All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 14, 2004 - Art Bell
02:52:16
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Joel Skousen - Terrorism Iraq & 9-11
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, I'm going to be doing a little bit of a walkthrough of the game. So, I'm going to be playing it on my PC. So, I'm
going to be playing it on my PC. So, I'm going to be playing it on my PC.
So, I'm going to be playing it on my PC.
So, I'm going to be playing it on my PC.
I'm Art Bell, and this program is Coast to Coast AM.
Slipping, sliding, moving right across every single one of the time zones around the world.
Nice to be here.
My honor and privilege to escort you through this weekend.
Well, of course, big news is in Iraq.
And, uh, late word has it, by the way, that, uh, airstrikes are again underway, and a fierce pounding underway.
In April of, uh, the year 2000, Marines fought for about three weeks and failed to take Fallujah 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 Abbas, the temporary successor to Arafat, escaped unharmed, but it was close Sunday.
When militants firing assault rifles burst into a mourning 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 negotiator Greenland 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.
Sound of explosion Last night, I suggested you ought to watch 60 Minutes of...
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 is 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?
If 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 Hosoi, 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.
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, you know, 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 misery.
If it wasn't something like that, Then they have no idea what it might be.
Wildcard Line, you are on the air.
Good morning.
Good morning, Art.
How are you?
Quite well, sir.
Where are you?
My name is Chris, and I'm calling from Minnesota.
All right, Chris.
What's up?
Well, I wanted to call you because when you had open lines last night, there was a lot of discussion of the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
And the tenor of the calls last night seemed to suggest That the war in Iraq is a bad thing in that it takes away resources from the war on terrorism.
And I just wanted to call because, you know, I really think that that is not correct thinking.
You don't think so, huh?
Let me ask you a question.
If you have that point of view, did you happen to catch 60 Minutes tonight?
Unfortunately, I was watching the Minnesota Vikings lose to the Green Bay Packers.
I haven't watched that yet.
Oh, sorry Art, sorry.
It was a good game, you'll enjoy it.
Yes, I know you're a fan.
I'm trying to, sir.
Yes, I am a fan.
and i was uh... uh...
and i was about uh... at the end of the second uh...
quarter when uh... when i had to come to the show uh... dot com
rocky spoiler and i don't know anyway
might my point is that uh... you know it i think it would couple of the colors
last night suggested that uh... our policy
create created al-qaeda and that if we don't need to leave the
middle east or do something different that they'd leave us alone in
i think our history shows that that that's not the case We were attacked in 93,
We were attacked.
The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993.
We had the bombings of our U.S.
embassies in East Africa.
We had the bombings of the Khobar 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 uh... eventually perhaps iranian saudi arabian how about syria syria absolutely you think we eventually will have to overturn all of those governments and install democracies look we had to do it during world war two we had to be fascism uh... for after that we had to defeat communism and now we have to defeat
uh... the radical islamic and if we don't do that you know i think uh... i think our world will be uh... a much much dangerous place all right i appreciate your call thank you it's one point of view despite what our president and our leaders tell us we're actually in a war with islam our president has gone out of his way really to say that just eight 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.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air, hi.
Turn your radio off, please.
That's good.
Yes, sir.
About last night?
Yes.
Talking about the time travel and all?
Yes.
I heard no one bring up, I've heard it on coast-to-coast, the speed of thought.
The speed of thought?
Yes.
Well, we don't know what that is.
It may be instantaneous or it may turn out to be measurable.
Or it may be nothing at all.
There may not be a speed of thought, because thought may not actually move at all.
It may stay all inside your head.
I mean, you have to admit that's one possibility.
Yeah, yes, sir.
That would kind of eliminate the time machine if there was an instantaneous speed of thought across the universe, though, correct?
Well, I'm not sure what that might do to a device, to 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 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 some time, but they will.
Wells to the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hi!
I was calling to discuss the war with Islam aspect.
Do you think we are at war with Islam?
Well, I don't think that we're at war with Islam.
I think that Islam is at war with the rest of the world, because the Koran says that a good Muslim will kill the infidels, and anybody who is not in the Islam religion is an infidel.
Well, there's something about giving them an opportunity to convert, but short of that, then yes, you're right.
You're supposed to dispose of the infidels, the incorrigible.
And Christianity preaches tolerance, and like total tolerance, and I think that's one of the reasons why the Islamic world really hates Christians, because it goes against everything that the Koran says.
You know, it is, I mean, let's face it, it is a religious war, right?
I would have to agree.
It's nothing unusual, though.
There have been holy wars and religious wars since the dawn of time.
Now it's a little more interesting with the nuclear war aspect of it.
Interesting is a fascinating choice of words.
Yes, they all rush forward into battle.
Our side and theirs, right?
With a rifle in one hand.
The Koran, or the Bible, and 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, God would be so weary of constantly being petitioned on two sides of a cause, right?
First time caller, and you're on the air.
Hello.
Hey, Art.
How you doing?
I'm doing alright, sir.
Where are you?
Uh, this is Dave.
I'm calling from Alaska, and the air conditioner's working up here just fine.
How cold is it up there?
Uh, it's about, I don't know, 10, I guess.
About 10.
Alright.
Hey, anyway, a couple comments I wanted to make.
I guess I wanted to, uh, um, illegal alien problem in, uh, Arizona.
Illegal alien problem?
Well, there was something in Arizona.
I have some, uh, You keep breaking up on me.
I'm not familiar with what you're talking about precisely.
Well, it relates to the terrorist aspect.
If they would just 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.
I had a theoretical physicist on here last night.
Who really thought that we were quite secure.
He's quite optimistic that nothing really bad is going to happen.
You feel that way?
Well, I hope so, but, you know, by hook or by crook, you know, contrived or conceited, something's going to happen.
Yeah, I'm afraid the caller's right.
Something's going to happen.
It's not a matter of if, but when.
Do you feel that?
You can almost feel it creeping up on you, right?
Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
Hi.
Hi.
I just wanted to say something in reference to the guy who called earlier who had an opinion on the war on Islam.
Well, it was his opinion that we are at war with Islam, sir.
That was the opinion, and we're going to have to go in and virtually occupy or whatever the other countries he listed.
Well, 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 The reason that the Islamic people hate America is because they're always fooling around with their foreign policy starting with Iran and the Shah and 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.
All right, well said.
Look, there is a pretty good case to be made.
We are a warlike people.
We go to war, if necessary, to protect the interests of the United States.
And if we think that having some leader replaced is going to help things along, we do it.
Now, in the eyes of the, you've got to think, uh, in the eyes of a lot of the rest of the world, uh, the U.S.
meddling in that manner really stinks.
And if you were over there and we had done that to your country and your government, maybe you would be really upset.
And besides, it didn't turn out all that well anyway, did it?
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello?
Hello.
Yes, Tom from the Bronx here.
Uh, the Bronx, alright.
And I have this to say.
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?
Yes.
And I had made a proposal that they put pipelines to the Pacific Ocean, pull in the ocean water, and have desalinization plants inland.
Last year I wrote that.
Well, I doubt that we're economically there.
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 lines, anything you want to talk about, all night long.
I'm Mark Bell.
To access the audio archives of Coast to Coast AM, log on to coasttocoastam.com.
To realize just what I have said, I have been only half of what I am.
It's all clear to me now, my heart is on fire.
Coast to Coast is a production of the National Geographic Office.
No part of this recording may be reproduced without the support of a grantee or the company.
Coast to Coast is a production of the National Geographic Office.
Coast to Coast is a production of the National Geographic Office.
you and all the others turn you away, they'll run
It's my private pleasure, midnight fantasy Someone to share my wildest dreams with me
Imaginary love All right now watch all the listen very carefully
The phone numbers on the weekend, well they're a little bit different, and here they are.
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
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 800-825-727-1292.
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.
800-893-0903. From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM
with Art Bell.
First time caller line though, you are on the air!
Fine Monday morning, or is it still Sunday night with some small vestiges of the weekend left for you either way?
We'll be right back In a moment I'm going to endeavor to take a photograph of
that cute little time machine first time color line Oh, you are on the air hello
Hello? Hello there.
How are you doing?
I'm doing very well.
How are you?
Good, good.
I happen to work for a private weather forecasting company, not to be confused with the National Weather Service.
They're the government, and we're private.
I just thought you might want a little update on what our meteorologists are saying into their crystal ball, so to speak.
I would be extremely interested so that I might understand, though.
You're private.
You're a private Meteorological observation group.
I mean, are you sort of an amateur at this?
Or you have a company that does this?
And who do you do it for?
The actual company's free.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Don't give me the actual company name.
But I mean, who do you do these forecasts for?
Oh, power companies, agricultural companies, things like that.
Farmers.
OK.
And they trust you guys above and beyond the National Weather Service.
Why?
Well, because we just happen to get things right more often, pretty much.
That's a good reason.
So you're claiming that more frequently than the National Weather Service, you get it right.
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, $15 million with a natural gas contract sitting out there.
You're darn right.
It's really getting pretty dang close to where it's going to really be.
All right.
All that said, what is it you have to say?
Well, it's kind of interesting.
We're starting to see this pattern.
It kind of reminds me of the inverse we had a few years back where it was in April.
It was snowing in Arizona more than it was in Iowa.
We got the same kind of pattern but it's shifted all to the east with West Texas.
They've had multiple snow events already and up here in Iowa we're not getting that yet.
So I'm wondering if we're getting a little hint of El Nino.
There's a low level El Nino already started.
And Amirals are kind of hinting at a little bit like El Nino may be kicking back in if it does.
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 of 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.
Well, usually it's an indication of an El Nino kicking in.
I mean, you have, that water is coming from evaporation from the warmer temperatures in the Pacific.
Well, you're going to have that.
Okay.
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?
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, but 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.
The idea of getting extremes like that is, you know, we don't have the history to go by.
Well, it is a fair criticism to some degree.
It is Hollywood.
It was a two-hour movie.
the federal rule rule rule frank with you nobody really knows because we don't
have a detailed record of what real weather conditions have been like you know well it is
a fair criticism to some degree it is hollywood it was a two-hour movie uh...
whether it's not or day of destruction or whatever it's a movie and you have
to pack the information 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.
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 anymore.
That's right.
Listen, the only things that human beings are supposed to notice Are seasonal changes.
In other words, the weather, per se, isn't really supposed to shift in our lifetimes.
We should always be able to look forward to the same general kind of spring, summer, fall, winter, right?
But all of that may be changing in our lifetimes, and that's not supposed to happen.
That's supposed to happen only after generations and generations.
Nothing for you to worry about, but if you look carefully, the weather right now is changing in front of our mortal, short, short mortal lives.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
Hi.
Hi Art, glad to talk with you.
And you sir, where are you?
I'm David from Dover, New Jersey.
Welcome.
I have a question for us on a little bit of a different topic.
Okay, that's fine.
Over the years you've done many Shows on UFOs, you had experts.
In your opinion, your personal opinion, what is your favorite UFO story and what is your most believable UFO story that you've ever heard?
Travis Walton.
Okay.
Fire in the Sky?
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.
Excellent.
Well, that answers my question.
It's been wonderful talking with you.
You're a long-time fan.
Seven or eight years.
Have a good night, sir.
You too.
East of the Rockies.
You're on the air.
Hello.
Okay.
Hello.
Turn your radio off, please.
It's off.
Excellent.
Hi, Art.
This is Kim from Pittsburgh.
Yes, Kim.
Yeah, and well, two things.
First of all, this threat by Al-Qaeda about the nuclear something or other in this country, I think it's legit.
I saw the guy on 60 Minutes tonight, and then later on I was on... How did he strike you?
That's what I want to know most.
Apparently the government is trying to portray him as a, I don't know, like a loose cannon kind of, but on the other hand, he's retiring from the CIA, so...
Well, I think his truthfulness may be evaluated by how long he lasts.
He may come to an unfortunate accident, I'm afraid.
Oh, my.
If he's telling the truth, and if he opens his mouth too much, too specifically, I think they will find a way to silence him.
Why wouldn't we be going after Bin Laden with all available resources?
That is the $64,000 question.
I don't know.
You know this guy that called one of your first callers tonight talked about the war on Islam.
Yes.
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.
Yes.
And there were times at the height of Islamic civilization where Jews and Christians We're 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?
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, has seen what goes on in Fallujah, has been watching historically things like, you know, with the Shah and whatnot.
So you're saying they're being increasingly radicalized?
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.
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.
Alright, I really do appreciate your call.
Thank you.
Okay, take care.
Alright, that's really something to listen to.
And it may be true, we may be in a religious war.
Oh, but those things don't happen anymore?
Oh yes they do.
Sure they do.
They may be happening today.
That's what it may be.
Now that would be hard to phase up to, wouldn't it?
And perhaps even harder to phase up to the possibility that through small but collective actions we started the war.
It's just one way to think about it.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello.
Oh, hi, Art.
This is Anthony calling in from Fairbanks.
Yes, Anthony.
I've been a long time listener of your show.
I think one of the last times I talked to you is when I asked you to hold up a spoon to your webcam and have everybody in the country try and bend it.
I remember that!
Yes.
Anyway, I've heard a lot of the shows you've done on Bigfoot, and I had a theory on Bigfoot.
It just came to me out of the blue the other day, and I've never heard anybody else mention it, and I just wanted to get your opinion on it.
And your theory is?
Okay.
One of the big arguments is we never find the bodies.
You know, you never see a dead Bigfoot on the side of the road or in the woods somewhere.
Right.
What if the phenomenon of Bigfoot is similar to werewolves?
What if they're people that are shape-shifting and they change back later, which is why we never find them?
Well, that would be the easy answer.
And maybe the only answer, because by now we really ought to have a body if they're real.
I would think we should have a body by now.
Now, I once interviewed a man who was really credible, and he said he shot a couple of Bigfoot.
I remember that show.
Do you?
It was incredible.
Yeah, Bugs was his name.
And to this day, I still kind of buy that story, but you're right.
No body, no conviction in court, that's for sure.
So in this case, we could say a lot of years have passed and we don't have a body yet.
I don't know.
It's a good thought, sir.
Thank you.
Take care.
What do the rest of you think?
We've had a lot of Bigfoot stories.
To me, Bugs being about one of the best I ever heard, though we didn't get the bodies, we got that close.
And then, of course, something happened, actually.
Bugs' wife intervened with veto power.
You're on the air, Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Top of the day to you.
I'm thrilled to talk to you.
This is Patty from Florida and I first want to talk about the war we're fighting in Iraq and I think it was last year Dick Cheney said if the U.S.
became an Islamic nation all threats of terrorism would end in our country.
Probably.
But that's not true because radical Islamic extremists moving into this country would destroy all our heritage.
Anything that represented free thinking and anything Anything.
It's not going to happen.
Huh?
It's not going to happen.
Huh?
I mean, it's not going to happen.
Exactly.
America is not going to convert to Islam.
Forget it.
Exactly.
It's not going to happen.
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 You know, 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.
Well, you know, bottom line, as a Christian, I feel that we're fighting a war with poverty.
War rises out of poverty.
fighting a war with poverty. War rises out of poverty.
And I think the Palestinian people are being used.
Anyway, 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, angry, um, you've got angry youth, and yeah, it's wrong.
They're now being taught to hate from an early age.
They are.
I appreciate the call.
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.
Hussain.
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.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hello.
Waiting to talk to Art Bell.
Well, the wait is over.
You're on the air, so you need to turn your radio off.
The radio's off.
And tell me, what is your first name?
My name is Christine, and I'm from Lincoln, Nebraska.
Fire away, Christine.
I'm so happy to talk to you, Art.
Last time I talked to you was around O.J.' 's trial.
That's a long time ago, yes.
I do believe we are in a religious war.
I think that's been happening since Ninety-three when they've been attacking our ships, the World Trade Center the first time.
It's a world war.
It's a religious war.
And I totally disagree with that Lutheran pastor.
I don't think we brought it on ourselves at all.
But I think freedom comes with a very high price.
And my father paid the price.
My husband paid the price.
And I just support our men and women over there a hundred percent.
I don't really think we're getting the truth of what the troops are really going through.
Why do you think there is so much spreading hatred against America in the Islamic world?
I'm not sure there's as much as what our so-called reporters want us to think.
I think we're student-fed, what a lot of the left really want us to believe.
The emails, and I work with an agency that we send boxes of clothes, food, etc., and we get excellent emails from the men and from some of the citizens there.
They're grateful that we're there.
Well, you sure don't see it reflected in any of the video that comes back from Iraq.
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 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 it ain't so.
However, if you'll just hang on through the news in a thing or two, we're gonna talk to Joel Skousen
and he'll probably scare the pants right off you on the heels of the 60 Minutes report.
you and the permission now given to Osama bin Laden to explode
an atomic bomb in the United States.
And the warnings on them beer cans gonna be buried in them landfills.
No deposit, no set songs, and no return.
Yeah, it's only gonna take about a minute or so till the factories block 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 well my brothers, when you hear the night wind sigh,
And you see the woggles 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.
Do Talk With Art Bell. Call the wildcard line at area code 775.
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 Art at 800-618-8255.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll free at 800-825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call Art at 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach Art Bell by calling your in-country Sprint Access number.
number pressing option five and i went to all three eight hundred eight nine
three zero nine zero three from coast to coast and worldwide on the internet
this is close to a close to him with art fell jones calvin is coming up in a
moment jones calvin is the publisher
principal author of the world affairs brief a weekly news analysis service on
the web he is a political scientist by training specialist in
protecting 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.
in a moment, Joel Skousen.
Just like they do in football games, I'd like to welcome the audience here on the West Coast who has now seen
the Day of Destruction.
Actually, you've only seen half of the Day of Destruction, right?
Joel would have no idea what I'm talking about.
He doesn't watch TV or doesn't have one, doesn't even have a radio, he said when I talked to him just a moment before the program.
He didn't get an opportunity to hear the first hour.
Here is Joel Skousen.
Joel, welcome to the program.
Thanks, Art.
Nice to be with you again.
Good, good, good.
Glad to have you.
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.
Probably the CIA is saying that, actually.
And some would say he's wrong.
Well, anyway, what do you say?
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 a 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.
You have a very good point.
I hadn't considered that.
Not in a million years would this normally happen, unless the CIA intended it to happen.
And, hmm, let's see, if they didn't want him to talk, he probably wouldn't have been talking, would he?
That's precisely correct.
That's an awfully good point.
They have stopped numerous people from publishing, speaking in public, with veritable threats on their lives.
Sure, one way or the other.
Yeah, right.
So there's no way he's going out and publishing, getting on 60 Minutes, unless he's a permitted leaker.
Huh.
All right.
Let's think about that a little bit.
A permitted leaker.
What would be the motive, just sticking with this line of thought, what would be the motive for allowing him to say what he said?
Well, this has to do with the overall picture of whether or not Al-Qaeda is a credible threat and Osama bin Laden.
You know, we don't know anything about Al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden except from one source, and this makes it very suspicious, that source is the United States government.
Virtually everything that comes out, every attribution that someone arrested has links to Al-Qaeda comes from a U.S.
government spokesman.
We have no independent information whatsoever.
And there are many anomalies.
That's true.
There's many anomalies, Art, about Al-Qaeda which cannot be explained by normal terrorism.
Alright, what kind of anomalies?
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 walk-across in any number of places in the United States.
So are you saying the lack of any attacks since 9-11 indicates that they cannot do it?
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.
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.
Joe, why do you think we invaded Iraq?
Well, it certainly wasn't because of weapons of mass destruction.
Apparently not.
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 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.
So you're saying the weapons were there?
There were weapons there, but they were gone before we invaded.
I need to try and understand this.
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?
Joel?
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.
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.
That just doesn't make sense to me, Joel.
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.
Well, he apparently chose not to.
I mean, I can't second guess, but I'll tell you, those weapons still exist, and they'll still probably be used.
But the bigger question, Art, is that the United States knew this and withheld it from the American public.
Why withhold the fact that the weapons are being uh... transferred out of uh... iraq into syria why why well it's very obvious from other information coming out of this administration that it already decided to go to war in iraq long before this preparations were being made uh... or or joel let's look at it another way of the 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 would they be... Syria.
Syria, I'm sorry.
They were sent to Syria.
Why would 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 a 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 aero 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.
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.
Boy, I don't know if I can buy that, Joel.
Well?
It just doesn't make common sense.
Again, if you've got the weapons, you use them.
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, just the whole thing, it doesn't make common sense.
Maybe it makes sense in some way you can explain.
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.
Okay.
I'm just saying those are the facts.
I don't have a perfect explanation.
I've given you what I think may be a possible one, but I just can't say for sure because they aren't talking.
They're the ones who did it.
All right.
For example, with regard to the intelligence of the weapons being moved into Syria, where do those reports come from?
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.
I don't either.
I certainly don't either.
The Cold War is over, the Russians are supposedly... Well, I don't know, supposedly they're our friends, right?
Well, that's the problem, is that my information indicates that the Russians are still the worst proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.
They are the most voluminous builders of weapons of mass destruction as we speak.
And yet we make mountains out of molehills about Iraq.
Russia and China, in my estimation, are the real axis of evil.
Iran, Russia, and China?
Well, Iran is a surrogate of both Russia and China.
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 don't believe it for a moment.
You don't?
Any more than North Korea saying that they've given up their nuclear program, which they said they did, and they carried it on in caves.
And the U.S.
apparently knew about it, didn't blow the whistle on them.
There's a lot of surrogates that are preparing.
I mean, China itself is acting as a surrogate for Russia to take the heat off of Russia so that Russia can play this role of feigning weakness, and we're an ally of the United States.
China's moved into Latin America as the main supplier of arms.
It's taken over some of the main bases in Cuba.
It's into the Bahamas.
It's into, of course, Pakistan.
And it's into Iran.
It's got connections with Israel.
And those connections are linked to U.S.
shipments of military technology using Israel as a surrogate.
So there's an awful lot that goes on in the world that isn't according to The way we're told.
So you think that our government is lying to us about the size and the danger and the threat of Al-Qaeda?
That's right.
As well as Russia and their ultimate threat to us.
Why are they lying to us about that?
These are really tough questions, Art.
Well, if you're going to make a statement like that, then It seems to me that the tough questions need to be answered.
I agree.
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, you know, 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 Deceit 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.
So these are not new.
There may be some of that going on.
Well, I never bought the Roosevelt thing either.
So I suppose I'm consistent at least.
And you and I have different views, but that's quite all right.
So you think then Al-Qaeda is What?
I mean, after all, the way I've seen it covered, in the Islamic world, it seems like Osama Bin Laden is a hero.
You don't see that?
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 is 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, insiders have indicated 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 disinformation floating around for political purposes.
So you hardly then believe anything you hear from our government?
Relative to the war on terrorism, I treat everything that they say with skepticism.
We've been in yellow alerts since 9-11.
We've gone to orange alerts three or four times.
There's been almost two dozen major terrorist alerts and virtually none of them have come true.
Virtually none.
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 agents.
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 Skousen.
We're talking about terrorism.
I'm Art Bell.
Sweet dreams are made of this.
Who am I to disagree?
I travel the world and the seven seas.
Everybody's looking for something.
Some of them want to use you.
Some of them want to get used by you.
Some of them want to abuse you The heart of the city screams meaning
Thank you for watching!
you Light from the neon's turned the dark to day.
We're too hot to think of sleeping.
We were too hot to think of sleeping We had to get out before the magic got away
In the morning with the night I'll play in the shadows
I'll love you at night Till the morning light
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.
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.
It is indeed. My guest is Joel Skousen, and I have a feeling that Thomas, from Vancouver, Canada,
who fast blasts the following, agrees with him.
I think the government is lying about Osama, terrorist threats, nukes, 9-11, the whole thing.
Because they need something that people will fear.
And fear is a powerful tool to control citizens.
Before, it was Russia.
Now, it's terror.
I would think that Joel probably agrees with that assessment.
we'll be right back that's actually perfect
Joel, welcome back to the program.
Thanks, Art.
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.
The intel was overcooked, as it were.
Do you think that's true or false?
Some true, some false, Art.
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 ten 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 Zvezda Strela, the Russian's 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 feign not having enough money to do their space station portion and got all of our technology transfer when we decided to Build it for them in their lab facilities at our expense.
So there's been a lot of... So you're saying the technology they couldn't get during the Cold War, they've readily put their hands on since?
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.
Did you hear the little thing I read from Thomas in Canada?
The government is lying about Osama, terrorist threats, nukes, 9-11?
Yes, I did.
Because they need to put fear into the people.
Are you in general agreement with that?
I am.
I think that there is a use of fear, and the entire war on terror is 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 huge holes, and then, of course, we have massive holes in our border, which pales in comparison to, or the airline problem pales in comparison to how many terrorists can walk across the border with loads of explosives.
Well, you mentioned Roosevelt.
And the attack on Pearl Harbor.
You have mentioned that you think our government's lying to us about Al-Qaeda and the whole business.
Let's test it a little further.
Do you think the government lied to us about 9-11?
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 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?
Well, a lot of people contend that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.
Are you one of those?
No.
Something obviously went in and crashed into the Pentagon.
I think it's very problematic.
That the Boeing did that kind of damage.
The Boeing was clearly there.
There's too many witnesses that saw it.
There was also a C-130 chasing it.
There was also a four-engine airliner that the BBC had video footage of the next day and they showed it.
I saw it of an aircraft doing vertical dives in the same vicinity and it wasn't the Boeing 757 had four engines.
You can clearly see it on the video.
OK.
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.
So it's like one or the other.
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, what road does it lead you down, Joel?
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, it seems to be at best that there was some facilitation from looking the other way.
For example, one of the biggest anomalies... You mean just like Rosa?
They saw it coming and they said, Meaning they, our government, said, OK, we need this, scare the hell out of everybody, so we're going to let it happen.
Is that what you're saying?
That's a possibility.
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.
Yes.
I mean, there's only one way you get those huge pools of metal, and that is you use thermite Okay, then there's only two possibilities, Joel.
forty two inch or square pillars that are in the bottom of the trade so that didn't happen
with airplanes somebody had to pack those with charges the building was
shut down the week before
for major maintenance whole sections of the buildings were cleared out
okay there's only two possibilities joel uh...
one is that al-qaeda was even smarter and more adept and more infiltrated by
a giant margin and we even imagine when we're talking about nine eleven as we
understand it Right.
It'd have to be to achieve what you're talking about.
Exactly.
Or, Joel, it was an inside job.
Yeah.
It has to be one or the other, and I'm just saying that I can't believe Al-Qaeda can do that kind of sophistication, and they can't do anything more with open borders.
I mean, it's just too big of a contradiction.
So I'm leaning in the other direction.
Leaning?
But this is one where, I don't know how you can be a little bit pregnant.
Either you think that we were in on this, that it was some sort of inside job, that we knew about it and let it happen, something that awful.
I refuse to believe something that awful, but you know, I know that opinion is out there and it sounds to me like you're leaning toward that.
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 the 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.
The government's lying.
I have no illusions, Joel, that our government does lie to us, and I have no illusions.
I know we are propagandized.
However, I haven't taken that leap, that Roosevelt leap, or that 9-11 leap that a lot of people have taken.
I just, I think that what happened on 9-11 is what seemed like it happened.
They crashed airplanes into these buildings, I mean, clearly the airplanes did crash into buildings.
We have lots of video of that.
Sure.
But you're saying there's so much more.
Yeah, we know that there were hijackers.
For example, you know, even though the FAA has got a gag order on it and did not release the tape recordings of the pilots talking to the ATC centers, we have a private airliner who was recording Their own airliners conversation with Cleveland Center as they were discussing the hijacking of a flight 93 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.
Why would the government do that?
Do you believe the 9-11 Commission report in its finality was a complete whitewash of what happened?
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, the New Hampshire air traffic controller testified that he vectored them, too.
We knew there were F-16s there.
The engine was found six miles from the crash site.
Well, there were two stories.
One story was the heroics of the passengers of Flight 93, and the other story, told more quietly behind the scenes, is that it was shot down.
You're saying it was shot down?
Absolutely.
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.
If you shot down Flight 93, why not say so?
That's what I don't know.
I mean, as I say, I'm telling the facts on the ground.
I can't speak for a government that's lying to us.
I'm just speculating.
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?
Yes.
And so, therefore, the American people would understand if the American government said, we shot down Flight 93?
Sure.
I agree with that.
But look at TW800.
The evidence points to a missile shoot gone awry, and yet the government covered it up, denied that the Navy was even there, and spent two million dollars 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 air blinder, if you've got a missile going up, tracking the drone that it can switch lock on to the airliner.
Alright, Joel, let me try this.
If the goal of our government is to lie to us and to put fear into us so that they may pass Patriot Act 2, 3, and 4, 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 godforsaken awful act of terrorism, and that would fit right into your agenda of lying and scaring the people, wouldn't it?
It would have.
In fact, they would have had an excuse, because there were lots of Stinger missiles that are floating around, at least 2,000 of them.
See, Joel, I'm trying to look at motives here, and on the one hand you're telling me That's kind of what they want us to feel, is fear.
It would have been so easy to say, why 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.
You have to remember that this was several years before agendas do change.
They may have simply been trying to protect the Clinton administration from embarrassment of having a Navy missile shoot go awry.
I mean, that's a tremendously... Oh, so you think it was a naval mis-action?
Yes.
I'm not one of those that thinks it was a terrorist act.
I think the Navy was having a missile shoot.
I mean, that's been admitted now.
There were large Navy vessels there.
There were submarines.
They were shooting Tomahawk missiles.
At any rate, there was a drone flying over Long Island out to the warning area and there was a missile shoot going on.
So I think it was the missile shoot that went awry, not an act of terrorism.
Well, gee.
So in other words, you've got to end up lying about it anyway.
So why not blame it on a terrorist?
Certainly in hindsight we can say that, 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?
Well, it depends on who we're talking about.
How about the President?
Well, the president, I think, is a script reader, frankly.
A script reader?
I think he has basic conservative values in terms of his gut feelings, but some of my subscribers were working in the same building before he became governor.
He never read a newspaper.
He was never interested in world affairs.
This is a person who was thrust by the establishment into the limelight because he could read a script and because he had the Bush name.
He had a winnable name.
You know, the same thing to a certain extent, although there's a difference, I think, in levels of quotient of intelligence and sharpness.
Bill Clinton came out of nowhere and suddenly became the frontrunner of the presidential candidacy in 1990 because the media simply said so.
Bill Clinton actually was a much better script reader than George Bush.
I wouldn't think he'd be hired on his script reading ability.
He kind of stumbles through a lot of stuff.
He's not that good at it.
But he's better than Bush.
I mean, Bush, once he gets off his script, can only repeat the same memorized phrases.
That's what I was talking about.
It was Bush.
He's not that good at it, at script reading or improvising either way.
It's not one of his strong points.
It's why he lost the debates.
That's right.
He clearly did.
In fact, I think they had to do a lot of damage control, you know, to try to recover from that.
They tried to minimize his contacts on an ad lib basis, and they really had to work hard to recover from that.
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.
It's our enemy.
Our own government is our enemy.
Well, I'm not going to go that broad, Art.
Why not?
I mean, that's what it adds up to.
I'm saying there are elements In the government, what we might call a dark side of government, I mean, we've known this has been for years, from the OSS to the CIA to the infighting between Naval Intelligence and OSS and CIA and FBI.
I mean, there are dark side elements.
I mean, look at the... Man, it's not just dark, it's black!
I mean, it's as dark as you can get to imagine that our own government would kill its own citizens.
That's what it boils down to, our own government killing its own citizens.
Isn't that where it goes?
Yeah, and the evidence points to the fact that our own government agents took out President Kennedy.
I mean, they were the ones who covered it up.
Okay, hold it right there.
We're here at the top of the hour.
Joel Skousen is my guest.
In the nighttime, we talk of things like this.
Tower of Peking, tower that you've won, needles and pins.
Why lag till dawn?
Watching that fire Till you return
Lighting that torch And watching you burn
Now it begins Day after day
This is my life This is my life
This is my life the
the the
Goodbye Every time I think about it, I wanna cry.
With bombs and the devil, and the kids keep coming.
No way to be easy, no time to be alone.
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 Art at 800-618-8255.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll free at 800-825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call Art at 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach Art Bell by calling your in-country Sprint
My guess is Joel Skousen.
He said President Bush is virtually a script reader.
dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
It is.
My guest is Joel Stausen.
And he said President Bush is virtually a script reader.
Well, if that would be true, then our president is not really our president, or in name only.
Certainly he's not running things.
and the question is begged, who is running things?
My guest is Joel Skousen.
We're talking about terrorism.
We're talking about 9-11.
We're talking about the Iraq War.
We're talking about, well, kind of what's going on out there today.
And just prior to the Top of the hour.
You were saying the President is basically a script reader.
Who do you imagine, Joel, that he's reading the script for?
Well, I have a feeling from my study of the issue that I think Vice President Dick Cheney is his handler, so to speak.
Really?
Yeah.
In past President administrations, it's usually been the National Security Advisor that's been the President's handler, someone who Essentially it 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, Condolezza 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, you know, room to disagree.
But as to who's running, you know, 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 cranks, 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.
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
Or presumably they meet with a horrible screeching death Yes, there have been not a few people who have died deaths
when they blew the whistle on Bill Clinton Thank you.
His administration was notorious for the amount of people surrounding him.
Well, I recall the allegations.
Now, of course, if Bill Clinton had ever been actually convicted of murder, he wouldn't be wandering around today.
I have no illusions that Bill Clinton ordered any of those deaths.
I don't think Bill Clinton was in charge.
As I say, I think, by and large, they picked presidents who will front for Powerful people.
But you don't have any information specifically about who they are, right?
Well, I have some suspicions.
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 a 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.
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.
That indicates power structure above any elected officials.
Does it indicate that?
Or does it just indicate sort of a piece of advice offered up?
I mean, how could you know which?
Well, the tone was one of ordering him one.
The tone was one that indicated there was prior agreement about something that Rockefeller, frankly, had no legal right to be involved in.
I'm just saying these are pieces of evidence, they're not proofs, but there are evidence that indicate that Rockefeller has had a high position that tends to surpass normal 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 US people completely controlled with their freedoms eroded and
gone.
But not recognizing that they're 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.
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 frontal 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.
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.
If there were a world government that parroted the United States in terms of the freedoms it has offered up until now, that might not be so bad.
That's right.
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 they have, 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, the right to life, and all of that, accept, 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.
And so the only way to continue and enlarge the amount of fine print that finally takes it all away is to promulgate the threat of, say, terrorism.
First, you cover it up so that most people don't notice, but I think you use war, terrorism, and crisis to make people call for some solution.
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.
That's what you said, right?
Yes, and they're crying that this is a serious war on terrorism, and they're really going to have to do something because, frankly, the public's getting skeptical.
Yeah, so is it your view, then, that if something darn well doesn't happen pretty soon, that they'll make it happen?
It's happened before in history.
It could happen again.
So that is your view?
I'm saying That's within the possibilities of what 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.
They melted.
Where else is it going to fall?
Your reaction to that?
Yeah.
It can't melt from jet fuel.
It can't?
No, it takes temperatures in excess of 4,000 degrees to melt steel.
You can't get that with an air fuel mixture of fuel.
See, when you say that, you're saying the whole thing, the whole thing is a ruse.
Now, the buildings came down, but they didn't come down because of the jetliners.
For example, the second jetliner, where the building came down first, didn't even hit the structural core.
There's no way that building could have come down.
Didn't hit the structural core, but went into the corner of the building, of which there were no major structural members.
So, the only thing that could have brought that down is what, Joel?
Someone had to melt the 42 central core pillars from the base, and once you melt those base, they only have to drop a foot or two, and the rest of the building is going to come disconnected, and that's what happened.
Is there any forensic evidence?
I mean, that kind of a job would leave a lot of forensic evidence.
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 TW800 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, gosh, I don't know, Joel.
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.
I recall that.
And that would have been made public had the administration blamed it on terrorism.
They would have got the blame in return because they would have been responsible for not having bought back the Stinger missiles.
So maybe that's the reason they didn't decide to go with the terrorism excuse at that time.
I'm just guessing, but...
That's a real possibility.
Well, again, you just can't be a little bit pregnant on the issues we're talking about tonight.
You can when you don't know all the facts.
What I'm saying is we don't have complete facts or proofs and that's why I'm saying this is where the evidence points, but I'm not willing to go and claim without a doubt that You know, speak for people who clearly are withholding evidence from us.
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.
Well, you know, technically, you can construct a scenario where the terrorist got access to that building.
It's a very, very problematic scenario because of the level of security.
You could, but why not say it?
If that's what you got, if that's what forensics said, Why hide that fact?
That's right.
The government should be making a statement.
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.
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 a hundred 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.
So you're sort of a little bit there, but... I've looked at the evidence.
I would say that a very large portion of what 9-11 researchers have brought out is accurate.
I will say also that the government has deliberately evaded those very important issues, and that amounts to a cover-up.
I've mentioned the fact that if the government wanted to completely zero out The controversy in the Pentagon, just show us the service station video.
Just show the public the video.
Let us see the plane crashing in it, and they refuse to do it.
Now why, Art?
Now that's facts on the ground.
They refuse to show us the video.
Now I want to know why.
I don't know why, Joel.
It looks bad from the government position, the fact that they refuse to show us something that could clarify A major controversy.
In your worst case imaginings, what do you imagine might be on that video they don't want us to see?
I think the best possibility, because there was some object that went in and penetrated three reinforced rings of the Pentagon.
I mean, that's six complete reinforced concrete walls plus pillars.
There's nothing in a Boeing airplane that can do that.
I think The witnesses that saw a small jet and the one witness that saw an actual missile were accurate.
There was a missile fired into the Pentagon that prepped it.
What could have fired a missile into the Pentagon?
Not the commercial airliner?
No, no, no.
It would have had to be a small jet.
In fact, here's an interesting detail I'll give you that I covered in the World Affairs Brief about this issue.
When you look at the Pentagon video of the Of the explosion and the going on.
There's something very obvious about it.
One, there's no large size aircraft crashing into the building.
Now, granted, it's an edited piece of work.
It doesn't show all the frames.
No, no.
So you believe that no plane crashed into it?
No, no, no.
That's not what I'm saying.
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 that there is a signature in the explosion that indicates high explosives.
A fuel-air plane 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, the 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, 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.
Now we have to ask ourselves, what was doctored in the first place?
Do you have proof that it was doctored?
No, I'm just saying.
I'm just asking.
Because of my experience.
But that's a serious allegation.
It is.
I mean, do you have proof that it was doctored?
We don't have the original film.
There's no way to prove, but I can tell you that a curly, puffy, swirling smoke trail is not what a missile smoke trail coming off a rail of a fighter looks like.
All right.
All right.
Joel, hold on.
We're here at the bottom of the hour.
What I want 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.
you You've blown it all sky high
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 codes 8.
The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
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 800-618-727-1222.
818-8255. 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.
It is, and Joel Skousen, Joel and I are on rather separate universes, but that's okay.
We're going to turn it over to the audience now.
Traditionally, Joel has been here talking about... Actually, interestingly, normally, Joel has come on the show and talked about how to protect yourself against, well, things like terrorism and nuclear war and all that sort of thing.
You know, the safe places to live, how to have a shelter, and how to survive whatever might happen.
And there certainly are enough threats out there.
That has traditionally been his role when he's been on the program.
Tonight, however, he's certainly expressed some opinions that cast a kind of a different light, and so it's going to be a very interesting remainder of the program, and you are going to make it so.
will be right back historically jules gelson's come on the program and talk
about How to protect yourself individually from, you know, threats of biological terrorism, nuclear terrorism, where to move, where there are safe zones, all that sort of thing.
We've talked a lot about that, you know, 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.
No, that's not really where I'm moving.
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.
But not expressed through a strong al-Qaeda?
No, I think the threat will come through the Russian and China axis, which are clearly preparing to instill war against the West.
They're just Taking the time to accrue the technology through feigning weakness and feigning friendship.
Okay.
We're going to go to the phones.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hello.
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 like the so-called, you know, people that believe that 9-1-1 was done by their government and stuff like that.
And the thing is that from Canada, what we see here is, you know, the propaganda in That goes on in the United States is almost identical to what goes on in the 1930s with the Nazis.
It's incredible to see.
That's how Canadians are looking at the way the U.S.
media is propagandizing?
They're comparing it to then?
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.
Like, you guys are scared of your own shadow now.
Like, 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.
You know, they're afraid to do things.
And let's, I mean, 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, like, A local mall or a bridge, you know, 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, like, what about in Iraq?
Every bomb that's dropped, you know, 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?
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, you know?
And 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... It worked on you.
In other words, you wouldn't travel any longer to those same areas.
Exactly!
Well, I mean, I'm afraid simply because it's getting a little bit out of control, you know?
I don't understand how, when Americans can be so open-minded towards so many things, how they can be so closed-minded towards so many things.
When you have a president who doesn't have a passport until he becomes president, he doesn't even convey himself very well.
This is a world leader that people are supposed to be looking to, and he can't speak properly when he's in front of his own people?
He doesn't know anything about any other country!
Do you have anything Joel should comment on?
I'm glad that he's brought this up.
Um, you know, frankly, I side 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?
Do you think your government is honest with you?
Well, I think that You know, probably nobody's government is extremely honest, but our government doesn't go and wage... We don't act in a violent way towards things.
We still have diplomacy, you know?
And the way your country is going is that diplomacy is going out the window.
It's like you're with us or against us attitude, and that's not very well thought out.
I think we do have that attitude.
You're exactly right.
You're with us or against us.
You're our ally or you're our enemy, and there's nothing in between.
We've almost said that, really.
Yeah, but how fair is that?
I mean, can't people agree and disagree on certain things?
Not and live.
And live?
I don't believe that.
I was being facetious, sir.
Anyway, your view from Canada is...
Accepted and registered.
Joel, do you think that's typical of views about us outside the U.S.?
It really is, and it's not a matter of this person 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 said.
It has increased because they hate our government and what our government is doing to them for perceived unjustified reasons.
So if that's true, then when we invaded Iraq a second time around, then we really just enhanced that a million fold.
We did, and it wasn't the first time.
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.
You mean that genocide wasn't really happening?
The genocide was done by KLA and made to look like Serbians.
That's been very well documented, Art.
All right.
Walsh Cardline, you're on the air with Joel Skelton.
Hello.
Hey, guy.
Hey.
Is this Lex?
Lex?
Yeah.
Who's Lex?
Oh, sorry about that.
The webmaster.
Well, yeah, there is a Lex webmaster, but he's rarely behind the mic.
He's the guy I talked to the last time.
Sorry about that, Art.
Oh, that would be probably a screener or something.
I don't have screeners.
It's been a while.
Anyway, what's up?
Well, my name is Jim.
I'm calling from Gastonia, North Carolina.
I love your show.
Joel, you are doing a service for everybody.
Art, you are and have been doing the best service that any human can, making sure the truth gets out.
Thank you.
I'm a Gulf War veteran, and I have some info for you that backs up what Joel has said.
The document itself is on a GulfLink website.
In other words, a Department of Defense official website.
Joel may know that you may know of it.
Which document are you talking about?
Are you talking about the videotape?
No, no, no, no.
It's called Transfer of Nuclear Biological and Chemical Material During Desert Storm.
Essentially what it does is describes the transfer of these materials from Iraq to Iran Before and during the Gulf War.
Now, this is dated the 29th of June, 1991.
I thought it was Syria.
Syria received some of them as well.
They're on the western border of Iraq, but these were sent specifically to make sure that the Iranians could stockpile this stuff.
Now, wait a minute.
Traditionally, Iran and Iraq, before we were there, were enemies.
They had wars.
That's right.
Why would we send, from the Iraqis' point of view, why would they send their most dangerous weapons to their enemy?
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 the 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.
All right.
He got a copy of this.
Where is this document again, please?
It's on a website called gulflink.osd.mil.
Dot what?
Mil.
you know lf l i n k dot o f d
no dot what
no am i offer military so it would be part of our lives are very different so it's
actually a military website
Yes, sir.
It's an official Department of Defense website.
It was part of the declassification process that they did back in 95 and 96 for the Gulf War.
All right.
Joel, then, you didn't mention anything about Iran.
That's correct, but he's talking a different time frame.
He's talking about the prior war and the aftermath.
I see.
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.
There were some that went to two other countries.
All right.
Ease to the Rockies.
You're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hello.
Yes.
Yes, sir.
I was just listening to the show and... No, you're on the show, so... No, 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, uh, 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, uh, normally there's lights on in both towers at one time, you know, one time I noticed someone doing maintenance in there.
But this particular night, both towers were completely black except for the beacons on the, on both the roofs and the antennas up there.
I was just, uh, 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.
And what do you think that means?
It's just strange that that had happened, you know, because like I said, I lived here my whole life.
I've seen the World Trade Center actually being built as a kid from where I live.
And it's just strange that that particular night that both towers were black.
And it was just strange to me when he said that.
All right.
detect had to call up and just you know telling that that that i'm so don't know what does that
mean to you that that's actually been documented that the power was closed
off for access to everyone
uh... supposedly for special type of maintenance and i think that's when the
xp explosive that my charges were placed in the bottom of the
house uh...
is there anyway
uh... jewel that you can imagine that somebody's stock does not in these
thermite charges planted them got them all set to go uh... in a league with the uh... the the terrorists that we're
going to uh...
drive airplanes into them without uh... our government being
totally involved Well, it's almost impossible to think of a scenario whereby the terrorists could have gotten the entire
That was my point.
Yes.
security and otherwise at the world trade center to exceed to a demand to
Yes.
shut the place down to me it would have been a spectacular inside uh... job
literally house my point unconceivable without some kind of official word
yes uh...
authorizing that yes yes uh... so again uh... there we are
uh... and and on this issue you just can't be a little bit there
I mean, either you're believing that the government had something to do with it, which means they had everything to do with it, or not.
And you seem to be definitely leaning toward they did.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Good morning, Art.
Good morning, Joel.
This is Chris from Zamora.
Yes, sir.
Joel, I have to say, it's very refreshing to hear 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?
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 uh... for immigration americans are currently uh... looking into just moving out and going to canada well certainly there are uh... very credible pieces of evidence that the election uh... really was thrown to president bush in five key states and uh... so what do you do about that when you have this kind of
Dark operations infiltrating the United States.
Yes, what evidence are you referring to?
I'm referring to the statistical anomalies that took place between the polling sampling And the actual voter outcome.
You're talking about the exit polls?
Yeah, the exit polls were within one percent generally all across the nation except in the five or so swing states and they suddenly started to differ three to four to five percent in favor of Bush and there were none that differed in the direction of Kerry.
And that's very, very suspicious.
You're talking about the exit polls?
I thought the exit polls were all in favor of Kerry.
No, no, I'm talking about the actual vote count.
Oh, the actual vote count?
Yes, the vote count came three to five percent in favor of Bush, but only in those five states.
But you're saying the irregularity was what?
That it didn't turn out the way the exit polling said it should?
Is that the irregularity?
The media is saying that the exit polling was skewed in those five states.
Yes.
I'm saying that because this exit polling was done by the same companies, it's very difficult to make the case.
And exit polling is pretty accurate.
In fact, it's got an excellent track record, much better track record than regular telephone polling.
Because you're actually asking people not askew questions.
You're saying, who did you vote for?
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
But it depends on where you ask.
For example, if you ask in New York City, well, You know, you're going to get a lot of carry votes.
Absolutely.
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 Diebold that indicates that this is a company that has You know, violated his trust with various state governments in terms of its software.
Hold on, Joel.
We're at the top of the hour.
Now we're talking about the election!
Drifting on a sea of heartbreak Trying to get myself ashore For so long For so long Listening to the strangest stories Oh, so long.
So long.
So long.
But hold on, hold on, hold on to what you got.
Myself in sorrow while you play your cheatin' game.
Do Trump with Art Bell. Call the wildcard line at area...
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 Art at 800-618-8255.
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 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.
Conspiracy Central, actually. Now we're on to the election.
And I think Joel was saying that because the exit polling went one way, it's just
impossible that the actual vote went the other.
And by the way, I'm in one of those swing states, Nevada.
My state was a swing state.
we'll be right back uh... joel
uh... much of my mind not uh... agree with it uh...
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, wish 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.
So we're not there for them yet, right?
Hello?
That's correct.
Are you there?
Yeah, I'm here.
So, you agree with that?
In other words, we're not there yet?
That's right, I agree with that.
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.
This is a very bad omen in terms of the direction that we're going.
If you had been the president, just take up this line of thought for a moment.
If you had been president when 9-11 occurred, Joel, how would you have reacted to it?
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 things moving.
You know, one of the problems that I pointed out in my Okay, prior to the hour, we were talking briefly about the election.
one of the biggest threat to 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 system shutting down airlines shutting down whole
state freeway systems and causing tremendous economic harm otherwise to people
uh... the government's overreaction is one of the biggest threats that we have
to deal with okay uh... prior to the hour we were talking briefly about
the election surely you don't suggest the exit polling
uh... is is proof that the election was some kind of fraud 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 heirs, they should swing, you know, wildly around the... 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.
It's 877-518-5888.
And that, what, requires them to subscribe to a newsletter?
No, no.
It's just to get a free copy of it.
A free copy.
That's very good.
Alright, give that number again.
It's 877, that's toll free, 877-518-5888.
That's toll-free 877-518-5888.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hello.
Yes, hello gentlemen.
I'm a retired airline captain, and I used to fly the 757 and 767.
Okay.
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.
Also, do you know... Well, one at a time.
The radar tapes, Joe, do you know about those?
What is the question about? I mean, do I know the whereabouts? Do I know what happened to them? Yes. I don't.
Tell me.
Well, I don't know either. But they would be a matter of record
for a period of time.
Certainly.
And even if the transponders had been turned off, there would be primary returns from aircraft that size.
That's right.
That's right.
They were requested, and the FAA refused to cop them up.
Okay.
How about the communication tapes with air traffic control?
Revealed all the conversations of the ground and aircraft.
Yes.
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.
Okay.
And then one other real quickie, and then 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.
That's really problematic.
It really is, and I completely agree.
That's one of the things that could be clarified if the government would give up the tape recording of what we saw there.
I'm also concerned about... But we did see pictures of the planes plowing into the buildings.
We've all seen it probably too many times.
No, there was no picture of the airline itself plowing into the building.
I'm talking about the Pentagon.
Oh, the Pentagon.
Alright.
You certainly concede, though, that you saw them plow into the trade centers, right?
Both of you?
That's correct.
Yes.
Okay, so there is no... Well, there's one video, according to Joel, of that, but they won't release it, right?
There's a video of the crash into the Pentagon, but they will not release.
Did you know that, Caller?
Yes.
Yeah, and the lawn was in great condition.
There's just no evidence of that type of wreckage.
The engines are pretty tough, and they're not just going to go through a 16 to 20 foot hole, I can guarantee you that.
So, it's just a problem.
Yeah, there really is a problem.
A real basic problem to the whole thing, and that's the main question I'd like to see answered.
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.
The government has admitted nothing about that.
But the implication of what you're saying is that our government did this to us.
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.
Yeah, I mean, but that would be the same as being an accomplice to murder, Joel.
If you aid and abet in a deed of that sort in the criminal world, then you are charged with murder to the same degree as a person who pulled the trigger, right?
So I don't know why, if we're talking about evidence, we're in completely different universes.
We don't have explanations for all of these, Art, but I don't think we're in different universes.
Well, we're in different universes because I cannot grasp that everything, and it would have had to have been almost everything, was preordained, preplanned 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.
And if you can find out a different way to say it than that, go ahead.
All I'm saying is, as a journalist, I have to say what the facts decide.
We don't have all of the facts.
I'm saying the present facts, as we have, point to two facts.
One, that there were actual terrorists, that there were hijackings, and number two, that the government had involvement with it.
Well, then guilty.
If that's true.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Joel Scouser.
Good morning, Art.
Good morning.
Turn the radio off, please.
Yes, sir.
I'd like to ask Joel a question again about this Pentagon Paradox.
If the 757 that the government claims crashed into the Pentagon indeed did not, what became of it and the passengers?
I'm going to go ahead and hang up and listen to the answer.
In other words, if it didn't crash at the Pentagon, where did it go?
I have absolutely no answer for that other than the fact that I think... But it's such an important question.
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.
Oh my gosh, you mean the passengers are still alive?
I don't know, Art.
I just don't have any answers for that.
As I say, you know, because I don't have answers to everything doesn't mean that we can't discuss the evidence that we do have answers.
No, well, no, of course not.
I mean, you can discuss anything, but when you make giant allegations... Remember, I've only discussed specific evidence.
I haven't made the giant allegations.
Well, um, but you have, though, really.
I mean, even though the words may not have come directly out of your mouth, it's what it heads up to.
You don't deny that?
We can make these kinds of deductions and conclusions, but the point is that they're deductions on your part, and I'm, as I say, I'm looking at the evidence, and the evidence does point in that direction.
We just don't know exactly what happens until someone in the government confesses to a fair amount of culpability there, which they have not shown any inclination to do so.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hi.
I think that the real problem, everybody keeps using the word, the government.
I think you need to clarify that it's not really just the government, you know, that there's obviously, you know, I mean, for many, many, many years, and you know, people behind it, and I think that... Oh, we touched on that.
We talked about that.
Yeah, I know, that's all that I just need, you know, people, 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, there have been wealthy people with ulterior motives that have painted a picture for the good of everybody, but it's really always been for the good of the few, the good of the top.
Do you have any argument with that, Joe?
No, I don't.
Black operations have always worked as 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.
But as long as we have pro-government people...
There is a movement, is there not, to reopen the 9-11 investigation in some other way?
I'm hearing screams for that, right?
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 Warren commissions that we had.
The two congressional commissions after were staffed by people who came to the same conclusions that Oswald was the lone assassin.
But isn't it possible he was?
No, not possible at all.
It just flies in the face of all of the evidence, especially the ones that have come across in the past 20 years.
But in any case, what I'm saying is, if government can whitewash one investigation, they can whitewash two or three.
So we need a real independent investigation, in my opinion.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hello.
Yeah, how you doing, Art?
I'm just fine.
Yeah, this is Bill from California.
Yes, Bill.
And I had a couple questions for our guest.
Sure.
The Pentagon, wasn't there a 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?
That's correct.
There was, but the size of the tail corresponds more to a fighter jet than it does to And that was what I didn't get to finish, is that the doctored portion, I believe, the smoke trail occurred in this way.
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.
And you don't believe that the aircraft could actually, that's a regular, what was it, a 767 they said that went in?
Wait a minute, I'm tripping over the attempted logic, I think.
I thought I just heard Joel talk.
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.
Just so we could say, wow, a lie!
It must be more of a lie!
No, no.
Or what?
No, what I'm saying is that the video, undoctored, 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.
So you're claiming it was doctored to show what?
A missile trail.
A missile trail.
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.
Well, I have another observation on that and the, you know, 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 that, you know, didn't look like anything below those floors had had disintegrated until the top floor came down on it.
Now that's the one observation I want to say.
And I also want 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?
Is that kind of the same basic principle?
Well, there's the velocity, of course.
The velocity, plus the fact that the air inside the aircraft... The mass and the inertia.
I mean, it's all basic physics.
Velocity, mass, inertia, all the rest of it.
Are there any studies that show it's all wrong?
Yeah, that doesn't pan out in terms of any of the studies of the law of physics of the mass of the aircraft 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, you know, with my engineering experience in architecture, I can tell you that if you take out the four or 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.
And all that implies, right?
Right.
This was a pre-planned terrorist event.
Pre-planned.
Well, I guess all terrorist events have to be pre-planned, right?
But I mean the building itself was pre-prepped.
The way you're talking about it, it's inside pre-planned.
That's right.
That's what you're saying.
The building was prepped for the collapse.
All right, Joel.
Hold tight.
We're at the bottom of the hour.
Yes, only in America.
will you hear this the
the the
Close my eyes.
But I couldn't find a way, so I'll never walk one day to believe you.
Tell me Tell me
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little 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.
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 800-615-727-1222.
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, and 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 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 was what you said.
That really doesn't go 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, where are they?
Well, that really isn't the point, Art.
But it is!
I mean, if you're trying to set up this, you know, 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 Occam's Razor says it was, the simplest explanation, the one that seemed to be true, then you've got to say what happened to the plane.
Well, you don't have to say if you don't know.
That would be unwise.
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.
And I don't see that.
I see that happening.
I see that misuse happening.
I see freedom of speech slowly being curtailed.
I don't think anybody would argue that.
It is.
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 will, 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.
All right, back to the phones.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hi.
Hi, thank you.
Scott in Sacramento.
Yes, Scott.
Yeah, your guest has good mannerisms, and he seems to hold himself well.
And there's a generalization, though, of the name government, and I'm just kind of wondering who exactly might be behind this, if there's a specific individual or group.
You mean pulling the strings?
Right.
And there does seem to be a 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.
Why?
I'm sorry.
Evidence of, like, 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, asbestos in parts of our houses, lead in our drinking pipes, mercury in fillings, and recently the Vioxx, you know, that has killed people, and the FDA's are to protect us, and who's doing this?
Alright, thank you.
I asked that question earlier and we got sort of an answer, something about Rockefeller, I think it was, right?
I'm saying we have, I had Personal evidence that Rockefeller seemed to be a person who could give orders to high-placed international officials.
That was the answer.
Okay.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Hello.
Yes.
Good morning.
I'm on the East Coast here, so it's a little earlier than probably where you're at.
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 with 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?
All right, Joel.
And then I'm going to have another question to go along with this, but I wanted to know before I opened my mouth.
All right, all right, all right.
Joel.
There is some plane debris, so some plane did go into the Pentagon.
Most of the debris that came out of her was broken and crushed desk and filing cabinet material when you look at the photographs of the debris.
A plane drill 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.
Well, here's the other point where I was trying to come across.
I was kind of siding with Art how he was, you know, and I'm not at all trying to be disrespectful.
I can remember back after 9-1-1 and watching the news religiously for days on end, and there were, you know, the Pentagon is a government facility with 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 these cards to such a building with so many employees?
Clearly there are witnesses.
No one's disputing that witnesses didn't see a big airplane with American Airlines lettering on it.
There are also witnesses that saw a small plane.
There's one witness that said he saw a missile.
And there are other witnesses that saw another airplane.
Which had four engines on it.
And there's a C-130 that was in the area.
So it's hard to tell what's what and what witnesses saw what.
We actually need the video, which the government is withholding, which shows the plane clearly going in.
And why are they withholding it?
What reason?
The only possible logical explanation is that the video shows something which is not in accordance with the official explanation.
No, no, no, Joel, I meant what present explanation are they giving for not releasing it?
They have actually refused to talk about it.
They've refused to even admit they have the video.
Oh, so they don't admit it exists?
That's correct.
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?
And so this was a service station attendant?
Yeah, there's a service station right across facing, and the video camera faces right at the annex.
Yes.
And that video camera was running The FBI agency said, came in, looked at the video, said, we need to confiscate this.
Right.
And they took it away.
And where can we, what is there, testimony, written testimony, or some kind of affidavit from this guy, or what?
Oh, it's all over the internet.
Not hard to find.
I don't have, I have a copy in my files, but I'm not at my office at this time, Mark.
Okay.
East of the Rockies, you're on air with Joel Skousen.
Good evening.
Howard from Green, New York.
Yes, Howard.
Joel, you're propagating multiple conspiracy theories this evening, but when asked for a committed opinion, you're deflecting all over the place.
Why is this?
You'll have to speak up a little bit.
I can barely hear you.
You're propagating multiple conspiracy theories this evening.
When asked for a committed opinion, you're deflecting.
Can I ask why you're doing that?
Did you hear him that time?
Yeah, I heard him that time clearly.
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.
Joel, I think it's fortunate we're living in 2004.
If this were 1945, you'd be tried for sedition.
Good evening, gentlemen.
All right, take care.
I don't know about that.
I really don't know about that.
I don't think you'd be... People in 1945 had the... Listen, you know, people have been propagating and thinking conspiracy theories for as long as I've been alive.
You'd have to lock up Woodrow Wilson.
The quote that I said that he published in his book is a very conspiratorial theory.
Absolutely.
Yeah, it's been going on for a long time.
Wes for the Rockies, you're on the air, hello.
Yeah, Art and Joel, great show today.
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 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 until now.
I can only imagine what the Joint Chiefs might propose All right.
That may have been deemed or war-gamed or something at some point.
Who knows?
They do a lot of that.
but uh... to the best of your knowledge caller they never actually did that
didn't they no they certainly did not however they they presented it to
the president and uh...
the anecdotal story is that the president threw them out of their off out
of the office But even to propose such a thing... Yeah, it's horrible.
Sure enough.
But at least you go on and say he tossed them out on their ear.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Joel Skousen.
Yes, how are you?
I just have a couple of quick points I want to make.
One is just going back to this exit polling business.
Oh, yes.
Yes, it's a simple yes and no.
Who did you vote for?
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, uh, 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%, 80-20 on that first exit poll.
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, uh, 90, uh, 93, by putting these guys on trial, what had happened with these lawyers, they paraded, they paraded out the architects of the Trade Center and whatnot, and literally rolled out the blueprints, and at that time it was revealed Uh, 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.
Right.
All these things came out and they had time to plan this, which is partly why they used 757s and not 707s.
So you're saying what they used was sufficient to produce what happened?
Right.
Joel?
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.
But I heard even so, it was within the margin of error.
Oh, no.
Clearly different.
One percent was the margin for all the states.
The five other states were three to five percent difference.
For example, I voted for Kerry.
I'll tell you right up front.
And I watched my own state, and when the returns first came back in Nevada, Joel, which was a swing state, by the way, Kerry was in the lead.
And that was primarily the southern vote, you know, Clark County, Southern I-County, the southern portion of Nevada.
And then, logically, later on, when the more Republican northern part of the vote began to come in, the President took the lead.
I saw nothing unusual in the way it happened.
Well, if you look for your listeners on my World Affairs Brief, I publish all of the statistics from the exit polling as well as the voting.
You'll see how it changes in Nevada right towards the end and it gets skewed.
Yeah, but what I'm saying is it's a natural skew.
As the votes come in from the northern part of Nevada, traditionally much more conservative, you would expect that, and that's what happened.
No, the exit pollings come in before those votes, and the difference was between the exit polling and those votes.
There's no guarantee with any poll, even an exit poll, that it's going to be like the final poll, the vote itself, right?
But it was within 1% in all the other states except the five, and that's what makes it suspicious.
Now, let me move on to the other points.
The transfer of the building is also really... The point is that that's the first time the building has been completely blackened out.
Never before has maintenance required that they stop anyone from going into the building and black the whole thing out, and we had witnesses that just called up and said it was totally blacked out.
Yeah, that's a very suspicious change that nobody deems necessarily or sufficient for that on the steel portion.
Let's say his point was that that the airplane that plowed into it allegedly was sufficient to have done what happened.
Well, in reality, that still doesn't explain.
I mean, the actual where 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 2000 degrees, it can soften metal, make things sag, but it can't even touch those huge central pillar columns.
And so 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.
On that note, Joel, we're out of show.
We're out of time.
Alright, you have a good night.
Joel Skousen, I'm Art Bell, and Crystal Gale with the precise words for Exit.
Good night all, have a good week.
Midnight in the desert, shooting stars across the sky.
sky. This magical journey will take us on a ride. Filled with the longing, searching
for the truth. We make it to tomorrow.
Will the stars shine on you?
▲
Export Selection