Former Congressman Curt Weldon exposes the Real Barrier to Peace on Tucker Carlson: The 9/11 Deception

Tucker showcased Curt Weldon's story in his studio this week. I believe it's the most important story he has ever covered. Here's why...

Carlson introduces the conversation:

“We recorded the interview you are about to watch five days ago, and I have been thinking about it ever since. It’s with a former Congressman from PA called Curt Weldon. Curt Weldon was a very significant figure in Washington 20 years ago. He was not some obscure backbencher. He was one of the most powerful Republicans in the Congress, about to take over the Armed Services Committee—until he asked questions about the official story on 9/11, at which point the Bush administration sent the FBI to his daughter’s house, destroyed her life, never charged her with a crime and effectively got Curt Weldon bounced out of Congress.”

“This is not a crazy person. These are not crazy questions. He makes no claims that he doesn’t have personal first-hand evidence of. When it ended I asked him, ‘how many other officials who were in and around Washington during 9/11 have similar questions?’ And he said to me, ‘as far as I know, all of them.’”

---

Introduction and Background

In the days surrounding President Trump’s inauguration, the 9/11 Truth movement, which I consider to be staunchly apolitical, was looking forward to the new President’s commitment to transparency around the event that changed the world. At almost the same time we learned that former Congressman and still highly influential political voice, Curt Weldon, was ready to speak publicly about a cover up at the highest levels of the USG and it’s intelligence networks. These were treasonous acts in his view.

Weldon is not only a volunteer firefighter, he is the de facto leader of all firefighters in this country, founding the Congressional Fire Services Caucus in 1987. He has been a passionate advocate for fire safety and funding for firefighting services for decades.

In October, 2024, veteran firefighter Raul Angulo wrote an extraordinary analysis of the destruction of WTC 7 (Building 7) that directly refutes the official explanation given by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). The paper was published by the most respected journal of fire safety, IFSJ (International Fire and Safety Journal).

Angulo was able to bring much of the analyses and critique offered by independent engineers and organizations like the International Center for 9/11 Justice, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Richard Gage, AIA to a bigger audience. The paper caught the attention of Congressman Weldon who then felt it was time to voice his support for an independent reinvestigation of the events of that day.

To Weldon’s credit, he asked to be briefed on the technical aspects of the WTC skyscrapers’ destruction from some of the more seasoned researchers. I had the opportunity to sit in on two of these conference calls.

Weldon finally made it to Tucker Carson’s studios last week. The 90 minute interview can be seen here:

The deception behind 9/11 is the pièce de résistance of the powers that act outside of oversight with limitless impunity with no allegiance to nation states. An honest look at what happened and what was said about it may not necessarily lead to the perpetrators who conducted this scheme, however it will unequivocally impugn all legacy media as co-conspirators. Accepting this will lead a person to finally “unplug from the matrix”.

I have learned that we don’t all apprehend the world and our lived experience the same way. What may seem the obvious line of reasoning to me may not be the way others negotiate a path through the distractions and noise.

Here’s how I see it.

WTC 7 looks like it was blown up. It falls quickly (95% the rate of gravity), it falls symmetrically, it falls through the greatest path of resistance into its own foot print, it was not hit by a plane:

NIST says it was due to “common office fires”, making it the first and last modern skyscraper to have succumbed in this manner to such insult. To prove their hypothesis they offered us a computer model. If the model matches what we saw, then it remains as a potentially valid hypothesis. If the model doesn’t match what we saw, then we KNOW the hypothesis is wrong. That’s the way the scientific method works. This is how their model behaves:

The model begins to crumple and distort on the East side of the building first and later the building begins to fall. NIST stops the simulation before we can see how things end up.

It doesn’t match what we observed, ergo, the hypothesis is wrong. NIST proved that they were wrong themselves. Nevertheless, they astonishingly conclude in NCSTAR-1A “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7” Section 3.5.3:

“Given the complexity of the modeled behavior, the global collapse analysis matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

We are living in Orwellian times indeed.

The Civil Engineering department from the UA Fairbanks reproduced their model and confirmed that indeed, NIST’s hypothesis was wrong. They then established that the only way the model behaves like the observed collapse was to synchronously destroy all internal columns followed by the external columns. Here’s what the model looks like when their hypothesis is applied:

The collapse was not due to office fires. There’s only one way that is generally known to destroy all columns synchronously: controlled demolition. The reason why Building 7 looked like it was blown up was because it was.

Why didn’t NIST entertain a controlled demolition hypothesis? Why didn’t they look for explosive residues on what was left of the materials from building 7? What did we observe happen to the twin towers?

It certainly looks to me like there are explosive events occurring below the “crush zone”. Why didn’t NIST look more closely at this? They tell us in their executive summary:

“NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.”

What would be corroborating evidence? Three dozen mainstream media sources reporting explosive events during the collapses?

Beyond the dozens of news reports of explosions in real time there was also testimony from eye-witnesses. Notably 118 Firefighters offered accounts of explosive events during the destruction of the twin towers. Could there be any more reliable witnesses than firefighters who were at the scene?

More than three months later, CNN reported that the fires in the rubble at ground zero were finally extinguished:

How can fires continue to burn for three months under the water that flooded the area? Fires can only burn in the presence of oxygen. Those pesky fires must have been due to a chemical reaction involving oxygen. This is proof that there were incendiaries still present in the rubble.

Why would NIST ignore such a fact? And why did NIST not consider all the reports of explosions that day?

There can be only one reason. Explosive events point to a controlled demolition. What would happen if explosive or incendiary residues were found? If terrorists had tried to destroy the the World Trade Center with explosives eight years earlier, why couldn’t NIST accept that they would do it again? What’s the problem?

To state the obvious, it would lead to some uncomfortable questions. How did the terrorists get into the building? How did they get access to such energetic explosives? It would point to a real conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory.

And then, there were the planes.

If you still believe that two planes could drop three skyscrapers into their own footprint, why would terrorists need both planes AND explosives? Why would they fly suicide missions when they could have pulled a plunger or remotely detonated the explosives they had placed earlier? They wouldn’t.

If NIST admitted that controlled demolitions remained a plausible explanation, the treachery would be exposed. The planes would have been seen for what they really were: red herrings designed to hide the true mechanism of destruction. Terrorists seek full credit for their attacks, especially one so devastating. On the other hand, conspirators with a hidden agenda must conceal their involvement in such an operation. Explosives OR planes is consistent with the terrorist narrative we were told to accept. Explosives AND planes points to a conspiracy.

NIST didn’t do an investigation, they were part of a cover-up. That is where the scientific method inexorably leads. All of the engineers, scientists and applied mathematicians at NIST who were involved in the investigation need not be aware of the misdirection in which they played a hand.

While the public believes NIST was tasked with explaining what happened to the skyscrapers in Manhattan that morning in the interest of rigor and public safety, that was not their true assignment. They were directed to offer the 9/11 Commission a hypothesis that explicitly excluded demolition events. And that is exactly what the NIST scientists did. The orchestrators of this deception would see to it that the public would accept it as the best and only explanation. And that is exactly what happened.

There it is.

• NIST proved their hypothesis wrong with their own technical analysis.

• They flatly ignored corroborating evidence in the form of direct witness testimony and the inextinguishable fires at Ground Zero.

• And, perhaps most importantly, the witnesses to the explosive evidence, the media, all of it from MSNBC to Fox News, chose not to hold NIST to task when they assured the public that there was no reason to consider explosives and incendiaries.

The media was complicit. I was red-pilled. There’s no going back for me. That’s the side effect of the red pill, you get the truth and nothing more. In this case the pill was hard to swallow. If we don’t have a free and independent press then we don’t have a Democracy.

What we have is something worse than fascism. We have a public that believes they have a say in their governance, but when it comes to the things that matter the most, they don’t. Those who are trying to point this out are mocked as “conspiracy theorists” and enemies of the state. While we may cherish and cite the personal freedoms that we have that have been unavailable to people living elsewhere, we are being deceived when it comes to pivotal geopolitical events that hijack our attention and resources. In that sense, we are part of a fascist state, one where industry, government and media are colluding against our best interests, but we simply don’t know it. That’s the only way this arrangement can persist.

That’s why this interview was so important to the people of this planet and so dangerous to the hidden interests that keep us scared and at odds with one another.

Why was the Weldon interview so important?

The fact that the treachery is so immediately obvious to me means very little in this world of constant distraction and noise. The media, the chief conspirator in this deception, has seen to that.

The Weldon/Carlson interview was the moment so many of us had been waiting for. A credible and passionate voice for justice and the evidence finally made it on to an independent platform that can challenge and neutralize the disinformation arm of the engineers of violence and antimony on this planet.

Weldon made very little mention of the evidence for controlled demolitions. He didn’t encourage Tucker to platform the experts who could explain the details. He did mention the 3,600 architects and engineers who have publicly called for a reinvestigation but gave the audience no details about where to begin to do their own research around the technical aspects of the buildings’ destruction.

In that sense, I was disappointed. However, I see that Weldon may have understood the ways which information gets to the public better than I.

Tucker made it clear that he wanted to interview Weldon because he trusts him and his intentions. Weldon did not betray that trust by speaking beyond the scope of his own knowledge. And what he did say was worthy of consideration.

I invite all readers to consider Weldon’s account of the machinations of our intelligence agencies in the years leading up to 9/11 through his expulsion from our halls of government.

Weldon confirms through his own personal experience what can be inferred from watching those buildings in Manhattan fall like houses of cards:

• There are powers that swear allegiance to no country that are responsible for the greatest false flag in our nation’s history. We can call them, for lack of a better word, the “Deep State”.

• Weldon offers first hand evidence that these powers have controlled every Presidential administration from Clinton to Trump.

• These agencies knew that Osama bin Laden was not in Afghanistan on 9/11/2001. He was in Iran.

• He was placed there by Iranian intelligence agencies, agencies which are affiliated with those operating in this country. Weldon offers four different independent sources that confirmed this.

• A deal was cut with Iranian intelligence (not the mullahs in control of the country) to keep bin Laden in Ladiz, Iran. This arrangement was made with Quasem Soleimani who Wikipedia reports was an operative of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran.

• Soleimani was killed in a targeted drone strike in 2020 during Trump’s first administration because, the public was told, he was organizing clandestine military operations against Israel and American interests.

• Trump was not aware of the real reason why Soleimani, considered the second most powerful person in Iran, was killed. The Deep State had to eliminate him, according to Weldon, because he was a key figure in the 9/11 deception.

• The American public was given a completely false account of the supposed “mastermind” of 9/11 to invade Afghanistan under false pretenses.

• The Iranian people are NOT our enemies. Their lives, like our own, have also have been unknowingly captured by an intelligence network which operates independently from the government they think they have.

• Weldon summarizes, “The 9/11 Commission Report has no credibility. I don’t believe anything in that. That is a bunch of garbage.”

An Appeal to Unite under a common Goal

I believe the so-called “Deep State” is panicked. The public is rapidly losing trust in their disinformation arm, the legacy media. The emergence of independent platforms like the Tucker Carlson Network, podcasts like the Joe Rogan Experience and even independent authors here on substack pose a real threat to their control over what is inside the heads of the public at large. There was a time when heterodox views would never percolate into the minds of the public because of the sway corporate media had over the way we thought about things. That is no longer the case, and it hasn’t been for some time. Counter arguments can no longer be ignored; they have to be actively silenced.

Five years ago, independent voices that challenged “the science” around the pandemic response were quietly deplatformed, censored and shadow banned by our own government which pressured social media platforms to comply.

Today we are faced with unprecedented attacks on those who raise questions around the tragedy unfolding in Gaza over the last 18 months. This is a desperate attempt to silence ideas that ultimately lead us back to the events of 9/11. Logic leads to this conclusion: Concealing such a secret from a public exposed to accurate, independent journalism requires a ruthless attack on the freedom of expression. It’s reasonable to be outraged and frantic over the recent threats to our first amendment rights, but let us not lose sight of what these threats signify.

It’s my hope that the public will soon be ready to put aside their political affiliations as individuals and come together under a common understanding of what has been really happening in this country and the world under this country’s leadership.

To those in the #MAGA movement, are you able to see that this administration’s audacious assault on critics of the state of Israel is just another ruse in the Deep State’s playbook to undermine our Constitutional right to openly express an opinion without fear of legal action or worse? Are you able to acknowledge that this need not be construed as an attack on the President’s intentions but is instead a warning that the White House has not been immune to the Deep State’s influence for decades? It should further be noted that Weldon is offering us very credible evidence that the Deep State is very real, a claim that has drawn endless mockery from liberal pundits.

To those on the liberal left who reflexively reject anything from the mouths of Republican politicians or conservative media talking heads, are you able to see that Tucker Carlson is an independent voice who is pulling on threads that will ultimately expose the failings of administrations on both sides of the political aisle and not just yours? Can you acknowledge that former Republican Congressman Weldon’s political career came to a tragic end at the hands of his own party for asking questions twenty years ago that all Americans should be asking now? He is imploring Americans to realize that the Iranian people are not our enemies; we have been programmed to think that because of Deep State propaganda. He knows better than most of the consequences of daring to voice such seditious opinions, especially at this moment.

For my friends in the #MAHA movement who have no allegiance to any political party, are you able to see that our populace, which has suffered from poorly tested vaccines, poisonous food and environmental toxins has also borne untold casualties, both physical and psychological, from endless conflict? If you are truly interested in the health and longevity of our brothers and sisters, isn’t it worthwhile to consider the possibility that warfare isn’t a necessary and painful pill to swallow in order to exist in a world of dangerous regimes and militant ideologies, but that the real psychopaths engineer these wars through the control of information and, in the case of 9/11, staging heinous crimes against innocent people to justify invasions, occupations and the surveillance of the citizens of this country? If you anticipate that deep dives into “the science” will ultimately confirm your suspicions about vaccines, can you support transparency around “the science” of 9/11 in the interest of public health?

To readers who are convinced that the SARS-COV2 virus was a bioweapon created by professional bioterrorists and funded through taxpayer dollars so that mRNA technology could be deployed upon billions of people as a countermeasure known to be toxic from its inception, is it so hard to see that there are interests on this planet that would have no issue sacrificing three thousand innocent lives on 9/11 to serve their objectives to create fear in our society and minds while generating massive profits for a military industrial complex on the backend of governmental spending to keep us “safe”? If it is immediately obvious that the Pharma Complex thrives on chronic diseases, isn’t it equally obvious that a military industrial complex thrives on chronic conflict?

To my colleagues in medicine who have been exposing the rot in institutionalized science and scientific journals during the pandemic by applying your talents and perspicacity to offer the public better data, better explanations and warnings, can you acknowledge that the biggest barrier to shifting public opinion is the outright disinformation coming from “trusted” media sources? These same sources pushed a 9/11 narrative that was blatantly false, just like they did around Covid origins and mRNA “vaccine” safety and efficacy. I encourage you to apply your talents and support the scientists, architects and engineers who have been trying to penetrate the same disinformation barriers for two decades. The fate of both of our movements toward clarity around science are linked. The 9/11 truth movement needs objective, courageous scientifically minded people like you. We have a common adversary. We need to help each other.

And to you, Tucker Carlson, you were sincerely contrite when you mentioned several times that you were foolish for attacking people who questioned the official story around 9/11 two decades ago. I applaud you. If you happen to be reading this, I invite you to consider that you can go well beyond making amends by using your unique capacity to blow this wide open in the interest of restoring Democracy in this country and lasting peace on this planet.