It is good to see Carlson using his voice to insist that we be told who made the bets on the stock market immediately before 9/11 and profited hugely from them. They had to have had foreknowledge the attacks were coming. ABN
Digital IDs are weapons. Forcing them on people is assault. Submitting to them is to be conquered. This massive defeat of UK has been decades in the making. ABN
I’ve watched Tucker Carlson’s docu The 9/11 Files released today! Ep 1 to 3 assume that Al-Qaeda Hijackers did 9/11 (but CIA, Saudis, blahblah)! Ep 4 does get into controlled demolition, WTC7, put options. It also mentions the dancing Israelis and the Hollywood, Fl. connection, but only to suggest that Israel had foreknowledge (of Al-Qaeda’s attack) which they didn’t share, but they apologized for it. No mention of Silverstein or Chertoff, of course. But Bush, CIA, Bush, CIA, Saudis, Bush, CIA… In other words: LIMITED HANGOUT. Funnily, at the beginning of Ep 4, Carlson tells us that conspiracy theories are fabricated by the Deep State to prevent an actual investigation. Confusing!
Although there are a few interesting bits (which any limited hangout must have), the general impression that the viewer is led to is that:
1. Al-Qaeda did 9/11,
2. Al-Qaeda was helped by CIA,
3. CIA had some foreknowledge,
4. We don’t know much (so many questions, so few answers), and we won’t until we have a new government commission.
5. and the main conclusion in Ep. 5: “despite the CIA’s previously unknown role in recruiting the hijackers, and the extent of their stonewalling to the 9/11 Commission, the CIA was, on net, maybe the biggest winner from 9/11″.
Andrew Kolvet, a Turning Point USA media handler, released a statement that reads like it was written by a crisis PR firm scrambling to patch up a failing narrative. Let’s break it down, line by line:
1. “I’m usually not interested in delving into online chatter…”
Translation: “I don’t usually respond to conspiracy drivel… but let me make an exception this time.”
This is the classic defensive opener: discredit public speculation while subtly signaling moral authority — as if his involvement should automatically be trusted.
2. “I just spoke with the surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital…”
Problem: Charlie died instantly from a gunshot wound that caused decerebrate posturing, massive arterial bleeding, and catastrophic CNS trauma.
Let’s be clear: he wasn’t “worked on”. He was dead on arrival — if not at the scene, then certainly before any meaningful medical intervention. Unless Kolvet thinks surgeons perform autopsies, this claim is either fabricated or a willful misuse of medical terminology to sell emotional closure.
3. “The bullet should’ve gone through… it would’ve killed a moose… but it didn’t…”
This is the “trust me bro” forensic analysis from someone with no background in terminal ballistics, gunshot trauma, or even basic anatomy. If the bullet lodged beneath the skin, that suggests low velocity, deflection, or inconsistency in caliber used — none of which support the idea of a clean high-powered rifle kill.
Also: where’s the actual ballistics report?
4. “His bones were so strong, like the man of steel.”
Now we’re just fully in the realm of myth-making. Turning a human corpse into Superman doesn’t just defy science — it tells you exactly what this is:
A psychological operation meant to close the book on forensic doubt and redirect the public into emotional worship of the martyr.
5. “Even in death, Charlie managed to save others. Remarkable. Miraculous.”
This is narrative closure layered on top of miracle-language. In legal or psychological terms, this is called “preemptive emotional closure” — used to block further questioning by dressing tragedy in divine finality.
When a known TPUSA employee uses miracle-language, contradictory medical claims, and a triple “trust me” format — all without forensic transparency — it’s not just cringe. It’s coordinated damage control.
The truth doesn’t require miracles. It leaves evidence.
This is very well done; concise, succinct, clear as a bell.
Let’s not jump to conclude that Kolvet is a willing or knowing actor in this. ABN
The surgeon who operated on Charlie Kirk said the bullet that killed him miraculously did not exit his neck, likely saving others from getting hit.
Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet revealed on Saturday night that he had spoken with the surgeon who made the comments directly to him.
In a post on X, Kolvet wrote: ‘I apologize this is somewhat graphic, but in this case, the fact that there wasn’t an exit wound is probably another miracle, and I want people to know.’
The surgeon told Kolvet that the bullet ‘absolutely should have gone through, which is very very normal for a high powered, high velocity round’.
‘I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two,’ the surgeon told Kolvet.
A .30-06 bolt action rifle, the kind that was discovered hidden in the woods after Kirk was killed, is used to kill deer, elk, moose, bears and other big game animals.
The assumption is that Kirk was hit from the front and the rifle was a .30-06. But the assumed entry wound on Kirk’s left throat does not conform an entry wound; and neither does no exit wound, not with a round that powerful.
Recall the autopsies of JFK, the first of which said, truthfully, the exit wound was the rear of his head; then the second one said that was the entry would of the ‘magic bullet’ fired by the patsy Oswald.
An event of this importance demands a second or third autopsy by unquestionable experts, and it should be recorded. I doubt that will happen. ABN
As of today, there is no way to be certain who shot Kirk and why.
But there is also no way it is not suspicious so many influencers are asserting the radical trans left did it.
There’s plenty more than just those four names singing that tune.
Free speech isn’t free when it costs $150 million.
I respect Kirk for turning down the bribe.
Congress is bribed, influencers are bribed, legacy media is bribed, universities are bribed.
It’s either the carrot or a bullet in the neck.
If Israel or US IC killed Kirk, it was not just to stop him and blame the left.
It was also to scare the sh*t out of anyone who turns down the bribes to tell what they see as the truth, as Kirk did.
There are so many holes in the official story as of today, no one should be claiming they know who did it or telling others to stop noticing patterns or the absurdity of the story to date.
I will never believe a word of this story if they don’t release the video from the camera behind Kirk when he was shot. ABN
I have only spot checked this video but it appears to be the original one made by Eric Hufschmid, I believe in 2003, perhaps containing some supplementary material. There are other versions of Painful Deceptions, which seem to be the same or similar but narrated by someone other than Eric and about 20 min shorter than the version above. The one above is clearly in Eric’s voice. Whatever, Hufschmid’s video stands as the earliest comprehensive foundation of the 9/11 story. If you have never seen this video, it is important to watch it. If it’s been awhile since you last saw it, it’s well-worth a quick review. ABN
Just a couple of days before Kirk was killed I’d discovered that Tucker Carlson was planning to release a multi-part documentary series on the 9/11 attacks on the anniversary. Just before Kirk’s death I’d watched his hour-long interview on the Piers Morgan show, in which I thought he’d done an excellent job.
Apparently Carlson’s documentary would declare that everything we’d been officially told for twenty-four years about 9/11 was a lie so his series had the potential to massively jump-start the strong revival of the 9/11 Truth movement.
I’d been planning to make Carlson’s 9/11 series the topic of my new article until the Kirk killing blew everything out of the water and also led Carlson to delay the release for a couple of weeks.
Carlson and Kirk are quite friendly and assuming that Carlson’s documentary was as good as I’d expect, I’d think that Kirk would have strongly endorsed it to his huge number of mainstream conservative follower.
Hitherto, 9/11 Truthers have overwhelmingly been leftists, so Kirk’s support could have made it a completely bipartisan, and the resulting political impact would have been enormous.
So if Israel did arrange Kirk’s, I think that’s the reason that they needed to do so before the release of Carlson’s 9/11 series.
Does this look like a secured scene, or does it look like they just wrapped up filming a movie set?
Officers, tactical teams, and medics were visible, but no inner perimeter was enforced, no witnesses were staged, and no forensic control was established?? A real active-shooter response would; freeze the hot zone, mark and collect ballistics, deploy biohazard cleanup for blood, and lock down the campus until the threat was neutralized.
None of that happened. Instead, civilians wandered freely, surfaces were contaminated, and no hazmat or spray crews ever appeared.
Even more telling, no aerial assets were dispatched, despite protocol calling for air support when a gunman is at large. If they truly believed a shooter was active, security would have escalated instantly and comprehensively.
The absence of those steps only makes sense if there was no genuine threat—if the event was managed optics rather than a real emergency.
Why would anyone preserve the forensic integrity of a staged incident?
Well put and exactly right. This is one of the strongest reasons to doubt the sloppy official story as it slithers along. ABN
American Buddhist Net 