Des dossiers importants occultés grâce à la guerre contre l'Iran - Ron Unz
The Epstein Files, 9/11, and Other Important Matters Obscured by the Iran War
Ron Unz 7 septembre 2026
The twenty-fifth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks will arrive this Friday but I’m not sure how much attention that date will receive.
Those landmark events of a quarter-century ago were certainly among the most important in modern times, constituting the largest and most dramatic terrorist attacks in the history of the world. Indeed, they were arguably far larger than all such previous terrorist attacks combined, and they set into motion a long series of Middle Eastern wars that killed or displaced many millions in that region while costing our own country many trillions of dollars.
The Iraq War was one of the earliest and most important of those. In a recent interview with former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges, Prof. John Mearsheimer explained that the conflict had regularly been ranked by leading academic scholars as the most disastrous blunder in our entire national history.
But in that same discussion, Mearsheimer also emphasized that our current war with Iran had easily displaced Iraq at the top of such doleful charts, already having been far worse for our country. And since we are still in the midst of this new conflict, much less attention will probably be paid to that earlier war or to the anniversary of the terrorist attacks that precipitated it.
Over the last few years I’ve written some long articles on the 9/11 Attacks, but I have always emphasized that I was actually very much of a latecomer to the topic. For almost a decade, I’d never really paid much attention to the details of 9/11 let alone to those who were challenging the official narrative or analyzing its major anomalies.
I first explained this in a 2018 article and I have regularly repeated that account on a number of other occasions:
Oddly enough, for many years after 9/11, I paid very little attention to the details of the attacks themselves. I was entirely preoccupied with building my content-archiving software system, and with the little time I could spare for public policy matters, I was totally focused on the ongoing Iraq War disaster, as well as my terrible fears that Bush might at any moment suddenly extend the conflict to Iran. Despite Neocon lies shamelessly echoed by our corrupt media, neither Iraq nor Iran had had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks, so those events gradually faded in my consciousness, and I suspect the same was true for most other Americans. Al Qaeda had largely disappeared and Bin Laden was supposedly hiding in a cave somewhere. Despite endless Homeland Security “threat alerts,” there had been no further Islamic terrorism on American soil, and relatively little anywhere else outside of the Iraq charnel house. So the precise details of the 9/11 plots had become almost irrelevant to me.
Others I knew seemed to feel the same way. Virtually all the exchanges I had with my old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA for Ronald Reagan, had concerned the Iraq War and risk it might spread to Iran, as well as the bitter anger he felt toward Bush’s perversion of his beloved NSA into an extra-constitutional tool of domestic espionage. When the New York Times broke the story of the massive extent of domestic NSA spying, Gen. Odom declared that President Bush should be impeached and NSA Director Michael Hayden court-martialed. But in all the years prior to his untimely passing in 2008, I don’t recall the 9/11 attacks themselves even once coming up as a topic in our discussions.
During those same years, I’d also grown quite friendly with Alexander Cockburn, whose Counterpunch webzine seemed a very rare center of significant opposition to our disastrous foreign policy towards Iraq and Iran. I do recall that he once complained to me in 2006 about the “conspiracy nuts” of the 9/11 Truth movementwho were endlessly harassing his publication, and I extended my sympathies. Each of us moves in different political circles, and that brief reference may have been the first and only time I heard of the 9/11 Truthers during that period, causing me to regard them more like an eccentric UFO cult than anything else.
It is perfectly understandable that discussions of dramatic or important events may often be swept aside by even more dramatic and important events.
Indeed, when President Donald Trump launched his war against Iran some especially conspiratorial individuals argued that he was doing so primarily to distract public attention away from the controversy over the Epstein Files.
I was very skeptical of that theory at the time and remain so today. But it’s undeniably true that many important aspects of the Epstein Files story have been ignored because of the overwhelming public focus on Iran throughout most of the last half year.
However, that latter conflict has now receded to a relatively low boil, mostly involving intermittent strikes and counter-strikes. Therefore, I think it’s worth revisiting some aspects of the Epstein Files issue that had come to the forefront just before the outbreak of the Iran War completely swamped all other topics.
For example, less than two weeks before our attack against Iran, I’d published a long article discussing some of the emerging revelations regarding the Epstein Files and the contrasting perspectives presented by Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson.
I’d noted that Fuentes had been extremely dismissive of the more conspiratorial interpretations of the Epstein Files, especially including the widespread allegations of pedophilia. He had devoted nearly three hours of his shows to debunking much of that evidence, seeming to do so in quite convincing fashion.
But as I explained, a podcast by Tucker Carlson released around the same time revealed some astonishing facts about the case that completely reversed that conclusion.
At this point I was inclined to dismiss most of the more lurid aspects of the Jeffrey Epstein case as smoke lacking any serious evidence of fire.
But the second show of Fuentes had aired around the same time as one by Tucker Carlson on the same subject, and after I watched the latter my verdict shifted once again.
Carlson’s guest was a researcher named Ian Carroll, previously unknown to me, but clearly someone who had spent a good deal of time carefully investigating the contents of the Epstein Files. And although just like Fuentes, he hadn’t found any explicit smoking guns, certain seemingly innocuous words and phrases that regularly appeared set off massive alarm bells. These included repeated references to simple food items such as pizza and grape soda, but used in a context that didn’t make any logical sense.
When I’d published my original 2019 article on Epstein and his activities I’d also discussed the very strange story of the Pizzagate Scandal, in which such food items had seemingly been used as codewords by a ring of politically powerful pedophiles. But perhaps naively, I’d never once suspected at the time that Epstein or his network had any direct connection to Pizzagate, so I was shocked to discover that his own private emails used some of those same exact codewords.
I don’t regularly read the New York Times these days, but on Friday one of their stories on the Epstein Files mentioned that connection:
The document dump also included hundreds of references to pizza, leading several popular conservative commentators to revive Pizzagate, a debunked conspiracy theory from 2016 about a child sex-trafficking ring operating out of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C.
Does it seem plausible that the Epstein Files would contain “hundreds of references to pizza” if the actual food were the intended meaning? Did Epstein and his ultra-elite circle of friends enjoy eating pizza so much that they would constantly mention it in their important emails?
After Trump had reversed himself last year and refused to release the Epstein Files, Carlson had interviewed Darryl Cooper for nearly three hours on the Epstein case, and to their tremendous credit, the last portion of that show had discussed the long-suppressed Pizzagate Scandal in considerable detail. That had probably been one of the very rare times that shocking story had been brought before a national audience since 2016.
When the Pizzagate Scandal first erupted in 2016 I’d republished a couple of articlesthat had attracted a great deal of attention. The sudden arrest of Jeffrey Epstein in 2019 led me to revisit the topic in an article, and I had done so again in 2025 when the Epstein Files controversy suddenly flared up once again.
- American Pravda: Jeffrey Epstein, the Franklin Scandal, Pedophilia, and Political Blackmail
The Suppressed Pedophilia Scandal of Pizzagate
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • July 28, 2025 • 12,300 Words
In my February 2026 discussion I’d seconded some important points made by Carlson and also suggested the obvious reason that the Epstein Files containing these striking Pizzagate references had been released even while many other incriminating emails had probably been held back.
In considering those very strange references in Epstein’s emails, Carlson made an excellent point.
There is obviously nothing illegal about discussing pizza and grape soda with anyone, even a notorious conspirator such as Jeffrey Epstein. Opening any sort of criminal investigation might not be justified at this stage.
But since all of Epstein’s interlocutors are so easily available, why shouldn’t FBI agents merely interview them and ask them about all those hundreds of references to pizza and other basic food items? And if they indeed referred to the actual foods, why were they usually used in such strange contexts?
Observers have also noted that the Epstein Files released contained no mention of many of the more controversial things that people expected to find, leading to suspicions that those other, more incriminating files had been kept back from the public, Congressional mandates notwithstanding.
But suppose that were the case. Given that the files numbered in the millions, it seems likely that simple text-searches were used to flag and then review those files that mentioned any sinister activity, doing so based upon the presence of certain words such as “blackmail.”
However, the officials running such text-searchers may not have considered flagging emails that contained seemingly innocuous words such as “pizza,” allowing those to slip out along with all the others.
If so, then the use of those simple codewords by Epstein and his fellow conspirators may have been responsible for this major break in the case.
- American Pravda: Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, Jeffrey Epstein, and Pizzagate
Jeffrey Epstein and the Pizzagate Pedophilia Scandal
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • February 16, 2026 • 10,700 Words
Around the same time I’d published that article, some other surprising aspects of the Epstein Files related to the 9/11 Attacks suddenly came to public attention only to be swept away by the outbreak of the Iran War.
In late November 2002, the Bush Administration had been pressured into establishing the official 9/11 Commission, whose eventual later report was widely denounced and ridiculed by the 9/11 Truth movement.
Prior to her conviction and imprisonment, Ghislaine Maxwell had spent years as Epstein’s closest associate. In an email from early January 2003 she had been invited to serve on something called “the Shadow Commission on 9/11” by longtime investigative journalist Edward Jay Epstein, someone unrelated to the other Epstein.
Although Maxwell had politely turned down that offer, those couple of sentences provoked a great deal of discussion in conspiratorial circles, much of it suggesting extremely nefarious implications.
My own interpretation of that brief email was quite different and I found it rather innocuous. The journalist was simply putting together an informal group of individuals who would privately discuss or investigate the 9/11 Attacks much like the official commission planned to do, and that hardly struck me as strange.
But another item that came out almost immediately afterward did seem exceptionally suspicious to me.
Despite Congressional legislation mandating the full release of the Epstein Files, only a little more than half of the 6 million documents had actually been made available, with some 2.6 million held back based upon a wide variety of less than plausible excuses.
As I mentioned above, there were widespread suspicions that the unreleased documents had been retained because they had been flagged as containing incriminating keywords or other politically sensitive material, perhaps even including numerous “smoking guns.”
But as investigators began examining the document dump, they discovered something quite shocking and suspicious. A very large fraction of the missing files were concentrated around the years 1999-2001, with the gap beginning around September 1998 and ending around January 2002. This soon became known as “the Canyon.”
A Tweet presenting this very surprising information was viewed over 6 million times, with physicist Steve Hsu confirming those strange facts.
This large gap in the released emails produced widespread conspiratorial speculation, including suggestions that some members of Epstein’s circle had been involved in the 9/11 Attacks and the unreleased documents revealed their complicity. But that seemed extremely unlikely to me.
Even if a few of those individuals had actually been among the 9/11 conspirators, I couldn’t imagine that they would have discussed their involvement in the sort of ordinary emails included in the Epstein Files.
However, some related possibilities were much more plausible.
Epstein’s circle constituted an ultra-elite international group, now often called “the Epstein class.” So perhaps a few of them might have been privy to leaks or other indications that the terrorist attacks were planned for 2001. Considered in hindsight, they may have said things that would completely destroy the official narrative that 9/11 had been solely carried out by nineteen Arab hijackers armed with boxcutters who were followers of Osama Bin Laden.
Even if that had not been the case and the members of Epstein’s circle possessed no more information than ordinary American citizens, the 9/11 events would surely have dominated their email discussions in the immediate aftermath. So perhaps some of them had privately expressed exactly the same extreme skepticism towards the official narrative as the ordinary citizens who eventually coalesced into the 9/11 Truth movement.
Suppose the world discovered that top corporate executives, international billionaires, senior political figures, and distinguished academics had actually been among some of the earliest 9/11 Truthers. That would demonstrate the sheer dishonesty of the heavy-handed attempts by the establishment to suppress any such skeptics with ridicule.
It’s impossible for me to say whether any of these possibilities might be correct, but it does seem extremely suspicious that the missing files are so heavily concentrated around 9/11. Concerned citizens should therefore redouble their demands that the government fully comply with the law and release those millions of missing files so that we can decide one way or the other on the matter.
When Congressional legislation is passed and signed into law requiring that official documents must be released but the government still refuses to do so, we should become very suspicious about the reasons. The unwillingness to release all the Epstein Files from the last couple of decades is hardly the only example of this, nor even the most notorious.
One of the most infamous assassinations in modern world history occurred more than sixty years ago when President John F. Kennedy was suddenly struck down in Dallas at the absolute height of our nation’s power and prosperity. Future historians may well eventually date America’s decline from that seminal 1963 incident, marking as it did the beginning of the tumultuous events of the 1960s, including the other assassinations of that period. Just a few years later, Kennedy’s own younger brother Robert was shot down in 1968 as he was on the verge of reaching the White House.
For decades, the public has demanded that all the government files related to the JFK Assassination be released and for decades our government has refused to do so. Sixty-three years have passed and surely all the individuals mentioned in those files have long since departed this earth, probably along with most of their children and even their grandchildren, so this stubborn refusal seems to lack any non-nefarious justification.
Given such popular sentiments, Trump had promised in his 2024 presidential campaign to support legislation requiring the declassification of all those files, and he actually fulfilled that pledge. Huge batches of those files were released in March and April 2025, sparking waves of renewed interest in that topic. At the time, we were told that all the files had finally been released, and like many others I accepted that claim.
However, that may not have actually been the case.
John Kiriakou had spent many years as a decorated CIA officer. But in the aftermath of the 9/11 Attacks and our failed war in Iraq, he became one of our nation’s most prominent whistleblowers, revealing to the American people some of the illegal activities associated with those national disasters, and being prosecuted and serving time in prison as a result.
Then in a remarkable interview earlier this year, Kiriakou declared that that there were some 10,000 government documents related to the JFK Assassination that had still not been released and never would be. He explained that the reason for this omission was that all those documents pointed to an Israeli hand behind the assassination of our president, who had been killed because of his efforts to block Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Kiriakou is a credible, high-profile public figure and under normal circumstances, his explosive claims might have produced a firestorm of public discussion. But they came just four weeks after we had attacked Iran and at the height of our combat operations, so they largely passed unnoticed. However, with the Iran War now subsiding, we should now revisit that issue.
In 1994 the late researcher Michael Collins Piper had concluded that the Israeli Mossad had been behind the JFK Assassination and beginning in 2018 I have published numerous articles taking that same position. After the large tranches of JFK documents released last year provoked a wave of discussion, I summarized much of my own analysis.
- How Israel Killed the Kennedys
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • March 24, 2025 • 11,500 Words
One of the tiny handful of other writers who have been willing to endorse the extremely controversial Piper Hypothesis has been Laurent Guyénot, a leading French conspiracy-researcher. I would strongly recommend his 2019 book The Unspoken Kennedy Truth as the best single exposition of the Israel/Mossad case for the JFK Assassination, summarizing all the important information but still short enough to easily read in just a day or two.
I’d endorse at least 95% of Guyénot’s analysis, and he also presented that same material in a 2022 documentary conveniently available on YouTube. Although perhaps a bit too hagiographic, “Israel and the Assassinations of the Kennedy Brothers” constitutes the best video introduction to that subject.
Back in 2022 I was interviewed by Iranian broadcast television on the JFK Assassination, and those two half-hour segments might also be worth watching.
Meanwhile, for those lacking any such patience, podcaster Candace Owens last year did an excellent job of wrapping up the entire story in less than three minutes.
The JFK Assassination might rank as the most famous event of the twentieth century and the 9/11 Attacks might hold the same status in our twenty-first century. But youthful Americans probably regard them as merely stories from history rather than as anything that they personally experienced.
For many such young people last year’s assassination of Charlie Kirk may have filled that same role, a searing event that was permanently etched into their memory.
While speaking at a university campus, the conservative leader was shot dead at the age of 31 by a sniper, with the video becoming one of the most viral in history. Kirk’s killing must have had much the same psychological impact upon his many millions of enthusiastic supporters as the death of JFK had had upon earlier generations more than sixty years earlier.
Unfortunately, there may be other similarities between the assassinations of those two young and popular political leaders.
A few days after the killing, I’d published an article explaining that in the period leading up to his death, Kirk had begun sharply reassessing his lifelong support of Zionism and had therefore come under extremely harsh attacks by the agitated partisans of that movement who almost regarded him as a traitor. Given Kirk’s great popularity among conservative youth, his shift might have had enormous political consequences so his sudden, very professional assassination immediately raised dark suspicions in my mind.
In that piece, I passed along a personal story:
Therefore, a few hours after hearing of Kirk’s death, I very gingerly raised these possibilities with someone well situated in conservative circles who personally knew Kirk, and was shocked by his response. He unequivocally told me that everyone in Kirk’s circle, even including important Trump Administration officials, suspected that Israel had probably killed the young conservative leader. While such beliefs might not necessarily be correct, I was astonished that they were apparently so widespread without even a hint of those notions reported anywhere in the mainstream or conservative media.
However, within 48 hours that media silence was dramatically broken when Grayzoneeditors Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil published an explosive articledocumenting the terrible political pressures Kirk had been experiencing and the suspicions of many that Israel had had a hand in his death. As they wrote:
There is currently no evidence of an Israeli government role in Kirk’s assassination. However, that has not stopped thousands of social media users from speculating that the pro-Trump operative’s shifting views on the issue contributed in some way to his death. By the time of publication, over 100,000 Twitter/X users have liked a September 11 post by libertarian influencer Ian Carroll declaring about Kirk, “He was their friend. He basically dedicated his life to them. And they murdered him in front of his family. Israel just shot themselves.”
Many advancing the unsubstantiated theory have pointed to a Twitter/X post by Harrison Smith, a personality at the pro-Trump Infowars network, stating on August 13 – almost a month before Kirk’s assassination – that he was told by “someone close to Charlie Kirk that Kirk thinks Israel will kill him if he turns against Israel.”
- The Assassination of Charlie Kirk
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • September 15, 2025 • 6,100 Words
For those who prefer a different medium, an excellent video was Tweeted out by Propaganda & Co., covering much of that same very early material and already attracting more than a million views after just one day.
The Utah police quickly arrested the supposed assassin, a deranged lone gunman named Tyler Robinson, who had allegedly become murderously outraged by Kirk’s hostility towards transgenderism. But deranged lone gunman have been ubiquitous in high-profile American political assassinations since at least the days of Kennedy, and I’d expressed some skepticism about that story.
The following week I’d published another long article on the assassination with one of its sections entitled “Tyler Robinson as Skilled Assassin or Hapless Patsy” and in it I explored some of the many strange anomalies in the emerging government narrative.
One of Kirk’s oldest and closest friends was conservative podcaster Candace Owens, and she immediately began producing a long series of videos analyzing the evidence and raising huge doubts about the case against Robinson. These quickly accumulated a remarkable 25 million views on YouTube and I found many of her objections quite plausible.
Almost a year has now passed, and Owens has continued her remarkable detective work, accumulating a great deal of additional evidence against the government case. She has persuasively argued that Kirk died at the hands of a conspiracy, a conspiracy now being covered up by our government.
Last month Owens effectively summarized much of that evidence in an hour-long interview on the Young Turks podcast, and I found her material quite compelling.
The host was Ana Kasparian, a very level-headed progressive and someone extremely reluctant to embrace conspiratorial narratives. But like me, she was also greatly impressed by the large number of extreme anomalies that Owens had tracked down and highlighted.
An attorney named Baron Coleman has also been closely following the Charlie Kirk story and the previous month he had been interviewed for an hour, summarizing what he regarded as the glaring weakness of the government case against Robinson.
In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, all the strange elements of the initial case against Robinson had led me to conclude that there was a 70-75% chance that the official story was at least substantially false. But after seeing all the additional evidence subsequently accumulated and analyzed by Owens and Coleman, I’d raised that likelihood to over 95% and I think that many others have come to the same conclusion.
For example, Col. Larry Wilkerson served as the longtime chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, spending decades as a pillar of the government establishment and a participant in the innermost circles of national security matters. In an interview with Andrew Napolitano a few months ago, he declared that he was absolutely certain that Israel had killed Charlie Kirk in order to clear the path for Trump’s Iran War, and he believed that the same country had also played a central role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Within Trump’s inner circle, Kirk had been one of the most influential opponents of any attack on Iran and Trump began the war only a few months after Kirk’s assassination. So Wilkerson is hardly alone in believing that if Kirk had lived, our current disastrous Middle Eastern conflict might have been averted.
Many of the other major events we have been discussing may also be deeply interconnected in such ways, ways that are sometimes less than visible to the naked eye.
Consider Hawaii. The elements of that small archipelago may seem to consist of a number of individual, scattered islands. Yet beneath the surface, they are all actually joined together, constituting merely the visible portions of an enormous, submerged landmass. And the same may be true for many of the seminal geopolitical events whose consequences dominate our recent history.
For example, the sharp break between Kirk and his Zionist former allies was ignited when he provided a major speaking platform to Tucker Carlson at one of his TPUSA events. In his speech, Carlson’s revealed that almost everyone in DC political circles regarded Jeffrey Epstein as having been a Mossad operative, accumulating blackmail evidence in order to control our political leaders on behalf of the Jewish State.
As a result, Kirk’s former Zionist allies demanded that Carlson be banned from all future TPUSA events, but Kirk strongly refused, and Carlson later revealed that Kirk had actually encouraged the speech that had provoked the firestorm.
If Israel did indeed kill Kirk, one of the major motives may have been clearing the political path for an Iran War just as many are now suggesting. But at the time of the assassination, I had focused on another matter that may have explained the tight timeline of developing events.
The most famous date in recent American history is surely September 11th and Kirk was killed on September 10th. But although the immediate proximity of those two dates was probably coincidental, the close connection between those two events may not have been…
I now discovered that Carlson was similarly planning to reignite the public debate over the 9/11 Attacks, preparing to release a five-part documentary series on those 2001 events, with his trailer declaringthat everything the government had told us at the time was a complete lie.
Carlson currently ranks as the most powerful figure in today’s fragmented media landscape, and a five part documentary taking such explosive positions seemed likely to resurrect great public interest in those attacks a generation after they had occurred. The first installment was appropriately scheduled for release on the September 11th anniversary date.
The sudden, shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk on the 10th obviously derailed all of those plans, with Carlson naturally focusing all of his attention on the tragic death of his friend. The first installment of the series was quickly rescheduled for release on the 23rd, and I expect that it will have considerable impact.
But consider the far greater impact if Kirk not been killed.
Kirk was a close friend and ally of Carlson, and he probably would have endorsed and heavily promoted the latter’s 9/11 series to the millions of youthful conservative Americans in his TPUSA orbit, most of whom only dimly remembered those catastrophic attacks if they had even been alive at the time…
But Tucker Carlson ranks as one of the most influential conservatives in American society as did Charlie Kirk, and if Carlson’s 9/11 revelations had been strongly supported by the latter, the impact on our ideological and political landscape would have been gigantic. Just as Carlson had probably played the central role in reviving public interest in the true facts of the JFK Assassination, with Kirk’s support his series might have done the same with 9/11…
Therefore, Israel and its leadership may have concluded that Kirk needed to be eliminated before Carlson released his 9/11 series, and matters were quickly put into motion. Kirk was killed the day before the series was released, greatly diminishing its potential impact and also providing a massive new media story able to divert popular attention from those half-forgotten events of 2001.
- American Pravda: Israel, Charlie Kirk, and the 9/11 Attacks
September 10th and September 11th
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • September 23, 2025 • 11,000 Words
Although delayed by a couple of weeks, Carlson’s 9/11 series was soon released, and just as I’d expected it attracted huge viewership, with its very high production values adding to its credibility. A number of mainstream journalists and academics who had always previously dismissed the 9/11 Truth movement took it quite seriously. This included the influential progressives of the Young Turks channel, whose laudatory coverage carried the crucial facts into ideological quarters less likely to be reached by Carlson himself.
As I explained at the time:
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…
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…
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…
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.
- Tucker Carlson and the Resurrection of the 9/11 Truth Movement? Part I
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • September 29, 2025 • 7,400 Words
Even without the support of Kirk, the series and its important secondary coverage racked up well over 20 million views on YouTube, probably the bulk of that within the first few weeks of release. I think that figure was probably far greater than the combined total of every other 9/11 Truth documentary over the last dozen years, perhaps even several times larger.
If Kirk had lived a few more weeks and heavily promoted the series to his many millions of devoted followers, it might have easily gone super viral and tripled or quadrupled its audience.
Related Reading:
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire