Fox News’ Tucker Carlson was captured on video in West Des Moines, Iowa as Michelle Bachmann was speaking in local businesses. in somewhat of an improv interview on the street by The Liberty Hound. In that interview, Carlson openly stated that is you don’t buy into the official story, which he does, then you’re a moron.
The conversation began with Carlson being asked about leaving a 2008 event in Minneapolis, Minnesota for Ron Paul.
While Carlson said it was “fun,” he added that “The truther stuff infuriates me.”
“I was enraged,” further added.
Carlson said that if there was any evidence that might conclude 9/11 was an inside job, he had not seen it.
“I hate that 9/11 crap,” he said. “I think that people, before saying something that heavy, ought to present real evidence.”
When asked about World Trade Center 7’s collapse, Carlson would not answer the question posed, but mocked it.
“My macro view is the obvious one, that the buildings came down because a bunch of nutcases flew a plane into them,” he said, even though Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
Hello, Tucker? Just two years later, Carlson would appear on Infowars, be shown evidence concerning Building 7 and go, “I have no idea.” Then he goes on to agree with Jones that 9/11 was used to take American’s liberties.
He also claims that alleged statements by former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura about 9/11 being an inside job and asking questions about the official story were “not controversial,” but “stupid.”
He would go on to state that such conversations should not even be taking place among mature adults.
However, he would also say, “I’m open to about almost any crackpot theory about anything. It’s just on that subject… c’mon. You know what I mean? That’s too much. I mean even for me!”
A bystander commented that there is a history of state-sponsored terror and Carlson had no response to that comment.
Operation Northwoods comes to mind. I mean, if the government will allow a plan like that to even be hatched and submitted decades ago, what do you think they might be doing today with the level of corruption we’ve seen?
The bystander also stated something the temperature that steel begins to melt at was not reached, which has been one of the many pieces of evidence that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have pointed out. In fact, here’s an entire list they created with documentation.
On September 11, 2001, the three worst structural failures in modern history took place when World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 suffered complete and rapid destruction.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, most members of the architecture and engineering community, as well as the general public, assumed that the buildings’ destruction had occurred as a result of the airplane impacts and fires. This view was reinforced by subsequent federal investigations, culminating in FEMA’s 2002 Building Performance Study and in the 2005 and 2008 reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Since 9/11, however, independent researchers around the world have assembled a large body of evidence that overwhelmingly refutes the notion that airplane impacts and fires caused the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. This body of evidence, most of which FEMA and NIST omitted from their reports, instead supports the troubling conclusion that all three skyscrapers were destroyed in a process known as “controlled demolition,” where explosives and/or other devices are used to bring down a building.
- Rapid onset of destruction,
- Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
- Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
- Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
- Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
- Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
- Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
- Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
- Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
- Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
Articles by AE911Truth
The following articles discuss and analyze the evidence for explosive controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. While most of these articles are intended for a general audience, the articles under “Technical Critiques of the NIST Reports” are geared toward readers with greater technical knowledge.
- 60 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11
World Trade Center Building 7
- Evidence for the Explosive Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11
- Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11
- How Did They Know? Examining the Foreknowledge of Building 7’s Destruction
- Twin Towers Evidence Blows Away Fire Collapse Theory
- Lack of Deceleration of North Tower’s Upper Section Proves Use of Explosives
- What was the Molten Metal Seen Pouring Out of the South Tower Minutes Before its Collapse?
- High Temperatures, Persistent Heat & ‘Molten Steel’ at WTC Site Contradict Official Story
- Billions of Previously Molten Iron Spheres in WTC Dust, Reveal Use of Thermitic Materials
- Advanced Pyrotechnic or Explosive Material Discovered in WTC Dust
- Evidence Destroyed is Justice Denied
Technical Critiques of the NIST Reports
- 25 Points of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports
- The NIST Analyses – A Close Look at WTC 7
- How NIST Avoided a Real Analysis of the Physical Evidence of WTC Steel
Critique of Popular Mechanics
The Psychology of 9/11
- Psychology Experts Speak Out: “Why is the 9/11 Evidence Difficult for Some to Accept?”
- Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11? A 20-Part Series
Table of World Trade Center Tower A Drawings
Table of World Trade Center Tower A Architectural Drawings
Table of World Trade Center Tower A Electrical Drawings
Other Technical Articles
Perhaps, Carlson has not reviewed any of these pieces of information. I honestly don’t know.
However, another bystander seems to fall on the wavelength of some of my own thinking, and that is our own funding of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 80s. We trained those people, and stupidly so.
Not only that, our own intelligence services admitted to knowing these guys were suspect and that there was training for the very event that took place on 9/11 by the Pentagon.
After making a comment that 9/11 questions should not be a part of “adult discourse,” Carlson was asked what he thought about the families of victims asking for evidence that has been withheld by the government and whether they are “less than adults.”
Instead of answering the question, something that should have been fairly easy to do given that he is above it all and knows so much, he attacked The Liberty Hound by saying, “It’s parasites like you that make it much worse for them.”
Of course, to his credit, he admitted that he was just as much a parasite when they called him out for being in the same media he was referring to.
The interviewer did speak with him several times after Tucker seemed to walk away, but I have to say, he was at least a good sport about it and the conversation did not become inflamed on either side.
Yet, Carlson said that those who bring up 9/11 in the fashion the interviewer did are “morons” and it’s the “most loathesome thing to say.”
Yet, Carlson never presented any “evidence” to support why he thinks the interviewer and those who do not believe the official story are morons.
Carlson also added that Alex Jones of Infowars “freaked” him out.
Stop, and let that interview sink in when someone wants to talk about evidence.
Carlson is not stupid. He’s a brilliant guy, but you can see how the propaganda can even work on him.
While I do believe there were elements in our government that had some understanding of what was taking place, I also believe there were real Islamic jihadis aboard the flights. Do I question some of the findings concerning Flight 93 and the flight that reportedly hit the Pentagon? Yes. Do I question the reality of a lot in the official story? Yes. I’m free to do that, and that’s based on evidence and reading different material, including the official story.
Nevertheless, the results have been the same.
- Americans gave up essential liberty for the illusion of security
- We entered into two major wars that were never won, and one continues, even though Congress has not declared war
- We are engaged in several countries, even helping the very jihadi mindset that was behind 9/11
- Thousands of our men and women have been killed in wars following 9/11
- Islam has seemed become a protected ideology in the US while Christianity has come under attack
- Media scrubs and covers for Islamic jihadis in terror attacks that take place in our country and across the world
- Our national debt has more than doubled during that time, in large part due to the wars we’re engaged in
- Saudi Arabia, the country which most of the hijackers came from and even gained financial support from, continues to be considered a friend and we aren’t attacking them at all
There are numerous problems with Building 7, as well as WTC twin towers, as far as Larry Silverstein is concerned. One should seriously consider his insurance policies and the timing of those, along with the clear indication that something about Building 7 is completely out of line with the official story.
And let’s not forget the over $2 Trillion in cash the Pentagon couldn’t account for that records pertaining to that money were allegedly stored in the very place the Pentagon was hit. We never got an answer for that from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
Finally, while there are still questions unanswered, I would also point out that there are some serious questions about the lies and actions of those in the FAA, the FBI, the Bush administration and others that have been well documented in The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11, which is not very friendly to 9/11 Truthers, that need to be addressed.