Untitled Document
Roland Dumas speaks
Interviewed on December 21, 1010, posted on December 26, 2010
| - Thank you for receiving us for this interview. I would like to go back to the program you participated in with Mr. Taddeï, this evening or never. You said "I don't believe in 9/11." Simply, what did you mean by that? | - Well, I meant that there has been a whole controversy that has developed, and still develops, first in the United States, then in Europe, on the conditions of this serious incident. Because it is obviously very serious. But, I didn't want to go into the details because I don't know the truth -so far- but I am still impressed by the arguments on both sides. | - What do you mean? Do you rely on specific elements, for example, to doubt the official version? | - Demonstrations have been made by specialists, notably pilots, university professors, and scientists, who have measured the different locations, and especially on the phase of the plane that would have entered the Pentagon and which they tried to demonstrate did not correspond at all to the sizes of the planes, etc. So, if you want, these are technical details which, when accumulated, lead to a controversy. And, like any controversy, there are arguments for and against. | - I know the official theory, that is, the American state's theory, and I also know the theories that have been constructed and presented by university professors -there are several- and by specialists who have studied this issue. And so, there is a controversy. You know that the nature of any controversy is that there are arguments on one side, and arguments on the other. | - On what kind of elements do you base your doubts about the official version of 9/11? | - Public elements. Everything that has been published, especially in America, in Europe, also in Germany, here and there, and which obviously relates to this event of exceptional gravity, which indeed deserves, because of its gravity, to be discussed. There are arguments that support the American doctrine and others that contradict it. It's a controversy. | - But does the official version seem to you rather like a lie? | - Oh no, I wouldn't say that. I would say that there are arguments for those who support the official theory and others that question it. But I mean that they have the same official value, at least in terms of strength. | - Many American officials have spoken, not of American guilt, but of "cover-up," as they say in America - in English: that the Bush administration would have deliberately hidden compromising elements in the investigation around 9/11. | - I don't know if that's true. But what seemed surprising to me was that the American "machine," which has so many resources, which invests so much wealth in its protection, didn't have prior and simultaneous more precise information about these events. So, that already raises suspicion. | - That there was no real air defense, for example? | - Of course, for example. When you think that a few years ago, a Soviet plane flew over the Far East -or an American plane, I think- and the alert was immediately given, the plane was shot down within seconds. So, what is true for the Far East would not be true for the protection of the heart of the Empire? That seems questionable to me. At least, there is something to investigate. | - But do you still believe in Al Qaeda's involvement in the 9/11 attacks? | - I don't believe. I don't have any... I don't substitute myself for those who study... First, I'm not American, and second, I don't have the elements. It's possible that it was Al Qaeda, in which case it will appear at some point... | - So, what is your opinion on Al Qaeda's involvement? | - I haven't found any trace, in what I've read, of a formal involvement of Al Qaeda. Everything is possible, so many things are attributed... I have the impression that Al Qaeda is something informal, to which all sorts of events, more or less direct, are attached. It's not an organization, with an address, a schedule, and employees who are there, on time or not, etc! I think -I repeat- that it's a satellite, so to speak, which gathers many actions. | - Mr. Guy Sorman, who was your opponent in the debate with Frédéric Taddeï, called you, the next day on his internet blog, a "conspiracy theorist." What do you say to that? | - "Conspiracy theorist," yeah... That's an expression that belongs to him. I don't know how he justifies it. If he means that I explain something that would resemble a conspiracy plot, why not! I'm like everyone else. But I don't see why there would be an insult in explaining that, simply, someone thinks with their head and common sense. | - You have long been involved in political and diplomatic circles, Mr. Dumas. What about on 9/11, in these circles? What is your perception of what is being said? | - It's not discussed much in France. France is more concerned with, outside of specialized services like the Quai d'Orsay -which I am no longer part of - and the intelligence services -military intelligence- outside of these very informed circles that have exchanges with allied countries -we are allies of the Americans- the French are more concerned with the presidential election and its renewal. | - But do you share your doubts, for example, in your surroundings? | - I don't know. I haven't done a survey. | - Have you had the opportunity to talk about it with political friends or in the diplomatic circle? | - No, no... | - If I understand correctly, you don't have a particular theory about 9/11? You have a doubt about the official theory. | - I just have a doubt about... things that are unexplained or inexplicable, which can be explained but then you have to go back through the process and go deeper. | - For now, there has been no formal analysis establishing that it was an Al Qaeda attack. I don't believe so, or maybe I'm wrong -or I've forgotten- but it remains to be proven. | - Except for the Bush administration, which formally accused Al Qaeda. | - Yes, but that's something else, that's the Americans. We were talking about the French and the Europeans. | - Would you like there to be an international investigation, for example, to formalize this accusation? | - For example, certainly. There could be an international investigation, why not. With experts, aeronautics specialists, people specialized in the field, well balanced and who would tell the truth. | - I believe I know that Iran, next year, will want to create an international jury to investigate 9/11. What do you think of that? | - It's a good idea, but, e...