Robert R. Motta — 2028 presidential campaign spotlight. This page supports public access to evidence, lawful judicial review, families asking hard questions, and Roger Waters’ public advocacy for Matt Campbell’s legal effort. It does not declare the controlled-demolition allegation proven.
Robert R. Motta supports Roger Waters’ advocacy for public scrutiny and supports Matt Campbell’s lawful attempt to obtain judicial review of the Attorney General’s refusal to permit an application for a fresh inquest into Geoff Campbell’s death. The campaign position is transparency, evidence access, due process and independent review—not automatic adoption of every allegation made in the interview.
No endorsement implied. Roger Waters, Jimmy Dore, Matt Campbell and other people or organizations linked here are not represented as endorsing Robert R. Motta or Vote Motta 2028.
The Jimmy Dore Show interview includes Roger Waters’ support for the Campbell legal effort, Matt Campbell’s description of his brother’s inquest and the upcoming Supreme Court hearing, plus numerous disputed political and technical claims.
The listed appeal is R (Campbell) v His Majesty’s Attorney General for England and Wales, UKSC/2025/0162. The Court says the issues are whether the Attorney General’s decision to allow or refuse an application to reopen an inquest is subject to judicial review and, if so, on what grounds.
The hearing is listed for October 14–15, 2026. The Supreme Court case summary also records that the 2013 inquest found Geoff Campbell died when the North Tower collapsed after an al-Qaeda aircraft strike, while Matthew Campbell believes pre-planted explosives caused the collapse.
Important: this Supreme Court hearing is about judicial reviewability of the Attorney General’s refusal. It is not currently a trial deciding whether controlled demolition occurred.
The 9/11 Commission and FBI investigations attribute the September 11 attacks to al-Qaeda and identify 19 hijackers participating in the four aircraft attacks.
NIST concluded aircraft impact damage and subsequent fires initiated the tower collapses and rejected controlled demolition as the cause in its investigation.
NIST’s video analysis describes a 5.4-second visible descent with a middle stage from about 1.75 to 4.0 seconds at gravitational acceleration. NIST says this followed internal failures and column buckling; demolition advocates interpret the interval differently.
The UK Supreme Court is deciding whether the Attorney General’s refusal can be judicially reviewed—not whether the demolition theory is true.
Waters, Campbell and other speakers in the interview argue for controlled demolition. That claim remains disputed and is not presented on this page as established fact.
The interview contains allegations about governments, intelligence agencies, media owners, billionaires and other groups. These are speaker statements and require separate evidence before being treated as factual conclusions.
Family members have pursued records, investigations and litigation for years. The Campbell family’s current legal effort and fundraising are publicly documented.
The campaign supports lawful release of evidence, source comparison, due process and independent review while keeping official findings and disputed hypotheses clearly separated.
Official case summary, legal issues, parties and hearing dates.
NIST — WTC 7 FAQOfficial explanation of WTC 7, including its three-stage descent/free-fall analysis.
NIST — Twin Towers FAQOfficial investigation conclusions and alternative-theory responses.
9/11 Commission ReportOfficial commission report on planning, hijackers, intelligence failures and response.
FBI 9/11 recordsFBI investigative records and related material.
Campbell family CrowdfunderFamily’s description of the case, current fundraising and updates. Claims on this page are the project owner’s claims.
Jimmy Dore / Roger Waters interviewOriginal featured video used for the searchable transcript below.
Read the primary report before evaluating claims about what it did or did not investigate.
Separate the engineering scope of NIST’s investigation from intelligence, criminal and foreign-policy questions.
Compare the official three-stage analysis with alternative interpretations instead of treating either side’s summary as the source.
Distinguish judicial review of the Attorney General from a merits hearing on demolition evidence.
Identify the specific record, agency and legal basis before calling for disclosure.
Use the transcript to identify claims, then follow the source chain.
Ask what the governing legal standard is and whether the proposed evidence meets it.
A useful investigation states in advance what evidence would strengthen or weaken a hypothesis.
These polls store aggregate selections only; this module does not store names, emails or a public voter profile. A browser-local flag discourages repeat voting, but it is not a scientific sample.
The transcript below comes from the supplied YouTube transcript. Speaker statements are not automatically campaign findings. Search a phrase, jump to a timestamp, copy a spotlight moment, or copy the original YouTube timestamp.
Use the campaign’s branded share layer when available. Transcript rows also have exact-moment share buttons.
Claims about explosives, government involvement, intelligence failures, foreign influence or hidden motives are labeled according to their source. Official findings are linked as official findings; court filings and litigants’ positions are labeled as such; interview allegations remain attributed to the speakers. The purpose of the spotlight is to make the evidence trail easier to inspect—not to convert disputed assertions into established facts by repetition.