Which 9/11 theories has Tucker Carlson repeated on his shows or social media and on what dates?
Executive summary
Tucker Carlson released a five-part series titled “The 9/11 Files” beginning in late September 2025 and has repeatedly revived long‑standing 9/11 “truther” themes — including suggestions of government complicity, controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and alternate explanations for the Pentagon strike — across that series and related promotion [1] [2]. Media observers say Carlson’s series rehashes familiar, largely debunked claims while also assembling new insinuations about intelligence failures and withheld evidence to push for a fresh investigation [3] [4].
1. Carlson’s 9/11 project and key dates: a deliberate launch
Tucker Carlson launched “The 9/11 Files,” a multi‑episode documentary series that debuted with Episode 1 on or around September 23, 2025, and continued through late September and early October as the main vehicle for reintroducing 9/11 conspiracy narratives to his audience [1] [5]. Carlson’s network also ran a public petition and campaign around October 21, 2025, calling for “a real 9/11 commission,” tying the documentary to an organizing push for renewed official inquiry [6].
2. Theories revived on the show: controlled demolition, Pentagon missile, and withheld evidence
Carlson’s series and commentary revisit three familiar lines: that the World Trade Center collapses suggest controlled demolition; that the Pentagon may not have been struck by a commercial airliner; and that investigators and intelligence agencies withheld material or otherwise failed to be transparent — all framed as reasons for a new investigation [2] [1] [4]. Critics say his episodes “rehash” these long‑standing claims without supplying the evidentiary weight required to overturn official findings [3].
3. How Carlson packages the claims: “just asking questions” meets documentary production
Observers note Carlson frames the material as earnest inquiry — “what you have been told about 9/11 is not true” — but packages familiar insinuations inside high‑production documentary segments rather than advancing fresh, peer‑reviewed evidence [3] [7]. Supporters describe the series as exposing “unanswered questions” and secrecy to justify a new commission, while critics describe it as reviving debunked or unproven insinuations under a veneer of investigative journalism [6] [3].
4. Critical reception: mainstream and niche outlets differ sharply
Mainstream critics argue Carlson “rehashes familiar claims and unproven insinuations” and that the series leans on the penumbra of debunked theories to imply government complicity [3]. Conservative and pro‑investigation outlets framed the project as exposing “25 years of unanswered questions” and used it to mobilize calls for a new inquiry [6] [5]. Academic or specialized 9/11 commentary notes Carlson “treads cautiously” but also asserts the program highlights real issues like rubble removal and intelligence failures while mixing them with more speculative lines [4].
5. What Carlson explicitly did not emphasize — and why that matters
Independent reviewers point out Carlson omitted some widely reported factual episodes of post‑9/11 controversy (for example, certain withheld materials and post‑attack policy decisions are not given full treatment in the documentary), which affects how viewers contextualize his more speculative claims; critics suggest business or political considerations could influence editorial choices, but available sources do not specify internal motives beyond noting the omissions [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive date‑by‑date log of every instance Carlson repeated each specific theory on social media or every episode of his show.
6. Alternative viewpoints and limitations in coverage
Supporters see Carlson’s effort as a legitimate call for transparency and a new commission; detractors see it as repackaging debunked “truther” ideas to sow distrust [6] [3]. The International Center for 9/11 Justice credits the series with raising real questions about rubble handling and intelligence failures while warning it also mixes those with more marginal theories [4]. My reporting is limited to the supplied sources and therefore cannot produce an exhaustive, date‑stamped log of every appearance or social‑media post in which Carlson repeated individual claims; such granular citation is not found in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. What to watch next
Carlson’s network remains actively promoting the series and petition into late October 2025; expect continued amplification of the same central themes [6]. Watch for follow‑up episodes, promotional posts, and responses from officials and investigative bodies — those will supply the further timestamps and direct quotes needed to map precisely when each specific theory was repeated [1] [6].