The Tucker Carlson 9/11 Files | Ep 4

An Alternative Media Talking Head's Mission in Uncovering 9/11 Truth Gone Wrong

Ok, here we go. Tucker is heading over to the WTC complex destruction and I’m already apprehensive of what complete and utter lack of investigation into all the anomalies at the World Trade Center complex we will find in this piece.

I have $1000 on Tucker NOT being able to count past three. Read more here.

Within the first few seconds, Tucker fails beautifully making the absolute hogwash statement about the ‘rubble being shipped off to China immediately.” Bloody hell Tucker, seems you forgot about the ABC News coverage on September 12, 2001 that quickly needed a cover-story for the uncomfortable questions being asked, due to people recognising a massive problem at the World trade Center, as soon as the dust settled. I’ve made a quick edit from one of your YouTube shorts, just to point out just how bamboozled you are with this ‘shipped off to China” nonsense. (2 minute clip)

Where is the rubble Tucker? Read: Controlled Demolition Expert Speaks Out!

NOAA LIDAR 16 to 23 September 2001

Then Tucker makes the following statement:

In the wake of 9/11, it’s possible that there are people who wanted conspiracy theories to thrive — the more far out, the better. The more time people spend wondering about directed-energy weapons, the less time they focus on the obvious — the facts hiding in plain sight — and the main fact that they are ignoring: our government’s central role in facilitating those attacks. We established this in Episode 1 of this series. And the extreme levels of incompetence that made it possible for Bin Laden from Kandahar, Afghanistan to pull off the most sophisticated terror attacks in history.

NO Tucker you are WRONG! You are wrong in postulating “extreme levels of incompetence that made it possible for Bin Laden from Kandahar, Afghanistan to pull off the most sophisticated terror attacks in history”.

Then you go on to say: “in this episode, we’ll go through those theories one by one and explain — using primary source documents, interviews with CIA officials, contemporary news reports — exactly what we know about those theories”.

O, for fuck sakes Tucker - CIA officials and contemporary news reports? Really? Why not just ask Chat GPT to tell you what happened on 9/11 and run with that? O, you kinda already are.

The fact that you just brush the evidence of directed energy technology, shows you’re not really interested in finding the truth and you’ve already showed some of your bias in a Shawn Ryan interview that I deconstructed in this clip below and my article, here.

It’s strange you want to poo-poo the evidence presented to court in 2007, by a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials.

She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division, and has served on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division. Dr. Wood received her B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992).

Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told.

In this presentation, Judy Wood talks about her book “Where Did the Towers Go?”

The book is the culmination of years of work and study that she’s been presenting on her website DrJudyWood.com about the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11/01.

Let’s listen to her experience with the captured court system of America. (16 minutes)

Tucker, who were the 23 NIST contractors Dr Wood sued? What do they specialise in?

But, I digress, let’s listen to the rest of the waffling, that will follow in this episode.

Tucker goes on to discuss where Building 7 was positioned relative to the WTC complex and he mentions there was a building between Building 7 and the North Twin Tower 1. Tucker, didn’t you notice just what Building 6 looked like after the dust had settled? Read more about the anomalies with Building 6, here.

It’s rather amusing to see that Tucker will NOT address the anomalies with Buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 and the Bankers Trust building and he’s falling in lock step with the 9/11 movement away from 9/11 truth, called the 9/11 truth movement.

At the 2 minute 25 mark, Andrew Johnson voice is heard talking about the dustification of steel in mid air.

So, that tells me, it’s an orchestrated and pre-meditated ignoring of the evidence presented by Dr Wood and Andrew Johnson for many years by Tucker Carlson. Have a listen to this short clip, with Andrew Johnson as narrator. (3 minutes)

Then a clip gets played of a lady mentioning she saw no plane, after Andrew Johnson’s voice over discusses the dustification of the Towers, but Tucker then heads directly over to Building 7. So, why even put the ‘no-plane” clip in? I will re-iterate, again:

A whole industry has been created - A whole “truth” movement, to have people NOT look at the evidence presented TO COURT in 2007, all whilst they are gaslighting good intentioned truth seekers with stories of remote-controlled planes or drones, CGI TV video fakery, bombs, and thermite for a controlled demolition or even buried or mini nukes.

Making sure people NEVER look at the anomalies with the 9/11 orphans, buildings 3, 4, 5, 6 and the Bankers Trust building, because if people do, they will immediately see the problems with the 9/11 truther narratives that are being SOLD to them.

Good intentioned truth seekers are FUNDING the greater cover-up of the truth of what happened on 9/11. Read their court filings.

1. Dr Reynolds’ case was for the fraudulent plane impact reports.

2. Dr Wood’s case was for the destruction at the WTC complex.

Tucker has now joined the cult that cannot count past three and seems to be the new spokesperson for this cult. Tucker, let me remind you about how people can be deceived, especially with the focus on Building 7;

Tucker then jumps back to the Towers, buy bringing in a clip with Donald Trump questioning how a plane can bring down the towers, planting the bombs in the building narrative seed for his audience. I’m surprised that Tucker brings in the ABC News report of September 12, 2001 mentioning the lack of rubble, but making claims that a few dump trucks hauled away some debris, which is laughable to think that you’d believe enough debris could be removed in just a few hours to have people scratch their heads and asking about the lack of rubble. Tucker, should read: Myanmar Provides a 9/11 Lesson for Critical Thinkers. Take all the time you need Tucker.

Tucker then goes into the 2020 study of Building 7, but there is a major anomaly that the $ 316 000 study, funded by supporters of architects for an engineered truth, conveniently forgot to mention, that proves Building 7 didn’t go down due to fires or controlled demolition. (3 minutes)

When you ask these stalwarts of the 9/11 truth movement about the Building 7 anomaly, they tend to choke up, get red in their faces and nearly fall off their chairs.

What Tucker also forgets to mention is that whenever these 9/11 truth movement stalwarts play clips of Building 7 going down, they never play the original audio, just like Tucker did in his coverage. So, let me play you clips with original audio.

Then Tucker does it! He really does it. He brings up the famous WTC dust sample study! Whoopee! Hey Tucker, you do know that that study is based on fraudulent science? But hell, don’t believe me, let’s listen to Denis Rancourt, a materials scientist, that was in a science debate in 2020, when he pointed out why the study is flawed.

We should not forget about all the other dubious and fraudulent evidence presented by this so called scientist, Steven E. Jones. (5 minute clip)

What exactly was found in the dust after the event? (2 minute clip)

Tucker, have you read up on how much thermite would be needed to sever all the columns in A Tower? Never mind getting it into the towers and setting it up in blast charges and all the cabling required, and never mind the fact that thermite is an incendiary and does not have the power to eject steel out of their place, as discussed by this Aerospace Engineer in 2024.

The calculation was 29 000 metric tonnes of thermite for EACH Tower.

What does 100lbs of thermite look like in action Tucker? What did we see Tucker?

Let’s end the ‘Nano Thermite’ hypothesis so we can focus on real science.

Predictably Tucker immediately jumps into the sounds of explosions heard by people in and around the WTC complex. Now Tucker, I’ll ask the question, is everything that goes boom, a bomb? I recommend reading my two bomb articles, here and here.

And then Tucker fails again, by mentioning the BBC reporting on Building 7 going down 20 minutes before it did. I’m struggling to contain my laughter, because Tucker, CNN reported on Building 7 going down an hour before it did. There were numerous false reports the whole day of various buildings that have collapsed. It was a crazy day with a hell of a lot of mis-reporting… (1 minute clip)

Hell, Fox News was busy reporting on Building 7 going down and they were just in time to switch over to the live feed to see it happen, 30 seconds later. (1 minute clip)

Just another quick point on Building 7, Tucker.

Tucker then goes into foreknowledge and the insider trading that was done and let’s hear what the investigation uncovered. Tucker forgot to mention Robert Baer, a prominent journalist, said he knows someone that knew 9/11 was going to happen…

The American author, journalist, and former CIA case officer (born July 11, 1952) continues to work as an intelligence analyst for CNN and a columnist for outlets like Time and The Wall Street Journal. Recent sources, including his Wikipedia page (updated as of July 2025) and a biography profile, confirm his age as 72 or 73 in 2025 with no mention of his death. He remains married to Dayna Baer Williamson and has published books as recently as 2022, such as The Fourth Man. (1 minute clip)

Tucker then mentions the NSA reports about intercepted phone calls and more, so let’s listen to the Fox investigative report that came out in December 2001, which got scrubbed of their websites and archive, because the fall out after the report was severe.

I suggest you listen to the full report below, as Tucker didn’t do the report any justice.

Then whilst we are on the subject of foreknowledge, how did Trump know in 2000?

Who are some of Donald Trump’s best buddies in New York? (1 minute)

Whilst we are on ol’ Lucky Larry, you need to wake up to his distraction most 9/11 truthers fell for. I’ll remind you again. Do you think the people that planned 9/11, forgot to plan a cover-up? Also ask, what would that cover-up look like? (2 minutes)

Tucker then finishes off the episode with asking a bunch of questions, but so far he hasn’t pointed a finger at the 23 NIST subcontractors who were in large part, part of the bigger cover up. He makes mention of the hoodwink at Shanksville and the PentaCON and in episode five, he’ll be delving into who profited from 9/11.

Will he point a finger to the US Military Industrial complex and their shareholders?

We’ll just have to tune in for episode five, but I’ll leave you with this. (4 minutes)

---

Then just a last point that you, the reader, need to take into consideration. (4 minutes)

Last minute addition to the article, before it went live;

The following clip was put together after Tucker Carlson had Charlie Sheen on his podcast yesterday, to have a chat about Charlie’s foray into 9/11 in 2009 and they talked about Charlie’s open letter: Twenty Minutes with the President - That he did with Alex Jones back in the day and in the conversation, Tucker showed just how disingenuous he is, by stating he’s very open minded and one must not be afraid to ask questions, yet he is ignoring one of the most controversial aspects of 9/11, the truth.

I’ll put it to you again, that if someone tells you not to look at something, then you know you must look at it. Remember covid anyone? Don’t do your own research!

Listen to this compilation that I put together and let me know your thoughts in the comments. (9 minutes)

Thank you for reading, thank you for watching, listening and still caring.

---

If you like reading my articles and would like to buy me a coffee, please follow the link to my PayPal, as substack does not allow for payments to my country yet.

---

If this is the first article of mine you’re reading, please rewind to my first article and work your way through all of them, as you’ve missed out on a lot of valuable 9/11 and “9/11 truther movement” information.

---

Remember DO NOT get your hands on this absolutely scary book by Dr Judy Wood.

And whatever you do, don’t watch the 1h “9/11 Essential Guide”.

Free PDF book downloads by Andrew Johnson:

9/11 – Finding the Truth and also 9/11 – Holding the Truth

---

Come join the discussion on Telegram, find me on X and check out my Rumble channel.