How have experts in terrorism and building engineering responded to Tucker Carlson's 9/11 claims?
Executive summary
Tucker Carlson’s five‑part series The 9/11 Files renewed public debate by re‑questioning elements of the official account—focusing on FBI/CIA failures, possible Saudi links, and anomalous elements like WTC 7—while critics say the series recycles long‑debunked insinuations without new, tangible evidence [1] [2]. Media and expert responses range from calling the series a polished but unsubstantiated revival of “truther” claims (city‑journal) to commentators noting Carlson’s shift from earlier disdain for 9/11 conspiracy theorists to promoting a new investigation [2] [3].
1. Carlson’s case: polished questions, old lines
Carlson frames his show as an evidence‑driven challenge to the government narrative, citing declassified documents, the 9/11 Commission report, and alleged operational anomalies—pointing viewers to a companion dossier he says centralizes “all the evidence, key players, and timeline” [1] [4]. His episodes explicitly raise familiar flashpoints: how intelligence agencies shared (or withheld) information, suggestions of Saudi assistance to some hijackers, and the collapse of World Trade Center 7, all packaged with slick production values [1] [4].
2. Critics: rehashing familiar insinuations without proof
Several outlets and commentators fault the series for recycling long‑running insinuations without producing new, verifiable physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. City Journal’s critique says Carlson “focuses mostly on vague claims that he makes no attempt to substantiate,” noting the series interviews no firsthand participants in any alleged conspiracy and uncovers no tangible new physical proof [2]. That critique frames Carlson’s work as stylistic rather than evidentiary.
3. Engineers and demolition theories: not found in Carlson’s sourcing; mainstream dismissal noted
The thermite/explosive residue line—popular among some 9/11 skeptics—has been previously promoted in fringe publications but is widely challenged by demolition experts; City Journal recalls that demolition specialists called the idea of using such compounds impractical and that the thermite theory gained traction after a fringe paper in 2009 [2]. Carlson’s series revisits claims about “explosive residue,” but available sources do not report that his documentary produced new engineer‑level, peer‑reviewed evidence overturning earlier technical conclusions [1] [2].
4. Intelligence‑community questions vs. “inside job” accusations
Carlson emphasizes agency failures and possible concealment—claims that can be framed as genuine oversight and mismanagement questions rather than implicit proof of U.S. orchestration. The Spectator notes Carlson argues the CIA withheld information and alleges Saudi operatives may have aided or been involved in facilitating some hijackers, while stopping short of claiming the U.S. orchestrated 9/11 [5]. Algemeiner documents Carlson’s rhetorical pivot: he previously denounced “inside job” theorists as “parasites,” yet now advocates reopening inquiries into what governments knew [3].
5. The political and media context matters
Coverage of the series itself is partisan and interpretive. Some responses read Carlson’s effort as a push for a new, politically charged 9/11 commission, with participants like activism figures and former intelligence officers featured to bolster reformist arguments [4] [6]. Critics warn the series may amplify conspiracy narratives despite its purported reformist intent, a concern rooted in Carlson’s recent history of controversial claims across other topics [7] [8].
6. What experts and reporting actually say — and what’s missing
Reporting in these sources shows two consistent points: Carlson repackages longstanding questions and asks for a new official inquiry [4], and mainstream reviewers contend he offers little new substantiation and relies on insinuation [2]. What the available reporting does not show is newly published, peer‑reviewed forensic or structural engineering studies introduced by Carlson’s series that overturn prior findings; available sources do not mention such evidence being produced by the documentary [2] [1].
7. Takeaway: legitimate questions, contested methods
Carlson forces political and institutional questions back into public view—about intelligence sharing, Saudi connections, and the adequacy of past investigations—but the balance of sourced reporting presented here finds his methods more provocative than conclusive and warns the series leans on recycled claims lacking fresh, verifiable evidence [2] [1] [4]. Readers should separate two debates: (a) legitimate policy and intelligence review warranted by declassification and oversight; and (b) technical/forensic claims that, per current reporting, remain unsubstantiated by new expert testimony or peer‑reviewed findings [1] [2].