September 11, Hidden Truths, Book by Eric Reynaud
September 11, Hidden Truths
The Book by Eric Reynaud
September 14, 2009 - Updated September 16, 2009 September 18: A video on France 24
September 24, 2009: General press reaction to the topic
September 25: Mathieu Kassovitz files a defamation lawsuit against the magazine L'Express
After ordering, receiving, and reading this book, I watched the debate organized by a journalist from France's second channel between the author, Eric Reynaud, and a comic book writer named Mohammed Sifaoui. You can easily find this debate on Dailymotion.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaglfb_les-mensonges-de-sifaoui-face-a-ray_news
Watch the promo for the show: it's pathetic. The two participants are immediately presented as... paranoid. After watching such a trailer, I would personally have said to the journalist hosting this "debate":
- I'd like to ask you a question. In this trailer, I'm immediately portrayed as a paranoid. So what you're presenting as a debate is actually a clash between... two paranoids. I can't remain silent in the face of such a blatantly defamatory presentation, which is anything but journalism. I know that appearing on television guarantees significant sales to the public. If my response to this trailer prevents me from appearing on any more panels, my dignity as a man compels me to answer you. My answer will simply be: "You are not a journalist worthy of the name," and viewers will judge for themselves. Now, let's continue.
Reynaud, an investigative journalist who spent eight years writing this book, is manipulated during this debate, where the journalist actively supports Sifaoui. Watching these images, one might say, "What has changed since the Arte show All Manipulated, from April 2006?" Nothing. It's shameful. They systematically resort to the most heavy-handed conflation. Reynaud clearly doesn't realize that when a journalist tries to derail a debate, you can refuse their maneuver.
- So, according to you, Bérégovoy was assassinated?
And boom! Reynaud falls into the trap, answers the question instead of replying, "What if we stayed on topic?" More minutes wasted, completely off-topic from the book and the debate. A person like Eric Laurent would never have been so easily manipulated; he might have responded more sharply. Sifaoui devours speaking time like a fan. Reynaud looks like a timid college professor, while his book is vibrant and well-structured.
Watch this show. I assume that by the end, you'll say:
Thank goodness, there's the Internet.
The journalist's remarks are so absurdly insistent, they resemble the beginning of panic. Quick, we must mix everything together: "Americans never went to the Moon, Michael Jackson is still alive, etc..." Anything goes...
The theory of the complete... the theory of the conspiracy... the theory of the conspiracy...
This television moron only has one word on his lips.
In passing, if you want to follow something that starts to resemble a real debate, check out this recent show aired on a major Russian television channel:
As one reader wrote me, French journalists, with rare exceptions, are either complicit in lies or have nothing in their heads—or even in their pants.
Raynaud's book is generally good and easy to read. Writing a book on such a complex and rich subject is difficult. It includes long excerpts from testimonies. Sometimes, however, it's interesting to have the full version. I think this is a book worth buying and reading.
We need a book that dismantles the arguments of "anti-conspiracy theorists" by quoting their statements, backed with evidence like strawberry branches. But all this involves difficult choices. There's so much to say. I looked up some facts and figures in Reynaud's book, and if I had been on that panel, I would have used them as questions to ask this idiot journalist:
- Do you know how many days passed between September 11, 2009, and the decision to create an investigative commission?
Answer: 550 days...
Before that, Bush's position was: "We know who the assassins are, and we'll punish them—Ben Laden first. There's no need for an investigation" (page 36).
But you know very well that the FBI never prosecuted Ben Laden for the September 11 attacks. Why?
FBI answer: "Because we have no proof he was involved."
Previously, Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States, stated: "We must not allow investigations to interfere with ongoing efforts to prevent the next attack" (page 37).
Oh really...
Raynaud's book begins by revisiting the campaign led by the four "Jersey Girls," women who lost their husbands in the attack. We see how they managed to unite the parents and friends of the 3,000 victims, so that pressure made it impossible to block the investigation. While during those 550 days, politicians and media did nothing. Yes, we must go back upstream from the commission's report and remember the effort required just to get the investigation started. For events like Kennedy’s assassination, the investigation began quickly. We didn't just say, "He was killed by Lee Oswald, a lone nut."
Another question:
- Do you know how many air incidents were recorded in 2000, triggering alerts, and how many led to emergency scrambles of F-16 fighter jets?
Answer: 425 incidents with 125 "scrambles" (emergency takeoffs: one every three days).
Question: Who did the Bush administration initially designate to chair the investigation commission?
Answer: Henry Kissinger
Nobel Peace Prize winner, Kissinger is the man behind countless coups—the Vietnam War, the Chilean coup. The Jersey Girls rejected him, asking him, "Did you ever have a client named Ben Laden?" (page 47). Kissinger preferred to disappear quietly.
I told you that Raynaud sometimes reproduces entire testimonies in small print. We've often heard fragments of these in videos. But written text allows us to refer to the full account calmly, read and reread it. Pages 69 to 71 contain the testimony of Mineta, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, describing the astonishing scene he witnessed: Dick Cheney responding to a young man who returned for the third time, asking what should be done about an aircraft approaching the Pentagon (at 80 km, 50 km, and 20 km), and asking, "Are the orders still in effect?"
Dick Cheney's answer: "Have I ever told you at any point that these orders were changed?"
On page 67, read these excerpts from the investigation commission’s conclusions regarding how a Boeing 757 pierced six walls—two per building—and ended its path through a hole 2.3 meters in diameter, "likely created by the nose of the Boeing" (official report).
Page 81 (flip through at a bookstore), the mention of writings (one should say, the nonsense) by Guillaume Dasquié and Jean Guisnel, great aviation experts before the Eternal, who claimed, "The heat from the plane's nose hitting the Pentagon's facade spread throughout the entire aluminum structure of the Boeing" (The Horrible Lie).
What's extraordinary is that the same Boeing's fuselage managed to pierce six concrete walls, while the engines and longerons vanished completely, leaving surprisingly faint impact marks compared to the entire steel beams of one of the towers, cleanly severed, their cut forming the imprint of the (real) airplane.
Chapter 4, beginning on page 131, dedicated to World Trade Center Building 7, is very well done. Again, Reynaud reproduces Barry Jennings’ testimony—46 years old at the time, Deputy Director of New York City’s Emergency Services. We know that Mayor Giuliani had set up a pressurized bunker on the 23rd floor of this building 7, intended for managing a major city crisis. Jennings was alerted on his mobile phone: "A small Cessna airplane hit one of the World Trade Center towers." He then went with his colleague Hess to the Emergency Management Center, and what he found left him stunned.
The interview was recorded immediately after he finally managed to exit the building with firefighters' help. He found the center deserted, but with coffee still steaming on desks and half-eaten sandwiches. Raynaud's text reads like the best thriller. You feel immersed. Hess and he decided to leave, but as they descended, they heard a violent explosion. Reaching the sixth floor, the stairs stopped abruptly, suspended in mid-air. Jennings specifies that the explosion occurred below: "When it happened, we were thrown backward, and at that moment, both World Trade Center towers were still standing" (...).
Hess and he were trapped in the building for several hours. They heard a series of explosions. Finally, with firefighters' help, they reached ground level. Jennings found everything in ruins, whereas upon arrival, the elevators had been intact.
On page 140, Raynaud recalls the explanation given for why the fire extinguishers in Building 7 failed to work against small fires: "Because the collapse of the twin towers damaged the water pipes."
Except that those towers weren't supposed to collapse for another hour...
What does Barry Jennings say today? Nothing—he died at age 53 in 2008, just before the NIST report was published (pages 164–165), "after a few days in the hospital," according to his employer. No information about the cause of death or the hospital where he was admitted. It's impossible to contact his family. He died two days before the report's release, which directly contradicted his testimony. Eric Raynaud dedicates his book to him.
Page 169, Chapter 5: devoted to the twin towers. Here, Reynaud presents the full testimony of William Rodriguez, a Puerto Rican-born employee. His story fills pages 170 to 182. Rodriguez testifies, but is astonished to discover that his name doesn't even appear in the official investigation report.
When Reynaud was challenged by the two guests on the second channel, he poorly responded to the thermate issue by claiming, "An article published in a peer-reviewed journal is worth as much as Thales' theorem." I would have instead questioned the others, saying:
- According to the official theory, floors collapsed one on top of the other like pancakes (the "pancake" theory). The ejections of material seen in videos on both sides are due to air compression.
Question: What was the mass of the ejected materials?
Answer: The largest fragment was a 4-ton section of facade expelled... 182 meters away.
Blowing on it. Fluid mechanics will have to be rethought.
If I had been on that panel, I would have shoved facts like these right under the noses of the two puppets facing Eric Raynaud.
One day I’ll make a video and post it on Dailymotion, commenting on key points with a scientist’s eye. My fellow researchers and teachers aren’t rushing to take a stand—except for Frédéric Henry Couannier, Associate Professor and physicist at the University of Marseille, whose interview, direct and without pretense, can be found in the September 2009 issue No. 11 of Science and the Unexplained.
`
camp_des_assassins.htm
**
http://reopen911.info/11-septembre/un-jeudi-noir-de-l-information
Which I had highlighted in 2007, with documents and testimonies
The filmmaker Kassovitz strongly counters the prevailing narrative
****September 21, 2009: Follow-up on the Kassovitz affair
**** --- ****
http://www.france-info.com/spip.php?article343839&theme=81&sous_theme=113
**** **** ** --- ** --- ****
certain excerpt from a broadcast heard in the hours following
**
**
September 17:
Listen below to the incredible speech heard on France Inter, which effectively silences filmmaker Kassovitz.
September 16, 2009:
For years now, in "mainstream media," we've witnessed a real counterattack by a press "well-entrenched in its walls." For example, Canal Plus aired on April 24, 2008, within its "Thursday Investigation" series, a dossier produced by journalist Stéphane Malterre, targeting amateur journalism conducted online by "kids exploring this trash heap of information." This is truly the beginning of an "information war." Indeed, professional journalists can no longer remain silent, as their credibility is being shattered by a flood of documents—what some call "wild journalism"—viewed by tens of millions of internet users, such as the film Loose Change (four successive versions, including the final cut).
` The young director of Loose Change contrasted with the "professional of the news," Stéphane Malterre:
Stéphane Malterre, "Journalist," "professional of the news." You may have seen him. This dossier is supposed to expose how online documents are created: according to him, by amateur young internet users.
In Raynaud's book (really, read it), pages 38 and onward mention the meticulous work of a young internet user, Paul Thomson. What does this boy do? At that time, especially in the U.S., the internet allowed access not to "conspiracy delusions," but to online archives of newspapers and media, and official U.S. government websites.
Thomson undertook to reconstruct the simple chronology of events without leaving his chair, relying solely on the most official documents, and uncovered an avalanche of contradictions and glaring absurdities. Everyone has seen, for example, the BBC's New York correspondent announcing the collapse of Tower 7, while it was clearly visible behind her through the window and still standing. That’s just one point among hundreds.
Through Thomson’s work, we discover that the internet itself is an investigative tool—even if, as he did, one should also go to the field, as he did in Afghanistan, at Tora Bora, searching in vain for the highly sophisticated hideout shown in many newspapers, from which the Machiavellian Ben Laden was said to have coordinated global terrorism. He found only a few tunnels less than ten meters long.
Going to investigate on the ground: you need the means. Thomson’s work is authentic amateur journalism at a time when professionals do nothing, don’t travel, don’t verify anything. The journalists’ behavior mirrors that of the NIST official asked, after his team had examined just 0.5% of the 30,000 tons of metal debris removed from the World Trade Center towers (the rest having been processed and sold to Asian recycling companies, on Mayor Giuliani’s orders, within three weeks of the attacks):
Did you test the steel beams for traces of explosives?
Why would we analyze something that doesn’t exist...
The journalistic attitude is:
- Why should I examine this hypothesis when it's inherently absurd?
Everywhere, the absence of basic professional ethics becomes evident—for example, with Gunther Latsch, senior reporter at Germany’s Der Spiegel, who in April 2006 declared during the Arte show "All Manipulated," hosted by another "Senior Reporter":
Daniel Lecomte, "Senior Reporter." Gunther Latsch, German, another "Senior Reporter" at Spiegel. It would have taken just one phone call to immediately verify that all this is nothing but absurdity.
In the recent Canal Plus broadcast within its "Thursday Investigation" series, Stéphane Malterre attempts to dismantle the 64 arguments presented by the creators of Loose Change, focusing on just four and ignoring all others.
This time, the reopen 9/11 team decided to produce their own analysis of Malterre's show, accessible on the association’s website. You can briefly see Alix, "ATMOH," its president. I clarify that all work done by this 35-year-old amateur journalist is done voluntarily.
As president, he receives no payment from the association he founded. Yet this new work is again substantial.
Everything is calmly analyzed and shown. The internet user judges for themselves. The techniques are exactly the same as those used in 2006 on the Arte show. Malterre selectively chooses testimonies about explosions heard by hundreds of witnesses before the twin towers collapsed. He deliberately avoids citing that of Puerto Rican employee William Rodriguez, who after being decorated by President Bush for his heroic actions, has campaigned for eight long years to warn people. But from the start, co-host Emilie Raffoul insists:
"What you're about to see is pure deception. There were never bombs inside the World Trade Center towers." This film by Stéphane Malterre is nothing but manipulation from beginning to end, as the reopen 9/11 team demonstrates with proof. But what's extraordinary is the meticulous, systematic search for alleged right-wing and anti-Semitic group influence behind these amateur journalists—a theme already present two years earlier in the 2006 Arte broadcast. Questioning the official version of the September 11, 2001 events automatically makes one a denier. It implies endorsing racist, anti-Semitic delusions, denying the existence of gas chambers, etc.
To achieve this, Malterre, like Daniel Lecomte before him and his collaborators, seeks out the most artificial, dishonest, and manipulative links. These authors mention writings from a certain journal. But did you know that the group publishing this journal also oversees another publication, which, etc....
Why such nervousness?
Personally, I don’t hesitate to raise the hypothesis of possible collaboration by a fringe of the Mossad—the armed wing of Zionism—in orchestrating the September 11 attacks. Could I be labeled antisemitic or revisionist for this? I’d like to see that happen. If a journalist fool dared to say:
- I suppose you deny the existence of gas chambers?
I would reply:
- Have you seen one? I have, in southern Paris, in Issy-les-Moulineaux, where it served as a test site for preparing the Final Solution.
A story that no major media has picked up.
Probably because it was raised "by an amateur journalist."
Excerpt from the show Ce soir ou jamais, hosted by François Taddei on France 3, which simply asks filmmaker Kassovitz: "Eight years later, should we still be asking questions about the events of September 11?" :
September 11: An Impossible Debate? Pressure on journalist Taddei intensifies. September 18, 2009:
A radio station, France Info (...), amid a sea of gossip and stories about crushed dogs, this morning repeated the "Mathieu Kassovitz affair" on September 18. Taddei, who had hosted the actor-director in the opening segment of his first show of the season, Ce soir ou jamais, responded very well, as a true journalist.
The segment on Kassovitz is at the very end of the broadcast. Be patient.
Taddei emphasized the right to question and debate, clarifying that Kassovitz (having expressed no personal opinion, no judgment, no blame, but only raised doubts) faced not opponents, but people who commented freely on his remarks. He recalled the question he asked: "Eight years later, can we still challenge the official version? Is it still worth discussing, given how intensely this topic stirs online storms, while it's rarely addressed in mainstream media? Can we keep pretending nothing happened, ignoring this subject?
"The France Info commentator then questioned Taddei, asking, 'Could Kassovitz face trouble like Marion Cotillard did for raising such a question?'
"He added that some of his colleagues were outraged that Taddei hadn’t immediately interrupted him (...). Then he vainly tried to get Taddei’s personal opinion on the official version of the September 11 attacks. When Taddei upheld the journalist’s neutrality rule, the other concluded the segment by saying:
- Yes, but I can clearly see from your expression what your opinion on this subject must be (...) Journalism like this! When you can't trap people, you just... answer for them!
Let's recall that during this interview, Kassovitz was challenged by Karmix, a producer, who immediately brandished a link he considered obvious between skepticism toward the official September 11 narrative and Holocaust denial. To which Kassovitz replied:
"You can't consider every person questioning the official version of September 11 events as a denier denying the existence of gas chambers!" (...) How long will people continue trying to make such absurd, suspicious conflation?
No need to worry.
Go listen on France Inter, where they firmly put Kassovitz back in his place.
Clotilde Dumestre wins the blue ribbon for stupidity by commenting on Kassovitz’s performance with:
Another statement denying the attacks. Jean-Vincent Brissé, meanwhile:
We hear, by coincidence, that CIA archives burned in Tower 7. No, we're not being serious. But it's marketable. How much longer will this go on?
Listen and form your own opinion. How can we be surprised by the growing lack of trust spreading like oil? People no longer trust their politicians. The press follows suit. It's the majority of French media, except for rare exceptions, that daily undermines its own credibility. In one show, the journalist mentioned the flood of internet users seeking information. Why be surprised when confronted with such scandalous incompetence, lack of professional conscience, or complicity? Readers and viewers seek information elsewhere, wherever they can.
We'll need to re-examine the arguments of "anti-conspiracy theorists," who have also created their own websites and attempt to reinforce the official version using technical or supposedly technical arguments. Among these people, some are... CNRS members. My readers, disturbed, ask me, "What do you think about...?" As some note, the events of September 11 are in themselves a conspiracy.
****A radio interview with Eric Raynaud on a Belgian radio station (see archives dated September 10, 2009: proper journalism )
**Published online September 18, 2009 ** :
**Manny Badillo, nephew of one of the victims of the September 11 attacks, interviewed for France 24: **
(English with French subtitles), aired on this channel.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaiqch_badillo-membre-des-familles-de-vict_news ---
To get a sense of the general behavior of the French press regarding September 11
How far can one go too far?
The "journalist" Bruce Toussaint, Special Edition on Canal +, who proudly wears his stupidity like a badge and probably never read anything on the subject:
- Areas of uncertainty, but what areas of uncertainty? ...
Franz Olivier Gilbert: - For me, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, and conspiracy theorists are all in the same family.
François de Closets: - Except for Kennedy’s assassination, for which yes, I admit, there was a conspiracy...
Actor Timsit: - Discussing... yes... but when it leads to very dark things...
http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/medias/article/le-11-septembre-et-la-spirale-du-61843
To return to the top of this page, dedicated to the subject
Novelties Guide (Index) Home Page
