Transcription
Before [Music] we get into the kind of news cycle events I want to discuss with you, you have on the Tucker Carlson Network, you have produced a five-part documentary that re-examines some of the questions about the 9/11 attack that have never really been answered and even some disturbing components of it in terms of cover-up of evidence and the. And we want to show a 30-second clip just of the preview to encourage people who are interested to to watch it. I believe it's streaming on Tucker Carlson networks and we'll put the links up for those who want to watch it. But here's a 30-second clip for the, I believe I don't know if it's for the whole series or or the first episode, but let's show it anyway.
The official 9/11 Commission report sold to the American public and the world for decades as the definitive account of what happened that day is a lie. My name is Mark Rossini. I'm a former FBI agent. Before 9/11, there were no sources in al-Qaeda. And that is the truth. And no one has ever answered those questions because the house would come tumbling down.
[Music] Now, it's so interesting because since 9/11, there's been this whole series of embarrassing debacles on the part of our power centers, the Iraq war and and the 2008 financial crisis and COVID and Russia gate and so many more that have really destroyed trust and faith in Americans institutions. But at the time of 9/11, that really wasn't the case. I think most people roughly thought the official story offered for how the 9/11 attack happened was more or less accurate. I think most people in mainstream circles, I would include myself, I think you were among them as well, kind of dismissed people who are on the fringes saying, "No, we need to look at this differently. The official story doesn't make a lot of sense." And obviously, you have decided that there are things worth looking at here. Why is that? What gave you this kind of impetus to decide that you wanted to delve into this?
Well, just to correct the record, I I didn't dismiss people who had questions about 9/11. I attacked them savagely, uh, as lunatics and as people who were soiling the memory of those killed on 9/11. Like a lot of people had a friend killed on 9/11. Um, and I was really angry and sort of awful to people who asked legitimate questions. I mean, almost all questions are legitimate as far as I'm concerned as long as they're offered in good faith, and I think these were. Um, so I, you know, I had atoning to do for my own behavior, but I wanted to revisit this for the same reason I think all of us are revisiting a lot of assumptions that we had. And it's the string of disasters predicated on lies that you just listed. And none of those disasters has ever been followed by a reckoning. And that's the most, I think it's the most frustrating part. It's not like I haven't done dumb stuff. Well, I just admitted it. Um, it's and you're a father, you know, your kids routinely do dumb stuff like about 15 times a day. But there always has to be a point and this is the point where you say to the child, you know, please acknowledge what you did. Maybe there's a punishment, maybe there's not. Acknowledging it is itself a punishment. And the reason you go through that ritual, and it's the most human of all rituals, is to teach the wrongdoer something and to lower the likelihood it'll happen again. And we abandoned that ritual completely in this country and instead the wrongdoers, and we identify a number of them in the in the documentary series, were rewarded for their wrongdoing and that would include George Tenet at CIA. It would include John Brennan, uh, also at CIA. It would include the entire CIA, which saw its funding, um, dramatically increase after allowing this disaster to happen. Whether they did it on purpose or not, I I can't say. There's no question they allowed it. And to see the worst people, Condoleezza Rice, uh, for example, George W. Bush got reelected after this again and again and again and again, um, thrive is too much. And actually, if that continues over time, your country falls apart because it eliminates, not only does it eliminate trust, it also stokes revolutionary levels of resentment. So, you can't actually keep doing that without killing yourself. Um, and that we're there and we're at that point now. And that's part of the reason people are so, I think, spun up about the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation because this is just the point where there has to be honesty or else, you know, people could get unruly.
Anyway, I just thought we we should start at the beginning. I agree with your assessment completely. 9/11 was the beginning of this kind of event. I mean, you could say that Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination. I would agree with both. But this was the first time millions of people saw something happen live on television and then within a decade or two began to reassess like, what is it? Um, so that's the reason, just because I want the country to continue. You know, it's funny, I was thinking about, uh, the JFK assassination because of course when I was growing up, I thought that case had been solved, like the RFK killing and the, you know, this, the iconography that we're taught. And I remember the first time I went back and and looked at the JFK assassination in my early 20s, I was shocked. Not necessarily because I concluded that the official story was wrong and I knew who did it. But there was so much done as part of the attempt to tell the American people that it was just a single, uh, gunman that was so blatantly corrupting and should have destroyed trust in the process. Beginning with the fact that obviously the CIA was a suspect and yet they took the person who was the dominant figure of the CIA for a decade, and even once he, he was fired by by JFK for the Bay of Pigs, was Alan Dulles, was still very closely tied to the CIA and they made him like the most influential person on the Warren Commission. So you had like a major suspect with this incredible influence. And what, what I want to ask you is, you know, between that kind of thing and all the errors that we've come to learn are in the 9/11 report, if you want to be generous about it, do you think that sometimes governments are actually engaged in some like malicious cover-up where there was some very disruptive and dangerous and evil plot that was behind it and they're just trying to do their best to hide it and make sure that the culprits are never caught? Or is it more like we don't really trust the public and if we allow too many things that can might that might create some suspicions or questions, the public is never going to believe in. It's almost like patronizingly trying to protect the public from their own inability to grapple with hard questions.
I think it's a combination of those two things and a third, which I think actually speaks to good faith, which is, you know, boy, if we admit enough, then all faith will collapse. And this is a voluntary system. All governments, even dictatorships, continue with the complicity and the acceptance of their populations. I mean, it's a numbers game. If people actually rose up against any leader, no matter how totalitarian, they could take him. But they don't because there is a tac, passive agreement, and especially in a democracy, democratic republic like ours, between the public and the government that, hey, we're doing this because we think it's the right thing. And if you were to admit that something really big, the moon landing, for example, was fake, that it would shake people's faith to the point where they became nihilistic and the republic couldn't continue. I mean, there is that. I know there's that concern because I've talked to people about it and I think that's a a good reason to lie, but it doesn't justify the lie and actually it simply compounds the damage. That's exactly what you've seen. But just to go back to your original question in one sentence, are there are there retroactive plots to hide incompetence? Yes, of course. It's probably the majority of these examples. Are there malicious plots that are obscured by cover-ups? I I think I think there are. You know, I do actually. I know there are. So, yeah.
You know, you know what's so interesting? I remember in real time, the 9/11 commission was really not considered to be a particularly credible body. There were all sorts of mainstream voices like in the Senate and stuff who were angry about the material that was omitted, the material that was suppressed, the leads that weren't followed up upon. Um, and just as an aside, when when you said, you know, people allowed 9/11 to happen, I remember I debated General Michael Hayden, who was the head of the NSA at the time of the 9/11 attack under the Bush administration. So his job was basically to, you know, he has the NSA. The only point of that is to detect ostensibly terrorist attacks on our country and it was his agency and he was leading it that failed to to detect that attack, notwithstanding how many pieces of evidence there were in the system that could have alerted him. And I remember one time thinking like, God, that's a really heavy, you know, sort of thing to take to your grave and is going to be the first paragraph in in in in your obituary. But what they did then was they turned around and they said, "Oh, because of how many clues we missed, it means that we now need to make sure to expand the surveillance system and remove any safeguards so that the next time, you know, even though it was our fault, we have a much greater system of authoritarian surveillance that will allow us to spy on people and and, you know, I guess protect prevent these kind of future events." Do you think there's a lot going on there in terms of seizing on these events to kind of justify a whole wide range of authoritarian, uh, projects that need a kind of version of events offered by the government that may not be true?
Well, there's literally no question, of course, and every government does that. I mean, the outbreak of the Second World War allowed the British government to put its political opponents in prison with their wives without charges for the duration of the war. And like you're not allowed to know that because they were bad. But you know that's totalitarian behavior. That's what we were supposed to be fighting against. Every government, Israel after October 7th, the United States after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese internment, and the United States again and again, every country, um, at war in the wake of a national trauma. So, of course, it was seized upon immediately. What makes this a little bit different and maybe more sinister and more troubling, and I don't have the answer, just to be clear, um, is that within hours, the buildings were still burning, there were people in Washington discussing and pushing a war against Iraq, which I don't think any smart person ever believed had any connection to 9/11. There was a lot of reason to believe that having Saddam in power was probably good for the United States as a counterbalance against Iran, as the protector of, you know, millions of Christians. There a lot of reasons that Saddam wasn't the worst and certainly much better than what we got after. But nevertheless, at the behest of a foreign government, Israel, the United States began preparing for war against Iraq immediately after the attacks on 9/11. Now, you know, I'm not saying I I don't know more than that, so you can draw your own conclusions. And I'm not suggesting, you know, that they staged 9/11 for that purpose. But I am saying unequivocally, they used 9/11 for that purpose. We know that that's not a conspiracy theory. Um, and it's appalling. It's disgusting. And of course, you know, as well as anybody that well before 9/11, there were all sorts of growing calls and the, you know, usual suspects within Washington to try and demand that we engage in regime change in in Iraq and and remove Saddam Hussein. Was, you know, the sort of, uh, great aspiration of of neocons, not just in in Washington, but also in Israel, and then 9/11 immediately got seized on, uh, for that.
All right, let me move to, uh, all of the issues surrounding Charlie Kirk. And before I get to that, wait, may I say one one last, may I say one last thing that I think is important. So the question about 9/11, the reason people have debated it for 25 years is the question of foreknowledge. Do people know this was coming? And and then it's question of like, did they know it and allow it unintentionally or intentionally or did they stage it? I can't answer those questions. But we conclusively answered the larger question, which is, oh yeah, there was foreknowledge of it. There's no question about it. The CIA knew the hijackers were here. They knew they were terrorists and they were here to commit acts of terror against the United States. And critically, and this is the fact that somehow blew my mind the most, people bet in the public financial markets, the equity markets against the airlines involved in 9/11 and the banks in the buildings that were taken down on 9/11 and they bet big. They shorted them and they made a lot of money. This has been sort of known. What I didn't know is that the US government found the identities of the people who did that and they withheld them and to this day they've never been revealed. So, this is a publicly traded series of trades and in public markets and we can't know who made those trades. Whoever made those trades clearly knew 9/11 was coming and the government has protected the identity of those people for 24 years. And I just have to ask, like, what could possibly be the explanation for that?
Thanks for watching this clip from System Update, our live show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7:00 p.m. Eastern exclusively on Rumble. You can catch the full nightly shows live or view the backlog of episodes for free on our Rumble page. You can also find full episodes the morning after they air across all major podcasting platforms, including Spotify and Apple. All the information you need is linked below. We hope to see you there.