Arte's program on September 11 and media manipulation

Regarding the April 13, 2004 Arte program dedicated to the events of September 11 (Thema series), reader reactions:

April 14, 2004

**Film presented by: Daniel Leconte: "September 11 Did Not Happen", by Barbara Necek and Antoine Vitkine. **

b_necek@hotmail.com

April 15, 2004, some remarks

Readers are sending letters about this scandalous program aired on Arte on April 13. Some suggest that a sort of "petition letter" should be addressed to the channel, thinking "that would have more strength." But it's useless. The content of this program was enough to show how much this media was corrupted. It may have always been so, and we just didn't realize. What was subtle was that those in charge simply let through shocking documentaries to give the illusion of press freedom. The illusion, because everything is an illusion. One can endlessly manipulate images and statements. The famous filmmaker Chris Marker showed this in his film "La jetée." We must learn to doubt everything, to trust only ourselves. One can easily give the illusion of a shocking report on the massacres of Pol Pot in Cambodia, while hiding other realities. In our media, in all media, the spotlight only shines where it is told to shine. When Meyssan appeared on Ardisson, it was just a mistake. There are always small mistakes in these information manipulation systems. Ardisson was reprimanded, ordered to return to the shadows, as was once the case for my friend Jacques Pradel, who paid five years of near-unemployment for his insubordination. The iron control of information must be "internalized" by journalists themselves, who must develop reflexes of self-censorship. It's training. We are in the world of Big Brother and Brazil. Pradel was too independent in character. He had kept his ethics. Ardisson had a reflex: to bring up a debate, which, as this "sociologist" Pierre Lagrange, whom I know too well, said, "had no reason to exist." I remember the words of this "intellectual" at the time when Pradel was being attacked:

*- What undermines this Roswell affair is its incredible nature. *

When one reads such statements, one is tempted to exclaim, "Is there a sociologist in the room?"

The message delivered to Ardisson, relayed by Thierry Thuillier, head of information on A2, was very simple: "What business does this outburst of your moral conscience have here? You are not here to express it. You are here to amuse the public, to anesthetize it. You have gone beyond your limits. Don't do it again, or you'll be shown the door."

One must be blind and deaf not to realize the increasingly astonishing manipulation to which the media are subjecting the public. For example, I came across a dossier of 18 pages, already old, in Paris-Match, "accompanying Alain Juppé through his ordeal." Poor man: caught with his hand in the cookie jar, this politician had been condemned! It was then necessary to attract the people's understanding and compassion, to show him in his distress as a man, a family man, a husband, a father, and so on.

Now, the only thing we know is that we are being lied to, and that this lie is everywhere. Yesterday, I received a reminder from the magazine Ciel et Espace to renew my subscription. I threw everything in the trash. I am tired of seeing this scientific media echo non-events while hiding important facts. I recall Alain Cirou, now its editor-in-chief, who, twenty years ago, had asked me to give a lecture in the old premises of the École Polytechnique, as secretary of the French Astronomical Association. Before I spoke, Cirou wanted to say that he had been subjected to strong pressures concerning me, from scientists, politicians, and journalists, to cancel my lecture. He made his "last stand." He must remember that day well. Today, he serves the soup to the mediocre people who hold the ground of science.

It took the independence and courage of Jean-Claude Pecker for me to be able to speak in February 2004 at the Collège de France, before a large audience. But apart from him and Narlikar, no renowned astrophysicist had shown up. Too dangerous. I have a quick and precise shot, and more than one has collapsed in seminars, a theorem planted between the eyes. I am tired of these resignations, of these illusions of science. I had a phone call yesterday from a young member of the group who has joined the Epistémotron team. It might work. I need to help this group, which has many young people, usually computer scientists, so that something could emerge that might become a ... "wild research," based on calculations done in "shared computing" by ... amateurs. In the sanctuaries of astrophysics, one gets bogged down in mediocrity. At the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris, at the Astrophysics Laboratory in Marseille, which I belonged to, the theoretical speculations are in the hands of people without ideas, without imagination, without skills, like Bosma, Athanassoula, Françoise Combes, Omont. They have lost their way. I am tired of this non-science. Researchers are demonstrating: "more positions, more funding." Of course. But who will clean these stables of Augias that the power would like to destroy in the most foolish way possible.

Because those who govern us, if they are as greedy as the average of other powers and essentially want to serve the powers of money, are not only dishonest, they are clumsy, incompetent. In the United States, they probably waste a lot of money, as everywhere. But these people have an extraordinary chance: they don't have structures like the École Polytechnique or the ENA. They conduct their research campaigns like wars, by dismissing the losing generals. I showed in my book what advantage this had given them. In contrast, how to explain the blindness of our technico-scientific media in front of news like that referring to the "X43 feat," facing images that are those of a simple wind tunnel model. Is it simply incompetence or have the United States become so powerful that they can manipulate our own media in a direction that suits them?

The United States is the most powerful nation in the world. This country has weapons that would allow it to erase any other nation from the map in a few hours. Which journalist would dare to mention that the real motive behind the American takeover of the Iraqi oil fields is part of a geopolitical strategy to prevent China from ever having access? Which journalist would dare to note that the monstrosity of the Chinese "Long March" rockets could correspond to a purpose other than ... colonizing the Moon, just as the Russian "Semyorka," equipped from the start with a range of 8,000 kilometers, had another purpose than putting a man in space.

We have seen on this site the mention of legal proceedings, including that of Robert Alessandri. We have seen how the defamation trial system was used to crush men without the slightest mercy, simply to silence them, to prevent them from producing irrefutable elements revealing glaring incompetence. We have also seen with the OVNITHON how a simple hundred citizens, with some modest checks, could thwart this state terrorism. We see how a simple website made possible this wave of solidarity and how this "small affair" risks discrediting a service whose goal has never been, for 28 years, anything other than to misinform people, at the very moment when its head (now the only member) is about to publish "his" book, whose release was announced for April 24, 2004. As soon as I have the time, I will put a complete dossier online. One must fear defamation lawsuits. Therefore, I will have to produce the content of issue 29 of a magazine called "Ovni-Presence" from March 1984, twenty years ago. To take the minimum risk, it would be best to reproduce this document in its entirety. Twenty years, that's a good time for a press prescription, which is three months, if I'm not mistaken. The CNES will be seriously implicated in an operation that was nothing more than a lamentable attempt at scientific plundering, ending in a complete failure due to lack of skills. The scandal risk was so great that it led to the disappearance of the GEPAN and the transfer of its three engineers, the polytechnician Alain Esterle, Bernard Zappoli, and Alain Caubel. The GEPAN was renamed SEPRa, and they quickly put in charge the former right-hand man of Esterle, "the honest Velasco," an optician technician. The document is on my table. This work must be done, that's all. And it dates from twenty years ago. Years of incompetence, clumsiness, and nonsense. But be without illusion: the responsible people for this mess are still in charge, secretly running operations as fumous as ever, thirty years behind the US.

It is truly shocking to hear in the Arte dossier of April 13 that criticizing America is criticizing democracy. We are in the process of making a copy of this program. I think it constitutes, at least for me, a historical event. We have been shown a hundred times the World Trade Center towers collapsing. Seeing this film, it was what remained of my trust in the press that collapsed. April 13 was for me the equivalent of September 11, in the field of information.

There is a television program. I think it's "arrêt sur image," which gives the image of a possible self-criticism of the media. Will the journalist in charge speak about this monument of misinformation that was this April 13 program?

Our World Trade Center has collapsed, this evening of April 13, 2004, watching this Thema program broadcast by Arte. So, what should be done?

It seems, with all its flaws, that the web remains the only space of freedom for men, even though it can obviously be the ground for all kinds of misinformation and the spread of false information. It's no coincidence that the French government is trying to put the web under control with the Faure law. The danger of this freedom of expression, which I am using here, has been perfectly perceived.

I may perhaps subscribe to the Voltaire network, now a paid newspaper. Why not? For journalism to live, journalists must be able to eat. Perhaps the future passes through this kind of press? Everything is changing right now. Even scientists are beginning to turn away from their "publication journals," with all the risks of deviation that this presents. But how to do when mediocrity, cowardice, lies, and prohibitions touch all the structures of our society.

With all its flaws, the Web is the last refuge of freedom.

Jean-Pierre Petit, April 15, 2004

--- 1 - April 14, 2004

Lucien Cordy, computer scientist, Valenciennes

Good evening, Mr. Petit,

I am happy about your comments on your site because I thought the same things! No experts, no technical speeches, where are the accidentologists, the pilots, the explosives specialists, the architects, the engineers, the motor specialists, the computer simulations. During the crash of the Flash Airlines plane in Egypt, that same evening, on the news we had 3D effects!! They just blew hot air, split hairs. I think the first impression is often the right one, and I remember thinking, "well, it doesn't look like much damage, a 100-ton plane crashing into the Pentagon at 600 km/h." Moreover, the similarities with the damage inflicted on buildings during the Iraq war are striking. In short, I don't say that Meyssan is right, but I refuse the taboo in force, the idea that "daring to ask questions" would show a foolish and revisionist mind. Technical and public studies would normally be enough to silence these "revisionists." But here's the thing, these studies could reveal impossibilities, and anyway, to dare to do so is already to question the official thesis. So, we'll talk about it again in 40 years, like the Kennedy affair, and even!! I don't agree.

I KNOW that human slaughterhouses existed during the Second World War.

I KNOW that man went to another planet in 1969.

I KNOW that the Pentagon attack hides extremely strange aspects.

What do you think of the book by Guillaume Dasquier: "The terrible lie," the contradictory counterpart of "The terrible imposture" by Thierry Meyssan.

Sincerely.

Lucien Cordy, computer scientist, Valenciennes

--- 2 - April 14, 2004

Emmanuel Josse

Good day, Mr. Petit,

While visiting your site this morning, I discovered with pleasure (and agreement) your article about yesterday's program on Arte, about the conspiracy theory. I was scandalized by the bias of the production, using methods no less unhealthy than those it claimed to denounce. I hesitated for a moment before abandoning the idea of protesting to the channel, because I would have liked to do it in an argumented and detailed way, which would have required being able to watch some passages again, but I don't have a VCR.

It would indeed be useful to dismantle the mechanism of their "demonstration" and make this bad faith visible, insulting to all those who make the effort to go beyond appearances. Even the German journalist admitted that behind the so-called conspiracy theory, he found a rather healthy motivation.

The choice of their participants is significant of the hasty and preconceived way in which the media select their sources.

It's simple, whenever we talk about American culture, it's Nicole who takes care of it (Bacharan). She was offended that one could for a moment attribute dark designs to our friends across the Atlantic, as if one could accuse them of expansionist greed, attribute vile motivations (and then, man, it is well known, is a naturally truth-seeking species, incapable of lies). They waved the specter of revisionism, but not a word about the genocide of the native peoples of America, who were the first beneficiaries of the civilizing drive. And the basic American western, which has served as an international history textbook for decades, is that not revisionism? Ask the Sioux nation what they think about it.

As for the social interpretation of an irrational collective behavior, Pierre Lagrange naturally imposed himself, filmed visibly at home with his ET dolls (proof that UFO believers are big naive children) and, behind him, his books standing proudly in balance (proof of his knowledge).

And Lédidi, do you put him in a saucer?

But, on further reflection, after the program ended, doubt and fear assail me: is there not, acting in the shadows, a group of conspiracy theorists spreading false rumors conspiring against democracy?

Yours sincerely.

Emmanuel Josse

--- 3 - April 14, 2004

Serge Makra, Engineer, Strasbourg

Good day,

I watched the first twenty minutes of the Arte program.

It was pitiful. We were told that:

• Meyssan took advantage of the event to make money
• Meyssan organized a formidable marketing campaign via the Internet
• The publisher of Meyssan publishes conspiracy / UFO books - The technical expert of the publisher on the subject is an ex-military
  convicted in court and supporting the far right - The German publisher of Meyssan also supports the far right

And the worst of all, this sociologist Pierre Lagrange who says: <<Meyssan is provoking a debate where there shouldn't be one>>.

Incredible! I switched off.

I don't believe in the conspiracy theories, but when I see the weakness of the expertise against Meyssan's theory, I can't help but ask questions.

I just want to remind you of the similar program on the Kursk aired on Arte a week or two ago. There was no conspiracy, just telling the story of the sinking. It was pathetic to see the banality! We had an hour with an old Russian submarine officer who regretted his comrades. No technical arguments. Just brainwashing to say that it was terrible for these sailors to die like that and therefore the subject was closed!

It would be interesting to compare the origins of the two documents ... same producer? same studio?

I tried to express myself on Arte's site but their site offers very few means of expression.

Serge Makra, Engineer, Strasbourg

--- 4 - April 14, 2004

Christian Louhal

Mr. Petit,

I confirm, if it's still necessary, that the program on Tuesday evening, April 13, on Arte "All Manipulated," was of an unprecedented poverty for this channel, which until now had my full respect. However, I note that the Thema evenings, which I am a fervent viewer of, usually consist of multiple contradictory reports, generally spread throughout the evening, allowing one to form an informed view based on sources of different kinds and different authors, in the manner of the text commentary exercise that is given to terminal students for the baccalaureate, which mixes journalistic documents, pamphlets, images, and authors of different currents.

Clearly, during this Thema, the opposite of what Arte had accustomed us to: a reduced format of only 2 hours; two reports from the same authors (and produced by the company doc en stock), without this similar source being highlighted; a "debate" without any opponents, as the guests were all there to sell their books (including René Kauffer who came to promote his book "The Weapon of Disinformation").

During these two hours, systematically, reducing and insulting adjectives like "paranoid," "untenable," "incredible," "unimaginable" are used to qualify the authors of "conspiracy theories" and their readers, it's just an unnecessary accumulation of professions of faith, moralizing parables, desperate reaffirmations or of an obviousness apparently so obvious that it's never worth explaining.

The only and sole counter-argument cited in two hours of debate is that the photo associated with one of the 19 supposed terrorists who died in the September 11 attacks was erroneous, belonging to a person still alive and not the accused terrorist, and that this confusion alone would undermine the arguments of a conspiracy theorist who had claimed that this terrorist was still alive !!!

Throughout the reports, a semantic intoxication aims to equate Thierry Meyssan, Von Bulow (German Minister), and the debate about whether the full truth has not been made with September 11, gradually: that the government, some members of the military-industrial complex or the CIA were involved or had been informed of the September 11 attacks (which the ongoing congressional investigation is not far from revealing), to a gradual deviation: that the Mossad had warned the Jews that day, then the number of 4,000 Jews, then the conspiracy theorists' relationship with the far left, then more seriously: the far right, then the Muslim fundamentalists, then the anti-Semites, then the UFOlogists, the criminals, the anti-Americans, the anti-democrats, the neo-Nazis and the fascist groups... in short, all the bestiary of the most frightening things on earth, perhaps thanks to the Palestinian suicide bombers or Saddam Hussein, but one can feel that we are not far from it....

Yes, this report is a historical document and a cornerstone of the cathedral of misinformation. Rather than helping the viewer to decode the misinformation and exercising his critical sense, it drives the nail in by saying that any manifestation of critical sense tends towards "the idiot."

Christian Louhal

--- 5 - April 14, 2004

Michel Tachieri

Mr. Petit,

Shameful... simply shameful... When I saw the Arte evening dedicated to the "conspiracy" theories about the September 11 attacks, I was shocked.

First of all, they mix everything: they put in the same boat fundamentalist Muslims, the far right, the far left, and some independent journalists like Meyssan: go all are anti-Semites, all deeply hate America, and have conspired to try to destroy the nice world in which we live (even the clowns of the info of Canal + have joined in to tell you how wide the net was).

They try to bring back the old conspiracy theories about the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy, seasoned with the Meyssan-Bin Laden sauce !!

Citizens, the hour is grave, the fatherland is in danger, they even go back to the 18th century to explain that these extremist agitators have never digested the French Revolution, which for them was done by and in favor of the Jews !!

To summarize: if you ask where the debris of the Boeing that hit the Pentagon went, you are an anti-Semite, anti-democratic....

The essence of the matter (the US authorities have not yet given any valid explanation for the anomalies pointed out by Meyssan) is not even addressed: the debate is not there: it reduces to a choice between "what one should believe" on one side and "foggy and dangerous theories for our democratic societies" on the other, without really arguing the fundamentals.

All scientific and technical analyses must be abandoned: only the good word, the politically correct saves, only those authorized to speak must speak.

It is profoundly indecent to show critical spirit, in this wonderful world where all information is pre-chewed: you just have to swallow !!

What a delicious feeling it is to have no ethical or moral concerns: let the specialists do it!

I think the most shameful thing is to be able to today, just like Voltaire, hear from our dear authorities the message of Pangloss: "All is for the best in the best of all worlds." Sleep peacefully, good people, Big Brother is watching over you...........

Michel Tachieri

--- 6 - April 14, 2004

Yannis Jouan, Cyril Commandini, Computer Scientists, Poissy

Good day,

Like others, we had the opportunity to see the Arte program and our disappointment was immense. This crude staging brought no technical debate on the photographic elements presented by Meyssan, which have most marked the readers and struck the minds with the inconsistencies of the official investigation. Arte had, however, accustomed us to quality reports capable of going beyond the official versions and highlighting, for example, the links between the Gulf War syndrome and the use of depleted uranium munitions by the Bush administration during the "Inside the Gulf War" program. We would have liked all those who saw this "documentary" to have the same reaction as Jean Pierre Petit's friend and to try to obtain the book (freely downloadable on the internet) to form their own opinion, but it is necessary to note that the reactions from the coffee machine side are rather of the kind:

• You must really be a conspiracy theorist, anti-Semitic, pro-masonic, and a raelian to adhere to such theories - Do you want to see the photos from the book to discuss them? - No, everything has been said, I won't waste my time. - Too bad.

Finally, we have digitized the video, it will serve as an example for a demonstration or Arte will be nothing more than a subsidiary of CNN. After all, one can prove anything, the proof

Yannis Jouan, Cyril Commandini, Computer Scientists, Poissy

--- 7 - April 15, 2004

Pierre HIRTH, Computer Scientist

Good day, Mr. Petit,

I saw the program and I note, regarding the Pentagon attack, that indeed, not a single technical detail contradicts Mr. Meyssan's version.

Arte disappointes me a bit on this occasion. I will buy Mr. Meyssan's book because it really deserves to be read. Mr. Meyssan should even write another one...

Pierre HIRTH, Computer Scientist.

--- 8 - April 15, 2004

Patrice B.

Thank you, Mr. Petit, for your quick reaction to the pitiful propaganda that Arte served us last Tuesday night about September 11. I recorded the program and I have it available in its entirety for you. To each thing, a good side, and I think that one could use this program to demonstrate how the so-called "democracy-serving" journalism uses propaganda to eliminate annoying opponents. One could imagine making still images every 5 minutes and dismantling the arguments one by one.

The system works at several levels:

• First, to deliver negative opinions on the actors (T. Meyssan and others) to devalue the people.

• To argue with peremptory statements without demonstration, it is useless to demonstrate the obvious...

• To use the syllogism in a generalized way to credit a scientific approach, quasi-logical argument. The example "a cheap horse is rare, a rare thing is expensive, therefore a cheap horse is expensive!" "Conspiracy theories are put forward by dubious people close to the far right, the far right is the enemy of democracy, therefore, to be interested in conspiracy theories is to be an enemy of democracy." Asking questions becomes therefore also a danger for democracy, etc. ad nauseam and I don't even talk about the aliens...

• To call upon information experts or supposed ones to validate the approach.

• To make sympathetic the heads of state who lie shamelessly about weapons of mass destruction and other topics but who do it for our good... the fight against terrorism. In fact, according to the official theory, they trusted their intelligence services without checking their sources...

• To organize a debate without any opponent. Everyone is in agreement, therefore there is no questioning of opinions.

Etc.

It should be noted that this kind of approach on September 11 had already been done, perhaps in a more subtle way but according to the same logic, during an episode of Karl Zero (I don't remember the date of broadcast).

More than ever, we must remain vigilant and take a step back from the elements and information that are served to us on a daily basis. In these troubled times, I recommend the reading of the book by Philippe Breton "The argumentation in communication," Editions La découverte and the dictionary of lies by "Pio Rossi" at Editions Allia.

Thank you again, Mr. Petit, for your site that takes us out of our daily stupor.

Sincerely. Patrice B.

--- 9 - April 15, 2004

Anonymous

Dear Mr. Petit,

I share your opinion on Arte's program last night, which indeed offered what it advertised: "All Manipulated?" My last hope in the media collapsed yesterday in the face of the obvious bad faith and the absence of debate (in response, irony of fate, to the denunciation of a lack of contradictory debate).

I am about to send them my critique. Everyone can do it at the address http://faq.arte.fr/faq/contact/index_f.cfm. There is also a forum, which I couldn't access, at http://www.arte-tv.com/emission/emission.jsp?node=-1373&lang=fr where our response could be posted publicly. There is also a last solution, the webcam, a short program that broadcasts the opinion of internet users who have a webcam. I don't have this equipment or a high-speed connection, which is certainly not the case for some of your readers. I wonder if, like Amnesty International, the appropriate approach would not be to send the same letter by multiple senders. It has the merit of adding cohesion to individual responses.

Apart from this program, I was about to suggest another way to verify Thierry Meissan's claims. Every day, dozens of engineers use calculation software to perform car crash tests. One should look at RADIOSS and PAMCRASH associated with ABAQUS, IDEAS, NASTRAN, etc. The same should exist in aeronautics. Couldn't one then create a model of the plane and the Pentagon, see what it gives, publish the results and the sources of the objects. Thus, anyone with access to these software would be able to verify the accuracy of the results. Obviously, we need to have access first, and I imagine that they are not in the public domain.

On the theme of Gardanne, have you tried to contact Greenpeace or the Cousteau team? They should presumably be interested in such an affair, if presented with solid arguments.

Note from J.P. Petit: all attempts to contact the Greenpeace association have been met with non-receipt or offers of subscription to a bulletin....

F.A.

I request anonymity for any citation.

--- 10 - April 15, 2004

Benoît - Nantes

Last night on Arte, Thema on September 11 (which did not happen): Quick, everyone to our tapes to record THE COUNTER-INVESTIGATION, the anti "conspiracy theory" dear to Meyssan...we were going to see what we were going to see...!

What a disappointment, the mountain finally gave birth to a tiny little mouse...

We were completely left unsatisfied, not even a small crumb to satisfy us: empty words, verbiage, offended and disapproving head movements, hastily thrown together formulas: "anti-semites", "hatred of democracy", anti-everything and anything: a very crude and unbelievable jumble.

The cherry on the cake in the person of Philippe Val, Charlie-Hebdo, as a chaste and prudish defender of journalistic ethics... There, we touch the bottom of dubiousness!!

Total and sovereign contempt for everyone, in addition to Thierry Meyssan, who honestly question these tragic events and their serious consequences that we know... up to the blatant lies (these staged scenes at the UN!), to occupy Iraq...

Arte has disappointed us! Deeply! The channel was probably forced to do so to satisfy a type of very fearful customers - patrons? - conservative and ultra-liberal.

We weren't taken in by the obviously set trap, but ultimately, who benefits from the crime?

Benoît - Nantes

--- 11 - 15 April 2004

Patrick Sarralbe, Engineer

Hello Mr. Petit,

In a way, I find irony in the Théma evening "Everyone Manipulated", because it was a beautiful manipulation with its ready-made recipes:

• if you don't have counterarguments to a thesis, attack the credibility of its author,
• associate the author of the inconvenient thesis with other authors who are obviously charlatans,
• to drown an apparently unassailable argument, associate it with obviously false arguments,
• allege that those who agree with the inconvenient thesis are not normal or have been deceived,

The purpose of these recipes is not to destroy the thesis but to discredit it (isolate it) in the eyes and ears of the world.

Because truth should only be the emanation of a majority consent. A consent that can be manufactured.

It was a beautiful manipulation.

Patrick Sarralbe, Engineer

--- 12 - 15 April 2004

Here is a message from a reader who thinks that the Arte broadcast on April 13 would be... a hoax (so big, according to him).

Marc Milanini:

Subject: Re: Pentagate and Arte broadcast, a hoax?

Dear Mr. Petit,

It would be useful to review the Arte broadcast on conspiracy theorists of September 11. It is possible that it is one of their hoaxes, like the excellent "Operation Moon," which has been re-broadcast recently.

The "conspiracy theorists" have been reproached for being anti-semites, close to the far-right or far-left, anti-Americans, in the service of terrorists, etc... It's almost as if we were being reproached for being pedophiles and cannibals. The interventions of Pascal Bruckner, a well-known pro-war advocate against Iraq, were even more despicable than usual. In addition, this character was filmed in the dark, perhaps it was a sign that we should take his statements with a grain of salt.

One criticism particularly amused me: that we retrieve our information from the Internet, as if that were proof that they are false. However, the second report contained the following comment (I quote from memory):

"However, the September 11 affair is simple, since Al Qaeda claimed these attacks."

But neither Al Qaeda nor Bin Laden ever claimed the September 11 attacks! To my knowledge, the closest to a claim was that Bin Laden "was happy" in a Pakistani newspaper about these events, without ever explicitly taking responsibility.

Another sign: the books of Ben Peri, Von Bulow and Meyssan were abundantly shown and cited. At one point, the host held up Meyssan's book and said, "Oops, I probably shouldn't be promoting this" (or something like that).

In short, I think it's a new "Operation Moon," to avoid the wrath of the CSA and well-meaning people like Pascal Bruckner. Classic tactic when subjected to censorship.

Sincerely,

Marc Milanini

--- 13 - 15 April 2004

E. Anakin, Economist, Belgium

Dear Mr. Petit,

Regarding the Théma broadcast on Arte:

First, I would like to clarify that I am naturally open-minded and, since I don't have a fixed opinion on the existence or not of global conspiracies, these subjects interest me as much as others. I would like to clarify that I regularly watch Arte, as well as other channels such as the BBC and German television, TV5, etc. I have the luck of knowing a few languages and benefiting from a variety of channel distributions.

First, I noticed an amateurishness and a particularly annoying bias from the presenter, as if the mass was said; this went as far as the insult, more or less disguised, of those who... oh heresy... believe in these things.

But well, let's pass on the form to see what it has to offer, I learned that:

1 - conspiracy theories are not new, already after 1789 the royalists built the idea that the Freemasons could be the origin of the revolution (power through the organization of chaos).

2 - the Protocols of the Elders of Zion dating from 1897 is a fake made by a Russian forger of the 19th century;

3 - the Jewish Masonic organization denounced by Jean Marie Le Pen is only a charitable association and the Jewish lobby does not exist;

4 - the current conspiracy theory is global but takes particular forms according to the countries, anti-capitalist and USA at the forefront for the far left... anti-Zionist and Jewish for the far right;

5 - the authors talking about conspiracy are in the best case inspired writers, in the worst case charlatans moving from reality to fantasy and worthy of psychiatry.

6 - some of these authors who talk to us about conspiracy are the "by-product" of so-called "serious" magazines, the ideas put forward to make audience or sales within the framework of infotainment (a word I learned along the way... me who thought that there was only real information...), these authors take up false ideas put forward by this system and do not even check them;

7 - if a non-negligible part of people believe in conspiracies, it is because democracy no longer works, because people no longer believe in the news (including here because some journalist colleagues play with the fire of conspiracies) and because the conspiracy is a reducer of complexity, according to P.Bruchner;

8 - the theories of Meyssan and others are crude fakes that can be dismantled by the team of Antenne 2 in 3 days... the USA did not go to Iraq for oil since all countries in the world have an energy strategy... so they went for something else and incidentally they also thought about it, meaning that France would have done the same as Germany

9 - that negationism always has a purpose. In the case of concentration camps, it was to relaunch fascist ideas. In the case of Al Qaeda, it is to indirectly favor them and thus favor their recruitment

.... I therefore deduce that:

In short, the world is complex, not mastered by a small number of individuals, there is no risk and what you read about the existence of conspiracies is false

Incidentally, if you believe like about 70% of Americans and 33% of Germans in the conspiracy, then you are a lobotomized idiot, barely sympathizing with Al Qaeda and at best a neo-leftist (Bruckner's theory) or worse a neo-fascist...

I watched the entire broadcast. I followed 60% of the debate (if you can call it that) and then I switched off due to the stupidity of the statements. We were talking about the negationism of the concentration camps. I didn't really see the connection. What was interesting was that there was a Frenchman and a German and behind each of them two people to make the decor. It is interesting to watch the almost physical reaction of the people behind the German speaker. One of them lowered his head... out of shame for the statements made? There are signs that don't lie. The moderator kept repeating that these were stupidities: "How can you believe such stupidities? Do you realize!"

I finally switched off.

I am very upset that a channel, which I admire for some of its broadcasts, like the splendid Archimède and other very detailed information, pays so little attention to the average intelligence of the population. Are we so stupid to believe everything the media tell us?

I found it deplorable that Arte felt obliged to make such a circus, in a climate of haste.

Generally speaking, it seems clear to me that people no longer trust.

I already mistrusted the media by regularly comparing sources and channels. I will end up not watching anymore, we are indeed being disinfomed.

E. Anakin, Economist, Belgium.

--- 14 - 15 April 2004

Xavier Leyre OPIO (06) - Engineer

Simply a shame!! I was almost stunned, almost incredulous in front of such a broadcast!! No argumentation, no counter-expertise, we break the authors with arguments of opinions!! We hit everywhere, extreme left, extreme right, Freemasons, Jews, ... reminiscent of Nazi Germany. It's so big it's caricatural! I hope at least that after such a broadcast, the viewers will be convinced that we are being lied to! And especially that we refuse to go to the bottom of things out of fear of ... ??

It seems like they did it to ridicule themselves, I hope at least that after this broadcast, many people will ask the right question: who is pulling the strings of all this??

By the way, why now?? Just after the CIA admitted that they knew there would be an airplane hijacking attack on New York in buildings, but obviously this is just another rumor without foundation.

Come on, courage! Let's not run away, "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am," if Descartes were still alive, he would be amazed.

Long live Descartes, long live Spinoza, and may all the light be made.

Xavier Leyre OPIO (06) - Engineer

--- 15 - 15 April 2004

PODER Mickaël, civil servant, RENNES:

This evening was indeed a great moment of television. I deeply regret not having recorded it. I suspected, given the trailers I had seen, that the theses of Meyssan and his friends would be in for all sorts of colors, but I was expecting, like all viewers, an interesting, constructive, independent broadcast, with solid arguments, real investigations with convincing demonstrations, etc. etc. ... in short, what Arte had accustomed us to until then. Instead, we were treated to a television pamphlet, consisting of two fake "documentaries" and a "debate" which only had the name of a debate.

The tone was quickly set by the host, Daniel Leconte, during this broadcast, with a title already provocative on its own: "What's it to me!" (It was therefore not, as I have read many times, one of the famous Théma evenings of the channel). Indeed, from the first sentence, and throughout the entire broadcast, the terms "ridiculous," "despicable," "delirious," "absurd," and a whole bunch of other terms, all more humiliating than the others, were used to discredit, not the most experienced conspirators, who often lack arguments, but those who, like Meyssan, had the audacity (which is more intelligence and common sense, which now must be added with a good dose of courage) to question the official investigation, that is, the version of the American authorities, which was taken without any critical spirit by the majority of Western media. [I am not talking about the two other writers interviewed, the former German minister Von Bulow and this secret agent-like character whose name I can't remember (the Arte website doesn't remember it either, perhaps it's doing some promotion for it), because I don't know their work at all.]

But the worst was yet to come. After being insulted copiously, Meyssan was then dragged through the mud (it's so much easier to say that his publisher has supposed links with the far right than to dismantle his hypotheses), presented as a very vain character (what pleasure it seemed to have to show us the whole list of translations of his first book!). And greedy (what a good amount of money is coming into the "investigations"!). It was like a Courbet special on the seven deadly sins. But what about the arguments against Meyssan's theses? Well, it's a bit like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: we're still looking for them.

Ah, there was this story about one of the 19 terrorists, whom we believed to be dead in the attacks according to the FBI list, whom we thought was resurrected, then again dead, finally we don't know exactly, but well, there are homonyms. An error. Assuming that it was committed by Meyssan (or another "conspirator"), it does not in any way invalidate the rest of the arguments he presents. But what about the other terrorists on this list who have since made themselves known? The broadcast does not answer this question, curiously. However, repeating that Meyssan's theory from the "Pentagate" is absurd, we now know that it is absurd! But why is it absurd? To this question, "What's it to me!" unfortunately did not dare to get involved and therefore contented itself with being a docile echo of the "indisputable" (a word I thought was banned from the vocabulary of any democrat) official theory of the "recycled cardboard plane."

But the cherry on the cake, the icing on the cake, the drop that made the already well-filled vase overflow after just a few minutes of broadcast, is daring to make a parallel between questioning the official investigation on the September 11 attacks and the revisionism of the Jewish Holocaust. I was stunned... Yet the broadcast had already prepared us from the beginning, the color was announced: all means are good to pass on the message "there is no conspiracy, it's madness, the attackers are those who were designated the same evening" (we had never seen an investigation so quick, it was amazing on September 11)! Period, line. Because the merit of this comparison argument is to cut short any debate: not a word, otherwise you are accused of antisemitism! Tsss tsss, not a word, we say. You can't dream of a better censorship, since it is the viewer, stunned, who imposes it on himself.

Back to the "debate," the broadcast reproached Meyssan for the absence of opponents during his appearance on Ardisson, but does exactly the same thing. Do as I say, not as I do... I take this opportunity to look at my Robert, and the definition of the debate there is: "examination and discussion of a question by people with different opinions." I write the last words in capital letters again for those who didn't read well: WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS. Where were the participants with different opinions, the so-called conspirators? Simply not invited! The only participants (a journalist from "Der Spiegel," the editor-in-chief of "Charlie Hebdo" - the absolute reference of French journalism - and Rémi Kauffer, writer and journalist) were probably selected with great care, so carefully that two out of three appeared already in the previous reports. A real in-depth work with these people, one would say. And then, what a beautiful one-sided "debate," with "people who think the same": no arguments (where is Michel Polac?), we are sure not to be discredited! It's convenient, especially when there is a serious lack of arguments, or counter-arguments, in this case.

This program was therefore exactly what it pretended to denounce: a poorly made investigation broadcast, serving as a mouthpiece for the official version of the attacks, which is full of unexplained points, a defeat of reason revealing an evident intellectual dishonesty. This broadcast could have been convincing. That's also why I watched it. Honestly, that the version of the American authorities is authentic, would be very convenient for me. And I believe it would be convenient, and it actually is, for many people. Imagine: what a nice world it would be, with good guys on one side who always tell the truth and bad guys on the other. Yes, it would be simpler. Instead, we have good guys who may be quite bad, and bad guys who may be bad only because the fake good guys are bad with them! It's confusing!

But beyond this simplistic Manichaean vision that we want to impose on us, I fear that this official version hides things that are not to be admitted, given the amount of effort that is made to end the resulting controversies, which are full of absurdities.

Nevertheless, let's thank Arte, which, thanks to this misleading broadcast, seems to have awakened the interest of many citizens on these obscure points. Thierry Meyssan will be happy: he will sell a lot of books again!

PODER Mickaël, civil servant, RENNES

--- 16 - 15 April 2004

Rémy Labene, teacher, Aude:

Phew! I feel reassured by the reactions I've read. I couldn't believe my ears listening to the Arte broadcast on April 13. Facing such a stupid and technically valueless denigration, I feel really disappointed by this channel. I hope at least that the journalists were well paid!

I'm not a mechanic, but if we simulated the missile with a 22 mm bullet, the Boeing with a model plane, and the Pentagon walls with some fibro-cement plates aligned one behind the other, I wonder which one would have the most penetrating effect.

It's a pity that our dear journalists didn't have the idea to do this kind of experiment, which is quite easy to realize. For people who check everything, it's surprising to see that they have forgotten the essential.

Rémy Labene, teacher, Aude

My comment: It would indeed be possible to do simulations with scale models. Nowadays, people know how to make quite large models (up to 4 meters for remote-controlled commercial aircraft models. See specialized magazines). The larger the model, the closer it would be to reality. Such "large-scale models" could constitute models at one-tenth scale. It would be necessary to think a bit to make these simulations meaningful (that the similarity is correct in terms of material resistance, impact speed). For example: the model airplane should be made of very thin aluminum foil, with stiffeners, possibly with a slight pressurization to ensure its rigidity. The impact speed and the nature of the materials used would have to be played with to simulate the building (I think of polystyrene sheets). Aluminum foil tanks, filled with a combustible liquid. The contents of the plane would also be simulated; polystyrene figures, etc. The engine axes would be the most compact parts. It would be necessary to take such a study with a grain of salt, but some aspects could still be retained. I doubt that one could obtain an entrance hole similar to the one found on the facade of the Pentagon, such that the frame was not broken. I doubt that the wings would not leave deep marks in the structure. If something should penetrate it, it would be the engines. One could also judge the behavior of the fuel mass. By replacing the grass with blotting paper, one could doubt that it would not absorb the spilled fuel. Also see the behavior of the debris. It would obviously be more spectacular to manipulate a remote-controlled model, but more problematic to achieve an impact at the centimeter, without the engines touching the ground. It would probably be simpler to let the model fly by suspending it from a thin guide cable arranged in such a way that the impact speed corresponds to the target. It would be a work that would be perfectly manageable with the means of a university or an engineering school, and even the subject of a thesis. There is nothing indecent about wanting to reconstruct an event.

--- 17 - 15 April 2004:

Bertrand Baudry, IT Specialist - TOURS

Mr. Petit,

Like many internet users, I regularly visit your site for various reasons. Today I came to see if you had seen the broadcast on Tuesday night on Arte dedicated to "conspiracies" and to read your reactions. I am not disappointed, I completely agree with you and your readers: we have been deceived by this broadcast. Before writing to you, I went to the ArteTV website to send them the small email that follows this text. (I am not naive enough to believe that it will have the slightest echo in the producers' offices of Thema) I also wanted to thank you for continuing to try to share your knowledge and experiences.

Sincerely, Bertrand Baudry, IT Specialist - TOURS

Email sent to the Thema editorial team

I watched the broadcast dedicated to the events of 9/11 hoping to finally have a counter-argument to the theses presented by Meyssan and his collaborators... Unfortunately for me, I only witnessed an broadcast made of denigrations, "petitions of principles," amalgams, but no technical analysis, no "reconstruction," no real investigation on what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, no argument to oppose to the "remarks/analyses/expertises" made by many "amateurs." For example: why not dismantle point by point the supposed inconsistencies of the arguments advanced by some: http://www.jp-petit.com/Divers/PENTAGATE/Pentagate2.htm It would have been easy for your experts to prove that all these doubts are unfounded and that these books or websites are not credible... Unfortunately for me, you deprived me of information by refusing a debate of experts who should have tried to demonstrate their theses...

I could have, at my level, formed a more "informed" opinion...

Unfortunately for me, this broadcast was not what it pretended to be. It demonstrated nothing... It did not convince me.

--- 18 - 15 April 2004:

César Tourdjman, airline pilot.

Dear Mr. Petit,

A few months ago, deeply troubled by the noise caused by Meyssan's book, I went to Gibert (ah! what a beautiful place) to buy it. It was sold out that day, but I found, in the same aisle, a "parent" book of it called "The terrible lie," by Guillaume Dasquié and Jean Guisnel. I bought it, and as I read through the pages, I had reactions similar to those of your readers from yesterday.

To situate this 120-page "book," let's briefly mention the authors.

Guillaume Dasquié, 38 years old, is editor-in-chief of the geopolitical letter "intelligence online." That says it all about his competence and credibility. His other books: "Secret affairs, the secret services infiltrate the companies," and "Ben Laden, the forbidden truth."

The truth must indeed remain forbidden in the face of so much brilliance...

Jean Guisnel, 53 years old, is a senior reporter at Point and (associate) professor at the military school and Coëtquidan. There again, one can easily imagine with what freedom of tone and critical spirit a man so involved in the teaching of state reason has conducted his investigation... Author of several books on intelligence and defense, with titles as unattractive as "Wars in cyberspace"...

The book obviously has no serious technical analysis of the statements of Thierry Meyssan, who is called an "illuminated," it makes the same references as the Arte film to "professionals fighting the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy," in order to prevent the "Roswell rumor" or "X-Files" from becoming the new references of journalistic investigation."

The character of Meyssan is a bit shady, and the man himself is quite unlikable and pretentious. Moreover, the fact that he presented his first conferences in the Emirates and in Saudi Arabia (both great friends of democracy and human rights) reveals perhaps some hidden thoughts and makes him an ideal suspect.

However, his formidable strength is that he bases his document almost exclusively on official documents, reports, testimonies, photos, press conferences of the American services. At no time, or almost, does he appeal to conjecture and rumor.

His work as a journalist is remarkable and makes his approach almost unassailable, even on a technical level. Finally, what is especially extraordinary is that he carefully avoids concluding on the identity of the potential impostors, he simply raises a problem by saying "this is the soup you are served, and here is why it doesn't taste good."

I must confess, dear Mr. Petit, that I was happy that your scientific rigor led you on the same rocky path of reasoning.

I also recommend the reading of the latest book of another "mad conspiracy theorist": Michael Moore. "All to the shelters" should be taught in schools, and/or at least in journalism schools.

With all my respect and friendship,

César Tourdjman, airline pilot. http://www.headupflight.net

--- 19 - 15 April 2004

There are not only letters defending the character of Thierry Meyssan and criticizing the Arte broadcast, witness this message from

**Jean-sylvain DELROUX, IT Specialist, Toulouse: **

The absolute urgency is clearly for you to defend a Thierry Meyssan who stubbornly denies obvious facts by dismissing all the elements that demonstrate the opposite of what he claims or explain the questions to which he gives false answers. An example: "The engines have disappeared, it's not normal, they should have been found."

No, it's perfectly normal that the engines have disappeared: Have you seen the film shot at high speed (therefore played in slow motion) of an F-16 engine hitting a concrete wall at 400 km/h? It was shown on Arte some time ago: what happens? The engine DISAPPEARS in the form of shrapnel! In good French, it is PULVERIZED. No identifiable piece is found. Nothing. Just small bits of metal that all fit in the hand. Another example: the famous hole at the end of the Pentagon, "proof" according to Meyssan of a small penetrating device. This proof only shows that Meyssan, and you, share the same incompetence in materials physics. Do the experiment of pressing a straw (to drink) against a potato to pierce it. You won't succeed, the straw will bend without even scratching the potato. Now, lift the straw high and hit the potato with the straw, straight on: the straw pierces the potato! Moral: tube + speed = puncture. However, an airplane fuselage is a tube. And that's the explanation: puncture, plus fuel that causes the metal to melt, which amplifies the phenomenon by a "cavity effect." Etc... Etc...

All the elements advanced by Meyssan can be refuted in this way, but it's very tedious. There was a book that did it, the title escapes me. It was presented in the broadcast, one of the authors is called Guillaume DASQUIER. Honestly, you are probably good in cosmology but you know nothing about materials resistance. It seems that you don't even know the basic rule of physics that says that energy varies with the square of the speed. The only goal of Meyssan was... to make money by deliberately launching a RUMOR that he knew was FALSE but that was expected by a large part of the global public opinion. In short, a brilliant fraud. If you download the images in very high resolution of the facade of the Pentagon, you can see the collapse of the facade, and on both sides, the pillars split... where the wings of the Boeing hit!!!

Meyssan perfectly knew that not many people would bother downloading high-resolution images, it's that simple. You yourself have not checked anything: you just added to it. It will bring you nothing to follow him on this terrain where there is now no money to be made, only insults to collect. For example, when you write: "daring to face an enemy who has never hesitated to kill, whether it be Luther King or Kennedy." You make it seem like it's the same person (or the same organization) responsible for both murders, whereas they have nothing in common except for having, in the same way, incited the proponents of the conspiracy theory. Both Kennedy and Luther King were killed by trigger-happy people, of which America is full. Why then didn't you add to the list the shooter who put the creator of Hustler Magazine in a wheelchair? Or the one who shot Reagan? Or the one who assassinated one of the aunts of the tennis players Williams? For example, in the case of Kennedy, conspiracy theorists bring up the fact that Kennedy's head recoils, proving the shot came from the front. No: shoot a melon with a large caliber and the melon (hard shell and soft interior, like a human head) will move TOWARD the shooter! Yes: the ejection of material causes a reaction movement. All the elements of the conspiracy theories about the assassination of Kennedy can be debunked one by one, and they are all on the internet (for those who read English). I was the first one disappointed when I got interested in this story, and others, to see that the "troubling questions" all have their answers, and on the internet (for those who want to find them!). Same for Meyssan. (you can quote this response on your reader's reaction page.)

My name: Jean-Sylvain DELROUX, computer scientist, Toulouse.) contact2035@bigfoot.com

What are you wasting your time telling lies about September 11th? If it's just to get some publicity, know that you completely discredit yourself. It's a pity. It seems that your happiness is to make enemies and to give the stick to be beaten. Strange behavior.

My comment: This brings us back to my suggestion of an attempt to reconstruct the alleged facts. The matter is so serious that this reconstruction should be done, with a guided Boeing 727 crashing into a reconstructed Pentagon for its mechanical part. At the risk of seeming morbid, I say that bodies should be placed in the plane, as well as all its accessories, suitcases, etc., so that the reconstruction is valid. I don't really believe in the disappearance of all the debris, despite the facts mentioned by Mr. Delroux. In plane crashes, two things are obtained: indeed, some elements are very damaged. But paradoxically, intact fragments are found. Remember that during the second destruction of the American space shuttle, identifiable elements from body fragments were found on the ground. It seems hardly credible that the entire Boeing 727 vanished like that and that the amount of debris found is so small. It is also difficult to believe that after such an impact the grass was intact, while the plane was full of kerosene. It seems to me that the fuel would have sprayed in all directions. I won't go over the list of inconsistencies pointed out by the various investigators. The comment on the "tube" impact, done by Mr. Delroux, calls for a response. It is true that objects of low density can become projectiles if they have sufficient speed. We know the experiment where a candle, fired from the barrel of a shotgun, goes through a door. In any case, this alleged impact of the front of a Boeing 727 would require a reconstruction. If Mr. Delroux is right, how does he explain that the vertical stabilizer, equipped with a longeron, did not cut the frame visible above the hole, nor even simply left an impact mark? Regarding this, the former engineer from the National School of Aeronautics, I have questions. Regarding the high-resolution photos, we would be very happy to be able to consult them to find the impact traces of the wings. According to Mr. Delroux, it is its "tubular" nature that gave the fuselage such impact power. If this is true, it is still surprising that the two engines, which are the densest parts of the plane, and are essentially made up of rotor shafts, did not pierce the facade. At his request, he provided us with the coordinates of the film demonstrating a "jet effect" (explaining, according to him, the backward movement of Kennedy's head during the assassination). http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/melon2.mpg . This film is taken from a site http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm where all the conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of Kennedy are attacked. According to Delroux, Kennedy was only the victim of a trigger-happy man, Lee Oswald. A piece of evidence to add to the file. I had the opportunity to inspect skulls that had been hit by bullets at close range (a finishing shot on the temple), found in a ossuary of the Paris catacombs in the 1950s. They were monks who had been assassinated, and their scapular crosses were found. In this case, the projectile, made of lead, entered through a round hole, then crashed against the opposite side of the skull. It seems that in these conditions, the movement of the victim's head accompanies the movement of the bullet, which transmits its kinetic energy. The experiment with the melon (the site specifies that the experiment was successfully repeated on the head of a human corpse) would give a completely different result when the projectile's impact speed is sufficient for it to exit in the region opposite to the entrance. If you look at the images of this video, it seems that the bullet causes the ejection of the material contained in the melon, through an opening probably larger than the entrance. This results in a backward movement of the melon's shell toward the shooter. ssssWe are now waiting for the high-resolution images of the impact on the Pentagon.

--- 20 - April 16, 2004

Clarence Olivier Marketing and Communication Consultant

To the THEMA team

I still had some illusions about the objectivity of the editorial team of Arte. Your Thema last night completely took them away from me. I never would have thought that on your channel, one could show so much carelessness and bad faith regarding a theory, which, although provocative, deserved at least a serious analysis and a bit more consideration for the facts. Did the starting point of Thierry Meyssan's theory - the impact on the Pentagon - seem absurd to you? Then why didn't you give a voice to real scientists to refute it? I was expecting specialists in aeronautics, physicists, chemists on your set; I only got a group of incompetent fogeys: sociologists, journalists, and even an ex-member of the secret services!

Your report was exaggerated, dishonest, caricatural, insulting: no analysis, no argumentation, no consideration of the facts, but a festival of anathemas, peremptory statements and dubious amalgamations. No, definitely, scientific spirit was not the guiding thread of your show last night. From so-called professionals in information, it leaves one a bit speechless...

Clarence Olivier Marketing and Communication Consultant

P.S. : In an interview published by "Parade magazine" and reported in the "Bulletin of the American Department of Defence" of Friday, October 12, 2001 (answer to the third question, second paragraph), Mr. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, clearly indicated that it was a MISSILE that hit the Pentagon, not an airplane. This explains the facts observed by all experts and precisely reported by Thierry Meyssan: shape and size of the impact hole, absence of debris, absence of corpses. I deduce that Mr. Meyssan's analysis at least deserved an objective and scientific discussion. Even if it disturbed.

--- 21 - April 16, 2004

Alain Journet :

Dear J.P.Petit

The ARTE broadcast was lamentable, just ad hominem arguments. I am agnostic about the Pentagon incident. I simply note that:

• the trajectory of the object had to be horizontal: the entrance hole was at the same level as the exit hole
• low altitude, the said holes being on the ground floor
• there seemed to be a construction site in front of the Pentagon, we note that a group was hit but not overturned (?) and that some turrets were barely disturbed - an urban highway must have been flown over at low altitude

All of this is very strange!!

Alain Journet

--- 22 - April 16, 2004

Gérard Maury

Dear Jean-Pierre,

You will forgive this somewhat long email. Don't expect anything from a show like Arrêt sur Images. Don't expect anything intelligent coming from the television. This potentially fabulous tool has become just a state instrument, a lobby.

Dassault buys press groups ...

A filmmaker, Pierre Carles, (the cinema Méliès in Saint-Etienne shows his films) has been attacking television for ten years in his films. And in one of them, he settles accounts with the presenter of Arrêt sur Images, and shows how this show, which wears the habit of criticizing television, is in fact an orientation of the debates on the entire complementary questions that one does not want to address at all.

The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is interviewed in this film and explains the following: At television during debates, no one can speak more than 25 seconds without having their words cut by the host. However, as Bourdieu cites, if I want to explain that Bin Laden is a terrorist, this is largely sufficient, as the consensus on this already exists. On the other hand, he continues, if I want to explain why the CIA is the biggest terrorist of the 20th century, I need to make a 45-minute presentation without being cut, because it is a reading of our reality to which people are not prepared. And by the very functioning of the television debate, this question is impossible to address.

Television can only serve reheated content. Look at the debates following elections: a subject is never developed, it's the abstention rate, even though it is a very serious sign of the crisis our institutions are going through. It is a taboo that should not be looked at directly, one should avoid questioning oneself on this. Living in China, I am amused to compare what I know about this country, and what I read about it in the media. It's nonsense, but one must tell people that elsewhere it's not good to maintain the illusion that it is good here.

When Montesquieu put forward the theory of the separation of the three powers, there was not yet a fourth: The media. And this one is the strongest. Everything must be reviewed.

Look how the opinion is currently pushed to accept that Nicolas Sarkozy will be president? He himself does not address the issue, he lets his friends prepare the ground for him. Politically, it's a good strategy. I once really threw my television away. My illusions about television, about society, fell when I was 20. An acquaintance of my mother was an ex-bodyguard of a very prominent far-right politician. He wasn't an intellectual, certainly, not an idiot either, and he was sufficiently politically involved to know the ins and outs of many affairs. One day I witnessed a conversation between him and one of his police officer friends in Saint-Etienne. It lasted four hours, during which all my illusions were shattered. I heard how such an accident of such an inconvenient person had been organized, how the police were aware, how the affairs were buried, who had an interest in it happening, how the Masonic networks influenced France, in short, how the dice were loaded and democracy was an useful illusion. When the information you are given is only staged, what intelligent decision-making power do you have? Nothing remains. Even Le Pen is useful, thanks to him Chirac was re-elected with the success we know. Today, people no longer vote to elect, but to eliminate.

We are in full 1984 by Orwell. It is insane that this book was written in the 1920s.

A show like the Guignols de l'info is harmful to society, it eventually ridicules serious issues and makes people passive: "Okay, someone is denouncing, I don't need to react."

Gérard

--- 23 - April 16, 2004

The reaction of the Voltaire Network ( http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article13383.html)

After 10 months of investigation, the Franco-German channel Arte produced a three-hour program to stigmatize our analyses of the September 11, 2001 attacks and our international campaign for the creation of a UN-organized inquiry commission. Lacking reasonable arguments to oppose us, the channel focused on a personal attack on Thierry Meyssan. But not finding any precise criticism to make, Arte multiplied factual errors and amalgamations in an attempt to discredit him through his relationships and readers. In the end, the public channel, renouncing any in-depth debate, sent viewers who expected concrete answers to the questions raised by L'Effroyable imposture, to a controversial book, L'Effroyable mensonge, whose value will be judged by its condemnation for defamation (XVIIth Chamber of the Paris TGI, December 15, 2003).

24 - A comment from a Belgian TV guide strongly supporting the Arte dossier (April 16, 2004): ( http://www.leguide.be/Guide/tele/page_5373_208948.shtml )

The September 11 attacks (here against the two World Trade Center towers) have brought their share of the most crazy rumors in their wake. Photo AP.

The "conspiracy," whether American, Jewish, capitalist or Freemason, always sells. And "infotainment" muddies the waters, feeding paranoia. Who is manipulating whom, anyway?

CAROLINE GOURDIN, PARIS

Have the September 11 attacks been ordered by Bush? A missile, and not an airplane, crashed into the Pentagon? Following the "French journalist" Thierry Meyssan, whose bestseller "L'effroyable imposture" has been translated into 28 languages, conspiracy theorists have had a field day since September 11.

In Germany, for example, one in five citizens believes the American government is involved in the attacks. In our world bombarded with information, where "infotainment" (a mix of information and entertainment) tends to be taken as fact, the wildest rumors have a bright future ahead. Four thousand Jews working in the World Trade Center towers were warned by the Mossad (Israeli intelligence services) before the attacks, with instructions to stay home. Nonsense! No evidence to support this rumor, which originated in Egypt. We do know, however, that more than 400 Jews died in the collapse of the two towers...

Conspiracy theorists are legion and use the uncertainties left on the international scene by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of the Cold War to feed paranoia. From the Jewish conspiracy to the domination of Freemasons, passing through the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (signed by a Russian forger in the 19th century) or the conspiracy of the big capital, why do these old ideological clichés, archaic and often repulsive, the stock in trade of all kinds of extremists, always sell? How to explain that Thierry Ardisson gives a platform (without any counter-argument) to Thierry Meyssan or to the defenders of the theory of the assassination of Princess Diana? What are the roots of the conspiracy theory?

Through two documentaries, Antoine Vitkine and Barbara Necek investigate, taking great care to dismantle all these absurd theories, or to question journalists who have conducted counter-investigations. They even collect the testimony of Montasser Al Zayad, a lawyer for the Jihad and close to the number two of Al Qaeda, who finally refutes all these smoky theories about September 11. Our investigators also try to show the devastating effects of all this conspiracy literature. While a baseless fear is insidiously nurtured, the credibility of the press continues to be undermined.

25 - The sound of "LIBERATION" (Tuesday, April 13, 2004): http://www.liberation.com/page.php?Article=195855

The September 11, 2001 attacks have awakened old conspiratorial sentiments. In France, Thierry Meyssan emerged from anonymity for a time with his compilation of dubious information titled, in France Dimanche, L'Effroyable imposture. Ardisson launched the affair, Meyssan gained his small fame. In Germany, others followed his lead, producing paranoid bestsellers that surf on the same anti-Americanism. The basic idea is everywhere the same: the attacks are the result of an internal operation carried out by the White House, itself obviously guided by the Mossad. All these authors have in common a same "method" of work that can be summarized in two words: "Yahoo" and "Google", the most famous search engines on the Internet. None of those cited has actually gone to the United States, all admit having drawn the essential of their sources from the Web. Moreover, as one of them, Andreas von Bulow, former foreign minister of Helmut Schmidt, says, "investigating is useless" since "the American secret services are trained to provide false evidence." Anyway, everyone in the debate puts themselves in an unattackable position, since they consider that "it is the CIA's job to provide the evidence for its claims." Amazing, discouraging, exhausting...

But, to understand this "defeat of reason" born from the trauma of September 11, it would have been better to question some readers of these books, to question the relationship that France and Germany have with the United States through their respective histories rather than follow these weak characters in need of recognition.

26 - AFP news release announcing the broadcast on April 7, 2004:

http://actu.voila.fr/Depeche/depeche_media_040407065602.cg9rec1v.html

The conspiracy theory debunked on Arte

07/04 08:56 : No plane crashed into the Pentagon, Osama bin Laden is an agent of the CIA, Lady Di was assassinated by the Israeli secret services: Arte dedicates a night on April 13 to the conspiracy theories that have gained increasing popularity since September 11.

In "The September 11th did not happen", Barbara Necek and Antoine Vitkine investigated the nebulous conspiracy network of which the Frenchman Thierry Meyssan is a key player. The author of "L'effroyable imposture" (Carnot editions) claims that the New York and Washington attacks would be a staging resulting from a plot orchestrated by an American military-industrial group close to the President of the United States. From Germany, where the local publisher of Thierry Meyssan is also the host of a pagan far-right sect, the investigation continues in Egypt, where the belief that 4,000 Jews did not come to work on September 11, 2001 in the Twin Towers is popular.

How did the book of a near unknown become a worldwide bestseller, translated into 28 languages? This is the question posed by this didactic documentary that denounces "infotainment", that is, the confusion between spectacle and information, to the detriment of the latter. In Germany, the fanciful theses of a former Research Minister on the CIA's involvement in the September 11 attacks were, for example, published by Piper, a reputable house that also publishes the philosopher Hannah Arendt.

In France, "L'effroyable imposture" benefited from an unexpected boost when its author was invited in March 2002 by Thierry Ardisson in "Tout le monde en parle", a flagship show of France 2. In a second documentary titled "The Great Conspiracy", Barbara Necek and Antoine Vitkine call on historians and political scientists to explain the reasons for the popularity of conspiracy theories among an increasingly large audience.

They appeared during the French Revolution when royalists designated among others Jews and Freemasons as the source of their misfortunes, and they have found new life since the end of the Cold War. The world has lost its bipolar coherence, and the tendency to reduce its complexity has been strengthened. Liberal globalization, because it causes the feeling of a loss of one's destiny, also nourishes the belief that the world is in the hands of a few, namely financiers.

The "Guignols de l'Info" thus ride the wave of the conspiracy when they make the character of Sylvester responsible for the misfortunes of the planet. In doing so, the authors point out, they allow the conspiracy theories to spread well beyond their "natural" audiences, the extreme left or the extreme right.

--- 27 - April 14, 2004 :

Source: site liberation.com/forum.php topic: conspiracy on the forum author: bertrandpaul - Wednesday, April 14, 2004 11:35

1/ People on this forum who criticize Arte's broadcast last night on the pretext that it did not prove anything against Meyssan's theory have not understood the purpose of the broadcast. It was to show how to build a conspiracy theory, not to refute it point by point (for that, see the book recommended by the host at the end of the broadcast, "L'Effroyable mensonge").

2/ After this broadcast, I was eagerly waiting for the reaction of the participants on this forum. And I am not disappointed! Because, given the number of interventions on the various Libé forums that refer to one or another of the conspiracy theories, one could indeed expect that this broadcast would bother them.

Thank you to Arte for this enlightening evening, in every way !!

28 - About the show Arrêt sur Image, by Daniel Schneidermann, read the interview of Bourdieu in the Monde Diplomatique, 1996:

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1996/04/BOURDIEU/2633

Topic: Can television criticize television?

The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu appears on the Fifth channel, in the show "Arrêt sur Image" on January 23, 1996. He believes that this show demonstrates the impossibility of television to self-criticize. The theme of the show was "Can television speak about social movements?"

**
Excerpts** :

Television, as a communication tool, is a tool of censorship (it hides by showing) subject to a very strong censorship.

To criticize television on television is to try to turn the symbolic power of television against itself.

The role of the host: He imposes the issue, in the name of the respect of formal rules with variable geometry and in the name of the public, by commands ("What is it... ", "Be precise... ", "Answer my question ", "Explain yourself... ", "You still haven't answered... ", "You still haven't said what reform you want... ") which are real commands to appear, putting the interlocutor on the spot. To give authority to his words, he speaks on behalf of the viewers: "The question everyone is asking ", "It's important for the French... " He can even invoke the "public service" to place himself from the point of view of the "users". He distributes the word and the signs of importance (respectful or disdainful tone, attentive or impatient, titles, order of speaking, first or last, etc). He creates urgency (and uses it to impose censorship), cuts the word, does not let people speak (this is in the name of the supposed expectations of the public, that is, the idea that the viewers will not understand, or, more simply, of his unconscious political or social).

The hosts are the perfect relays of the structure, and if they were not, they would be fired.

Back to News Back to the homepage

Table of contents of all pages devoted to the "Pentagate"

Number of consultations since April 15, 2004 :