Joel Skousen questions 9/11’s official narrative, citing molten metal at WTC sites, suppressed Pentagon crash videos (including a "doctored" missile-like explosion), and F-16s allegedly vectored toward Flight 93. He argues satellite photos from 2003 showed Iraq’s WMD convoys to Syria, but the U.S. ignored this to justify war. Skousen also highlights election anomalies favoring Bush and DoD documents on weapons transfers, suggesting systemic deception. While Bell demands concrete proof, Skousen insists unanswered questions—like missing wreckage or eyewitness contradictions—imply government complicity in orchestrating or covering up the attacks to expand control and justify wars like Iraq’s. [Automatically generated summary]
And late word has it, by the way, that airstrikes are again underway and a fierce pounding underway.
In April of the year, 2,000 Marines fought for about three weeks and failed to take Fluja from its insurgent defenders.
This time, however, war planners sent six times the number of troops, and they fought their way across the rebel city in six days.
Far faster than anybody thought.
The Marine general who designed the ground attack said Sunday, a military statement Sunday said actually 38 U.S. troops have been killed, so it's not without price.
275 wounded so far in the operation as we continue to press war in Iraq.
Mohammed, I guess that would be, Mohammed Abbas, the temporary successor to Arafat, escaped unharmed, but it was close Sunday when militants firing assault rifles burst into a morning tent, the deceased Palestinian leader, killing two security guards, wounding six other people.
Iran, believe it or not, notified the UN Nuclear Watchdog Committee in writing Sunday that it says it will suspend uranium enrichment and related activities to dispel any suspicions that it might be trying to build a nuclear bomb.
With its move, Iran appeared to have dropped demands to modify a tentative deal worked out on November 7th with European negotiators, green then to make either nuclear fuel or the core for nuclear weapons.
No, no, no, they will not do that.
And they will suspend, they say, related activities.
So we'll see if they really, really do it.
In a moment, we'll move on and look at some of the other news.
And, you know, it doesn't change much week to week, month to month.
But over the years, we've got a big change coming.
you Last night, I suggested you ought to watch 60 Minutes.
I hope a lot of you did that.
I read you the story from Drudge, you'll recall, I hope, with regard to the CIA guy who was in charge of going after Osama bin Laden, right?
And I guess the big shock or thrust of the story was that Osama bin Laden has now been given religious permission to use an atomic weapon against the U.S., against us.
And that was underscored with the 60 Minutes program tonight.
So I hope some of you got to see that.
I wonder how you feel about that.
I really do wonder how you feel about that.
And tonight's guest is going to fit right in, Joel Skousen, who's going to be talking about exactly this sort of thing.
In other words, how big the threat is, what you can do about it, if anything, and so forth.
So he'll fit right in.
But I do wonder how many of you saw 60 Minutes and how the man impressed you.
Did he impress you as a, oh, I don't know, what, a reckless enhancer of facts?
Or do you think that our government may be perhaps a little lax on the job of going after bin Laden?
So why?
At any rate, I was talking about change, weeks, months, years.
Well, our climate is changing, and it's changing very quickly.
It may only be a few of our Earth years, but look out.
The top and the bottom of the world are virtually melting, two stories right down that alley, one to the north.
Scientists say changes in the Earth's climate from human influences are occurring particularly intensely in the Arctic region, evidenced now by widespread melting of glaciers, thinning sea ice, rising permafrost temperatures.
A study released Monday said the annual average amount of sea ice in the Arctic has now decreased to about 8%.
That's 8% in the last 30 years.
Doesn't sound like much?
Well, actually, it resulted in the loss of 386,100 square miles of sea ice.
That would be an area, so you can relate to it, an area roughly bigger than Texas and Arizona combined.
The polar regions are essentially the Earth's air conditioner, according to Michael McCracken, president of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences.
And he says, quote, imagine Earth having a less efficient air conditioner.
What do you think that might mean?
Susan Joy Soy, the reporter's lead author, said the Arctic probably would warm about twice as much as the rest of the Earth, a region of extreme light and temperature changes.
The Arctic's surfaces of ice you see, ocean water, vegetation, and soil are important in reflecting the sun's heat.
And so if they're not there, it's something that cascades upon itself.
Less reflected, less heat.
It's all strange stuff.
Then you go down to the bottom of the world, the Antarctic.
And the headline is: Antarctic catastrophe threatening.
A catastrophe threatens because of the rapid warming of the Antarctic.
Melting ice and a rapid increase in temperatures in the southern ocean have caused a horrendous drop in the number of Antarctic krill.
Now, why would that be important?
Well, it's the key food source at the bottom of the Antarctic food chain, the very bottom of the food chain.
Now, where are we?
We're at the top.
So we don't have to worry, huh?
Well, in the past, every time the base of the oceanic food chain has been destroyed in some way, mass extinction has always followed on both land and sea.
This is because of the complex biosphere of our planet.
In fact, it's based in the oceans, and life cannot be sustained anywhere else on the planet should the oceans die.
Well, we're about to go to open lines because I want to fit as many calls as I can in.
But I want to note this.
NASA's Mars rover is doing incredibly well.
In fact, it seems as though, mysteriously, somewhat mysteriously anyway, the Mars rover has actually increased the amount of power, the solar output, it's getting from its equipment.
Now, why would the output go up anywhere between two and five additional percent, in fact, in the upward direction as it crawls across Mars doing what it's doing already ahead of, I believe, its predicted lifespan?
Well, the answer might be a Martian whirly came whisking along, hit the rover, and cleaned off the solar panels.
That's the best they can come up with.
Otherwise, it is a complete mystery.
If it wasn't something like that, then they have no idea what it might be.
My point is that, you know, I think a couple of the callers last night suggested that our policies created al-Qaeda, and that if we'd only leave the Middle East or do something different, that they'd leave us alone.
And I think our history shows that that's not the case.
We were attacked in 93.
We were attacked, you know, the World Trade Center was bombed in 93.
We had the bombings of our U.S. embassies in East Africa.
We had the bombings of the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and the USS Cole in 2000.
And then finally on 9-11, our world as we once knew it ended.
And I think that we have to clean up the Middle East, change the governments in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and eventually perhaps Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria.
It's one point of view, that despite what our president and our leaders tell us, we're actually in a war with Islam.
Now, our president has gone out of his way, really, to say that just ain't so.
Every time he's, even in the harshest terms, even standing on the rubble of what was left of 9-11, our president went out of his way to make sure he was saying we're not at war with Islam.
But I wonder, and I'm sure many of you wonder, and that caller obviously believes we are at war with all of Islam.
That would be a pretty rough truth to face if it turns out to be true.
Well, I'm not sure what that might do to a device, to the sort of the yoga manner of travel.
It might do that in.
I think, though, that there's quite a bit of evidence, a great deal of evidence, that thought, or if you wish, call it consciousness, the product of thought, right?
Consciousness would be the product of thought, I think, something that we may eventually attain with AI when we get fast enough or get enough storage or whatever.
I think there are early indications scientifically that there is, will be, a speed of thought, as it were.
In other words, thought is internal and external to your brain.
I think they will determine that finally.
It may be sometime, but they will.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
unidentified
Hi.
I was calling to discuss the war with Islam aspect.
I think that Islam is at war with the rest of the world because the Quran says that a good Muslim will kill the infidels, and anybody who is not in the Islam religion is an infidel.
Yes, they all rush forward into battle, our side and theirs, right, with a rifle in one hand and the Quran or the Bible in the other and a plea to their God to live through about what's about to happen, right?
I cannot recall the source of the quote, but it certainly would apply here.
God, you would think, would be ever so weary.
Ever so weary.
God would be so weary of constantly being petitioned on two sides of a cause.
No, I'm not familiar with what you're talking about precisely.
unidentified
Well, it relates to the terrorist aspect.
they would offer a high enough reward for all the illegal mexicans down there in arizona i'm sure there isn't one chechen rebel that would make it across that border do you think our borders uh...
Well, no, it was his opinion that we are at war with Islam, sir.
That was the opinion, and we were going to have to go in and virtually occupy or whatever the other countries he listed.
unidentified
quote the guy that mentioned he was talking about looking back into history and he was only looking back into history until about 1992 or 93 and the whole thing
And the United States overthrew a democratic government to install the Shah.
And, you know, it's this type of thing that makes them angry with us, I believe.
I made an attempt to write to the western states, in other words, from California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, where you have a severe drought out there, don't you?
I mean, it's like talking about I don't know energy right now.
We're not quite there.
Wind generators, solar power, it's just not quite there.
But if the price of oil keeps going up, we're in a little dip right now, right?
But if the price of oil keeps going up, then at some point very quickly, we are going to be there, and it's going to be worth doing.
Now, when the price of water gets to the point where it would be worth dragging it in from the ocean, yanking out the salt, and dispensing it to the poor, hungry people here, thirsty people here in the West, when it gets to be that price, well, by then we'll all be pretty thirsty.
Open live, anything you want to talk about all night long.
I'm Mark Bell.
unidentified
To access the audio archives of Coast to Coast AM, log on to coasttocoastam.com.
To realize just what I am saying, I have to be no less care of what I am.
It's all clear to me now, my heart is on fire.
To access the audio archives of Coast AM, log on to coast.
So you're claiming that more frequently than the National Weather Service, you get it right.
unidentified
Well, yeah, I mean, these guys are, you know, if you're doing natural gas or something like that and you've got, you know, $5, $10, $50 million of the natural gas contract sitting out there, you're looking at something that's really getting pretty dang close to where it's going to really be.
Well, I can only speak for where I live and what I Observe, but I can tell you this: here in the high desert, we have an annual rainfall, I don't know, about five inches or something.
It has been normally, it has been raining and raining and raining and raining here.
We've had a lot of water, a very wet year, whatever that means.
unidentified
Well, that usually is an indication of an El Niño kicking in.
I mean, you have that water is coming from the evaporation from the warmer temperatures in the Pacific.
There's a lot of people sitting in front of their TVs right now watching Day of Destruction.
Do you think Day of Destruction is coming in the weather?
Is anything that severe going to happen?
unidentified
Well, it's certainly an interesting discussion in our office, that's for sure.
The idea of two polar, you know, the polar jet and the tropical jet stream merging over North America would be a bit of a push.
I haven't heard what their comments on that part yet.
The day after tomorrow, which was its own little fascinating treatise, I kind of brought up, by the way, I'm not a meteorologist.
I only play one on TV, it's my joke in the office.
I'm the CIO there.
But the idea of getting extremes like that is, you know, we don't have the history to go by.
So when somebody trumpets that, oh, well, that's just Hollywood.
And just that thing, well, real frank with you, nobody really knows because we don't have a detailed record of what real weather conditions have been like.
It was a two-hour movie, whether it's that or Day of Destruction or whatever.
It's a movie, and you have to pack the information and story into a movie.
So they did collapse it from that point of view.
However, the weather changes that really are going on in the world right now, both at the top and bottom of the world and in between, are startling in my mind.
unidentified
Oh, yeah, they certainly are disconcerting.
I mean, I have a pretty clear memory of what it was like in the 70s with the standard extremes you'd have, and it's nothing like that at all.
Travis Walton, you know, I saw Fire in the Sky, sir, but I sat here and several times had the opportunity to interview Travis and his boss, his foreman.
I know the entire story intimately.
I know about the lie detector tests.
It is by far, I think, the best documented, witnessed, verified story out there, period.
And I think that the problems we're having with the radical Muslim world, in many ways, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
I happen to be a Lutheran pastor, and so I have studied scripture, I have studied church history, I've studied the history of Christianity's relationship with other religions.
And there were times at the height of Islamic civilization where Jews and Christians were treated tolerably well by Muslim rulers.
However, when the situation was reversed and the Christians were in charge of the scene, that is when we had problems.
Well, listen, the big question, and the one that I'll pose to you, since you seem to know a lot about this, is flatly, simply, are we or are we not at war with Islam?
unidentified
I think that we are getting deeper and deeper into a war with Islam.
The more and more we do, the more and more Muslims who may have been kind of borderline about the United States, the average person, I think, is seeing what goes on in Fallujah, has been watching historically things like with the Shah and whatnot.
So you're saying they're being increasingly radicalized?
unidentified
They are being increasingly radicalized, and I think that in many ways we have nobody to blame but our own foreign policy.
But that is not to say that these questions, that these problems are not deeper than U.S. foreign policy.
The whole recent history of colonialism, and we see almost virtually every country, whether it's in Africa or the Middle East, that was a colony and then the colonialists abandoned it.
There were not the structures put in place to really foster true democracy and freedom.
Most of those countries were left in chaos, and that's the legacy that we're living with today.
So, yes, we are just about at war with Islam, and from your point of view, it's our fault.
Which might be another way of saying we started it.
unidentified
Well, I would hate to say that we started it or that we started it deliberately, but I think by small steps, by, quote, innocent spread of American culture over the globe.
And lots of people eat up the American culture.
They want it, but it is also threatening enough to a large enough percentage of people in other parts of the world that they then react very strongly against it.
I think one of the last times I talked to you was when I asked you to hold up a spoon to your webcam and have everybody in the country try and bend it.
So the alternative is, and the question I think, the big $64 billion question, and probably even more, is, are we at war with Islam?
Is it more than just extremism we're at war with?
We've got to face up to it.
Is more and more of the Islamic world beginning to regard themselves at war with us?
unidentified
Well, you know, bottom line, as a Christian, I feel that we're fighting a war with poverty.
War rises out of poverty.
And you have got so many.
And I think the Palestinian people are being used, that in many ways, they're victims.
They're being used by the politicians of that region to keep everything stirred up against the nation of Israel.
Because if we could come in and end the war or start a war against poverty in the Palestinian nations and in Iraq, which is what we did in many ways, we could stop what's happening there.
But you've got angry youth.
Yeah, it's wrong.
They're now being taught to hate from an early age.
And here's another thing that has been bothering me.
Okay, forget the arguments about whether we should or should not have gone into Iraq.
We did go, right?
We're there now.
We're in the mop-up phase of this Fallujah mess, hopefully.
Although I hear the action tonight is re-engaged with airplanes and troops and a lot of artillery and so forth, so they're into some sort of fight.
But, you know, the news is fairly good out of Fallujah, right?
Fairly good.
But we just haven't had the welcome that I would expect.
I mean, here we freed the Iraqi people from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
Found him Hiding in a hole.
He's gone.
Long gone.
There'll be a trial, but he's long gone.
Now, you would expect freeing people from a brutal dictatorship, they would throw their arms around you and throw wreaths on you and thank you and all the rest of it.
But that clearly is not what's happening right now, and that's worth a little bit of thought.
Well, you don't sure don't see it reflected in any of the video that comes back from Iraq.
unidentified
No, you don't.
In the news media on TV, I don't hear it at all, and it's very distressing to me because I think that we've got to we aren't hearing the truth art and the closest we're going to come to it is on a show like yours.
My dear, I hope you're right because I am telling you and all the rest of the audience right now that the most god-awful thing that any of you can think about would be to be at war with Islam, to have a full-fledged Christianity versus Islam war.
I mean, it would be absolutely ultimately, it's going to go, or it could well go, to a state of Armageddon.
That's where it could go.
You have two major religious forces in the world clashing, and that's where it's going to go to the end of it all.
so we need to hope getting so
However, if you'll just hang on through the news and a thing or two, we're going to talk to Joel Skousen, and he'll probably scare the pants right off you on the heels of the 60 Minutes report and the permission now given to Osama bin Laden to explode an atomic bomb in the United States.
unidentified
Oh And the warnings on them beer can't be buried in them landfills.
No deposit, no sad songs, and no return.
Yeah, it's only gonna take about a minute or so until the factory's blocked the sun out, and you're gonna have to turn your lights on just to see.
And then the lights are gonna be neon, saying fly our jets to paradise, and the whole damn world's gonna be made of styrene.
So listen to my brothers, when you hear the nightly sky, and you see the wild ones flying through the great polluted sky.
There won't be no country music, there won't be no rock and roll, cause when they take away our country, they'll take away our soul.
Oh, oh, oh, oh.
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from East to the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From West to the Rockies, call ARC at 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach ArtVell by calling your in-country spread access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with ArtVell.
Joel Scouton is the publisher and principal author of the World Affairs Brief, a weekly news analysis service on the web.
He is a political scientist by training, specialist in projecting future threats relative to war and terrorism, exactly what we've been talking about.
The author of several books concerning security measures individuals can take, like all of you out there.
You know, like getting under your desk and putting your hands over the back of your neck.
I'm just kidding.
To protect themselves against the threat of terrorism and other security issues.
I guess I'll never forget that.
I'll never forget it.
They are Strategic Relocation, North American Guide to Safe Places, the secure home and how to implement a high security shelter in the home.
He has traveled extensively throughout the world, speaks several foreign languages, very talented, an advisor to emerging political parties in Central America and has a great deal of understanding about how the world actually works politically and behind the scenes.
Anyway, Joel, let's start off with something that sort of dominated the weekend, and I think you have some differences with it, if I heard you correctly, and that is this man who went on 60 Minutes earlier tonight.
He just left the CIA on Friday.
He's a guy who had been in charge of the CIA's office to get and kill bin Laden and keep track of bin Laden and all that kind of thing.
And he went on 60 Minutes and said some pretty scary stuff.
Now, perhaps some would say he's a bit of a loose cannon.
Well, first of all, from my understanding and knowledge of the inside workings of the CIA, no one is allowed to go public from a CIA position that he's been in even after he's left the CIA.
They have a permanent contractual agreement of silence of any classified information.
This would be considered highly classified.
And so, as is the case in many instances where we have what appears to be a whistleblower within the CIA, this is a potential purposeful leak done under circumstances that make it appear as if it's going against CIA wishes, but I'm not convinced we can do that.
Well, for example, the government claims that al-Qaeda is the biggest and most powerful terrorist organization in the world, and yet we have not seen any small, numerous, normal acts of terrorism in the U.S. since 9-11, despite nearly open borders.
We have had no bombings of electrical pylons in the hinterland, which are totally undefended.
We have no car bombings, no suicide bombings.
We have nothing.
And how difficult is it for someone to get across the border?
It's virtually you walk across in any number of places in the United States.
No, I'm saying either they are completely impotent, in which case they can't be the largest, most well-funded terrorist organization in the world.
I mean, even illegal aliens from Mexico without a dime to their name can walk across the border.
So it's not a matter of relative impotence.
What this tends to indicate is that we are dealing here with something that perhaps is being blown out of proportion by government in order to induce people to continue to believe in a war on terrorism, which may not be exactly to the degree of danger that people are being used to, shall I say, support some of the government legislative and legal proposals to restrict constitutional liberties.
And there's a lot of other anomalies there about the reasons.
For example, I happen to know because I've had several military people describe to me what they knew, that the United States government had satellite photos of large convoys of weapons leaving Iraq for Syria.
They knew that there were Russian officers directing that operation.
They used a lot of Russian trucks, and yet Russia is being considered our ally in the war on terrorism.
The U.S. knew that the weapons were leaving beforehand.
In fact, it was on the briefing page of Secretary of State Colin Powell when he went before the U.N., and they pulled it at the last moment.
If you were Saddam Hussein and you were about to face off with the U.S., stupid as that might be, why would you take your ace of spades and toss it out of the deck?
I think it might have to do with knowing that your time is up and deferring the ability to strike at Israel or the United States or anyone who might be a threat to defer that by giving it to another ally, which Syria is.
And the U.S. is still holding back on its revelations about Syria.
Some of this has leaked out in the press, but the U.S. isn't making an issue of it.
I mean, if you know the big, bad U.S. is coming at you and you've got a nasty, nasty weapon, chemical or atomic or biologic or whatever, you just don't throw that card away.
I mean, it's suicide anyway to go up against the U.S., but if you've got some terrible weapon, then you use it.
It's very obvious from other information coming out of this administration that it had already decided to go to war in Iraq long before this preparations were being made.
The administration went through a terrible, terrible embarrassment, virtually having to say, well, there were no weapons of mass destruction, if I recall correctly.
They said it was faulty intelligence.
The British Prime Minister had to apologize for it, for God's sake.
So you would think the U.S. would now be screaming.
Well, we couldn't tell you before, but we can tell you now they did have them, but they were sent to Iraq.
I mean, why wouldn't they sent to Syria?
Assyria, I'm sorry.
They were sent to Syria.
Why wouldn't they be screaming that in that moment rather than go through that giant embarrassment?
Well, it's hard to second-guess a government that isn't telling the truth to us.
But what I can assume is that there would be a public expectation then that if the weapons went to Syria, that you'd go after Syria, and I don't think they're ready to do that.
I think they went into Iraq for ulterior motives, and they obviously wanted to have, I think, strategically an aircraft carrier on the sand, so to speak, in the middle of the Middle Eastern cauldron of affairs, which is much more economical in terms of managing what they know is coming up as the next Middle East war.
It's going to be a big war against Israel with a lot of missiles that Syria and Egypt and Iran are planning to launch at Israel in Salvo so that the Arrow anti-missile system cannot intercept that many missiles.
I think the U.S. wants to be there and in position, and I think that's the reason they went into Iraq.
Iraq, Saddam Hussein, I think, may have had knowledge of that, tried to defuse the situation by getting his weapons out, possibly to embarrass the United States.
But I think because the United States is not ready to go in and attack and cleanse Syria, that they're keeping this thing under their hat.
If the U.S. had knowledge that they were transferred out secretly, certainly it wouldn't suffer through that embarrassment of our intelligence was no good.
And there are no weapons of mass destruction.
I mean, the whole thing, it doesn't make common sense.
Well, I don't feel an obligation to have to come up with an explanation when neither Saddam Hussein nor the U.S. government is telling why they did what they did.
All I know is I'm reporting to you the facts on the ground that have been confirmed by military experts.
Well, they come from actual U.S. intelligence people who, first of all, the government itself circulated those reports fairly openly within the Pentagon.
So there were plenty of rooms for leaks, but there were sufficient satellite photos.
I had Marine Corps contacts who saw the photos.
There were also Army contacts that saw the photos.
And there's just been a new MI6 report come out of Britain that the British knew, and they knew of the Russian connection as well.
And that's just been reported this last week, that the Russians were involved in the loading of those weapons because the Russians are very much into Syria.
They were in Iraq just prior to the war, and some of their advisors were there during the war, and they got out quickly so that they weren't found by U.S. personnel.
But just like in the original Gulf War, you know, the Russians were flying in daily resupply to Iraq at the same time that the United States was crowing to the world that the Russians were on borders or allies.
The U.S. has a very nasty habit of covering for the Russians that I don't quite understand.
By the way, then, how do you react to the news that Iran notified the UN nuclear watchdog people in writing Sunday that it's going to suspend all of its uranium enrichment and related stuff?
I'm just saying that it's one thing to be able to determine that someone's lying to you.
To determine why they're lying is another thing.
I can only theorize.
One of the primary theories that I think has some validity is that there is a movement among certain sectors within the power structure of the United States to get us into a global government.
And war has often been used.
Conflict, managing both sides of the conflict in a Hegelian-type dialectic has been used to get Americans, to get British, to get people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do.
I mean, we look at the provocations of the Germans in burning down their own parliament building, blaming it on the communists in order to pass a law outlawing communism and giving near-absolute power to the Chancellor Adolf Hitler.
That was a definite agent provocateur event.
It's not new in history.
There's much indication from the book Day of Defeat by Robert Stinnett that Roosevelt did the same thing with Pearl Harbor, knew it was coming, fomented conflict with the Japanese in order to draw us into war.
Well, that can be whether or not he's real Or alive or dead, he can be a hero.
This is a man that's living on legends right now.
And unfortunately, there's a history of disinformation in this field.
It's just like in the battle going on in Iraq against the insurgents, the constant charge that Zarqawi, a lieutenant of Osama bin Laden apparently, is running the war there.
And yet, whether it's in Fallujah or Najaf, inside has vindicated, they never have seen Zarqawi.
The recordings of supposed tape recordings of his voice don't have a Jordanian accent, it can't be Zarqawi, so somebody's imitating this guy, and the U.S. is the one who's been promulgating most of those charges.
So it gives me pause and suspicion that we've got this information floating around for political purposes.
Relative to the war on terrorism, I treat everything that they say with skepticism.
I mean, look at the we've been in yellow alerts since 9-11.
We've gone to orange alert three or four times.
There's been almost two dozen major terrorist alerts, and virtually none of them have come true.
Virtually none are.
I mean, that's a very, very bad track record.
The American people are getting skeptical.
I'm afraid that something is going to have to happen in the world of terrorism to make the U.S. government credible, otherwise they're going to continue to lose credibility.
That's a very bad track record for supposed improved intelligence agencies.
Well, the track record of assessing the communist threat in the old Soviet Union during the Cold War was also blown up a little bit, wasn't it, Joel?
Listen, hold on to your answer to that one.
We'll be back in a moment.
From the high desert in the middle of the night, my guest is Joel Scals and we're talking about terrorism.
I'm Mark Bell.
unidentified
Sweet Jesus later deserved me.
I traveled the world in the seventies.
Everybody is looking for something.
Some of them want to use you.
Some of them want to be used by you.
Some of them want to abuse you.
Some of them want to abuse you.
The heart of me sweet is beating.
And when the mediums turn the dark to me, what you have to think is weeping.
We had to get out before the magic got away In the morning with the night, laying in the shadows I'm coming to the night, till the morning light To talk with Art Bell, call Ma wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 80825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call 800618-8255.
International callers may recharge by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free, 800893-0903.
From coast to coast, and worldwide on the internet.
Listen, I was saying, I think, or asking you, it was fairly widely thought after the end, substantially after the end of the Cold War, that the original assessment of the communist capability was, over the years, far overblown, causing us to spend a whole lot of money on national defense that perhaps we didn't have to spend, that was really well overdone.
I've covered some of this in the World Affairs brief.
In short, what the answer is, quantitatively, in terms of conventional weapons, the Russians were every bit as strong as our assessment indicated they were.
Qualitative-wise, in terms of technology, they were far deficient.
For example, when the MiG-25 Foxbat was finally flown over by a defector, we found out that it had some very rudimentary electronics in it far beyond 10 years, at least behind the U.S. factor.
Even considering that some of that was put in there for, because they didn't have EMP-hardened chips, they used vacuum tubes and other things.
Nevertheless, it still was pretty backwards.
However, what's happened since the apparent demise of the Soviet Union, and that's still the best evidence is that they actually cooked up their own demise in order to continue to get or to increase or facilitate the technological transfers to Russia from the United States, which has happened.
We've had so many joint projects.
A lot of Americans don't know that the joint strike fighter is being developed jointly with Vezd Estrella, the Russians' weapons lab, which means they're getting all of Boeing's and Lockheed's technology, and that's found their way into their latest fighters as well.
They feigned not having enough money to do their space station portion and got all of our technology transfer.
And we decided to build it for them in their lab facilities at our expense.
So there's been a lot of...
That's right.
And that's one of the problematic things.
The Clinton administration, of course, was very easy on China in allowing them to get a lot of technological transfers that allowed them to have greater accuracy in their missiles.
But going back to the Cold War, it's very important to understand that even though the technology of some of their mid-range weaponry was mediocre, nevertheless, their missiles were not.
Thanks to Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon selling to Russia the ball-bearing, miniature ball-bearing technology, allowing them to accuratize and MERV their warheads.
They really did provide every bit as much punch in terms of their missiles that we were afraid of.
So that part is the most important part of the equation.
The rest is relatively a matter of how they fight the war after they've nuked us.
I think that there is a use of fear in the entire war on terror.
There's nothing greater than the anomalies and the way that they scrutinize people at the airports.
It's not an effective way, and we still have the huge holes.
And, of course, we have massive holes in our border, which pales in comparison to the airline problem, pales in comparison to how many terrorists can walk across the border with loads of explosives.
I certainly think that they're withholding some crucial pieces of information, and we have to ask why.
For example, that ad that ran before this latest session talked about the 9-11 anomalies.
There are some huge ones that the U.S. could easily cover up, I mean, uncover and explain to the public.
For example, on the Pentagon crash, which has tremendous anomalies, they confiscated two videos which showed the crash, and they've refused to make them public.
You know, if it really is according to the government's version, I mean, why not just let us see the videos?
It seems to me it's hard to be a little bit pregnant on this issue.
I mean, you either think the U.S. orchestrated this, if not ordered it, which a lot of people think.
I'm not one of them.
But a lot of people think that.
So you kind of either lean in that direction or you have to recognize that it was a perfectly executed terrorist act that came off virtually flawlessly.
And that's quite a bit, you know, for an organization that you say ain't much.
I mean, that's exactly the anomaly I'm working with, Art.
I mean, if they could pull off that kind of precision with people who couldn't even fly a Cessna aircraft and who can't penetrate the borders and do the most minimal normal terrorist act, that's a contradiction that I can't.
Well, it leads me down the road that there seems to be, at best, as I talked to George Norrie on Coast to Coast last year, I said it seems to be, at best, that there was some facilitation, some looking the other way.
For example, one of the biggest anomalies of the...
Now, let me tell you, I mean, one of the biggest pieces of evidence that simply cannot be explained by the events is the large pools of molten metal in the bottom of the ruins of the World Trade Center.
I mean, there's only one way you get those huge pools of metal, and that is you use thermite burning charges inside the huge 42-inch or square pillars that are in the bottom of the Trade Center.
That didn't happen with airplanes.
Somebody had to pack those with charges.
The building was shut down the week before for major maintenance.
One is that Al-Qaeda was even smarter and more adept and more infiltrated by a giant margin than we even imagine when we're talking about 9-11 as we understand it, right?
unidentified
It has to be to achieve what you're talking about.
Well, you know, I try to be an objective researcher on these things, Art.
Let me tell you, it's almost like the JFK assassination.
The longer time goes by, the more people come out of the woodwork and say, look, I was carrying the photographs of JFK's autopsy when the wife in the casket came in front of Bethesda Naval Hospital.
He was already in our hospital when that casket came in.
Now, those are the kinds of evidences that say, wow, the government's just plain lying to us.
And the longer we go through this, the more evidence comes out that the government's lying.
For example, you know, even though the FAA has got a gag order on it, it did not release the tape recordings of the pilots talking to the ATC centers.
We have a private airliner who was recording their own airliner's conversation with Cleveland Center as they were discussing the hijacking of Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania.
So we have the recording of the pilot of Flight 93 pressing the wrong button and telling the passengers, he was actually talking to the whole world at Cleveland Center, that there's a bomb on board for the passengers to prepare for it.
And we have also a lot of expletives and shouting and yelling coming out over the microphone.
We also have one of the aircraft that saw the plane explode in the air.
Now that's right there.
Cleveland Center knew that.
That was never told to the 9-11 Commission.
That means the government had told them not to tell.
I think it was about a 50 to 60 percent whitewash.
It did tell many correct things, but it carefully omitted the weightier evidence that would point to the things the government needs to tell us about that they aren't, like vectoring the F-16s to Flight 93 and shooting it down.
I mean, New Hampshire Air Traffic Controller testified that he vectored them to.
We knew there were F-16s there.
The engine Was found six miles from the crash site?
And, you know, the eyewitnesses of airliners seeing with their naked eye Flight 93 explode in the air indicate that it did not end in a crash in the field in Pennsylvania.
Don't you think the American people would understand that an airliner headed toward the White House, in all probability, would be shot down if they could do it?
The evidence points to a missile chute gone awry, and yet the government covered it up, denied that the Navy was even there, and spent $2 million manufacturing a phony video about a fuel tank explosion.
But I'm a Navy pilot.
I know what a trail of a drone looks like, and two witnesses saw a drone go horizontally over Long Island that had the telltale white smoke trail.
And it's very easy for a drone that's passing underneath an airblinder if you've got a missile going up tracking the drone that it can switch lock-on to the airliner.
If the goal of our government is to lie to us and to put fear into us so that they may pass Patriot Act II, III, and IV, in other words, tighten down the screws on the citizens, right?
Am I right?
Yes.
If that's the case, then why go to the trouble to say it was a fuel tank explosion with Flight 800?
Why not say it was a God-forsaken, awful act of terrorism?
And that would fit right into your agenda of lying and scaring the people, wouldn't it?
And on the one hand, you're telling me that that's kind of what they want us to feel is fear.
It would have been so easy to say, well, yes, those were photographs of a missile.
Some bastard shot down Flight 800, and that would have put the fear of God in people, would have served the agenda you say that they have.
But instead, they do the exact opposite thing and go out of their way to say, no, it was a fuel tank explosion, totally innocent from a terrorism point of view.
But you know, in the heat of a crisis, when these people make decisions and they start down a certain direction, sometimes the inertia continues to carry them in that direction.
Do you believe that the people that we think are in charge of the American government, namely President Bush and those who serve for President Bush, that they're actually working against our best interests and instead they're in league with some greater world, eventual world-dominating body or government, some secret society?
Or do you think they're dupes of a secret society or what?
It's just that, you know, in culmination, Joel, what I hear you saying is that our government is not just sort of a fairly benign, stumbling affair at all.
Now it begins, now that you're gone, needles and pins, white lights you're done, watching black clouds,'til you return, lighting black clouds, and watching you burn.
Now it begins, the day after the day, you return.
This is my life.
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is Area Code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from East of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From West to the Rockies, call ART at 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach Art Bell by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
In past president administrations, it's usually been the national security advisor that's been the president's handler, someone who essentially gives him, feeds him the answers, coordinates what kind of strategies and proposals come before the president, steers him in a different direction than he wants to go if there is any objections to it.
But this is the first administration where the National Security Advisor is an amateur, Condoletsa Rice, and is not by any means the handler.
In fact, she's become so discredited in her public interviews because she's just such an inveterate yes woman to the president that she hardly gets any interviews anymore.
She won't even disagree when there's obvious room to disagree.
But as to who's running the president, we don't really have any whistleblowers or defectors from the highest levels of what we may call the powers that be.
You nevertheless do believe that there is behind the scenes some secret, super secret organization, powerful people turning the cracks, ordering the orders.
Let me tell you what Woodrow Wilson said after being in politics for many years.
He said, you know, since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately.
Some of the biggest men in the United States in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something.
They know that there's a power structure so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
That was in his book, The New Freedom, 1913, by Doubleday.
I mean, for example, I have a high-level contact that was in the Reagan administration that talked about high-level dinner in the White House, and David Rockefeller was sitting next to Robert McNamara, and he was sitting with his chair back to back to these guys and heard their conversation.
He was highly placed personnel director, and he said he overheard Rockefeller talking to McNamara about an upcoming economic meeting.
McNamara used to be Secretary of Defense, then he was now chairman of the World Bank, and David Rockefeller turned over and said, now listen, Bob, in that meeting, don't commit to anything more or less than what I told you to.
So here was David Rockefeller giving orders to the chairman of the World Bank to stand to certain things according to how they had met privately.
And that indicates power structure above any elected officials.
So the goal of this secret group, I take it, listening to you, is to eventually end up with one world and with the U.S. people completely controlled, with their freedoms eroded and gone.
I think the means of using war, for example, as World War II was used to make a major move to overcome the failure of the League of Nations, World War II was used as a major move to foment doing things under the auspices of the United Nations, and power structures were put in place through the instrumentality of war that probably wouldn't have been approved of by the American public had not Roosevelt got them into war.
I think they knew that.
I think that they didn't get all that they wanted.
And when we talk about they, let me quote from Richard Gardner, CFR member, one of the promoters of this, he said, in short, the House of the World Order will have to be built from the bottom up, making an end-round run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, is likely to get us to world government faster than the old-fashioned funnel assault.
So that's kind of a conspiratorial statement.
It means we're going to have to snooker the American people into giving up their sovereignty.
And Newsweek, you know, last year had this front-page magazine about national sovereignty, good riddance to it right on the front cover.
There is a concerted effort among a variety of people to push us into global government, and clearly we won't have the same protections we have under the Constitution.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of world government, Art.
I know you've written about that in your book.
There's nothing wrong with the concept as long as you have the fundamental rights of man really clearly established without contradictions.
And if you look at the proposals that, like the European Constitution, they say we guarantee the fundamental right of property.
And then in the fine print, it says, except when it's not in the public good.
Now, if you've got that kind of a fine print exception, you don't have any right to private property.
You see what I'm saying?
We guarantee the right to families, right to life, and all of that.
Except, accept, accept.
So you see, there's all these contradictory phrases, and they sell the Constitution to these people who are used to having fundamental rights based upon the upfront language, but the fine print takes it all away.
Well, a little while ago, you said that nothing has happened since 9-11, and something is going to have to happen pretty soon to bolster the credibility of the U.S. government.
I'm saying that's within the possibilities of what's happened historically, and I think we have evil people in this world today that are fully capable of that.
And you think those same evil people promulgated 9-11 itself?
You know, I've got someone here who says, hey, Art, the World Trade Center, come on, it collapsed from the middle on both of the buildings.
The pools of metal at the bottom were from the melted floors, which, you know, in the middle of the buildings, those floors did melt, very high temperatures, jet fuel burning.
Yeah, the forensic evidence was the witness from the demolition, the head of the demolition company said we were shocked to find large pools of molten metal in the bottom of the trade center.
So that's the forensic evidence.
Now, that thing was carted away just as quickly as Oklahoma City so that no one could make a detailed photographs.
No photographs were allowed of those molten pools of metal, but at least we have the statement of the owner of the demolition company.
Well, if it was impossible for the buildings to have fallen from the airplanes hitting and then the burning that went on, then you would think they would be foolish to cook up such an impossible scenario.
Well, look at what they did with 150 witnesses who saw missiles going up to TW-800, and they cooked up a fuel tank explosion, created a video that completely falsified the events.
I mean, that was so cockeyed that it was very, very difficult for the public to believe.
And frankly, very few of the public that knows about any amount of the full evidence doesn't believe the video.
Well, I did a lot of interviews about TWA 800, and I have certainly reservations about the final explanation of it, and I have some reason to believe there might have been a missile involved.
But again, even if there was, darting back there for a second, you would think the ideal thing to do, even if you'd blown it and it was one of your own missiles from one of your own Navy boats, would be to blame it on terrorists.
I mean, if your main agenda is to grasp control of the freedoms of the people of the United States so you can mesh them together with the peoples of the rest of the world and have this jolly old, or maybe not so jolly old, world government.
Well, one of the things you have to consider, Art, is that there were public attempts made to the Clinton administration to try to get them to buy back, to reclaim the Afghan Stinger missiles, and they refused to buy them back.
You know, straight out, Joe, I mean, there's a lot of people who are saying, not a lot, but there are people who are saying very loudly, the United States did 9-11 to itself, ordered it, or either aided it, or abetted it or made it happen.
And you've really made a lot of suggestions tonight and said a lot of things that kind of lead in that direction.
And that's something you just can't be a little pregnant on because if we're being lied to, if there were explosives or some sort of melting mechanism at the base of those buildings that really brought them down, then that's a monstrous lie and it leads directly to full pregnancy.
Instead, the government has literally refused to address the issue of the molten pools of metal, which is the biggest evidence that the airplanes didn't bring the building down.
Well, I'm sure that you've read the literature of the 9-11 conspiracy people, haven't you?
Yes.
So there's a whole lot more they've got than just the metal at the bottom of the buildings.
My God, they've got a laundry list that is 100 miles.
You know what, Joel, you can take any complex event, particularly something like a military attack, and you can almost make anything out of anything if you work hard enough about it.
Just kind of like the Kennedy assassination, actually.
Now all those years later.
And that, frankly, is what the 9-11 people are saying, that we did it to ourselves, that we virtually ordered this to occur so that we could, well, head down the road that you've kind of described tonight.
There is an object that comes across the bottom of the screen or the bottom of the picture, right near ground level, and it's a small fighter-type aircraft.
Now, one of the interesting things is there is a signature in the explosion that indicates high explosives.
A fuel airplane exploding into something gives only red and black off.
There was a complete white light of a high-explosive warhead that is the signature on that photograph.
So that's the first evidence that there was a missile going in, prepping this whatever happened.
Now, if that aircraft, if a small jet fighter fired the missile, it was obviously going to follow in and cause the crash.
It certainly could explain the 16-foot, 18-foot-wide hole going into it.
But what's the anomaly here at Art is that there's a small smoke trail that is into the film right after the jet, which is supposed to be a missile smoke trail going off.
Now, I've done as a fighter pilot many missile shoots, and missiles, smoke trails don't look like that.
What I'm trying to tell you is, is that this photo, the only one of the Pentagon that was released was doctored.
What I'm going to do is turn you over to the audience and kind of just see where this goes.
Joel Skousen is my guest in the nighttime, which is where we do our work.
You're listening to Coast to Coast AM.
I'm Art Bell.
unidentified
Coast to Coast AM
I'm Art Bell.
By telling me a lie Without a reason why You've blown it all sky high You've blown it all sky high To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach ART by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free, 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Historically, Joel Skelson has come on the program and talked about how to protect yourself individually from threats, oh, I don't know, biological terrorism, nuclear terrorism, where to move, where there are safe zones, all that sort of thing.
We've talked a lot about that, having stashes of food and water and the things you would have to do.
It seems, Joel, as though you've sort of moved into you probably still need to prepare in the ways that I've been saying, but you'll be preparing for an attack from your own government.
I'm saying that the major threat is going to be a major war that's going to be caused as retaliation for continued intervention in the world, which is increasingly viewed by the world as unjustified intervention, especially after the war in Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction not being found there.
The antagonism of the world toward the United States is getting to be a fever pitch.
First time caller line, you're on the air with Joel Scalzen.
Hello.
unidentified
Hi, Art.
My name is Billy Haley.
I'm calling from Vancouver.
Yes.
I have to say one thing.
On the morning of 9-11, I woke up and I was woken up by my girlfriend's relative.
And they said, go downstairs and watch the television.
I went down and I watched that go down live.
And I'm sure it was Aaron Brown or somebody on CNN said one of the planes had been shot down.
And then nothing was ever said ever again.
And then I started hearing about it through the so-called people that believe that 911 was done by their government and stuff like that.
And the thing is that from Canada, what we see here is the propaganda that goes on in the United States is almost identical to what goes on in the 1930s with the Nazis.
That's how Canadians are looking at the way the U.S. media is propagandizing.
They're comparing it to then?
unidentified
Well, it's completely fear-based.
If you give the public something to fear, then you can win the public.
And everything seems to be so fear-based.
You guys are scared of your own shadow now.
When we see interviews done in the States by our Canadian press, we see people that are, you know, they're voting simply because they're afraid to go to work.
They're afraid to do things.
And let's face it, like, the World Trade Center was, that was attacking, like, a monumental symbol.
You know, that's a world banking.
That represents something completely different from a local mall or a bridge.
You know, it represents so much more.
But I don't understand why people are like, they say, you know what?
Well, why were we attacked?
Well, I don't know.
What about in Iraq?
Every bomb that's dropped creates probably 10 new terrorists.
Well, yeah, you can take that point of view, sure.
We're not over there making a lot of friends right now, are we?
unidentified
No, I mean, I've traveled there in the late 90s, and I have to tell you, it was a fantastic place to travel in.
Now I'm a little bit P.O.'d because of what American foreign policy is doing as a Canadian, I'm now scared to travel over there simply because I'm viewed as a Westerner.
I traveled with three Americans over there, and we had a fantastic time.
And it's just scary, you know, the way that, like, this fear is working on the world, and it seems to be...
Do you have anything Joel should comment on or do you think that?
unidentified
Well, Joel, I mean, I'm glad that he's brought this up because, you know, frankly, I sigh with Joel in the sense that, you know, without all the evidence, how can you make a secure judgment on things?
And some of the things, you know, he may be a little bit off in left field.
I don't know.
But the thing is, without all of the evidence, how can you really make a judgment on it when there are so many anomalies?
Like, if your government was honest with you, why would it not just be honest?
It really is, and it's not a matter of this person's reacting to the fear of our government.
He's reacting to the actual accurate recognition that the world hatred of the United States has increased, And it hasn't increased because Arabs hate our freedoms or our liberties, as the President has said.
It has increased because they hate our government and what our government is doing to them for perceived unjustified reasons.
We antagonized the entire Slavic world when we created the KLA, which drove their own Kosovar Albanians out of Kosovo.
It wasn't the Serbs.
It was the KLA which came in and threatened the tribal leaders.
And then we blamed it on the Serbs so that we could justify invading.
Now, I'm not saying the Serbs were pure.
I'm not saying that the Serbs did not have some guilt involved, but most of that was a Western-provoked incident, which ended up turning the entire Russian and other Slavic peoples against us.
Why would we send, from the Iraqis' point of view, why would they send their most dangerous weapons to their enemy?
unidentified
Well, they weren't enemies at that point because, as Joel was pointing out, one of the biggest strictures that you run into in that part of the world is the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
So, in essence, Saddam was sending this stuff out of the country if the United Nations people had actually been informed of this when the Department of Defense saw it and got that information through their system, sent it up to the highest people.
Matter of fact, one of the people that's listed on this document as having received it was then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.
In other words, Saddam Hussein knew that he was going to have to start to get rid of certain weapons of mass destruction to avoid the confiscation through the international inspection process.
And so he gave some of those to Syria, some of them to Iran.
The bulk of the weapons in this latest war went to Syria.
But there were some that went to two other countries.
Keys of the Rockies, you're on here with Joel Scalzen.
unidentified
Hello.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
I was just listening to the show, and you're on the show, so.
But I was just listening to the show before, and he was saying how the buildings had melted, and that prior to that, they had people doing maintenance in there.
Well, I work in New Jersey, and the 10th of September, I work at night, and as I was driving down by Giant Stadium, if you know anything about New Jersey, it's on Route 3.
You can see the World Trade Center from there.
And I've lived here my whole life, and normally there's lights on in both towers at one time, you know, one time or another someone doing maintenance in there.
But this particular night, both towers were completely black except for the beacons on both the roofs and the antennas up there.
And I had told people about it, and they couldn't understand why I was saying that.
But normally, there's some type of light, someone doing maintenance in there at one particular time.
But this particular night, both towers were actually black.
Is there any way, Joel, that you can imagine that somebody snuck in these thermite Charges, planted them, got them all set to go, in league with the terrorists that were going to drive airplanes into them without our government being totally involved.
Well, there's just it's almost impossible to think of a scenario whereby the terrorists could have gotten the entire administration and security and otherwise of the World Trade Center to accede to a demand to shut the place down.
It would have been in a spectacular inside job.
It's literally unconceivable without some kind of official word authorizing that.
Joel, I have to say it's very refreshing to hear kind of what you're saying, as I've been suspecting it for a while, but it's hard to hear this viewpoint on the American medium.
My question to you is that you alluded to President Clinton and the wrongdoings in his administration, and to George Bush Jr. and the wrongdoings and possible wrongdoings in his administration.
My question is with the voting irregularities and these internal black ops directed at the citizens of the United States, what can we as citizens do?
I mean, do we flee the country or what do you recommend that we do in order to turn this around if it's not too late?
Actually, you know, this is the truth because I read the story, I know.
After this last election, there was a 300% increase in traffic to the Canadian website for immigration Americans, apparently looking into just moving out and going to Canada.
Yeah, the exit polls were within 1% generally all across the nation except in the five or so swing states, and they suddenly started to differ 3 to 4 to 5 percent in favor of Bush, and there were none that differed in the direction of Kerry.
But what I'm saying is that there were a lot of carry voters all across the United States.
The exit polls were in line within 1% of the actual outcome in all states except five swing votes.
And all of a sudden, there was this wide divergence.
And so something was skewed there very strongly.
There's a lot of other specific evidence about D-Bold that indicates that this is a company that has violated its trust with various state governments in terms of its software.
now we're talking about the election also home strange stories but
for so long hold on, hold on, hold on to what you got myself and sorrow while you play your cheating game To talk with Arc Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from East to the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From West to the Rockies, call Arc at 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach Art Bell by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Joel, much as I might not agree with it, what you just heard was an example of the fact that the United States certainly is not where they.
You used the they thing a little while ago, wished to take it because if we were there, then you couldn't hear ads like that, and guests like you couldn't be on the air and live through the experience.
Clearly, inroads have been made into the direction of free speech when you look at the election legacy of this past election and the curtailment of free speech zones far away from the president and barbed wire cages.
And, you know, this is a very bad omen in terms of the direction that we're going.
Well, in the first place, I would have not shut down the entire airline system.
I would have simply requested that they land the airplanes, re-screen the passengers extremely carefully, put them back on board, and keep the things moving.
You know, one of the problems that I pointed out in my book, Strategic Relocation, is that one of the biggest threats of terrorism is not so much the statistical chance that you're going to be involved in it, but it's the government's reaction to it, potentially shutting down banking systems, shutting down airlines, shutting down whole state freeway systems, and causing tremendous economic harm and otherwise to people.
The government's overreaction is one of the biggest threats that we have to deal with.
No, in my latest World Affairs brief art, I did cover this extensively.
There's tremendous other evidence.
And the problem with the evidence of the electronic voting machines that showed problems like being preloaded with votes or having too many votes than registered county people is that none of them went in the direction of Kerry, and that's statistically impossible.
If they're going to have airs, they should swing wildly around the map was entirely too red for you, huh?
The map, well, you've got to remember, I come from a conservative point of view.
I'm no Kerry fan.
So I'm not here spouting this particular point of view.
This was a detailed analysis I did of the best evidence we had.
And by the way, if your listeners want a free copy of that World Affairs Brief on the election, they can get that through an 800 number that isn't listed on your website.
And Joel, I'd like to ask you if you know what happened to the radar tapes that would have shown the departure stations, the track, and the final arrival stations of each, or points of each of the aircraft involved.
That's one of the things in the World Affairs brief I brought out.
That's one of the things that I demanded that the government show to let us know.
Let's hear the pilots actually declaring an emergency.
Let's hear them talking about the hijacking.
And they refused to do that.
unidentified
Okay.
And then one other real quickie, and I'll get off.
There's a real problem with an aircraft that size going through a hole in the Pentagon that's 16 to 20 feet in diameter without leaving any impression of the wings, the tail, or the engines somewhere on the outside of that building.
Now, here's one of the things that pertains to that, Art, one of the anomalies.
There is a fair amount of evidence out there now that the government was, in fact, running on that very same day and on a few days prior, simulated attacks on the White House and the Pentagon, which made people think that this particular attack was a drill because there was one scheduled.
In fact, the photographs that the BBC showed of this airplane diving into the White House or in that White House vicinity was a four-engine airliner, which was not the 757, of course, which has two engines on it.
And that indicates that there was, in fact, simultaneously a drill going on, which was keeping air controllers busy as well as military people focusing on that as a drill.
I'm saying the government certainly knew that there was something going on in terms of the drill, and yet they claimed, the president claimed, that he never had any inkling that they would use airliners, and yet the government was running through a drill on that very same day about airliners crashing into federal buildings.
Well, we're in different universes because I cannot grasp that everything, and it would have had to have been almost everything, was preordained, pre-planned by our own government or with the cooperation of our government.
Either way, like being not a little pregnant, Joel, it adds up to the same thing.
The government murdered its own people is what you're saying.
I have absolutely no answer for that other than the fact that I think if it didn't crash, it flew through the smoke so that people could have seen the aircraft make a pass and then not actually crash simultaneously.
And it just needs, you know, people, you know, the fear thing is just running rampant.
And it's, like I say, it's obvious, you know, I think if you look all the way back to the beginning of this country, you know, there have been wealthy people with ulterior motives that, you know, have painted a picture that, you know, for the good of everybody, but it's really always been for the, you know, the good of the few, the good at the top.
I think that, you know, the way that black operations have always worked is there's just a few who knows what's going on, and there's an awful lot of yes men who take orders and don't question.
And that's what worries me in the United States.
That's how Nazi Germany went bad, is there were too many people trained to take orders and not question.
And I'm afraid we have too many people.
And what few whistleblowers there are just get raked over the coals and put in prison and don't get supported despite the law.
This is very serious when we have a climate which does not support whistleblowers who could in fact tell the truth.
One of your previous callers asked, what can we do about that?
I think until we get some real honest inquiries, and I think the only way to have an honest inquiry, for example, on 9-11 is you get the critics to be in charge of impaneling a and then look at their results so that they're not afraid to Bring and ask the tough questions, I think then we might have two separate documents to compare.
The 9-11 families are not at all satisfied with the whitewash that came out of the 9-11 Commission and have asked for another commission, but that's no different than the multiple warrant commissions that we had.
The two congressional commissions afterwards staffed by people who came to the same conclusions that Oswald was the lone assassin.
The Pentagon, wasn't there one tape where they showed the explosion and there was a part of the tail that they caught on the delayed video from the parking lot?
There was, but the size of the tail corresponds more to a fighter jet than it does to...
This was a tape that was leaked by a Pentagon employee who had access to the video.
It was not authorized.
In other words, the government had attempted to suppress this video as well because it didn't show the actual airliner going in.
I think he knew that something like a missile had been shot into the Pentagon, which penetrated all three rings, and he doctored it to give people a hint that a missile had gone off, but it wasn't done correctly.
That's what I think the doctoring was about.
In other words, I don't think the video was falsified, but I think a portion was because the leaker was trying to tell the truth that there was a missile shot into the Pentagon.
unidentified
And you don't believe that aircraft could actually, that's a regular, what was it, a 767 they said that went in?
Joel, you said that some guy, acting on his own, if I heard this correctly, doctored the photograph to sort of give the hint that it was all a lie, but what he doctored itself was a lie.
No, what I'm saying is that the video, undod, showed simply a tiny object moving with a small tail, but it didn't show the missile trail because the missile trail would have been too faint to show up.
It was the puffy, curly smoke that is not a true signature of a missile shoot-off that is present in the video that indicates that it was doctored, but only that portion is what I'm saying.
So I think the leaker was attempting to tell the truth by adding it to the video.
unidentified
Well, I have another observation on that and on the towers.
The planes that went into the towers, now from my observation, the building fell from where the aircraft had hit, and you could tell that by as the building went down, it was blowing out the sides of the building.
And it didn't look like anything below those floors had disintegrated until the top floor came down on it.
Now, that's the one observation I wanted to say.
And I also wanted to let you think about an aircraft that they say went into the Pentagon, like a 767 or whatever it was.
You don't think it had enough girth to penetrate the Pentagon?
Because I was thinking that, you know, like when you take a straw and you put your thumb over the end of it, you can stick it through an orange?
Yeah, that doesn't pan out in terms of any of the studies of the law of physics of the mass of the aircraft.
It doesn't penetrate, especially three rings of the Pentagon.
But going back to the first question, there is several video footage which actually shows, and with my engineering experience in architecture, I can tell you that if you take out the 42 central pillars, that the outer structure, that there is minimal outer structure, will hold the building up, but it will not hold the part that's damaged up.
So it will, in fact, bring down the top first if you remove the central supporting core, and that will pancake down on the more flimsy structure below.
There is one video, by the way, that does show, let me repeat this, does show the antenna towers coming down before the rest of the thing initiating, and those were sitting right on the central pillar core.
So that also buttresses the evidence that it was the central core that was damaged down low rather than the, because that happened, by the way, on the aircraft that hit the second tower, the south tower, which did not damage the central core.
So for the central core to come down vertically before the fall indicates that it was melted from below.
Can a guy from anywhere go to sleep for all her and wake up a million years?
Only in America can a kid without a cent get a break and maybe grow up to be president?
Only in America can a little opportunity, yeah, for a classy girl like you fall for a poor boy like me.
That makes a wonderful day.
In America, and a kid who's watching car, take a giant step and reach right up and find.
If I could turn the page, the time then I'd be your age, just a day or two.
Close my eyes.
Close my eyes.
I couldn't find the way So I'll step up forward You'll need to believe in you Tell me Tell me lies Tell me sweet little lies Tell me lies Tell me lies Oh
no, no You can't disguise You can't disguise Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach ART by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Over the years, I've disagreed with many of my guests.
That's no secret.
Tonight is no exception.
But it is proof, without a doubt, that we will have those on the air that we disagree with and who have very contrary opinions, because that's what this program is.
It's a place where things that sometimes during the day cannot be said are said.
This question about the airplane that didn't hit the Pentagon really is an important question.
I mean, if this big plane is not what happened to the Pentagon, if it was, as you're suggesting, Joel, a missile or something like that, and then you said, well, maybe the airplane just flew through the smoke or something, is what you said.
That really doesn't get down easily at all for me, Joel.
It just doesn't.
I mean, those people are gone.
The airplane is gone.
So it either crashed or those people are secretly alive in some incredibly grand conspiracy that not I would think not even you could buy.
I mean, if you're trying to set up this scenario of proofs you're talking about, then it's like making a case, right?
A homicide investigator has to construct a case consisting of proof that the perpetrator did the crime.
And part of that would be to answer if it wasn't a plane, which Hockham's razor says it was, simplest explanation, the one that seemed to be true, then you've got to say what happened to the plane.
But I'll tell you, there were witnesses saw four planes in that sky during that time.
And that's way too many planes than the government version.
Witnesses saw four planes.
And I'm just telling you that the government is lying to us.
I don't know what happened to the people.
I feel very bad about the entire event.
But because you find that incredible, that doesn't lessen the fact that there were four planes in the air and that the government is lying to us and refusing to clarify the issue.
And that's what I'm concerned about.
That's the major point, is that we have a government who we cannot trust to tell us the truth.
And they're asking us to trust them, to do all kinds of intervention around the world, to give up our constitutional liberties, to trust them that they won't misuse that.
But, you know, it's in response to a threat, and anything the government would do in response to a threat after 9-11.
Let's back up for a second.
And for the sake of conversation, let's say 9-11 was as they said.
Just as they said, and we really were attacked, and those buildings really were hit by airplanes driven by terrorists, and that's really the way it did happen.
Then our government would have to respond in some way or another, tighten security at airports, certainly, immediately.
Maybe stop flying for a few days until they figured out what was going on for the safety of everybody.
I don't know.
I mean, if you had been president And that had happened to you, and it wasn't an inside job, and you were in charge of how to respond to it, some of your response would absolutely entail curtailing some freedoms in favor of security.
It couldn't end up any other way.
Anything you would do to fight terrorism would end up in some way putting somebody out, meaning they're going to get searched at the airport or something, right?
Certainly, there's something you could do, but we take issue with the fact that he said, let's go to Afghanistan.
I mean, any military expert, and I'm certainly well qualified as a military expert, would not have said and advertised the world we're going to go bomb all the training camps.
They were all empty when they were bombed.
I mean, that was a futile gesture to get into Afghanistan.
They gave an ultimatum to give up the Taliban and then didn't give any conditions by which you would determine who was Taliban and who were the supporters.
It was an ultimatum that the Taliban or give up al-Qaeda.
The Taliban could not have fulfilled even if they had wanted to.
Yeah, your guest has good mannerisms and he seems to hold himself well.
And there's a generalization, though, of the name government, and just kind of wondering who exactly might be behind this if there is a specific individual or group.
And there does seem to be, if it's government, they seem to offer their protection to the citizens of the United States.
And to me, in my viewpoint, they have failed to find evidence of things that have come about, like things that go about over the years.
And then they find out later, oh, after all the evidence overwhelms them and they can't refute it, like lead in the paint, a sybestis in parts of our houses, lead in our drinking pipes, mercury in fillings, and recently the Viox, you know, that has killed people, you know, and the FDAs are to protect us.
Wildcard line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hello.
unidentified
Yes.
Good morning.
I'm on the East Coast here, so it's a little earlier than probably where you're at.
But I hate to bump back.
I haven't been listening to my radio, so I'm probably not ahead with the conversation.
But back before the 4.30 break, you were discussing the thing.
The question I have, and this is either to Art or yourself, is when the crash happened at the Pentagon, was there not plane debris inside the Pentagon at the point of entry?
I mean, was there not any evidence of that, or was there just a hole?
There is some plane debris, so some plane did go into the Pentagon.
Most of the debris that came out, however, was broken and crushed desk and filing cabinet material.
When you look at the photographs of the debris, a plane, Joel, or a missile?
There's hardly any plane debris.
There's only a few heavy pieces.
The government is saying that it all burned up.
unidentified
Well, here's the other point where I was trying to come across.
And I was kind of siding with Art how he was, you know, and I'm not at all trying to be disrespectful.
But I can remember back after 911 and watching the news religiously for days on end.
And there were, you know, the Pentagon is a government facility with, I mean, thousands of employees.
And I remember people coming on the news and discussing seeing, you know, we didn't have video footage, but the people saying they saw the plane come into the building.
So, I mean, that's where I'm a little confused on that area, you know, and how could you sneak in such a building with so many homes?
And then the proof that it does exist is the witness of the service station attendant who said that within six minutes the FBI was there to collect the video, which is another evidence that there was prior knowledge of government.
How could they get there and determine there was a video camera within six minutes of the crash?
I think generally throughout the discussion, Art has tried to come to definitive conclusions.
I'm not ready to come to definitive conclusions because I don't have all of the evidence.
I have admitted that I believe the evidence points in the direction of government involvement, and I think that's what a responsible journalist can say at this point.
Hey, the question was asked a little bit earlier, can anyone imagine the U.S. government trying to hurt its own people?
And just in 2002, 40 years after it was written, in 1962, the Northwinds documents were declassified.
And this is where the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented the President Kennedy with a report that recommended the U.S. military shooting down American airliners and also cruise liners in order to instigate a war with Cuba.
Blame it on the Cubans.
Now, this was 40 years ago, and look at the morality difference in our country from then till now.
I can only imagine what the Joint Chiefs might propose to do to the American people 40 years after proposing shooting down American airliners.
But there's also a third element that he didn't mention that a lot of people, the people that did not want to give an opinion or reveal who they voted for, they had a formula that broke it down, whereas one towards President Bush and nine towards Kerry through some formula through history.
So that really skewed the whole thing.
I mean, look at Pennsylvania.
They had Kerry up by 80%, 80-20% on that first exit call.
So that was bogus.
Now, the other two quick points on the World Trade Center, it was going through a transition period.
It was under the Port Authority control, and it had just been transferred to a private owner literally days before that.
So that week before when it was blacked out at night, they were going through serious maintenance and inspection in this transfer.
And the third point I wanted to quickly make that nobody really has talked about is when they bombed it in 93, by putting these guys on trial, when it happened with these lawyers, they paraded out the architects of the Trade Center and whatnot and literally rolled out the blueprints.
And at that time, it was revealed certain specifications that it was built to withstand a 707 impact.
They knew the type of steel, the quality of the steel, the strength of the steel, the temperature.
All these things came out.
And they had time to plan this, which is partly why they used 757s and not 707s.
Well, I would disagree with the caller on all three points.
First, the exit polling criteria, whatever it was used, would have been consistent throughout the range of states, and that would not explain why there was a divergence only within five states on the exit polling.
I mean, the actual aircraft weight difference isn't that significant to explain that.
The point is that no matter what airplane plowed into it, the second one that plowed into the south tower didn't hit the main structural elements.
It only hit the clip, the side corner of it.
And that means that the only destruction could have been by the fuel fire.
And fuel fire doesn't get any hotter than 2,000 degrees.
It can soften metal, make things sag, but it can't even touch those huge central pillar columns.
And so, you know, it's really insufficient to bring it down.
And it doesn't explain, even if it did cause the web trusses to sag, it doesn't explain the molten pools of metal, which can only come from huge, high-temperature, 4,000 to 6,000-degree temperatures, which cannot possibly have occurred by debris and fire falling into the oxygen-depleted area in the bottom of the tower.