I am not no way no how down with the 9/11 conspiracy theories; actually, I consider them absurd to the point of being laughable. Not that it would be at all out of character for our gone-rogue, patently evil and illegitimate central government to commit such a heinous atrocity against its own subjects if it suited them to do so; assuredly, it isn’t. No, it’s that, having seen those crackpot theories convincingly debunked by various different and distinct parties, they seem to me to be in direct conflict with Occam’s Razor, for one thing.
For another, out of the cast of literally thousands who would have had to be involved in pulling such a thing off—including some who had spouses and/or children die that gruesome day—not even one of them has come forward to make themselves filthy rich by putting together a tell-all book exposing said conspiracy? SRSLY? Not ONE?!?
Yeah, no. Ain’t buying it, not a bit of it. Peddle it someplace else, there’s no market for it here.
That being so, I find it singularly displeasing that Tucker Carlson seems to hold a contrary opinion on the (non-)issue.
Tucker Carlson has fully left the neoliberal reservation. He is now broaching the sacred cows he presumably was prevented from touching as a Fox News host.
In a podcast from March, he mused about whether Building 7 imploded on itself due to uncontrolled structure fires or whether there might be some other plausible explanation.
“If you say, like, ‘What actually happened with building 7? Like that is weird, right? It doesn’t—like, what is that?’… If you were to say something like that on television, they’d flip out. They would flip out. So you’d, like, lose your job over that.
It’s an attack on my country. Can I ask? I don’t really understand. Do buildings actually collapse? No, they—maybe they do. I don’t know. But, like, why can’t I ask questions about that?”
Not exactly the most ringing of endorsements, but still. Congrats, Tucker, on having joined the august ranks of thoughtful, celebrity-supergenius luminaries such as Rosie “Fire doesn’t melt steel” O’Donnell, Martin Sheen, and Mark Ruffalo. Sheesh. But there might be something of a heartening aspect to this otherwise revoltin’ development, I suppose.
Due to mainstream media framing, one might be forgiven for writing off such skepticism of the 9/11 story the government told as “fringe.” In fact, according to a 2016 poll, “54.3 [of American respondents] percent agree or strongly agree” that the government is concealing what it knows about the 9/11 attacks—an even higher share of respondents who believed the government lied about the JFK assassination or aliens.
Here’s my prediction, not limited to 9/11 conspiracy theories but Carlson’s rhetoric more broadly: wherever he lands next, perhaps on his own platform, Carlson is going to make the Fox News version of himself look milquetoast in comparison.
At Fox, he was hamstrung by all of the respectability norms designed to safeguard the official narrative related to any given topic: the ongoing Russia proxy war, climate change, et al.
In the future, he won’t have those institutional constraints, and the corporate media and government censors like AOC who attempted to silence him by getting him taken off the air at Fox, and then celebrated on social media after they claimed their scalp, may live to regret the monster they have unleashed on American political discourse.
Call it the Dark Carlson effect.
Heh. Dark Carlson? I love it. Well, okay then, let ‘er rip, Tucker. After all, pobody’s nerfect, right?
- Entries
Can’t say what’s in Carlson’s mind, but I didn’t take that as anything more than what it was, an acknowledgement that discussion of some things is off the table, and shouldn’t be. The reason it’s “off the table” is because it involves our government as pure evil. Which is the wrong reason since our government is pure evil.
Most of the nutcase theory’s are just that, nutcase theory, none of which hold up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny involving physics.
OTOH, I find some of the new revelations about possible government involvement with the Saudi’s that were involved worth a lot more investigation.
My feeling was that the CIA/FBI had an idea an attack was coming. When and where and perhaps how, not so much.
But they had broken Bojinka. Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others of his group had a plan to hijack planes in Asia and use them as kamikaze to attack cities, perhaps as far as West Coast US. The ring was broken up in the Philippines. A lot of operational planning for 9/11 was at meetings in Kuala Lumpur, Malysia.
They had reports from several sources about Muslims wanting to learn to fly but not land.
They had Moussaoui in custody because of that, in Minnesota, but inexplicably would not allow them to break in and search his laptop.
Every single one of the other 19 were on the FBI radar and easily identified within 24 hours of the attack. Reminds one of the Known Wolves phenomenon we have seen in the 20 years since.
Plus we know that the TX Comic Convention Shooter was driven to the place by FBI and was pushed by the FBI!
They claim they had so much intel that those things were just noise that couldn’t be tied together.
Which worked out very conveniently as the premise for creating DHS to “coordinate” the intel from various sources.
They claim. How…conveeeeeeenient. As Monty Burns might way.
I didn’t hear him say that, so I think he was being hyperbolic and outrageous to make a point.
Why can’t I even ASK the question. Then you can run through the science and other things and we commit journalism that way.
Then either a conspiracy theory is either truly shown to be false OR true.
The main point was, “why can’t I ask that?”. As a journalist he should be able to ask that and hopefully get to a reasonable answer either way.
What he is upset about is that there are so many things one CAN’T ask about. The Election Fraud, Ray Epps, Other FBI working on J6 that were running a false flag, etc etc.
Here is the sentence I think says he’s not really believing in the 7 WTC Collapse Conspiracy, just that one can’t even ask about it:
I don’t really understand. Do buildings actually collapse? No, they—maybe they do. I don’t know.
Bold Emphasis mine. It sounds like self-deprecating pretend ignorance to make a point.
I wish I could actually see him say this in context of the larger picture.
Otherwise, this could just be a Trump Said To Drink Bleach moment.
From a couple of weeks ago:
Carlson says he has woken up to the fact that he’s spent his whole life in a world in which the media were lying to us. He says he’s ashamed.
It’s less than 2 minutes. Watch it.
I watched the entire thing a few days ago. It’s pretty clear he is disgusted that he didn’t see things clearly in the past.
Well, Tucker, Welcome to the Party, Pal.
To his credit Bill Quick was commenting about Iraq as far back as 2005-6.
It has been clearer and clearer that War and Economic Malaise (and now Collapse) are their Agenda, not the opposite.
Not to take away credit due, but it became clear that Bush had no intention of doing what was expedient. It was just another war boondoggle like Ike warned us about. Bill certainly saw it early.
I now view the entire Bush family as anti-American traitors.
If I could go back and vote for Perot, I would.
That was 30 years ago. I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.
In fact, seeing the world more for what it is than taking their word for it because they claimed to be “conservative”.
Ditto. I almost voted Perot anyway. I didn’t care much for Bush, but I *thought* Perot was a bit nutty. Perhaps he was, and he’d still have been better than Bush, or certainly Clinton*.
*And I don’t think Perot was the reason Bush lost like some claim. The electoral vote and where they came from indicate to me that Clinton lost just as much as Bush did. “Read My Lips”, Bush’s own words were what sunk him.
Agreed.