Back in 2008, Tucker Carlson was so outraged when a speaker at a Ron Paul rally questioned the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks that he walked out in disgust. Years later, in a 2012 interview, he dismissed such ideas as foolish, stating bluntly, “I hate that 9/11 crap.”
Today, however, Carlson’s stance has completely inverted. Using his YouTube channel and subscription platform—which boasts millions of followers—he frequently promotes the very conspiracy theories he once ridiculed, suggesting to his audience that the government has not told the truth about September 11.
His recent output includes a 10-point political platform calling for the declassification of more 9/11 records in the name of government transparency. He has also actively sought to undermine the findings of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report and technical investigations into the collapse of World Trade Center 7, leaning into decades-old theories that the government had prior knowledge of the attacks, that fires weren’t the cause of WTC 7’s destruction, and that foreign actors withheld vital information.
Scholars who study political extremism and conspiracy theories note that Carlson’s embrace of these narratives marks a significant shift for a media figure of his stature. While he once publicly stated that prominent 9/11 theorist Alex Jones “freaks me out,” Carlson later hosted Jones for a lengthy interview. Furthermore, he released a five-part documentary series titled “The 9/11 Files,” which drove substantial subscriber growth and millions of views. He has also platformed other figures who question the mainstream historical account, such as left-wing commentator Cenk Uygur and Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters.
Experts point out that this content resonates strongly with Carlson’s populist audience. When a high-profile media personality amplifies these ideas, it tends to normalize and lend unwarranted credibility to fringe narratives.
### Recycling Old Claims Without New Evidence
Throughout his documentary series and interviews, Carlson revives long-standing arguments without introducing fresh proof. He labels the 9/11 Commission Report a “cover-up” and relies heavily on select alternative commentators—such as a former CIA officer and a victim’s widow—rather than documented evidence to create skepticism.
A central pillar of his recent focus is the collapse of World Trade Center 7. While standard scientific investigation concluded that debris from the Twin Towers ignited fires that ultimately triggered a structural collapse, Carlson highlights a controversial 2020 study funded by an organization of architects and engineers critical of the official findings. While he stops short of definitively claiming the building was intentionally demolished, he argues that the official explanation remains unconvincing.
### Unfounded Claims Involving Israel
Carlson’s renewed interest in 9/11 has also served as a channel to question U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel. In his recent series, he suggested that foreign governments, particularly Israel, may have had foreknowledge of the attacks.
To support these assertions, he referenced long-debunked rumors, including the incident involving five Israeli nationals detained on 9/11 (who were eventually released without charges) and unproven allegations regarding Israeli spies posing as art students near the hijackers—the vast majority of whom were actually from Saudi Arabia. Scholars and researchers tracking antisemitic tropes note that these recycled narratives attempt to tie Jewish and Israeli entities to the tragedy, despite being repeatedly dismissed by U.S. authorities and investigators.
### Catering to an Evolving Audience
Experts suggest that Carlson’s pivot is largely driven by the demands of his current audience. Having left mainstream cable news, he now relies on digital platforms where anti-establishment and conspiracy-minded viewers form a significant portion of the consumer base.
Polling data indicates that skepticism regarding the events of 9/11 has grown among right-leaning Americans over the years. By leaning into these topics, Carlson is less of an independent force shifting public opinion and more of a prominent amplifier feeding an existing demand for alternative narratives.
Reference