In recent discussions surrounding the events of September 11, 2001, one figure has stood out for his contentious views: former Rep. Curt Weldon. In an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show, Weldon expressed a call for transparency and truth regarding the details of the 9/11 attacks, sparking renewed interest and concern among the public and historians alike. This blog post aims to dissect the claims made during the program, providing a rigorous fact-check to separate speculation from evidence. As the narrative around 9/11 continues to evolve, it is critical to examine the assertions presented, ensuring that our understanding of this pivotal moment in history is grounded in verified information.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 04/15/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

Kurt Weldon was one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress around 20 years ago before raising questions about 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that **Curt Weldon was one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress around 20 years ago before raising questions about 9/11**, we need to consider several aspects of his career and the events surrounding his involvement with 9/11 issues.

## Background on Curt Weldon

Curt Weldon was a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, serving from 1987 to 2007. He was a prominent figure in Congress, particularly known for his involvement in defense and foreign policy issues. Weldon was indeed a significant figure, having served on the House Armed Services Committee and was poised to become its chairman before his career was impacted by controversies related to 9/11[1][3].

## Involvement with 9/11 Issues

Weldon gained attention for his claims about the 9/11 attacks, particularly regarding the alleged identification of some hijackers by a military intelligence unit called Able Danger. He argued that this information was not adequately shared or utilized, which could have potentially prevented the attacks[5]. Weldon's public questioning of the official 9/11 narrative and his push for further investigation led to significant backlash, including an FBI raid on his daughter's home in 2006, which he believes was part of a campaign to discredit him[1][3].

## Power and Influence in Congress

While Weldon held important positions in Congress, his influence was notably diminished after he began questioning the 9/11 narrative. His potential chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee was a significant position, but he lost his re-election bid in 2006 following the FBI raid on his daughter's home[1][3]. This suggests that his power and influence were indeed impacted by his stance on 9/11.

## Conclusion

The claim that Curt Weldon was one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress before raising questions about 9/11 is supported by his significant roles in Congress and his potential to chair the Armed Services Committee. However, his influence was significantly curtailed after he began questioning the official 9/11 narrative, leading to a series of events that ended his political career[1][3][5]. Therefore, the claim is generally accurate but requires context regarding the impact of his actions on his career.

### Evidence Summary

– **Position and Influence**: Weldon was a prominent figure in Congress, particularly in defense matters, and was set to chair the House Armed Services Committee[1][3].
– **9/11 Controversies**: He questioned the official 9/11 narrative, focusing on intelligence failures and the potential for prevention[5].
– **Career Impact**: His public stance on 9/11 led to significant backlash, including an FBI raid on his daughter's home, which contributed to the end of his political career[1][3].

Citations

Claim

The FBI raided Kurt Weldon's daughter's house, which affected Kurt Weldon's political career.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: FBI Raid on Kurt Weldon's Daughter's House and Its Impact on His Political Career

The claim that the FBI raided Kurt Weldon's daughter's house, which affected Kurt Weldon's political career, can be evaluated based on available news reports and official statements.

### Background and Events

In October 2006, the FBI conducted raids on the homes of Rep. Curt Weldon's daughter, Karen Weldon, and a close friend, Charles P. Sexton Jr., as part of an investigation into whether Rep. Weldon improperly used his influence to help his daughter secure lobbying and consulting contracts[1][3][4]. The investigation focused on allegations that Karen Weldon obtained $1 million in lobbying contracts from foreign clients with her father's assistance[4].

### Implications for Weldon's Political Career

The FBI raids occurred just three weeks before the November 7, 2006, election, in which Rep. Weldon was facing a tight re-election bid against Democrat Joe Sestak[1][5]. The timing of the raids was criticized by Weldon and his supporters as politically motivated, suggesting that it was intended to influence the election outcome[5]. The raids and subsequent media coverage likely contributed to a decline in Weldon's popularity, as he suffered a sharp drop in the polls following the raids[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that the FBI raided Kurt Weldon's daughter's house and that this event affected his political career is supported by multiple reliable sources. The raids were part of an investigation into potential influence peddling by Rep. Weldon, and they occurred at a critical time in his re-election campaign, likely impacting his political standing[1][3][4][5].

### Additional Context

Rep. Weldon also faced scrutiny for his views on the 9/11 attacks and his claims about a secret military unit called "Able Danger," which he believed could have linked some hijackers to al-Qaeda before the attacks[1]. However, these aspects are separate from the FBI raids and their direct impact on his political career.

### Evidence Summary

– **FBI Raids**: The FBI conducted raids on the homes of Karen Weldon and Charles P. Sexton Jr. on October 16, 2006, as part of an investigation into Rep. Curt Weldon's potential misuse of influence[1][4].
– **Political Impact**: The raids occurred just before the election and were seen as potentially affecting Weldon's re-election chances, contributing to a shift in polling favoring his opponent[5].
– **Investigation Context**: The investigation centered on allegations that Rep. Weldon helped his daughter secure lucrative foreign contracts, which he denied[4].

Citations

Claim

The Able Danger Team identified every cell of Al Qaeda in the world the year before 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Able Danger Identified Every Al Qaeda Cell Before 9/11

The claim that the Able Danger team identified every cell of Al Qaeda in the world the year before 9/11 is a contentious issue that has been debated extensively. To assess its validity, it's crucial to examine available evidence and reports from reliable sources.

### Background on Able Danger

Able Danger was a U.S. Army intelligence program initiated in 1999 to identify and track Al Qaeda cells worldwide. The program used data mining techniques to analyze open-source information and identify potential terrorist networks[1][4].

### Claims and Controversies

Former Congressman Kurt Weldon and others have suggested that Able Danger identified key figures like Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, before the attacks. However, these claims have been disputed by official investigations. The 9/11 Commission Report did not confirm that Able Danger had identified Atta or other hijackers before 9/11[3][4].

### Official Investigations and Findings

1. **Senate Intelligence Committee Report**: The Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed the Able Danger program and found no evidence to support the claim that it identified Atta or other hijackers before 9/11[1].

2. **DOD Inspector General Investigation**: The Department of Defense Inspector General also investigated Able Danger and concluded that while the program did collect data on Al Qaeda, there was no evidence it identified Atta or other hijackers before the attacks[1].

3. **9/11 Commission Report**: The report did not support the claims made about Able Danger's findings, emphasizing that there was no credible evidence to suggest that the program had identified the hijackers before 9/11[3].

### Conclusion

Based on the available evidence and official investigations, the claim that Able Danger identified every cell of Al Qaeda in the world the year before 9/11 is not supported by credible sources. While Able Danger did collect significant data on Al Qaeda, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest it identified all Al Qaeda cells or the 9/11 hijackers before the attacks.

### Recommendations for Further Research

– **Access to Classified Documents**: If available, reviewing classified documents related to Able Danger could provide more insight into its operations and findings.
– **Independent Investigations**: Conducting new, independent investigations could help clarify the extent of Able Danger's achievements and any potential intelligence failures related to 9/11.

In summary, while Able Danger was an important intelligence initiative, the claim that it identified every Al Qaeda cell before 9/11 remains unsubstantiated by official reports and investigations.

Citations

Claim

The 9/11 Commission is a cover-up according to Kurt Weldon.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: The 9/11 Commission as a Cover-Up According to Curt Weldon

Curt Weldon, a former U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania, has been vocal about his skepticism regarding the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks and the findings of the 9/11 Commission. He claims that there was a cover-up involving intelligence failures that could have prevented the attacks. To assess the validity of Weldon's claims, it is essential to examine the controversies surrounding the 9/11 Commission Report and critiques from other officials.

### Background on Curt Weldon's Claims

Weldon has been particularly critical of the 9/11 Commission's handling of the "Able Danger" program, which he believes identified key figures involved in the 9/11 attacks, including Mohamed Atta, more than a year before the event[3][5]. He argues that this information was not adequately utilized or shared with relevant agencies, which could have potentially prevented the attacks[3][5].

### Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission

1. **Independence and Objectivity**: The 9/11 Commission was criticized for not being fully independent, as its members were appointed by President George W. Bush and Congress[4]. This led to concerns about potential biases and conflicts of interest.

2. **Information Sharing and Intelligence Failures**: Weldon and others have highlighted issues with intelligence sharing and the failure to act on available information. For instance, the CIA was accused of withholding information from the Commission[4].

3. **Able Danger Controversy**: The 9/11 Commission initially denied being briefed on Able Danger, then later acknowledged briefings but downplayed the program's significance[3][4]. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh also criticized the Commission for ignoring key evidence from Able Danger[4].

### Conclusion on Weldon's Claims

While Curt Weldon's claims about a cover-up are based on his experiences and critiques of the 9/11 Commission, they are not universally accepted. The Commission faced numerous challenges and criticisms, including issues with independence, information sharing, and the handling of sensitive intelligence programs like Able Danger. However, Weldon's assertion of a deliberate cover-up is more speculative and not supported by conclusive evidence from mainstream investigations.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Independent Review**: An independent review of the intelligence failures and the handling of programs like Able Danger could provide clarity on whether there was a systemic failure or deliberate obstruction.

2. **Transparency in Government**: Ensuring transparency and accountability within government agencies is crucial for addressing concerns about cover-ups and intelligence failures.

3. **Public Discourse**: Encouraging open public discourse and allowing affected individuals to share their experiences without fear of reprisal can help build trust and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the events surrounding 9/11.

In summary, while Weldon's claims highlight significant controversies and criticisms of the 9/11 Commission, they do not conclusively prove a deliberate cover-up. Further investigation and transparency are needed to fully address these concerns.

Citations

Claim

Kurt Weldon has letters of endorsement from Donald Rumsfeld and John Henry for his chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Kurt Weldon's Letters of Endorsement

The claim that Kurt Weldon (presumably a misspelling of Curt Weldon) has letters of endorsement from Donald Rumsfeld and John Henry for his chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee cannot be verified through the provided search results. Here's a detailed analysis of the available information:

1. **Curt Weldon's Background**: Curt Weldon is a former U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania, serving from 1987 to 2007. He held significant roles, including vice-chair of the Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee[1]. However, there is no mention of him receiving letters of endorsement from Donald Rumsfeld or John Henry for a chairmanship position in the available sources.

2. **Verification Process**: To verify such a claim, one would need to examine archived congressional correspondence or Weldon's personal records. These documents are not publicly available in the search results provided.

3. **Context of Weldon's Career**: Weldon was indeed involved in significant roles related to defense and security, but his career was marked by controversy, particularly surrounding his questioning of the 9/11 report and allegations that led to an FBI raid on his daughter's home[2][3]. This context does not directly support or refute the claim about letters of endorsement.

4. **Conclusion**: Without direct access to Weldon's personal records or archived congressional correspondence, the claim cannot be confirmed. The available sources do not provide evidence of such endorsements.

In summary, while Curt Weldon had a notable career in Congress, particularly in defense and security roles, there is no evidence in the provided sources to support the claim of letters of endorsement from Donald Rumsfeld and John Henry for his chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee. Verification would require access to specific documents not mentioned in the search results.

Citations

Claim

The information the Able Danger Team tried to transfer to the FBI before 9/11 was blocked three times.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the information the Able Danger team tried to transfer to the FBI before 9/11 was blocked three times, we need to examine the available evidence and testimonies related to the Able Danger initiative.

## Background on Able Danger
Able Danger was a U.S. Army intelligence program established in the late 1990s to identify and track terrorist cells. The program gained attention for allegedly identifying Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, and other terrorists more than a year before the 9/11 attacks[2][3].

## Attempts to Share Information with the FBI
There are reports that the Able Danger team attempted to share their findings with the FBI in February 2000. However, these attempts were blocked by Pentagon lawyers due to concerns about the Posse Comitatus Act and the handling of U.S. person data[3]. The Posse Comitatus Act restricts the military's role in domestic law enforcement, which might have contributed to the hesitation in sharing information.

## Specific Instances of Blocking Information
While there are mentions of attempts to share information being blocked, there is no specific mention of this happening exactly three times in the available sources. The primary issue highlighted is the legal and policy barriers that prevented the sharing of intelligence with the FBI, particularly due to concerns about U.S. person data[3][5].

## Conclusion
Based on the available evidence, it is clear that there were significant barriers to sharing intelligence from Able Danger with the FBI, primarily due to legal and policy concerns. However, the claim that this information was blocked exactly three times is not explicitly supported by the sources reviewed. The main issue was the obstruction due to legal concerns rather than a specific number of attempts being blocked.

## Recommendations for Further Investigation
To further validate the claim, it would be necessary to review detailed testimonies and internal documents from the time, which might provide more specific information about the number of attempts made to share intelligence and how they were blocked. Additionally, examining the legal framework and policies in place at the time could offer insights into why such information was not shared effectively.

In summary, while there were significant challenges in sharing Able Danger's intelligence with the FBI, the specific claim of three blocked attempts lacks direct evidence in the reviewed sources.

Citations

Claim

'Louis Freeh, former FBI director, stated that the information could have prevented 9/11.'

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Louis Freeh, former FBI director, stated that certain information could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, we need to examine his public statements and testimonies related to the events of September 11, 2001.

## Analysis of Louis Freeh's Statements

Louis Freeh served as the FBI Director from 1993 to 2001, a period that includes the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks. During his tenure, he was involved in various investigations and counter-terrorism efforts. However, there is no direct evidence from his public statements or testimonies that he explicitly said specific information could have prevented 9/11.

In his testimony before the Joint Intelligence Committees on October 8, 2002, Freeh emphasized the importance of identifying, pursuing, and arresting terrorists as a means of preventing terrorism[2]. He highlighted successful operations, such as the investigation of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the pursuit of Ramzi Yousef, which prevented further attacks. However, he did not mention any specific information that could have prevented 9/11.

## Context of 9/11 Intelligence Failures

The 9/11 Commission Report and other investigations identified several intelligence failures and communication breakdowns that contributed to the inability to prevent the 9/11 attacks[5]. These included issues with information sharing between agencies and the lack of specific intelligence about the hijacking plot. However, there is no record of Freeh stating that specific information, if acted upon, could have prevented the attacks.

## Conclusion

Based on available information, there is no evidence to support the claim that Louis Freeh stated that specific information could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. While Freeh discussed the importance of effective counter-terrorism strategies and highlighted past successes, he did not make such a statement regarding 9/11.

## Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Review of Official Testimonies**: A thorough review of all official testimonies and statements made by Louis Freeh, particularly those related to the 9/11 attacks, is necessary to confirm or deny this claim.
– **9/11 Commission Report**: The 9/11 Commission Report provides extensive details on the events leading up to 9/11 and the intelligence failures that occurred. It does not mention Freeh making such a statement.
– **Intelligence Community Assessments**: Evaluating assessments from the intelligence community and other relevant agencies might provide additional context on what information was available and how it was handled.

Citations

Claim

There were multiple sources that indicated Bin Laden was located in Iran following 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Osama bin Laden was located in Iran following the 9/11 attacks is not supported by credible evidence. Here's a detailed evaluation of this assertion based on available information:

## Background on Bin Laden's Location Post-9/11

After the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden fled from Afghanistan into Pakistan. The U.S. launched a global manhunt for him, and he was eventually found and killed by U.S. Navy SEALs in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 2, 2011[5]. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that he ever resided in Iran during this period.

## Claims of Bin Laden in Iran

Some reports and rumors have circulated about Bin Laden's possible presence in Iran, but these have been largely discredited. For instance, there were false claims that Bin Laden was hiding in the mountainous town of Sabzevar in northeastern Iran, which were later proven to be incorrect[5].

## Al-Qaeda Operatives in Iran

While it is true that some al-Qaeda operatives did find refuge in Iran after fleeing Afghanistan in late 2001, there is no evidence to suggest that Bin Laden himself was among them. These operatives were often under some form of detention or house arrest, and their status was ambiguous[1][3]. The relationship between al-Qaeda and Iran is complex, with both sides having mutual interests in opposing the U.S., but their ideological differences are significant[1][3].

## Conclusion

In conclusion, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that Osama bin Laden was located in Iran following the 9/11 attacks. The majority of reliable sources indicate that he fled to Pakistan and remained there until his death in 2011[5]. Claims suggesting his presence in Iran appear to be unfounded and lack substantial evidence.

## References

– [1] Brookings Institution: The Al Qaeda-Iran Connection
– [3] Combating Terrorism Center: The Mysterious Relationship Between Al-Qa`ida and Iran
– [5] Wikipedia: Osama bin Laden

This evaluation is based on the most reliable and trustworthy sources available, emphasizing academic and scientific references to ensure accuracy.

Citations

Claim

Tony Schaefer was ordered to lie to Congress regarding intelligence matters.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **Tony Schaefer** was ordered to lie to Congress regarding intelligence matters appears to be unsubstantiated based on the available information. However, there is a similar figure, **Anthony Shaffer**, a former U.S. Army Reserve lieutenant colonel, who was involved in the Able Danger controversy. Shaffer claimed that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) mishandled intelligence related to the 9/11 attacks, but there is no evidence that he was ordered to lie to Congress.

## Anthony Shaffer and the Able Danger Controversy

Anthony Shaffer was a member of the Able Danger project, which he claimed had identified two of the three terrorist cells involved in the 9/11 attacks before they occurred. However, investigations by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Defense Department's inspector general concluded that Able Danger did not identify any 9/11 hijackers before the attacks[1].

Shaffer did testify before Congress regarding the Able Danger operation and faced repercussions, including the revocation of his security clearance. He alleged that this was due to his disclosures about the operation, but investigations found no evidence of retaliation for his disclosures[1][5].

## Claim Evaluation

The claim about **Tony Schaefer** being ordered to lie to Congress is not supported by the available information. It is possible that the name is confused with Anthony Shaffer, who was involved in significant controversies related to intelligence and Congressional testimony. However, even in Shaffer's case, there is no evidence that he was ordered to lie to Congress; rather, he faced consequences for his disclosures.

## Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, there is no support for the claim that **Tony Schaefer** was ordered to lie to Congress regarding intelligence matters. If the claim refers to Anthony Shaffer, it still lacks evidence to support the specific allegation of being ordered to lie. Shaffer's experiences involved controversy over intelligence handling and repercussions for his disclosures, but not being instructed to deceive Congress.

Citations

Claim

Weird cancers are all on the rise.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To assess the claim that "weird cancers are all on the rise," we need to examine recent trends in cancer incidence, particularly focusing on rare cancers. The term "weird cancers" is not a standard medical term, but it can be interpreted as referring to rare or unusual cancers.

## Definition of Rare Cancers

Rare cancers are typically defined by their low incidence rates. The National Cancer Institute considers cancers with fewer than 15 cases per 100,000 people per year as rare, while the European Union's RARECARE consortium defines them as having fewer than 6 cases per 100,000 people per year[2].

## Incidence Trends

1. **General Cancer Incidence**: In the United States, the overall cancer incidence is expected to rise, with projections exceeding 2 million new cases in 2024. This increase is largely due to the aging and growing population and rising diagnoses of common cancers like breast, prostate, and melanoma[5].

2. **Rare Cancers**: Approximately 208,000 rare cancers were diagnosed in adults in the United States in 2017[2]. While specific data on the trend for all rare cancers might not be readily available, the incidence of some rare cancers can vary significantly over time due to factors like improved detection and changes in risk factors.

3. **Specific Rare Cancers**: For example, gallbladder cancer, a rare type, has a higher incidence in women than men, with risk factors including gallstones[2]. Other rare cancers, such as Kaposi's sarcoma, have seen declining incidence rates due to advances in managing related conditions like HIV/AIDS[2].

## Conclusion

The claim that "weird cancers are all on the rise" lacks specificity and does not align with comprehensive data on cancer trends. While the incidence of some rare cancers may increase due to various factors, there is no evidence to suggest a universal rise across all rare or unusual cancers. The overall cancer incidence is increasing, primarily due to common cancers and demographic changes[5]. Therefore, the claim appears to be an exaggeration without broad support from current cancer research and statistics.

**Evidence Base**:
– The American Cancer Society reports rising incidence rates for common cancers but does not indicate a universal increase in rare cancers[5].
– Specific rare cancers may have varying trends based on risk factors and detection improvements[2].
– There is no centralized data suggesting all rare cancers are on the rise simultaneously.

Citations

Claim

Americans don't eat very well anymore; instead they eat industrial substitutes, which is not good.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "Americans don't eat very well anymore; instead they eat industrial substitutes, which is not good" can be evaluated by examining dietary trends and nutritional studies in the U.S. Here's a detailed analysis:

## Dietary Trends in the U.S.

1. **Shift to Alternative Proteins**: There is a growing trend towards alternative proteins, including plant-based and food-tech alternatives to traditional animal proteins. This shift is driven by health consciousness and sustainability concerns[1]. While these alternatives can be healthier and more sustainable, they are often perceived as industrial substitutes.

2. **Plant-Based Foods**: The plant-based food industry has seen significant growth, with sales increasing by 44% over three years[2]. This indicates a shift towards more processed or industrialized food products, as many plant-based alternatives are manufactured to mimic traditional foods.

3. **Meal Replacement Products**: The meal replacement product manufacturing industry has grown due to increased demand for convenient and healthier options[3]. These products often contain industrial ingredients and are designed to be quick fixes rather than whole foods.

## Nutritional Quality of Industrial Substitutes

1. **Nutritional Value**: Many industrial substitutes, such as alternative proteins and meal replacements, are formulated to provide similar nutritional profiles to traditional foods. However, they may lack certain micronutrients found in whole foods[3].

2. **Health Concerns**: While some industrial substitutes are healthier than traditional options (e.g., lower saturated fat content), others may contain high levels of sodium, added sugars, or refined grains[4]. The nutritional quality can vary widely depending on the product.

3. **Consumer Preferences**: Consumers often prioritize taste and health when choosing alternative proteins, which can influence the nutritional quality of these products[5].

## Conclusion

The claim that Americans don't eat very well anymore and instead consume industrial substitutes has some basis in reality. There is a trend towards consuming more processed and manufactured food products, such as alternative proteins and meal replacements. However, these products can vary significantly in nutritional quality. While some offer healthier alternatives, others may contribute to dietary imbalances if not chosen carefully. Therefore, the claim is partially valid but requires nuance to account for the diversity in nutritional quality among industrial substitutes.

**Evidence Summary:**
– **Alternative Proteins**: Growing trend towards plant-based and food-tech alternatives due to health and sustainability concerns[1].
– **Plant-Based Foods**: Significant growth in plant-based sales, indicating a shift towards more processed alternatives[2].
– **Meal Replacement Products**: Increased demand for convenient, healthier options, which can include industrial ingredients[3].
– **Nutritional Quality**: Varies widely among industrial substitutes, with some offering healthier profiles but others lacking in certain nutrients[3][4].
– **Consumer Preferences**: Taste and health are key factors in choosing alternative proteins, influencing nutritional quality[5].

Citations

Claim

The FBI raided my daughter's house without any charges being placed against her.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the FBI raided the daughter's house without any charges being placed against her, we can look into the case involving Rep. Curt Weldon's daughter, Karen Weldon. In 2006, the FBI conducted raids on the homes of Karen Weldon and her business partner, Charles P. Sexton Jr., as part of an investigation into whether Rep. Curt Weldon improperly helped them secure lobbying and consulting contracts[1][3][5].

### Evidence of the Raid
– **FBI Investigation**: The FBI raided several locations, including Karen Weldon's home and the office of Solutions North America, a firm she co-owned with Sexton[3][5].
– **Purpose of the Investigation**: The investigation aimed to determine if Rep. Weldon used his influence to secure contracts worth nearly $1 million for his daughter's firm[5].

### Charges Against Karen Weldon
– **No Public Charges**: There is no public record or mention in reputable news sources of Karen Weldon being formally charged with a crime following the raids[1][3][5].
– **Investigation Outcome**: The outcome of the investigation is not clearly documented in the available sources, but it is noted that Rep. Weldon denied any wrongdoing and claimed the investigation was politically motivated[1][3].

### Conclusion
Based on the available information, it appears that the FBI did indeed raid Karen Weldon's home as part of an investigation into potential improper influence by her father. However, there is no evidence to suggest that she was formally charged with a crime as a result of this investigation. The claim that the raid occurred without charges being placed against her aligns with the information available from reputable sources.

### Additional Considerations
– **Political Context**: The timing of the investigation and raids was criticized by Rep. Weldon as politically motivated, given its proximity to his re-election campaign[1][3].
– **Lack of Transparency**: The sealed affidavit related to the raids limits the public's access to detailed information about the investigation's findings[3].

In summary, while the FBI did conduct raids on Karen Weldon's home, there is no public record of her being charged with a crime following the investigation. The claim appears to be supported by available evidence, although the full context and outcome of the investigation remain somewhat opaque due to the lack of detailed public records.

Citations

Claim

The week of the FBI raid was the same week my opponent cut his TV advertising buy by $500,000.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To verify the claim that "the week of the FBI raid was the same week my opponent cut his TV advertising buy by $500,000," we need to examine campaign finance records and advertising expenditures during the election period in question. The FBI raid on Curt Weldon's daughter's home occurred on October 16, 2006, as part of an investigation into Weldon's ties to foreign companies and potential misuse of his official position for personal gain[3].

### Campaign Finance and Advertising Expenditures

1. **Campaign Finance Records**: OpenSecrets provides detailed information on campaign finance, including contributions and expenditures. However, specific details about advertising expenditures, especially those related to a particular week, might not be readily available in the public domain without direct access to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) records or the campaigns' financial reports[1][2].

2. **Advertising Expenditures**: To confirm the claim, one would need to access detailed advertising expenditure records from the relevant campaigns. These records might include information on when and how much was spent on TV advertising during the specific week in question.

### Available Information

– **FBI Raid and Investigation**: The FBI raid occurred on October 16, 2006, which was part of a broader investigation into Weldon's activities[3].
– **Campaign Finance Overview**: While OpenSecrets provides an overview of campaign finance, specific weekly expenditures on advertising are not typically detailed in publicly available summaries[1][2].

### Conclusion

Without direct access to the specific campaign finance records or advertising expenditure data for the week of the FBI raid, it is challenging to verify the claim definitively. The claim would require detailed analysis of FEC filings and campaign records to confirm whether there was a reduction in TV advertising expenditures by Weldon's opponent during that specific week.

### Recommendations for Verification

1. **Access FEC Records**: Obtain the FEC records for both Weldon's campaign and his opponent's campaign for the 2006 election cycle to review detailed expenditure reports.
2. **Consult Campaign Reports**: Look for any campaign reports or press releases from the time that might mention changes in advertising strategies or expenditures.
3. **Contact Local Media Archives**: Local media outlets may have reported on campaign advertising strategies or changes during that period, providing additional context.

By following these steps, one could potentially verify the claim with more precision. However, without specific data, the claim remains unsubstantiated based on the available information.

Citations

Claim

The U.S. intelligence agencies have plausible deniability regarding operations related to Bin Laden.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: U.S. Intelligence Agencies Have Plausible Deniability Regarding Operations Related to Bin Laden

The claim that U.S. intelligence agencies have plausible deniability regarding operations related to Osama bin Laden can be analyzed through the lens of intelligence agency protocols and historical context, particularly focusing on covert operations and the handling of sensitive information.

### Covert Operations and Plausible Deniability

**Covert Action Definition**: Covert actions are defined as activities of the U.S. Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the U.S. Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly[1]. This definition inherently includes the concept of plausible deniability, which allows governments to officially deny involvement in such operations.

**Historical Context: The Bin Laden Raid**: The operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden is a prime example. It was conducted under CIA control as a Title 50 covert operation, which allowed for plausible deniability if the operation had not left behind evidence of U.S. involvement[5]. The CIA's role in directing such operations provides a legal framework for maintaining secrecy and deniability.

### Intelligence Agency Protocols

**Oversight and Accountability**: Despite the secrecy surrounding covert operations, there is a comprehensive process involving legal and policy reviews, ensuring oversight and accountability at every step[5]. This process starts with presidential approval and involves multiple levels of review, which suggests that while deniability is maintained, there are internal checks to ensure that operations are legitimate and authorized.

**Information Management**: The handling of intelligence information, such as the failure to disseminate critical intelligence about 9/11 hijackers, highlights challenges in information sharing and management within intelligence agencies[3]. However, this does not directly support the claim of plausible deniability regarding operations related to bin Laden but rather underscores broader issues within intelligence coordination.

### Conclusion

The claim that U.S. intelligence agencies have plausible deniability regarding operations related to Osama bin Laden is supported by the nature of covert operations and the legal frameworks that govern them. The bin Laden raid exemplifies how military resources can be used under CIA direction to maintain plausible deniability, at least until evidence of U.S. involvement becomes apparent[5]. However, allegations of systemic cover-ups or manipulation of intelligence, as suggested by Kurt Weldon, require more specific evidence to be substantiated and are not directly related to the concept of plausible deniability in covert operations.

In summary, while U.S. intelligence agencies do have mechanisms for plausible deniability in covert operations, claims of broader cover-ups or intelligence manipulation need more concrete evidence to be validated.

Citations

Claim

Donald Trump wants the United States to be the crypto capital of the world.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Donald Trump Wants the United States to Be the Crypto Capital of the World

To assess the claim that Donald Trump wants the United States to be the "crypto capital of the world," we need to examine official statements and policy proposals related to cryptocurrencies from his administration.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Campaign Promises and Executive Orders**: President Trump has consistently expressed support for cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology. During his campaign, he promised to make the United States the "crypto capital of the world" [2]. Following his return to office, he signed an executive order aimed at supporting the U.S. crypto industry and promoting digital asset growth [2][4].

2. **Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and Digital Asset Stockpile**: On March 6, 2025, Trump issued an executive order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile. This move positions the U.S. as a leader in government digital asset strategy, treating bitcoin as a reserve asset similar to gold [1][3][5].

3. **Regulatory Framework and Crypto-Friendly Policies**: Trump's administration has taken steps to create a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets. This includes appointing a "Crypto and AI Czar" and forming a working group to propose regulations that support the crypto industry's growth [2][4].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from official statements and policy actions, it is clear that Donald Trump has indeed expressed a desire for the United States to become a leading hub for cryptocurrencies. His administration's efforts to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, promote a crypto-friendly regulatory environment, and support the growth of digital assets align with this goal.

**Validity of the Claim**: The claim is **valid**. President Trump's actions and statements demonstrate a commitment to positioning the U.S. as a global leader in the cryptocurrency sector.

Citations

Claim

Trump signed an executive order to establish a Bitcoin strategic reserve.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **Trump signed an executive order to establish a Bitcoin strategic reserve** is **true**. On March 6, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled "Establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile" [1][2][5].

### Key Points of the Executive Order:
1. **Strategic Bitcoin Reserve**: This reserve will be capitalized with bitcoin owned by the Department of Treasury that was forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings. Other agencies are to review their authority to transfer any bitcoin they hold to this reserve. The U.S. will not sell these bitcoin, maintaining them as reserve assets [1][2].

2. **U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile**: This stockpile will consist of digital assets other than bitcoin, also obtained through forfeiture proceedings. The Secretary of the Treasury may determine strategies for responsible stewardship, including potential sales from this stockpile [1][2].

3. **Policy and Management**: The order aims to centralize and optimize the management of digital assets held by the U.S. government, ensuring proper oversight and strategic use of these assets [1][2].

4. **Legislative Support**: There are ongoing efforts to cement this executive order into legislation, with some senators proposing bills to further support the strategic reserve concept [4][5].

### Evidence and Validation:
– The executive order is documented on official government websites, such as the White House's fact sheet and presidential actions page [1][2].
– News outlets and legal analysis firms have reported on the establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, providing additional context and implications of the order [3][4].
– Wikipedia also documents this event, summarizing the key components of the executive order [5].

In conclusion, the claim is supported by official government documents and reputable news sources, confirming that President Trump did indeed sign an executive order to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile.

Citations

Claim

The current debt in this country has never been higher.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "The current debt in this country has never been higher."

To assess the validity of the claim that the current debt in the United States has never been higher, we need to examine historical data on the national debt and compare it with the current figures.

### Current Debt Levels

As of March 2025, the total U.S. national debt was approximately $28.8 trillion, with $27.4 trillion held by the public[2]. In January 2025, the total debt was reported to be $35.8 trillion[5]. This discrepancy might arise from differences in how "total debt" is defined, with the higher figure potentially including intragovernmental holdings.

### Historical Comparison

Historically, the U.S. national debt has fluctuated significantly, particularly during times of war and economic downturns. However, when adjusted for inflation and as a percentage of GDP, the current debt levels are among the highest since World War II. In Q3 of 2024, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 121%[5], indicating a substantial increase in recent years.

### Interest Payments and Debt Maintenance

The cost of maintaining the national debt, primarily through interest payments, has also increased. As of March 2025, interest payments were a significant portion of federal spending, reflecting rising interest rates and a growing debt burden[1][2]. This trend suggests that while the absolute dollar amount of debt is high, the relative burden of servicing this debt is also increasing.

### Conclusion

The claim that the current debt in the United States has never been higher is partially true when considering the absolute dollar amount. However, when evaluating debt as a percentage of GDP or in terms of its historical significance, the situation is more nuanced. The current debt levels are indeed among the highest in U.S. history, especially when compared to GDP, but similar peaks have occurred during other significant economic or wartime periods.

**Evidence Supporting the Claim:**
– The total national debt is currently around $28.8 trillion to $35.8 trillion, depending on the source and methodology[2][5].
– The debt-to-GDP ratio is high, at 121% in Q3 of 2024[5].
– Interest payments on the debt are a substantial portion of federal spending[1][2].

**Contextual Considerations:**
– Historical debt levels have varied significantly, especially during wartime and economic crises.
– The current debt burden is exacerbated by rising interest rates and inflation[1][2].

Citations

Claim

iTrust Capital operates the only platform that allows you to buy and sell crypto 24/7 both inside and outside of your tax advantaged IRA.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that **iTrust Capital operates the only platform that allows you to buy and sell crypto 24/7 both inside and outside of your tax-advantaged IRA**, we need to assess the services provided by iTrust Capital and compare them with other platforms in the market.

### iTrust Capital's Services

– **iTrust Capital** is a digital asset IRA platform that allows users to buy and sell cryptocurrencies, gold, and silver within their self-directed retirement accounts. It supports transactions 24/7, providing tax benefits associated with IRAs[1][2][3].
– The platform offers a range of cryptocurrencies (over 25, though the exact number varies slightly across different sources) and physical gold and silver, with no setup or monthly fees, and a 1% transaction fee for cryptocurrencies[1][2][3].
– iTrust Capital does not operate outside of IRAs for non-retirement accounts, as its primary focus is on self-directed IRAs[1][2][3].

### Comparison with Other Platforms

– Other platforms like **Alto CryptoIRA** and **Rocket Dollar** also offer crypto IRA services, but they may have different features and fees. For example, Alto CryptoIRA has a similar fee structure but may offer more cryptocurrency options[1].
– **Rocket Dollar** provides more flexibility by setting up an LLC for users, allowing a broader range of investments, but it is more complex and takes longer to set up[1].

### Conclusion

The claim that **iTrust Capital operates the only platform that allows you to buy and sell crypto 24/7 both inside and outside of your tax-advantaged IRA** is not accurate. iTrust Capital does allow 24/7 transactions within tax-advantaged IRAs, but it does not support transactions outside of IRAs. Other platforms also offer similar services within IRAs, though they may differ in specifics like fees and available cryptocurrencies.

In summary, while iTrust Capital provides a convenient and low-fee platform for crypto transactions within IRAs, it does not operate outside of IRAs, and other platforms offer comparable services within the IRA space.

Citations

Claim

The U.S. government has the technology to infect people with fast-moving cancer.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: U.S. Government Capabilities to Infect People with Fast-Moving Cancer

The claim that the U.S. government has the technology to infect people with fast-moving cancer is a serious and controversial assertion. This evaluation will focus on the available scientific evidence and historical research regarding bioweapons and government capabilities.

### Scientific and Historical Context

1. **Biological Warfare**: Historically, biological warfare has involved the use of pathogens to harm or kill humans, animals, or plants. However, there is no credible evidence to suggest that governments have developed technologies specifically for infecting people with cancer. Cancer is a complex disease involving uncontrolled cell growth, and inducing it artificially would require a deep understanding of carcinogenesis and the ability to control cell behavior in a highly specific manner.

2. **Cancer Research and Induction**: While there are viruses known to cause cancer (e.g., human papillomavirus causing cervical cancer), these are naturally occurring and not engineered by governments for biowarfare. The idea of creating a fast-moving cancer through infection is not supported by current scientific understanding or evidence.

3. **Government Bioweapons Programs**: Past bioweapons programs, such as those conducted by the U.S. during the Cold War, focused on pathogens like anthrax and smallpox. There is no documented evidence that these programs included research on inducing cancer as a weapon.

### Kurt Weldon's Claims and Context

Kurt Weldon, a former Pennsylvania congressman, is known for his controversial assertions regarding the events of September 11, 2001, particularly his claims about the "Able Danger" intelligence program. However, his statements do not provide any evidence or credible sources supporting the claim about government capabilities to infect people with cancer.

### Conclusion

Based on the available scientific evidence and historical research, there is no credible support for the claim that the U.S. government has the technology to infect people with fast-moving cancer. Such a capability would require significant advancements in biotechnology and carcinogenesis that are not documented in the scientific literature or historical records of bioweapons research.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Scientific Literature Review**: Conduct a thorough review of scientific journals and academic research on carcinogenesis and biotechnology to identify any potential advancements that could be misinterpreted or exaggerated.
– **Historical Bioweapons Research**: Examine historical documents and reports from government bioweapons programs to confirm the absence of cancer-related research.
– **Expert Consultation**: Consult with experts in oncology, biotechnology, and biodefense to assess the feasibility and plausibility of such a claim.

In summary, without credible scientific evidence or historical documentation, the claim remains unsubstantiated and lacks a basis in current scientific understanding.

Citations

Claim

Two of the hijackers that were on one of the planes on 9/11 were working for the CIA.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that two of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks were working for the CIA lacks credible evidence and is not supported by reliable sources. Here's a detailed evaluation of this claim based on available information:

## Background on the Hijackers
Two of the hijackers, **Khalid al-Mihdhar** and **Nawaf al-Hazmi**, were known to be associated with al-Qaeda. They entered the United States in January 2000 and were involved in the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001[1][3].

## Intelligence Failures and CIA Involvement
There were significant intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 attacks, including issues with information sharing between agencies like the CIA and FBI. The CIA knew about al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi's connections to al-Qaeda and their entry into the U.S., but this information was not effectively communicated to the FBI until late August 2001[1][4]. However, there is no credible evidence to suggest that these hijackers were working for the CIA.

## Allegations of a Cover-Up
Some sources suggest that the CIA may have inadvertently shielded the hijackers by not sharing critical information with the FBI, possibly due to attempts to recruit them as intelligence sources[5]. However, these claims are speculative and not supported by mainstream investigations or official reports.

## Official Investigations and Reports
The **9/11 Commission Report** and other official investigations have not found evidence that any of the hijackers were working for the CIA. These reports highlight failures in intelligence sharing and coordination but do not support the claim of CIA employment[3].

## Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that two of the 9/11 hijackers were working for the CIA. While there were significant intelligence failures and potential attempts to recruit sources within al-Qaeda, these do not equate to the hijackers being CIA operatives. The claim remains unsubstantiated and speculative without concrete evidence from reliable sources.

Citations

Claim

The 9/11 commission report is a piece of garbage.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "The 9/11 Commission Report is a Piece of Garbage"

The claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is a "piece of garbage" reflects a critical perspective on the report's credibility and effectiveness. This viewpoint is often associated with conspiracy theories and criticisms regarding the report's thoroughness and impartiality. To evaluate this claim, we must consider both the criticisms and the factual basis of the report.

### Background of the 9/11 Commission Report

The 9/11 Commission Report was produced by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, established by Public Law 107-306 on November 27, 2002. The commission's mandate was to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including intelligence failures, law enforcement actions, and other relevant areas[4].

### Criticisms of the Report

1. **Lack of Accountability and Transparency**: Critics argue that the report did not adequately address government accountability for intelligence failures that could have prevented the attacks. Former Congressman Kurt Weldon, for example, suggests that crucial intelligence information was obscured by government officials[5].

2. **Manipulation of Data**: Some critics, like Weldon, believe that intelligence agencies manipulated data to prevent an effective response to the attacks. However, these claims often lack concrete evidence and are not supported by mainstream investigations[5].

3. **Operational Failures**: The report itself identified several operational failures, including intelligence sharing issues and inadequate aviation security. However, these findings are presented as part of a comprehensive analysis rather than a cover-up[5].

### Validity of the Report

1. **Comprehensive Investigation**: The commission conducted a thorough investigation, reviewing over 2.5 million pages of documents and interviewing more than 1,200 individuals in ten countries. This extensive research aimed to provide a detailed account of the events and identify lessons learned[4].

2. **Bipartisan Consensus**: The report was produced by a bipartisan commission with a unified purpose, reflecting a consensus among its members despite the partisan environment at the time[4].

3. **Recommendations and Reforms**: The report led to significant reforms, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and improvements in intelligence sharing and national security policies[3][5].

### Conclusion

While criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report exist, they often stem from conspiracy theories or dissatisfaction with the report's conclusions rather than factual inaccuracies. The report remains a comprehensive and authoritative account of the events surrounding 9/11, supported by extensive research and bipartisan consensus. Claims of a "cover-up" or manipulation of data are not substantiated by credible evidence and are not widely accepted by mainstream investigations or academic analyses.

In summary, while the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is a "piece of garbage" reflects a critical perspective, it is not supported by reliable evidence or academic consensus. The report's thoroughness and impact on national security reforms are well-documented and widely acknowledged.

Citations

Claim

There were no plane impacts before the collapse of Building 7.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: No Plane Impacts Before the Collapse of Building 7

The claim that there were no plane impacts before the collapse of Building 7 is accurate. World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) did not suffer a direct plane impact on September 11, 2001. Instead, it was damaged by debris from the collapse of the North Tower (1 World Trade Center) and suffered significant fires throughout the day[1][2][3].

### Evidence Supporting the Claim
1. **No Direct Plane Impact**: Unlike the Twin Towers, WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. The damage it sustained was primarily from debris and fires ignited by that debris[2][3].

2. **Debris Damage**: The collapse of the North Tower caused heavy debris to hit WTC 7, damaging its south face and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon[2][3].

3. **Fires as Primary Cause**: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that uncontrolled fires were the primary cause of WTC 7's collapse. These fires weakened critical structural elements, leading to a progressive collapse[1][3].

### Additional Context and Controversies
– **Investigations and Theories**: While NIST's investigation concluded that fires were the primary cause of the collapse, some alternative theories suggest other factors might have contributed. However, these theories, including those suggesting controlled demolition, have not been supported by mainstream scientific evidence[1][4].

– **Structural Vulnerabilities**: WTC 7's design, including its construction over an electrical substation, made it vulnerable to uncontrolled fires. The lack of effective fire suppression due to low water pressure exacerbated the situation[2][3].

In summary, the claim that there were no plane impacts before the collapse of Building 7 is supported by evidence. The building's collapse was primarily attributed to uncontrolled fires and structural damage from debris, rather than a direct plane impact.

Citations

Claim

The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an incomplete investigation regarding 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: NIST Conducted an Incomplete Investigation Regarding 9/11

The claim that the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an incomplete investigation into the events of 9/11 is a matter of ongoing debate and skepticism. To assess this claim, it is essential to review the scope, methodology, and conclusions of the NIST investigation, as well as responses from the engineering community.

### Scope and Methodology of the NIST Investigation

1. **Investigation Mandate**: The NIST investigation was mandated by the National Construction Safety Team Act of 2002, which gave NIST the authority to investigate building failures, evaluate evacuation and emergency response procedures, and recommend changes to building codes and practices[2].

2. **Investigation Process**: NIST gathered extensive evidence, including over 236 steel artifacts from the World Trade Center site. They developed complex computer models to simulate the collapse of the towers and conducted experiments to understand the behavior of structural elements under high temperatures[2][3].

3. **Public Engagement**: Throughout the investigation, NIST held 23 public meetings and provided multiple opportunities for public review and comment on draft reports[1].

4. **Final Reports**: NIST released comprehensive final reports on the collapses of the Twin Towers in October 2005 and on Building 7 in November 2008, totaling over 11,000 pages[1][2].

### Conclusions of the NIST Investigation

1. **Causes of Collapse**: NIST concluded that the Twin Towers collapsed due to a combination of airplane impact damage, dislodgment of fireproofing, and subsequent fires. Building 7 collapsed due to thermal expansion of steel beams and girders caused by uncontrolled fires[2][5].

2. **Evidence and Modeling**: NIST's findings were supported by extensive video and photographic evidence, as well as computer simulations that modeled the collapse sequences[3][5].

### Criticisms and Skepticism

1. **Lack of Physical Evidence**: Critics argue that much physical evidence was destroyed or removed before the investigation began, particularly for Building 7[5].

2. **Alternative Theories**: Some critics propose alternative theories, such as controlled demolition, which NIST did not find evidence to support[3].

3. **Engineering Community Response**: While some engineers and experts have questioned aspects of NIST's findings, the majority of the scientific and engineering community supports NIST's conclusions based on the evidence and methodologies used[2][4].

### Conclusion

The claim that NIST conducted an incomplete investigation is not supported by the extensive scope and methodology of the investigation. NIST's reports were based on comprehensive research, public engagement, and rigorous scientific methods. While criticisms exist, they do not invalidate the overall conclusions of the investigation. The engineering community generally supports NIST's findings, and the reports have led to significant improvements in building safety codes and practices worldwide[1][2][4].

However, ongoing skepticism and calls for further investigation highlight the need for continued transparency and dialogue. Kurt Weldon's assertions about systemic opposition and intelligence failures are separate from the technical aspects of the NIST investigation and relate more to broader political and intelligence issues surrounding 9/11[Query].

Citations

Claim

Firefighters reported hearing explosions on 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Firefighters Reported Hearing Explosions on 9/11

The claim that firefighters reported hearing explosions on 9/11 is a topic of ongoing debate and speculation. To evaluate this claim, we must examine testimonies from first responders and available recordings from that day.

### Testimonies and Reports

1. **FDNY Testimonies**: While there are numerous accounts of firefighters experiencing the chaos and destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11, specific references to hearing explosions are not widely documented in mainstream sources. However, some first responders have shared their experiences of hearing loud noises or feeling the ground shake, which could be interpreted as explosions. For example, Battalion Chief Joe Pfeifer and other FDNY members described the intense sounds and vibrations during the collapse of the towers, but these are generally attributed to the structural failures rather than explosions[1][5].

2. **Explosion Claims**: Some conspiracy theories suggest that explosions were heard, but these claims are not supported by the official investigations or mainstream media reports. The 9/11 Commission Report does not mention explosions as a cause of the collapses, attributing them instead to structural failures due to fire and damage from the plane impacts.

### Available Recordings

1. **Audio and Video Evidence**: There are extensive audio and video recordings from 9/11, including radio communications and eyewitness footage. However, none of these recordings provide clear evidence of explosions as described in conspiracy theories. The sounds captured are consistent with the expected noises of a catastrophic building collapse, such as crashing and crumbling[1][3].

### Conclusion

While some first responders reported hearing loud noises or feeling vibrations during the collapse of the World Trade Center, these are generally explained by the structural failures and not by explosions. The claim that firefighters specifically reported hearing explosions is not supported by mainstream evidence or official investigations. The 9/11 Commission Report and other authoritative sources attribute the collapses to the damage caused by the plane impacts and subsequent fires.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Review Official Reports**: The 9/11 Commission Report and other official investigations provide comprehensive analyses of the events.
– **Examine First-Responder Testimonies**: While some testimonies mention loud noises, these are typically attributed to the building collapses rather than explosions.
– **Evaluate Audio and Video Recordings**: Available recordings do not provide clear evidence of explosions as claimed in conspiracy theories.

In summary, while there are reports of loud noises and vibrations, these are not conclusively linked to explosions as suggested by some claims. The scientific consensus and official investigations support the explanation that the collapses were due to structural failures caused by the plane impacts and fires.

—

**References:**

[1] – 60 Minutes: "9/11: The FDNY"
[3] – BBC: "Firefighter recalls experience evacuating the North Tower"
[5] – 9/11 Memorial: "The Story Behind the First FDNY Chief to Respond"
– The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) – Official Government Publication.

**Note:** The 9/11 Commission Report is a key source for understanding the official narrative of the events. It provides detailed explanations of the causes of the building collapses, attributing them to structural failures due to fire and damage from the plane impacts.

Citations

Claim

This would be the first presidential commission.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that a proposed presidential commission to investigate the events of September 11, 2001, would be the first of its kind is not accurate. Presidential commissions have a long history in the United States, dating back to at least 1794, when the Commissioners to Confer with the Insurgents in the Western Counties of Pennsylvania were established[1]. Over the years, numerous commissions have been formed to address significant issues, including the Warren Commission (1963) to investigate President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the Kerner Commission (1967) to study civil disorders, and the Roberts Commission (1941) to investigate the attack on Pearl Harbor[1][2].

Specifically regarding the events of September 11, 2001, a presidential commission was indeed established. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission, was created in 2002 to investigate the attacks and provide recommendations to prevent future terrorist attacks[4]. Therefore, any new commission proposed to investigate aspects of 9/11 would not be the first presidential commission on the topic.

In summary, the claim that a new commission would be the first presidential commission is incorrect due to the extensive history of such commissions, including one specifically focused on the 9/11 attacks.

### Evidence and References:
– **Historical Context of Presidential Commissions**: Presidential commissions have been used since 1794 for various investigations and research[1].
– **9/11 Commission**: A specific commission was established to investigate the 9/11 attacks, making any new commission on this topic not the first[4].
– **Examples of Notable Commissions**: The Warren Commission, Kerner Commission, and Roberts Commission are examples of significant presidential commissions[2][4].

Citations

Claim

By next year, we celebrate the 250th anniversary of America; the fire service will be 290 years old.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that by next year, America will celebrate its 250th anniversary and the fire service will be 290 years old, we need to examine two key components: the anniversary of America's founding and the history of fire services in America.

## 1. America's 250th Anniversary

The United States will indeed celebrate its 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026, marking the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence[1][2][4]. This event is widely recognized and is being commemorated through various national and local celebrations.

## 2. Age of the Fire Service in America

The claim that the fire service will be 290 years old by next year requires verification. The history of fire services in America dates back to the early colonial period. The first organized fire department in America was established in Boston in 1678, making it one of the oldest fire departments in the country. However, fire fighting itself has roots even earlier, with informal groups forming to combat fires in various colonies.

If we consider the establishment of the first organized fire department in Boston as a benchmark, by 2026, it would be approximately 348 years old, not 290. This discrepancy suggests that the claim about the fire service being 290 years old may not be accurate based on historical records of organized fire departments.

## Conclusion

– **America's 250th Anniversary**: Verified. The U.S. will celebrate its 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026[1][2][4].
– **Age of the Fire Service**: The claim that the fire service will be 290 years old is not supported by historical records. Organized fire departments have been around for nearly 348 years, starting with Boston's in 1678.

In summary, while America's 250th anniversary is accurate, the age of the fire service as claimed appears to be incorrect based on available historical data.

—

**References:**

[1] America250. (n.d.). *America250*. Retrieved from https://america250.org
[2] Wikipedia. (n.d.). *United States Semiquincentennial*. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Semiquincentennial
[3] The White House. (2025). *Celebrating America's 250th Birthday*. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/celebrating-americas-250th-birthday/
[4] America250. (n.d.). *America’s 250th*. Retrieved from https://america250.org/americas-250th/
[5] Discover PHL. (n.d.). *Philadelphia 2026: Celebrate America's 250th Anniversary*. Retrieved from https://www.discoverphl.com/blog-post/philadelphia-2026/
Note: Specific historical details about the age of fire services were not provided in the search results, but general knowledge indicates that organized fire departments began in the late 17th century.

Citations

Claim

Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to 11 felonies lying to a federal agent stealing five documents and destroying five documents.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to 11 felonies, including lying to a federal agent, stealing five documents, and destroying five documents, is **incorrect**. Here's a detailed evaluation of the claim based on reliable sources:

1. **Plea and Charges**: Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to a **single misdemeanor charge** under 18 U.S.C. § 1924 for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives[1][2]. This occurred in April 2005, as part of a plea agreement where he admitted to removing five copies of a single classified document[1][4].

2. **Facts of the Case**: Berger was reviewing documents related to the 9/11 Commission's requests. He removed the documents on two occasions in 2003 and later destroyed three copies in his office[1][2]. He initially lied about the removal but later admitted to taking the documents, claiming it was an "honest mistake" before pleading guilty[4].

3. **Sentence and Consequences**: Berger was sentenced to two years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a fine that was initially set at $10,000 but raised to $50,000 by the judge[2][5]. He also surrendered his security clearance for three years and relinquished his law license in 2007 to avoid disbarment proceedings[2][5].

4. **Lack of Felony Charges**: There is no evidence in reliable sources indicating that Berger faced or pleaded guilty to 11 felonies. The plea was for a misdemeanor, and the focus was on the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents, not on lying to a federal agent or multiple felonies[1][2][4].

In conclusion, the claim about Sandy Berger pleading guilty to 11 felonies is not supported by factual evidence. The actual charges and plea were for a single misdemeanor related to the unauthorized removal of classified documents.

Citations

Claim

Sandy Berger stole documents that are in the National Archives.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Sandy Berger stole documents from the National Archives is supported by historical records and news stories. Sandy Berger, the former National Security Adviser under President Bill Clinton, was involved in a notable incident where he removed classified documents from the National Archives. Here is a detailed evaluation of the claim:

## Background
Sandy Berger served as the 18th U.S. National Security Adviser from 1997 to 2001 and as Deputy National Security Adviser from 1993 to 1997[2]. In 2003, he was tasked with reviewing documents related to the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium terror plots for the 9/11 Commission.

## Incident Details
In October 2003, Berger visited the National Archives to review classified documents. During his visits, he removed several copies of a report commissioned by Richard Clarke, which assessed the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium attack plots. Berger allegedly hid the documents in his socks and pants[2][4]. He later admitted to taking the documents and shredding some of them, claiming it was an "honest mistake"[5].

## Legal Consequences
Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material in April 2005. He was fined $50,000, sentenced to two years of probation, and required to perform 100 hours of community service. Additionally, he lost his security clearance for three years and voluntarily relinquished his license to practice law to avoid disbarment proceedings[2][5].

## Conclusion
The claim that Sandy Berger stole documents from the National Archives is accurate. Berger's actions involved the unauthorized removal of classified documents, which he later admitted to and faced legal consequences for[1][2][5]. While the nature and content of the stolen documents have been subject to speculation, the fact that Berger removed classified material without authorization is well-documented and confirmed by official records and news reports.

Citations

Claim

We allowed unnamed scumbags in the CIA to block transferring the information that Scott Philpott and Tony Schaefer had that they tried to transfer to the Justice Department.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: CIA Blocking Information Transfer

The claim suggests that CIA personnel blocked the transfer of information from Scott Philpott and Tony Schaefer to the Justice Department, which is part of a broader conspiracy narrative involving intelligence failures and cover-ups related to the September 11, 2001, attacks. This narrative is closely associated with former Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon, who has been vocal about his concerns regarding the handling of pre-9/11 intelligence.

### Background on Curt Weldon's Claims

Curt Weldon has been a prominent figure in questioning the official narrative of 9/11, particularly focusing on the "Able Danger" program. He claimed that this program identified Mohamed Atta and other hijackers before the attacks, but these claims were largely debunked by official investigations. The Pentagon's Inspector General and the Senate Intelligence Committee found no evidence to support Weldon's assertions that Atta was identified prior to 9/11[1][4].

### The Claim of CIA Interference

While Weldon's claims often involve allegations of government cover-ups and intelligence failures, there is no specific evidence from reliable sources to support the claim that CIA personnel blocked the transfer of information from Scott Philpott and Tony Schaefer to the Justice Department. Weldon's narrative often involves broad accusations against government agencies, but these are generally not supported by concrete evidence or official investigations.

### Evidence and Investigations

– **Pentagon's Inspector General Report**: This report rejected Weldon's claims about Able Danger identifying 9/11 hijackers before the attacks[1].
– **Senate Intelligence Committee**: Senators Pat Roberts and John D. Rockefeller also dismissed Weldon's claims, stating there was no evidence to support them[4].
– **Lack of Concrete Evidence**: Despite Weldon's assertions, there is no documented evidence from credible sources to support the specific claim about CIA interference in transferring information to the Justice Department.

### Conclusion

The claim about CIA personnel blocking the transfer of information lacks concrete evidence and is part of a broader narrative of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 that have been largely debunked by official investigations. While Weldon's allegations highlight concerns about intelligence failures and accountability, they do not provide a basis for concluding that the CIA specifically interfered with the transfer of information from Philpott and Schaefer to the Justice Department.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Review Official Reports**: Examine reports from the Pentagon's Inspector General and the Senate Intelligence Committee for any mention of CIA interference.
2. **Investigative Journalism**: Look for investigative journalism pieces that might have explored similar claims or allegations.
3. **Primary Sources**: Seek primary sources or testimony from individuals like Scott Philpott and Tony Schaefer to verify the claim.

In summary, while Weldon's claims highlight concerns about intelligence handling, they are not supported by reliable evidence and have been largely discredited by official investigations.

Citations

Claim

Firefighters are 98% supported in polls.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that firefighters are 98% supported in polls does not align with available data from reputable sources. While firefighters and their unions are highly regarded by the public, the closest figure to this claim is a 71% favorable view of fire fighter unions, as reported by a YouGov poll[1][5]. This poll indicates that nearly three-quarters of Americans have a very or somewhat favorable view of fire fighter unions, which is the highest favorability rating among various labor unions. However, there is no evidence to support a 98% support level in any recent or reliable polling data.

### Evidence and Analysis

1. **YouGov Poll**: A recent YouGov poll found that 71% of Americans have a favorable view of fire fighter unions, making them the most popular labor group in the U.S.[1][5]. This high level of support is consistent across different demographics and political affiliations.

2. **Ipsos Poll**: Another poll by Ipsos highlighted that firefighters are among the most trusted professions, alongside healthcare workers and first responders[2]. However, it does not provide a specific percentage of support for firefighters that matches the 98% claim.

3. **Public Perception**: Firefighters are generally viewed positively due to their role in emergency services and community safety. This positive perception is reflected in various polls and studies, but none have reported a 98% support level.

### Conclusion

Based on available data, the claim that firefighters are 98% supported in polls is not supported by reliable sources. The highest reported favorable view of fire fighter unions is 71%, which is still a very high level of support but does not reach the claimed 98% figure. Therefore, the claim appears to be an exaggeration without a basis in current polling data.

Citations

Claim

The first fire department was formed by Ben Franklin in Philadelphia in 1736.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: The First Fire Department Was Formed by Ben Franklin in Philadelphia in 1736

The claim that the first fire department was formed by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1736 can be evaluated through historical records and academic sources. Here's a detailed analysis:

### Historical Context

Benjamin Franklin co-founded the **Union Fire Company** on December 7, 1736, in Philadelphia. This organization is often referred to as the "Bucket Brigade" and was the first formally organized volunteer fire company in the American colonies[1][2][3]. It was inspired by Boston's Mutual Fire Societies but differed in that it protected the entire community, not just its members[1][2].

### Equipment and Operations

The Union Fire Company was equipped with leather buckets and linen bags for firefighting and property salvage. Members had various roles, including water management, property protection, and fire prevention[1][2]. The company's success led to the formation of additional brigades, significantly reducing fire damage in Philadelphia[2][3].

### Legacy

The Union Fire Company is considered a precursor to the modern Philadelphia Fire Department, tracing its roots back to Franklin's initiative[1][2]. Additionally, Franklin played a role in establishing the **Philadelphia Contributionship for the Insurance of Houses from Loss by Fire** in 1752, which is now the oldest successful property insurance company in the United States[1][4].

### Conclusion

While the Union Fire Company was indeed the first formally organized volunteer fire company in the American colonies, founded by Benjamin Franklin in 1736, it is not the first fire department in the broader sense. Boston had earlier firefighting clubs, and other cities may have had informal firefighting groups. However, Franklin's initiative marked a significant milestone in organized firefighting in America.

**Validity of the Claim:** The claim is partially accurate in that the Union Fire Company was a pioneering effort in organized volunteer firefighting. However, it might be misleading if interpreted as the first fire department in a broader historical context, as there were earlier forms of firefighting organizations in other locations.

**Evidence and Sources:**

– **Historical Documents and Academic Articles:** The formation of the Union Fire Company is well-documented in historical accounts and academic sources[1][2][3][5].
– **Legacy and Impact:** The influence of Franklin's initiative on modern firefighting and insurance practices is acknowledged in various historical analyses[1][4][5].

Citations

Claim

My film is based on my book, and all the proceeds of my film firefight are going to firefighters.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Curt Weldon's film is based on his book and that all proceeds from the film "Firefight" are going to firefighters, we need to examine available sources for evidence supporting or refuting this assertion.

## Claim Analysis

1. **Film Based on the Book**: The claim that the film is based on Weldon's book is not explicitly detailed in the provided sources. However, Weldon mentions in an interview that his film is related to his book, but specific details about the book's content or how it relates to the film are not provided in the sources[5].

2. **Proceeds Going to Firefighters**: Weldon states in an interview that all proceeds from his film "Firefight" will go to firefighters[5]. This claim is consistent with promotional materials for the documentary film "Firefight," which aims to raise awareness for first responders and plans educational screenings for firehouses across America[1][2].

## Evidence and Conclusion

– **Evidence for the Film's Purpose**: The documentary "Firefight" is described as a film about a small-town firefighter becoming a congressman to raise awareness for first responders. It includes plans for grassroots educational screenings and international screenings, which aligns with Weldon's claim of supporting firefighters[1][2].

– **Lack of Detailed Financial Information**: While Weldon asserts that proceeds will go to firefighters, there is no detailed financial information or documentation provided in the sources to confirm how these proceeds will be distributed or managed.

– **Conclusion**: Based on available information, it appears that Curt Weldon's film "Firefight" is intended to support firefighters, and he claims that all proceeds will go to them. However, specific details about the financial management of these proceeds are not provided in the sources. Therefore, while the claim about the film's purpose and intended beneficiaries is supported by Weldon's statements and promotional materials, the lack of detailed financial information limits the ability to fully verify the claim about the distribution of proceeds.

In summary, the claim that the film is based on Weldon's book lacks specific evidence, but the assertion that proceeds will go to firefighters is supported by Weldon's statements and the film's promotional materials.

Citations

Claim

Bravo 7 is a film one hour long done by firefighters not done by Hollywood.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: "Bravo 7 is a film one hour long done by firefighters not done by Hollywood."

To evaluate the claim about "Bravo 7," we need to verify its existence, production details, and whether it was indeed created by firefighters rather than a Hollywood production.

### Existence and Production Details

1. **Existence**: The film "Calling Out Bravo 7" is mentioned in several sources, including YouTube videos and documentary platforms. It is described as a film created by firefighters examining the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001[1][2][5].

2. **Production**: The film is not attributed to any major Hollywood studios but is instead associated with firefighters themselves. It is part of a broader discussion on the physics of high-rise fires and the collapse of WTC 7[2][5].

3. **Length**: There is no specific mention of the film being exactly one hour long in the available sources. However, the focus is on its content and purpose rather than its duration.

### Verification Through Film Databases or Industry Publications

As of the latest available information, there is no mention of "Bravo 7" in major film databases like IMDb or industry publications that would typically catalog Hollywood productions. This suggests that it is not a mainstream Hollywood film but rather a documentary or short film produced outside of traditional Hollywood channels.

### Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, the claim that "Bravo 7" is a film done by firefighters and not by Hollywood appears to be valid. The film is indeed associated with firefighters and focuses on their perspectives regarding the collapse of WTC 7. However, specific details about its length or formal recognition in mainstream film databases are not readily available.

### Additional Information

The interview with Kurt Weldon, a former Pennsylvania congressman, highlights his experiences and concerns about the official narrative of 9/11. While this context is relevant to broader discussions about 9/11, it does not directly impact the verification of the "Bravo 7" film's production details. Weldon's assertions about government accountability and intelligence failures are part of a broader critique of the 9/11 Commission Report and call for further investigation.

### References

– [1] YouTube: "9/11 – CALLING OUT Bravo 7 – Documentary 2020"
– [2] YouTube: "Calling Out Bravo 7 | 2020 Edition"
– [3] Internet Archive: "Calling OUT Bravo 7 – A Short Film by Firefighters"
– [5] Documentary Heaven: "Calling Out Bravo 7: The 2020 Edition"

Citations

Claim

Flight 93 was going to be used to kill Americans.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Flight 93 Was Going to Be Used to Kill Americans

The claim that United Airlines Flight 93 was intended to be used to kill Americans is inherently true based on the events of September 11, 2001. Flight 93 was one of the four planes hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists, and it crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers attempted to regain control from the hijackers. The hijackers' intent was to use the plane as a weapon, likely targeting a significant U.S. landmark or government building, thus aiming to kill Americans.

### Historical Context and Reports

1. **Flight 93's Hijacking and Crash**: On September 11, 2001, Flight 93 was hijacked by four terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda. The passengers, aware of the other hijackings, attempted to overpower the hijackers, leading to a crash in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. This act prevented the plane from reaching its intended target, which was believed to be either the U.S. Capitol or the White House.

2. **Intelligence Failures and Government Accountability**: Former Rep. Curt Weldon's claims about intelligence failures and government accountability are part of a broader debate about the events leading up to 9/11. Weldon suggests that certain intelligence information was not acted upon, which could have prevented the attacks. However, these claims are controversial and not universally accepted[1][2][3].

3. **9/11 Commission Report**: The official 9/11 Commission Report provides a comprehensive account of the events leading up to and including the attacks. While Weldon disputes the report's credibility, it remains the most authoritative source on the subject. The report details the hijackings, including Flight 93, and concludes that the attacks were planned and executed by al-Qaeda.

### Conclusion

The claim that Flight 93 was going to be used to kill Americans is supported by historical evidence. The hijackers' intent was to use the plane as a weapon against a U.S. target, which aligns with the broader goals of the 9/11 attacks. However, claims about intelligence failures and government cover-ups, as asserted by Weldon, are more controversial and require further scrutiny.

## References

[1] YouTube Video: Rep. Curt Weldon Tried to Prevent 9-11, and The U.S. Government Shut Him Down.
[2] Congressional Record: Rep. Curt Weldon on 9/11, LIWA Information Dominance Center.
[3] YouTube Video: Rep. Curt Weldon: It's Time to Finally Tell the Truth About 9-11.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. (2004). *The 9/11 Commission Report*.
National Park Service. (n.d.). *Flight 93 National Memorial*.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. (2004). *The 9/11 Commission Report*.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!