portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

9.11 investigation

Art Bells Show with Ben Chertoff: Debunking 9/11

Other than being peppered with insults both from listeners emails as well as from Art Bell himself to his listeners tonights show went smoothly, Ben Chertoff handled the questions calmly and rationally, shrugging off the answers he was unable to give due to lack of research. Here is a blow by blow report from that Show.
I would first like to state that I respect Art Bell and Ben Chertoff greatly and promote the Coast to Coast show every time I get a chance and this night was no different. I agree with most everything stated in the episode, but once again what we have here is a simple situation of not being able to ask the right questions.

Art begins by asking a few questions from the Popular Mechanics article debunking the 9/11 Conspiracies, then fields a few calls from sycophants.

We open with a caller who is rather intelligent and asks two wonderful questions, which were ultimately never answered. Did Art forget to ask them? I was able to catch them: How were Pools of Molten Steel found 70 feet below street level having burned for a hundred days in an oxygen starved environment? She went on to explain how the towers falling defied Newtons first law of motion and Einsteins theory on angular momentum. Saying that the top of WTC2 fell horizontally at a 23 degree angle, then promptly re-shifted and fell perfectly to dust within its own footprint.

1. The pod question? Focuses on what people have seen in low resolution stills, flying into the south tower. The video stills appear as though the plane was flying in and a bulge appears where the wing meets the fuselage. The original film and still footage was sent to a numerous amount of imaging systems testers. An Arizona State researcher who analyzes photographs from NASA to discover what kind of land masses are apparent on photos taken of other planets, ran his tests on it and discovered nothing more than a shadow, on a standard 767. Merely the wing faring.

I'd like to also add, that I never believed in the "pod theory" anyway. I've studied the photographs in high resolution and never saw a pod. Very much similar to those who see the Loch Ness monster in a wave reflecting on breaking water.

2. Secret 'Stand down' order? NORADs job was not to immediately intercept flights which have gone off course. If you had simultaneous primary radar drop and transponder drop it pretty much meant the plane had crashed. NORADs primary job was to cover the coast outward, looking for aircraft coming in, not already inside the border. They have at times been used for tracking domestic drug runners. Fighter jets from Otis air force base sent jets out. There are only 14 jets on alert along the eastern seaboard pre 9/11.

I do believe that NORAD may not have been defending against domestic terrorism, but I must ask, who truly understood the fundamental inner workings behind the miscommunication between these defense agencies, enough to pull off an operation this immense and so perfectly executed?

North East Air Defense Sector in upstate New York, was called by Boston airport and scrambled jets out to a holding pattern to await further orders. NEADS sent aircraft after one plane at first, which was flight 11 which hit the North Tower. Certain aircraft control had view of only certain vectors of airspace. NORAD was called several times. New York terminal approach called NEADS outside of the chain of command to lend assistance. The jets ended up holding over Long Island and the Atlantic Ocean, awaiting orders. They were brought back in after flight 11 crashed into the North Tower, which was the first attack.

Whether there was an official 'stand down' order given or not, which there was, but it was a memo and covered far too broad a stroke to be considered evidence. There were several drills being run that day, which caused a great deal of confusion for the defense agencies to properly execute necessary maneuvers to save lives that day. Who had the ability and the motive to carry out multiple drills on the same day involving an identical situation as to the one taking place. Unless you believe it is merely a coincedence.

3. Was flight 93 shot down? The truth would be the biggest story of all time. Even Ben believed there might have been some truth to it. Unfortunately the story is inflated by the news reports, and sensationalized. Going into flight 93, they had to first make a map, to determine where everything supposedly landed. How did the engine land in some reports up to 6 miles away. The fact is that during impact an engine could easily be ripped off and thrown far away from the actual crash scene. There is plenty of audio evidence to support the story of the passengers overwhelming the terrorists. Ben believes it was obvious no plane shot down flight 93 from the study he performed.

Once again, not a great big deal to exposing whether the government was complicit in a cover-up or conspiracy. Actually little more than a red herring, needless debate.

4. Jet fuel not hot enough to melt steel? It doesn't actually have to melt to fail, it can simply warp. A book called 'Collapse of a burning building' illustrates how steel doesn't actually need to melt but it only needs to warp. What happens is when steel gets hot and knocks the fireproofing off, the steel expands on both ends and softens. You've got to realize these buildings are put together really tightly and compactly. The jet fuel didn't burn for that long it actually only burned for ten minutes. It was the temperatures of the office furniture and paper that fueled the floors up to 1800 degrees.

I agree 100%, Steel doesn't need to melt in order to fail, but it does however necessitate an explosive device to disintegrate concrete and turn to powder, leaving only very little of the outside of the structure standing. Warping is an easy excuse, and when using it, one must understand the fundamental mechanics behind the warping of steel. Steel warps and turns to a syrup of sorts. This happens over several hours, and not immediately, certainly not in 47 minutes. The warping would cause the steel to slowly fold in on itself, not pancake as though it were still rigid and then to simply pulverize to dust. At the very least we would expect to have seen a gradual warping of the steel over time, not a complete loss of structural integrity. Perhaps a raging inferno lasting for days until all of the upper floors had been sufficiently burned away, and the lower floors fires could be controlled.

They worked closely with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The FEMA report was a preliminary report, and the problem is that most of your "conspiracy theorists" site the FEMA report. NIST built a replica of part of the office building and sprayed jet fuel on the floors and set it on fire. They found that the steel was weakened enough to warp. It wasn't just the planes that brought the towers down or the fires it was the combination of both. In terms of structural engineers and demolition experts they say there are oceans of evidence out there against the idea of explosives placed just right to bring the towers down. From the outset, the evidence is obvious from what we saw that day, took place in the manner in which it did without question.

I also noticed that the good researcher was unable to answer my favorite question, which was, how exactly did the south tower defy the Law of Angular Momentum, when it began to slide off the top of the WTC2 tower and started to fall at a significant angle, but then was able to readjust itself to fall smoothly within its own footprint.

5. The pyroclastic smoke? This is evidence in some way of 'squibs' being placed in the buildings to bring the buildings down. There are areas in the film from the WTC falling down, an enormous amount of pressure is forced into the lower floors, which blow out the floors and windows. That is all that is being seen.

I would have expected to see dust being blown out of all the floors simultaneously, instead, what we see is large blasts coming from the structural beams (the outer beams) which held the most weight blowing out the supports in order to weaken the top of the towers half an hour before they fall. We also have footage of the ground shaking well before the towers fell, evidence of bombs taking out support columns in the basement, which caused steel to pool up to 70 feet below street level, and burn for 100 days in an oxygen starved environment.

6. No plane debris at the Pentagon? The no plane theory comes from a perceived lack of debris. The plane was coming in at upwards of 500 mph and literally disintegrated into the concrete wall. The wing also hit the ground and sheared off. They did find the plane, which was compacted into about 20 feet. Testimony from several that they were holding pieces from the plane and body parts has been documented. The black box was found.

Fine, if it was a plane, release the voice recorders. Prove how a pilot who couldn't drive a car, was able to pull off the aerial maneuvers that the hijacker was said to have performed. A 280 degree turn at nearly 500 mph and then crashing the plane into the only spot in the Pentagon that was under reconstruction, the only vacant part of the building that would cause the least amount of damage is pretty far-fetched.

7. Theory of passengers being transferred from one plane to another? The bumble plane theory was debunked easily because the passengers could not have been hurded onto other flights. Simply because two planes had a similar trajectory. This theory holds to the belief that 9/11 was all planned from the beginning, and it is a ridiculous thought.

Come on, this one is so silly, I wasn't aware people actually believed in it.

8. WTC7 fell for no reason? A lot of that stems from the FEMA report, who had very little time to research that building. A new research has been undertaken by NIST which is utilizing original steel from the WTC disaster. The south facade of WTC7 had already lost 20 percent of itself from falling debris resulting from the collapse of the towers. Interior portions of the building were destroyed and a fire raged for seven hours. The penthouse begins to fall away first, because the east side had been structurally destroyed.

I must admit, where it concerns the failure mechanisms of buildings due to debris from structural damage of the surrounding falling buildings, I have little knowledge in this arena.

9. Windows at Pentagon did not break? Blast resistant glass at the Pentagon prevented them from breaking. Some were destroyed, others remained intact as they should have being blast resistant.

This is obvious.

10. Alex Jones reported someone who shot down flight 93? To Alex's credit he did a follow up episode in which he interviewed a Major Rick Gibney, who supposedly shot down the flight. Ben interviewed them and the plane in question was never near the area where flight 93 crashed. They went to the 119th and asked the his commanding officer Lt. Col. Ed Jacoby if he shot down the plane and he did no such thing, he was nowhere near flight 93.

Okay, so what? This was a red herring to begin with.

Ben considers the 'Bumble Planes Theory' to be the most ridiculous. Also the radio beacon that supposedly honed in on the planes by emitting a signal for the planes to follow and caused power outages all over the city. Or the belief that the planes could have been hollowed out, and used as bombs, which is really just ludicrous because it would take thousands of people working together to keep the lie.

Not necessarily, you could easily have multiple cells working completely independently of one another on a common unknown goal. I'm not trying to lend credibility to Snake Pliskin and the Bumble Planes theory or the Pods, but I am saying that a unit is often greater than just the sum of its parts.

First Caller: How difficult would it be to use peoples voice and fake calls to fool there family? Ben starts, I have never heard of that, it would be pretty difficult. You would need to get recordings of the peoples voice in advance and because they were taking place real time it would take an effort of herculian strength to pull it off, using voice recordings to fool the family members.

Second Caller: How do you disprove government complicity in 9/11? Why will they [FBI] not show the video footage [Pentagon Crash]? Ben says they did not study that at all actually, because so much evidence supported the plane crash that they felt it not necessary. A great deal of the information at the Pentagon has been taken and classified. During any criminal investigation they need to have a clean case as to what took place and not one that the media has distorted. The government has been criticized for not showing the video, and hopefully one day they will. But there is mountains of evidence to prove that a plane hit the Pentagon and very little against it.

Art: What about those who say there were no terrorists.
Ben: We didn't do any research on that either.

Art comes back from the break and opens with: Alex Jones has on his show proof of seismic evidence he obtained from seismograph stations in the New York area. Ben defends, when you actually talk to people that do these types of tests, you find out that the graph was compressed to appear to be a massive explosion. The spikes occur before the buildings fall, supposedly. However when you look at the graph and you stretch it out, you will see that there are no large spikes at the beginning, in fact the bulk of the energy wave is found when the bulk of the towers fell to the ground. Which is exactly what you'd expect.

Third Caller: Two pictures of United Airlines were emailed to Arts site. This guy is a pilot. He has sent two pictures of the underside of the plane and shows how the pods are not real, that the truth of the matter is that the pods were not there.

Art and Ben muttle over the fact that a great deal of profiteering is being done at the expense of 9/11, including Pop Mech, who is profiting from the sale of the magazine.

Of course they fail miserably at mentioning how the government is profiteering from a war of convenience.

The majority of those against the official story are politically against Bush and his agendas. And are not interested in the actual truth.

I'll agree with that. However, I am interested in the actual truth, though I be opposed to Bush fundamentaly, if his administration is found to have neither prior knowledge nor an affiliation with the bin Laden family et al then I will concede my beliefs.

Fourth Caller: Ladies son was at base in Florida, says they had an order to shoot down the plane in Pennsylvania. That is actually true there was an order to shoot down the plane but the flight crashed before it could be taken down.

Fifth Caller: The PBS documentary says Silverstein had the building 'pulled' how could that happen? Actually to set up a controlled demolition of that sort takes years to set up. The fir department was 'pulled' from the building, not that actually the building was pulled. The term can be used in two ways, to demo experts it means to bring a building down, but to firefighters it means to evacuate.

Returning from the break Art and Ben discuss those engineers who first made there claims about the buildings being demolished. Notably Van Romero made a claim originally that the buildings could not have come down in that manner. That there were some explosive devices in the building for it to come down that way. Then he stated that that was not what he stated, but merely that it looked like a controlled demolition. He asked for a retraction to the article. He has no doubt that the buildings did not come down in the mainstream way.

Sixth Caller: How do you get a plane into the Pentagon without damaging anything around it? The 16 foot hole was on ring C, this was handled by building inspectors. How do you get a plane in there without burning? Well at 500 mph the plane impacts the building, and the fluid goes straight into the building. What about the lamp stands? We actually didn't do any research on that. We actually intentionally left out a great deal of things, because we were unable to cover them, and could be able to do a follow-up on that issue.

Seventh Caller: NTSB was bypassed and the FBI took over, without jurisdiction being given over: Ben is not exactly sure, they were on scene. But the FBI will take jurisdiction from the NTSB to handle criminal investigations, which is why they were released from the investigation. However, for some it will not matter how much proof you get, these people will only believe the conspiracy.

Eigth Caller: Conspiracy theorists blame the Jews for everything that's wrong with America. {mindless rhetoric about the left and right paradigm, drifting off into calling people crazy}

Ninth Caller: The issue is not as big as the crime. Before 9/11 who had prior knowledge. Willie Brown got a call from the White House not to fly to New York on 9/11. More Officials cancelled flights on the tenth, several others stopped flying commercially before 9/11. This is outside of Bens scope of his investigation. It does however look like the clues were there. From what we've seen in the 9/11 reports and other news articles, there were threats and fears, but he is unable to say whether they knew exactly the date.

What about the stock tips? We didn't research that either. From the emails we've gotten supposedly there were a lot of 'put' options placed on airlines. But you'll see if you do some research that a great deal of stocks had been dropped before 9/11. The airlines had been going under for sometime, and was losing stockholders everyday.

Tenth Caller: Marine Corps veteran asks, Why do people want to believe like this, and why not just trust their government?

Eleventh Caller: Conspiracy theorist who came out after the video from the Pentagon was released. The security camera video that was released shows a smaller plane and it is also producing a very thick white cloud, that we believe to be a missile. We believe it was a Jet aircraft firing a missile into the Pentagon. Ben says, well with that kind of security camera you have only 20 to 30 frames per second, and the picture was blurred, but I believe that the empirical evidence states that it was a 767.

End of show

Authors comments in Italics. All in all the show was decent, but avoided many of the more serious debates into the physics of 9/11.


Copyright 2005, August Harper and Internet Cheese News, all rights reserved. Any portion of this article or any other articles by August Harper may be reprinted in part or whole provided the copyright information is clear and a link to the original article is attached.

homepage: homepage: http://internetcheese.com/

I must apologize 06.Mar.2005 05:19

August Harper augustharper@internetcheese.com

The italics and bold print did not come out as I expected, making it rather difficult to tell the article from my comments. Fortunately, most of my comments begin with the word "I", followed by "we", and when I speak of Ben Chertoff or Art Bell I use their names and refer to the researchers as "they". I have also tried to seperate their language, which is a bit more technical, from mine which is a bit less elegant.

The full article can be found below, italics and all.

oh damn... 06.Mar.2005 11:31


You know you have been sidelined when you are on the same radio show
that frequently talks about "remote viewing" and plays audio a guest
claims is a recording of hell.

9/11 debunking on Art Bell is a BAD BAD BAD thing!

nervous 06.Mar.2005 13:15

some guy

someone must be really getting nervous about 911, posting this crap. Laughable, simply LAUGHABLE! (Art Bell was compromised years ago via some contrived child-molester charges that were leaked to the press)