Kristen Breitweiser: 9-11 Cover-Ups, Building 7, and the Billion-Dollar Scam to Steal From Victims

Kristen Breitweiser’s husband was killed in the South Tower on 9-11. Over the decades since, she’s watched the cover-up in real time. (00:00) The Families of 9-11 Victims Are Demanding the Truth (18:04) Why Didn't the Government Stop the 9-11 Attacks? (35:40) Foreknowledge of 9-11 (47:52) What Happened to Flight 93? (57:11) The Suspicious Hijacking Story (1:05:04) What Happened to Building 7? Paid partnerships with: GCU: Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Learn more at https://GCU.edu Byrna: Go to https://Byrna.com or your local Sportsman's Warehouse today. Pure Talk: Get unlimited talk, text, and data for just $29.95/month for life -- only at https://PureTalk.com/Tucker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPac.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 0:29Tucker Carlson?

  Kristen Bright Weiser, thank you. I'm so glad to meet you. I have watched you on and off through the years. And even when I, you know, I bought every part of the official story, like the little Washington robot that I was unknowingly. Even then, I admired your doggedness and your intelligence, rigorous mode of thinking and your bravery for not letting it go. So you haven't let it go. You've been on this for almost 25 years. Are you more or less satisfied that you understand what actually happened on 9/11?

• 1:00Speaker 02

  No, I mean, I think 25 years out, there's absolutely no complete understanding of what really happened. I think that's unconscionable. We live in the United States of America, and to think that 3,000 people were massacred in broad daylight in Lower Manhattan, and that there's not been a full accounting that is credible. There's not been the ability for the widows and kids to avail themselves of the judicial system, of the legal system. I just think it's a stain on the country. I'm someone that believes that we are a nation based upon the rule of law.

• 1:39Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah.

• 1:39Speaker 02

  And the reality is this nation's worst terrorist attack, the families left behind, have never been given the opportunity to use the rule of law to give us a sense of accountability and justice for the murder of our loved ones.

• 1:58Tucker Carlson?

  Or even a coherent story.

• 2:20Tucker Carlson?

  I mean, that's what I'm really struck by is that 25 years on, it's less obvious what that was. That is weird. Why?

• 2:29Speaker 02

  I mean, I think initially, in the beginning, everyone was really scared.

• 2:32Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 2:33Speaker 02

  I think that first there was fear, and I think that that was ginned up sort of by the Bush administration. And then once the

• 2:41Tucker Carlson?

  No question about that.

• 2:43Speaker 02

  Yes, I can speak to that firsthand. And I too was really scared. I mean, I think we not only had the attacks, my husband was killed. I was left alone. We lived in New Jersey, right across the water from where the attacks took place. We could smell the air, which was horrible. And then we had the anthrax attacks. And that happened in near, you know, in New Jersey and near Princeton. And so it was a really scary time. And then subsequent to that, when things started to maybe subside, where people sort of regained their sense of reality, we had the queue up to the war in Iraq. And anyone who questioned anything

• 3:24Speaker 02

  about the attacks and how they could have happened, and who could be behind them, you were silenced, because we were a nation at war, and it was unpatriotic to raise any questions, to question anything and to demand answers, certainly not allowed. And so that sort of took, I think, quite a bit of years. And now, believe it or not, I think for many of us, it's 25 years moving into the 25th year. And I do not think that we've been told the truth. I think as hard as we fought for a commission to try to learn the lessons, to try to understand better why and how the attacks happened, I think that commission was a whitewash. I think it told a story, not the truth.

• 4:09Speaker 02

  And there's a difference between a story and the truth. And I think we're owed the truth as to what happened that day and why the country was attacked and why we did nothing in a defensive posture to even mitigate the damage on the day of 9/11. It's bad enough when you look at the facts leading up to the day of 9/11. And you see the many instances of where things were sort of overlooked, facilitated in some situations. But the day of 9/11 as well, there were failures, systemic failures, that cost lives. And so for me, initially in the beginning, I was like, you know what, like, we need to do better. The country needs to learn lessons so that more lives could be saved if and when another

• 4:54Speaker 02

  terrorist attack happened. And for whatever reason, President Bush wasn't interested in doing that, but he was interested in the war in Iraq. And to me, 25 years looking back, 24 years looking back, I do wonder if the attacks were to serve as the premise to allow for preemptive war. I think that when you do examine what had happened in the government since then, it certainly laid the groundwork for preemptive war. I'm not a person who supports war. I think that as someone who lost a loved one, I know the devastation war brings to a home and a family. And it makes me sick to think that no one was really held accountable for the war in

• 5:37Speaker 02

  Iraq, for the hundreds of thousands of lives, for the tens of thousands of US soldiers. And it's, I'm just confounded with the fact that the American public never demanded that and that for all intents and purposes, they got away with 9/11 and they got away with the war in Iraq.

• 5:56Tucker Carlson?

  I agree with every word that you just said and thank you for saying them because they're true. The one part where I would ask you to clarify, clearly 9/11 was used as a pretext, as an excuse for the war in Iraq, was used to justify it on famously false grounds. But that's a very different thing from 9/11 was staged or allowed to happen in order to justify the war in Iraq. Do you think that's possible?

• 6:23Speaker 02

  I mean, I think there are certainly theories out there, but I think when you look at the facts, it's, it would be certainly more comforting for the government to come forward and prove that that's not the case, right? Like, it's uncomfortable as an American citizen to think that members of our intelligence apparatus, our intelligence community stood down, greased the wheels, facilitated different fact scenarios that enabled the attacks that may or may not have already been underway. And so there's a story out there that that

• 7:01Speaker 02

  happened, that, you know, the CIA might have allowed certain things to happen and to move forward because they were letting the line out to try to learn more about Al Qaeda or terrorist groups, to learn more to get the big fish, quote unquote.

• 7:19Tucker Carlson?

  Right.

• 7:20Speaker 02

  You know, I think that that's an interesting, nice way to look at things, certainly a less diabolical way. But there's a rule supposedly in the intel community that when you have actionable intelligence, you're supposed to roll up the operation. And so one of the biggest questions that I have centers on the Yemen switchboard, the Al-Hada House switchboard. The CIA apparently learned about that in, I think, 96. They officially learned about it in 98 through the embassy bombing. And of course, my question would be if the CIA is monitoring the Al-Hada switchboard, all of the communications that Bin Laden is sending out to his operatives around the world to carry out attacks?

• 8:05Speaker 02

  When the 98 embassy bombing happened, why didn't they go in and shut down the Al-Hada switchboard? They didn't. They, I guess, wanted to leave the line out and continue to learn more information and they didn't want to tip off Al Qaeda or Bin Laden that they had ears on him and his operations. Okay, so the embassy bombing happens, kind of not great. But then the USS Cole happens in 2017, sailors were killed. Again, that information flew through the Al-Hada switchboard and the CIA still at that point doesn't go in and shut it down and stop it. I believe that if the Al-Hada switchboard was shut down, it would have at the very least delayed the 9/11 attacks and perhaps my husband would be alive today.

• 8:48Tucker Carlson?

  Well, Grand Canyon University is not like most American colleges. It focuses on the things that actually matter. It is not a ripoff. It is the real thing. It's private, affordable, Christian university located in the heart of Phoenix, one of the largest universities in the country, actually. At Grand Canyon University, education is more than academics. It is about opportunity, the chance for every student to live out the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights are not given by the government, they are bestowed at birth, at conception, by God. That's just a fact and Grand Canyon University is not going to lie to your kids and claim otherwise. It tells the truth. So you know, you're thinking, a quality education is rare, so this probably costs a fortune.

• 9:32Tucker Carlson?

  Colleges constantly jack up their costs, they probably do the same. Well, they don't, actually. GCU has maintained the same tuition for 17 straight years. They're not in education to get rich at the expense of students. The whole thing is actually about learning. How refreshing. With flexible online classes, hybrid learning options, GCU offers 340 academic programs. Students benefit from a collaborative learning environment, dedicated faculty, personalized support to help them achieve their goals. The pursuit to serve is yours, let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private, Christian, affordable. GCU.

• 10:14Speaker 03

  Have you ever heard of the Pelosi Stock Tracker? Well, here's the stock trading app behind it. Most of us don't have access to classified information, yet our politicians seem to. For years, they've been publicly trading stocks, with some being oddly timed around certain legislation. Well, this team said, if you can't beat them, join them and build autopilot. It connects directly to your brokerage account, like a Robin Hood or Schwab, and mimics Nancy Pelosi and other politicians' stock trades automatically. So instead of debating what stocks to buy, you just trade alongside them, hands-free. And the key thing here, your money stays in your own account. The app already has 1.3 billion invested so far. So if you wanted to check it out, search autopilot in the App Store

• 10:59Speaker 03

  or go to joinautopilot.com. That's joinautopilot.com. Investing has risks, like the loss of principal.

• 11:06Speaker 04

  We all hear the radio ads about the IRS. They tell you to be afraid, to be scared, and they try to frighten you into calling. I'm not here to do that. Tax Relief Advocates is different. TRA is here to tell you that if you owe money to the IRS, whether it's 5,000, 50,000, or 500,000, we have a solution. It doesn't matter if you're sitting in your car, at work, or with your kids. No matter where you are, call now. 800-576-4705. Don't lose hope. TRA can eliminate or reduce what you owe to the IRS. Generous programs are now available that can give you a fresh start. Our passion is taxes and helping individuals fix their IRS problems. We have over 1,000 5-star reviews on Google and an 8+ with the Better Business Bureau. You don't need to be afraid of the IRS any longer.

• 11:51Speaker 04

  End your tax nightmare today by visiting us online at TRA.com or call 800-576-4705. That's 800-576-4705. Tax Relief Advocates. Real solutions for real people.

• 12:06Tucker Carlson?

  EDU. So the question is, why wasn't it? And I think the explanation that people sympathetic to the CIA would give is that it was just... It's just too great having a window into their private communications and like, why would you shut that down?

• 12:22Speaker 02

  Well, because first of all, the embassy bombing happened and I know it was only, you know, like 13 Americans or something like that. And mostly it happened in East Africa. So most of the casualties were African and maybe they thought like, yeah, you're right. The cost benefit analysis, like we'll just, you know, we lost 13 military, whatever. But then the call happens at 17 sailors. Each one of those lives means everything in the world to their family.

• 12:48Tucker Carlson?

  That's right.

• 12:49Speaker 02

  And, and then nine 11 happens, 3,000 people are killed.

• 12:54Speaker 02

  At some point you need to hold the CIA accountable and instead of holding the CIA accountable, people like Kofa Black, George Tenet, we had George Tenet getting a Medal of Freedom. But more disturbing to me was that you took the same director of the CIA that had so utterly failed before nine 11 utterly failed with the USS Cole. And you relied on him to give you intelligence for the WMD in Iraq. And somehow you thought it was going to be credible and worthwhile. It's inconceivable to me why President Bush would have done that, right? But he did, and we relied on it and it turned out to be a lie.

• 13:35Speaker 02

  Okay. And so what you see is this systemic, long-term carrying out of policy by American leaders, whether it's a president, a vice president, whether it's members of Congress, the intel committees that are sort of looking past these failures of the intel community. And again, it's not just the CIA, the FBI has got plenty to explain with regard to the nine 11 attacks.

• 14:02Speaker 02

  And they're never held accountable. They sort of act with impunity and people make cool movies about them and everyone thinks that, you know, they're above the law. The reality is, is that 3,000 Americans were killed on US soil and the CIA and FBI 100% could have and should have prevented it. The NSA, who does all the eavesdropping around the world, the wiretapping, they 100% had enough information to stop the attacks. And for whatever reason, the attacks weren't stopped. So, you know, naturally speaking, when something happens.

• 14:38Speaker 02

  A reasonable person is like, well, who benefited? Right? Like, who benefited from not stopping this? From not preventing this murder of 3,000 people? And maybe in the early days, it was kind of hard to sort of decipher that. I think now, 24 years out, it's not that hard to figure out who benefited. I know certainly who didn't benefit. But I think that that's something that the American public needs to start considering and start wondering why we have a government that's not willing to hold people that are responsible for this nation's worst terrorist

• 15:16Speaker 02

  attack accountable for their failures and for their, you know, in some ways negligence, I believe criminal negligence in not stopping the attacks.

• 15:28Tucker Carlson?

  What's interesting is that what you said is identical, as far as I know, to what an awful lot of people who are involved in 9/11 think now. You know, government officials who were at whatever level, were around the events, were making decisions based on the events, you know, who are right there. They all kind of think what, as far as I know, having asked a lot, because we made this documentary series that you were nice enough to participate in.

• 15:54Tucker Carlson?

  The view you just expressed is like very common. You're not some lone wacko on the internet at all. And you've been deeply involved in this for a quarter century. But all these other people have reached the same conclusion. So why is no one saying this out loud?

• 16:08Speaker 02

  I mean, I think that there's an institutional block in saying it out loud. I think it's exceedingly uncomfortable to think that, you know, there's blood on the hands of the United States government and its intelligence community. And I think that, you know, there's a long game here where the more time that passes, the less and less interested the American public is, right?

• 16:30Tucker Carlson?

  And not just the US government, by the way. I mean, I don't know your views on this, but I can, I don't know the answer. I would have put it in the doc series if we'd found out. But I just know for a fact that a lot of non-crazy, highly informed people think that the US government

• 16:46Tucker Carlson?

  Parts of CIA specifically, which saw its role expand, its funding expand, it won. And also, you know, an allied government also got a lot out of this. Like, that's what they think. Why will no one say that?

• 16:58Speaker 02

  Yeah, I mean, I think it's peculiar. I think that for me personally, my initial focus was on the US government failures. I was very interested in what the US government knew, why the attacks weren't prevented. And, you know, that was my original focus. And then certainly, we were sort of corralled into considering the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. That happened through, you know, a confluence of things. The Joint Inquiry of Congress did an investigation. They left 28 pages blank, blacked out, redacted. And, you know, the whisper campaign began that it was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that had a strong hand in the attacks. They logistically and financially supported the hijackers. And, you know, undoubtedly,

• 17:40Speaker 02

  there's information there that could support that scenario. There's also historic facts that show that the US intelligence community and the Saudis worked together. You know, speaking here about, you know, Iran-Contra, speaking here as well about the years in Afghanistan with the Mujahideen. But then, as years and years go by, you start to consider about other foreign allies that might have played a role. And what I think is most curious is the fact that we not only don't call for an examination, a real examination of our own intelligence community, CIA, the NSA, the FBI, DIA, Defense Intelligence. There's

• 18:23Speaker 02

  been no clarion call for that. There has been somewhat of a drill and focus on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And yet, there's been nothing about, you know, the other ally in the region, which is Israel. And I think that that's curious. I think that there are facts and circumstances that would warrant asking questions and asking what Israel knew about the hijackers, time in the United States for the 18 months before 9/11. And I think that there is, you know, some FBI 302s that talk about- Alleged Mossad agents, you know, filming near Ground Zero.

• 19:04Speaker 02

  There were a series of art students sort of shadowing the hijackers for the year before nine 11, you know, and I don't understand why that information isn't just offered up. Like if no one did anything wrong, which is what everyone says, then why is that information not offered to the American public, in fact, to the world to just say, here's everything we did, here's what we knew, and here's why we missed it. But instead of that, what you have is like, pretty much a cover up. And everything is shrouded in secrecy, everything is over classified. And to me, that makes things look kind of suspicious. And so that's what I would hope. I would hope that at this point, we should declassify everything.

• 19:46Speaker 02

  And when I say everything, I mean, Richard Clark did a look back. President Bush, like I think two days after nine 11, told Dick Clark, who was head of counterterrorism, the counterterrorism czar, go back and look three months, pulse the files, find out what we knew about these, this impending attack. Clark did that, and then Bush said, you know what, go 18 months. Now, what's curious about that is when you go 18 months from nine 11, you get to the millennium, 2000, right? And that is the, the time period where not only the two hijackers that are always talked about, you know, Khalid Meedar and Nawaf Hosmi, who came into the United States, the CIA

• 20:27Speaker 02

  knew that they were coming here, they should have informed the FBI, because the FBI does domestic surveillance of terrorists, but the CIA didn't. The CIA withheld that information purposely. They knew that two known identified Al Qaeda operatives were coming into the United States. They purposely did not tell the FBI, those two hijackers lived here for 18 months, planned, met up with the other hijackers, ultimately carried out the nine 11 attacks. In fact, those two hijackers were the ones that allegedly flew the plane into the Pentagon. Having said that, so we have Richard Clark's look back, back all the way to the millennium 2000. In addition to the two hijackers that came into the country at that point, we also

• 21:11Speaker 02

  had the arrest of Ahmad Rassam. He was picked up over the border coming into Seattle. Rassam was connected to the Al Qaeda cell that carried out 9/11. So that happens in December of 2000. This is when Clinton is ending up his presidency. Actually, I'm sorry, December 1999. Clinton is in there full time. Berger is the National Security Advisor. Susan Rice is in there. They nab this guy, a terrorist coming across who's on his way to LAX to blow up LAX. Okay, he gets caught. January 15, these two hijackers come in that the CIA knows about into LA, LAX, like

• 21:55Speaker 02

  literally two weeks after Rassam was planning on blowing up LAX. And they're all connected back to the camps in Afghanistan.

• 22:02Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 22:03Speaker 02

  But again, the CIA doesn't do anything. And apparently, according to the official story, the CIA knows these two guys are coming here, the two hijackers, and just forgets about them. Doesn't do anything. Okay. What I think happened is I think that the Clinton administration was like, this is not good. We have these two guys coming in. We need to do something. Let's farm it out. We can't trust the FBI. Let's give it to some foreign intelligence to keep an eye on these guys and see what they're up to. Now, if that happened, what we do then is we find out that the USS Cole bomb goes off in October of 2000. So that's now nine months, 10 months after these guys come in. The CIA supposedly lost track of them, but they go and they carry out

• 22:46Speaker 02

  the coal bombing overseas. Okay. At that point, if the Clinton administration did put together this op, like, let's try to recruit these hijackers. Let's let the line out. Let's see what we can learn. They're listening into the AHADA switchboard. At that point, 17 sailors die. You need to stop what you're doing and you need to roll up the operation. You need to end it. And yet that didn't happen. So when President Bush

• 23:13Speaker 02

  Two days after nine 11, looks at his terrorism czar and says, I want you to do a look back. I want you to get everything out of the files that were connected to this. Do you think Richard Clark goes back to December of 1999, when they arrested Rassam, these two hijackers are coming into the country, he, Clinton, Berger, Tenet, are sitting in a room and they're like, what do we do? What should we do with this? Do you think that that was in that review that Bush asked Dick Clark to do two days after nine 11?

• 23:41Tucker Carlson?

  I don't know.

• 23:43Speaker 02

  Neither do I. But don't you think that the American public should know what Dick Clark found?

• 23:47Tucker Carlson?

  We're sorry to say it, but this is not a very safe country. Walk through Oakland or Philadelphia. Yeah, good luck. So, most people, when they think about this, want to carry a firearm, and a lot of us do. The problem is, there can be massive consequences for that. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle Rittenhouse got off in the end, but he was innocent from the first moment. It was obvious on video, and he was facing life in prison anyway. That's what the anti-gun movement will do. They'll throw you in prison for defending yourself with a firearm. And that's why a lot of Americans are turning to Burna. It's a proudly American company. Burna makes self-defense launchers that hundreds of law enforcement departments trust. They've sold over 600,000 pistols, mostly to private citizens who refuse

• 24:29Tucker Carlson?

  to be empty-handed. These pistols, and I have one, fire rock-hard kinetic rounds, or tear gas rounds, and pepper projectiles, and they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away. There are no background checks, there are no waiting periods. Burna can ship it directly to your door. You can't be arrested for defending yourself with a Burna pistol. Visit Burna, B-Y-R-N-A dot com, or your local Sportsman's Warehouse to get yours today.

• 24:54Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' healthcare to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 25:24Speaker 05

  Free is great, but only if it's useful. Free credit scores from some apps can differ by as much as 100 points from your actual FICO score that 90% of top lenders use when you apply for a credit card, personal loan, car loan, or mortgage. That can mean a higher interest rate, a bigger monthly payment, or worse.

• 25:42Speaker 05

  MyFICO gives you your actual FICO score, the score lenders use, straight from the company that created it. For the moments that matter, get the score that matters, your FICO score. Visit myFICO.com and get started for free today.

• 25:55Tucker Carlson?

  So that's never been released?

• 25:58Speaker 02

  It's never been released. And the other report-

• 26:00Tucker Carlson?

  On what grounds?

• 26:02Speaker 02

  They just don't release it. And Clark did another report. Well, I'll tell you why the second report can't get released. The second report that he did was the after-action millennium report, and that was they caught Rassam at the border, and they, you know, they have the two hijackers coming into LAX, right? Same airport that Rassam was gonna blow up. And Richard Clark, terrorism czar, Clinton administration, draws up the millennium after-action report. That report is reportedly what Sandy Berger, former Clinton national security advisor, stole out of the National Archives. Stuffed in his socks, permanently destroyed it. What would have been so important that Sandy Berger, who was, I guess, a fairly

• 26:47Speaker 02

  reputable, former executive branch official-

• 26:52Tucker Carlson?

  National Security Advisor, yeah.

• 26:53Speaker 02

  -would go to the National Archives and steal, like, I think, seven sets of the millennium after-action report? Like, what could have been in there? That, like, he would have gone and done that? Meanwhile, we don't-

• 27:03Tucker Carlson?

  It destroyed Sandy Berger's reputation.

• 27:06Speaker 02

  Did it, though, because he got community service.

• 27:08Tucker Carlson?

  No, you're absolutely right.

• 27:09Speaker 02

  I mean, like, we have other people that, like, leaked to newspapers, and they're in jail, right? I mean-

• 27:14Tucker Carlson?

  So what do you think was in that?

• 27:16Speaker 02

  I think it was the operation to try to recruit the very hijackers that ultimately carried out 9/11. And I think that that's what they were covering up. And what's interesting to me is that Berger got, you know, pinched during the Bush administration. It was actually during the commission, the 9/11 commission, and Berger said that he was going to look at the documents to refresh his memory. What's really interesting is that the Bush administration, who was highly political and, you know, run by Karl Rove, the strategist,

• 27:45Tucker Carlson?

  Sure, yeah.

• 27:46Speaker 02

  never really caused a ruckus about it. Like, they just sort of like looked past it and like let Sandy go do his community service. And to me, that meant that whatever he took must have protected both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, because the silence and the absolute, you know, vacuum of Karl Rove going after Sandy Berger during, you know, a midterm election year, kind of like, to me, speaks to what he must have taken and who, whose mess he was really cleaning up. So those are two documents that I think need to be released to the American public to shed some light on what could have been done to prevent the attacks. Richard Clark's Look Back, two days after 9/11, that President Bush ordered, and the Millennium After Action Report.

• 28:31Speaker 02

  Then we've got all of the NSA files. Now, the NSA had been listening to the Al-Hadid switchboard from like 96 on, so that's a wealth of information, not only about 9/11, about the embassy bombings in East Africa, about the US's coal bombing. I think that those files, that have never been investigated, never been examined fully, Phil Zelikow, the staff director of the 9/11 Commission, just didn't really see the need for it, those should all be fully released. I think the inspector general's report for the FBI failing to share information should be fully released to the public, no redactions. I think the CIA inspector general report.

• 29:13Speaker 02

  I think the NSA's, I don't think they have an inspector general. I think Treasury's Finson.

• 29:19Tucker Carlson?

  They don't even bother.

• 29:20Speaker 02

  They don't have to. I think those types of IG reports need to come out, the classified version. It's now 25 years later, there's no sources and methods. There's no need to protect national security, there's no Musawi trial, those are all the things that we were always told, we can't tell you this information because it'll hurt the Musawi trial, or it's sources and methods.

• 29:40Tucker Carlson?

  Seen that a lot, it'll hurt the trial.

• 29:42Speaker 02

  Right, and I think that all of those things need to come out and be released. I think the 28 pages. The classified and unclassified versions without redactions need to come out. And I think the nine 11 commission source files

• 29:58Speaker 02

  need to be fully available to the American public, ideally released to some sort of like Doge like staff who could digitize it and put in like some sort of you know, like database searchable system so that the American public can actually search those files. The problem with the nine 11 commission source documents is that they're almost impossible to look through. They're all at the National Archives. What is digital is highly redacted. And they're impossible to find. There's no finding aid that makes any sense. And I think that's on purpose. But those are the types of things that I think 25 years out, like, why aren't we getting them? And why isn't President Trump demanding their release?

• 30:43Tucker Carlson?

  I don't understand, except of course I do understand, which is that there's something awful at the heart of this. I mean, that's just so clearly true. We know that from the behavior of the people who are keeping the secret. So in the decades that you've been dealing with US government officials on the question of nine 11, have you ever gotten to any indication from any of them, you know, off the record? That this is not what it looks like. Have you ever talked to anyone who works for the US government? Who seems to understand that this is a, that there's a big lie at the heart of this?

• 31:18Speaker 02

  I mean, I think that it's the biggest open secret in Washington DC.

• 31:23Tucker Carlson?

  Is that true?

• 31:24Speaker 02

  I feel like in many ways, like a lot of members of Congress know. I feel like certainly the intel committees know. And that kind of blows my mind because I feel like

• 31:33Tucker Carlson?

  You're sure of that?

• 31:34Speaker 02

  I mean, I'm not sure, but obviously they all have clearances. They have access to the files. You know, anyone could have gone in and read the 28 pages, the secret 28 pages. If you're a member of Congress, you have clearance, you go into a SCIF, you're allowed to read that. I don't know why every member of Congress didn't go and do that. Frankly, if I was a member of Congress, I would have went and recited them on the congressional floor for the American public to hear.

• 31:56Tucker Carlson?

  Go ahead and arrest me.

• 31:57Speaker 02

  Right. Well, I mean, it's America first in my mind.

• 31:59Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 32:00Speaker 02

  And I don't think we should protect any foreign ally or nation. If you've had a role and you could have prevented the murder of 3,000 people, the American public needs to know that and needs to make their own determination as to whether or not you are an ally.

• 32:12Tucker Carlson?

  That's the heart of this is protecting a foreign country?

• 32:15Speaker 02

  I think it's protecting a few foreign countries, probably. And I think it's also protecting the United States intel community.

• 32:24Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah.

• 32:24Speaker 02

  I mean, there's no doubt.

• 32:25Tucker Carlson?

  So you said a couple of things I don't want to let slip through the cracks. One, that from the very first days of the investigation into this Saudi, the Kingdom, KSA, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was sort of steered toward you as a culprit.

• 32:43Speaker 02

  Absolutely. They were like the usual suspect, right? And isn't that convenient? It's like, it was all Saudi all the time, right? And so.

• 32:50Tucker Carlson?

  I bought that completely.

• 32:52Speaker 02

  Well, and I mean, it's, listen, it's, it's what's done, right? You're using, it's distraction. It's a totally political strategy to distract people from reality, right? And so, and frankly, the Saudis aren't completely innocent when it comes to, you know, they have a lot of things that have happened in the past that would, you know, fit the bill for why they might be the usual suspect. But I think, you know.

• 33:17Tucker Carlson?

  Well, I don't know. The Saudis are not into, no Arab monarchy is into regime change.

• 33:22Speaker 02

  Right.

• 33:23Tucker Carlson?

  So anything having to do with the toppling of Saddam, they would not have been for that.

• 33:27Speaker 02

  Oh.

• 33:27Tucker Carlson?

  It's not how they see the world at all.

• 33:28Speaker 02

  I would agree.

• 33:29Tucker Carlson?

  They don't like chaos in Saudi.

• 33:31Speaker 02

  Right. And I'm so for the war in Iraq, I don't, I don't know how that that, how anyone could credibly explain that the Kingdom did 9/11 because they wanted to queue up Iraq. I don't think it makes any sense.

• 33:44Tucker Carlson?

  They hate chaos. I mean, they're long-term stakeholders. It's a monarchy.

• 33:48Speaker 02

  Right. And that's what I ask a lot of people that are always like the Saudis, the Saudis, the Saudis. I'm like, well, okay, but why? You know, for me, it's like, what would have been the motive? Why would the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia want to, to attack the United States, kill 3,000 people? What was in it for them? You know, if you're, if you're an evil doer and you're over in Saudi, you're like, hey, let's do this. What were they thinking they were going to get out of it? And realistically speaking, what did they get out of it? Right? And from what I see is they've been tied up in litigation now for 24 years, being blamed for 9/11. And so. You know, I don't know whether they did it or not. I don't have access to the classified files, but I don't think that they're alone. I think that there are other foreign governments

• 34:33Speaker 02

  that should also be examined. And I think it's peculiar that for whatever reason, there's no questions about the other foreign governments. And to me, that sticks out. And it's like, well, are we just being distracted with the kingdom? What about the kingdom and other foreign nations? What about the kingdom, other foreign nations, and the US government intelligence apparatus? Because, you know, there's a reason why no one wants you asking those questions. And that in and of itself should raise the hair on the back of your neck.

• 35:01Tucker Carlson?

  It does. And I was slow to pick up any of this. I bought it completely until I was told by someone, um, was a very knowledgeable person, works for the US government, like, it's not Saudi we're protecting. Whoa, that had never entered my tiny brain.

• 35:17Speaker 02

  Someone said that to you?

• 35:18Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah, yeah. Yeah, someone who would know, had seen the documents.

• 35:21Speaker 02

  Someone said.

• 35:22Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah, yeah, we're not. And I don't know, I think of myself as above average in IQ, but apparently I'm not because that had never, had never entered my brain. I was like, really? What? And I think it is because Saudi, like every American grows up with mixed feelings about Saudi, clearly dominant in the energy markets, and that's good for us, has been good for us, Saudi Ramco's good for us. But, you know, too foreign, polygamy, beheadings, veiled women, like, everything about it is just so far away and kind of scary that when somebody says it was the Saudis, you know, you're like, yeah, probably Saudis. Oh, they seem weird, you know? But I'm just, it's just dawning on me that maybe some of that, but done on you early, this was being pushed on you, it was the Saudis.

• 36:07Speaker 02

  Well, because it was really overt that it was being pushed on us.

• 36:10Tucker Carlson?

  Really?

• 36:11Speaker 02

  Well, I think so, yeah. I mean, we asked the lawyers to sue a whole slew of countries. Um, you know, because I think that there were some fingerprints there for several countries. And we were told, no. Um, you know, not to get.

• 36:24Tucker Carlson?

  You were told you couldn't sue foreign countries?

• 36:27Speaker 02

  Yeah, certain ones that I wanted to sue. You know, the reality is all of the financing for the hijackers flew through Dubai. I was like, why aren't we suing the Emirates? Pakistan? I was like, why aren't we going after Pakistan? I'm not saying that they had a hand in, either of those countries had a hand in it, but I was like, why aren't we at least looking into it? And I think one of the biggest frustrations for me is the US government's Department of Justice's failure, abject failure to prosecute anyone. The US government didn't investigate anything. They didn't look into Saudi. They didn't really credibly look into UAE. They didn't look into Pakistan. They did nothing. They literally have not, to this day, successfully and fully prosecuted anyone for the 9/11

• 37:12Speaker 02

  attacks. How is that possible? 3,000 people were murdered. If you're a US attorney, your job is to go out and investigate that murder and prosecute people, have a grand jury, hold people accountable, put them in jail. You're telling me that with all of the money that flew in and out of this country connected to the hijackers, there wasn't one bank account? There wasn't one stock trade that you could drill down on and find out that someone had foreknowledge? And if they had foreknowledge, well, how the hell did they have the foreknowledge?

• 37:41Tucker Carlson?

  If you watch this show, you know that we love Pure Talk. It is amazing wireless service with absolutely the best prices. And all the time we've been telling you about Pure Talk, we've never seen an offer like the one we're about to describe. And here it is. Unlimited talk, taxed data with a 30 gig hotspot for just $29.95 per month. Not just this month, every month for life. This is Pure Talk's top tier plan, $29.95 a month. You'll save over 50% a month, every month for your entire life. And you stay in the exact same 5G network that Verizon and AT&T offer, but for $1,600 or you're cheaper for a family of four. That's wild. It's provable, by the way. This isn't some false claim.

• 38:26Tucker Carlson?

  It's not disinformation. It's real. Pure Talk's customer service meanwhile is located in the United States, not in Bangladesh, nothing against Bangladesh, but you're talking to Americans you can understand. They can switch you in just minutes. You keep your phone, keep your number, and you start saving in a really big way. Unlimited for life, $29.95 a month. This is a short-term offer. Long-term consequences, short-term offer. puretalk.com/tucker to switch today. puretalk.com/tucker to switch to America's wireless pure talk. Taxes and fees not included. Go to the site to get all the details, but those are the basics.

• 39:03Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' healthcare to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 39:32Speaker 06

  Your joints help you keep doing what you love. Give them daily support with Ancient Nutrition Multi-Collagen Protein. Two scoops deliver 20 grams of collagen from 10 types, including clinically studied eggshell membrane. Plus, vitamin C and probiotics to support skin, hair, nails, and joint health. Visit ancientnutrition.com/protein and use code PROTEIN for $15 off. That's ancientnutrition.com code PROTEIN.

• 39:59Tucker Carlson?

  Basics. You know, that's the case on 9/11. It's also the case with Charlie Kirk's murder. You know, it was, people had foreknowledge because they bragged about it online, on X. And those people have not been arrested. I don't know that they've been questioned, by the way. Maybe they have been. I just don't know. I've asked, can't quite get an answer there. But I know on 9/11, there were stock trades that proved foreknowledge. Of the airlines, of the banks, in the buildings that were hit. And the US government said, yeah, we know who did those. We executed those trades, but we were not gonna tell you.

• 40:32Speaker 02

  Isn't that unbelievable?

• 40:33Tucker Carlson?

  What is that?

• 40:34Speaker 02

  That's what I'm saying, like, how unbelievable. And so what happened is, when the US government doesn't take it upon itself to have a prosecution, to have an investigation, it's left to the victims' families to hire lawyers and do it on their own. And you're really hamstrung to do that. Like, you're talking about a terrorist attack where all the documents are classified. It's all held by the government. Everything that you need to learn about your case, to build your case, is in the government's hands. And the government refuses to give you that information. And so, we're kind of left in this limbo where the US government didn't do its job to prevent the attacks. Then the Department of Justice after 9/11 didn't do its job to prosecute or hold anyone accountable

• 41:16Speaker 02

  and provide justice to the murdered victims' families. And so the murdered victims' families turned to this civil litigation process, which, if everyone remembers OJ, you know, it was what Nicole Simpson's family had to do. You know, it's kind of a shitty second.

• 41:32Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah.

• 41:33Speaker 02

  It's really not helpful. And so that's what we were relegated to. And then those attorneys, not all of them, but many of them, were just unwilling. First of all, they were unwilling to sue the US government. Like, and I asked, I've got the emails to prove it. And then I asked about-

• 41:47Tucker Carlson?

  Why were they unwilling to sue the US government?

• 41:50Speaker 02

  They just told, first, they told us we weren't allowed, which is not true, because in the wake of, you know, the last 20 years, you see the Emanuel Church family suing, you see the Fort Hood family suing. You are allowed to sue the US government. Our attorneys initially told us that we couldn't. Of course, we were also forced into what the government did, which was the Victims' Compensation Fund, which was retroactively taking away our right to sue by capping liability levels from 9/11. So what happened was, 9/11 happens, the towers collapse. You know, the country is worried about being destabilized. The economy is gonna crater.

• 42:28Tucker Carlson?

  The airlines.

• 42:29Speaker 02

  So supposedly, Congress swept in, you know-

• 42:33Speaker 02

  Heroically and created the airline stabilization bill. And I don't know how they wrote that bill because it's pretty precise. But yet somehow they wrote it in like nine days. And in doing so, retroactively capped liability levels for anyone for the airlines, for the city of New York. Later, like two months later, President Bush capped the liability levels for Boeing Airlines. And essentially the widows and kids were left being told, you're not going to be able to sue because there's not enough money to pay you. There were so many people killed, there's just not enough money. So you're going to have to go into this victims compensation fund,

• 43:13Speaker 02

  run by this special master and you'll be paid an amount of money and it's no fault and go away. And, you know, as an American citizen, a lawyer, I was like, wait a minute, you're not allowed to take away someone's right to sue after the murder. Like, that's not how it works. And yet we weren't given a choice. It was shoved down our throats. And so that's what we were left with.

• 43:37Tucker Carlson?

  And the legislation that created this was written in nine days?

• 43:40Speaker 02

  Like nine days.

• 43:42Tucker Carlson?

  So you're

• 43:42Speaker 02

  And it's pretty comprehensive.

• 43:44Tucker Carlson?

  You're a lawyer. As you just said, how hard would it be to write? So you can take the first three days off because like it's right after nine 11, the country's in chaos.

• 43:53Speaker 02

  I don't know, Condi Rice, immediately after nine 11 is sitting with the National Security Council. And I was like, how can we capitalize on this opportunity?

• 44:01Tucker Carlson?

  She said that?

• 44:02Speaker 02

  She said that. Capitalize on this opportunity.

• 44:05Tucker Carlson?

  So evil.

• 44:06Speaker 02

  The pile was still burning and she's, how can we capitalize on this opportunity? My head split in half when I read that quote, literally. Like, I just was like

• 44:16Tucker Carlson?

  She's been rewarded. She runs Hoover. Close friend of Philip Zelikos.

• 44:22Speaker 02

  Exactly.

• 44:22Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah. So the

• 44:24Speaker 02

  So my point is, we were not allowed to, like, first of all, the US government did nothing. We were relegated to this fund that was quote unquote, no fault. There was going to be no trials, no investigation, no hearing, no discovery, no cross examination, no jury. And so what we were allowed to do was to sue The co-conspirators. But again, the US government didn't go after any quote unquote co-conspirators. They threw them all down at Guantanamo and waterboarded them, tortured them. So there's no, you know, going after them, right? And so we were left with the civil litigation system. Lawyers, many of whom were like aviation attorneys. One group is former tobacco, big tobacco attorneys.

• 45:06Speaker 02

  And they were willing to go after the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And the rest of these entities, whether it was a foreign government, Emirates, Pakistan, or the US government, we were told, no can do.

• 45:18Tucker Carlson?

  What about Israel?

• 45:20Speaker 02

  Oh, that would have never come up.

• 45:22Tucker Carlson?

  Why?

• 45:23Speaker 02

  I don't know. That's what I'm saying. Like, to me, when you're not asking very, you know, pragmatic, obvious questions, and people don't even ask the question, or if you do ask the question, you just sort of get shut down. To me, that makes me suspicious, right? Like, why aren't we going after those countries? Why isn't my country looking into those countries and what they knew? And yet, there's never been an interest. And I think that that's suspicious.

• 45:53Tucker Carlson?

  Well, by definition, by definition. I mean, science and law enforcement have one thing in common. Every possibility has to be considered. Maybe immediately discarded, but if you don't consider a possibility, then you're clearly not working to get the truth.

• 46:06Speaker 02

  You're not doing your job.

• 46:07Tucker Carlson?

  You're covering something up, not trying to illuminate it. Yeah, again, by definition. I can't let this pass. I don't want to forget to ask you about it. At the outset of our conversation, you said not only did the US government fail to protect the country, or Mufasa, but they did nothing to mitigate the effects of the crime once it happened, something like that. What does that mean?

• 46:29Speaker 02

  Right, so not only did they fail to prevent the attacks from happening, which Tom Kane, Commissioner of the, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, clearly said, "The 9/11 attacks 100% could have and should have been prevented. There was enough information in the pipeline for it to be stopped on a number of occasions." It's not just like one instance, several instances where the plot could have been unraveled, stopped, 3,000 lives saved, okay? Or at least the attack delayed in enough time to learn more and really stop the ultimate attack. That's number one. But on the day of 9/11, the US government did absolutely nothing in a defensive posture to mitigate the damage of the attacks. What does that mean?

• 47:12Speaker 02

  First and foremost, my husband was on the 94th floor of the second tower. He called me after the first building was hit. And he's like, I don't want you to worry. It's not my building. Don't worry. And I said, you know, what's going on? I'm truncating the story. And he said, they're telling us to stay at our desks. Well, an elevator in the World Trade Center went to top to bottom in a minute's time. If at 8:58, the Port Authority and the companies didn't tell people like my husband to stay at their desks and told them to evacuate, those people would have gotten below the zone of impact and survived in the second tower. In my opinion, there is no excuse for any loss of life in the second building.

• 47:54Speaker 02

  And in the first building, the only loss of life should have been above the impact zone. Okay. That's one way that lives could have been saved and damage could have been mitigated. Number two, Christie Todd Whitman told the rescue workers all of New York that the air was safe to breathe. We were told early on when people caught, you know, that we were, you know, the Jersey girls were fighting and trying to get the truth. We were told that the sniffers that were put around ground zero, they're supposed to be at a certain height above the ground to sniff the air. They were above the point where they were supposed to be so that the air that they were testing wasn't the actual air that people were breathing. Okay. Another prime example, the air was not safe to breathe.

• 48:39Speaker 02

  I don't know what was used in those attacks, but I know that it's caused a lot of cancer. Okay. But telling-

• 48:45Tucker Carlson?

  I think that's pretty much proven at this point.

• 48:47Speaker 02

  I think it's pretty much proven. And so when the US government goes and tells thousands of people, I think at this point there's 70,000, that the air was safe to breathe, they're responsible for that. All of those people have been injured and harmed. Some of them have died since then. That is an example of devastation, illness, disease that could have been stopped, might not have even ever happened if the US government did its job. The biggest one that I think speaks to what doesn't make a lot of sense- Is the scrambling of the jets. So on the day of nine 11, there were a series of procedures

• 49:26Speaker 02

  and protocols in place for hijacking of planes and the North American Air Defense NORAD scrambles jets. So what happens is, you know, people forget, but like in the seventies, there were a lot of hijackings.

• 49:41Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, of course, to Cuba.

• 49:42Speaker 02

  Yeah, exactly. And they were kind of commonplace. Like I've read a couple of articles recently where, you know, an eastern plane was hijacked.

• 49:49Tucker Carlson?

  Hundred percent.

• 49:49Speaker 02

  Everyone was chill about it. They just like served cocktails and you went to Cuba, which is kind of surreal.

• 49:55Tucker Carlson?

  Ninety miles out of your way.

• 49:56Speaker 02

  Yeah, it was like.

• 49:57Tucker Carlson?

  There were no fatalities.

• 49:58Speaker 02

  Free booze.

• 49:58Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah, exactly.

• 49:59Speaker 02

  Right. And they were just kind of like a nuisance and the pilots were chill about it and whatever. And so were the flight attendants. Everyone was trained. But regardless, what happened was a couple of things, like number one, you know, they started the Sky Marshal program, which required that if there was something suspicious about someone going on a plane, a Sky Marshal, whose job it was to keep an eye on things and keep the plane safe, was on the plane. The other thing that happened was that they had a protocol that F-16s, if there is a hijacking or the suspicion of a hijacking, were supposed to be scrambled to go up, to meet the plane, and to do a series of things to sort of find out if it isn't a hijacking and to stop it, to thwart it, to threaten, whatever. Okay. Well, on

• 50:41Speaker 02

  nine 11, for some reason, the first plane, Flight 11, was confirmed hijacked at eight 14 in the morning, eight 14. And the planes did not scramble, according to the nine 11 Commission, until after the Pentagon was hit at nine 38. So that's like an hour and 20 minutes. Typically, historically speaking, the F-16 scramble, within a few minutes, they're up airborne at, you know, full speed. And the saying back in the day was that if you had a plane that was not behaving normally, you'd find an F-16 on your tail within 10

• 51:23Speaker 02

  minutes. That was actually a bit of grace. It was really like five to six minutes. And for some bizarre. Reason on the morning of September 11th, those F 16s didn't get up in time. More to the point, the air bases where there were F 16 squadrons that could have gone and intercepted the the errant planes on nine 11. They didn't call the the F 16s from there. They called them from bases that were further away. A perfect example, Maguire Air Force Base in New Jersey had F 16s. They brought the planes from Otis, which was like, I think 200 miles away from the city and away from the planes. Down in DC, instead of running the F 16s out of Andrews, they ran them out of.

• 52:06Speaker 02

  I can't think of the name of the, but out of Maryland instead. And so what happened was the planes were hijacked and just allowed to crash into the buildings with no interception.

• 52:16Tucker Carlson?

  Except for the final plane, Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, a number of eyewitnesses, many eyewitnesses saw military aircraft near that plane.

• 52:24Speaker 02

  Yep, they did.

• 52:25Tucker Carlson?

  So what was that?

• 52:27Speaker 02

  I don't know. I mean, obviously there's talk that it was shot down.

• 52:30Tucker Carlson?

  Well, Dick Cheney gave the order.

• 52:31Speaker 02

  He did give the order.

• 52:32Tucker Carlson?

  Right. And then they said, but we didn't actually do it. And then there was a very elaborate story about what happened inside the plane and kind of a heartwarming, wonderful story. The protagonist was called Todd Beamer.

• 52:46Tucker Carlson?

  And he, you know, let's roll and roll a drink card against the.

• 52:50Speaker 02

  It's a heroic story.

• 52:51Tucker Carlson?

  This is a wonderful story and they they made a movie about it and all that stuff. But um, that was celebrated and it should be celebrated. It's a great story. I'm not attacking anybody, of course, but it did have the feeling of like, we're going to make this into a great story. And it did make me wonder like, whatever happened to that? Shoot down the plane order and there were military aircraft next to the plane. Like, what should we think about that?

• 53:16Speaker 02

  Yeah, I mean, I think that you could drill down on that. Go to Otis Air Force Base and, you know, get the files. Find out when those F 16s left, if they were armed. And if they came back with the same amount of missiles that they left with. It's not that hard to figure out. You could test the soil.

• 53:30Tucker Carlson?

  Has anyone done that?

• 53:31Speaker 02

  I don't know. I don't know if anyone's asked, you know, if you don't ask, you don't get. But I know that there were eyewitnesses at the crash at 93 that said that it was unlike any crash scene that they'd ever seen, that there was no fuselage, that there was no, you know, evidence of the plane seats, of luggage, of, you know, it was just a black hole. I read a lot of books and I'm really good at going to used book sales and finding old books. And there's a lot of 9/11 books that you can pick up at used book sales. And one of them is a group of reporters that put a book together with their photos and their recollection from the day of 9/11. And I read with great interest, the two sections

• 54:13Speaker 02

  of that book, one on the Pentagon and one on Flight 93. Because when you read these reporters' information about both crash sites and what they experienced that day, it doesn't really match up to what we've been told.

• 54:28Tucker Carlson?

  Can you give me an example?

• 54:30Speaker 02

  Sure. Like I said, that crash site in Shanksville, these reporters had seen airplane crash sites before. They've reported on them. They're mainstream reporters. And they just said, it was like, really curious. There was no visible sign of a plane anywhere. There were no engines. There were no seat backs. There was no luggage. There was no nothing. I will say, I think that was one of the planes where they did find a passport. The eyewitnesses that were literally there, they came from Pittsburgh, I think, and got to the scene quite early. And then suddenly, you know, like, federal agents came and like, pushed them all back, pushed them all back, took film, took cameras, what have you. I think that that's curious. So that doesn't really, you know, raises questions, like,

• 55:12Speaker 02

  what happened? And I think the Pentagon is obviously a really good question. I think that we've been told that Hani Hanjor, the hijacker that flew that plane, you know, was responsible for what is considered in pilot circles, an extraordinary maneuver. And Hani Hanjor, a month or two before 9/11, almost got kicked out of flight school because he was that incompetent. He didn't speak English. How someone like that would have been able to pull off that maneuver, putting aside the fact that the... Air defense that was on top of the Pentagon and at the White House also didn't lock on to

• 55:52Speaker 02

  the plane and shoot it down, or they weren't even, you know, there's no evidence whatsoever that any of the missiles that were on top of the Pentagon defense missiles that were designed to protect the Pentagon from anything, they didn't go off and neither did the ones at the White House. So I think that that's kind of weird. I also think it's weird. We had a real long conversation with the commission about the lack of radar evidence of Flight 77 from the Kentucky Ohio border all the way back to the Pentagon. I remember the call quite vividly. And we were told that in all of history before and the time after, there

• 56:34Speaker 02

  has never been an anomaly in the radar. Just by way of background, the United States has several layers of radar, you know, everything from traffic radar all the way up. And yet, this like 12 or 13 layers of radar coverage was this anomaly. It all broke down at one time. Every single system completely just didn't work. From the time that Flight 77 flew from the Kentucky Ohio border to the Pentagon, there's no evidence of it whatsoever.

• 57:06Tucker Carlson?

  There's no radar image at all of Flight 77 flying toward the Pentagon?

• 57:11Speaker 02

  Not from the Ohio Kentucky border, which is where the last

• 57:16Tucker Carlson?

  Louisville area.

• 57:17Speaker 02

  Yeah. To the Pentagon, like the DC aerospace was when they picked it up again. And I think what's interesting is that initially Flight 77, three things happened to that plane at the Ohio Kentucky border. And typically, historically speaking, when those three things happen, it's always an airplane crash. So the first thing that happened was the transponder was disengaged. The second thing that happened was the primary radar of that plane.

• 57:46Speaker 02

  Went away. Primary radar is when radar waves hit an object in the sky. If it's a bird, if it's a plane, what have you, and it bounces back. So at this one place over the Ohio Kentucky border, the transponder disconnected and the skin radar for Flight 77 disappeared, which means it was no longer in the sky. And then the third thing that is really, really odd is that the ELT went off, the pinger, and that only ever usually goes off if there's a catastrophic emergency on the plane, right?

• 58:21Tucker Carlson?

  It went off not at the Pentagon, but at the Kentucky Ohio border.

• 58:24Speaker 02

  Right, with the transponder and the actual primary skin radar disappearing off the scope. And so simultaneously to that, there are reports in the, you know, police reports from the area that there was a plane crash. And in fact, in the-

• 58:40Tucker Carlson?

  There was a plane crash where?

• 58:41Speaker 02

  In the Ohio Kentucky border, where all those three things happened. It was pinpointed and there was a plane crash there. And the state police were rushing towards the crash.

• 58:48Tucker Carlson?

  There were reports of that?

• 58:50Speaker 02

  Yeah, there are actually police reports that you can read. And then at the very same time in the Situation Room, it was also reported that Flight 77 or a plane that they thought was Flight 77 crashed at the Kentucky Ohio border. And then subsequent to that, the commission came out and said, no, no, no, that was just false reporting.

• 59:09Tucker Carlson?

  But that happens to be the last place it was seen on radar.

• 59:12Speaker 02

  Yeah. And then, of course, if you look at the FBI photos, there's a bunch of, you know, theories out there, conspiracy theories or have you. It doesn't look like a plane hit the Pentagon, right? Like you look at, it looks like a punched hole. And, you know, Flight 77 was a rather large plane. There were no plane parts. There was no fuselage. The jet engines weren't on the outside of the Pentagon. And the footage shows that whatever pierced the Pentagon sort of like leapfrogged and like crisscrossed, which kind of defies the rules of physics. But again, if you raise these questions, if you ask these questions, you're immediately shut down as a conspiracy theorist. But like, the facts are the facts. You can look at a photo.

• 59:54Speaker 02

  On top of it, the Pentagon, you know, our home of our defense. There's no video footage of the plane, except for a gas station video that has been partially released to the American public. How is that possible? Like, how is there no other footage of the plane flying into that building? It doesn't make any sense. So why, 24 years out, why don't we just get all that information? Why won't it just be released to the American public? To sort of shut down these theories, to clarify what happened, and to give, you know, the families an understanding of how the nation was not only attacked, but how our

• 1:00:35Speaker 02

  Department of Defense did nothing in its own defense while under attack? Like, I don't understand how that happened, and there was no need to, like, really, like, ream some people out, right? Like, if you're the president and your Pentagon just got attacked, like, wouldn't you be, like, where the fuck were you guys? Like, what happened? Like, where were the air-to-surface missiles?

• 1:00:57Tucker Carlson?

  You're literally the Pentagon.

• 1:00:58Speaker 02

  Yeah, like, you're the Pentagon.

• 1:00:59Tucker Carlson?

  The Defense Department.

• 1:01:00Speaker 02

  But that's what I'm saying, like, how? And it's not like the Defense Department was hit first. It was hit, you know,

• 1:01:08Tucker Carlson?

  Third.

• 1:01:09Speaker 02

  An hour and 20 minutes after the first confirmed hijack of Flight 11. How is that possible? And if it did happen, why didn't heads roll? Why wasn't our entire government petrified? Here we are for years, fighting the great bear of Russia, and, like, you know, we've got NORAD and fighter jets, and we're worried about nukes coming in, and somehow, some non-English-speaking, incompetent Al Qaeda operative, who couldn't even fly a Cessna, let alone a jumbo jet, is able to pull off a fighter pilot maneuver and fly, I don't know, 15 feet off the ground into the side of the Pentagon.

• 1:01:50Speaker 02

  But meanwhile, there's no radar track, there's no evidence of it, we're just told that that's what happened. And it's the Pentagon. Like, I don't- I don't understand how we were attacked at our Department of Defense and President Bush wasn't outraged, but they didn't want any investigation. And keep in mind that the Joint Intelligence Committee that did investigate was only investigating intelligence community failures. That's the NSA, the FBI and the CIA. They weren't investigating the failure of the Department of Defense to defend itself on the day of 9/11.

• 1:02:23Tucker Carlson?

  Or the actual crime. I mean, just the mechanics of the crime itself as presented to us, the public, hard to understand. And I don't have any secret theory. I would just say it if I did. But they're telling us that these guys who were not pilots who went to flaky flight schools in Florida or Arizona or wherever, and didn't do very well, as you noted, infected so badly that they alerted law, local law enforcement, like, what is this?

• 1:02:50Speaker 02

  That's how bad they were. They stuck out. Like, they were so grossly incompetent that like, the flight school were like, what is going on here?

• 1:02:58Tucker Carlson?

  But they murder the pilots of these planes. This is a story. And maybe it's true. I have no idea. But it's, it's hard to, it's hard to understand it. So they murder the pilots. And the plane's flying in the other direction. They're not American. In at least one case, they don't speak English. And they somehow turn the planes around and then go to like, the precise, you know, to the side of the Pentagon, to the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan. Was the idea that they programmed that into the computer? Or how does that work?

• 1:03:28Speaker 02

  I don't know. I don't know how they even got the pilots out of their seats to take control of the plane. You know, again, like, you're flying it. So in other words, a cockpit is a small place. Like, the pilot and copilot are in their seats. They're flying the plane. The hijackers, according to the official story, burst into the cockpit. They, you know.

• 1:03:50Speaker 02

  Decapitate, you know.

• 1:03:53Tucker Carlson?

  That's the official story.

• 1:03:54Speaker 02

  The official story is that they were decapitated. And so then they had to lift those bodies out of those seats, not to be macabre, and then jump into those seats and fly the plane. But like, I don't, I don't know how that works. Like, I do know that at 30,000 feet, there aren't street signs. So when you take over a plane at 30,000 feet, somewhere over the United States of America, I don't know how you know which way to turn. I don't know how you know where the Pentagon is. I mean, I know it looks like a Pentagon, but when you're 30,000 feet up, you know, and you're over Kentucky, like, how do you know which direction to go to find the Pentagon? Because according to the official story, the hijackers were not communicating with the ground. Typically, when planes navigate across the United States, they must communicate with the ground.

• 1:04:36Speaker 02

  You check in with different, you know, sectors. And when you cross over the sector, that's how everyone knows where that particular plane is. That didn't happen on 9/11, when the hijackers took over. And somehow, the planes were able to navigate exactly to their precise target.

• 1:04:54Speaker 02

  Coupling that with the fact that the hijackers were just grossly incompetent, they didn't speak English, and just sort of like, the story itself, like, I don't understand. These hijackers were like little guys. How did they get the pilots and co-pilots out of the cockpit area, get in the seats, clean up all the mess from the violence, and then fly the plane? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Our understanding of what happened, again, comes from the 9/11 Commission telling us what happened, and comes from the cellphone calls that gave an awful lot of information about the hijackers. And again, there, there's been a lot of, you know, talk about how that was possible.

• 1:05:35Speaker 02

  When planes are, you know, flying at 30,000 feet, how in 2001 was there able to be a connected cellphone call? More to the point, when the planes are being flown, sort of like, haphazardly and herky-jerky, and, you know, the way cellphones work is they connect from towers to the ground. Well, when a plane is moving all over the airspace and flying at maximum speed. It's really, really rare for a cellphone to connect at 5,000 feet, let alone 30,000 feet. And so that raises questions. Our entire understanding of what took place on those planes literally comes from the cellphone calls. We asked the FBI about that and we didn't really get any clear answers. And to this day, we still don't have many clear

• 1:06:20Speaker 02

  answers.

• 1:06:22Tucker Carlson?

  But you don't have clear answers about pretty central questions.

• 1:06:25Speaker 02

  Exactly.

• 1:06:26Tucker Carlson?

  These are not ancillary questions. These are like the most basic, like how'd they do that?

• 1:06:30Speaker 02

  I mean, my biggest-

• 1:06:30Tucker Carlson?

  And you don't know?

• 1:06:31Speaker 02

  No, we don't know. Like, my biggest questions, aside from the cellphones and what have you, and how the hijackers themselves were actually able to, you know, navigate from the middle of nowhere to the precise targets that they went to when they were so grossly incompetent and not speaking to the ground. My biggest question is where was our air defense? I know as a fact, because I read all the rules and the procedures and protocols back in the day, those F-16s should have been up within five minutes. They should have been flanking those planes and they should have stopped those planes. And at the bare minimum, they should have been communicating down to the ground, the F-16 pilots, to say, "We can't get these guys to stop," you know, and put people on alert, right? But for some

• 1:07:13Speaker 02

  reason, three planes were allowed to be hijacked over the course of almost an hour and a half, and the United States of America did nothing to stop it. So putting aside all the failures to prevent the attacks for the 18 months, two years before 9/11, okay? You look at the day of, and we get back to your original question. How could the devastation have been mitigated? One simple way is that if the F-16s had done their job, had done what they were trained to do, which, by the way, there's also evidence that there was a drill, a military drill, on the day of 9/11 about a plane being hijacked and flown into a building. Okay? These F-16 pilots are trained to do that. That was the procedure and the

• 1:07:57Speaker 02

  protocol. For some reason, on 9/11, it didn't happen at all.

• 1:08:03Tucker Carlson?

  You've asked these questions, I assume, to members of Congress?

• 1:08:06Speaker 02

  We were told that it was the fog of war.

• 1:08:11Speaker 02

  That's what we were talking about.

• 1:08:11Tucker Carlson?

  That was the answer?

• 1:08:12Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:08:14Tucker Carlson?

  Did, I mean, but at some point, you know, like, the rest of us were watching this on TV. So, I mean, clearly whoever's commanding those aircraft knew that this was happening also. Everyone knew. I mean, I was here, you were here.

• 1:08:27Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:08:29Tucker Carlson?

  That, I mean, did the person who prevented those planes from taking off ever get punished? Did anyone get punished?

• 1:08:34Speaker 02

  No one's ever been punished. I think the commissions, we like to say that the commission's finding was everyone was at fault, therefore no one is at fault.

• 1:08:40Tucker Carlson?

  Right.

• 1:08:41Speaker 02

  And so.

• 1:08:43Tucker Carlson?

  We're all guilty.

• 1:08:44Speaker 02

  But, you know, again, 3,000 people were murdered. And I think that my husband was one of them. And I don't understand, I go back to the rule of law, we are a democracy. We're a nation founded upon the rule of law. How has our entire legal system failed the 9/11 widows and children? How has the Department of Justice failed the widows and children not only before 9/11, on 9/11, and I'll tell you something, in the wake of 9/11? Because if there is one entity that has revictimized and horribly treated the 9/11 widows and children, it is our Department of Justice. And they should be held accountable for what they have done.

• 1:09:23Tucker Carlson?

  Interesting, that's, I want to hear that story, because I can tell, you know a lot about it and you're passionate about it. But before we get to that, just one last question about the day of, about 9/11 in itself. What, what was Building 7?

• 1:09:37Speaker 02

  So, I'm, full disclosure, I have always focused my studies and research and expertise, if you want to say that, on the intelligence failures.

• 1:09:47Tucker Carlson?

  Yes.

• 1:09:47Speaker 02

  I did watch your series. I listened to it, I didn't watch it. I don't like to watch myself.

• 1:09:53Tucker Carlson?

  I know what you mean.

• 1:09:54Speaker 02

  But, and I, I do know, Building 7, there's a lot of talk that it doesn't make a lot of sense. You know, I think that there needs to be some questions to special ops as to whether or not, as way of fact, that any bombs were planted in the couches of that building.

• 1:10:14Tucker Carlson?

  The couches?

• 1:10:15Speaker 02

  The couches.

• 1:10:16Tucker Carlson?

  What does that mean, the couch, like you sit on a couch?

• 1:10:17Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:10:19Tucker Carlson?

  Why do you say couches?

• 1:10:20Speaker 02

  I, you know, listen, over the years, we've had people that came and approached us and tried to give us information, all kinds of different people.

• 1:10:26Tucker Carlson?

  I bet.

• 1:10:27Speaker 02

  And I think that one of the things that needs to be examined is Building 7. I think that hard questions need to be asked as to how and why that building failed.

• 1:10:35Tucker Carlson?

  But why do you say couches?

• 1:10:37Speaker 02

  I just happen to wonder if bombs were planted in the couches by special ops.

• 1:10:44Tucker Carlson?

  You happen to wonder, I mean, that that's not something you would arrive at just sort of randomly, the couches, everyone talks about the columns and the fireproofing, but you're saying, so you, it obvi- obviously.

• 1:10:55Speaker 02

  I don't know. I mean, listen, like I said, we had a lot of people approach us. We had air traffic controller people in the beginning. We had an Iranian, a former Iranian, give us information. We had able danger guys come to us.

• 1:11:07Tucker Carlson?

  I bet you did.

• 1:11:08Speaker 02

  We had foreign governments try to give us stuff. We had death threats. We had all kinds of stuff. So, you know, I'm just throwing that out. Building seven, that's what I could say. It's not my area. It's not what I focused on.

• 1:11:20Tucker Carlson?

  I get it. I totally get it.

• 1:11:21Speaker 02

  I think it is a total anomaly that that happened. It doesn't make any sense to me. And what's interesting is like, it's something that I had never studied before. And, you know, it's true. Like, it's kind of odd. And I think that we should get some answers.

• 1:11:35Tucker Carlson?

  Couches. Okay.

• 1:11:36Speaker 02

  Sorry.

• 1:11:37Tucker Carlson?

  I'm gonna.

• 1:11:37Speaker 02

  Couches.

• 1:11:38Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah. No, it's just such a was.

• 1:11:40Speaker 02

  I don't know nothing.

• 1:11:41Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah, no, I get it. But clearly, you know, you were a kind of clearinghouse for this stuff.

• 1:11:45Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:11:46Tucker Carlson?

  Just because of your role for those people who weren't around or don't remember, you were.

• 1:11:50Speaker 02

  No, I mean, like, one of the things that sticks out to me that we had heard, one of the nicer, sometimes you hear information that I believe is sort of like a limited hangout, or to try to like, explain the real story, but like soften it. And so one of the things that we heard is like, yeah, we were following them, but you know, you know, we thought it was going to be November 9th instead of September 11th. We reversed the numbers. And I was like, that's interesting. You know, so you were following them, or you weren't following them, or you're on the practice runs, or you're not on the practice runs. But that was one of the stories that we had heard from like a source that like, yeah, like, they were getting followed, we were, you know, but we thought it was going to be 11 9, not 9 11. That doesn't really make a lot of sense, because we had the NSA

• 1:12:35Speaker 02

  listening into the conversations between Bin Laden and the other operatives. And as everybody knows now, because Senator Hatch leaked some of the information that like tomorrow is zero hour, you know, the big wedding, it's two sticks and an upside down birthday cake. I think that there was plenty of information out there to let people know that it was actually nine 11. And more to the point, one thing that gets skipped over often, my understanding is that Ramzi Youssef, the 93 bomber, his, the fifth anniversary of his conviction was September 11th, 2001. And if you know anything about Al Qaeda, if you study Al Qaeda, they like anniversaries. And so to me, I think that for whatever reason, the attacks weren't stopped, the American public

• 1:13:20Speaker 02

  wasn't properly notified or warned. Certainly, there are people inside the government that were probably given warnings. I think there's evidence of that. I just wish that, yeah, I just wish that my family had known because when my husband called me, I would have been like, holy shit, this, get the fuck out, like, get out. This is not a bad pilot, as the president said. This is it. Like, get out of that building, you know. It was already a target. The people that worked in that building knew it was a target. I think it's interesting that the women, many of the women that worked in my husband's firm survived. And I, I, you know, point to women's intuition, the women were just like, I'm getting the fuck out of here. And they survived.

• 1:14:03Speaker 02

  And my husband didn't. And I feel like if the public was made more aware over the summer, that, you know, Director Tenet's hair was on fire, and that we were in the crosshairs, and that there was an impending attack because we had warnings from Germany, Russia, Israel, Jordan, our own intel community's surveillance of these cells. I think many, many more lives would have been saved. I think frankly, the attacks would have been 100% prevented.

• 1:14:32Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah. So I think it's entirely fair to ask, since they weren't prevented, and since they've been covered up with maximum aggression for 25 years, they're still being covered up.

• 1:14:44Speaker 02

  A systemic cover up.

• 1:14:45Tucker Carlson?

  Systemic cover up. That's correct. Very extensive cover up. Um, I mean, that's not a guess.

• 1:14:51Speaker 02

  So big. I think the cover up is so big that you like, you couldn't even hold accountable the people that have covered it up. And honestly, the other limited hangout answer to that would be like, well, we were told that we couldn't tell you the truth because it was a matter of national security.

• 1:15:04Tucker Carlson?

  Always.

• 1:15:05Speaker 02

  And isn't that convenient?

• 1:15:08Tucker Carlson?

  Well, sure. But I mean, this was the, you know, greatest violation of national security in my lifetime. So it doesn't really make sense as an argument, but because all of that.

• 1:15:15Speaker 02

  Failure of national security, like the Department of Defense, an hour and a half later gets attacked and no heads roll. Does that make any sense to you?

• 1:15:23Tucker Carlson?

  No. So I think it's totally fair to ask who benefited from it at that point. I think it's totally fair. Um, in fact, I think it's mandatory to ask that question. Um, and there should be prosecutions.

• 1:15:36Speaker 02

  Hundred percent.

• 1:15:37Tucker Carlson?

  How would you, you're a lawyer. How would you do, how would you structure the response now?

• 1:15:40Speaker 02

  Yeah. I mean, I love that you want the commission. I think that.

• 1:15:43Tucker Carlson?

  I don't know if that's the right answer. I just want people, I want to know the truth.

• 1:15:46Speaker 02

  Yeah. And I think that that's a truth commission is, is a great idea. I think that I would like it tweaked a little bit. I'd like, uh, you know, a special prosecutor, um, with a full time, fully empaneled grand jury, ready to issue indictments. Um, I'd like, you know, the offer of immunity to anyone, immunity and anonymity for anyone who comes forward with information, um, on, you know, the failures and the day to day of like what happened. Um, and I think people should go to jail and I think people that covered it up should be held accountable. Um, and I think the families deserve answers and I.

• 1:16:25Tucker Carlson?

  Who wouldn't want that? I mean, I think if, if, if Donald Trump announced what you just said tomorrow, I'm just imagining the scene on X, on social media, like, who would be opposed to that, do you think?

• 1:16:38Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:16:38Tucker Carlson?

  Like, I know exactly who would be opposed to that. I know exactly which commentators would have a fit.

• 1:16:43Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:16:44Tucker Carlson?

  If he did that. And so what does that tell you?

• 1:16:46Speaker 02

  But then explain to me how, uh, President Trump put together a joint terrorism task force for the October 7th victims. He put together, Pam Bondi led it, you know, a task force. To find everyone who was responsible for October 7th. And yet he ran on America first. And I was like, wait, I'm sorry. Could we get a 9 11 task force? It's going to be the 25th year. For the 25th year, could you appoint a 9 11 task force? We have Doge. How about Doja? Right? How about the Department of Government Accountability? And why don't you put that together and have the Doge guys? Get the access to the information, throw it into AI. Whatever they do. And figure out who's responsible and what really happened.

• 1:17:28Tucker Carlson?

  You know exactly what would happen.

• 1:17:30Speaker 02

  What?

• 1:17:30Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah, okay. So, um, I mean, there would be a lot of. People have to answer really hard questions. And, and I don't, you know, I don't.

• 1:17:40Speaker 02

  But I think that the American public is owed that.

• 1:17:43Tucker Carlson?

  Are you kidding? Yes.

• 1:17:45Speaker 02

  You know, 3,000 people were massacred and the families are owed the truth. And the families are owed, you know, proper compensation for our losses. We have not been properly taken care of. We were railroaded.

• 1:17:58Tucker Carlson?

  How's that? Okay, so now I want to get into DOJ. Thank you for indulging my, all my many questions. I still want to ask you off camera about the couches. What the hell does that mean? Sorry, I'm not gonna push you.

• 1:18:08Speaker 02

  I don't know.

• 1:18:09Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah, well, it means something clearly. Um. Okay, you've had problems with the DOJ. Our DOJ.

• 1:18:16Speaker 02

  I want to just say this, anyone who knows anything about the couches in Building 7 and the planning of explosives should get immediate immunity and anonymity if they come forward with the information.

• 1:18:26Tucker Carlson?

  Of course. Of course, this is all.

• 1:18:32Speaker 02

  And if there is no one, then no one gets immunity.

• 1:18:34Tucker Carlson?

  Not a problem.

• 1:18:35Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:18:36Tucker Carlson?

  What I never, never understood, like, what's the problem with finding out what the truth is about anything? I don't, I don't understand. And there is a certain persistent chorus of the same people, hysterical people, telling you that you're not allowed to ask this or talk about that. And it's like, why are you saying that? I mean, I look, I understand. I'm not for, you know, hounding people, attacking them. I don't think you should slander people. These are the slanderers, by the way, who are insistent, by the way, that you're not as special, but whatever. I get it. Don't be impolite. Don't make a scene for no reason.

• 1:19:07Speaker 02

  But I

• 1:19:08Tucker Carlson?

  But in this case, 3,000 people dead, it's totally fair.

• 1:19:11Speaker 02

  And that's what I was just gonna say. The truth is really important everywhere, all the time. But when 3,000 people are murdered,

• 1:19:19Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah.

• 1:19:19Speaker 02

  we're owed an investigation.

• 1:19:23Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, you radical.

• 1:19:24Speaker 02

  No, right? I mean, we're, where is the justice system?

• 1:19:28Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, I agree.

• 1:19:28Speaker 02

  And it's unbelievable, the stories that I could tell you about how we've been treated by our own Department of Justice.

• 1:19:35Tucker Carlson?

  Okay.

• 1:19:36Speaker 02

  Would, you know?

• 1:19:38Tucker Carlson?

  Then I want you to tell me those stories. And let's take a quick break right now. Midway. So we're back. We took a quick break. I should say it's the last day of October, and we're in a northern climate and it's freezing. So I went and put my highly unattractive vest on. That explains the costume change. Anyway, you were on the cusp of explaining your, what you describe as mistreatment by the Department of Justice and related agencies and law firms. Can I just give you the two sentence understanding that I have? So the United States has set aside a huge amount of taxpayer money to compensate the victims of terror, all terror attacks, nine 11 being, of course, the biggest and most famous of all terror attacks in American history. So I'm a little surprised, and I think that's true, correct? There's a big pile of money, taxpayer money.

• 1:20:22Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:20:22Tucker Carlson?

  But you said the victims of nine 11, the spouses, surviving children have been undercompensated. Like, I'll start, let you go from there.

• 1:20:32Speaker 02

  Right. So in 2015, certain members of Congress put together some legislation and created a fund run by the Department of Justice. And the fund was supposed to be funded through terrorist sanctions, predominantly from those who do business with Iran, let's say. Bank Paribas was the first deposit that went into the fund. That's a whole nother story in itself. It's kind of interesting. But suffice it to say, out of a $9 billion fine with Bank Paribas, I think 1.8 billion went to the victims. And the residual money went to the state of New York to build a bridge that ultimately got named after the governor's father.

• 1:21:17Tucker Carlson?

  Actually?

• 1:21:18Speaker 02

  Actually. I don't know what the Tappan Zee Bridge had to do with terrorism, but I

• 1:21:24Tucker Carlson?

  Was it ever bombed by Iran?

• 1:21:25Speaker 02

  I don't think so, but I do like to make the joke, my daughter went to college in upstate New York. And when I would go over the bridge and pay the toll, I'd be joking that it should be going to the nine 11 widows and children since the money that went towards the bridge reconstruction came from the Paribas money, as I understand it from reporting, instead of going to victims of terrorism.

• 1:21:46Tucker Carlson?

  How can that be?

• 1:21:48Speaker 02

  Well, you know, the Department of Justice runs a lot of their sanctions programs, it's sort of like a slush fund. But at any rate, this fund was created, Bank Paribas put together, like, I think 1.8 or 1.9 billion of the first deposit into that fund. The widows and children were excluded from joining that fund and being compensated, even though we were given the right to sue the co-conspirators of the hijackers when we were forced into the Victims Compensation Fund back in 2002, when the government took away our right to sue. We were allowed to sue the terrorists, the co-conspirators of the hijackers. And we did, we were able to get a default judgment, sorry, against Iran. And the widows and kids

• 1:22:33Speaker 02

  have Iran judgments. And we sought to be compensated for those judgments, because it was the only way that we could

• 1:22:40Tucker Carlson?

  Iran judgments?

• 1:22:41Speaker 02

  Iran judgments. I know not a lot of people know that we have Iran judgments, but

• 1:22:45Tucker Carlson?

  May I just ask a dumb question? What does Iran have to do with 911?

• 1:22:48Speaker 02

  Right. So the evidence that was presented to the court for Iran's role in the 911 attacks is that Iran cleansed some of the passports of a few of the hijackers when they went through Iran after being in Afghanistan. That evidence was used. Iran doesn't show up in court in the United States. So I think at this point, probably close to 20,000 911 victims have been given copycat judgments off that basic evidence that Iran cleansed these passports. And this is the only way that the widows and children of the 3,000 killed are in any way able to hold terrorists, quote unquote, accountable. We are supposed

• 1:23:33Speaker 02

  to be able to get compensated for our Iran judgments in this government fund. Okay? A Department of Justice fund.

• 1:23:41Tucker Carlson?

  But just big picture, not to be ornery about it, but like, Everything we've talked about for the last hour, which is about the event itself and how it happened and what we don't know and who might have benefited from it and who might have paid for it and facilitated it, Iran didn't make an appearance in that conversation. And I've never heard anybody make a case that Iran was actually behind 9/11 in a meaningful way.

• 1:24:03Speaker 02

  I would agree with that, but nevertheless, Iran doesn't show up in court and you can get a default judgment and that's-

• 1:24:10Tucker Carlson?

  It just seems like a lot of tragedies in this country are blamed on Iran. I'm not working for Iran. I'm not that sympathetic to Iran. I'm not Iranian. But I just noticed this, that Trump gets shot in Butler, it was Iran.

• 1:24:24Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:24:24Tucker Carlson?

  Right. It's always Iran. And it does feel like-

• 1:24:27Speaker 02

  A convenient narrative.

• 1:24:28Tucker Carlson?

  Yes. Yes. Okay. Just want to say that.

• 1:24:31Speaker 02

  Well, listen, pragmatically speaking, when you're a widow and it's the only judgment you can get-

• 1:24:36Tucker Carlson?

  I get it. I get it. But that's not a decision you made anyway, right? I mean, you didn't decide to go after Iran?

• 1:24:42Speaker 02

  No, not at all. I wanted to go after the US government and their failures because I didn't look to Iran or Saudi Arabia or any other foreign government to protect my husband and my family on the morning of September 11th.

• 1:24:54Tucker Carlson?

  Smart. Good point.

• 1:24:55Speaker 02

  I looked to the United States government because I'm an American citizen and the attacks happened here. So at any rate, we were able to get these Iran judgments, I think at this point, like 20,000 people, that's including the decedent's families, the widows and the kids, and the decedent's siblings, parents, and then all of the inhalation injury people at Ground Zero who breathed the bad air. They're also holding Iran accountable. That ultimately will be about 70,000 people seeking to be compensated in this government fund. Well, the problem with the government fund is that compensating 9/11 victims gets

• 1:25:34Speaker 02

  in the way of the other victims that want to be compensated. And so back in 2008 and then a little bit before that in some other legislation, things were rewritten for American military to be able to sue the enemy. So you have victims from the embassy bombings in the late 80s. You have Iran hostages that aren't allowed to have judgments because a part of the Algeric Accords was that they weren't allowed to sue Iran. But they're given just a flat number that they're allowed to be paid in this government fund. They're a victim of state-sponsored terrorism, the Iran hostages.

• 1:26:13Speaker 02

  The embassy bombing in Beirut victims and then the Kobar Tower victims, that was a bombing in Saudi Arabia. And then you have the US's coal families, also victims of state-sponsored terrorism, and the East African embassy bombing families. These are all military or foreign service families that because the law was rewritten, they are allowed to get judgments against Iran for Iran's participation in those attacks. And so those victims have really powerful lawyers. They were the ones that reportedly created this government fund that's run by the Department of Justice. And they came up with the idea that we're going to fund the fund from terrorist sanctions. And what does that mean?

• 1:26:55Speaker 02

  Well, that means that when the US government gets information that a company, a ship, you know, a tanker is doing business and buying Iranian oil, that tanker or that company gets sanctioned. The Department of Justice goes after those entities and they fine them. You know, first they have a case and then they, you know, usually typically settle the case for billions of dollars. And that some of that money is supposed to go into this fund to pay victims.

• 1:27:23Tucker Carlson?

  Is this why we never pull back sanctions, even when they're counterproductive? Because it's a scam that people are getting rich from?

• 1:27:29Speaker 02

  Well, right. But so it was designed...

• 1:27:31Tucker Carlson?

  Sorry, I had to say that.

• 1:27:32Speaker 02

  Well, so upfront, it's being sold as a fund to pay victims. Turns out, many of the military families had attorneys who encouraged the families to sell their judgments to third-party investors hedge funds. I know all of this because...

• 1:27:48Tucker Carlson?

  What?

• 1:27:49Speaker 02

  Right. I know all this because the SEC happened to investigate one of the hedge funds. And so I read all of the SEC files, thousands of pages. And so that's how I know this information. I'm basing it all on these SEC files of this investigation. So at any point, these victims that were supposed to be the ones getting compensated in this fund, run by the Department of Justice, sold their judgments. Not all of them, but like a lot of them. They're very unsophisticated military families. This, you know, hedge fund guy comes in and says, listen, you've got a judgment for 2 million. I'll give you 400,000 right now. They're sitting at the kitchen table in the middle of Iowa. I'll write you a check. So these families sell the judgments because they're like, first of all, their young son or daughter was in the military.

• 1:28:33Speaker 02

  They never thought that they could sue the enemy, right? Because you're not supposed to be able to do that if you serve in the military. You don't sue the enemy. But this special law was written. And so they were just happy to get the 400,000, right? Like, they're sort of astounded. So they, they take the money. The hedge fund then owns the right to compensation of the judgment.

• 1:28:51Tucker Carlson?

  No way. So it's like a payday loan. We'll give you a portion of your check.

• 1:28:55Speaker 02

  Exactly. And they, in my opinion, in my opinion, took advantage of the military families, which I think is disgusting. Okay. But these arrangements, according to the SEC documents, were put together by the lawyers of the people. So the lawyers brought in the hedge funds. Okay. And so the same lawyers create, reportedly, from what I can understand, in my opinion, I'm being very careful, created this fund to be run by the Department of Justice, who, you know, treats their, you know, fines and sanctions and prosecutions sort of like as a slush fund. You know, the Department of Justice wields power when they send money to local districts to police departments to buy vests, what have you. They wield a lot of power that way. It's frankly how the money ended up, you know, at the Tappan Zee Bridge, cutting

• 1:29:39Speaker 02

  deals with, you know, the governor at the time. Nevertheless, these hedge funds buy the rights to the compensation and they're actually the ones in this fund getting paid. Initially, the widows and children from 9/11 weren't allowed in the fund.

• 1:29:55Tucker Carlson?

  This is such a perfect metaphor for modern America. Well, there's a victims of terrorism fund, but the actual beneficiaries are, wait for it, hedge funds.

• 1:30:02Speaker 02

  Right, exactly. And can you guess what senator wrote the legislation to put this together?

• 1:30:06Tucker Carlson?

  I can't, I can't imagine.

• 1:30:07Speaker 02

  Well, which senator from the state of New Jersey is in prison right now?

• 1:30:10Tucker Carlson?

  I would say Mr. Robert Menendez.

• 1:30:12Speaker 02

  That is correct. Senator Menendez was the person who just ironically enough happened to write a lot of pieces of legislation that, you know, maximized the profits to the offshore hedge funds that had purchased these judgments.

• 1:30:25Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, they're offshore hedge funds?

• 1:30:26Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah, they're in the Cayman Islands.

• 1:30:28Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, come on!

• 1:30:30Speaker 02

  Well, it's true. And so what gets really bad is that the widows and kids aren't allowed into the fund because quote unquote, there's just too many of you and that you'll take all the money. Right?

• 1:30:41Tucker Carlson?

  And the hedge funds won't be enough for the hedge funds.

• 1:30:43Speaker 02

  Well, the problem is, in the actual purchase agreements, again, according to the SEC documents, the underlying purchase agreements of the Iranian judgments of these military families, the second line of collateral security guaranteeing the rate of return between 13 and I think 62% is...

• 1:31:00Speaker 02

  This fund that was created by the Department of Justice.

• 1:31:03Tucker Carlson?

  What?

• 1:31:04Speaker 02

  Guaranteeing the profits to the hedge funds was the second.

• 1:31:07Tucker Carlson?

  The fund is a guarantor?

• 1:31:10Speaker 02

  Yes. The third line of collateral security, according to the SEC documents, is the law firm's receivables. So that means if the fund doesn't churn and burn and provide that profit, then the lawyer's receivables get raided so that the hedge fund investors make their return. So you can see there that there's an impetus, a drive for the attorneys not to want that third line to get tapped. They want the money to come from the fund because then it's not coming out of the attorney's pocket, right? So that's why the widows and kids, in my opinion, were not allowed to go into this fund and be compensated for our Iran judgments, even though we are the nation's largest group of victims of terrorism, the 9/11 widows and kids.

• 1:31:52Speaker 02

  We're blocked in this fund. We're not allowed in. Takes us three years to get the widows and kids in. We get into the fund and the law is written by Senator Menendez, with the support of Senator Schumer and others, so that the money is split in a way that continues to maximize the profits to the hedge fund. Okay? Then, two years later, because the widows and kids were wrongfully excluded from being compensated in this fund in 2015, we were owed a catch-up payment. I came up with the name. It was a lump sum catch-up payment. I'm like, you wrongfully excluded us. This was really wrong. We're owed back compensation. Okay? We go, takes us two years to get that through Congress. Okay?

• 1:32:36Speaker 02

  We get there, we get almost a unanimous vote in the House, it goes over to the Senate, and the bill gets hijacked. And I use that word purposely. It got hijacked. It got hijacked by that same group of lawyers and plaintiffs who had sold their judgments to the hedge fund. And out of nowhere, totally unwarranted, they asked to get this lump sum.

• 1:32:59Speaker 02

  Payment for themselves, even though they were never wrongfully excluded from the fund, they were never owed back payments from the fund, they were allowed to get what's called the Beirut Cobar catch-up payment, worth $3 billion. The $3 billion to pay ultimately, in my opinion, some of these hedge funds in the Cayman Islands and also some victims too, that didn't sell their judgments, right, comes from US taxpayer dollars. $3 billion.

• 1:33:25Tucker Carlson?

  On.

• 1:33:26Speaker 02

  So it gets worse.

• 1:33:27Tucker Carlson?

  So you believe that some of that money actually went to hedge funds in the Cayman Islands?

• 1:33:30Speaker 02

  I believe that it's definitely possible because the SEC documents talk about these, this particular group of victims getting, you know, approached to sell their judgments. The SEC talks about the contractual agreements of the sale of the judgments. And when you look at the numbers, sometimes like I'm really good at like seeing patterns and then like looking at evidence and then undoing it and like going back and trying to figure out things. It just so happens that the groups that are mentioned in the SEC documents happen to be the highest paid groups of victims of terrorism, which first off makes no sense because they're military and military live on kind of like humble economic, like their economic damages are very small as compared to civilians who were working on Wall Street on 9/11.

• 1:34:14Tucker Carlson?

  Right, because damages are calculated on the basis of income you didn't receive.

• 1:34:18Speaker 02

  Economic loss, right, lost wages. And so oddly enough, these military as compared to the 9/11 civilian widows and children killed on US shores, okay, not serving overseas, not in hostile territory, civilians killed in America at work, innocent civilians, have received less compensation in this fund than these groups who just happen to also have this exposure to these third-party investors and hedge funds. Okay. So the legislation gets written, they're given $3 billion of US taxpayer money to pay this payment that's totally unwarranted, came out of nowhere, was not justified. Senator Menendez wrote the legislation, wrote a loophole in the legislation saying that, quote, "successors

• 1:35:02Speaker 02

  in interest thereof can be compensated this money from the US taxpayers." I believe the successors in interest thereof are the third-party investors/ hedge funds.

• 1:35:12Tucker Carlson?

  Can you imagine investing in a victims of terrorism?

• 1:35:15Speaker 02

  It's disgusting.

• 1:35:16Tucker Carlson?

  Well, it's, do you have any idea?

• 1:35:17Speaker 02

  You're literally profiting from murder and terrorism. And you're using a Department of Justice government fund that is being billed and sold to members of Congress as a victims fund to compensate victims of terrorism with restitution. Okay. And it's being, you know, exploited and it's being used as like a profit model, an investment vehicle for third party investors and hedge funds.

• 1:35:44Tucker Carlson?

  Do we have any idea the identity of these hedge fund managers or investors?

• 1:35:50Speaker 02

  No.

• 1:35:52Speaker 02

  No, but I will tell you this, I was able to read in the SEC documents, some of the investor groups that were approached by the hedge fund guy from New Jersey. And I cross referenced those with open secrets and donations, contributions to members of Congress. And I believe there is a pattern there, which is why we asked-

• 1:36:11Tucker Carlson?

  How did Menendez do in that group?

• 1:36:13Speaker 02

  I will tell you this, that in the SEC documents, there's a deposition of one of the attorneys and there's a series of depositions and the initials RM are in the documents. And Senator Menendez passed legislation in 2012 that was also signed off on by President Obama to make the first round of payments to this group that had sold their judgments, many of whom had sold their judgments to the hedge funds. So Senator Menendez's hands are all over this, you know, we turned to Congress, we said, could you just investigate, could you investigate the anti-terrorism legislation done by Senator Menendez? He's in jail now. Like it deserves a look see. No one would do it. This fund that's had $9 billion, approximately $9 billion flown through it

• 1:36:57Speaker 02

  since 2016, has never had one hearing. We have asked repeatedly, very loudly for hearings. We've begged for hearings. We can't get hearings on this. With all of this information, we met with the chief of the money laundering asset recovery section at the Department of Justice, the person who's in charge really ultimately over this fund. And we're having this meeting and we're like, it's really unfair. The governing statute says that we're supposed to be treated fairly and equitably. It's a United States Victims of Terrorism Fund. In the United States of America, everyone's supposed to be treated equally. Is there a reason why nine 11 widows and children, this nation's

• 1:37:38Speaker 02

  largest group of victims of terrorism, are receiving anywhere from six to 66 times less percentage value for our judgments? Is there a reason for that? And she just was like, well, you know, there's, you know, we don't really have in Congress tells us and this and that. Went to Senator Schumer's, spoke to his counsel. She just said, well, there's just too many of you to treat you fairly. There's too many of you to have equal justice. You know, the words on the Supreme Court, when you walk in the door is equal justice under the law for all.

• 1:38:09Tucker Carlson?

  Why not take it out of our foreign aid budget?

• 1:38:10Speaker 02

  Well, that's a good question. I will tell you this, that some victims of terrorism in 2020 were paid out of the State Department's Defense Special Budget. And maybe or maybe not, those guys had some third-party investors that ultimately got that money.

• 1:38:30Tucker Carlson?

  Who were they and why were they paid by the State Department?

• 1:38:32Speaker 02

  That was the East African Embassy bombing victims and the USS Cole victims. Same group of lawyers represent, there's like a cross pollination of the lawyers. It's like a little cabal of lawyers that work for these victims groups. They're also the same group of lawyers. So they not only created this fund, they've also really played a very strong hand in rewriting anti-terrorism laws in the United States from 1990 on forward. And ironically, all of these laws are always billed after nine 11 is nine 11, you know, for the nine 11 families. But what's weird is that the nine 11 families never benefit or get anything out of these laws. In fact, we get revictimized. It's kind of incredible.

• 1:39:10Tucker Carlson?

  Wait, so now we're...

• 1:39:12Speaker 02

  Let me just say this. We met with DOJ and we really thought maybe, maybe, you know, this chief... A person of this department doesn't know about these hedge funds, like we need to alert her, right? Like, we need to tell her. And she just got really funny at the end of the meeting. We were like, well, we wanted to talk to you about the hedge funds because the statute says that you need to be a natural person to be compensated in the fund. And even though Senator Menendez passed legislation that allows successors and interests thereof to get compensated, we think it's kind of unseemly. And, you know, we're not being treated fairly, and we shouldn't be penalized because there's so many of us. Like, that was one of my talking points. I was like, as someone who fought for the 9/11 Commission, it's not our fault that there's so many of us. It's the United States government's

• 1:39:57Speaker 02

  fault, because the United States government didn't prevent the attacks and didn't mitigate any of the damage on the day of 9/11. So you're punishing us for our government's failure, and there being 3,000 victims. That's why we can't be compensated fairly and in alignment with the law. And with all of these other victims, you can't treat us fairly because there's just too many of us. And so we say this to this chief of MLARS, and she just got funny. She's like, well, no one briefed me that you were going to bring up the hedge funds. I'm not prepared to discuss it. And that was the end of that. And so I just think that the American public should know that this is the kind of stuff that goes on. And I'd really like to know why, you know, one of the laws that's currently they're trying

• 1:40:41Speaker 02

  to get passed right now is backed by the ADL. It was written by the ADL reportedly.

• 1:40:47Tucker Carlson?

  The ADL?

• 1:40:48Speaker 02

  The ADL.

• 1:40:49Tucker Carlson?

  What do they have to do with this?

• 1:40:50Speaker 02

  That's what I want to know. I want to know why the ADL is involving itself in anti-terrorism laws. I want to know why October 7 victims are in my Congress lobbying Congress and writing legislation that harms the rights of 9/11 widows and children. I'm not asking...

• 1:41:07Tucker Carlson?

  What does that mean? How does that... I don't know why they're writing legislation in the first place, but since they are

• 1:41:13Speaker 02

  That's what I'm saying. Hamas did the October 7th attacks. These individuals don't even have Iran judgments and they're writing legislation to change this fund, this government fund that's supposed to be for American victims of terrorism. And that's fine. Okay.

• 1:41:29Tucker Carlson?

  Wait, wait, wait, wait.

• 1:41:30Speaker 02

  But why are you in my Congress?

• 1:41:31Tucker Carlson?

  Foreigners will get some of this money now?

• 1:41:33Speaker 02

  Yeah. I mean, they're, well, they're dual citizens and they're trying to expand the law so that they're very involved. I don't know.

• 1:41:42Tucker Carlson?

  Were the US government is going to pay victims of a terror attack in a foreign country that has nothing to do with, you know, we're not responsible for October 7th that I know of?

• 1:41:54Speaker 02

  Right. But they're using their, they're trying to get an Iran judgment for those attacks to say that Iran underwrote Hamas. And then they're going to try to get paid in this government fund that was designed for United States victims of terrorism.

• 1:42:08Tucker Carlson?

  Actually?

• 1:42:09Speaker 02

  Actually.

• 1:42:10Tucker Carlson?

  That's an outrage.

• 1:42:12Speaker 02

  Well, I think what's outrageous is that we know that they tried to, once again, amend the governing statute of this fund. And they tried to do it in a way that really was going to financially harm the widows and children. And we're not seeking special treatment. We just want to be treated fairly.

• 1:42:28Tucker Carlson?

  But I just can't get past this. What, I mean, you know, October 7th, bad, as I've said many times.

• 1:42:35Speaker 02

  Clearly. But you know what? Israel already took care of them. Israel has a very well-developed system for victims of terrorism and they've been taken care of in Israel. And my question is, why aren't they going to their own Congress? I don't know much about Israel's Congress or their laws, but like, why aren't they in Israel lobbying their Congress? Why aren't they in Israel using Israel's judicial system?

• 1:42:55Tucker Carlson?

  Why would the United States taxpayer pay the victims of October 7th?

• 1:43:00Speaker 02

  I mean, that's a really good question. And again, the lawyers behind these groups would come forward, the ADL would probably say, well, it's not the taxpayers, you know, they're using sanctions, fines and money.

• 1:43:10Tucker Carlson?

  What does that have to do with us?

• 1:43:12Speaker 02

  That's what I would question. I don't understand why people that go overseas and get killed on buses, even if they're American citizens, why they're over, you know, in the United States. And again, if you want to be compensated, that's fine, but don't harm the rights of the widows and kids. Why is it more important to pay people that are injured overseas on buses or in military installations or as Foreign Service members to pay them six to 66 times more a percentage when we live in the United States of America and every person is supposed to be treated equal under the law?

• 1:43:47Tucker Carlson?

  Yeah, well, that's clearly not happening. This is, yeah, in, yeah, this is why people's attitudes are changing in a way that's...

• 1:43:55Speaker 02

  And I would like to say that the lawyers that were that third line of collateral security, combined, all of the lawyers, the 9/11 and the non-9/11 lawyers, they've made approximately $2 billion.

• 1:44:07Tucker Carlson?

  The lawyers?

• 1:44:08Speaker 02

  Yeah, from the fund. And so, obviously, I'm not stupid. Like, I know some of that money gets, you know, reshuffled around and made into contributions to members of Congress to reward them for their efforts in writing legislation. But I think $2 billion to plaintiff's attorneys is kind of unseemly.

• 1:44:27Tucker Carlson?

  In a terror victim...

• 1:44:28Speaker 02

  In a victims fund that's supposed to be for victims.

• 1:44:32Tucker Carlson?

  Why haven't I heard any of this before?

• 1:44:36Speaker 02

  Why haven't you heard the truth about 9/11 before?

• 1:44:38Tucker Carlson?

  Well, that's fair.

• 1:44:40Speaker 02

  Thank you for having me.

• 1:44:41Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, my gosh, it's been, it's been a... I always knew I would like you if I met you, and I really do. No, I mean it. Now, here, I'm bragging about my good sense about people, but I do have good sense of people, and I was right. So, you said something, you said so many things, I'm just trying to make sure I don't miss anything. You said a few moments ago that our terror laws have been completely rewritten since the 90s by this same group of rapacious lawyers. How have they changed? And what are the implications of that? What are you talking about exactly?

• 1:45:09Speaker 02

  You know, when you go back and do a study on all of the anti-terrorism laws, what you find is that there's been a whole restructuring and it's a system that doesn't, it looks on the outside like it's serving the victims, but what it's really doing is it's broadening a base and allowing for almost innumerable amount of people to sue for a terrorist attack, right? And I confronted counsel of one of the more prominent members of the Senate and I said, you know, you guys wrote this law and it opens the courthouse doors to so many people. You're harming the rights of the direct heirs, of the actual widows and children of people killed. And like, why would you do that?

• 1:45:53Speaker 02

  Why didn't you hold a hearing on the ramifications of how you're rewriting this law? Why didn't you have widows and kids testify as to how they're being harmed? And their rights are being watered down? And the guy turned to me and said, you know, we just want to open the courthouse doors to as many people as possible because that serves anti-terrorism policy. And I said, it doesn't really serve anti-terrorism policy. And I said, you're not really serving the heirs of the people killed properly. And I said, and you're giving an awful lot of deference to judges. And you're assuming that judges are going to police a docket and police a case and a system. And I said, the judges aren't doing it because the judges in many cases are not really good judges.

• 1:46:37Speaker 02

  And they're allowing thousands and thousands and thousands of people to enter litigation. And what that does is twofold. Number one, it blocks and, you know, log jams the actual case itself. And the case can never resolve. Where there is one upside, when a case doesn't resolve, you're suing a defendant and the case goes on and on and on for two decades, right? What happens is in some people's minds, I read a book on this, is that the actual litigation process itself ties up certain entities that certain other entities believe fund terrorists because they're so busy paying lawyers and being stuck in court. They're not funneling money to terrorists. Well, that's a really noble idea, except for the fact that it's a huge disservice to

• 1:47:19Speaker 02

  the victims who are entitled to have speedy justice for the harm that they've suffered. Right? You have litigation that lasts two decades. Widows and children are being diserved by that because we're owed immediate justice. We're not owed justice a quarter of a century later. The second thing that it does is it waters down the rights of the people under the law who are the most prioritized because you're letting in all of these other people. What actually ends up happening when you open the door and you let all those people in is that lawyers make more money. And so you have a situation where it's not the victims that are being protected by these laws that are getting rewritten.

• 1:47:57Speaker 02

  It's actually that, you know, lawyers and this sort of scheme that's come out of anti-terrorism laws and these funds that get created and these deals that get struck between lawyers and members of the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the State Department, certain foreign governments. It ends up becoming sort of like a scheme. And the real victims of terrorism, like the 9/11 widows and kids, who are this nation's largest group, are revictimized. And that's just a fact. And all I ask is for there to be a very hard looksy, if you want to call it, into these

• 1:48:39Speaker 02

  anti-terrorism laws, into this fund that is being run right now that is, in my opinion, you know, a Ponzi scheme on top of a shell game that's really revictimizing the 9/11 widows and kids. Honestly, if I could send one message to President Trump, I would beg him to give closure and peace to the thousands of widows and kids. We've waited 24 years to have a modicum of justice. We've been abandoned by this country. We were abandoned by our Department of Justice. Our husbands' lives have been exploited, used to go to war in Iraq based on lies,

• 1:49:20Speaker 02

  used to roll in privacy rights to expand the patriota. All of it. We've been exploited and we've been left behind. And I would just ask for President Trump to recognize that and appreciate it and just deliver closure and peace to us. I think that there's a way forward for that. And if there's ever been a president that would be able to stand apart from the intelligence community and to have the courage to do that, I think it would be President Trump. And I know he didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize or appointed or nominated for his role in the Gaza peace process. I think if he resolved 9/11 and provided closure to the widows and kids, he would probably be nominated and win that prize.

• 1:50:05Tucker Carlson?

  He would certainly get my vote. Kristen Breitweiser, that was an amazing conversation.

• 1:50:11Speaker 02

  Thanks.

• 1:50:11Tucker Carlson?

  Makes me emotional. Thank you so much for taking the time to do this.

• 1:50:15Speaker 02

  Thank you for giving me the opportunity.

• 1:50:15Tucker Carlson?

  Oh, my gosh. Come back anytime.

• 1:50:17Speaker 02

  I really appreciate it and the widows and kids appreciate it. So thank you.

• 1:50:20Tucker Carlson?

  Thank you.

• 1:50:25Tucker Carlson?

  We've got a new website we hope you will visit. It's called newcommissionnow.com and it refers to a new 9/11 commission. So we spent months putting together our 9/11 documentary series. And if there's one thing we learned, it's that in fact, there was foreknowledge of the attacks. People knew. The American public deserves to know. We're shocked actually to learn that, to have that confirmed, but it's true. The evidence is overwhelming. The CIA, for example, knew the hijackers were here in the United States. They knew they were planning an act of terror. In his passport is a visa to go to the United States of America. A foreign national was caught celebrating as the World Trade Center fell and later said he was in New York, quote, "to document the event."

• 1:51:10Tucker Carlson?

  I didn't know there would be an event to document in the first place because he had foreknowledge. And maybe most amazingly, somebody, an unknown investor, shorted American Airlines and United Airlines, the companies whose planes the attackers used on 9/11, as well as the banks that were inside the Twin Towers just before the attacks. They made money on the 9/11 attacks because they knew they were coming. Who did that?

• 1:51:34Speaker 07

  You have to look at the evidence.

• 1:51:36Tucker Carlson?

  The US government learned the name of that investor, but never released it.

• 1:51:43Tucker Carlson?

  Maybe there's an instant explanation for all this, but there isn't, actually. And by the way, it doesn't matter whether there is or not. The public deserves to know what the hell that was. How did people know ahead of time? Oh, I was no one ever punished for it. 9/11 Commission, the original one, was a fraud. It was fake. Its conclusions were written before the investigation. That's true, and it's outrageous. This country needs a new 9/11 Commission, one that actually tells the truth that tries to get to the bottom of the story. We can't just move on like nothing happened.

• 1:52:16Speaker 03

  9/11 Commission is a cover.

• 1:52:19Tucker Carlson?

  Something did happen. We need to force a new investigation into 9/11 almost 25 years later. Sorry, justice demands it. And if you want that, go to newcommissionnow.com to add your name to our petition. We're not getting paid for this. We're doing this because we really mean it. Newcommissionnow.com