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

Episode Date: July 9, 2026

There are many legitimate unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 - the gravest terror attack in US history - but the line between rational inquiry and conspiracy theory is often razor-thin. Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters has voiced a controversial stance on the events of September 11th, 2001 and aligned himself with Matt Campbell, whose brother Geoff was killed in the attacks. They both join Piers Morgan as they pursue a landmark case in the UK Supreme Court to reopen the inquest into Geoff's death. 00:00 Introduction 01:18 Piers Morgan is joined by Roger Waters and Matt Campbell 01:33 Matt Campbell on the tragedy of his brother’s death during 9/11 03:55 The cycle of events that followed 9/11 04:45 Matt Campbell on what convinced him to secure a new inquest into his brother’s death 09:16 Roger Waters on what he thinks actually happened on 9/11 15:37 Who orchestrated 9/11? 24:40 Is Roger Waters using Matt Campbell to peddle his own conspiracies? 27:44 Why hasn’t an American whistleblower come forward if America was responsible? 29:00 Roger Waters asks for more funds towards Matt Campbell’s case 31:00 Piers Morgan challenges Roger Waters on his conspiracy theory Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Right now, for a limited time, everyone's part of the Buick team, even you. Buick's employee pricing for you event is on now. Get a purchase credit of up to $3,168 on a 2026 Buick Envision. Surround yourself with signature Buick refinement from an available massaging driver's seat to an expansive panoramic moonroof and a stunning ultra-wide 30-inch diagonal screen. Don't miss Buick's employee pricing for you event. Visit buick.com for more details. You're well known for being a moron, so you don't have to explain...

One of this is definitely well known for being a moron who spells 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. As usual, you're just 100% wrong. Those buildings came down by controlled demolition. We all know it as much as you want.

Are you... Are you... Are you... No, you let me finish. No, you hang up. Don't shout me down. You're always trying to do that. You're the one shouting.

Out of interest, you're worth a repeated 300 million. Why don't you just finish off the crowd fundraising yourself? Why don't you mind your own business? There are many legitimate unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding 9-11, the gravest terror attack in US history who discussed some previously on this show. It's when the answers to those questions are positive

that rational inquiry can sometimes stray into crackpot It's fair to say that Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters dabbles with both sides of that coin. A musician and an 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.

Yeah, so my brother didn't work at the World Trade Centre. He was attending a conference, run by risk waters, on the 106th floor of the North Tower. And, you know, Jeff, along with many other British victims because it was a British company, sadly died that day. And he was just 31 years old. I mean, a devastating moment for you, for everyone who lost somebody that day. a 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? 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 Farse. And it basically went on to sort of say that, you know, we're bombing Afghanistan, 15 of the 19 hijackers of Saudi. They seem to have done most of their training in Germany and the US, you know. And yet we're bombing people in Afghanistan. Obviously, the British... I think he wrote that for me. I was editor of the 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 where Christopher Hitchens saying the opposite. But I remember Pilger returned to the Daily Mirror. to write what you're talking about. 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 a direct result of those attacks. Now, the narrative obviously has been that 9-11 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 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 9-11 were extraordinarily big

and you could argue the history will say pretty devastating. But let's divorce that from what happened on 9-11, 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 look to what happened and 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? Are you talking specifically how the towers collapsed? Yes. 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 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 Movederell's inquest, is establish, you know, what basically caused his death. I mean, look, 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 brought 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? I'm not certain about it. And I'm not looking to address who did it. It's specifically, how did my brother die? And how did he come about his death? and 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. But just finally, before I go to Roger, you believe that the towers didn't come down because the planes hit them? 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. That's my goal. You're talking about explosives being put in the towers. There is evidence of that. There's also the categories of evidence that we submitted in our... What is the evidence that you're talking about

which says that explosives were put in the towers? I'm not saying that being put in there. Obviously, they would be there if they're bringing down the towers. But essentially, you've got eyewitness testimony. So I've got first responders, including police officers, who sort of, you know, basically took statements in the days

and the hours after 9-11. We'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 what enough evidence. And who do you think put these explosives there if that's what happened? Again, that's not the purpose of what an inquest is.

It's not even looking to a portion blame. It's trying to establish the cause of death of my brother. 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 Matt as a conspiracy theories.

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 going to read so much about what's happened, particularly since the advert 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, so let me just clarify that. You had nobody you knew who died that day, right? Nobody. Right. So you've contributed, it's been reported, you can confirm this or not, that 100,000 pounds towards Matt's, I think the aim is 150,000 to take the case of 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?

Well, it's very, I'm glad you asked me that question, here. It's very nice to see you again. And thank you for reminding us all of John Peelcher 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 case, to this court case? Because I think it's extremely important, English, as I am, that the Attorney General in England is not or should not be allowed to be above the law, which is what several Attorney General 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 London on October the 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 the 11th, 2001, is supremely important to every one of us in the human race.

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 Wolferwitz told Wesley Clark about in the Pentagon in November of that year 2001. But they said, it is our plan to destroy all the... 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 1 is anathema to me as an Englishman. And that is why I'm supporting this case. Okay, but if you... Hang on, I'm finished, but my private theories about... I am, my theories that 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. 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 the 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?

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 demolition? And nobody with an IQ above room temperature disputes this, but it has never been allowed to be heard in a court of law. Well, actually, loads of people have disputed it. Come on, these are not new theories. They've been espoused.

People like you would dispute it, but you do. You go along with the empire. No, I just think it's entirely logical. The buildings around the World Trade Center obviously came down because of the destruction of the World Trade Center. As usual, you're just 100% wrong. Let's talk about something else. Let's talk about, you know, the football or something.

because this is nonsense. Those buildings came down by controlled demolition. We all know it. You can argue against it as much as you want. Who planted the explosives? We don't know. That's what we want to find out. Or has a hazard a guess.

No, I'm not going to hazard a guess. I have no other than it. Some random people. So let's just be, okay, let's 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, just 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? 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.

I'm just asking you for any facts. Where are the facts? Just, are you blind? 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? 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 died. 100%. 100%, but you have gone on record with Jimmy Dore

as saying that it was the American government that were behind it. So is that what you believe? Do you know? Hey, y'all's Kelly Clarkson with Wayfair. Ever order furniture online and wonder what if? Like, what if it doesn't hold up? That sofa was four days old.

You should have ordered from Wayfair. With Wayfair, there's no what if. Just style you love and quality you can trust. Visit Wayfair.cair.com. That's one possibility. It could have been the American government. Why don't we have an investigation, Pierce, to find out. That's all Matt and I before.

Are you against the idea? Let me finish. No, you let me finish. No, you hang on. Don't shout me down. You're always trying to do that. You're the one shouting. I want to ask you a quick. Are you against there being an inquest?

No. Good. There we are. That's the end of this program. No, it's not. It's not because. No, no. It's not.

It's not. It's not. No, no. It's not. I'm never against any inquest. And I absolutely understand why Matt wants answers to questions he believed remain unanswered. My question is about your motivation in bankrolling his case, because I believe that unlike Matt, you do have people you blame.

You've gone on record as blaming potentially the American government, stroke 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 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. but I say to you that you're very welcome to your opinion. It's not opinion, it's a fact. Here you go, there's peers 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. Well, actually, well, actually, you were wrong. Well, unfortunately, my eyes do not point to that. My eyes pointed to two. 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 gobbledyg. 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

while you're backrolling 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 Centre and the buildings around it and used the planes as some kind of cover up for it, having recruited a bunch of jihadists from Al-Qaeda 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. Pierce, you're well known for being moron, so you don't have to explain. One of us is definitely well known for being a moral who spouse conspiracy theories. Let me ask you this, Piers. And I've asked you it before.

I'm going to say again, should there be an investigation into how the World Trade Centre buildings 1, 2 and 7 came down or not? Yes, there should, I say. What do you say? There have been numerous investigations into the whole... No, they haven't.

There have been numerous investigations into everything that happened on 9-11. No, they haven't. You just refused to even... acknowledge it. She's extraordinary. You think no one's investigating what happened on the biggest terror attack in the history of America? I'm sure many, many thousands of people have been involved in the investigation of stuff. 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 figure, let's find out what happened. Everybody, with half an ounce of cents knows that neither building one nor building two nor building seven fell down because there were fires caused by aviation fuel who ordered this? Let's go with your theory.

Who ordered this? Was it President Bush? Was it President Bush? How do you expect me to guess? I don't know. Well, don't be so cowardly. If you have a theory that people did misdeliberny, who was it? The most obvious culprit, and I don't believe this to be true, by the way, in case he gets upset. It's the guy who collected billions and billions of dollars and 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 story. Well, hang on. I know who you're talking about. I know who you're talking about. His name is Howard Lucknick. He's in the United States government now.

He's part of the cabinet with Donald Trump. He lost his brother that day. Well, hang on. 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 makes him obviously, that makes him obviously guilty of some kind of complicity in causing this to happen. It's utterly disgusting. You did. You did your normal Roger Waters thing. 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. I don't think it was him. I think it was...

What are you talking about? I've no idea. I know. So why do you say things? Why do you say things when you clearly have no idea? We know it wasn't caused by Mohammed Atta and his mates, all 15 of them. No, we literally do know that's how it was caused. No, we know that's not how the building...

That is how it was caused. 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. 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 night 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 you might be using you in some way.

Are you concerned about that? I mean, Roger's not using me. You know, 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, etc. Because it's not cheap doing litigation, particularly things like judicial review and then obviously the 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. I understand that. My issue is this. I'm not claiming that the 9-11 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? There's two things I'd like to say.

Number one, the 9-11 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 all 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 re-opened. 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. Do you think you're going to be successful? I hope I am. When will you know, do you think?

Well, the hearings 14th to 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 2007,

which is a long time to wait, but hey, it's 25 years on already. Okay, Roger, you know, to my point that 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? And every other thing of this nature, where there's been some kind of cover-up, we eventually get to hear.

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 they don't feel that if they do, people like you will leap out of the woodwork and call them insane, not like you do me.

Well, actually, I've given you guys. Well, hang on, hang on, hang on. The buildings were, the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. 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. I wanted to support Matt and, and Pierce, 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 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 people out there who haven't yet contributed, there's a crowd funder running. We need more cash. We need more cash.

Okay, please. Oh, look, there it is. Out of interest, you're worth a repeated 300 million. Why don't you just finish off the crowd fundraising yourself? Why don't you mind your own business? Why are you being so tight about it? Oh, I very nearly use the F word. You can do that.

We're unscensored. We're unscensored. So you like it. 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. If this is... 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? Sorry, Matt. I didn't mean to get sort of shout. You're being very over-defensive. All I asked you is why, if he's trying to raise more money, why aren't you helping him? It's that important to... Yeah, I might say you're being very over-attacking, peers.

Not really. It's asking you questions, as always. It's how it make you living. I don't mind. I just ask questions. You don't have to answer them. You can be over-defensive until we just fuck off. I don't care.

Okay. I think we've dealt with all your questions. Matt's been extremely... Well, you haven't dealt with a fundamental question, which goes to your motivation, which was if you believe... No, I understand that, but I think it's your motivation for supporting you.

It's because 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. 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. 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 to.

You said it on other programs. I'm not going to. I'm not saying it to you, Pierce. That's not why I'm here. We know you said it on other program. So why would you hesitate to repeat yourself? Unless you lied last time. What? It's all right. I've got so. 22. It's only 22. Sorry, what were you saying?

You're talking to yourself again, Roger. You're sharp, aren't you? It's Morgan. I think we're done here, but thank you so much for having us. No, no, thank you. It was very illuminating. Very illuminating. Thank you very much, and thank you, Matt, for coming in. Peers Morgan Unsensored is proudly independent.

The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Unsensored 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 Unsensored Media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.

On July 16th, the Hawk lands on Netflix. From the mind of Will Ferrell. Oh, mama. I'm back. It comes a new original series. Get ready. Get ready. That's it.

Did I stutter? When an iconic pro golfer. Lonnie? Hockey! Takes one last swing of greatness. You were a big shot golfer. I still am a big shot golfer. No one.

Dad, I'm the Hawk now. Will stand in his way. That's how it's done. The Hawk, only on Netflix. July 16th.