, he, he whilst he
54:21
was still a firefighter, he actually did gave a presentation
54:25
at the annual sort of health and safety conference that they
54:29
have. And he did a presentation on
54:31
Building 7. And he kind of cleverly did it
54:33
from the point of view of a normie.
54:35
And it was essentially, you know, it's a steel frame
54:40
building can collapse at sudden notice without, you know,
54:43
without any real warnings. We should be say there was a
54:50
fire in the Shard in London. You know, he was saying that we
54:54
should be evacuating an area at least twice the radius of the
54:59
height of the Shard because it we may not be so lucky that it
55:02
falls down to its own footprint. It could go, you know, any, any,
55:07
any direction. You know, the point he made was,
55:10
you know, none of the firefighting codes changed.
55:14
They still believe that a steel frame building is safe.
55:17
They will get a bridgehead or whatever it's called, you know,
55:20
a couple of floors underneath the fire, set a base there and
55:23
then attack the fire. So for he, he was doing as much
55:28
as he could whilst he was, he was working.
55:30
It's easier now, obviously, because he's retired, but he's
55:34
still continuing to do stuff. So, I mean, I get it.
55:36
It's not easy. You know, we all have
55:38
responsibilities in our lives and you know it.
55:42
I guess it depends how close you are involved.
55:46
You know, it's, yeah. Again, you know, it's people are
55:50
people. I get it.
55:51
I'm not not forcing anyone to do anything.
55:52
I'm just really pleased that there are people that are
55:55
willing to come out and to potentially risk their
55:58
livelihoods, you know, I guess, let alone their lives in, in
56:02
coming out and, and saying stuff.
56:06
OK, Matt, how can my audience keep up with all of this?
56:09
The. The the best way to follow what
56:12
I'm doing is probably on X. So it's Matt Campbell 911.
56:21
The alternative to get more of a, a background on, on stuff,
56:23
just because I don't have a, a authorised account on X and I'm
56:26
limited to the amount of characters I can write, is if
56:29
you go to the International Centre of 911 Justice, that's
56:33
ic911.org. And you know, there's a lot of
56:39
detail, all the communications backwards and forwards to the
56:42
Attorney General and the courts, etcetera, is up there.
56:48
And if anybody wants to contribute?
56:52
We, I don't have a, a crowdfund a set up right now that finished
56:57
to, to the, the filing 2 days ago.
57:02
Yeah, I'd probably say get in contact with either myself or
57:04
with IC911. Something will be set up in the
57:07
coming weeks. Just haven't really figured out
57:09
a way, best way in which to do it.
57:12
We're talking large sums of money.
57:13
Obviously these platforms take a, a percentage of that.
57:16
And so it's not really the optimal way of, of, of raising
57:20
the funds. But yeah, the first one I've
57:24
spoken to since we we got there the the news or sorry since the
57:28
filing on Wednesday. So it's all sort of pretty fresh
57:31
at the moment. Matt Campbell, thank you for
57:33
joining me in the trenches.