updated 11/15/2005 9:32:52 AM ET 2005-11-15T14:32:52

Guests: Stephen Hayes, Flavia Colgan, Barry Lynn, Max Kellerman, Jennifer Obakhume

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thanks to you at home for staying with us tonight.  We appreciate it, as we always do. 

In a minute, we will tell you about newly revealed documents that may shed light on what Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito actually believes about abortion. 

Also talk to a BYU professor with a shocking theory on what really brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11. 

But first, President Bush takes a parting shot at Democrats as he prepares for his trip to Asia.  The president, whose popularity is all-time low, according to virtually every poll taken, continued his P.R. campaign about the Iraq war in front of U.S. servicemen in Alaska before embarking on his eight-day journey.  He‘ll be going to Japan, South Korea, China, and Mongolia. 

In today‘s address, Bush accused Democrats of quote, “sending mixed signals” to our troops and the enemy.  He rattled off specific quotes from three senior Democrats who supported going after Saddam Hussein before the war and now oppose it.

Here‘s the last of the examples Bush gave. 


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Here‘s another quote from a senior Democrat leader.  “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community, and I think the president is approaching this in the right fashion,” end quote.  They spoke the truth then, and they‘re speaking politics now. 


CARLSON:  For more on the president‘s new offensive against his political enemies, we welcome Stephen Hayes.  He‘s the senior editor at the “Weekly Standard.”  He has covered the subject for a long time, and he joins us live tonight from Washington, D.C.

Steve Hayes, thanks for coming on. 


Hey, Tucker, how are you?

CARLSON:  I am doing great.  And I think, as I‘m sure you probably agree, and people who think about it agree as well, these attacks on Bush by people who voted for the war claiming they were lied to are mostly a crock, but harder to ignore, the attacks coming from members of his party. 

There‘s this news today that Senate Republicans as well as Senate Democrats are going to try to attach a rider to the defense authorization bill coming up that would push Bush to set an end date for the occupation of Iraq.  Is this a big deal, do you think, politically?

HAYES:  Well, it could be.  It depends how far it goes.  I mean, I think anytime you have members of the president‘s own party sort of pushing back.  It suggests that he‘s arguing from a position of political weakness. 

CARLSON:  How—I mean, how significant is this?  His poll numbers are so low, and concurrent with most of these numbers about the war in Iraq, which whatever you think about it, is just not at all popular right now.  People do have serious questions about his justification. 

What happens, if you get a size—what happens if 15 Republicans or 20 Republicans in the Senate bolt and back this thing and vote for this thing, essentially Bush has no congressional support at that point, does he?

HAYES:  Well, it would be sort of an elbow to the gut of the president, if that sizable of a chunk sort of defected, but I don‘t expect that to happen necessarily.  I think this is a very good first step.  The president gave a speech last week in which he sort of fought back against his Democratic critics. 

He did the same again today and I think stepped up the rhetoric, I believe at the Pentagon.  The press briefing tomorrow will feature some of the same kinds of reminders what Democrats said.

And I think that‘s been part of the problem, both in the public at large and with the president‘s—members of the president‘s own party in Congress, is that the White House really hasn‘t answered these what I view as really scurrilous charges that he lied the country into war. 

CARLSON:  Why is that?  I‘ve heard people say that, I have thought that myself.  I think I‘ve heard you say it in private anyway, that they have all these good arguments to them, but they don‘t use them.  How can that be?

HAYES:  It‘s a very good question.  And you know, I‘m asked everywhere I go, basically. 

What I hear is look, we don‘t need to re-litigate the case for war in Iraq.  We have more important things.  We need to defeat the insurgents, keep the political process going.

And I‘m sympathetic to that argument to a certainly extent.  Actually Steve Hadley, the national security advisor, made that argument yesterday. 

But I think it‘s only half right.  I mean, if you look at what the administration needs to do going forward, a big part is continuing to make the case for the war, and it‘s not a distraction.  It really is part of the ongoing fight. 

If you talk to senior diplomats or U.S. military officials in theater, what they will tell you is insurgents pay very close attention to the debate taking place here in the united states, and they see setback after setback for the Bush administration really go unchallenged, and some of these charges go unchallenged, so I think it is part of the current campaign to continue to remind people what we‘re doing there. 

CARLSON:  Here‘s one of the—I thought the most significant, and I thought at the time, anyway, thoughtful arguments for the invasion of Iraq.  And it was that despotisms, these tyrannies in the Middle East, essentially produce terrorism.  And that when people are free, they‘ll be much less likely to commit acts of terror against the west. 

Balance that argument against these statistics that are just out from the National Counter-Terrorism Center, which keeps tracks of incidents of terrorism around the world. 

In 2003, there 651 terror attacks, resulting in about 1,900 deaths.  I‘m sorry, that was this year.  Compare that to 2003, 208 attacks, 625 deaths.       

The incidence of terrorism has gone way up, even as we‘re making these inroads and bringing democracy to the Middle East.  Where is the evidence, exactly, that democracy cuts terrorism?  It doesn‘t seem to be working that way.

HAYES:  Well, think that‘s a short-term view.  I mean, look, if you look at the 1990‘s, you could—you could show that statistics on incidents of terrorism, deaths caused by terrorism were even lower. 

I think that‘s, in part, because we weren‘t really seriously fighting the war if terrorism as much as we heard rhetoric from the Clinton administration suggesting we were. 

It‘s only natural, I think, that now that we‘re so engaged in a war on terror, what the end of is.   Elsewhere throughout the year or so, or maybe even border, but me and consider the White House today.  That is the broaden statistics would see an increase. 

For the short term, the president is going to have to tell people what the end point is.  Do you think in the next year or so, or maybe even sooner, we are going to see the White House come out and say, this is a date by which we are going to wind down?

HAYES:  No, and it would be such a hideous mistake if they did that.  The last thing the Iraqi politicians need from the United States right now is a suggestion that we‘re going to get out.

Now, there are some Iraqi politicians who have said, “Look, there may be a time in the not too distant future—I have heard people just this past week suggest 2006 as a potential departure date, but for us to set an artificial timeline like that I think would send exactly the wrong message. 

All right.  Thanks for joining us. 

You bet. 

Revealing new document Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito‘s past has come to light.  Here to discuss its ramifications, our old friend, MSNBC contributor, Flavia Colgan.

Flavia, thanks a lot for coming on. 


CARLSON:  The research into Alito has begun.  A treasure-trove of documents released today, from among other places, the Reagan Library. 

Here are remarks, statements that Judge Alito made on a job application in 1985, 20 years ago, hoping to work at then Attorney General Ed Meese‘s office. 

He said, quote, “The constitution does not protect the right to abortion.”  He‘s against affirmative action.  He says, “I am and have always been a conservative.”  The greatest influences on his life include Bill Buckley of the “National Review” and Barry Goldwater.. 

COLGAN:  Your old friend? 

CARLSON:  Here‘s what I don‘t understand.  The White House, at least in this story, to the “Washington Times” which broke this story, on background, said, “Look, this doesn‘t mean he‘s going to overturn Roe v.  Wade.  This doesn‘t mean that he‘s really against legal abortions, because he is opposed to abortion as a practice.

Why is the White House, of all places, attempting to spin this and make it sound like the guy‘s not really as conservative as he says he is?

COLGAN:  Well, because they‘ve read the polls, and the vast majority of Americans don‘t think that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

And by the way, I agree with the White House.  If you look at what Souter, Kennedy or O‘Conner said when Roe was revisited, they said, “Look, if we were around back then, we might have decided and probably would have decided this case differently.  But we weren‘t.  And this is now the law of the land.” 

And I think, you know, as you know, I spoke to a lot of liberal judges that work with him, a lot of liberal law clerks, the late Leon Higginbotham, who was a professor of mine at Harvard, one of the great intellectual black minds in this country and very liberal.  All of them said the same thing. 

This guy is a judge‘s judge.  Whatever his personal opinions may be, he‘s not an ideologue and that is not how he will rule from the bench.

So I think the White House, No. 1, is right.  I don‘t think it necessarily means that he would be in favor of Roe v. Wade, but also, it‘s a little politicking, because they know the general mainstream America is not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but they are in favor of some restrictions and they sort of want a median path. 

CARLSON:  Well, then what was the last election about, if I can beg your pardon?  There weren‘t that many differences between the candidates.  John Kerry refused to say really anything all that controversial about Iraq. 

It was largely about—one of the things it was about was this event right now, the choosing of the next Supreme Court justice.  And Bush won a majority.  It‘s a political process by design.  Why shouldn‘t the White House just say, “You elected me because you thought I was conservative, and because you thought I would pick someone like Scalia and here I am”?

COLGAN:  Well, look, we‘ve talked about this before.  I agree, if Democrats want progressive judges on the court, whether they be on the Supreme Court of circuit court, they have to win elections, absolutely. 

And Alito, as far as I‘m concerned, is qualified.  I‘ve been a little disconcerted by some of his remarks, whether it be on the employment case, in terms of people being fired because they have AIDS, some of his comments about the Warren court.  You know, I personally think the Warren Court had a lot of the decisions that made this country great. 

However, that‘s why we have hearings.  I want the senators to ask—

ask this man these questions, get more specifics.  This gotcha politics,

with finding out what someone wrote

20 years ago, and trying to take one excerpt from it. 

I mean, look, Ruth Bader Ginsburg before she became a judge said that people should have a right to legalize prostitution and polygamy.  She wasn‘t judge on that.  She was judged on the fact that she was a legal giant, an incredible judge for 13 years, who wasn‘t a judicial activist, who, by the way, was a progressive.  But if you look at Felix Frankford, I mean, look at the history of the court. 

CARLSON:  I‘ll tell you the difference, though, Flavia, is the difference is a political difference.  When it comes to confirming Supreme Court justices, the Democrats mean it; they‘re not going to vote for someone who disagrees with them, period.  Republicans don‘t mean it.  “Oh, he‘s a nice guy.”

COLGAN:  I‘m a Democrat, and I disagree. 

CARLSON:  OK, but I‘m just saying...

COLGAN:  I‘m a Democrat and I disagree with that.  I think that—I think that if he‘s not an ideologue, and I think that if he‘s qualified and he acquits himself well at the hearings, I think that he should be voted in, because George Bush won the election.  And that‘s one of the privileges...

CARLSON:  Maybe you ought to run for Senate.  I wish you would. 

Speaking of politics, Michael Steele, lieutenant governor of Maryland, running again, is a black Republican, was attacked in 2001 by the president of the Maryland State Senate, as a, quote, Uncle Tom.  And in recent weeks, he‘s been attacked by Democrats in the state of Maryland, in primarily racial terms.  People threw Oreo cookies at him at a speech, et cetera, et cetera. 

All boils down to this Sunday on “Meet the Press,” the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, was asked, “Isn‘t this wrong?  Shouldn‘t you repudiate it?  And he refused.

Now, I‘m not necessarily for people having to repudiate things they didn‘t say.  On the other hand, I do think the silence of the Democratic Party is kind of telling, don‘t you?

COLGAN:  I think it‘s appalling.  I‘m not a moral relativist.  I agree with Howard Dean that he should get apology for being called an anti-Semite. 

But he should have looked in the camera and said what I‘m going to say right now, which is this is un-American.  This does not reflect Democratic values.

And look, I‘m a Democrat and I believe that the Democratic agenda benefits lower and middle class people in America more than the Republican one.  And unfortunately, that disproportionately affects blacks, but that doesn‘t mean if someone disagrees with me, I should throw cookies at them. 

I mean, Tucker, what this really is, is this is identity policing.  I don‘t want to use racism, because that‘s a pretty strong term.  But why is it that blacks, or any group, for that matter, should have to fit into some small narrow group that liberals or Democrats or the media says they should?

CARLSON:  Well, that‘s exactly right.  In fact, you know...

COLGAN:  Stop throwing cookies and get out in Maryland and say, “This guy is not the right candidate for governor” for some other reason.  This is absurd and it should be condemned for what it is, which is disgusting behavior, and people should cut it out. 

And Howard Dean should come out and say, “Yes, I want an apology for being called an anti-Semite, but this is just simply wrong.” 

CARLSON:  Well, also I mean, I‘d like to see the record of Howard Dean being called an anti-Semite, but even then, it‘s kind of immaterial, because in politics, you know, whackos call each other bad names all the time. 

It just seems that this is particularly stinging and unfair and cruel attack, as if it‘s somehow intrinsically illegitimate to be a black Republican.  That‘s just, I mean, doubtless, you know black Republicans. 

COLGAN:  Yes, I do, my grandfather. 


COLGAN:  And he was certainly was a pioneer in the civil rights movement, and I would be appalled if anyone took away his legacy.  And he‘s certainly one of my personal heroes and should be for many Americans and he happened to have served in the Ford administration. 

But the point is that most people consider themselves Americans before they consider themselves blacks or Republicans or any other, you know, label, for that matter. 

The other thing I have to say, not to pile it on, because as you know... 

CARLSON:  Oh, go ahead.  I‘m enjoying every minute of it. 

COLGAN:  Not to pile on, because look, I really care about progressive values, but the other thing that really disturbed me about the “Meet the Press” interview yesterday was that Howard Dean said, “I don‘t have to give specifics right now” in terms of what the Democratic Party stands for, because he was criticizing. 

CARLSON:  Right.

COLGAN:  And by the way, there‘s plenty to criticize in terms of the Republicans‘ domestic and foreign policy.

CARLSON:  Right.

COLGAN:  I could take up two shows doing that.  But we should be a party of vision, of ideas.  And if Howard Dean doesn‘t want to get on television and say what the Democratic Party stands for, I‘m more than happy to, another segment of the show, because I think that‘s... 

CARLSON:  You know what?  That would be...

COLGAN:  I this that the Democrat Party does have a solution to issues that confront this nation. 

CARLSON:  Really?

COLGAN:  And if the Democratic inside the beltway people in D.C.

CARLSON:  I would love to know...

COLGAN:  Want to stand up and say...

CARLSON:  Bobby, we are out of time.  But I have to say, I can honestly say I‘m the most open-minded person I know.  I‘m willing to change my mind on almost everything.  And I have no idea what their solution is.

COLGAN:  Give me a crack at it, then. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Come back.  Tell us.  Reveal it. 

COLGAN:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Big secret.  Thank you, Flavia Colgan.

Still to come, meet a controversial college professor who thinks bombs, not just airplanes, brought down the World Trade Center. 

Plus, is “The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe” too religious for state sponsored reading contest?  Hear from one group that says yes.  Are they living in a fantasy world?  We‘ll explore that when THE SITUATION continues.


CARLSON:  Coming up, four years have passed since 9/11, so why is one college professor suddenly revealing his explosive theory about the collapse of the Twin Towers?

We‘ll also tell you why “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” may be yanked from a state-wide reading contest.  Stay tuned.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  “The Passion of the Christ” was a huge box office hit.  Odds are, “The Chronicles of Narnia,” based on the stories of influential Christian writer C.S. Lewis will do pretty well too, but the first book in the series is hitting some resistance. 

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State wants the state of Florida to stop pushing “The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe” in its state-wide reading contest.  The group says the state should only permit nonreligious books in reading programs. 

Here to defend the group‘s position, executive director, Barry Lynn, who joins us live tonight from Denver, Colorado. 

Barry, thanks for coming on. 


Nice to be back. 

CARLSON:  Thanks.  So you spend your life fighting against religious fundamentalism, and here you find yourself trying to ban a book.  You have become what you despise, have you not?

LYNN:  No, I have not, because I‘m not trying to censor this book.  I‘m not trying to take “The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe” out of any library or classroom in the state of Florida. 

I‘m just trying to figure out why it was that Governor Jeb Bush chose this obviously Christian-themed book to be the sole book for his state-wide reading contest that goes from elementary to high school up to high school.  All we were asking him to do this year was to come up with an alternative along with this book.  I mean, it could have been the book you wrote, Tucker.  That would have been an alternative. 

CARLSON:  I think it would have helped sales.  But look, you‘re trying

so you‘re not trying to prevent kids from reading this book in the reading contest?

LYNN:  Absolutely not.  I love this book.  I‘m going to see the movie, but it is inappropriate for the state of Florida to use an obviously Christian themed book.  C.S. Lewis, the guy who wrote...

CARLSON:  Wait a second. 

LYNN:  ... the book said that the whole purpose of the Narnia series was to discuss Christ. 

CARLSON:  Well, as you know... 

LYNN:  That‘s what he said. 

CARLSON:  Hold on.  Wait, wait, wait.  Hold on.  As you know, and I can tell you, as a book author, authors have all sorts of intentions that don‘t sort of permeate through the book and trickle down to the people who read the book. 

People have no idea why books are written, and in a lot of cases it doesn‘t matter.  I had no idea this was a Christian allegory when I was little, any more than I knew “Scooby-Doo” was about smoking pot.  I had no clue at all.  So why do you expect kids to see this as an allegory?

LYNN:  Well, let me tell you what could have given you a clue.  I‘m not blaming you for not having a clue.  It‘s just that here is the Aslan the lion.  He is the savior of this world called Narnia. 

But in order to be the savior of the world, he has to be tortured and die.  Even though he could have prevented his own death, he chose not to do that.  And then he is resurrected.

And then we learn, just in case there needed to be a capper, that Aslan the lion is also the creator of the world of Narnia.  I mean, how many more analogous elements to the Christ story do you need?

CARLSON:  C.S. Lewis, as I‘m sure you know, wrote a lot of pretty straight science fiction, “That Hideous Strength,” among other books, that were not at all, it seems to me, differently substantially from Narnia, the Narnia tales in that they were pretty straightforward.  You could read them on a bunch of levels, and it was not at all obvious. 

Let me put it this way, any book about good and evil and the struggle between them can be read as a Christian allegory, as a religious book, and yet most of them aren‘t religious codes. 

LYNN:  Yes, it could be, Tucker.  Tucker, it could be, but of course, this has all the other elements of the Christ story that makes it a Christian book.  And I think it does matter that C.S. Lewis knew that he was writing this for the purpose of getting this story, a familiar story, for children, as they were growing up.  Now, look...

CARLSON:  What are you—what are you worried about?  Tell me, what‘s your fear?  What‘s going to happen to kids if they read this dangerous book that you want to essentially to burn?

LYNN:  It‘s not—it is not—I‘m not trying to burn.

CARLSON:  That was unfair, and I‘m joking. 

LYNN:  I‘m not trying to torch it. 


LYNN:  Look, here‘s the problem.  The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, has a kind of faith-based solution to everything.  He‘s got faith-based prisons.  He‘s got all kinds of...

CARLSON:  He didn‘t write this book. 

LYNN:  ... school vouchers.  No, but he had picked this book.  I know that Jeb Bush knows the content of “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.”  It‘s his brother, the president, who doesn‘t read books.  Jeb Bush does read books.

CARLSON:  Don‘t you think—don‘t you...

LYNN:  He knows this is exactly a Christian book.

CARLSON:  Barry Lynn, Barry Lynn, you know for a fact that you are devaluing your own credibility by wasting your time and the money of your donors on something this silly.  This is a totally secular book, except to those who choose to read it as a Christian novel.  And being read by thousands of kids in the state of Florida hurts precisely no one.  You can admit that. 

LYNN:  No, let me tell you.  If this—if this was the only thing that Jeb Bush did to suggest that he was pushing an agenda of Christianity onto school children in the state or the rest of the population in the state of Florida, one might say, “Well, it‘s just a small thing.”  But it‘s part of a pattern. 

I know what Jeb Bush wants to do.  He would like to turn that into an even more Christian state.  This is one way you do it. 


LYNN:  You pick this book. 

CARLSON:  You know—you know Jeb Bush‘s soul.  We‘re going to have a new segment, maybe next week, what Jeb Bush really thinks? 

Barry Lynn, protecting your kids from “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.  Thanks a lot.

LYNN:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Coming up, were pre-positioned explosives behind the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11?  We‘ll talk to a BYU University professor who says Muslims probably not to blame for bringing down the buildings after all when THE SITUATION RETURNS.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Millions of people watched the horror of 9/11 right before their very eyes, live on television.  Two planes, crashing into the World Trade Center.  Less than a couple of hours later, both towers, of course, collapsing. 

My next guest says the hijackers may not have brought down the towers by themselves.  Here to explain his controversial theory, Steven Jones.  He‘s professor of physics at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. 

Professor Jones, thanks for coming on. 


CARLSON:  Well, just sum up this—obviously your theory, just the one sentence that I just explained, in the intro, contradicts what we all think we know about how these towers collapsed.  Quickly sum up your explanation for what‘s happened. 

JONES:  Well, I‘d like to start with this paper that you referred to. 

It‘s available online. 

What I‘m doing, Tucker, is presenting evidence, but it‘s a hypothesis to be tested.  That‘s a big difference from a conclusion, and so I just wanted to clarify that.  But to sum up that I have looked at the official reports by FEMA, and so on... 


JONES:  ... regarding the collapse of—yes, of these buildings. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

JONES:  I‘d like to look at the collapse of building seven in just a minute.  It was not even hit by a jet.  So we‘ll look at that one.

CARLSON:  The two towers.  The explanation has been that the fire inside was so intense that it weakened the structural steel and that each floor collapsed down upon the next in a pancake fashion, and they imploded in on themselves.  That‘s essentially, I think, what people think. 

JONES:  Yes, that‘s basically it, yes.  And so what I‘ve done is to analyze these reports. 

I would like to do a little experiment with you, Tucker, if I could.  I sent out a video clip of the collapse of Building seven, because most people haven‘t actually seen that one, and that‘s the crux of the argument. 

CARLSON:  Can you sum up very quickly the argument for us?  You believe there were explosives in the buildings planted by someone, detonated?

JONES:  Well, yes.

CARLSON:  Is that correct?

JONES:  In other words, the—the hypothesis to be tested is—there‘s two hypotheses here.  One is fire and damage caused all three buildings to collapse. 


JONES:  The other is that explosives in the buildings may have caused the collapse.  And so, then we analyze and see which fits the data better, and I‘ve done that in my—in my 25-page paper. 

CARLSON:  I want to read you a quote from the Deseret Morning News, a paper in Utah, from you.  I‘m quoting now.

“It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes, which are actually a diversion tactic.  Muslims are probably not to blame for bringing down the World Trade Center buildings after all.” 

That‘s, I would think, pretty offensive to a lot of the people listening.  Do you have any evidence for that?  I mean...

JONES:  Well, not—not to the Muslims, I might say. 

CARLSON:  Well, that‘s good.

JONES:  I have a lot of e-mails. 

CARLSON:  I‘m sure your writings greeted with just glee in Islamabad, and Peshawar and places like that.  But for Americans. 

JONES:  Well, I haven‘t received notes from there, but just good people.  I have Muslim friends.  Let me read, for example, but I‘m not going to let you off the hook.  I really want to do this experiment with you. 

CARLSON:  We don‘t have a lot of time for experiments, Professor.  But if you could just...

JONES:  Well. 

CARLSON:  Just give us one thing to hold onto.  How—you make these claims, or appear to make these claims.  Do you have any...

JONES:  Tucker, sure, sure.  Let‘s start with the collapse of Building seven.  Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?

CARLSON:  OK.  I am not sure if we can, but that is the World Trade Center.  It‘s smaller than the other two it was not hit by a plane.

JONES:  Let‘s try. 

CARLSON:  Of course, it collapsed.

JONES: Right.  It‘s 47 stories. 

CARLSON:  That‘s right. 

JONES:  Twenty-four steel columns in the center. 

CARLSON: Right. 

JONES:  Trusses, asymmetrically supported.  Now, I can‘t see what you‘re seeing.  Are we rolling that?

CARLSON:  No.  We just see the building.  And just so our viewers know, the explanation that I think is conventional is that there was a large tank of diesel fuel stored in the lower level of that, which caught fire, and the resulting fire collapsed the building. 

JONES:  Well, that‘s basically it, yes, but as we read in the FEMA report, it says here, and I put this in my paper, of course.  “The best hypothesis, which is the only one they looked at, fire, has only a low probability of occurrence.  Further investigation analyses are needed to resolve this issue, and I agree with that.” 


JONES:  But they admit there‘s only a low probability, and if you look at the collapse, you see what I have studied is the fall time, the symmetry, the fact that it first dips in the middle.  That‘s called the kink.  Which is very characteristic, of course, of controlled demolition.

CARLSON:  Professor, I am sorry that we are out of time, and I am not sure that .

JONES:  Whoa, one other thing I want to mention.

CARLSON:  Ok.  If you can hit it - hit it quickly.

JONES:  OK.  All right.  Here we go.  Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings.

CARLSON:  Right.

JONES:  And yet all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal?  It‘s direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product.


JONES:  So we do have—yeah.  It‘s very short time, but people will read the paper, then I talk about the molten metal, the symmetry of the collapse, and the weaknesses and inadequacies of the fire hypothesis.

CARLSON:  Professor, we are going to have to leave it to our viewers who are interested enough to follow up to do just that.  We appreciate you coming on, even if I don‘t understand your theories, we appreciate you trying to explain them.  Thanks.

JONES:  OK.  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Thanks.  Still to come, unwanted consequence of making school meals healthier, we will show you what kids can buy from the junk food black market.  THE SITUATION goes underground with a special investigation, next.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  First, I want to apologize to the last segment, it was quite an emotional topic, and I don‘t think we fully were able to get our guest to explain his pretty controversial allegations, so I‘m sorry, we couldn‘t flesh that out more.

The band Aerosmith once sang, there‘s a reason a dog has so many friend, that is, he wags his tail instead of his tongue.  Joining me now, a man who proves Aerosmith wrong, someone who has many opinions and friends, “The Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman.

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  It also occurs to me, watching this show as I do every day - every night, that you say you are the most open-minded person that you know.


KELLERMAN:  That‘s kind of a paradox, right?  How can you prove that? 

If I say I am more open-minded than you, what is your response?

CARLSON:  You are wrong.  You have convinced me, you are more open-minded than I am.  That‘s how open minded I am.  I actually change my mind in once in a while.

KELLERMAN:  You‘ve undermined me once again, Tucker Carlson.

CARLSON:  Thank you, Max.

West Marlboro Township, Pennsylvania is a small town with big problem, traffic.  Lots of it.  Development in this rural area has brought car after car to two-lane Wilson Road, so the powers that be are doing something about it, they are tearing up the asphalt road and covering it with gravel.  They call it a traffic calming technique they hope will discourage drivers, certainly will, will discourage drivers from getting there safely.  Ever driven on a gravel road?  It‘s a lot harder to navigate.  I say, look, widen the road.  This strikes me, I am not a big driver safety guy, obsessed with seat belts, I‘m not worried about driving, not afraid to drive, but I do think, having driven on a lot of gravel roads, that that‘s negligent.  To make a road gravel on purpose.

KELLERMAN:  This shocks me, by the way.  The southern agrarian sensibility of Tucker Carlson, wants to make the road wider.  That‘s the whole point.  There are 859 people that live in this town; 859 people.  They‘re civic-mined.  They want their town rural.


KELLERMAN:  And I would think it appeals to you.  They don‘t want it widened, they want it narrowed.

They want to gravel so people can‘t go fast.

CARLSON:  They shouldn‘t have paved it in the first place.  This bothers me, a couple of levels one, I explained to you.  Second is waste, it‘s wasteful to take a perfectly good paved road and tear it up.  That‘s going backwards.  That‘s taking money that people have worked for and paid in taxes and throwing it away.  There‘s just something offensive about that.

KELLERMAN:  Well, there was a famous chess match between Bobby Fischer and Petrosian, one - and he made a move, where he undeveloped his bishop, brought it all the way back to the starting position, which violates every rule in chess, except it was brilliant move because it addressed the situation on the board.

And that‘s what they are doing here.  It seems wasteful, why would you tear it up, because it‘s the right move.  Gravel or cobblestone or anything that still kind of looks OK, and slows up traffic is the right move.

CARLSON:  I just don‘t like it.  I don‘t like it when they tore down the settlements in Gaza, seemed wasteful to me, they broke windows of greenhouses.  I hated that, too.

KELLERMAN:  Berlin wall?

CARLSON:  Good point.  OK.  Good point.  I didn‘t mind that.

Can you get an education without setting foot in school?  More and more students would say yes, you can.  Tens of thousands of kids nationwide attend cyber school, studying full-time online from home, and their numbers are growing.  Twenty-two states offer classes online.  Last year, one in 10 kids in Arizona took at least one class through a virtual school.

OK.  This kind of appeals to me in some ways, right, because you get around a lot of things about schools that bug me.  However, here‘s the bottom line.  Do you want to encourage kids to spend more time playing with their computers?  The answer is no.

KELLERMAN:  I don‘t know.

CARLSON:  Get up, get outside, play with your friends, run around, do something physical, you know, be where the sun is shining, not sitting in your basement alone in your sweat streaked pajamas, Mountain Dew, sitting tapping on your keyboard .

KELLERMAN:  Sounds like you have done this?

CARLSON:  No, I haven‘t, but I disapprove of it.

KELLERMAN:  Look.  You are for home schooling?  Right?


KELLERMAN:  This is home schooling where the parents aren‘t always in the house.  Home-schooling is fine, if the parent can stay at home and teach the kid themselves, but if they are both working and still don‘t like the local school, this seems to me to be a smart alternative.

CARLSON:  If the parents are both working, you can‘t home-school, by definition.  Home-schooling is sitting in the back yard, which incidentally is a meadow, some place in a bucolic setting like Idaho or something, right?  Among the dandelions.  In the sunshine .

KELLERMAN:  I have never thought of it that way.  Making it sound pretty good.

CARLSON:  Thank you very much.  It‘s not sitting in your basement, alternating between online and porn.  You know what I mean?

KELLERMAN:  You‘re a technophobe?  What would one call .

CARLSON:  I don‘t know what it is, but I think there is an important element to school, has to be for socialization, obviously.

KELLERMAN:  Yes, but you cannot also be for home schooling.  You can‘t

Yes, I agree, social, kids are better off socializing at school learning how to deal with the world, etc.  But this coming from a guy who every time there‘s a home schooling topic says, that‘s right.  Now, I didn‘t know you were picturing it in a meadow under a tree.

CARLSON:  Exactly right.

Possibly with slate and chalk.

KELLERMAN:  What if you take the computer outside?

CARLSON:  I don‘t think it works.  I don‘t think it works.  Here‘s the other thing about home schooling.  Most of the time it takes place with your siblings or even kids from the neighborhood, people have little cooperative home schools ...


CARLSON:  Absolutely.

KELLERMAN:  This is an education for me.

CARLSON:  People who home schooling tend to have a lot of kids, you

think of the archetypal home-schoolers as having at least 11 or 12

children, so you are really going to school with other people, happen to

share last name with them.  There‘s something so solitary, kind of almost

masturbatory about spending all this time online.  I just don‘t think it‘s

it‘s not good for people.

KELLERMAN:  Well, what you just said happens to be a fact.  That‘s most of the online industry.


I meant that in figurative sense.

KELLERMAN:  If the industry can progress, Tucker, then I say let‘s go for it.

CARLSON:  Oh.  Max Kellerman, great to see you.

KELLERMAN:  You too.

CARLSON:  Stay tuned, still plenty more ahead on THE SITUATION.

Fed up with nutrition, a revolting turn of events as fast food junkies take a stand against high school rules.

Rod Stewart‘s hopes for productive future take a chilling turn for him and his fianc’e.  Then—

Smile and say cheese.  Why one city‘s vermin is another city‘s pet project.

And—Fashion tips from India, strut yourself on the cat walk, doggie style.  It‘s all ahead on THE SITUATION.


JOHN BELUSHI, DECEASED ACTOR:  Thanks, I needed that.


CALRSON:  Welcome back.  As American kids grow fatter and fatter every year, many schools around the country have begun to replace high calorie snacks in their cafeterias with fruit and vegetables, not surprisingly, the well-intentioned plan has backfired, at least according to our next guest.

Jennifer Obakhume, a senior at Inglewood High School in Los Angeles says that the removal of unhealthy menu options in California‘s cafeteria‘s  has led to a black market trade of junk food.  Jennifer joins us tonight live from Burbank to reveal the secrets of the culinary underground.

Jennifer, thanks now for coming on.


problem.  Hi.

CARLSON:  So tell us about the black market going on at your school. 

If it‘s lunchtime and I want to get a Twix Bar, how do I get it?

OBAKHUME:  Twix Bar, it‘s very, very simple, as a matter of fact.  You can either go to people who are selling for a year book, any kind of clubs, or there are students on campus who actually sell candy as a business.  So you have sellers who are selling for somebody else, who get 10 percent of the actual heads (ph) profit, it‘s very easy to find any kind of candy bar that you wish to find, right on the school campus.

CARLSON:  What about potato chips?

OBAKHUME:  Could you repeat that, please?

CARLSON:  What about potato chips and soda?  Can you get any kind of junk food?

OBAKHUME:  Any kind of junk food, it is possible.  Of course, with the elimination of the excess soda machines, it‘s getting a little bit tight.  The one soda machine we do have is loaded up, I guess, once or twice every week, and by the end of the day or so, it‘s sold out.  Potato chips, students are selling those all the time, so you can find your Doritos, you can find your hot Cheetos.  You can find any kind of chips.

CALRSON:  Let‘s say I wanted to go all the way, Jennifer, and get really the ultimate in junk food the Holy Grail of bad fast food, the Big Mac.

OBAKHUME:  Whew, oh, well, that‘s very simple in itself.  You can actually hand off money to another student, senior, most definitely, if they have a car.  They can get off campus just as easily as the teachers, so they can drive to McDonald‘s, which McDonald‘s is, as a matter of fact, within a two-block vicinity of the school.  So Big Macs, cheeseburgers, French fries, sodas, you name it, somebody can always bring it to you, or somebody off campus can bring it to you and slip it to you through the gate or throw it over the gate, but these days, if you are caught by a security guard officer, they will take your food away.  No questions asked.

CARLSON:  Are teachers in on this at all?  Do they look the other way? 

Have they been corrupted in this war on junk food?

OBAKHUME:  Some have, but most of the ones who, if anything, would be considered corrupted, are the ones who are substitutes.  They really don‘t grasp the idea of what‘s going on.  And the teachers that are more seasoned, that know how they want their students to behave, what kind of actions they want in their crass loom.  Will walk by, if they see a student passing money or chips, anything of the sort, they will walk to the student, no questions asked, they will take it, they will throw it away, they will send them to the principal, suspension, detention, anything is possible.

CARLSON:  That is zero tolerance policy.  Do you know any of these pushers?

You don‘t have to name names, Jennifer.  I‘m not asking you to rat anyone out.  But do you know any of them personally?  Are they decent kids from good homes or are they bad seeds?

OBAKHUME:  Oh, they are not bad seeds, they are rather decent, but they‘re just like every other teenager, we‘re all penny pressed, and we all need a buck.  You do what you have to do.

CARLSON:  You certainly do.  You do what you have to do.  I notice you brought some contraband with you, there on the set.  Can you show us what you have?

OBAKHUME:  Oh, yes, Cheetos, Hi C, Capri Sun, the Holy Grail, McDonald‘s, love it, Baby Ruths, we have Crunch bars, Snicker bars, M&Ms, Baby Ruths, Butter Fingers, M&Ms again.  Grape soda.  Blood bless the grape soda.

CARLSON:  So, basically it‘s like Halloween every day at your school. 

At Inglewood High School.

OBAKHUME:  A wonderful holiday.  Wonderful Halloween every day.  You never know what they are going to bring next.

CALRSON:  Unbelievable.  Finally, how do you get—let‘s say I wanted to smuggle in that gigantic package of Cheetos you have right there.  How do you smuggle that in?

OBAKHUME:  Oh, I will tell you, some students just don‘t care anymore.  Just take a 99 cent bag or clear white plastic bag from Ralph‘s, whatever, dump everything from the large bag right into the store bag, and just walk around with it on campus.

CARLSON:  That is so clever, and so diabolical, I might point out.  They will stop at nothing to bring junk food to our kids.  Jennifer, thank you, I am really glad we have a reporter on the scene like you.  Thanks for coming on.

OBAKHUME:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Still to come, Pat Robertson made national headlines last week when he warned residents of Dover, Pennsylvania, not to turn to God if a disaster struck their rural town.  One viewer wants to know what we here in THE SITUATION made of that whole episode.  Your voicemail next.


CARLSON:  Hello.  That‘s actually my voice.

Every night, we give away our unlisted phone number.  Every day, you call.  Let‘s listen to some of your voice mails, first up.

CALLER:  Hey, Tucker, it‘s Matt again from Morristown, New Jersey.  I was reading the article on Pat Robertson this, thing in Pennsylvania.  And I was just wondering what your take on it was.

CARLSON:  What do you think it is, Matt?  Anytime someone claims God personally intervenes in or is upset by some sort of local initiative and then claims is on his side and will smite his enemies yeah, it is embarrassing, particularly if that person claims to be a conservative.

I wish people gave Pat Robertson a lot less attention, and the same with Jesse Jackson.  We don‘t have Jesse Jackson on every night, you know why?  Because we feel sorry for liberals.  Mean to liberals to have Jesse Jackson representing them, same idea.

Next up.

CALLER:  Hi, Tucker, Mary calling from Providence, Kentucky.  Just listening to your discussion about drug testing by parents, one issue I didn‘t hear you bring up, but I would really like to know the answer to, what happens if the drug test turns out positive?

CARLSON:  That‘s a good point.  That‘s probably something—I think before you give a drug test to your 16-year-old, you have to ask yourself, do I really want to know the truth, do I want to know the answer?  Not necessarily.  There are some things best unarticulated.  And I‘ll probably a lot of angry email and calls about that, but it‘s true, you don‘t want to know everything, it seems to me.

Next up.

CALLER:  Hey, Tucker, it‘s Don Miller from Ann Arbor, Michigan.  Gosh, does everybody really feel that bad about Paris Hilton?  I thought I was the only one.  Thanks.

CARLSON:  You may be the only one, actually, Don, who feels bad about Paris Hilton.  I believe, if memory serves, we were mocking Paris Hilton, but it‘s glad to know someone out there who still has capacity to feel sympathy.  Good for you.  You are a better person than I am.

Let me know what you are thinking.  Call 1-877-TCARLSON.  That‘s 877-822-7576 or you can email us, tucker@msnbc.com.

If you want to read what we think about the news of the day, what goes on behind the scenes here at MSNBC, check out my blog every day, tucker.msnbc.com, faithfully I update it every 24 hours.

Still ahead, bow wow, wow, yippy yo yippy yay.

It‘s know as the cat walk, so why are dogs strutting their stuff in India?  The answer, as usual, lies on the cutting-room floor.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for the “Cutting Room Floor.”  Faithful Willie Geist is gone for the week, in an aroma therapy retreat in Taos, filling in for him, Vanessa McDonald, our producer.  Vanessa.

VANESSA MCDONALD, MSNBC PRODUCER:  How are you doing, Tucker?

CARLSON:  I‘m glad to see you.  Thank you very much.

MCDONALD:  Good to see you too.

CARLSON:  All right.  Rod Stewart, rapidly becoming a “Cutting Room Floor” staple.  Last week, he announced he has given up cocaine, because it‘s not as strong as it used to be.  Now the aging rocker is back in the news, this time for freezing his own sperm without using a sperm bank.  Model girlfriend Penny Lancaster said, quote, “we didn‘t do it at a hospital, we were at home, you know, intimately.  And I rushed to my Ferrari with my hand bag and a little vial next to it.  Does sound romantic, doesn‘t it Vanessa.

MCDONALD:  Tucker, I won‘t carry my boyfriend‘s cell phone in my purse.  How could you do that?

CARLSON:  I think that‘s fair.

HBO‘s “The Ali G Show” put Kazakhstan on the map, not literally, of course, most westerners know about the central Asian country, they have learned from comedian Sasha Baron Cohen, who plays Kazakh TV reporter, Borat.  According to Borat, Kazakhstan is a place where cow punching is a sport, and wine made from fermented horse urine.

The foreign ministry spokesman was not amused, saying, quote, “we view Mr. Cohen‘s behavior as utterly unacceptable, being a concoction of bad taste and ill manners which is completely incompatible with ethics and civilized behavior.”  Kazakstan now threatening legal action.  That is bad, but not as bad as fermented horse urine wine, I would say.

MCDONALD:  Ali G‘s behavior sounds exactly like the type of behavior we expect here THE SITUATION.  I applaud it.

CARLSON:  That‘s exactly right.  Of course we do.  Plus, almost everything he says about Kazakhstan is true.

Not just fans of bad behavior but also fans of cute pets.  Nothing is cuter than a rat.  At least that was prevailing sentiment at Seattle‘s annual rat fest this weekend.  Rat fanciers attended seminars, and enjoyed rat-shaped cupcakes, festival bake sale.  So nasty, I don‘t know what to say, Vanessa.

MCDONALD:  There is nothing I detest more than a rat.  In fact, in Manhattan, we try everything in our power to avoid rats, and there in Seattle, they are celebrating them.  Disgusting.

CARLSON:  It is disgusting.  We never pass up a story about supermodels ever.  That‘s our policy.  Though in this case, they may have to rename the cat walk and call it the dog walk.

A fashion show in eastern India became a showcase for man‘s best friend, as stylish pooches strolled the runway with their owners.  The show was a benefit for an animal charity and I approve completely.  Better than supermodels, almost.

MCDONALD:  Every dog has its day, I guess.

CARLSON:  Yes.  That‘s true.  And no offense, but I‘ve got to look at them in (inaudible) occasionally.  Dog porn.  Vanessa, thank you.

MCDONALD:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  That‘s SITUATION for tonight.  Thank you for watching.  Up next, COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN, be back here tomorrow night.


Watch The Situation with Tucker Carlson each weeknight at 11 p.m. ET


Discussion comments