Knowledge Fight - 1092 Tucker The Man And His 911 Documentary

Episode Date: January 11, 2026

In this installment, Dan and Jordan check out the first episode of Tucker's new documentary series about 9/11, which ends up involving Hollywood fixers way more than it should.

I know, no, no, knowledge fight. Dan and Jordan, I am sweating. All right.com. It's down to pray. I have great respect for knowledge fight. Knowledge fight. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys saying we are the bad guys. Knowledge.

Fight. Dan and Jordan. Knowledge fight. Need money. Round to pray. Andy and Kansas. You're on the air. Thanks for holding.

Hello, Alex. I'm a first-time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your world. Knowledge. KnowledgeFight.com. I love you. Hey, everybody.

Welcome back to KnowledgeFite. I'm Dan. I'm Jordan. Where a couple dudes like to sit around, worship at the altar of Celine, and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. Oh, indeed we are, Dan. Jordan.

Quick question for you. What's up? What's a bright spot today, buddy? Why don't you go first? My bright spot is, it's a twilight spot. A little bright, little dark. The celebrity traders just wrapped up. Okay.

Yeah, I've not had a chance to. check that out yet. It is the... British celebrities, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, British celebrities. It's a celebrity with an asterisk. Listen, there's a couple celebrities on the British celebrity

traders, if you will. Stephen Frye. Sure. So there's a couple. Okay. Sounds like one. It's the worst season of the traders I've ever seen.

It is the worst. And because all of these people, all of the faithful were the dumbest there's ever been. Have you ever seen a season where the very first three traders made it all the way to the final? No. No, no, no. Of course not, right?

Especially because usually they'll at least turn on each other. Absolutely. Yeah. No, none of that. It was, the season was only nine episodes long. And I was like, that's crazy short. The greatest season of the traders, Traders Ireland, happened just a little bit ago, 12 episodes. Okay.

Because you've got three in a row, they caught the traders. Then you got the recruitments, you got the whole thing. These people were so bad at this game. They didn't even make it to 10 episodes. That's rough. That is rough. Ran the table, those traders. Absolutely.

And then at the end, you're like, oh, they've got it. They finally figured it out. There's these last few people. There's no way they can miss it. It's been obvious. The whole fucking game shoots themselves in the foot instantaneously. And the traders, well, they did what you knew they were going to do from the start. Which is turn on each other and bring it down to two to split the money?

No. Oh. Oh, okay. Yeah, it was brutal. Well, you just spoiled the season of traders, but... You knew it was going to happen. You knew it was going to happen. Well, I look forward to watching that eventually then.

It'll be brutal. How about you? What's your bright spot? My bright spot, I guess, is the video game. They just came out, the High Rule Warriors. Oh, yeah. There's new High Rule Warriors out. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's a lot of fun. Yeah. Those games are deeply my shit. I don't know why. Little campaigns running around, fighting through big groups of enemies. Absolutely. Zelda characters. Yeah.

It's fun. Yeah. I was a little disappointed because I started the game. And for the first, like, you know, hour or so, you're like, oh, my God, Link isn't in this game. It's just Zelda. Zelda has traveled back in time to the era of the beginning of the Kingdom of Hyrule. Okay. And you're like, oh shit, Link, why would Link be here?

And then a Link stand-in shows up. Yeah, well, that was probably good. I was like, ah, there's no Link. It's a Zelda game without Link. That would be interesting. But he shows up. Yeah. Well.

Is he wearing the hat? No, he has a hood. Okay. Well, that's a little bit better. I think that there's a, I don't know how this game ends. And I also don't know if it's canon. But if it is canon and it ends the way I think it's going to end, there's an argument to be made that Link has been a robot this entire time.

All right. And he is an eternal thing that has existed in order to protect the princess of Hyrule. All right. That would be an interesting lore. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, the eternal link. Mm-hmm. Okay.

Yeah. I mean, it would make sense. So I'm enjoying the game and we'll see if I continue to. Excellent. But today is something that is not to be enjoyed. It's an episode of our podcast. All right. And we'll talk about what that is here.

in a second, but first, let's take a moment to say hello to some new wanks. Oh, that's a great idea. So first, DJ Lobster Man, look out for the breaking machine. Thank you so much. You're a policy won. I'm a policy won. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next, listen to you folks through three years of graduate school and currently taking my CPA exams. Thank you both for the last throughout these nutty times. Thank you so much. You're now, a policy wonk. I'm a policy won. Thank you very much. And elementary, my dear Watson.

We need to go full tilt boogie on this. Thank you so much. You're now, policy won't. I'm a policy won. Thank you very much. Thank you. And we got a technocrat at the next, Jordan. So thank you so much to my friend Gina wrote the book on Scatman John, and everyone should read it.

Scatman John, the remarkable story of the world's unlikeliest pop star. Thanks goes out to Ezra H. Thank you so much, you're an hour technocrat. I'm a policy wonk. Four stars. Go home to your mother and tell her you're brilliant. Someone, someone, Sodomite sent me a bucket of poop. Daddy Shark.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bam. Jar Jar Binks has a Caribbean black accent. He's a loser, little. little titty baby. I don't want to hate black people. I renounce Jesus Christ. Thank you so much. Yes. Thank you very much. I will read that book. I know you will. Yeah. I got to learn everything there is to know about the scatman. From the reviews that I've read, I haven't finished it myself yet. Have you started it? No. Oh. It's a B-al to have to finish it. Well, you know what? It's technically true. Very affecting emotionally. And it's like a really inspiring story. I've watched a number of interviews with him and videos.

I'd have to know, like, sort of some of the broad strokes of his story. Wow. And, yeah, it seems like an insane, like, how did this happen? I don't know. So, great. I'll check it out. And you should start it. I will.

Any moment now. So, Jordan. Yes. I mentioned a while back that Tucker was putting out a five-part series explaining what really happened on 9-11, which I likened to him trying to wear Alex's skin and steal his spirit. It may seem kind of trivial now. and there's a low social cost to being a conspiracy theorist, but in the early 2000s, people hated 9-11 conspiracy theorists.

The U.S. had suffered a giant terrorist attack. A city was grieving and the armed forces of the country were being called up to fight in multiple foreign wars, presumably in response to that attack. The country wasn't fully united, but you could say that there were two main sides and neither really liked conspiracy theories around 9-11 that much. there was the America right or wrong crowd who saw Bush as a wartime president who had responded to the attack and it was every American's duty to go along and support him in getting this mission done. That was his high approval rating period.

For them, it was unpatriotic to question the leadership and they demanded that we all support the troops. On the other side, you had the anti-war crowd who were generally college kids and old hippies, mostly from the left in libertarian circles. and for the most part, they weren't that into 9-11 conspiracies either. They had a solid argument against the wars, and their conviction that Bush lied to make those wars happen didn't rely on really dubious arguments that these conspiracy theorists make about the attack itself.

Incorporating flimsy accusations about Bush doing 9-11 into their arguments weakened them, so for the most part, they stayed away from this kind of game. Right. You'll often hear Alex complain that when he criticized Bush, the right-wing accused him of being a commie, and the whole 9-11 period has a lot to do with that. Prior to this point, he'd had very little national significance, but he'd made a career that was almost fully catering to a right-wing audience.

He was a John Birch Society acolyte who worked on Pat Buchanan's campaigns for president, and pretty much all of his positions would be categorized as strongly conservative. I do hate to be too praising of Alex, but in his coverage of 9-11, what he did was a bold move, and it's one that could have easily backfired. The population he'd regularly drawn his audience from was in a very patriotic phase, and a lot of the Republican types of... They might punch you for saying that you thought that 9-11 was an inside job. Oh, yeah. It was alienating to what was obviously his core demographic, but Alex, on some level, understood that this was his ticket.

There wasn't going to be another publicly traumatic event on this scale in the United States for a long time, and if he could attach himself to it by demanding people accept his alternative version of the story, he could make his mark in this very wet cement. It truly was a different time, and although I'm certain there were crass financial considerations and Alex didn't believe most of this shit, it's important to keep in mind how hard it was to be a person like that in 2002. The country was trying to come together and heal,

and Alex made it his business to try to keep these wounds open, insisting that if you let them heal, you'll never find the true culprit, the globalists. I say all this not to pump, Alex up because he's still a liar and a fraud and even was back then. But instead, I say this to disrespect Tucker Carlson and the idea that he would make a 9-11 conspiracy documentary 24 years later and act like he's breaking new ground. When it would have been an interesting position to have, Tucker was wearing bow ties on

crossfire and arguing in favor of Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was trying to be a mouthpiece for the state, so he hated the idea that people had conspiracies about 9-11. He said as much to Alex in one of their interviews that he deeply disliked Alex because he thought the conspiracies about 9-11 were disgusting. But now the calculus has changed entirely and there is no cost to being a 9-11 theorist. And it comes to Tucker to try to steal Alex's crown by making this five-part 9-11 conspiracy series. Yeah. There are no ifs, ands or buts about one thing, I think, and that is that Alex Jones is the 9-11 guy.

He's wrong about pretty much everything And he doesn't even remember all the fake things he's proven over the years But he was the guy who took on the risk of being the face of a deeply unpopular thing When the country wanted no part of it If you're Tucker who is supposedly Alex's friend You can't make a 9-11 series and not have it mostly be about Alex's work Because whatever you're gonna put into that documentary He's probably already covered

If you're Tucker, you should just plug loose change and move on call it a day And if he hasn't already covered it, that's you indicting him. Yeah, that he did nothing. Exactly. Yeah. All his work and all of that risk that he took on amounted to him just being wrong. Yep. I say all this.

And I am interested in this move on Tucker's part because I believe that it's part of a concerted effort to replace Alex as a meaningful figure in the Trump media ecosystem. Yeah. Alex is too embarrassing. He has too much baggage. It has to be. Yeah. And so Tucker seems like he's well positioned to slug. lied into this.

Give him, he can't be the guy who predicted 9-11 or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But give him the, he's the expert spot. And now you've got. And he's doing hard work on it. And now you don't even need Alex. You can just be like, oh, Alex predicted it. But this guy's the expert on it. Yeah.

So I believe that putting out a documentary series about 9-11 and 2025 is an effort of usurpation. Yeah. Trying to steal this thing from Alex. Yeah. But maybe, hey, maybe it's possible that Tucker broke new ground on 9-11 and, you know, maybe he has a smoking gun. If you put out, like, say now, right? If I put out a, let's say, like, thousand-hour documentary on the Civil War, I'm coming for Ken Burns. If I put out a two-hour documentary on the Civil War, I'm not coming for Ken Burns.

But if I put out enough, Ken Burns is watching out, right? Like, that's... Well, it's a five-part series and they're half-hour long. Right. They're not, you know, it's not, it's not the same as a thousand. But they're lazy. These are all lazy people. So that is a lot of work for their benchmarks.

Yeah. Yeah. It's definitely, there's intent. There's like the intent of a thousand hours behind it. Yes. Yes, exactly. Yeah. So I thought that we would watch the first episode.

Sure. And see what kind of feelings it evokes. See where we see if it feels worth covering more. Okay. So we're going to jump in here. at the beginning of his first episode of the... We're going to all the truth about 9-11, baby. Okay, all right.

For 24 years now, politicians, the media, intel agencies in this country and abroad have all demanded that you believe the official story about 9-11, and here's what it is. They tell you a group of Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists, many of whom were known to U.S. intel services, somehow managed to evade capture for years

as they planned the military. most significant and elaborate terror attack in human history. We're told that despite repeated encounters with the FBI, the CIA, local law enforcement, airport security, foreign intel organizations, the right information somehow never made it to the right people. The government failed because it just didn't have the intelligence it needed. That's the story. That story is a lie.

Nearly 25 years later, the families of 3,000 civilians are still mourning the murder of their loved ones. Anyone who doubts the official narrative is cast as a kook, a criminal, a fringe conspiracy theorist, and punished. They've been blacklisted and censored and banned. Even as the leaders who failed to protect

our country on 9-11 use these attacks as a pretense to expand their own powers and permanently transform the United States. I don't think people particularly care what anyone thinks about 9-11 conspiracies now. people who are old enough to drink weren't even born when it happened, so there isn't a lot of heightened emotions around the subject anymore.

Pete Davidson's dad was killed in the attack, and he just performed at the Riyadh Comedy Festival. So I think that speaks to the lowered temperature that people have about this. Maybe in the few years after the attack, people would call you a conspiracy theorist if you questioned things, but that was back in a time when Tucker was calling people a conspiracy theorist if they questioned things. That's a real problem with this documentary, right?

from the outset. Tucker himself was literally the problem he's now complaining about. Alex was the guy taking lumps for putting out 9-11 conspiracy documentaries, and in that stretch where Tucker is talking about how you'd get punished for questioning things, he doesn't even flash up a picture of Alex as homage, as like this was the crusader. Brutal. Tucker Carlson making this documentary is inappropriate because he was part of the original story, and unless this documentary includes an exploration of how he behaved during the Iraq war, then it's worthless. He can't start his show grandstanding about the poor conspiracy theorists who are

stigmatized by the media when he was part of the media that specifically stigmatized those conspiracy theorists, because unless he clears that shit up, all of the attacks that he's going to make on the media should probably apply to him too. Yeah, if he says, I know that I was, I know that they were told to smear these people. Hell, I did it. That would make more sense. Here's clips of me doing exactly what I'm saying. these people are doing, right?

Because if they're all shills, then it stands to reason that he was behaving the same way. He was a shill, too. Right. And if he doesn't take account of that, it doesn't take responsibility for that. Why would I have any reason to think what he's doing now is sincere? Oh, no, because he's not shilling now. That would be, I mean, right in character with somebody who does it. Oh, no, never mind.

You're right. That's a good point. That's a good point. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I'm looking out for Tucker having a sort of, you know, moment to- this moment. Sure, sure, sure, sure. You know what? I realize something about my entire life. I'm awful. We're not going to get that in the first episode. I'll tell you that for sure. Not surprising. Not surprising. So he goes on to preface the, you know, this, this episode. And he wants you to be clear. Like, people I'm going to be talking to, they aren't cooks.

Oh, yeah, well, that's not good. speculation. All of it is true. Over the course of this series, it sounds like you're speculating. It sounds like you're speculating. C.A officers and analysts who were theirs. FBI agents from the bin Laden unit, family members of the victims. None of these people are cooks. All of them have firsthand information. What they'll tell you is that what you have been told about September 11th is not true. I feel like you're in sketchy territory when you have to start out your documentary series

assuring people that the guests you're going to interview aren't cooks. It makes it a little too clear that the kind of media you make often involves talking to cooks and that maybe you're defensive about it. Yeah. Hey, this isn't like my regular shit is what you're actually saying. But in a way that makes you sound less like you're taking responsibility for how you're a liar. Well, it's indicting both your own work. Yeah.

And then also the work on this subject. Because it's like you're turning on a 9-11 conspiracy documentary. Right. You're probably expecting you might see cooks. Right. You're turning on a Tucker product. You expect you might see cooks. Right.

And this is double that. Yeah. So you're expecting to see the cooiest. And yeah, we're going to deliver, I bet. Mm-hmm. Yep. So one of the big things that Tucker wants, and he's calling for, is a new 9-11 commission, a real one, one that wasn't a cover of.

Great. Why are we doing this? Our purpose is in part to make the strongest possible case for a real investigation into 9-11, 25 years later, a new 9-11 commission, one that is honest, one that is not guided by partisan political interests, one that is not serving foreign powers. To do this investigation, we spent many months looking into what actually happened and speaking to people who saw it.

We poured over thousands of pages of documents, mostly primary sources, but also contemporaneous news reports into classified government documents. Over the course of this investigation, we made numerous findings that shocked us, not least of which, the apparent role that former CIA director

John Brennan played in helping bring the 9-11 hijackers to the United States. Sure. And the remarkable lengths the CIA went to to protect the 9-11 hijackers from the FBI and from domestic law enforcement. So John Brennan is high on Trump's enemies list. And it's pretty clear that Trump is looking to lock some folks up.

Sure. And Brennan is in that category for sure. Hey, listen. Fuck that guy. So I'm all for it. Right. Yeah. But, you know, I think that there's a way to do things that's within the law.

Sure. a way to do things that is, I'm jailing my enemies. Sure. We're in the Wild West. Fuck that guy. So right out of the gate, this feels like a less like a sincere fact-finding exercise and more like an attempt to come up with justifications for Trump to arrest Brennan. But I'll wait until he lays out some more evidence to make up his mind.

Sure. This is all just kind of a blow-hard preamble thing he's doing. I do appreciate this because this is something that is still true. Not as much as it was back then, but still true. Um, the only thing that is not really talked about within 9-11 is that maybe it's just an expected and understood consequence of the fact that America went over to a bunch of different places and killed all those people. And if you keep doing that, you should expect it to happen more. Hmm. That's the only thing people won't just be like, oh, well, then I guess we're done.

So Tucker brings up his first, uh, non-cook, uh, guest. Yeah. And this is the person who's going to be, uh, the subject. of the first episode. Okay. Telling the full story requires starting before the attacks. Going back to something called

Alec Station, that was the CIA's bin Laden unit in 1999. My name is Mark Rossini. I'm a former FBI agent. So from January 1999 to May of 2003, I was the FBI, New York Joint Terrorism Task Force

representative to Alex Station at CIA headquarters. So this is not the first time that Mark Rossini has. has been interviewed about his time at Alex Station. So let's just establish that nothing that he's saying in this interview is new. Okay. At the risk of being accused of shooting the messenger,

I feel like I should tell you a few things about Mark Rossini before he starts his story because I think they might help you better assess his credibility. Hell yeah. So Rossini was a FBI agent until 2008 when he had to retire after pleading guilty to five felony counts of criminally accessing the FBI databases. Sure. This story gets a little bit messy, so strap in. I bet he's probably great with women.

In the 90s and early 2000s, Anthony Palacano became a big name in terms of private investigator business. He worked with politicians like Bill Clinton and celebrities like Michael Jackson digging up dirt on people who accused them of wrongdoing. Over the years, the private investigation business started to drift into being more of a fixer kind of thing, where Pelicano would wiretap celebrities and powerful agents in Hollywood in order to gather compromising information about them. So his job was literal victim blaming. Well, interesting. Hold on to that thought. He worked with a couple of lawyers and he didn't mind doing illegal things in order to help his clients.

He'd been considered very slimy for most of his career. And one of the best examples of that is in relation to Michael Jackson. Pelicano famously produced an audio tape alleged to be the father of one of the child victims, expressing that he just wanted to extort Jackson, which played a big role in hurting the credibility of accusations. that were being levied against him. Right. The father in question denied this tape's authenticity,

but that smear had been born and it was in everyone's head. Yep. Later, Pelicano would try to remove himself from the case, claiming that he'd uncovered horrible information and that Jackson, quote, did something far worse to those young boys than molest them. Great. But his actions remained, and he had already...

Funny how that works. So, you know, the victim blaming and... No, no, I take it back. I take it back. I take it back. There's no... You can take it back, right? Yeah. You can't just...

Sure, buddy. No, you can take it. back. There's no pee in the pool, man. So the depths of Pelicano's shithead awfulness could take up a whole episode. So just suffice it to say that he's a big old asshole. Where he intersect with our story is that in 2008, when Mark Rossini pled guilty to five charges of illegally accessing FBI databases, he was doing it to feed information to Anthony Pelicano. Sure. To be clear, by this point where Racini was interacting with him, there was zero mystery about Pelicano being a shady character. In November 2000,

two, Pelicano had been arrested for possessing grenades and C4, after a reporter found her car vandalized with a message that just said, stop. That reporter was working on a story that involved one of Pelicano's clients, Stephen Seagall, and you could put the rest of the pieces together yourself. Sure. Huh. Yeah.

So grenades and C4. Just keeping them around? You never know when you're going to need them. I feel, you know what? I, listen, maybe I don't understand the thread too well. But I feel like munition storage is the number one problem that all of the guys like these guys face in terms of like how they're inevitable end up comes about. Well, do you mean that they don't hide these things well enough? There's, well, I mean, sure, there's the hiding, of course.

And then there's the accidentally blowing themselves up. Sure. There's the, why do you need this much? This is more like collecting. How many bullets do you need if you're only using like a gun instead of like a howitzer? You know what I mean? Like a six-tube thing. What would you say to somebody who has a wine seller, though?

You don't need all that wine. I mean that, well, it's a fair investment. You could maybe sell it later. There's all kinds of things. That's true of C-4. Are you saying that of C-4? Yes. Actually, that is a good point.

Maybe C-4 does gain value over time. It has a good, this is an age. C-4. This is a good vintage. Should we invest in C-4? Look, we'll talk about it off air. Okay, fair enough. I'm disinclined.

knowledge by an official investment back. So Mark Rossini was an FBI agent assigned to the bin Laden unit, and he was so comically corrupt that he broke the law to access information to give to Anthony Pelicano. His actions could have compromised the case against Pelicano, but Racini didn't seem to care. Fun little fact about this story, Rossini was dating actress Linda Fiorentino at some point who had previously dated Pelicano. Jesus Christ. Some might suggest that she was dating Rossini in order to get access to a

his FBI files on Pelicano's behalf, but this is just pure speculation, not proven either way. And wild. Either way, Racini gave her the files, and she gave them to Pelicano's lawyers, which is a major part of why you don't see her in movies after Dogma. How about that? Yeah. Huh. So, Racini just had to retire from the FBI over this, and he got light probation and a fine.

However, he wasn't done doing crimes. You know what? I find it so hard to believe that these three-lettered organizations, seem so lawless. It's almost like anytime they break the law, they face no consequences for it, do you? Yeah. Well, get ready for another story.

Oh, yeah? In 2022, the governor of Puerto Rico, Wanda Vasquez Gersad, was arrested on charges of accepting illegal foreign donations to her campaign. In August 2025, she pled guilty. This all goes back to a Puerto Rican banker named Julio Herrera Velutini.

His bank was being examined by the Office of the Commission of financial institutions, which looked like it was going to uncover some crimes. Sure. It's alleged that through some back channels, Velutini and Mark Rossini, working in some kind of an advisory role, reached out to Vasquez Garcet and offered to fund her campaign if she would replace the head of the office of the commissioner of financial institutions with someone chosen by Velutini when she was elected.

Someone who was more friendly to his interest. So we're doing a corruption. Yes. Let's start there. Hey, buddy, we're doing a corruption. You want to end? All right. So everyone involved was facing some potential jail time.

But one of Trump's personal lawyers, Chris Keice, got in the mix on behalf of that bank guy. Sure. So now it looks like it's all been talked down to misdemeanors and no one's going to really get into terrible. Funny how that works. But at this point, when they're recording this interview most likely. He's afraid of going to jail for a long, long time. It looks like he's probably going to end up in jail in Puerto Rico. Right.

Man. Now is a good time. to commit crimes. Yeah. You should, everybody should really be committing way more crimes. I feel like we have a lot of examples of people getting away with some crazy shit. I mean, it's wild. So my point here is that Mark Rossini is a hell of a character for Tucker to just pretend

as a Bin Laden expert. Sure. He has a lot of baggage spanning decades that strongly calls his integrity into question. He was willing to abuse the privacy of the FBI databases in order to help Anthony Pelicano's criminal racket. So forgive me if I don't think that, this guy seems like a humble public servant who just wants to tell everybody the truth. Yeah.

In the same way that, like, for this to be a sincere thing, Tucker needs to unpack his own involvement in 9-11. Yeah. And if he wants to use Mark Rossini as an expert, he needs to inform the audience that he's a fraud guy and has done some fraud stuff. I mean, okay. So when you're using a witness, like whenever I'm, let's say we're in a court, room and somebody's brought up a witness and I'm cross-examining this witness and it's the state's

witness and this guy is really, really good. But then I find out that he's spent his entire life lying to people, specifically people in courtrooms. I think that's pretty solid cross-examination you know, like, hey, you're a liar. Done, right? And it doesn't mean that someone who has done fraud stuff will always lie. Sure. That's just as bad a conclusion to come to. We're not in a weird riddle about trying to figure out who always lies. No, but depriving an audience of like this important piece of assessing the credibility of a witness that you're talking to is dirty in terms of making a documentary. Generally, here's what I would say.

If you have been paid many times for the specific act of lying, then you are a professional liar and so I no longer can trust you, right? That's fair. Yeah, and you've done that to yourself. Yeah. You have decided to lie. You went pro. Get paid by Pelicano.

Absolutely. That's why, like, it would be an interesting thing for this interview to be like, you're a former FBI agent. Right. Why? What happened? You're doing all right? You're doing all right. Any updates you want to give us.

You retired. Probably with awards. Any kind of awards you want to show us about your. It's entirely possible that they could have presented it as like he was fired as payback for spilling the beans about something about bin Laden or whatever. They could have done that, but they don't even... Then you bring attention to the fact that he was fired, and if you look up, why was this guy fired not going to go well? It does seem like an intentional choice.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So Mark Rossini has a bit of a story that he's going to tell, and it has to do with before 9-11. There were no good sources inside al-Qaeda. Okay. Before 9-11, there were no sources in al-Qaeda. None. There was a group of Pashtun caretakers, okay?

They called them the Trad Pints. Trod Pints were these Pashtun people that were bin Laden's tea boys and tea gals, right? And they were the great source of the Pakistani Intel Service that was feeding information from the Trad Pints to the ISI to the CIA to the CIA about what was going on in Al Qaeda. They had all the electronic communication satellite shit in the world. Imagery. I remember looking at images that have been lauding, you know, in his courtyard, all that. Fine. But what's in his head? What's he saying? What's he doing? These people are 10,000 miles away. They don't give a shit about America. I don't care about going to jail. They want to die.

How are you going to get a source inside there? So this clip begins to lay out the argument that Racini is here to make, which is that before 9-11, there were no sources inside al-Qaeda. so the CIA, under John Brennan, allowed the eventual terrorists to enter the United States and impeded the FBI's attempts to arrest them because the CIA wanted to flip them to become sources. Right. This is an interesting jump-off point because normally the villains and conspiracy stories will have plainly evil motivations. In this version, they have a misguided but legitimate reason for their actions. They let the 9-11 hijackers come into the country and stop their arrest,

but it wasn't because they wanted 9-11 to happen. in a perfect world where everything went according to plan for the bad guys here 9-11 wouldn't have happened which presumably means the patriot act doesn't pass and we probably don't go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq the guys like rumsfeld and cheney just wanted inside intel on what bin Laden was up to they weren't trying to orchestrate a giant false flag to seize power right this is weird I don't I this seems incompatible with what Tucker well okay so in one situation right let's say we've got a conspiracy wherein there are globalists

and outside extra governmental organization secretly in control of all of these things that organizes a false flag in order to get the people of the United States on board with blah blah blah right so our course of action there deal with those globalists

right the CIA maybe worked outside of its brief too hard that's not necessarily maybe the solution is like rain it in sure yeah that's a very different conspiracy

Yeah, and I think that's one of the things that is notable about this. This is much more like trying to stay within something that sounds like real world. Yeah. As opposed to a lot of the stuff you'll hear from like Alex and the conventional 9-11 folk. Well, the guy who wrote Legacy of Ashes, Tim Weiner, I think. He also wrote a follow-up book. It's all about the past 40 years of the CIA or whatever. and yeah, I would say in general,

it's not so much conspiracies between them that need to be worked out or like problems with secret people controlling the government as it is like, if you give a lot of people unlimited amount of money and no consequences for their behavior, shit's gonna get weird. You know, that's gonna happen.

It's true. Yeah. It's true. And, you know, sometimes, you know, I don't want to say good intentions, but like, sure understandable intentions can go far off track keep the united states people safe can go a long way in the wrong direction very quickly yeah yeah um without oversight you oh boy what why are we drugging

everybody without their knowledge are we keeping people safe so uh he discusses how there was you know there's no sources um and then after the 93 attack uh they uh they uh get a guy who has a phone number, and they have the Hata Home switchboard, which they're able to trace Al-Qaeda agents from. So we got some movement. Yeah, things start to come together a little bit. Before September 11th, U.S. Intel Services got most of their intelligence on Bin Laden from what was called the Hada Home switchboard in Sanae, Yemen.

That was a communications hub that bin Laden and his associates used to communicate with each other. They were at the time living in Yemen. The FBI gained access to this. Are you saying the Hanahomaheim? Embassy bombings in East Africa. How did we officially get the Hata Home in Sanei Yemen on the books, on the radar, if you will? Nairobi, 1998, August 7th. John Antishe, Special Agent John Antishev, greatest FBI agent ever in the FBI, even better than me.

John flies over to Nairobi. And one of the survivors, one of the perpetrators who chicken down, and ran and lived, Daoud Rashid al-Lawali, Saudi. He gets captured by the Kenyan police. John flies over from New York, and already there have been two FBI agents interviewing Daoud. They were getting someplace, but they really weren't getting that far, right? John walks in.

And first thing he does, he needs some water. You want to drink? Did you eat today? Did you pray? Are you okay? Yeah, I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm fine. He said, just relax. Just, just, just, just, just, let's have a chat.

He didn't beat him with a phone book. He didn't fucking waterboard room. He didn't pull his fingernails out. He wasn't Mr. Tough guy, like all these fucking assholes, like Dick Cheney want to believe, right? All pieces of shit. He talked to him, like a human being. Take me through the day.

Talk to me. So I went to the hotel, and I got my stuff ready. And did you call anybody? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I called this number. And he wrote it down. And he gave John the number of the Hathahol in Saniyemann. So I agree with Mark that torturing people is bad and the chain he was an asshole. But he doesn't come off as a great interview subject here.

He seems very angry. And you get the feeling that he takes some of this personally in a way that calls into question his objectivity. The fuck is this guy? This motherfucking piece of shit thinks he's a tough guy What is happening? Pelicano would take out his knees. Also, you're sending big signals if you're like, ah, this terrorist chickened out from doing a 9-11.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't say chickened out. He chickened out, but then this FBI agent was so nice to give him a glass of water. Say he wisely did not do a terrorism. This coward. What are you doing? Are you trying to goad people into terrorizing you? I guess.

So the shit talking and all, that it makes Mark a better and more entertaining guy to have in a sensationalized context. Like, if this were a reality TV series. But he seems far too emotionally performative for the documentary expert role that he's supposed to be playing. He's not fucking waterboarding, nobody!

Not like Janie wants to think of you that piece of shit fucking asshole. All right, so we had you in a position of power before. That's no good. Linda Fiorentino is going to shoot you in the foot. Jesus Christ There's a dramatic flourish to how Mark is telling the story But none of the information that he's

Adding is new It's I mean it's always nice to hear A solid go fuck yourself or you know like Fuck that guy in a documentary Because you're like whoa that's not where this is supposed to be They don't get to say that whenever it's true Sure Yeah yep

But I guess he kind of also thought he was going to prison Let it fly I mean it's everything is a lot more personal in what the 25th hour is that that movie so the argument is that the CIA was trying to recruit these hijackers and make them into informants yes and that is a theory it is not established it is not proven no but they start to just treat it as if they have proven it come on you have the CIA then following one man and then two men all over the planet And then eventually even to America, right?

Landing in Los Angeles, California, and you don't tell the FBI. But why would the CIA want to hide the highly relevant and potentially dangerous fact that two known al-Qaeda terrorists had just landed in California? According to a recently released court filing, former White House counterterrorisms are Richard Clark, told government investigators that the, quote, CIA was running a false flag operation to recruit the hijack. When Kofra Black became the head of the counterterrorism center at CIA, he was aghast that they had no sources in Al-Qaeda.

So he told me, I'm going to try to get sources in Al-Qaeda. I can understand them possibly saying we need to develop sources inside al-Qaeda. When we do that, we can't tell anybody about it. After Clark made that claim publicly, he received an angry call from former director of the CIA, George Tenant, who did not deny the allegations made by Mr. Clark, end quote. But we reached out to Tenant, his spokesperson denied that the CIA was recruiting hijackers, calling it false rumors and saying, quote, that's categorically not true. So it's important to pay attention to the way that information is used by people like Tucker

and notice the little tweaks that they make in order to push their narratives. In this case, Tucker is setting up his clip of Richard Clark, and he says that Clark revealed that the CIA was engaged in a false flag to recruit these hijackers. He said that. Then he plays the clip of Clark that does not say that. Well. But instead is Clark saying that he could understand the intelligence folks trying to secretly turn the future hijackers into informants.

He wasn't saying that the CIA was doing this, but he understood how it was possible. Hypothetically, I think that's a good idea. So jump to conclusions. It is what happened. Yeah. One of the conspiracy theorists' main tricks is equating, proving that something is possible with proving that it's true. Richard Clark saying that it's possible that the CIA was trying to recruit the hijackers

as informants is not the same thing as him saying that is what happened. But Tucker knows that to his audience, it is the same. Oh, yeah. So he treats it as the same thing. Yeah. He's like, I'm showing you evidence of X and he's just showing you why. It is truly amazing, I think, how quickly human beings have taken implication as read. Like is just if it's said in a documentary with this kind of tone of voice over it, well, that it must be true.

It has to be. You know, like, oh, shit. It doesn't matter if he even said, I say this is happening. It's like, they might have done that. But it's in a documentary so you know it's true. He just can't say it's true. Right? Like that's the thought process now.

Yeah, I guess. It's, well, I mean, there's a code, documentarian code. Yeah, there is a code. Yeah. So Mark Rossini. His piece of this that is like where he personally intersected the story is that while he was working at the Alex station, he and another FBI agent, they filed a report to a CIA analyst that had to do with these two hijackers that went to Malaysia, that went to Thailand, and then came to the United States. Right. And he was told by the CIA analyst, this isn't FIA.

FBI matter. You know, I was told, like, this isn't, we're not dealing with this. Sure. Or whatever. Right. So that's his personal piece of this. Right. He was told shut up.

That could just be a regular, like, this actually isn't your job. Yeah, it could be. It could be. And I think that you have to assess it through the lens of who Mark Rossini is also. He's telling this story. His interpretation might not be accurate. He seems angry. You can't be on this job because you are.

are an untrustworthy person, we've caught you many times. And caught is... No, this is before all those problems. Right, right, all right. But, you know, he didn't just start doing those things. Probably not. We knew you were shady. Yeah.

You can't work on this because you'll tell somebody. So he had that experience, and he's talked about that a lot, like going back years. This is not like the first time, like Tucker's interview didn't break new ground in terms of this guy's story. Right, right, right. But it's treated as evidence that the CIA didn't want the FBI mucking around because they're trying to flip these guys. Sure. And that was their delusional plan that they were trying to do. CIA had this delusional grand plan.

So the CIA, with their information that they had from this to the Hata House and their own psychological analysis of everybody in that team, they figured the best way is maybe to recruit somebody. who came over from Malaysia. Khaled al-Nidhar, and al-Farhasmi. We kept the FBI abet because he told Markersini and Doug Miller to shut the fuck up. So let's just try to get inside. Is that what they said, Doug? What did they actually say? That's what went wrong.

That was the grand lie, the grand risk, the grand delusion. You had a duty to be. protect Americans and you failed because of your fucking fantastical delusion that you could recruit somebody inside the cell. The official 9-11 report does not address the CIA's plan to recruit the hijackers. It's not even mentioned. It's possible this is because the CIA blocked 9-11 commission investigators from talking to the agents who participated in the plot.

Amazingly, the CIA's director of operations kept the CIA operative attempting to recruit the hijackers, referred to as VVVV in the documents, away from the commission's investigators. The consequence of this, the commission's explanation for this story is that the CIA made an honest mistake. The actual language in the report says the CIA played, quote,

zone defense, and the FBI had a man-to-man approach to counterterrorism. So none of this is new information, and it also doesn't prove anything. Yeah. Mark Rossini can aggressively assert all this stuff, but he can't prove that the CIA was trying to recruit the hijackers, which is why the FBI and CIA were bad at sharing information before 9-11.

He can make a compelling argument that it's possible that this happened, but none of this actually proves anything concrete. Tucker and Rossini are now just treating the theory that the CIA was trying to recruit the hijackers as a proven thing, and the fact that the 9-11 report didn't cover it is proof of a cover-up. They weren't allowed to talk to the person who was doing the recruitment, which definitively, shows that there was a recruitment plan. If there was somebody, the CIA named VVVV who was involved in recruiting the hijackers.

VVVV, the recruiter. Then this is done. The conspiracy is proven. Easy. So the 9-11 commission report doesn't mention anyone named VVV. And Tucker is saying that this is a name that's used in the documents. The documents. He says the documents.

Big quotation marks around that. He doesn't mention which documents he means because he wants the viewer to just assume that this is all part of the 9-11 commission investigation. Sure. But it's not. The name VVV comes from a 2021 declaration made by a guy named Donald C. Canistraro, an investigator with the military commission's defense organization. This declaration was not a work product of the military, but it's more like a brief that was filed in the case of an accused 9-11 plotter who was going to go on trial named Amar Al-Balucci. Al-Balucci was arrested after 9-11 and sent to Guantanamo Bay, where he's been tortured and held for a long time, and is part of his defense strategy, his lawyer,

are arguing that he shouldn't be executed because there was Saudi government involvement in the plotting of 9-11 that has gone on punish. Sure. The argument that this declaration makes is that the CIA was seeking to get sources within al-Qaeda and knew that the FBI wouldn't cooperate. Because the CIA isn't allowed to operate in actions inside the United States, they recruited Saudi government agents, specifically one man named Omar al-Bayumi, to collaborate on trying to flip the two hijackers that might be able to.

Mark Rossini mentions going to Malaysia. Right. Things went bad. The recruitment didn't work, and then the cover-up was on. That's the argument that's largely put forth in this declaration that was used by the defense lawyers for an alleged 9-11 plotter. Right. The code name VVVV is used in the declaration to describe a character who's brought up by one

of the confidential sources that Canistraro spoke to when compiling this report. The source is named CS3, and it's very clearly Mark Rossini. The source tells the... exact same story that Mark is telling in this video with Tucker, down to him and another FBI agent. Funny how that works. Yeah, exactly the same. Yeah. CS3 brings up a CIA analyst who the report decides to call VVV, who tells CS3 not to distribute

the report that he and his colleague at the FBI had written up. In this interview with Tucker, Mark has already revealed this story. He's told this story and revealed who VVVV is. Right. It's someone named Michael Ann Casey, who was a CIA. analyst who told him shut down. Right, right, right, right. So for Tucker to not be able to figure out who VVV is, when it's very, very, very, very,

oh, three V's. Hey, very, very clear. Like it. I like it. It's a little strange. Oh, almost, uh, almost like, I mean, if, if I was one of the people consuming this documentary and I had just been privy to that information, I would think, why, these people are covering something up.

They're either refusing to pursue some very clear things, or they're hiding the ball. It's one of the two. Which is what you're accusing the CIA and the FBI of doing exactly. You're doing the thing that you're saying they're doing identically. And that's not to say that the CIA didn't. It just means that you're doing a bad job with whatever you're doing. Listen, that's the problem with the fucking CIA. Did the CIA do this?

You don't know. But if they go like, oh, they fucked with JFK, well, yeah, RFK, well, yeah. Did they have that? Well, yeah, they did all that stuff. But you don't know if they did this shit. You just can say it. Yeah. And you have done an okay job of, I guess, saying that something is possible. Right. But, again, it does not prove.

Well, if they did, I ran contra, then they, yes, I understand. But that doesn't mean they did this. Yeah. Someone being capable of murder doesn't show that they did murder. Yeah, they're fucked up and they shouldn't exist. That's not your angle, though. Your angle is like they're evil, which is, yeah. Mm-hmm.

So the evidence that shows. that the CIA kept Casey or VVV from testifying to the 9-11 Commission comes from that declaration, from words that are attributed to CS3, who is Mark Rossini. Right. So Tucker, when he says that VVV was kept away from the 9-11 commission, it is just him citing a document that is citing the guy he's interviewing. Yeah. So, quote, CS3 stated that he or she overheard one senior CIA official, director of

operations James Pavett telling CIA director George Tenet that he was glad we kept CIA analyst VVV from 9-11 commission investigators. So it's something that Mark under the guise of CSV or CS3 told the guy making this declaration. Right. It's nice. It's like an escalated Fox News, you know, like in the morning we're reporting on this and then the evening is like, people are saying all kinds of shit. It's information self-dealing. Yep. So when you trace back this thing to the bottom, you find that the documents that Tucker is using to strengthen Mark's story are actually just other people publishing things Mark said, but as an anonymous source. Tucker likely doesn't point this out that he's pulling all of this stuff from the Canistraro Declaration,

because if he did, he wouldn't be able to play these fun games with the VVVV stuff. Yeah. He should already know who that is. If he's done all the work that he's claimed he's done on this, then this shouldn't be. You know, he should have a really firsthand kind of information about this, considering this is the exact type of shit they did to justify moving into Iraq. He loved that. They had the fake guy that lied and then they just put them under a bunch of different names and they're like, well, everybody's saying it now. Crazy. Maybe that'll be one of the other episodes of his documentary.

It was us. I did it. It was me. So the CIA was trying to get these hijackers to become informants. Right. And in order to, because they're like, they're not going to listen to American CIA agents. Right. Let's get Saudi agents like Al-Bayoumi in order to actually flip them.

Sure. Which is what we lay out here. The CIA utilized the Saudis in the form of Omar al-Baiumi to spy for them and to gather them intelligence. Before 9-11, the CIA was forbidden from engaging in domestic spying. They used the Saudi intelligence as a workaround. We'll rely upon the Saudi GIsraeli. ID, General Intelligence Directorate, their version of the CIA, via Prince Bandar, via their man, Omar Al-Bayumi, to keep us informed as to the activity of these terrorists.

Bayumi's notebook, which was uncovered when British law enforcement raided his home in the U.K., contained a drawing of an airplane and mathematical calculations related to flying in. The 9-11 Commission investigators never saw this. At the time, Al-Buymi had a no-show job at a Saudi aviation contractor called Avco. The company's employees say he was one of roughly 50 ghost employees working there at the time, taking the paycheck but never coming to work. According to the classified government documents, an investigator from the 9-11 commission said Al-Baiumi was receiving substantial sums of money from the Saudi embassy in Washington

prior to the 9-11 attacks, that the money was being funneled from accounts at Riggs Bank in Georgetown, belonging to Haifa bin Faisal, the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States. By using the Saudis as a proxy to recruit the 9-11 hijackers, the CIA gave itself cover. If things went wrong, they could push a narrative that blamed the Saudi government for the attacks, which is what they did. So most of this stuff is coming from that same declaration. Yeah. The no-show jobs at Ircon and Avko, the Riggs Bank stuff, that's all in this declaration.

Sure. Tucker's basically just covering that declaration and not attributing it. properly while using one of the confidential sources from that report as a guest on this show. This is not good work. Yeah. It's sloppy all over the place. Also, the U.S. government did not end up blaming Saudi Arabia for the attack.

No, they kind of went hard the other direction. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know how Tucker can get away with saying they did this in order to be able to blame Saudi Arabia. Yeah. And they did. Yeah.

How can he say that? That's crazy. I don't like whenever so much is built on just on like rules that are only occasionally enforced. Like, especially in the central, in like the circular logic that they exist with in. Here's why the CIA can't do that because they can't work on U.S. soil. Right. But like 15 of your other conspiracies involve them working on U.S. soil.

So that should be established as not a reason. Yeah. I think that in this case, you have the added thing of like, well, these guys are, uh, Islamic terrorists, they probably would not respond to someone who is not also of the Muslim. Whatever you like. So, like, I think that you could, you could make an argument for why it's not just the CIA rule. For sure. But it is, that is definitely appealed to.

But that's what I'm, that's what I'm saying is like, there are all of these things that are then used as, like, House of Cards, you know, and it's like, I understand why you're doing that. And it does seem reasonable if we're not. not in your world, right? You know, if we're having a regular-ass conversation with people, yeah, that's different. But if you're in this documentary using it, that means that you're grasping it bullshit. Yeah, you're trying, it's all behavior that's meant to proceed to a conclusion that you've already determined.

Yeah. As opposed to letting the evidence guide you wherever it may go. And like preemptively arguing with the viewer. That kind of, before you ask. I'm providing this information is cutting off me asking for something and then asking another question about the information you've given me. You know, it's when there's a ball rolling of questions that you're trying to cut off. Yeah, and I think the part of the reason is because it would, like any kind of momentum on the

ball in terms of this. Yeah. Would make Tucker look pretty bad. Yep. It doesn't look good. Mm-hmm. The over-reliance on stuff from this declaration, the not explaining that that. this is something that was made as a, like a, uh, something to be put into the defense for one of

the 9-11 terrorists, uh, alleged, uh, plotters, as it were. The, not disclosing that the guest you have is one of the confidential sources for that declaration. A lot of the information that you're reporting as truth comes from unfounded, unproven things that he has said. Yeah. Um, it's just sloppy as shit. The fact that he worked with Anthony Pelicado. If you are a confidential source, you can't then become a public source without also revealing that you were a confidential source. Especially in the same piece. Yeah.

You know? Yep, yep, yep. It's a mess. That's dumb. So Tucker closes this thing up. I think he's proven his point that the 9-11 report sucks and is a lie. The truth is, the official 9-11 commission report sold to the American public and the world. for decades as the definitive account of what happened that day is a lie.

Nine-ended commissioned was a cover-up. But how did the Bush administration manage to hijack what was sold as an independent commission? And what exactly were they trying to hide will reveal what we found in the next episode? I don't think I'm interested. You know, it's... What could you possibly have found? smoking guns all over the place, man. How could you have found a smoking gun without your first episode being like,

oh, we fixed it. We figured it out. Yeah. If this is the first episode, you have a wildly suspicious guest. You have information that you're laundering from a different place without disclosing it. You have a lot of old information being reported as if it's new. Yep. You have conclusions that aren't earned being jumped to.

I really just don't think that there's any chance that episode two, three, four, or five is going to be any different. No. You start with a, if you're a performer, sure. You have a strong opener. Sure. That's just, no, no, no. I was actually going to go into the same spot with, like, this guy can't be your first episode. He's too big.

He's too big for your first episode. You are doing that because you're front-loading bombast because you're afraid people are bored already. I think it's possible. possible. Right? Yeah. I mean, this piece of shit, motherfucker. Right. What does this guy do? I'm a former FBI agent. All right. So you're reliable. This motherfucker is a coward for not blowing up the Twin Towers. I'm sorry? Yeah. But that's your pitch? Yeah. He's a large. He's a lot of, a lot of personality. There isn't too much. Um, yeah, I just, I, I think this sucks. And I also think that there's another issue that I, that I experienced while preparing this. Yeah.

And that is, I felt like who cares? Sure. What, in Tucker's audience, why would they care about the CIA was trying to flip, uh, some hijackers and it went wrong? Yeah. Who cares? There's demons. Like who, like, this is 20 something years. ago and Trump has taken over the government.

Yeah. Whatever problems that you had with like Paul Wolfowitz or or Cheney, whatever, who cares? That's that is done. Right? I mean, I, does anybody, before you made this, does anybody in the audience wholly believe that 9-11 wasn't an inside job? Probably not. Right?

Like, in some form or fashion. and I think that was probably true of more people than anybody wanted to admit is that after 9-11, in some form of fashion everybody was like, well, they're not telling us the full truth. That's just the reality of it. Yeah, and that umbrella can contain

a lot of different things. Somebody might just be hiding the fact that they were kind of an asshole or kind of an idiot or covering up that they fucked up, you know? Or profited in some way that they feel guilty about. Absolutely. That doesn't mean that they planned it or whatever,

but yeah, there's all. kinds of things. Everything went wrong because the Twin Towers fell. Yeah. That was where everything went wrong. And, and like, I think that beyond just like how many people in Tucker's audience aren't the choir being preached to. Right. That's one, one element of it. And then the other is, like, the audience that he's been trying to attract. Yeah. With this, like, religious fundamentalism and demons and anti-Semitism and all this shit. Like, are they going to care at all unless you say it was the Jews? I have a question for you.

All right? And I'll throw this out as a possibility. Okay. If we're starting from the premise of the initial motivation for this whole conspiracy is the government is trying to keep you safe. These people are in good faith attempting to create sorts of. within all the terrorism groups in the world. Presumably well-intentioned, misguided, poorly executed law enforcement.

Now, if your audience is already of the mind that the government was in on it purposefully to harm people. It does almost make this seem like you're covering. Right. Right. Now, we're in a time where the people that Tucker wants, or the Tucker's audience, Tucker wants them to trust the government as opposed to distrust the government. as opposed to distrust to the government as a whole. So are we actually talking about Tucker, not just not trying to remove and wear Alex's skin,

but to suck out every meaningful bit of it and turn it into 9-11 conspiracy theories are actually about how the government is trying really hard and the people in the past were bad guys. Hmm. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, I mean, it definitely, you know, I don't know, but it is an interesting thought, you know, like this is coming from a place of like far more belief in the state.

Yeah. Than the conspiracy theories of 20 years ago. The state is your daddy now. Yeah, whereas Alex would yell about democide. Exactly. And like how the state is responsible for more death than anything ever. Right, right. So this now is the new 9-11 where daddy is trying to keep you safe.

But you know what? Daddy makes mistakes. Don't get too mad. Right. And maybe uncle is weird. Yeah. Maybe Uncle was, Uncle John Brennan was off on a, you know. The enemies of our current dad who were around back then.

Right, absolutely. They did bad stuff. Right. Oh my God. These are children. Yeah, I do think that, you know, without like going into all the other episodes. Yeah. Like this does seem to be launching off in a direction that is more like, you know what,

9-11 happened because of like big mistakes. Yeah. But mistakes. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Nobody was trying to hurt you. And then the cover up, except for the terrorists, of course. And all brown people.

The cover up then is just covering up that we could have stopped it. Yeah. If we weren't singularly focused on trying to get informants. Yeah. We had a bad law enforcement strategy. Yep. Yeah, that is interesting. I don't know.

That might be more interesting than the thing itself. Yeah, I mean, probably projecting that theory onto the making of it is far more interesting than them going like, let's just do what Alex did. Yeah, and it's not even what Alex did because it's pretty boring, hollow. And it's out of touch with what's important right now. Yeah. Like, this could not be more irrelevant, I feel.

Like, I don't know if, like, him interviewing Nick Fuentes after these came out or, like, Cheney dying. I don't know what makes it irrelevant, but this feels fucking dead in the water. Yeah. Like, he did this. this five-part series, and I don't think anyone cares. I mean, yeah, I don't know.

I would say that probably if you were ever going to find the lynchpin of our era, it would be 9-11. And it's so what has happened due to it, the sequence of events is so irreparable and mind-boggling that it's like if in the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones was just run over by that ball and then the movie ended. Like that would just be it. Like that's how huge this is. Yeah.

And now here we are. Yep. Anyway, I don't think I'm going to watch the rest of these, and I don't think we're going to talk about him because he gives a shit. That's fair. But we will get back to Alex and see what he's up to without his watches. I hope on his episode he says something about how he misses his watches. He misses two very specific watches.

Holy shit. I did Google them, and they're worth a bit more than I. I thought they were, so I feel very uncomfortable now. But, hey, we'll be back and check in on his watchless ass. But until then, we have a website. Indeed, we do. It's knowledge right.com. Yep, we'll be back.

But until then, I'm Leo. I'm Leo. I'm DZX. Clark. I'm the mysterious professor. And now here comes the sex robots. Andy in Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. Hello, Alex.

I'm a first-time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. I love you.