Actor and director Mel Gibson has once again stepped into political controversy, this time calling on the U.S. government to come clean about what really happened on September 11, 2001. In a post on X (formerly Twitter) this week, the Hollywood icon questioned the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks, echoing long-held suspicions about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
Gibson posted a clip from journalist Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with ex-Congressman Curt Weldon, where the former lawmaker raised red flags about the government’s role—or lack thereof—in preventing the attacks and what he calls the intelligence community’s tendency to conceal uncomfortable truths.
“Three buildings went down that day—not two,” Gibson wrote, highlighting the collapse of Building 7, which wasn’t struck by a plane. “To this day, no one has explained how Building 7 fell… Enough with the fear. It’s time for the truth—about 9/11, about history, about all of us.”
His remarks reignited debates that have lingered for nearly a quarter-century. While the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that fires triggered by debris from the twin towers led to Building 7’s collapse, skeptics remain unconvinced.
Weldon, during the interview, criticized the media’s dismissal of alternative theories. “They call people conspiracy theorists,” he said, “but that’s exactly what the CIA trains agents to do—manipulate narratives.”
He urged Donald Trump to establish a new, independent commission staffed with individuals of “impeccable integrity” to re-examine the evidence surrounding the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.
The 9/11 Commission, formed by Congress in 2002, found significant intelligence failures but concluded that no U.S. agencies had foreknowledge of the exact plot. Still, public doubts persist, fueled by unanswered questions and perceived gaps in the official story.
Now, with Gibson throwing his weight behind the call for transparency, the push for a fresh investigation may find new traction—at least in the court of public opinion.
