AE Blog #2: Is Tucker Carlson exposing 9/11 truth or burying it deeper?

His series is a combination of the incompetence theory and LIHOP with a sprinkling of controlled demolition and Israeli foreknowledge

Tucker Carlson says Muslim terrorists did 9/11.

By Craig McKee

We in the 9/11 Truth Movement are supposed to be thrilled that Tucker Carlson has done a five-part series on 9/11.

We’re supposed to be grateful that one of the most popular podcasters in the world is looking at some of the evidence for the controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7 (as well as mentioning Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth by name). And we’re supposed to rejoice that he has joined our call for a new investigation of this world-changing mass deception.

But should we be thrilled? Should we be grateful?

After watching all five parts, I have concluded that the answer is a qualified no. His series contains some good things, not the least of which is his strong call for a new investigation of 9/11. In its fourth episode, he looks at the evidence for the controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7. I’m delighted that this is being introduced to a wide audience. But his approach does not help the viewer to draw connections between the destruction of the WTC and the rest of the series, which focuses on the claim that a group of terrorists, led by Osama bin Laden, pulled off the event.

Yes, he shines a light on some things the 9/11 Truth Movement has been saying from the beginning. But the good things are wrapped up in a package that reinforces official myths and lies. My question is whether his attention to the WTC evidence really helps the cause that much given how it is intertwined with major elements of the official story.

As of the date that this blog post is published – Monday, October 20 – Carlson has released four of the five parts of the series to the public (all five have been available to his members for some time). The first three parts focus largely these key points: the misguided attempt to “recruit” members of al-Qaeda; the “failure” of the U.S. government in the months leading up to 9/11 to heed warnings that a major “attack” was on the way; the cover-up these alleged “failures” after the fact; and the use of the event to fulfill other political objectives (for example, the 2003 invasion of Iraq).

It is familiar territory for the Truth Movement. As other mainstream media have done in the past, Carlson gives us a combination of the “incompetence” theory and the LIHOP theory (Let It Happen on Purpose), which claims that the U.S. found out that the attacks were coming and chose to do nothing to stop them.

He exposes what he believes is criminal negligence on the part of the CIA and some serious bungling by the FBI. And he lays out the elaborate cover-up of the whole thing by the U.S. government over multiple administrations.

I’ve heard the argument made that perhaps Carlson is standing behind the “al-Qaeda did it” position because he thinks people are not ready to hear the full truth. I reject this theory. And even if it were true, that would be alarming. I don’t believe in reinforcing official lies to ease people into seeing through those lies.

On the other hand, Carlson does show a willingness to get into incendiary areas that would have been forbidden at one time. For example, he addresses head-on the contention that Israel at least had foreknowledge of the operation. He mentions the “dancing Israelis,” who admitted being in New York “to document the event.” Many truthers are delighted that he is willing to get into this. So am I. But to be clear, he suggests that Israel had foreknowledge of the event; he doesn’t suggest that they were conspirators in carrying it out.

He is also willing to look at the possibility of media foreknowledge in the form of the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 20 minutes before it came down.

But the main failing of the series is that he does not consider any of the evidence that points to the U.S. government’s role in planning and carrying out the “attacks.” While Carlson is very blunt in his condemnation of the deceit of major government players like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Philip Zelikow, and John Brennan, he stops short of explicitly considering that the government planned the event from the beginning.

That’s not a small problem; it’s a very big one.

In fact, he doesn’t even acknowledge that this is being asserted. This isn’t just an oversight; it is a fundamental failing of his investigation.

It isn’t necessarily that the facts he lays out are false, it’s that he doesn’t even consider that these facts could be part of a broader false flag operation that was conceived to be blamed on Muslim “terrorists.”

All of this raises some questions about what we in the Truth Movement want from all this attention. Of course, we want a new investigation, which Carlson says he favors. But we don’t want an investigation that restricts itself to examining whether al-Qaeda “had help” in attacking the United States. This is the massive lie we’ve been fighting for 24 years.

I do acknowledge that there is the potential for any mainstream attention to shake loose evidence that could lead to the exposure of the whole operation. But when that attention reinforces official lies, does it bring truth closer to the surface or bury it deeper?

And I’d like to make one more point. More and more prominent commentators are willing to consider that 9/11 was indeed a false flag operation. It is becoming safer to say this. And most are willing to go further than Carlson has so far. So while we are right to see some positives in what he has done, we should not rely on Carlson (or Ron Johnson or Curt Weldon or Dennis Kucinich, for that matter) to lead us anywhere.

We must continue to lead this fight ourselves. And hopefully, people like Tucker Carlson will follow.

In my next post, I’ll look at the five parts of Tucker Carlson’s The 9/11 Files in more detail – to separate the good news from the bad for the 9/11 Truth Movement. And check out the current episode of 9/11 Free Fall podcast, in which Andy Steele and I will dive into the Carlson series.