Was there Foreknowledge of 9/11: Tucker Carlson? By Charles Taylor (Florida)

Tucker Carlson's recent remarks on 9/11 "foreknowledge" are the sort of late–breaking revelation that lights up the internet because it blends three combustible ingredients: the enduring trauma of the attacks, the whiff of financial scandal, and a major media figure apparently reversing his earlier scepticism. To examine it fairly you need to separate what's actually documented from what's merely inferred, and then ask whether, two-and-a-half decades on, it would even change anything if the darker suspicions proved true.

Carlson is referencing a real, long-debated anomaly in the financial record. In the days before September 11, 2001, trading volumes in certain airline and insurance stocks spiked, especially in the form of "put options," bets that the price of those stocks would fall. United and American Airlines were obvious targets; big insurers and financial firms that would suffer collateral damage were also hit.

U.S. and international regulators investigated. The 9/11 Commission Report, the SEC, and a separate academic analysis in the Journal of Business (2006) all acknowledged the unusual trades but concluded they were not demonstrably linked to foreknowledge. For example, some trades were tied to portfolios or hedge positions that could be explained by ordinary market activity, and the actual profit realized was less than rumour suggested. Critics of those official findings note that the identities of some traders were never publicly disclosed and that certain explanations rely on confidential testimony regulators never released.

That gap, records that exist but remain sealed, feeds suspicion. Carlson is essentially saying: if the government knows who placed those trades and is still protecting their names 24 years later, what possible innocent reason is there?

Suppose, hypothetically, that there really were insiders with prior knowledge of the attacks who quietly shorted the market and that authorities have protected them. What follows?

First, it would be a scandal of scale and character unlike ordinary corruption. It would imply that either elements of the U.S. government knew an attack was imminent and failed to warn the public, or that private individuals received actionable intelligence and exploited it. Either scenario cuts to the core of institutional trust. The 9/11 attacks were not just an event; they reshaped American foreign and domestic policy, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, the architecture of modern surveillance. Evidence of wilful concealment would call the legitimacy of two decades of policy into question.

Second, the statute of limitations on most financial crimes, fraud, insider trading, would have long expired. So "justice" in the courtroom sense might be impossible. The real impact would be political and historical: rewriting the narrative of 9/11, challenging the credibility of the intelligence community and of the 9/11 Commission itself, and re-igniting public anger over decisions taken in the attacks' aftermath.

Third, it would test the collective memory of a country that has, in many ways, moved on. For younger Americans 9/11 is history class, not lived trauma. Would the revelation of hidden profiteers change foreign policy today? Perhaps not. But it would deepen the already pervasive scepticism toward government and media. The post-Watergate, post-Iraq era has primed citizens to expect duplicity. A confirmed cover-up would validate the most cynical assumptions and become fuel for every other conspiracy movement.

Does it matter now? Morally, yes. Historical truth matters even when the culprits cannot be prosecuted. Societies depend on a shared understanding of their watershed events. If the official record of 9/11 is shown to be selectively sanitised, the damage is not just to the reputation of a few agencies; it corrodes the idea that democratic oversight can ever reach the deepest state secrets.

Practically, the world of 2025 is shaped by the consequences of 9/11, wars fought, rights curtailed, surveillance normalised. If a hidden profit motive or deliberate concealment lay behind the attacks' foreknowledge, it would recast those two decades not as a response to tragedy but as a long manipulation. Even if nothing could be undone, the reckoning would matter.

So, Tucker's provocation resonates not because it proves anything, his evidence still amounts to a reading of old financial anomalies and the government's silence, but because it touches the perennial nerve: that the biggest events of our time might have been known, even exploited, by people who never faced the sunlight. Whether or not he's right, the mere possibility remains a reminder that history's official version is never immune from later revision, and that unanswered questions have a way of haunting the public square long after the smoke clears.

https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/tucker-carlson-reveals-the-911-truth

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/who-bought-the-put-options-on-airline