September 11 never happened! Page 4
To see how this program was presented on ARTE’s website:
http://www.arte-tv.com/cache/dossier/fr/dossier630324.html
http://www.arte-tv.com/dossier/dossier.jsp?refresh=false&node=630392&lang=fr
April 13: Immediate reactions to the ARTE program about the September 11 attacks
Unfortunately, being away from home, I couldn’t attend the discussion that followed the screening of a film criticizing “conspiracy theories,” which was broadcast on ARTE as part of the Thema series on April 13, 2004 at 8:50 PM. I hope this program can be viewed online. If anyone has recorded it in its entirety using a video recorder, could they please send me a copy? I believe this is definitely a document worth preserving.
This was a crucial moment in television history. If we still had any illusions left, they were shattered that night. I recall what my late friend Aimé Michel said 25 years ago:
“When Yahweh said ‘you shall not make any images,’ he was already thinking of television.”
This anti-conspiracy documentary disgraces the profession of journalism. Thierry Meyssan’s efforts (see the documentation regarding “Pentagate”) are portrayed as being motivated solely by greed. Notably, there isn’t a single mention of technical aspects throughout the entire documentary, except for a few brief remarks made by Meyssan during his interview.
Everything was done to discredit him. They dug deep into his background. They noted connections between certain publishers and far-right groups. Ardisson, who gave Meyssan a platform back in 2002 when he launched his book, refused to answer journalists’ questions. Frankly, I understand why. I remember Thierry Thuillier, editor-in-chief at A2, describing how Ardisson’s actions were perceived within his team:
“He didn’t verify his sources. In just three days, we managed to gather enough information to realize that Meyssan’s claims simply didn’t hold up…”
But not a word about those facts…
An intellectual declares that “conspiracy theories oversimplify complexity.” Questions arise regarding what lies behind this “hatred of America.” Renaud Marhic, author of “Ummo: The aliens from the cold,” discusses parallels with Jewish and Freemason conspiracy theories, as well as traces of such movements in our history. In conclusion: questioning the official narrative surrounding September 11 would be tantamount to anti-Semitism. There’s even a comparison drawn to the antisemitic manifesto “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”; a document banned in France but available in some bookstores (shot via hidden camera).
It’s completely absurd.
All tactics of disinformation are employed: crude associations (with the National Front, Le Pen, the theory of Lady Diana’s murder), juxtaposition of images, exaggeration of minor errors committed by proponents of these theories, pointing cameras at suspicious individuals who seem to have ties to intelligence agencies. Proponents of Holocaust denial are also mentioned. Meyssan’s efforts are thus equated with theirs. Others speak of “hatred toward democratic values.” Essentially, this implies that the US serves as a bastion of global democracy…
I encounter sociologist Pierre Lagrange again; he wrote about the Roswell incident: “What makes this case unbelievable is its sheer implausibility.” A brilliant mind. Here, he says something like, “And that’s when Meyssan starts defending the indefensible.”
Attention is drawn to Thierry Meyssan’s collaborators, including Henri Bunel, who allegedly has links to far-right groups. Bunel mentions the “Free Energy” movement and the involvement of “reptilian beings.” A quick glance at a book by Hugo Nart reveals his interest in extraterrestrial matters.
I wonder what would’ve happened if Meyssan had chosen me as an expert, given my qualifications as an aerospace engineer. Undoubtedly, we would’ve heard statements like: “Meyssan surrounds himself with experts, such as Jean-Pierre Petit, former CNRS researcher, who claims to have contact with an extraterrestrial race called the Ummites.”
I hope viewers recognized the manipulative tactics used here. Its flaw lies in the fact that no one provides any technical analysis. No competent experts come forward to validate the White House’s interpretation of evidence. All we get are mere assertions and shrugs. A friend watching alongside me remarked, “After seeing this program, anyone sensible would think: if someone attacks this man with such flimsy arguments, his theories must indeed disturb many people. I’ll buy his book.”
This shows that Meyssan has influenced many people across 25 countries. This ARTE documentary seems like a desperate attempt to counteract growing awareness. The “Leviathan” must feel threatened. The director goes overboard, bordering on the ridiculous.
Initially, Thierry Meyssan needed considerable courage—which I commend—to confront an enemy that has no qualms about killing, whether it’s Martin Luther King or Kennedy.
The mere fact that a TV channel aired such content reveals the decay of our media landscape. On ARTE, Thema is supposed to air somewhat controversial topics. But that’s part of the game: by “exposing secrets” or conducting “courageous investigations,” media outlets create an illusion of independence. Tonight, however, we saw just how illusory that impression truly is.
April 27, 2004: Reader Laurent de Soras informs me that a detailed critique of this two-part program, complete with text and audio excerpts, can be found on Acrimed’s website:
http://acrimed.samizdat.net/article.php3?id_article=1583
http://acrimed.samizdat.net/article.php3?id_article=1584
May 2, 2004: I re-watched the April 13 program on ARTE. A reader sent me a CD copy. It would take countless pages to fully analyze this material. I noted some statements made by sociologist Pierre Lagrange:
“…This is quite powerful. By showing us these photos, he essentially turns viewers into experts. We see what he sees, thereby reversing reality itself… These are indisputable facts. He introduces debate where none should exist.”
Reading this, one might exclaim, “Is there a sociologist present?”
Secondly, and most importantly: Thierry Meyssan is completely absent from the concluding “debate,” where only journalists and essayists participate. Essentially, Meyssan is “tried in absentia.” It seems surprising that journalists would participate in such a charade. Yet their behavior indicates they avoid engaging in technical discussions altogether. Moreover, they defend their profession’s corporatism, regardless of political leanings. The Internet poses a huge threat to them: uncontrolled dissemination of information, ideas, opinions, analyses. Their rhetoric boils down to: “There are legitimate professionals in journalism; they must be trusted because they ‘verify their sources.’” One might wonder if they’d advocate establishing a:
Journalists’ Professional Council
Important detail: Meyssan isn’t a journalist. Yet he runs a subscription-based online newspaper distributed in PDF format. This directly competes with traditional journalism. This phenomenon is widespread: publishing becomes unregulated (even books are now published on CDs); politics becomes decentralized, with independent forums emerging outside party structures. The Internet functions like Hyde Park. Science too becomes democratized: scientists can share findings without censorship. No one is immune to criticism anymore. It’s “the most convincing argument wins.” Significant research projects (like Epistémotron) can be initiated outside institutional frameworks. Now, journalism itself is breaking free from constraints. Result: solidarity among established professionals. None of the journalists present could admit, “I can’t comprehend how I’d take part in a debate criticizing a man’s expertise and integrity… while he’s absent.” This topic seemed to transcend Meyssan alone; it concerned whether “unregulated journalism” should exist.
Personally, I believe all professions suffer from increasing discredit. Politics no longer inspires trust. Many scientists also lose credibility. Justice increasingly appears dubious. We’ve seen plenty of examples. Major media outlets lie. During this “trial in absentia,” it was journalism itself that lost credibility.
What remains?
Think for yourself. Learn to analyze information, just as people once learned to decode food additives on supermarket labels. We have no other choice. This is the price of attaining intellectual freedom.
If you fail to make this effort, we’ll end up with that infamous graffiti scrawled by an anonymous individual on a Sorbonne wall in 1968:
You might also want to read an article written in 2003 by Ignacio Ramonet in Le Monde Diplomatique titled “The Fifth Power”
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2003/10/RAMONET/10395 (archived April 5, 2008)
Previous page Next page
Table of contents for all pages related to “Pentagate”
Back to News Back to Index Back to Home
Number of views since April 13, 2004: