Transcript: 9/11 Widow Kristen Breitweiser on Tucker Carlson Show

And then once this happened, there’s no question about that. Yes, I can speak to that firsthand. And I, too, was really scared.

I mean, I think we not only had the attacks, my husband was killed. I was left alone. We lived in New Jersey, right across the water from where the attacks took place. We could smell the air, which was horrible. And then we had the anthrax attacks. And that happened in near where, you know, in New Jersey and near Princeton. And so it was a really scary time.

And then subsequent to that, when things started to maybe subside, where people sort of regained their sense of reality, we had to queue up to the war in Iraq. And anyone who questioned anything about the attacks and how they could have happened and who could be behind them, you were silenced. Because we were a nation at war, and it was unpatriotic to raise any questions. To question anything and to demand answers, certainly not allowed. And so that sort of took, I think, quite a bit of years.

And now, believe it or not, I think for many of us it’s 25 years moving into the 25th year. And I do not think that we’ve been told the truth. I think as hard as we fought for a commission to try to learn the lessons, to try to understand better why and how the attacks happened, I think that commission was a whitewash. I think it told a story, not the truth. And there’s a difference between a story and the truth.

And I think we’re owed the truth as to what happened that day and why the country was attacked and why we did nothing in a defensive posture to even mitigate the damage on the day of 9/11. It’s bad enough when you look at the facts leading up to the day of 9/11 and you see the many instances of where things were sort of overlooked, facilitated in some situations.

But the day of 9/11 as well, there were failures, systemic failures that cost lives. And so for me, initially, in the beginning, I was like, you know what? We need to do better. The country needs to learn lessons so that more lives could be saved if and when another terrorist attack happened.

And for whatever reason, President Bush wasn’t interested in doing that, but he was interested in the war in Iraq. And to me, 25 years looking back, 24 years looking back, I do wonder if the attacks were to serve as the premise to allow for preemptive war.

I think that when you do examine what has happened in the government since then, it certainly laid the groundwork for preemptive war. I’m not a person who supports war. I think that as someone who lost a loved one, I know the devastation war brings to a home and a family.

And it makes me sick to think that no one was really held accountable for the war in Iraq, for the hundreds of thousands of lives, for the tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers. And I’m just confounded with the fact that the American public never demanded that and that for all intents and purposes, they got away with 9/11 and they got away with the war in Iraq.

Was 9/11 Staged to Justify War?

TUCKER CARLSON: I agree with every word that you just said, and thank you for saying them because they’re true. The one part where I would ask you to clarify, clearly, 9/11 was used as a pretext, as an excuse for the war. Iraq was used to justify it on, you know, famously false grounds.

But that’s a very different thing from 9/11 was staged or allowed to happen in order to justify the war in Iraq. Do you think that’s possible?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I mean, I think there are certainly theories out there, but I think when you look at the facts, it would be certainly more comforting for the government to come forward and prove that that’s not the case. Right.

Like, it’s uncomfortable as an American citizen to think that members of our intelligence apparatus, our intelligence community, stood down, greased the wheels, facilitated different fact scenarios that enabled the attacks that may or may not have already been underway.

And so there’s a story out there that that happened that, you know, the CIA might have allowed certain things to happen and to move forward because they were letting the line out to try to learn more about Al Qaeda or terrorist groups, to learn more, to get the big fish, quote unquote, right. I think that that’s an interesting, nice way to look at things, certainly in a less diabolical way.

But there’s a rule, supposedly, in the intel community that when you have actionable intelligence, you’re supposed to roll up the operation. And so one of the biggest questions that I have centers on the Yemen switchboard, the Al-Hada house switchboard.

The CIA apparently learned about that in, I think, 1996. They officially learned about it in 1998 through the embassy bombing. And of course, my question would be, if the CIA is monitoring the Al-Hada switchboard, all of the communications that bin Laden is sending out to his operatives around the world to carry out attacks.

When the 1998 embassy bombing happened, why didn’t they go in and shut down the Al-Hada switchboard? They didn’t. They, I guess, wanted to leave the line out and continue to learn more information. And they didn’t want to tip off Al Qaeda or bin Laden that they had ears on him and his operations.

Okay, so the embassy bombing happens, kind of not great. But then the USS Cole happened in 2000. Seventeen sailors were killed. Again, that information flew through the Al-Hada switchboard. And the CIA still, at that point, doesn’t go in and shut it down and stop it.

I believe that if the Al-Hada switchboard was shut down, it would have, at the very least, delayed the 9/11 attacks, and perhaps my husband would be alive today.

Why Wasn’t the Switchboard Shut Down?

TUCKER CARLSON: So the question is, why wasn’t it? And I think the explanation that people sympathetic to the CIA would give is that it was just too great having a window into their private communications and like, why would you shut that down?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Well, because first of all, the embassy bombing happened, and I know it was only, you know, like 13 Americans or something like that, and mostly it happened in East Africa. So most of the casualties were African. And maybe they thought like, yeah, you’re right, the cost benefit analysis, like we’ll just, you know, we lost 13 military, whatever.

But then the Cole happens at 17 sailors. Each one of those lives means everything in the world to their family.

TUCKER CARLSON: That’s right.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: And then 9/11 happens, 3,000 people are killed. At some point you need to hold the CIA accountable. And instead of holding the CIA accountable, people like Cofer Black, George Tenet, we had George Tenet getting a Medal of Freedom.

But more disturbing to me was that you took the same director of the CIA that had so utterly failed before 9/11, utterly failed with the USS Cole, and you relied on him to give you intelligence for the WMD in Iraq. And somehow you thought it was going to be credible and worthwhile.

It’s inconceivable to me why President Bush would have done that. Right. But he did. And we relied on it and it turned out to be a lie. Okay. And so what you see is this systemic, long term carrying out of policy by American leaders, whether it’s a president, a vice president, whether it’s members of Congress, the intel committees that are sort of looking past these failures of the intel community.

And again, it’s not just the CIA. The FBI’s got plenty to explain with regard to the 9/11 attacks, and they’re never held accountable. They sort of act with impunity and people make cool movies about them and everyone thinks that, you know, they’re above the law.

The reality is, is that 3,000 Americans were killed on U.S. soil. And the CIA and FBI 100% could have and should have prevented it. The NSA, who does all the eavesdropping around the world, the wiretapping, they 100% had enough information to stop the attacks.

And for whatever reason, the attacks weren’t stopped. So, you know, naturally speaking, when something happens, a reasonable person is like, well, who benefited, right? Like, who benefited from not stopping this, from not preventing this murder of 3,000 people?

And maybe in the early days it was kind of hard to sort of decipher that. I think now, 24 years out, it’s not that hard to figure out who benefited. I know certainly who didn’t benefit. But I think that that’s something that the American public needs to start considering and start wondering why we have a government that’s not willing to hold people that are responsible for this nation’s worst terrorist attack accountable for their failures and for their, you know, in some ways, negligence, I believe criminal negligence and not stopping the attacks.

A Common View Among Insiders

TUCKER CARLSON: What’s interesting is that what you said is identical, as far as I know, to what an awful lot of people who are involved in 9/11 think now. You know, government officials who were, at whatever level were around the events, were making decisions based on the events, you know, who were right there.

They all kind of think what? As far as I know, having asked a lot, because we made this documentary series that you were nice enough to participate in, the view you just expressed is, like, very common. You’re not some lone wacko on the Internet at all, and you’ve been deeply involved in this for a quarter century.

But all these other people have reached the same conclusion. So why is no one saying this out loud?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I mean, I think that there’s an institutional block in saying it out loud. I think it’s exceedingly uncomfortable to think that there’s blood on the hands of the United States government and its intelligence community. And I think that, you know, there’s a long game here where the more time that passes, the less and less interested the American public is. Right.

TUCKER CARLSON: And not just the U.S. Government, by the way. I mean, I don’t know your views on this, but I can, I don’t know the answer. I would have put it in the doc series if we’d found out. But I just know for a fact that a lot of non-crazy, highly informed people think that the U.S. Government, parts of the CIA specifically, which saw its role expand, its funding expand, it won.

And also, you know, an allied government also got a lot out of this. Like that’s what they think. Why will no one say that?

The Saudi Connection and Other Foreign Allies

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah, I mean, I think it’s peculiar. I think that for me personally, my initial focus was on the U.S. Government failures. I was very interested in what the U.S. Government knew, why the attacks weren’t prevented. And you know, that was my original focus.

And then certainly we were sort of corralled into considering the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. That happened through, you know, confluence of things. The joint inquiry of Congress did an investigation. They left 28 pages blank, blacked out, redacted. And you know, the whisper campaign began that it was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that had a strong hand in the attacks. They logistically and financially supported the hijackers.

And you know, undoubtedly there’s information there that could support that scenario. There’s also historic facts that show that the U.S. intelligence community and the Saudis work together. You know, speaking here about Iran Contra, speaking here as well about the years in Afghanistan with the Mujahideen.

But then as years and years go by, you start to consider about other foreign allies that might have played a role. And what I think is most curious is the fact that we not only don’t call for an examination, a real examination of our own intelligence community, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, DIA, Defense Intelligence. There’s been no clarion call for that.

There has been somewhat of a drill and focus on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And yet there’s been nothing about the other ally in the region, which is Israel. And I think that that’s curious. I think that there are facts and circumstances that would warrant asking questions and asking what Israel knew about the hijackers’ time in the United States for the 18 months before 9/11.

And I think that there is, you know, some FBI 302s that talk about alleged Mossad agents, you know, filming near Ground Zero. There were a series of art students sort of shadowing the hijackers for the year before 9/11. You know, and I don’t understand why that information isn’t just offered up.

Like if no one did anything wrong, which is what everyone says, then why is that information not offered to the American public, in fact to the world, to just say, here’s everything we did, here’s what we knew, and here’s why we missed it. But instead of that, what you have is pretty much a cover up. And everything is shrouded in secrecy, everything is over classified. And to me that makes things look kind of suspicious.

The Richard Clarke Look Back

And so that’s what I would hope. I would hope that at this point we should declassify everything. And when I say everything, I mean, Richard Clarke did a look back. President Bush, like I think two days after 9/11, told Richard Clarke, who was head of counterterrorism, the counterterrorism czar, “Go back and look through the files, find out what we knew about this impending attack.”

Clarke did that. And then Bush said, you know what? Go 18 months. Now what’s curious about that is when you go 18 months from 9/11, you get to the millennium 2000, right? And that is the time period where only the two hijackers that are always talked about, you know, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi who came into the United States, the CIA knew that they were coming here.

They should have informed the FBI because the FBI does domestic surveillance of terrorists. But the CIA didn’t. The CIA withheld that information purposely. They knew that two known, identified Al Qaeda operatives were coming into the United States. They purposely did not tell the FBI.

Those two hijackers lived here for 18 months, planned, met up with the other hijackers, ultimately carried out the 9/11 attacks. In fact, those two hijackers were the ones that allegedly flew the plane into the Pentagon.

Having said that, so we have Richard Clarke’s look back, back all the way to the Millennium 2000. In addition to the two hijackers that came into the country at that point, we also had the arrest of Ahmed Ressam. He was picked up over the border coming into Seattle. Ressam was connected to the Al Qaeda cell that carried out 9/11.

So that happens in December of 1999. This is when Clinton is ending up his presidency. Actually, I’m sorry, December 1999, Clinton is in there full time. Berger is the National Security Advisor, Susan Rice is in there. They nab this guy, a terrorist coming across who’s on his way to LAX to blow up LAX. Okay, he gets caught.

January 15, these two hijackers come in that the CIA knows about into LAX, like literally two weeks after Ressam was planning on blowing up LAX. And they’re all connected back to the camps in Afghanistan. Yes, but again, the CIA doesn’t do anything. And apparently according to the official story, the CIA knows these two guys are coming here, the two hijackers, and just forgets about them. Doesn’t do anything. Okay.

A Possible Recruitment Operation

What I think happened is I think that the Clinton administration was like, this is not good. We have these two guys coming in. We need to do something. Let’s farm it out. We can’t trust the FBI. Let’s give it to some foreign intelligence to keep an eye on these guys and see what they’re up to.

Now if that happened, what we do then is we find out that the USS Cole bombing goes off in October of 2000. So that’s now nine months, 10 months after these guys come in. The CIA supposedly lost track of them, but they go and they carry out the Cole bombing overseas. Okay.

At that point, if the Clinton administration did put together this op, like, let’s try to recruit these hijackers. Let’s let the line out. Let’s see what we can learn. They’re listening into the al-Hada switchboard. At that point, 17 sailors die. You need to stop what you’re doing and you need to roll up the operation. You need to end it. And yet that didn’t happen.

So when President Bush, two days after 9/11, looks at his terrorism czar and says, “I want you to do a look back. I want you to get everything out of the files that were connected to this,” do you think Richard Clarke goes back to December of 1999 when they arrested Ressam? These two hijackers are coming into the country. He, Clinton, Berger, Tenet are sitting in a room and they’re like, what do we do? What should we do with this?

Do you think that that was in that review that Bush asked Richard Clarke to do two days after 9/11?

TUCKER CARLSON: I don’t know.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Neither do I. But don’t you think that the American public should know what Richard Clarke found?

TUCKER CARLSON: We’re sorry to say it, but this is not a very safe country. Walk through Oakland or Philadelphia. Yeah, good luck. So most people, when they think about this, want to carry a firearm. And a lot of us do. The problem is there can be massive consequences for that. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse.

Kyle Rittenhouse got off in the end, but he was innocent from the first moment. It was obvious someone’s on video and he was facing life in prison anyway. That’s what the anti-gun movement will do. They’ll throw you in prison for defending yourself with a firearm. And that’s why a lot of Americans are turning to Byrna.

It’s a proudly American company. Byrna makes self-defense launchers that hundreds of law enforcement departments trust. They sold over 600,000 pistols, mostly to private citizens who refused to be empty handed. These pistols, and I have one, fire rock hard kinetic rounds or tear gas rounds and pepper projectiles and they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away.

There are no background checks or no waiting periods. Byrna can ship it directly to your door. You can’t be arrested for defending yourself with a Byrna pistol. Visit byrna.com or your local Sportsman’s Warehouse to get yours today. Byrna.com.

So that’s never been released?

The Sandy Berger Document Theft

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: It’s never been released. And the other report, on what grounds? They just don’t release it. And Clarke did another report. Well, I’ll tell you why the second report can’t get released.

The second report that he did was the After Action Millennium Report. And that was they caught Ressam at the border and they, you know they have the two hijackers coming in to LAX, right? Same airport that Ressam was going to blow up. And Richard Clarke, Terrorism Czar, Clinton administration, draws up the Millennium After Action report.

That report is reportedly what Sandy Berger, former Clinton National Security Advisor, stole out of the National Archives, stuffed in his socks, permanently destroyed it. What would have been so important that Sandy Berger, who was I guess a fairly reputable former executive branch official, National Security Advisor, go to the National Archives and steal like I think seven sets of the Millennium After Action report?

Like what could have been in there that like he would have gone and done that?

TUCKER CARLSON: Meanwhile we got it destroyed Sandy Berger’s…

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Reputation did it though? Because he got community service.

TUCKER CARLSON: No, you’re absolutely right.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I mean like we have other people that leaked to the newspapers and they’re in jail, right?

TUCKER CARLSON: I mean so what do you think was in that?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I think it was the operation to try to recruit the very hijackers that ultimately carried out 9/11. And I think that that’s what they were covering up. And what’s interesting to me is that Berger got pinched during the Bush administration. It was actually during the Commission, the 9/11 Commission. And Berger said that he was going to look at the documents to refresh his memory.

What’s really interesting is that the Bush administration, who was highly political and run by Karl Rove, the strategist, never really caused a ruckus about it. They just sort of looked past it and let Sandy go do his community service. And to me that meant that whatever he took must have protected both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.

Because the silence and the absolute vacuum of Karl Rove going after Sandy Berger during a midterm election year kind of to me speaks to what he must have taken and whose mess he was really cleaning up.

Documents That Need to Be Released

So those are two documents that I think need to be released to the American public to shed some light on what could have been done to prevent the attacks. Richard Clarke’s look back two days after 9/11 that President Bush ordered and the Millennium After Action report.

Then we’ve got all of the NSA files. Now the NSA had been listening to the al-Hada switchboard from like 1996 on. So that’s a wealth of information, not only about 9/11, about the embassy bombings in East Africa, about the USS Cole bombing. I think that those files that have never been investigated, never been examined fully. Phil Zelikow, the staff director of the 9/11 Commission, just didn’t really see the need for it. Those should all be fully released.

I think the Inspector General’s report for the FBI failing to share information should be fully released to the public. No redactions. I think the CIA Inspector General report, I think the NSA’s, I don’t think they have an Inspector General. I think Treasury’s FinCEN.

TUCKER CARLSON: They don’t even bother.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: They don’t have to. I think those types of IG reports need to come out. The classified version. It’s now 25 years later. There’s no sources and methods. There’s no need to protect national security. There’s no Moussaoui trial. Those are all the things that we were always told. “We can’t tell you this information because it’ll hurt the Moussaoui trial or it’s sources and methods.”

TUCKER CARLSON: Seen that a lot.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: It’ll hurt the trial.

TUCKER CARLSON: Right.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: And I think that all of those things need to come out and be released. I think the 28 pages, the classified and unclassified versions without redactions need to come out. And I think the 9/11 Commission source files need to be fully available to the American public, ideally released to some sort of like DOGE-like staff who could digitize it and put in like some sort of, you know, like database searchable system so that the American public can actually search those files.

The problem with the 9/11 Commission source documents is that they’re almost impossible to look through. They’re all at the National Archives. What is digital is highly redacted and they’re impossible to find. There’s no finding aid that makes any sense. And I think that’s on purpose.

But those are the types of things that I think 25 years out, like why aren’t we getting them and why isn’t President Trump demanding their release?

Washington’s Open Secret

TUCKER CARLSON: I don’t understand except, of course, I do understand, which is that there’s something awful at the heart of this. I mean, that’s just so clearly true. We know that from the behavior of the people who are keeping the secret.

So in the decades that you’ve been dealing with U.S. government officials on the question of 9/11, have you ever gotten any indication from any of them off the record that this is not what it looks like? Have you ever talked to anyone who works for the U.S. Government who seems to understand that this is a, that there’s a big lie at the heart of this?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I mean, I think it’s the biggest open secret in Washington, D.C.

TUCKER CARLSON: Oh, is that true?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I feel like in many ways, like a lot of members of Congress know, I feel like certainly the intel committees know. And that kind of blows my mind.

TUCKER CARLSON: Because I feel like you’re sure of that?

The Airline Stabilization Bill and Capping Liability

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I mean, I’m not sure, but obviously they all have clearances. They have access to the files. Anyone could have gone in and read the 28 pages, the secret 28 pages. If you’re a member of Congress, you have clearance, you go into a SCIF, you’re allowed to read that. I don’t know why every member of Congress didn’t go and do that.

Frankly, if I was a member of Congress, I would have went and recited them on the congressional floor for the American public to hear.

TUCKER CARLSON: Go ahead and arrest me.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right. Well, I mean, it’s America first in my mind. Yes. And I don’t think we should protect any foreign ally or nation. If you’ve had a role and you could have prevented the murder of 3,000 people, the American public needs to know that and needs to make their own determination as to whether or not you have.

TUCKER CARLSON: Do you think that’s the heart of this, is protecting a foreign country?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I think it’s protecting a few foreign countries, probably. And I think it’s also protecting the United States intel community. I mean, there’s no doubt.

The Saudi Distraction Strategy

TUCKER CARLSON: So you said a couple of things I don’t want to let slip through the cracks. One, that from the very first days of the investigation into this Saudi, the kingdom, KSA King of Saudi Arabia was sort of steered toward you as a culprit.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Absolutely. They were like the usual suspect. Right. And isn’t that convenient? It’s like it was all Saudi all the time. Right. And so I bought that completely.

Well, and I mean, it’s what’s done. Right. You’re using, it’s distraction. It’s a totally political strategy to distract people from reality. Right. And so, and frankly, the Saudis aren’t completely innocent when it comes to, they have a lot of things that have happened in the past that would, you know, fit the bill for why they might be the usual suspect.

TUCKER CARLSON: But I think, you know, well, I don’t know. The Saudis are not into, no Arab monarchy is into regime change.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right.

TUCKER CARLSON: So anything having to do with the toppling of Saddam, they would not have been for that. It’s not how they see the world at all.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I would agree.

TUCKER CARLSON: They don’t like chaos in Saudi.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right. And I’m so for the war in Iraq. I don’t know how anyone could credibly explain that the kingdom did 9/11 because they wanted to queue up Iraq. I don’t think it makes any sense.

TUCKER CARLSON: They hate chaos. I mean, they’re long term stakeholders. It’s a monarchy.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right. And that’s what I ask a lot of people that are always like, the Saudis, the Saudis, the Saudis. I’m like, well, okay, but why? You know, for me, what would have been the motive? Why would the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wanted to attack the United States, kill 3,000 people? What was in it for them?

You know, if you’re an evildoer and you’re over in Saudi and you’re like, hey, let’s do this, what were they thinking they were going to get out of it? And realistically speaking, what did they get out of it? Right?

And from what I see is they’ve been tied up in litigation now for 24 years, being blamed for 9/11. And so, you know, I don’t know whether they did it or not. I don’t have access to the classified files. But I don’t think that they’re alone.

I think that there are other foreign governments that should also be examined. And I think it’s peculiar that for whatever reason there’s no questions about the other foreign governments. And to me that sticks out.

And it’s like, well, are we just being distracted with the kingdom? What about the kingdom and other foreign nations? What about the kingdom, other foreign nations and the US Government intelligence apparatus? Because, you know, there’s a reason why no one wants you asking those questions. And that in and of itself should raise the hair on the back of your neck.

“It’s Not Saudi We’re Protecting”

TUCKER CARLSON: It does. And I was slow to pick up any of this. I bought it completely until I was told by someone who’s a very knowledgeable person, works for the US Government. Like, it’s not Saudi we’re protecting. Whoa. That had never entered my tiny brain.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Someone said that to you?

TUCKER CARLSON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Someone who would know, would see in the documents. Someone said, yeah, yeah, we’re not. And I don’t know. I think of myself as above average in IQ, but apparently I’m not, because that had never entered my brain. I was like, really? What?

And I think it is because Saudi, like every American grows up with mixed feelings about Saudi clearly dominant in the energy markets. And that’s good for us. Has been good for us. Saudi Aramco’s good for us, but too foreign. Polygamy, beheadings, veiled women. Everything about it is just so far away and kind of scary that when somebody says it was the Saudis, you know, you’re like, yeah, probably Saudis. I don’t know. They seem weird, you know.

But it’s just dawning on me that maybe some of that but dawned on you early. This was being pushed on you, it was the Saudis.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Well, because it was really overt that it was being pushed on us.

TUCKER CARLSON: Really?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Well, I think so, yeah. I mean, we asked the lawyers to sue a whole slew of countries, you know, because I think that there were some fingerprints there for several countries. And we were told no, you know, not to.

TUCKER CARLSON: You’re told you couldn’t sue foreign countries?

Other Countries With Fingerprints

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah, certain ones that I wanted to sue. You know, the reality is all of the financing for the hijackers flew through Dubai. I was like, why aren’t we suing the Emirates? Pakistan? I was like, why aren’t we going after Pakistan?

I’m not saying that they had a hand in either of those countries. Had a hand in it, but I was like, why aren’t we at least looking into it?

And I think one of the biggest frustrations for me is the US Government’s Department of Justice’s failure, abject failure to prosecute anyone. The US Government didn’t investigate anything. They didn’t look into Saudi. They didn’t really credibly look into UAE. They didn’t look into Pakistan. They did nothing.

They literally have not to this day successfully and fully prosecuted anyone for the 9/11 attacks. How is that possible? 3,000 people were murdered. If you’re a U.S. attorney, your job is to go out and investigate that murder and prosecute people, have a grand jury, hold people accountable, put them in jail.

You’re telling me that with all of the money that flew in and out of this country connected to the hijackers, there wasn’t one bank account. There wasn’t one stock trade that you could drill down on and find out that someone had foreknowledge. And if they had foreknowledge, well, how the hell do they have the foreknowledge?

TUCKER CARLSON: If you watch this show, you know that we love PureTalk. It is amazing wireless service with absolutely the best prices. And all the time we’ve been telling you about Pure Talk, we’ve never seen an offer like the one we’re about to describe. And here it is. Unlimited talk, text, data with a 30 gig hotspot for just $29.95 per month. Not just this month, every month for life.

This is PureTalk’s top tier plan. $29.95 a month. You’ll save over 50% a month, every month for your entire life. And you stay in the exact same 5G network that Verizon and AT&T offer but for $1,600 a year cheaper for a family of four. That’s why it’s provable by the way. This isn’t some false claims, not disinformation, it’s real.

Pure Talk’s customer service meanwhile is located in the United States, not in Bangladesh. Nothing against Bangladesh, but you’re talking to Americans, you can understand, they can switch you in just minutes. You keep your phone, keep your number and you start saving in a really big way.

Unlimited for life. $29.95 a month. This is a short term offer, long term consequences, short term offer. PureTalk.com/Tucker to switch today. PureTalk.com/Tucker to Switch to America’s wireless Pure Talk. Taxes and fees not included. Go to the site to get all the details. But those are the basics.

You know, that’s the case on 9/11. It’s also the case with Charlie Kirk’s murder. You know, it was, people had foreknowledge because they bragged about it online on X. And those people have not been arrested. I don’t know that they’ve been questioned by the way. Maybe they have been, I just don’t know. I’ve asked, can’t quite get an answer there.

But I know on 9/11 there were stock trades that proved foreknowledge of the airlines, of the banks in the buildings that were hit. And the US government said yeah, we know who did those, we executed those trades but we were not going to tell you.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Isn’t that unbelievable?

TUCKER CARLSON: What is that?

The Failure of the Department of Justice

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: That’s what I’m saying, how unbelievable. And so what happened is when the US government doesn’t take it upon itself to have a prosecution to have an investigation, it’s left to the victims families to hire lawyers and do it on their own.

And you’re really hamstrung to do that. You’re talking about a terrorist attack where all the documents are classified. It’s all held by the government. Everything that you need to learn about your case to build your case is in the government’s hands. And the government refuses to give you that information.

And so we’re kind of left in this limbo where the US Government didn’t do its job to prevent the attacks. Then the Department of Justice after 9/11 didn’t do its job to prosecute or hold anyone accountable and provide justice to the murdered victims families.

And so the murdered victims families turned to the civil litigation process, which, if everyone remembers O.J., you know, it was what Nicole Simpson’s family had to do. You know, it’s kind of a shitty second. Yeah, it’s really not helpful.

And so that’s what we were relegated to. And then those attorneys, not all of them, but many of them, were just unwilling, first of all, they were unwilling to sue the US Government. And I asked, I’ve got the emails to prove it. And then I asked, why were they…

TUCKER CARLSON: Unwilling to sue the US Government?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: They just told, first they told us we weren’t allowed to, which is not true because in the wake of the last 20 years, you see the Emanuel Church family suing, you see the Fort Hood families suing, you are allowed to sue the U.S. government.

Our attorneys initially told us that we couldn’t. Of course, we were also forced into what the government did, which was the Victim’s Compensation Fund, which was retroactively taking away our right to sue by capping liability levels from 9/11.

So what happened was 9/11 happens. The towers collapse. The country is worried about being destabilized. The economy is going to crater.

TUCKER CARLSON: The airlines.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: So supposedly Congress swept in heroically and created the airline stabilization bill. And I don’t know how they wrote that bill because it’s pretty precise, but yet somehow they wrote it in like nine days.

And in doing so, retroactively capped liability levels for anyone, for the airlines, for the city of New York. Later, like two months later, President Bush capped the liability levels for Boeing Airlines.

And essentially the widows and kids were left being told, you’re not going to be able to sue because there’s not enough money to pay you. There were so many people killed, there’s just not enough money. So you’re going to have to go into this victim’s compensation Fund run by this special master, and you’ll be paid an amount of money and it’s no fault, and go away.

And, you know, as an American citizen, a lawyer, I was like, wait a minute. You’re not allowed to take away someone’s right to sue after the murder. That’s not how it works. And yet we weren’t given a choice. It was shoved down our throats. And so that’s what we were left with.

TUCKER CARLSON: And the legislation that created this was written in nine days.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Like nine days.

TUCKER CARLSON: So you’re…

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: And it’s pretty comprehensive.

TUCKER CARLSON: You’re a lawyer, as you just said, how hard would it be to write? So you can take the first three days off because it’s right after 9/11, the country’s in chaos.

“How Can We Capitalize on This Opportunity?”

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I don’t know. Condi Rice, immediately after 9/11, is sitting with the National Security Council. And I was like, how can we capitalize on this opportunity?

TUCKER CARLSON: So she said that.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: She said that. Capitalize on this opportunity. The pile was still burning. And she’s, how can we capitalize on this opportunity? My head split in half when I read that quote. Literally, I just was like, she’s been rewarded.

TUCKER CARLSON: She runs Hoover. Close friend of Philip Zelikow’s.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Exactly.

TUCKER CARLSON: Yeah. So the…

The Victims Compensation Fund and Legal Limitations

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: So my point is, we were not allowed to. First of all, the US Government did nothing. We were relegated to this fund that was, quote unquote, no fault. There was going to be no trials, no investigation, no hearing, no discovery, no cross examination, no jury.

And so what we were allowed to do was to sue the co-conspirators. But again, the US Government didn’t go after any, quote unquote, co-conspirators. They threw them all down at Guantanamo and waterboarded them, tortured them. So there’s no going after them, right?

And so we were left with the civil litigation system. Lawyers, many of whom were aviation attorneys. One group is former tobacco, big tobacco attorneys. And they were willing to go after the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the rest of these entities. Whether it was a foreign government, Emirates, Pakistan, or the US Government, we were told no can do.

TUCKER CARLSON: What about Israel?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: That would have never come up.

TUCKER CARLSON: Why?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I don’t know. That’s what I’m saying. To me, when you’re not asking very pragmatic, obvious questions and people don’t even ask the question, or if you do ask the question, you just sort of get shut down. To me, that makes me suspicious, right?

Like, why aren’t we going after those countries? Why isn’t my country looking into those countries and what they knew, and yet there’s never been an interest. And I think that that’s suspicious.

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, by definition. By definition, I mean, science and law enforcement have one thing in common. Every possibility has to be considered, maybe immediately discarded. But if you don’t consider a possibility, then you’re clearly not working to get the truth, right?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: You’re not doing your job.

Government Failures on the Day of 9/11

TUCKER CARLSON: You’re covering something up, not trying to illuminate it. Yeah, again, by definition, I can’t let this pass. I don’t want to forget to ask you about it. At the outset of our conversation, you said not only did the US Government fail to protect the country, but they did nothing to mitigate the effects of the crime once it happened. Something like that. What does that mean?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right. So not only did they fail to prevent the attacks from happening, which Tom Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission, clearly said the 9/11 attacks one hundred percent could have and should have been prevented. There was enough information in the pipeline for it to be stopped on a number of occasions.

It’s not just one instance, several instances where the plot could have been unraveled, stopped. Three thousand lives saved. Okay. Or at least the attack delayed in enough time to learn more and really stop the ultimate attack. That’s number one.

But on the day of 9/11, the US Government did absolutely nothing in a defensive posture to mitigate the damage of the attacks. What does that mean?

First and foremost, my husband was on the 94th floor of the second tower. He called me after the first building was hit and he’s like, “I don’t want you to worry. It’s not my building. Don’t worry.” And I said, “What’s going on?” I’m truncating the story. And he said, “They’re telling us to stay at our desks.”

Well, an elevator in the World Trade Center went top to bottom in a minute’s time. If at 8:58 the Port Authority and the companies didn’t tell people like my husband to stay at their desks and told them to evacuate, those people would have gotten below the zone of impact and survived in the second tower.

In my opinion, there is no excuse for any loss of life in the second building. And in the first building, the only loss of life should have been above the impact zone. Okay? That’s one way that lives could have been saved and damage could have been mitigated.

The Air Quality Cover-Up

Number two, Christie Todd Whitman told the rescue workers, all of New York, that the air was safe to breathe. We were told early on when people caught that we were, the Jersey Girls were fighting and trying to get the truth. We were told that the sniffers that were put around Ground Zero, they’re supposed to be at a certain height above the ground to sniff the air. They were above the point where they were supposed to be, so that the air that they were testing wasn’t the actual air that people were breathing.

Okay, another prime example, the air was not safe to breathe. I don’t know what was used in those attacks, but I know that it’s caused a lot of cancer. Okay.

TUCKER CARLSON: But I think that’s pretty much proven at this point.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I think it’s pretty much proven. And so when the US Government goes and tells thousands of people, I think at this point there’s seventy thousand, that the air was safe to breathe, they’re responsible for that. All of those people have been injured and harmed. Some of them have died since then.

That is an example of devastation, illness, disease that could have been stopped, might not have even ever happened if the US Government did its job.

The Failure to Scramble Fighter Jets

The biggest one that I think speaks to what doesn’t make a lot of sense is the scrambling of the jets. So on the day of 9/11, there were a series of procedures and protocols in place for hijacking of planes. And the North American Air Defense, NORAD, scrambles jets.

So what happens is, people forget, but in the seventies, there were a lot of hijackings.

TUCKER CARLSON: Oh, of course. To Cuba.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah, exactly. And they were kind of commonplace. I’ve read a couple of articles recently where an Eastern plane was hijacked. Everyone was chill about it. They just served cocktails. And you went to Cuba, which is kind of surreal.

TUCKER CARLSON: Which is 90 miles out of your way.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah. It was like there were no fatalities. Free booze, right? And they were just kind of a nuisance. And the pilots were chill about it and whatever. And so were the flight attendants. Everyone was trained.

But regardless, what happened was a couple of things. Number one, they started the sky marshal program, which required that if there was something suspicious about someone going on a plane, a sky marshal, whose job it was to keep an eye on things and keep the plane safe, was on the plane.

So the other thing that happened was that they had a protocol that F-16s, if there is a hijacking or the suspicion of a hijacking, were supposed to be scrambled to go up to meet the plane and to do a series of things to sort of find out if it isn’t a hijacking and to stop it, to thwart it, to threaten, whatever.

Okay, well, on 9/11, for some reason, the first plane, Flight 11, was confirmed hijacked at 8:14 in the morning. 8:14. And the planes did not scramble, according to the 9/11 Commission, until after the Pentagon was hit at 9:38. So that’s an hour and 20 minutes.

Typically, historically speaking, the F-16s scramble within a few minutes. They’re up airborne at full speed. And the saying back in the day was that if you had a plane that was not behaving normally, you’d find an F-16 on your tail within 10 minutes. That was actually a bit of grace. It was really five to six minutes.

And for some bizarre reason, on the morning of September 11, those F-16s didn’t get up in time. More to the point, the air bases where there were F-16 squadrons that could have gone and intercepted the errant planes on 9/11, they didn’t call the F-16s from there. They called them from bases that were further away.

A perfect example, McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey had F-16s. They brought the planes from Otis, which was 200 miles away from the city and away from the planes. Down in D.C., instead of running the F-16s out of Andrews, they ran them out of, I can’t think of the name of it, but out of Maryland instead.

And so what happened was the planes were hijacked and just allowed to crash into the buildings with no interception.

Flight 93 and the Shoot-Down Order

TUCKER CARLSON: Except for the final plane, Flight 93 over Pennsylvania. A number of eyewitnesses, many eyewitnesses, saw military aircraft near that plane.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yep, they did.

TUCKER CARLSON: So what was that?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I don’t know. I mean, obviously there’s talk that it was shot down.

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, Dick Cheney gave the order.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: He did give the order.

TUCKER CARLSON: Right. And then they said, “But we didn’t actually do it.” And then there was a very elaborate story about what happened inside the plane, and kind of a heartwarming, wonderful story. The protagonist was called Todd Beamer, and he, “Let’s roll,” and rolled a drink cart against the…

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: It’s a heroic story.

TUCKER CARLSON: It is. It’s a wonderful story. And they made a movie about it and all this stuff. But that was celebrated, and it should be celebrated. It’s a great story attacking anybody, of course. But it did have the feeling of, “We’re going to make this into a great story.”

And it did make me wonder, whatever happened, that shoot down the plane order and there were military aircraft next to the plane, what should we think about that?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah, I mean, I think that you could drill down on that, go to Otis Air Force Base and get the files, find out when those F-16s left, if they were armed and if they came back with the same amount of missiles that they left with. It’s not that hard to figure out. You could test the soil.

TUCKER CARLSON: Has anyone done that?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I don’t know. I don’t know if anyone’s asked. If you don’t ask, you don’t get. But I know that there were eyewitnesses at the crash at 93 that said that it was unlike any crash scene that they’d ever seen, that there was no fuselage, that there was no evidence of the plane seats, of luggage. It was just a black hole.

I read a lot of books and I’m really good at going to used book sales and finding old books. And there’s a lot of 9/11 books that you can pick up at used book sales. And one of them is a group of reporters that put a book together with their photos and their recollection from the day of 9/11.

And I read with great interest the two sections of that book, one on the Pentagon and one on Flight 93. Because when you read these reporters’ information about both crash sites and what they experienced that day, it doesn’t really match up to what we’ve been told.

TUCKER CARLSON: Can you give me an example?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Sure. Like I said, the crash site in Shanksville. These reporters had seen airplane crash sites before. They’ve reported on them. They’re mainstream reporters. And they just said it was really curious. There was no visible sign of a plane anywhere. There were no engines, there were no seatbacks, there was no luggage, there was no nothing.

I will say I think that was one of the planes where they did find a passport. The eyewitnesses that were literally there, they came from Pittsburgh, I think, and got to the scene quite early. And then suddenly federal agents came and pushed them all back, pushed them all back, took film, took cameras, what have you. I think that that’s curious. So that raises questions, what happened?

Questions About the Pentagon Attack

And I think the Pentagon is obviously a really good question. I think that we’ve been told that Hani Hanjour, the hijacker that flew that plane, was responsible for what is considered in pilot circles an extraordinary maneuver. And Hani Hanjour, a month or two before 9/11, almost got kicked out of flight school because he was that incompetent. He didn’t speak English.

How someone like that would have been able to pull off that maneuver, putting aside the fact that the air defense that was on top of the Pentagon and at the White House also didn’t lock onto the plane and shoot it down, or they weren’t even… There’s no evidence whatsoever that any of the missiles that were on top of the Pentagon, defense missiles that were designed to protect the Pentagon from anything, they didn’t go off. And neither did the ones at the White House. I think that that’s kind of weird.

I also think it’s weird we had a real long conversation with the commission about the lack of radar evidence of Flight 77 from the Kentucky-Ohio border all the way back to the Pentagon. I remember the call quite vividly. And we were told that in all of history before and the time after, there has never been an anomaly in the radar.

Just by way of background, the United States has several layers of radar. Everything from traffic radar all the way up. And yet this, 12 or 13 layers of radar coverage, was this anomaly. It all broke down at one time. Every single system completely just didn’t work. From the time that Flight 77 flew from the Kentucky-Ohio border to the Pentagon, there’s no evidence of it whatsoever.

TUCKER CARLSON: And so there’s no radar image at all of Flight 77 flying toward the…

Flight 77’s Disappearance Over the Ohio-Kentucky Border

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Pentagon, not from the Ohio-Kentucky border, which is where the last Louisville area was when they picked it up again. And I think what’s interesting is that initially, Flight 77, three things happened to that plane at the Ohio-Kentucky border. And typically, historically speaking, when those three things happen, it’s always an airplane crash.

So the first thing that happened was the transponder was disengaged. The second thing that happened was the primary radar of that plane went away. Primary radar is when radar waves hit an object in the sky, if it’s a bird, if it’s a plane, what have you, and it bounces back.

So at this one place over the Ohio-Kentucky border, the transponder disconnected and the skin radar for Flight 77 disappeared, which means it was no longer in the sky. And then the third thing that is really odd is that the ELT went off, the pinger, and that only ever usually goes off if there’s a catastrophic emergency on the plane.

TUCKER CARLSON: It went off not at the Pentagon, but at the Kentucky-Ohio border.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right. With the transponder and the actual primary skin radar disappearing off the scope. And so simultaneously to that, there are reports in the police reports from the area that there was a plane crash.

TUCKER CARLSON: There was a plane crash where?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: In the Ohio-Kentucky border where all those three things happened. It was pinpointed and there was a plane crash there. And the state police were rushing towards the crash.

TUCKER CARLSON: There were reports of that.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah, there are actually police reports that you can read. And then at the very same time, in the Situation Room, it was also reported that Flight 77, or a plane that they thought was Flight 77, crashed at the Kentucky-Ohio border. And then subsequent to that, the commission came out and said, “No, no, no, that was just false reporting.”

TUCKER CARLSON: But that happens to be the last place it was seen on radar.

The Pentagon Strike and Missing Evidence

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: And then, of course, if you look at the FBI photos, there’s a bunch of theories out there, conspiracy theories or what have you. It doesn’t look like a plane hit the Pentagon. You look at it, it looks like a punched hole. And Flight 77 was a rather large plane. There were no plane parts. There was no fuselage. The jet engines weren’t on the outside of the Pentagon.

And the footage shows that whatever pierced the Pentagon sort of like leapfrogged and crisscrossed, which kind of defies the rules of physics. But again, if you raise these questions, if you ask these questions, you’re immediately shut down as a conspiracy theorist. But the facts are the facts. You can look at a photo.

On top of it, the Pentagon, our home of our defense, there’s no video footage of the plane, except for a gas station video that has been partially released to the American public. How is that possible? How is there no other footage of the plane flying into that building? It doesn’t make any sense.

So why 24 years out? Why don’t we just get all that information? Why won’t it just be released to the American public to sort of shut down these theories, to clarify what happened, and to give the families an understanding of how the nation was not only attacked, but how our Department of Defense did nothing in its own defense while under attack?

I don’t understand how that happened. And there was no need to really ream some people out. If you’re the President and your Pentagon just got attacked, wouldn’t you be like, “Where the f* were you guys? What happened? Where were the air-to-surface missiles?”

TUCKER CARLSON: You’re literally the Pentagon.

The Failure of Air Defense

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah, you’re the Pentagon, the Defense Department. But that’s what I’m saying. And it’s not like the Defense Department was hit first, it was hit third, an hour and 20 minutes after the first confirmed hijack of Flight 11. How is that possible?

And if it did happen, why didn’t heads roll? Why wasn’t our entire government petrified? Here we are for years fighting the Great Bear Russia and we’ve got NORAD and fighter jets and we’re worried about nukes coming in. And somehow some non-English speaking, incompetent Al Qaeda operative who couldn’t even fly a Cessna, let alone a jumbo jet, is able to pull off a fighter pilot maneuver and fly, I don’t know, 15 feet off the ground into the side of the Pentagon.

But meanwhile there’s no radar track, there’s no evidence of it. We’re just told that that’s what happened and it’s the Pentagon. I don’t understand how we were attacked at our Department of Defense and President Bush wasn’t outraged, but they didn’t want any investigation.

And keep in mind that the Joint Intelligence Committee that did investigate was only investigating intelligence community failures. That’s the NSA, the FBI and the CIA. They weren’t investigating the failure of the Department of Defense to defend itself on the day of 9/11 or the actual crime.

TUCKER CARLSON: I mean just the mechanics of the crime itself as presented to us, the public, hard to understand. And I don’t have any secret theory, I would just say it if I did. But they’re telling us that these guys who were not pilots, who went to flaky flight schools in Florida or Arizona or wherever and didn’t do very well, as you noted, in fact did so badly that they alerted local law enforcement, like what is this?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: That’s how bad they were. They stuck out like they were so grossly incompetent that the flight school were like, “What is going on here?”

The Implausible Hijacking Scenario

TUCKER CARLSON: But they murder the pilots of these planes. This is a story and maybe it’s true, I have no idea, but it’s hard to understand it. So they murder the pilots and the planes flying in the other direction. They’re not American, in at least one case, they don’t speak English and they somehow turn the planes around and then go to the precise side of the Pentagon, to the twin towers in lower Manhattan. Was the idea that they programmed that into the computer or how does that work?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I don’t know. I don’t know how they even got the pilots out of their seats to take control of the plane. Again, a cockpit is a small place. The pilot and co-pilot are in their seats, they’re flying the plane. The hijackers, according to the official story, burst into the cockpit. They decapitate, that’s the official story. The official story is that they were decapitated.

And so then they had to lift those bodies out of those seats, not to be macabre, and then jump into those seats and fly the plane. But I don’t know how that works. I do know that at 30,000 feet there aren’t street signs. So when you take over a plane at 30,000 feet somewhere over the United States of America, I don’t know how you know which way to turn. I don’t know how you know where the Pentagon is.

I mean, I know it looks like a Pentagon, but when you’re 30,000 feet up and you’re over Kentucky, how do you know which direction to go to find the Pentagon? Because according to the official story, the hijackers were not communicating with the ground.

Typically when planes navigate across the United States, they must communicate with the ground. You check in with different sectors and when you cross over the sector, that’s how everyone knows where that particular plane is. That didn’t happen on 9/11 when the hijackers took over. And somehow the planes were able to navigate exactly to their precise target.

Coupling that with the fact that the hijackers were just grossly incompetent, they didn’t speak English and just sort of, the story itself, I don’t understand. These hijackers were little guys. How did they get the pilots and co-pilots out of the cockpit area, get in the seats, clean up all the mess from the violence, and then fly the plane? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

The Cell Phone Calls and Official Narrative

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Our understanding of what happened, again comes from the 9/11 Commission telling us what happened and comes from the cell phone calls that gave an awful lot of information about the hijackers. And again there’s been a lot of talk about how that was possible. When planes are flying at 30,000 feet, how in 2001 was there able to be a connected cell phone call?

More to the point, when the planes are being flown sort of haphazardly and herky-jerky, and the way cell phones work is they connect from towers to the ground. Well, when a plane is moving all over the airspace and flying at maximum speed, it’s really rare for a cell phone to connect at 5,000 feet, let alone 30,000 feet.

And so that raises questions. Our entire understanding of what took place on those planes literally comes from the cell phone calls. We asked the FBI about that, and we didn’t really get any clear answers. And to this day, we still don’t have many clear answers.

TUCKER CARLSON: But you don’t have clear answers about pretty central questions.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Exactly.

TUCKER CARLSON: These are not ancillary questions. These are the most basic. Like, how’d they do that?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I mean, my biggest…

TUCKER CARLSON: You don’t know?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: No, we don’t know. My biggest questions, aside from the cell phones and what have you and how the hijackers themselves were actually able to navigate from the middle of nowhere to the precise targets that they went to when they were so grossly incompetent and not speaking to the ground, my biggest question is, where was our air defense?

I know as a fact because I read all the rules and the procedures and protocols back in the day. Those F-16s should have been up within five minutes. They should have been flanking those planes, and they should have stopped those planes. And at the bare minimum, they should have been communicating down to the ground, the F-16 pilots, to say, “We can’t get these guys to stop,” and put people on alert.

But for some reason, three planes were allowed to be hijacked over the course of almost an hour and a half, and the United States of America did nothing to stop it. So putting aside all the failures to prevent the attacks for the 18 months, two years before 9/11, you look at the day of. And we get back to your original question. How could the devastation have been mitigated?

One simple way is that if the F-16s had done their job, had done what they were trained to do, which, by the way, there’s also evidence that there was a drill, a military drill on the day of 9/11 about a plane being hijacked and flown into a building. These F-16 pilots are trained to do that. That was the procedure and the protocol. For some reason on 9/11, it didn’t happen at all.

The “Fog of War” Excuse

TUCKER CARLSON: You’ve asked these questions, I assume, to members of Congress.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: We were told that it was the fog of war. That’s what we were told.

TUCKER CARLSON: That was the answer. But at some point, the rest of us were watching this on TV. So I mean, clearly whoever’s commanding those aircraft knew that this was happening. Also. Everyone knew. I mean, I was here, you were here.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right.

TUCKER CARLSON: Did the person who prevented those planes from taking off ever get punished? Did anyone get punished?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: No one’s ever been punished. I think the commission’s, we like to say that the Commission’s finding was everyone was at fault, therefore no one is at fault.

TUCKER CARLSON: Right. And so we’re all guilty.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: But again, 3,000 people were murdered. And I think that my husband was one of them. And I don’t understand. I go back to the rule of law. We are a democracy. We are a nation founded upon the rule of law. How has our entire legal system failed the 9/11 widows and children? How has the Department of Justice failed the widows and children? Not only before 9/11, on 9/11.

And I’ll tell you something in the wake of 9/11, because if there is one entity that has re-victimized and horribly treated the 9/11 widows and children, it is our Department of Justice, and they should be held accountable for what they have done.

TUCKER CARLSON: Interesting. I want to hear that story because I can tell you know a lot about it and you’re passionate about it. But before we get to that, just one last question about the day of, about 9/11 itself. What was Building 7?

Building 7 Questions

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: So I’m full disclosure. I have always focused my studies and research and expertise, if you want to say that, on the intelligence failures. Yes, I did watch your series. I listened to it. I didn’t watch it. I don’t like to watch myself. And I do know Building 7. There’s a lot of talk that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. I think that there needs to be some questions to Special Ops as to whether or not as way of fact that any bombs were planted in the couches of that building.

TUCKER CARLSON: The couches?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: The couches.

Building 7 and the Couches

TUCKER CARLSON: What does that mean? A couch? Like you sit on a couch.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah.

TUCKER CARLSON: Why do you say couches?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: You know, listen, over the years we’ve had people that came and approached us and tried to give us information. All kinds of different people, I bet. And I think that one of the things that needs to be examined is Building 7. I think that hard questions need to be asked as to how and why that building fell.

TUCKER CARLSON: So why do you say couches?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I just happened to wonder if bombs were planted in the couches by Special Ops.

TUCKER CARLSON: You happen to wonder. That’s not something you would arrive at just sort of randomly. The couches. Everyone talks about the columns and the fireproofing, but you’re saying so obviously you.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I don’t know. I mean, listen, like I said, we had a lot of people approach us. We had air traffic controller people in the beginning we had a former Iranian give us information. We had Able Danger guys come to us.

TUCKER CARLSON: I bet you did.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: We had foreign governments try to give us stuff. We had death threats. We had all kinds of stuff. So, you know, I’m just throwing that out. Building 7. That’s what I could say. It’s not my area. It’s not what I focused on.

TUCKER CARLSON: I get it. I totally get it.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: It is a total anomaly that that happened. It doesn’t make any sense to me. And what’s interesting is like, it’s something that I had never studied before and you know, it’s true. Like it’s kind of odd. And I think that we should get some answers.

TUCKER CARLSON: The couches. Okay, sorry, I’m going to.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Couches.

TUCKER CARLSON: Yeah. No, it’s just such a resound.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I don’t know, nothing.

TUCKER CARLSON: Yeah, no, I get it. But clearly, you know, you were a kind of clearinghouse for this stuff.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah.

TUCKER CARLSON: Just because of your role for those people who weren’t around or don’t remember, you were.

Intelligence Failures and Warnings Ignored

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: No, I mean, like one of the things that sticks out to me that we had heard, one of the nicer. Sometimes you hear information that I believe is sort of like a limited hangout or to try to like explain the real story but like soften it. And so one of the things that we heard is like, yeah, we were following, but you know, we thought it was going to be November 9th instead of September 11th. We reversed the numbers and I was like, oh, that’s interesting. You know, so you were following them or you weren’t following them or you’re on the practice runs, were you? Not on the practice runs, but that was one of the stories that we had heard from like a source that like, yeah, like they were getting followed. We were, you know, but we thought it was going to be 11/9, not 9/11.

That doesn’t really make a lot of sense because we had the NSA listening into the conversations between bin Laden and the other operatives. And as everybody knows now because Senator Hatch leaked some of the information that like “tomorrow is zero hour,” you know, “the big wedding,” “it’s two sticks and an upside down birthday cake.” I think that there was plenty of information out there to let people know that it was actually 9/11.

And more to the point, one thing that gets skipped over often, my understanding is that Ramzi Yousef, the ’93 bomber, his fifth anniversary of his conviction was September 11, 2001. And if you know anything about Al Qaeda, if you study Al Qaeda, they like anniversaries. And so to me, I think that for whatever reason, the attacks weren’t stopped. The American public wasn’t properly notified or warned.

Certainly there are people inside the government that were probably given warnings. I think there’s evidence of that. I just wish that. Yeah, I just wish that my family had known, because when my husband called me, I would have been like, holy shit, get the f* out. Like, get out. This is not a bad pilot. As the president said, this is it. Like, get out of that building. You know, it was already a target. The people that worked in that building knew it was a target.

I think it’s interesting that the women, many of the women that worked in my husband’s firm, survived. And I point to women’s intuition. The women were just like, I’m getting the f* out of here. And they survived and my husband didn’t. And I feel like if the public was made more aware over the summer that Director Tenet’s hair was on fire and that we were in the crosshairs and that there was an impending attack because we had warnings from Germany, Russia, Israel, Jordan, our own intel community’s surveillance of these cells. I think many, many more lives would have been saved. I think, frankly, the attacks would have been 100% prevented.

The Systemic Cover-Up

TUCKER CARLSON: Yeah. So I think it’s entirely fair to ask. Since they weren’t prevented and since they’ve been covered up with maximum aggression for 25 years, they’re still being covered up.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Systemic cover up.

TUCKER CARLSON: Systemic cover up, that’s correct. Very extensive cover up. I mean, that’s not a gap so big.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I think the cover up is so big that, like, you couldn’t even hold accountable to people that have covered it up. And honestly, the other limited hangout answer to that would be like, well, we were told that we couldn’t tell you the truth because it was a matter of national security, always. And isn’t that convenient?

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, sure, but I mean, this was the, you know, greatest violation of national security in my lifetime. So it doesn’t really make sense as an argument, but. But because all of that of national.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Security, like the Department of Defense, an hour and a half later gets attacked and no heads roll. Does that make any sense to you?

TUCKER CARLSON: No. So I think it’s totally fair to ask who benefited from it at that point. I think it’s totally fair. In fact, I think it’s mandatory to ask that question. And there should be prosecutions, 100%. How would you. You’re a lawyer. How would you do. How would you structure the response now?

The Need for a Truth Commission

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah, I mean, I love that you want the commission I think that.

TUCKER CARLSON: I don’t know if that’s the right answer. I just want people I. to know the truth.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah. And I think that that’s a truth commission is a great idea. I think that I would like it tweaked a little bit. I’d like a special prosecutor with a full time, fully empaneled grand jury ready to issue indictments. I’d like the offer of immunity to anyone. Immunity and anonymity for anyone who comes forward with information on, you know, the failures and the day to day of, like, what happened. And I think people should go to jail and I think people that covered it up should be held accountable. And I think the families deserve answers. And I.

TUCKER CARLSON: Who wouldn’t want that? I mean, I think if, if, if Donald Trump announced what you just said tomorrow, I’m just imagining this scene on X, on social media. Like, who would be opposed to that, do you think?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right, everybody.

TUCKER CARLSON: I know exactly who would be opposed to that. I know exactly which commentators would have a fit if he did that. And so what does that tell you?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: But then explain to me how President Trump put together a joint terrorism task force for the October 7th victims. He put together, Pam Bondi, led it, a task force to find everyone who was responsible for October 7th. And yet he ran on America First. And I was like, wait, I’m sorry, could we get a 9/11 task force? It’s going to be the 25th year. For the 25th, could you appoint a 9/11 task force? We have DOGE. How about DOGE, right. How about the Department of Government Accountability? And why don’t you put that together and have the DOGE guys get the access to the information, throw it into AI, whatever they do, and figure out who’s responsible and what really happened.

TUCKER CARLSON: You know exactly what would happen.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: What?

TUCKER CARLSON: Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, there would be a lot of people have to answer really hard questions. And I don’t, you know, I don’t.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: But I think that the American public is owed that.

TUCKER CARLSON: Are you kidding? Yes.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: And, you know, 3,000 people were massacred and the families are owed the truth and the families are owed, you know, proper compensation for our losses. We have not been properly taken care of. We were railroaded. How’s that?

TUCKER CARLSON: Okay, so now I want to get into the DOJ. Thank you for indulging my. All my many questions. I still want to ask you off camera about the couches. What the hell does that mean? Sorry, I’m not going to push you. Yeah, well, it means something, clearly. Okay, you’ve had problems with the DOJ.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I want to just say this. Anyone who knows anything about the couches in Building 7 and the planning of explosives should get immediate immunity and anonymity if they come forward with the information.

TUCKER CARLSON: Of course, of course. This is all.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: And if there is no one, then no one gets immunity.

TUCKER CARLSON: Not a problem.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right.

The Importance of Truth

TUCKER CARLSON: I never, never understood, like, what’s the problem with finding out what the truth is about anything? I don’t understand. And there is a certain persistent chorus of the same people, hysterical people, telling you that you’re not allowed to ask this or talk about that. And it’s like, why are you saying that? I mean, look, I understand and I’m not for, you know, hounding people, attacking them. I don’t think you should slander people. These are the slanderers, by the way, who are insistent, by the way, that you’re not as messages. But whatever, I get it. Don’t be impolite. Don’t make a scene for no reason.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: But I, I, but in this case.

TUCKER CARLSON: 3,000 people said it’s totally fair. What the hell.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: The truth is really important everywhere, all the time. But when 3,000 people are murdered. Yeah, we’re owed an investigation.

TUCKER CARLSON: Oh, you radical.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: No, right. I mean, we’re owed. Where is the justice system?

TUCKER CARLSON: Oh, I agree.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: And it’s unbelievable the stories that I could tell you about how we’ve been treated by our own Department of Justice.

TUCKER CARLSON: Okay, would you know then I want you to tell me those stories. And let’s take a quick break right now. Midway.

The Victims Compensation Fund

So we’re back. We took a quick break, I should say. It’s the last day of October and we’re in a northern climate and it’s freezing. So I went and put my highly unattractive vest in on. That explains the costume change. Anyway, you were on the cusp of explaining your, what you describe as mistreatment by the Department of Justice and related agencies and law firms.

Can I just give you the two sentence understanding that I have? So the United States has set aside a huge amount of taxpayer money to compensate the victims of terror, all terror attacks, 9/11 being of course, the biggest and most famous of all terror attacks in American history. So I’m a little surprised. And I think that’s true. Correct. There’s a big pile of money, taxpayer money. But you said the victims of 9/11, the spouses, surviving, children, have been undercompensated. Like, I’ll start, let you go from there.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right. So in 2015, certain members of Congress put together some legislation and created a fund run by the Department of Justice. And the fund was supposed to be funded through terrorist sanctions, predominantly from those who do business with Iran. Let’s say Bank Paribas was the first deposit that went into the fund. That’s a whole other story in itself. It’s kind of interesting.

But suffice it to say, out of a $9 billion fine with Bank Paribas, I think $1.8 billion went to the victims and the residual money went to the State of New York to build a bridge that ultimately got named after the governor’s father.

TUCKER CARLSON: Actually.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Actually, I don’t know what the Tappan Zee Bridge had to do with terrorism, but I.

TUCKER CARLSON: Was it ever bombed by Iran?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I don’t think so, but I do like to make the joke. My daughter went to college in upstate New York, and when I would go over the bridge and pay the toll, I’d be joking that it should be going to the 9/11 widows and children, since the money that went towards the bridge reconstruction came from the Paribas money, as I understand it, from reporting instead of going to victims of terrorism.

TUCKER CARLSON: How can that be?

The Department of Justice Fund and Exclusion of 9/11 Families

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Well, you know, the Department of Justice runs a lot of their sanctions programs, sort of like a slush fund. But at any rate, this fund was created. Bank Paribas put together like I think $1.8 or $1.9 billion of the first deposit into that fund.

The widows and children were excluded from joining that fund and being compensated, even though we were given the right to sue the co-conspirators of the hijackers. When we were forced into the Victims Compensation Fund back in 2002, when the government took away our right to sue, we were allowed to sue the terrorists, the co-conspirators of the hijackers.

And we did. We were able to get a default judgment against Iran. And the widows and kids have Iran judgments. And we sought to be compensated for those judgments because it was the only way that we could.

TUCKER CARLSON: Iran judgments.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Iran judgments. I know not a lot of people know that we have Iran judgments, but—

TUCKER CARLSON: May I just ask a dumb question? What does Iran have to do with 9/11?

Iran’s Alleged Role in 9/11

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right. So the evidence that was presented to the court for Iran’s role in the 9/11 attacks is that Iran cleansed some of the passports of a few of the hijackers when they went through Iran after being in Afghanistan. That evidence was used. Iran doesn’t show up in court in the United States.

So I think at this point, probably close to 20,000 9/11 victims have been given copycat judgments off that basic evidence that Iran cleansed these passports. And this is the only way that the widows and children of the 3,000 killed are in any way able to hold terrorists, quote unquote, accountable. We are supposed to be able to get compensated for our Iran judgments in this government fund. A Department of Justice fund.

TUCKER CARLSON: Just big picture, not to be ornery about it, but like everything we’ve talked about for the last hour, which is about the event itself and how it happened and what we don’t know and who might have benefited from it and who might have paid for it and facilitated it, Iran didn’t make an appearance in that conversation. And I’ve never heard anybody make a case that Iran was actually behind 9/11 in a meaningful way.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I would agree with that. But nevertheless, Iran doesn’t show up in court and you can get a default judgment. And that’s—

TUCKER CARLSON: It just seems like a lot of tragedies in this country are blamed on Iran. I’m not working for Iran. I’m not that sympathetic to Iran. I’m not Iranian. But I just noticed this, that Trump gets shot in Butler. It was Iran. Right? It’s always Iran. And it does feel like a convenient narrative. Yes. Okay. Just want to say that.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Well, listen, you know, pragmatically speaking, when you’re a widow and it’s the only judgment you can get—

TUCKER CARLSON: I get it, I get it. But it’s not a decision you made anyway, right? I mean, you didn’t decide to go after Iran.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: No, not at all. I wanted to go after the U.S. Government and their failures because I didn’t look to Iran or Saudi Arabia or any other foreign government to protect my husband and my family on the morning of September 11th.

TUCKER CARLSON: Good point.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I looked to the United States government because I’m an American citizen and the attacks happened here.

The Growing Number of Claimants

So at any rate, we were able to get these Iran judgments. I think at this point, like 20,000 people, you know, that’s including the decedent’s families, the widows and the kids and the decedents’ siblings, parents, and then all of the inhalation injury people at Ground Zero who breathed the bad air. They’re also holding Iran accountable.

That ultimately will be about 70,000 people seeking to be compensated in this government fund. Well, the problem with the government fund is that compensating 9/11 victims gets in the way of the other victims that want to be compensated.

And so back in 2008, and then a little bit before that, in some other legislation, things were rewritten for American military to be able to sue the enemy. So you have victims from the embassy bombings in the late ’80s. You have Iran hostages that aren’t allowed to have judgment because a part of the Algiers Accords was that they weren’t allowed to sue Iran. But they’re given just a flat number that they’re allowed to be paid in this government fund.

They’re a victim of state-sponsored terrorism. The Iran hostages, the embassy bombing in Beirut victims, and then the Khobar Towers victims. That was a bombing in Saudi Arabia. And then you have the U.S.S. Cole families, also victims of state-sponsored terrorism, and the East African Embassy bombing families.

These are all military or foreign service families that because the law was rewritten, they are allowed to get judgments against Iran for Iran’s participation in those attacks. And so those victims have really powerful lawyers. They were the ones that reportedly created this government fund that’s run by the Department of Justice.

How the Fund Works

And they came up with the idea that we’re going to fund the fund from terrorist sanctions. And what does that mean? Well, that means that when the U.S. Government gets information that a company, a ship, a tanker is doing business and buying Iranian oil, that tanker or that company gets sanctioned.

The Department of Justice goes after those entities and they fine them. First they have a case and then they usually typically settle the case for billions of dollars. And some of that money is supposed to go into this fund to pay victims.

TUCKER CARLSON: This is why we never pull back sanctions, even when they’re counterproductive. Because it’s a scam that people are getting rich from.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Well, right, but so it was fine—

TUCKER CARLSON: Sorry, I had to say that.

Hedge Funds Enter the Picture

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Well, so up front it’s being sold as a fund to pay victims. Turns out many of the military families had attorneys who encouraged the families to sell their judgments to third-party investors, hedge funds.

I know all of this because the SEC happened to investigate one of the hedge funds. And so I read all of the SEC files, thousands of pages. And so that’s how I know this information. I’m basing it all on these SEC files of this investigation.

So at any point, these victims that were supposed to be the ones getting compensated in this fund run by the Department of Justice sold their judgments. Not all of them, but like a lot of them. They’re very unsophisticated military families. This hedge fund guy comes in and says, “Listen, you’ve got a judgment for $2 million, I’ll give you $400,000 right now.”

They’re sitting at the kitchen table in the middle of Iowa. “I’ll write you a check.” So these families sell the judgment because they’re like, first of all, their young son or daughter was in the military. They never thought that they could sue the enemy. Right? Because you’re not supposed to be able to do that. If you serve in the military, you don’t sue the enemy.

But this special law was written, and so they were just happy to get the $400,000. Right? Like, they’re sort of astounded. So they take the money. The hedge fund then owns the right to compensation of the judgment. No way.

TUCKER CARLSON: So it’s like a payday loan. We’ll give you a portion of your claim.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Exactly. And they, in my opinion, took advantage of the military families, which I think is disgusting. But these arrangements, according to the SEC documents, were put together by the lawyers of the people. So the lawyers brought in the hedge funds.

And so the same lawyers create, reportedly, from what I can understand, in my opinion, I’m being very careful, created this fund to be run by the Department of Justice, who, you know, treats their fines and sanctions and prosecutions sort of like as a slush fund.

You know, the Department of Justice wields power when they send money to local districts, to police departments to buy vests, what have you. They wield a lot of power that way. It’s frankly how the money ended up, you know, at the Tappan Zee Bridge cutting deals with the governor at the time.

Nevertheless, these hedge funds buy the rights to the compensation, and they’re actually the ones in this fund getting paid. Initially, the widows and children from 9/11 weren’t allowed in the fund.

TUCKER CARLSON: This is such a perfect metaphor for modern America. Well, there’s a victims of terrorism fund, but the actual beneficiaries are—wait for it—hedge funds.

Senator Menendez’s Role

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right, exactly. And can you guess what senator wrote the legislation to put this together? Which senator from the state of New Jersey is in prison right now?

TUCKER CARLSON: I would say Mr. Robert Menendez.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: That is correct. Senator Menendez was the person who just ironically enough, happened to write a lot of pieces of legislation that, you know, maximize the profits to the offshore hedge funds that had purchased these judgments.

TUCKER CARLSON: Oh, they’re offshore hedge funds.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Oh, yeah. They’re in the Cayman Islands.

TUCKER CARLSON: Oh, come on.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Well, it’s true. And so what gets really bad is that the widows and kids aren’t allowed into the fund because, quote unquote, “there’s just too many of you, and you’ll take all the money.” Right?

TUCKER CARLSON: There won’t be enough for the hedge funds.

The Purchase Agreements and Collateral Security

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Well, the problem is in the actual purchase agreements. Again, according to the SEC documents, the underlying purchase agreements of the Iranian judgments of these military families. The second line of collateral security, guaranteeing the rate of return between 13% and I think 62%, is this fund that was created by the Department of Justice.

Guaranteeing the profits to the hedge funds was the second fund, a guarantor fund. The third line of collateral security, according to the SEC documents, is the law firm’s receivables. So that means if the fund doesn’t churn and burn and provide that profit, then the lawyer’s receivables get raided so that the hedge fund investors make their return.

So you can see there that there’s an impetus, a drive for the attorneys not to want that third line to get tapped. They want the money to come from the fund because then it’s not coming out of the attorney’s pocket. Right?

So that’s why the widows and kids, in my opinion, were not allowed to go into this fund and be compensated for our Iran judgments. Even though we are the nation’s largest group of victims of terrorism, the 9/11 widows and kids, we’re blocked in this fund, we’re not allowed in.

Takes us three years to get the widows and kids in. We get into the fund and the law is written by Senator Menendez with the support of Senator Schumer and others, so that the money is split in a way that continues to maximize the profits to the hedge fund.

The Hijacked Catch-Up Payment

Then two years later, because the widows and kids were wrongfully excluded from being compensated in this fund in 2015, we were owed a catch-up payment. I came up with the name. It was a lump sum catch-up payment. I’m like, “You wrongfully excluded us. This was really wrong. We’re owed back compensation.”

We go. Takes us two years to get that through Congress. We get there, we get almost a unanimous vote in the House, it goes over to the Senate, and the bill gets hijacked, and I use that word purposely. It got hijacked.

It got hijacked by that same group of lawyers and plaintiffs who had sold their judgments to the hedge fund. And out of nowhere, totally unwarranted, they asked to get this lump sum payment for themselves. Even though they were never wrongfully excluded from the fund, they were never owed back payments from the fund.

They were allowed to get what’s called the Beirut Khobar catch-up payment, worth $3 billion. The $3 billion to pay, ultimately, in my opinion, some of these hedge funds in the Cayman Islands, and also some victims too, that didn’t sell their judgments. Right? Comes from U.S. taxpayer dollars, $3 billion. So it gets worse.

TUCKER CARLSON: So you believe that some of that money actually went to hedge funds in the Cayman Islands?

Following the Money

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I believe that it’s definitely possible because the SEC documents talk about this particular group of victims getting approached to sell their judgments. The SEC talks about the contractual agreements of the sale of the judgments.

And when you look at the numbers, sometimes, like, I’m really good at seeing patterns and then looking at evidence and then undoing it and going back and trying to figure out things. It just so happens that the groups that are mentioned in the SEC documents happen to be the highest paid groups of victims of terrorism.

Which first off makes no sense because they’re military and military live on kind of humble economic circumstances. Like, their economic damages are very small as compared to civilians who were working on Wall Street on 9/11.

TUCKER CARLSON: Right. Because damages are calculated on the basis of income and economic losses.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Economic loss.

TUCKER CARLSON: Right.

The Compensation Disparity

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Lost wages. And so, oddly enough, these military, as compared to the 9/11 civilian widows and children killed on U.S. shores, not serving overseas, not in hostile territory. Civilians killed in America at work, innocent civilians have received less compensation in this fund than these groups who just happen to also have this exposure to these third party investors and hedge funds.

So the legislation gets written. They’re given $3 billion of U.S. taxpayer money to pay this payment that’s totally unwarranted, came out of nowhere, was not justified. Senator Menendez wrote the legislation, wrote a loophole in the legislation saying that, quote, “successors in interest thereof” can be compensated this money from the U.S. taxpayers. I believe the successors and interest thereof are the third party investors, slash, hedge funds.

TUCKER CARLSON: Can you imagine investing in a victims of terrorism fund? Do you have any idea?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: You’re literally profiting from murder and terrorism and you’re using a Department of Justice government fund that is being billed and sold to members of Congress as a victims fund to compensate victims of terrorism with restitution. And it’s being exploited and it’s being used as like a profit model, an investment vehicle for third party investors and hedge funds.

TUCKER CARLSON: Do we have any idea the identity of these hedge fund managers or investors?

The Pattern of Corruption

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: No. But I will tell you this. I was able to read in the SEC documents some of the investor groups that were approached by the hedge fund guy from New Jersey and I cross referenced those with open secrets and donations, contributions to members of Congress. And I believe there is a pattern there, which is why we…

TUCKER CARLSON: How did Menendez do in that group? Was he pretty popular?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I’ll tell you this, that in the SEC documents, there’s a deposition of one of the attorneys, and there’s a series of depositions and the initials RM are in the documents. And Senator Menendez passed legislation in 2012 that was also signed off on by President Obama to make the first round of payments to this group that had sold their judgments, many of whom had sold their judgments to the hedge funds.

So Senator Menendez’s hands are all over this. We turned to Congress, we said, could you just investigate, could you investigate the anti-terrorism legislation done by Senator Menendez? He’s in jail now. Like, it deserves a look. See, no one would do it.

This fund that’s had approximately $9 billion flown through it since 2016 has never had one hearing. We have asked repeatedly, very loudly, for hearings. We’ve begged for hearings. We can’t get hearings on this with all of this information.

We met with the chief of the Money Laundering Asset Recovery Section at the Department of Justice, the person who’s in charge really ultimately over this fund. And we’re having this meeting and we’re like, it’s really unfair. The governing statute says that we’re supposed to be treated fairly and equitably. It’s a United States victims of terrorism fund. In the United States of America, everyone’s supposed to be treated equally.

Is there a reason why 9/11 widows and children, this nation’s largest group of victims of terrorism, are receiving anywhere from 6 to 66 times less percentage value for our judgments? Is there a reason for that? And she just was like, well, there’s, we don’t really have… And Congress tells us, and this and that.

Went to Senator Schumer, spoke to his counsel, she just said, well, there’s just too many of you to treat you fairly. There’s too many of you to have equal justice. The words on the Supreme Court when you walk in the door is equal justice, justice under the law for all.

TUCKER CARLSON: Why not take it out of our foreign aid budget?

The State Department Connection

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Well, that’s a good question. I will tell you this, that some victims of terrorism in 2020 were paid out of the State Department’s defense special budget. And maybe, or maybe not, those guys had some third party investors that ultimately got that money.

TUCKER CARLSON: Who were they and why were they paid by the State Department?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: That was the East African embassy bombing victims and the USS Cole victims. The same group of lawyers represent… There’s like a cross pollination of the lawyers. It’s like a little cabal of lawyers that work for these victims groups. They’re also the same group of lawyers.

So they not only created this fund, they’ve also really played a very strong hand in rewriting anti-terrorism laws in the United States from 1990 on forward. And ironically, all of these laws are always billed after 9/11 as “9/11 for the 9/11 families.” But what’s weird is that the 9/11 families never benefit or get anything out of these laws. In fact, we get re-victimized. It’s kind of incredible.

TUCKER CARLSON: Wait, so let me just say this.

The Hedge Fund Revelation

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: We met with DOJ and we really thought maybe this chief person of this department doesn’t know about these hedge funds. We need to alert her, right? We need to tell her. And she just got really funny at the end of the meeting.

We were like, well, we wanted to talk to you about the hedge funds because the statute says that you need to be a natural person to be compensated in the fund. And even though Senator Menendez passed legislation that allows successors and interests thereof to get compensated, we think it’s kind of unseemly.

And we’re not being treated fairly and we shouldn’t be penalized because there’s so many of us. That was one of my talking points. I was like, as someone who fought for the 9/11 Commission, it’s not our fault that there’s so many of us. It’s the United States government’s fault because the United States government didn’t prevent the attacks and didn’t mitigate any of damage on the day of 9/11.

So you’re punishing us for our government’s failure and there being 3,000 victims. That’s why we can’t be compensated fairly and in alignment with the law and with all of these other victims. You can’t treat us fairly because there’s just too many of us.

And so we say this to this chief of MLARS and she just got funny. She’s like, well no one briefed me that you were going to bring up the hedge funds. I’m not prepared to discuss it. And that was the end of that.

And so I just think that the American public should know that this is the kind of stuff that goes on and I’d really like to know why. One of the laws that’s currently they’re trying to get passed right now is backed by the ADL. It was written by the ADL, reportedly.

TUCKER CARLSON: The ADL?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: The ADL.

TUCKER CARLSON: What do they have to do with this?

The ADL and October 7th Victims

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: That’s what I want to know. I want to know why the ADL is involving itself in anti-terrorism laws. I want to know why October 7th victims are in my Congress, lobbying Congress and writing legislation that harms the rights of 9/11 widows and children.

TUCKER CARLSON: I’m not asking what does that mean? How does that… They’re, I don’t know why they’re writing legislation in the first place, but since they are…

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Hamas did the October 7th attacks. These individuals don’t even have Iran judgments and they’re writing legislation to change this fund, this government fund that’s supposed to be for American victims of terrorism and that’s fine. When my Congress and foreigners…

TUCKER CARLSON: Will get some of this money now?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah, I mean they’re, well, they’re dual citizens and they’re trying to expand the law so that they’re very involved. I don’t know.

TUCKER CARLSON: We’re… The U.S. Government is going to pay victims of a terror attack in a foreign country that has nothing to do with… We’re not responsible for October 7th, that I know of.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Right, but they’re using their, they’re trying to get an Iran judgment for those attacks to say that Iran underwrote Hamas and then they’re going to try to get paid in this government fund that was designed for United States victims of terrorism.

TUCKER CARLSON: Actually, that’s an outrage.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Well, I think what’s outrageous is that we know that they tried to once again amend the governing statute of this fund and they tried to do it in a way that really was going to financially harm the widows and children. And we’re not seeking special treatment, we just want to be treated fairly.

TUCKER CARLSON: But I just can’t get past this. What I mean, October 7th, bad, as I’ve said many times, clearly.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: But you know what? Israel already took care of them.

TUCKER CARLSON: But also what does that have to do with us?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: It’s a very well developed system for victims of terrorism and they’ve been taken care of in Israel. And my question is, why aren’t they going to their own country Congress? I don’t know much about Israel’s Congress or their laws, but like, why aren’t they in Israel lobbying their Congress? Why aren’t they in Israel using Israel’s…

TUCKER CARLSON: Why would the United States taxpayer pay the victims of October 7th?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I mean, that’s a really good question. And again, the lawyers behind these groups would come forward, the ADL would probably say, well, it’s not the taxpayers. They’re using sanctions, fines and money.

TUCKER CARLSON: What does it have to do with us?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: That’s what I would question. I don’t understand why people that go overseas and get killed on buses, even if they’re American citizens, why they’re over in the United States. And again, if you want to be compensated, that’s fine, but don’t harm the rights of the widows and kids.

Why is it more important to pay people that are injured overseas on buses or in military installations or as foreign service members to pay them 6 to 66 times more a percentage when we live in the United States of America and every person is supposed to be treated equal under the law?

TUCKER CARLSON: Yeah, well, that’s clearly not happening. This is… Yeah. And yeah, this is why people’s attitudes are changing in a way that’s…

The Lawyers’ Windfall

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: And I would like to say that the lawyers that were that third line of collateral security, combined all of the lawyers, the 9/11 and the non-9/11 lawyers, they’ve made approximately $2 billion.

TUCKER CARLSON: The lawyers?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Yeah, from the fund. And so obviously I’m not stupid. Like, I know some of that money gets reshuffled around and made into contributions to members of Congress to reward them for their efforts in writing legislation. But I think $2 billion to plaintiffs attorneys is kind of unseemly in a…

TUCKER CARLSON: Terror victim, in a victim’s fund that’s…

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Supposed to be for victims.

TUCKER CARLSON: Why haven’t I heard any of this before?

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Why haven’t you heard the truth about 9/11 before?

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, that’s fair.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Thank you for having me on.

Rewriting Terror Laws

TUCKER CARLSON: Oh my gosh. It’s been… It’s been a delight. I always knew I would like you if I met you, and I really do. No, I mean it. Now here I’m bragging about my good sense about people, but I do have good sense of people. And I was right.

So you said something. You said so many things. I’m just trying to make sure I don’t miss anything. You said a few moments ago that our terror laws have been completely rewritten since the 90s by this same group of rapacious lawyers. How have they changed and what are the implications of that? What are you talking about exactly?

The Exploitation of Anti-Terrorism Laws

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: You know, when you go back and do a study on all of the anti-terrorism laws, what you find is that there’s been a whole restructuring and it’s a system that doesn’t—it looks on the outside like it’s serving the victims. But what it’s really doing is it’s broadening a base and allowing for almost an innumerable amount of people to sue for a terrorist attack.

And I confronted counsel of one of the more prominent members of the Senate, and I said, “You know, you guys wrote this law, and it opens the courthouse doors to so many people. You’re harming the rights of the direct heirs of the actual widows and children of people killed. And why would you do that? Why didn’t you hold a hearing on the ramifications of how you’re rewriting this law? Why didn’t you have widows and kids testify as to how they’re being harmed and their rights are being watered down?”

And the guy turned to me and said, “You know, we just want to open the courthouse doors to as many people as possible because that serves anti-terrorism policy.”

And I said, “It doesn’t really serve anti-terrorism policy. And you’re not really serving the heirs of the people killed properly. And you’re giving an awful lot of undue deference to judges. And you’re assuming that judges are going to police a docket and police a case and a system.”

And they said the judges aren’t doing it because the judges in many cases are not really good judges. And they’re allowing thousands and thousands and thousands of people to enter litigation.

How Endless Litigation Harms Victims

And what that does is twofold. Number one, it blocks and logjams the actual case itself, and the case can never resolve. Where there is one upside—when a case doesn’t resolve, you’re suing a defendant, and the case goes on and on for two decades. What happens is, in some people’s minds, I read a book on this, is that the actual litigation process itself ties up certain entities that certain other entities believe fund terrorists because they’re so busy paying lawyers and being stuck in court, they’re not funneling money to terrorists.

Well, that’s a really noble idea, except for the fact that it’s a huge disservice to the victims who are entitled to have speedy justice for the harm that they’ve suffered. You have litigation that lasts two decades. Widows and children are being disserved by that because we’re owed immediate justice. We’re not owed justice a quarter of a century later.

The second thing that it does is it waters down the rights of the people under the law who are the most prioritized, because you’re letting in all of these other people. What actually ends up happening when you open the door and you let all those people in is that lawyers make more money.

A System That Serves Lawyers, Not Victims

And so you have a situation where it’s not the victims that are being protected by these laws that are getting rewritten. It’s actually that lawyers and this sort of scheme that’s come out of anti-terrorism laws and these funds that get created and these deals that get struck between lawyers and members of the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the State Department, certain foreign governments—it ends up becoming sort of like a scheme.

And the real victims of terrorism, like the 9/11 widows and kids who are this nation’s largest group, are revictimized. And that’s just a fact.

And all I ask is for there to be a very hard look, see if you want to call it, into these anti-terrorism laws, into this fund that is being run right now that is in my opinion a Ponzi scheme on top of a shell game that’s really revictimizing the 9/11 widows and kids.

A Plea to President Trump

Honestly, if I could send one message to President Trump, I would beg him to give closure and peace to the thousands of widows and kids. We’ve waited 24 years to have a modicum of justice. We’ve been abandoned by this country. We were abandoned by our Department of Justice. Our husbands’ lives have been exploited, used to go to war in Iraq based on lies, used to roll in privacy rights, to expand the Patriot Act. All of it. We’ve been exploited and we’ve been left behind.

And I would just ask for President Trump to recognize that and appreciate it and just deliver closure and peace to us. I think that there’s a way forward for that. And if there’s ever been a president that would be able to stand apart from the intelligence community and to have the courage to do that, I think it would be President Trump.

And I know he didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize or appointed or nominated for his role in the Gaza peace process. I think if he resolved 9/11 and provided closure to the widows and kids, he would probably be nominated and win that Peace Prize.

TUCKER CARLSON: He would certainly get my vote. Kristen Breitweiser, that was an amazing conversation.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Thanks.

TUCKER CARLSON: Makes me emotional. Thank you so much for taking the time to do this.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: Thank you for giving me the opportunity. Oh my gosh.

TUCKER CARLSON: Come back anytime.

KRISTEN BREITWEISER: I really appreciate it and the widows and kids appreciate it. So thank you.

TUCKER CARLSON: Thank you.

Related Posts

• Transcript: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Intelligence: Sam Harris
• Transcript: Producer Dan Farah on Joe Rogan Podcast #2416
• Transcript: Ryan Montgomery on Roblox, Minecraft, Discord & the Darkest Online Cult – Shawn Ryan Show (SRS #255)
• Transcript: Ryan Montgomery – #1 Ethical Hacker on Shawn Ryan Show (SRS #56)
• Transcript: Sam Harris on Hunter Biden Controversy – TRIGGERnometry Podcast