The Dancing Israelis: FBI Docs Shed Light on Apparent Mossad.
DOCUMENTAIRE SPÉCIAL: 9/11
___
Tucker Carlson and the Resurrection of the 9/11 Truth Movement? Part I • 56m 
Scroll for the video below
The Forgotten Anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks
The twenty-fourth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks passed with virtually no media attention this year, and that hardly surprised me.
However, I did discuss it to a limited extent in my own article last week, and in a couple of paragraphs I briefly summarized the enormous historic impact of those 2001 terrorist attacks:
During the last quarter-century, those attacks and their aftermath have entirely reshaped American society and our place in the world. Not only were they the greatest terrorist attack in all of human history, but they might have been greater in magnitude than the combined total of all such other terrorist attacks. Even that may severely understate their historic significance, given how dramatically they changed America and the rest of the world.
Three thousand Americans died that day and many billions of dollars of property were destroyed, but under Neocon influence the long series of American foreign wars set into motion cost our country many trillions of dollars and destroyed much of the Middle East, killing or displacing many millions of innocent civilians. The Patriot Act and other legislation severely restricted our own domestic civil liberties in ways that would have previously been considered unimaginable, and even something as simple as boarding a travel flight was completely transformed. Few events of the last one hundred years have had such a traumatic impact upon American society.
The passage of almost a full generation can easily reduce once huge stories to nearly forgotten ones, and I had originally expected media coverage to be minimal even under the best of circumstances. But this year, the sudden September 10th assassination of Charlie Kirk, the youthful 31-year-old CEO of Turning Point USA and one of America’s most influential conservative leaders, completely swept aside all other news stories during the days that followed.
Although I had only been minimally aware of Kirk and his activities, I soon learned that his popularity and stature had been enormous and he had been regarded as one of President Donald Trump’s most important political supporters. According to journalist Max Blumenthal, Kirk had been widely expected to eventually run for president, perhaps even as soon as the 2028 election. So in some respects his shocking, sudden death supposedly at the hands of a deranged lone gunman firing a rifle from a distance seemed to strongly echo aspects of the 1963 death of President John F. Kennedy, another charismatic, popular young political leader who had reached the White House at the age of 43, thus becoming the youngest president in American history.
As the 9/11 anniversary date approached, I’d originally expected it to be largely ignored by the media, and had planned to publish an article describing and bemoaning that situation.
Within a few years after the original 2001 attacks, the extremely suspicious aspects of the official 9/11 story presented by our government had inspired the creation of a large and energetic 9/11 Truth movement, which strongly challenged that narrative. But faced with the determined resistance of a bipartisan establishment and always ridiculed or ignored by the still overwhelmingly dominant mainstream media, that movement had gradually faded away over time, receiving less and less public attention, with its leading figures eventually departing the scene.
During the first decade or so after those 2001 events, I’d barely even been aware that anyone seriously disputed the official 9/11 narrative, and I’d paid little attention to the issue. But after eventually stumbling across a few anomalous items that suddenly kindled my suspicions, I had gradually discovered the strange, subterranean world of the 9/11 Truthers, whose extensive research findings I’d scarcely suspected. I later undertook an investigation of the topic, reading quite a number of the major books and convincing myself that those activists and researchers had made a strong, perhaps even a very compelling case that the story presented by the government was largely fraudulent.
By 2018 I had become sufficiently confident in my new views that when I relaunched my American Pravda series in earnest that year, one of the first pieces I published was “American Pravda: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories,” appearing around the time of the anniversary. On subsequent anniversaries, I regularly published additional articles on the same subject, reiterating and extending my analysis, and steadily becoming more and more firmly convinced of my conspiratorial conclusions.
Unfortunately, by the time I became involved in those issues, the 9/11 Truth movement had long since passed its peak and was rapidly fading, soon to be completely swamped by the entirely different conspiratorial controversies surrounding the 2020 outbreak of the global Covid epidemic. Indeed, when my most recent installment appeared on September 11, 2023 it bore the rather eulogistic title “American Pravda: Remembering the 9/11 Truth Movement” and I expected that the title of my article this year would contain the word “Forgotten.”
Tucker Carlson and the JFK Assassination
But all of that suddenly changed just a few days before the anniversary date. I discovered that Tucker Carlson was about to release a five-part series on 9/11 declaring that the official story was a complete lie and a fraud, with the first installment of the series naturally scheduled to appear on September 11th.
I regarded this new development as potentially transformative. Not only did Carlson probably rank as the most important figure in today’s fragmented American media landscape, but he had previously played a crucial role in successfully reopening another major controversy that our political establishment had successfully suppressed for nearly six decades.
For years Carlson had been the most popular host on television, with his FoxNews show regularly drawing a nightly audience of over 3 million.
One of the main reasons for his enormous popularity had been his courageous willingness to take controversial positions avoided by nearly all of his colleagues, and on December 2022, he aired one of his most explosive segments. In it he declared that the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy had been the work of a conspiracy, heavily involving our own CIA.
Aside from the millions who saw that show live on cable, more than a million soon watched the YouTube video, so those bombshell accusations regarding the events in Dallas probably reached more ordinary Americans than anything else on the topic in the three decades since Oliver Stone’s Oscar-winning film JFK had been playing in the theaters.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nephew of the slain President and son of his murdered brother, praised Carlson’s show as “the most courageous newscast in 60 years,” and his remarks were Retweeted more than 22,000 times.
In recent decades, such conspiratorial beliefs on the JFK assassination had largely been confined to the Left, with Stone himself being a prime example. But Carlson was one of America’s most influential conservatives, so he successfully implanted those same ideas within a portion of our citizenry previously unexposed to them, creating a bipartisan coalition on that issue.
He also noted that widespread use of the insulting phrase “conspiracy theory” had only begun in the aftermath of the JFK assassination, with the CIA itself successfully marginalizing its critics by promoting that denigrating accusation in the compliant media. This brought to widespread attention the important research findings of Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, past president of the Florida Political Science Association, who had documented those facts in his 2013 book Conspiracy Theory in America.
Carlson’s television segment ran only seven minutes and confined itself to the least controversial elements of the conspiratorial case surrounding the assassination of our 35th president. Indeed, the claims that he made had long been documented in numerous critically-acclaimed books by highly-regarded journalists or academic scholars, some of which had become national bestsellers. Among the more recent and notable examples I would include Brothers by David Talbot, JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass, and Oswald and the CIA by John Newman.
But books, whether bestsellers or not, usually impact only a relatively limited national audience. Non-fiction book sales very rarely number more than tens of thousands of copies, so while they may be read by many intellectuals and by those who had already been deeply immersed in the particular topic, these groups constitute only a tiny sliver of the general American public.
By contrast, Carlson’s television segment reached millions and it was backed by the credibility of its advocate, who had never previously taken a position on that topic but had spent years gaining the trust of his audience on many others. Thus, the impact was enormous.
The longer term consequences of Carlson’s short television segment and the renewed public attention it generated seems to have been very considerable. Among other results, it greatly raised the pressure for the full declassification and release of all the government’s remaining JFK Assassination documents. Nearly six decades had passed since the events in question and it seemed impossible to explain why secrets were still being kept from the American people more than two generations after the violent death of our president in Dallas.
Carlson was a leading supporter of Donald Trump, and during the latter’s successful 2024 campaign to regain the White House, he promised the full release of the JFK Files, then did so earlier this year.
Although the documents themselves contained few if any new bombshell revelations, their release led to an enormous wave of additional public discussion on the case and an outpouring of articles and interviews, many of them focused on the most controversial aspects of the assassination. This included one of my own, and although it merely recapitulated and summarized the conclusions I’d previously reached and presented in numerous other articles since 2018, it attracted a great deal of readership.
- How Israel Killed the Kennedys
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 24, 2025 • 11,500 Words
Although Carlson’s courageous late 2022 broadcast probably played a crucial role in unravelling the circumstances of John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination, some of the other consequences may have been much less fortunate, including the impact on the broadcaster’s own television career.
Carlson had spent years as the most popular host on television, the top star of the FoxNews programming lineup. But just four months later, he was summarily fired by that network despite being at the peak of his popularity, a surprising decision in the ratings-hungry world of television broadcasting.
All the media discussions of his sudden dismissal focused on the costly lawsuit FoxNews faced in connection with its 2020 election coverage and that the discovery process had revealed some of Carlson’s supposedly controversial private text messages. But I’d always suspected that his segment on the JFK Assassination might have been a significant contributing factor.
Ten or twenty years earlier, even a hugely popular television host purged from the networks would have had his career destroyed, with his memory rapidly fading as he lost the ability to reach a mass audience. But the growing maturity of the Internet, including its social media and video streaming platforms completely changed this situation.
Carlson soon launched The Tucker Carlson Network (TNC) , his own Internet-based media outlet, and quickly regained a huge national audience, with many millions watching his shows whether on Twitter/X, on YouTube, or as hosted on his own website. Now freed from the numerous political and practical constraints imposed by the previous corporate overlords of his cable show, he began to produce very long and thoughtful interviews with major public figures.
In August 2024, Carlson interviewed presidential candidate Donald Trump while the television networks broadcast the first 2024 Republican Primary debate between the other candidates, and he drew a much larger audience, demonstrating that Internet video platforms had fully come of age compared to the fading world of cable television.
A few months later, Carlson landed an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, reaching an absolutely gigantic global audience numbering in the many tens of millions on YouTube and on Twitter/X.
Carlson’s erstwhile corporate television competitors were left green with envy at his media triumph and they made themselves look ridiculous by denouncing him as a Russian stooge.
For decades Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University has been one of our most reputable and influential international academic scholars, and his important interview with Carlson ran more than two hours and attracted millions of viewers:
I also was very impressed by his long interview with a Christian evangelical pastor in the holy city of Bethlehem, who described the severe oppression that he and his flock regularly faced at the hands of Zionist militants, fiercely anti-Christian groups that have bizarrely received the complete support of America’s own Christian establishment.
Carlson’s long interview with Rep. Thomas Massie revealed the important information that every Republican member of our Congress—and probably almost every Democrat—is assigned a personal AIPAC minder, who monitors and directs how our elected representative reacts to all issues important to the enormously powerful Israel Lobby.
Most recently, his interview with the renowned academic scholar John Mearsheimer on the Israel/Palestine conflict also drew many, many millions of views.
Tucker Carlson Reopens the 9/11 Case
Thus, just a couple of years after Carlson had been fired by FoxNews, he had become a far more powerful media figure than ever before. So when I discovered he was about to release a five-part series on the 9/11 Attacks I regarded that as a potential bombshell that might completely transform the national debate, perhaps singlehandedly resurrecting the dormant 9/11 Truth movement.
His one-minute trailer certainly suggested this, proclaiming that everything we had been told by our government for the last twenty-four years had been a complete lie.
Such sentiments would hardly be remarkable if uttered by anonymous commenters on conspiracy-websites. But they had an entirely different impact when declared by America’s most powerful media figure after he had spent months of his time researching the issue and producing a documentary series scheduled for immediate release.
On the 8th, Carlson was interviewed for an hour on the Piers Morgan show, describing the series and its controversial conclusions to his skeptical British host. When I watched it a couple of days later, I thought he did an excellent job, effectively laying out many of the key issues and maintaining the sort of calm and rational demeanor so often lacking among the more excitable proponents of conspiratorial 9/11 theories. This greatly whetted my appetite for the forthcoming release of the the full series itself.
However, right around the time I was watching that YouTube video, Charlie Kirk was suddenly shot and killed by a sniper at a Utah university, and everything suddenly changed. The video of Carlson’s appearance on Morgan’s show has drawn 1.7 million views, a multiple of the latter’s usual viewership, but I suspect that the totals would have been far greater if the entire focus of national attention had not suddenly shifted to a completely different topic.
Carlson and Kirk had been close friends, so the release of the 9/11 series was naturally delayed, moved from the 11th to Tuesday the 23rd, two days after Kirk’s planned Sunday memorial service at which Carlson would be a major speaker.
Therefore, instead of a renewed national discussion about a shocking and terrible event twenty-four years in the past, the entire country instead became intensely focused upon a different sort of shocking and terrible event in the here and now. Indeed, the outpouring of mourning and anger surrounding the brutal slaying of that top conservative leader and committed Christian, cut down at the age of 31, was so enormous that many observers suggested that few other events had so deeply touched American society since the terrorist attacks of 2001.
By the time of Kirk’s memorial service, the initial reaction to his murder had finally died down and as scheduled the first installment of Carlson’s series was publicly released this last Tuesday, with each subsequent episode made available at weekly intervals. Anyone who paid the modest $9 subscription fee to Carlson’s website could gain immediate access to all the episodes, most of which ran about a half-hour or less.
After less than a week, Episode 1 had already been watched 3.6 million times on YouTube, drawing some 18,000 comments, and when we consider the many who probably viewed it on Carlson’s own website as I did, the series seemed off to a very strong start.
Taken together, the entire five-part series is not overly long, running only about a couple of hours, and having now watched it twice, I thought he did an excellent job.
If his seven minute FoxNews segment that aired in late 2022 played a major role in resurrecting the controversy over the 1963 assassination of JFK, I think the 130 minutes in his new series may well have the same impact on the 9/11 debate.
Any discussion of highly controversial historical events always involves a sharp trade-off between being too bold and being too cautious. Including too many dramatic possibilities that are less than fully documented will damage the credibility of the entire presentation while also scaring away those who may find it challenging enough to accept that what they had believed for decades amounted to lies. But too cautious a presentation that sticks too closely to the accepted narrative will fail to attract much interest and will also have little impact even if it does succeed in gaining traction.
My own verdict is that Carlson’s 9/11 series did an excellent job of threading that difficult needle. The episodes mostly confined themselves to overturning the official verdict of the 9/11 Commission by presenting the heavily-documented facts that had been deliberately ignored, but they also provided enough explosive new information and additional leads so that those so interested could begin exploring some of the deeper issues.
In many respects, Carlson therefore followed the path of the mainstream 9/11 Truth movement and its larger components such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911). That organization had always avoided the more controversial and sensational theories of the 9/11 events and instead focused almost all its efforts on debunking the official narrative. This was also the path taken in the many 9/11 books published by the late Prof. David Ray Griffin, the founding father of the entire movement.
Some individuals may strongly criticize this cautious approach. For example, Laurent Guyenot is a noted conspiracy-researcher who has written widely on the subject of 9/11, with his books and articles situated towards the much more controversial end of the spectrum. He watched the entire series immediately after its release and then Tweeted out a strong condemnation, angrily described the many things he felt it ignored or distorted and therefore used all capital letters to denounce it as a “LIMITED HANGOUT.”
But after nearly a week, the brief text of Guyenot’s angry Tweet has only been viewed less than 5,000 times, while just the first episode of Carlson’s series has already racked up a video audience nearly a thousand-fold greater. So surely one can make a case that a limited truth that successfully attracts an enormous mass audience may do much more good than a purer truth seen by far fewer.
Moreover, the solidly documented and largely non-threatening nature of the documentary allowed it to attract favorable secondary coverage in important quarters.
For example, The Young Turks (TYT) is a hugely popular progressive and left-leaning news and commentary streaming channel, having more than twice the YouTube subscribers of the venerable Democracy Now!
Immediately following Carlson’s Piers Morgan appearance, TYT aired a segment prompted by Carlson’s trailer and the looming release of his series bearing the title “Tucker Carlson’s 9/11 Documentary is Making People NERVOUS.”
The progressive hosts claimed that they had never considered that 9/11 had been anything other than what the government reported, always dismissing the crazy conspiracy theories so widespread on that topic. But they now declared themselves highly suspicious of many of the strange details in the official story, and also emphasized the years that valid questions by people in politics and the media had been totally suppressed through heavy-handed threats and intimidation. I think this show demonstrated the potentially transformative impact that Carlson’s documentary series might have on public awareness of the 9/11 issue, and over the last two weeks it had already accumulated 1.6 million views on YouTube and over 20,000 comments.
Then a day after Carlson’s first episode was released, TYT did a highly laudatory show describing some of its contents, already viewed more than 350,000 times on YouTube, with over 3,000 comments. This obviously conveyed favorable word of the series and its important information to ideological elements far less likely to visit Carlson’s own website.
The 9/11 Documentary Series of Tucker Carlson
I’d strongly urge readers to pay the modest $9 fee and immediately watch Carlson’s entire series for themselves. But it’s worth providing my own overview of what I found most interesting and important in each of the different episodes, linked from the TCN website:
When I first began my investigation of 9/11 issues, I soon concluded that many of the beliefs so widespread in the conspiracy-community were extremely implausible, notably that the attacks had been an “inside job,” with top Bush Administration officials such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld being participants in the plot or even its masterminds.
One of the major pieces of evidence adduced to support these wild theories was the obvious fact that the official 9/11 Commission Report was largely a cover-up, allegedly intended to protect those top perpetrators. Although I’d always rejected that notion, I’d also wondered a little about what was actually being covered up and why.
Carlson’s investigation may have provided at least some of the answers to this. Apparently, the CIA had long sought to gain sources within al-Qaeda, and as part of their effort had brought some of the Arab hijackers to the U.S., with future CIA Director John Brennan having actually issued their visas in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the CIA had kept the information of their presence in the country away from the FBI, which totally outraged one of the former FBI agents interviewed by Carlson. These typical bureaucratic mistakes and rivalries became a horrific disaster after the attacks were successfully carried out, furnishing an important factor behind the later cover-up, with numerous other government officials equally eager for a whitewash of their blunders.
For years, media and political circles had regularly claimed that there was hard evidence that some of the hijackers had been receiving funds from Saudi officials while they were living in America, saying that these facts had been contained in the classified “28 pages” removed from the original 9/11 report. This highly suspicious Saudi role was the focus of tremendous controversy and leaks, often used to promote Neocon-inspired theories that the Saudi government had been behind the attacks.
Although I’d always regarded such notions as ridiculous red herrings—the Saudi government obviously had no motive for the attack and the funds involved were hardly large—the financial transfers to the hijackers were documented and I’d always wondered why the Saudis had made them. As Carlson explains, since the CIA was cultivating the hijackers, its officials asked the Saudis to provide them with some money, apparently thinking that if something eventually went wrong, the Saudis would make excellent scapegoats, and that’s exactly what happened though the scale of the catastrophe was obviously many orders of magnitude greater than anyone could have imagined.
Finally, Carlson emphasized that some of the FBI’s disastrous failings were due to its severe technological backwardness at the time. Until as late as 2003, the FBI lacked any functioning email system, employees had no access to the Internet, there was no digitization of files, and no use of scanners. Although I remember briefly reading these extremely embarrassing facts in my newspapers at the time, they were only mentioned once and never repeated, while being entirely ignored and omitted from all the official reports.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 Attacks, I’d focused almost entirely upon the looming Iraq War, both as it was promoted by the Neocons and then as it disastrously unfolded. Therefore, I didn’t paid much attention to the details of the earlier terrorist attacks themselves, never doubting that they were the work of al-Qaeda nor questioning the other major aspects of the official story. Based upon widespread media criticism, I’d assumed that the 9/11 Commission Report was more or less a cover-up, but that the cover-up had been intended to conceal government incompetence rather than anything more sinister.
So although most of the information presented in Carlson’s second episode would not have greatly surprised me at the time, I did find it interesting as he explained that the official commission had been so severely under-funded, dishonest, and “set up to fail,” eventually producing a report that was “a total lie from beginning to end.” Nonetheless Carlson emphasized that for two decades this official report has become the basis for all subsequent media coverage of the terror attacks that day.
In this episode, Carlson documented that the Bush Administration had been repeatedly warned of planned terror attacks by al-Qaeda operatives, with various FBI and CIA reports on the likelihood of planned hijackings, even the strong possibility that the planes might be flown into buildings.
In an absolutely astonishing and extremely suspicious coincidence, our National Reconnaissance Office planned an exercise for September 11th simulating hijacked airlines in the vicinity of DC that would be used to crash into buildings. The confusion produced by the exact match of the simulated terror drill and the actual events as they unfolded that same day surely played an important role in explaining NORAD’s lack of effective response at the time.
So either we must accept such an absolutely extraordinary coincidence or assume that at least some elements of the American government were under the strong influence of the true plotters involved in planning the attacks. Although I’d always seen these claims made by 9/11 Truthers, having it all spelled out and fully verified in Carlson’s documentary confirmed the reality.
Carlson also documented the many failures of the Clinton Administration’s plans to kidnap or kill Osama bin Laden, including extensive testimony by Michael Scheuer, the longtime head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit.
I considered the fourth episode the most important in the series. The first three had avoided any of the “touchier” and more conspiratorial aspects of the story, instead presenting a highly documented account of huge government incompetence that resulted in a subsequent cover-up, including the 9/11 Commission. Therefore, although a great deal of important information was provided, none of those episodes—together totaling more than an hour—would seriously alarm more mainstream viewers, and placing them first allowed Carlson to build up considerable credibility in his series while probably also drawing a great deal of secondary coverage and attention.
He then shrewdly deployed that accumulated credibility to provide a few of the more shocking and extremely suspicious aspects of the case, all of which strongly suggested that the terrorist attacks must have involved participants far beyond al-Qaeda and its nineteen Arab hijackers inspired by Osama bin Laden. Although Carlson carefully avoided coming to any overly dangerous conclusions, he provided a roadmap allowing those interested to begin following up on their own.
Among other items, he described the exceptionally suspicious circumstances of the collapse of Building Seven, which clearly seemed to have been a controlled demolition, and how that event was almost totally ignored in the official 9/11 Commission Report.
His presentation included a clip of Donald Trump declaring that as a longtime builder he couldn’t imagine how the WTC towers could have been destroyed by the impact of the jetliners and that bombs must have also been placed inside the buildings in order to bring them down.
Trump’s verdict at the time was later confirmed in a long and careful 2016 presentation made by the late Prof. Graeme MacQueen, who discussed the government records obtained by FOIA requests. These included interviews of more than 150 eyewitnesses, overwhelmingly consisting of experienced first responders and rescue workers, who had reported hearing small explosions as the buildings collapsed, sounding like the sort of synchronized series of blasts that would be used in demolition projects. Six years later, this tremendously important video evidence has still only attracted 2.5K views on YouTube, a large majority of them coming after I began promoting the video a couple of years ago.
Carlson also noted how strange it seemed that nearly all the rubble of the destroyed buildings was almost immediately shipped away to Asia rather than examined for clues to the very surprising collapses. According to official reports, much of the steel had been melted but the office fires allegedly responsible could not possibly have burned hot enough to cause that. A couple of scientists obtained a few samples of the debris from volunteers and their tests revealed traces of highly explosive compounds, with their results published in 2009.
Prior to 2001, numerous other similar steel-framed buildings around the world had been engulfed in fires, but not a single one had ever collapsed in that fashion. AE911 later recruited a team of researchers led by a reputable academic to analyze what had happened, and in 2020 they released their study, concluding that it was impossible for Building Seven to have collapsed as maintained in the official story. Instead, such an immediate, symmetrical collapse at free-fall velocity, could only have been produced by a controlled demolition. But according to the government report, thousands of pounds of thermite would have been necessary to destroy all the steel columns in the manner suggested, obviously extremely difficult to place in Building Seven or the other destroyed WTC towers without the close cooperation of insiders.
In 2021, director Spike Lee had worked with AE911 to prepare a television documentary on the 9/11 attacks, including a segment presenting many of these anomalies. But although Lee was almost always lionized by the media, in this particular case he was instead ferociously attacked, including as an “antisemitic 9/11 conspiracy theorist,” and pressured into reediting his documentary to remove all those controversial elements.
Carlson also mentioned the hugely suspicious spike in stock options just prior to 9/11 Attacks, trades that seemed to clearly demonstrate foreknowledge of what was about to occur. The government determined that 95% of the hugely lucrative trades were made by a single institutional investor, but has never been willing to release the identity. As just one of many examples, the number of put options bought on American Airlines the day before the attack was 285 times normal trading volumes.
In fact, as Carlson emphasized there is extremely strong evidence that at least some foreign intelligence services had advance knowledge of the attacks, notably the Israeli Mossad, five of whose members were caught red-handed publicly videotaping and celebrating the attacks as they occurred and were soon arrested by the police while carrying numerous suspicious materials. Those Israeli agents were then held for months by the FBI and interrogated, repeatedly failing polygraph exams, before massive political pressure forced their release and deportation back to Israel, where they later declared that they had been in New York to “document” the attacks. Indeed, other government agencies revealed that some 125 Israeli espionage operatives had been caught at the time, most of them pretending to be art students. This constituted the largest foreign spy-ring uncovered in American history, with its operations centered in exactly the same locations as the 9/11 hijackers.
A New York Times article quoted Benjamin Netanyahu describing the attacks as “very good” for Israel. Among other surprising items very briefly noted by Carlson, the FBI never claimed that there was any evidence bin Laden had any connection with the attacks, almost no footage was ever released showing the attack on the Pentagon, the total lack of wreckage at the alleged Pennsylvania crash site of Flight 93 was never explained nor the miraculous survival of undamaged hijacker passports. Experts have also emphasized the great difficulty that amateur pilots with no aviation training would have had successfully flying those hijacked jumbo jets into their target. There are numerous other extremely strange anomalies in the official story.
Carlson’s ultimate conclusion was that we needed a true investigation of what had happened a quarter century ago, a legitimate 9/11 Commission that would actually seek to honestly answer all these many questions.
Then in the fifth and final episode, Carlson edged away from the more conspiratorial elements that had dominated the previous installment and focused instead upon the fully documented aspects of what America did after 9/11 and the longer term consequences.
He explained how the passage of the Patriot Act destroyed many of our traditional domestic civil liberties, while the CIA was transformed from an intelligence-gathering service into a paramilitary organization, rounding up large numbers of foreign suspects, holding them without trial, and brutally torturing them into providing confessions, often false ones, with quite a number dying from that torture.
Although the CIA had recruited some of the hijackers, brought them to America, and paid them, the only government official who received any serious punishment was the CIA officer sentenced to prison for becoming a whistleblower and disclosing the illegal program of torture to the media. Estimates are that at least 85% of all the many hundreds of detainees that we kidnapped and tortured were innocent of any crime, merely being the victims of personal feuds with their local neighbors. Some of these detainees are still held at Guantanamo after more than two decades.
Because of their mistakes, the CIA and the FBI had failed to protect America against terrorist attack, and they were massively rewarded for that failure, with the CIA’s budget raised by 500% and the FBI receiving almost as large an increase. The Bush Administration had failed, and Bush became a national hero as a result and won reelection. All the top Bush officials responsible for the disaster like Condi Rice were similarly rewarded in their later careers, as was Philip Zelikow, who had run the 9/11 Commission and successfully covered up the truth. Saudi CIA station-chief John Brennan had personally provided visas allowing some of the hijackers to come to America and partly because of that terrible blunder he became CIA director, and the godfather of its torture program.
Meanwhile, the Iraq War and the other consequences that followed the 9/11 Attacks cost our country and its taxpayers as much as nine trillion dollars and probably killed some five million innocent Middle Easterners.
As Carlson explains, the guilty mostly benefitted while enormous numbers of the innocent suffered.
He closed his series by repeating his demand for the establishment of a truthful and honest 9/11 Commission, which could sincerely investigate so many of the important leads that had been deliberately ignored by more than two decades ago, and finally inform the American people what had really happened that day and who had been responsible.
Tucker Carlson and the Assassination of Charlie Kirk
Although only the first episode has so far been publicly released, Carlson’s 9/11 series has gotten off to a very strong start. If we consider the YouTube viewership for that episode, the trailer, the extensive discussion in shows by Piers Morgan and The Young Turks, as well as various other videos and segments, the combined total appears to be approaching 10 million views.
A day or two after that episode dropped, Carlson was interviewed by Glenn Greenwald on the latter’s nightly System Update show. A portion of their discussion focused on that topic, and that particular segment was also released on YouTube:
Carlson made some important points. He emphasized that even if we accepted that all aspects of the official 9/11 story were accurate and complete, it is undeniable that none of the individuals or institutions responsible for the disaster suffered any serious penalty and instead a large majority were rewarded for their manifest failure.
He pointed out that such a pattern of total unaccountability in our political leadership will eventually cause the complete collapse of any trust in our government, perhaps leading to the dangerous rise of violent, revolutionary sentiments across the American population.
But most of their discussion instead centered upon the assassination of Charlie Kirk two weeks earlier and a major related Internet controversy that had suddenly engulfed Carlson.
Kirk’s memorial service had been held in Arizona a couple of days earlier on the 21st, drawing a massive crowd of some 90,000, one of the largest memorial gatherings for any private citizen in American history. As a close friend of the slain conservative leader, Carlson had naturally served as one of the main featured speakers, delivering a six minute eulogy.
In his speech, he identified Kirk’s martyrdom with that of Jesus, explaining how those who hated and sought to suppress the latter’s powerful message had finally resorted to killing him as their only option. But contrary to their expectations, the influence of Christ’s teachings had instead grown far more powerful as a consequence, going on to inspire and create the world’s largest religion, now followed by billions. The clear implication was that Kirk’s slaying at the hands of someone who hated his ideas would similarly inspire others to carry his message forward, allowing it to reach new heights.
Carlson had described an absolutely mainstream account of the Christian gospel, and I would think that almost all the Christians who listened to it whether in the audience or on the Internet merely nodded their heads and regarded it as absolutely appropriate and innocuous.
But oddly enough, those same words quickly unleashed a torrent of venomous rage from many Jewish partisans of Israel, who condemned Carlson’s speech in the strongest possible terms. Both media outlets and individual activists viciously attacked him as a deranged antisemite, claiming that he had accused Israel and the Jews of having killed Kirk, though he had obviously done no such thing.
Greenwald had listened to Carlson’s speech at the time he gave it, and was extremely puzzled by the wave of orchestrated attacks against statements that he found so unobjectionable. The resulting controversy prompted him to devote most of his show that evening to the hysterical attacks against Carlson and then invite the latter as a guest to discuss it himself the following night.
The obvious factor provoking this explosive reaction had been the existing controversy over Kirk’s assassination, including whether someone other than the deranged lone gunman arrested by the police might have been responsible.
As I discussed last week, during the two months prior to Kirk’s death, the young conservative leader had come under bitter personal attack by pro-Israel elements who were enraged by what they considered his wavering support for the Zionist State.
These facts had not been widely known to those outside Kirk’s personal circle, but soon after his death some outstanding investigative reporting by Max Blumenthal and his colleagues at the Grayzone revealed the very heavy-handed pressure being exerted against the young conservative leader, including offers of enormous new funding by Netanyahu that Kirk had flatly rejected. According to Blumenthal’s account, Kirk had become “frightened” by these pro-Israel forces suddenly arrayed against him and even told some of his friends that he feared for his life.
In a clip from an early August interview with Megyn Kelly, Kirk described how Israel and its American advocates had entered a “hyper-paranoid state,” regarding him and anyone else who deviated from their unswervingly pro-Israel line as their “enemies.”
Because of this recent history, Kirk’s sudden assassination led many to suspect that Israel and its Mossad might have been involved, and two public statements by Netanyahu declaring that he had not ordered Kirk’s assassination merely stoked rather than dampened such widespread speculation. According to Proverbs 28:1, “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.”
The suspicion that Israel killed Kirk extended far beyond the usual conspiratorial circles. Such theories were soon publicly expressed by fully respectable figures such as former CIA Analysts Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson, former National Security Council staffer Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, and former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi. Prof. John Mearsheimer seemed to take this possibility quite seriously as did columnist Patrick Lawrence, who had spent decades as a journalist on leading newspapers.
With so many Americans apparently growing convinced that Israel had killed Kirk and increasingly willing to say so, a great deal of dry political tinder had been piled up, ignited by the spark of Carlson’s remarks at the memorial service.
Ironically enough, Carlson explained to Greenwald that he had deliberately decided to avoid including any controversial or political remarks in his Kirk eulogy and therefore had been as shocked as everyone else when his simple Christian affirmation provoked such an angry and paranoid reaction.
All these rather unhinged attacks on Carlson may have prompted him to reveal some other explosive facts in his interview with Greenwald, facts that have since gotten into widespread circulation.
According to Carlson, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been telling everyone in his own country and the rest of the Middle East that he controls America and President Donald Trump. This was certainly an astonishingly bold and provocative statement for the leader of a very small country to make regarding a very large and powerful one.
Carlson is a proud and patriotic American, and he explained how utterly humiliating he found this situation. His humiliation was surely magnified because so many recent American political decisions actually seemed to support that outrageous boast by a foreign leader.
Carlson’s interview and the wave of attacks he had faced prompted Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks to devote an entire show to the bizarre story. As a strong progressive, she emphasized that she had long abandoned any religious affiliation, but she had been raised as a Christian and confirmed that Carlson had merely recounted the standard Christian gospel. As she explained in puzzlement, if merely affirming Christianity now constituted forbidden antisemitism, our overwhelmingly Christian country had reached a rather strange situation indeed.
But as it happens, last year I had noted that under heavy ADL lobbying pressure, exactly this bizarre ideological position had quietly been enacted into American law:
Some years ago a former senior AIPAC official once boasted to a friendly journalist that if he wrote anything on a simple napkin, within 24 hours he could get signatures of 70 Senators to endorse it, and the political power of the ADL is equally formidable. Therefore it was hardly surprising that last week an overwhelming bipartisan 320-91 majority in the House passed a bill broadening the meaning of anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the anti-discrimination policies of the Department of Education by codifying the definitions used in our Civil Rights laws to classify those ideas as discriminatory.
Although I haven’t tried to read the text, the obvious intent is to force colleges to expunge such noxious activities as anti-Israel protests from their campus community or face loss of federal funds. This represents a striking attack against academic freedom as well as America’s traditional freedom of speech and thought, and may also pressure other private organizations to adopt similar policies. In a particularly ironic twist, the definition of antisemitism used in the bill clearly covers portions of the Christian Bible, so the ignorant and compromised Republican legislators have now wholeheartedly endorsed banning the Bible in a country in which 95% of the population has Christian roots.
_
Related Reading:
- American Pravda: Israel, Charlie Kirk, and the 9/11 Attacks
- American Pravda: Remembering the 9/11 Truth Movement
- How Israel Killed the Kennedys
- American Pravda: Mossad Assassinations
- The Assassination of Charlie Kirk
___
"Tucker Carlson and the Resurrection of the 9/11 Truth Movement? Part I"
• 459 Comments
___
eof
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti
You are welcome to show your opinion here!