Podcast Summary: Knowledge Fight #1092 – “Tucker, The Man And His 9/11 Documentary”
Date: November 10, 2025
Hosts: Dan & Jordan
Episode Overview
In this episode, Dan and Jordan dissect the first episode of Tucker Carlson’s new 5-part 9/11 conspiracy documentary. The discussion centers on Tucker’s attempt to recast 9/11 “truth” narratives nearly 25 years after the fact, possibly with the intent to usurp Alex Jones’ place as the primary 9/11 conspiracy figure on the American right. The hosts break down the cast of characters in the documentary, critically examine the evidence and claims made, identify manipulation and shoddy sourcing, and reflect on the documentary’s relevance and intent in the present political and media landscape.
Key Themes & Discussion Points
1. Bright Spots & Opening Banter
- [01:10] Jordan and Dan kick off with their regular “bright spots,” talking about British reality TV (“Celebrity Traitors”) and the video game “Hyrule Warriors.”
- The banter sets a light, irreverent mood before the heavier analysis.
2. 9/11 Conspiracies: Then and Now
[06:34–12:58]
- Dan contextualizes the cultural climate of the early 2000s, when 9/11 conspiracy theories were deeply stigmatized:
- “The country was trying to come together and heal, and Alex [Jones] made it his business to try to keep these wounds open...” [08:53]
- Contrast: Alex Jones went out on a limb during a highly jingoistic and hostile environment, which Dan argues took a mix of cynicism and nerve.
- Tucker Carlson: At the time, he was pro-war and anti-9/11-conspiracy on TV, making his current persona shift opportunistic and “disrespectful.”
- Dan’s thesis: Tucker's doc is a move to "replace Alex as a meaningful figure in the Trump media ecosystem,” presenting himself as the expert without the baggage. [11:25]
3. The Documentary’s Framing & Big Claims
[13:17–15:58]
- Tucker’s Opening:
- “24 years now… politicians, the media… have all demanded that you believe the official story about 9/11… That story is a lie.” [13:18–13:55, Carlson]
- Dan’s critique: Tucker himself used to stigmatize 9/11 conspiracy theorists and is now pretending he’s always been on the other side.
- “Tucker himself was literally the problem he's now complaining about.” [15:29, Dan]
- The lack of self-reckoning undermines the project’s sincerity.
4. “Our Guests Are Not Kooks!”
[16:48–18:08]
- Early on, Tucker insists his guests “aren’t kooks.” The hosts find this defensive and telling:
- “It makes it a little too clear that the kind of media you make often involves talking to kooks...” [17:22, Dan]
- If you have to state you’re not bringing on cranks, that’s a red flag about sourcing.
5. Setup: The “New 9/11 Commission” & John Brennan Targeting
[18:19–19:55]
- Tucker calls for a new 9/11 investigation, alleging the official commission was a cover-up and suggesting ex-CIA chief John Brennan helped “bring the hijackers to the US.”
- Dan notes targeting Brennan aligns with the Trump ecosystem’s penchant for seeking retribution against old enemies.
- “Right out of the gate, this feels less like a sincere fact-finding exercise and more like an attempt to come up with justifications for Trump to arrest Brennan.” [19:43, Dan]
6. Questionable Sourcing: Who Is Mark Rossini?
[20:47–28:04]
- The featured guest is ex-FBI agent Mark Rossini.
- Dan provides extensive background:
- Rossini’s career at FBI ended in scandal—guilty to felonies for illegally accessing databases to help notorious private investigator Anthony Pellicano.
- Later, implicated in Puerto Rican political corruption for brokering campaign donations in exchange for regulatory fixes.
- “Mark Rossini is a hell of a character for Tucker to just pretend as a bin Laden expert. He has a lot of baggage spanning decades that strongly calls his integrity into question.” [27:40, Dan]
- Hosts question Rossini’s objectivity and suitability as a key witness for such a documentary.
7. Building the Theory: The “CIA Tried to Flip 9/11 Hijackers”
[31:14–36:45]
- Rossini’s Theory: CIA, desperate for sources inside Al Qaeda, let known terrorists into the US hoping they could recruit them as informants, impeding FBI intervention.
- Dan points out this is not a classic, omnipotent “deep state did 9/11” narrative but rather a (tenuously supported) tale of law enforcement overreach and incompetence.
- Rossini’s emotional, performative delivery is critiqued:
- “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.” [36:45, Dan]
- Memorable quote: “He didn’t beat him with a phone book. He didn’t fucking waterboard him.” [35:54, Rossini]
8. The Evidence Trail: Thin, Self-Referential, and Circular
[39:15–56:41]
- The entire “recruitment” theory hinges on speculative leaps and self-referential sources:
- The “VVV” codename in documents is traced back to Rossini himself, in a legal declaration used in defense of a 9/11 defendant, not from an independent or official source.
- “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.” [50:06, Dan]
- Tucker never names his sources clearly, fails to disclose the circular sourcing, and passes off old, recycled info as “new.”
- Rossini (the “confidential source”) is both the anonymous tip and the named expert—dubious journalistic practice.
- The “VVV” codename in documents is traced back to Rossini himself, in a legal declaration used in defense of a 9/11 defendant, not from an independent or official source.
9. Contradictions and Weak Conclusions
- The doc alleges the CIA used a Saudi agent (Omar Al Bayoumi) as proxy to monitor/flip hijackers, framing it as the “smoking gun.”
- When results went sideways, the implication is the CIA (and Saudis) covered up incompetence rather than orchestrated the attacks per se.
- Dan identifies the fundamental logical flaws:
- Proving something is possible =/= proving it happened.
- Documentary asks the viewer to quietly accept implication in place of actual evidence.
10. Relevance, Intent & Final Impressions
[59:07–end]
- Dan questions why Tucker’s audience would care about these revelations now, positing that most who would watch already believe some version of 9/11 conspiracy.
- “Who cares what…The CIA was trying to flip some hijackers and it went wrong? Who cares? There’s demons…” [59:07, Dan]
- Jordan speculates that Tucker may be trying to retrofit “9/11 truth” into a narrative of government fallibility rather than outright evil, thus serving changing right-wing sentiment about “deep state” narratives.
- “These are children…The state is your daddy now.” [62:29, Jordan]
- Both conclude the doc is neither groundbreaking nor relevant, performed with poor sourcing and questionable intent:
- “If this is the first episode, you have a wildly suspicious guest…information that you’re laundering from a different place without disclosing it…There’s no chance the other episodes will be any different.” [57:48, Dan]
- “It’s pretty boring, hollow and it’s out of touch with what’s important right now…this feels fucking dead in the water.” [63:54, Dan]
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
On Tucker’s opportunism and hypocrisy
“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.”
—Dan, [15:29]
On sourcing and evidence
“If you have to start out your documentary series assuring people that the guests you’re going to interview aren’t kooks, it makes it a little too clear that the kind of media you make often involves talking to kooks…”
—Dan, [17:22]
“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.”
—Dan, [50:06]
On changing conspiracy narratives
“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…That is interesting. I don’t know, that might be more interesting than the thing itself.”
—Dan, [63:13]
Timestamps for Important Segments
- 01:10 — Bright Spots: “Celebrity Traitors” and “Hyrule Warriors”
- 06:34 — Setting the 9/11 Truther Movement’s context
- 11:12 — Tucker Carlson’s role in Trump media ecosystem
- 13:18 — Tucker’s documentary intro/stance on “the lie”
- 15:29 — Dan’s critique of Tucker’s past and present
- 18:19 — Tucker calls for new 9/11 investigation; targeting Brennan
- 20:47 — Mark Rossini’s background, legal and ethical baggage
- 31:14 — Rossini lays out theory: CIA tried to flip hijackers
- 36:45 — Dan challenges Rossini’s angry, performative style
- 39:15 — Tucker warps Richard Clarke’s CIA “plan”
- 50:06 — Self-dealing evidence cycle exposed (“VVV” sourcing)
- 59:07 — Who cares? Tucker’s “revelations” are decades late
- 63:13 — Discussion: conspiracy as bad policy, not malevolent intent
Tone and Style Reflections
- The hosts’ tone oscillates between sharp analytical critique, exasperated humor, and sardonic asides.
- They repeatedly highlight the absurdity of Tucker’s choices and methods, and relish poking fun at the overwrought storytelling and performative outrage of sources like Rossini.
- Their language remains conversational and irreverent, but rooted in careful source analysis.
Conclusion
This episode is a thorough, biting take-down of Tucker Carlson’s attempt to own the 9/11 truther mantle with a recycled, poorly-sourced, and poorly-timed docuseries. Dan and Jordan demonstrate how the documentary fails both as journalism and as compelling conspiracy theory, ultimately concluding that its only real innovation is softening narratives for a present-day right-wing audience with a new relationship to the state and “deep state.” The evidence is thin, the sourcing is circular, and the documentary’s relevance is found wanting.