In a strikingly candid interview released on Friday, Tucker Carlson spoke with 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser about the ongoing absence, nearly 25 years later, of not only justice but even a coherent narrative of what actually took place that day.
On the heels of Carlson’s five-part documentary series, this interview represents his most probing examination yet of the unresolved questions surrounding the events of 9/11. It is a promising sign that he intends to continue covering the issue and using his platform to advocate for a new investigation.
Meanwhile, Breitweiser, who is known for her pivotal role in pushing for the creation of the 9/11 Commission, opened up about her profound doubts regarding the official account — doubts that extend far beyond her concerns over the government’s gross incompetence, as portrayed in Carlson’s series.
Highlights from the interview:
- From 4:30 to 5:30, Breitweiser muses about whether 9/11 was intended to serve as a justification for preemptive war. She declares that, “for all intents and purposes, they got away with 9/11.”
- From 14:15 to 17:00 and again from 28:40 to 42:00, Breitweiser describes how the 9/11 families were “corralled” into focusing solely on Saudi Arabia when she also wanted to go after UAE, Pakistan, Israel, and US intel agencies. She also questions the illogical idea perpetuated in the media that Saudi Arabia would have acted alone in its support of the alleged hijackers.
- At 44:20, when discussing the toxic air at the World Trade Center site causing cancer in first responders, Breitweiser says she “doesn’t know what was used in those attacks” — a subtle indication of her openness to the theory that high-tech materials were employed in the destruction of the WTC towers.
- From 46:20 to 1:04:00, Breitweiser and Carlson discuss their skepticism of several aspects of the hijacking story, including the failure of US air defenses and the implausibility of the alleged hijackers successfully taking over the airplanes, navigating to New York and Washington, and flying the planes into their targets.
- At 58:00, Carlson remarks that the authorities neglected to investigate the basic mechanics of the crime — an important observation on his part, given that the only event of the day he examined in his series was the collapse of Building 7. Perhaps this observation will prompt him to explore the forensics of the crime more comprehensively in future coverage.
- At 1:05:10, Carlson asks Breitweiser about Building 7. She discloses that she knows very little about it because her focus has been on the intelligence aspects of the crime but states emphatically that its destruction needs to be investigated.
