French comic J-M Bigard and Mattieu Kassovitz challenge Official 9/11 story on French Television
French version here
The 23 October 2009 Guillaume Durand, presenter of the program, l’Objet du scandale on France2 television, had as his guests the comedian, Jean-Marie Bigard and the director Mattieu Kassovitz, purportedly to give them the opportunity to express their doubts about the official explanation of the events of 11 September 2001 (“9/11”) in New York and Washington, where two towers collapsed after non-accidental collisions with two airplanes and a third tower fell for reasons not known and another plane may have penetrated a wall of the Pentagon.
Initially l’Object du scandale promoted an interview with Bigard and Kassovitz, plus Éric Laurent – French author specializing in “9/11”, skilled at performing on television – and Niels Harrit, Danish scientist, professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, who has written a paper asserting that the rubble from the third tower contained thermite. He has appeared on the Danish news.
For reasons that remain a mystery, hardly elucidated by compere Durand at the end of his program, invitations to Laurent and Harrit were cancelled. [Durand said that if he had had four people on each side of the debate (instead of two people on each side) the numbers would have caused chaos.]
Commentary on the debate.
I thought that Bigard and Kassovitz were cut off by interruptions from or were drowned out by the noise from Bonnaud, Gattegno and Durand. Several times Bigard and Kassovitz were begged ‘just to’ allow a question to be asked or an argument to be put, but, when they then tried to reply, they were made to shut up again, as if they themselves had just spoken. They were addressed like unreasonable children: “Jean-Marie, oh, Jean-Marie, please…”. It was shameful.
Towards the end of the program, Guillaume Durand asked Bigard to give him an opportunity to speak, promising to allow Bigard to respond after Durand had said what he wanted to say. But subsequently Durand ended the program dishonestly without giving Bigard the opportunity to respond.
Bigard and Kassovitz were provoked by Frédéric Bonnaud and Hervé Gattegno who seemed not to reply to the few words Bigard and Kassovitz were allowed to say, but who replied rather to commentaries in extracts from films that were played during the show.
Why invite Bigard and Kassovitz if the program intended to concentrate on film extracts ?
The program would have been much more worthwhile if Jean-Marie Bigard and Mattieu Kassovitz had been able to say why they thought that a new, deeper enquiry into 9/11 is necessary. Instead there were attempts to ridicule them without allowing them to defend themselves properly. It all seemed very cowardly.
Frédéric Bonnaud and Hervé Gattegno did not seem to know the subject because they relied on hurling accusations and on trying to make so much noise and cause so many interruptions that you could hear almost nothing coherently from Kassovitz and Bigard as they attempted to respond. Bonnaud and Gattegno seemed to want to drown out what the others had to say.
For example, when Bigard or Kassovitz asked why, of all the video cameras positioned to film around the Pentagon, not one single useful piece of film of the attack was available, Bonnaud and Gattegno screamed that only idiots needed photos! But the question was why hadn’t the US government made all the films from all the video cameras operating at the Pentagon on that day available to the public?
Also, the explanation that Bonnaud or Gattegno furnished for the failure by the FBI to label bin Laden as ‘wanted’ for 9/11 crimes might be true according to North American law (I don’t know) but it didn’t explain why the US had pursued bin Laden by making war in Afghanistan and Iraq, if the US was not sure that he was responsible.  [The explanation that Bonnaud and Gattegno gave (Bonnaud mainly) was that, since bin Laden had not been tried for 9/11 crimes he could not be labeled guilty for them and that his photo was nevertheless up there in the FBI wanted list for crimes he had been tried for and found guilty of by other countries.]
Bonnaud and Gattegno did not succeed, however, in silencing Bigard and Kassovitz on this : Why was Harrit, the scientist who had written the article that the ‘Truthers’ cite on thermite, not invited? It is true that if the co-author – Steven E. Jones – of the paper on thermite has written an article defending the idea that Jesus had appeared in America, that is disquieting. Nonetheless, referring to the article on Jesus is not the way to respond to the scientific argument. A man may believe in fairies, but if he advances a scientific theory, then his theory needs to be criticized and analysed on the basis of the science it relies on; it isn’t valid to refute it by changing the subject to fairies.
After all, mormon scientists – similarly to islamic and christian scientists – manage to construct bridges, buildings, bombs and aeroplances just as well as non-religious scientists. The United States is full of believers in bizarre religions but it is also full of technical masterworks.
In conclusion, I found that l’Objet du scandale owes Jean-Marie Bigard and Mattieu Kassovitz a new session with the guests who had originally been invited – Harrit and Laurent. This time perhaps they should use an on-screen stopwatch to exert some control over how much time is allocated to each person.
If the French media is not able to conduct itself fairly towards J-M Bigard and M. Kassovitz, it only gives strength to theories of official conspiracy.
Finally, thanks to France2 for having tried, nonetheless. It is obviously difficult for the official media to question official explanations. This is the reason for the existence of the non-official media.
 “The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks. Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. On 16 September 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.”
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks. Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. On 16 September 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.”
“In a videotape recovered by US forces in November 2001 in Jalalabad, bin Laden was seen discussing the attack with Khaled al-Harbi in a way that indicates foreknowledge. The tape was broadcast on various news networks on 13 December 2001. The merits of this translation have been disputed. Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini stated: "This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."
“In the 2004 Osama bin Laden video, bin Laden abandoned his denials without retracting past statements. In it he stated he had personally directed the nineteen hijackers. In the 18-minute tape, played on Al-Jazeera, four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the hijacking of the planes on September 11.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones On dit qu’il a interprété des pistes archéologiques des Mayenne préhistoriques comme témoignant que Jésus Christ aurait visité en Amérique.