French Author to Iranian TV - 9/11 Was an Inside Job

French Author Thierry Meyssan to Iranian TV: 9/11 Was Carried Out by the U.S. Government

"When the U.S. president travels around a large country like America, halls are prepared along his route, equipped with means of communications, such as telephones, videos, and so on, so he can talk to his joint command, his residence, and with the White House, without fear of being tapped. Such a hall was prepared at the kindergarten. Bush calls Rice and says: 'I have just seen on the secure video-screen that the first plane went into the first tower.' Then he entered the kindergarten, and did not appear to be agitated.

This is quite an interesting article, with a few topics which I have not seen discussed before, too bad there aren't any references since it was a TV interview. Check out the transcript as well as the video clip at the link above.

The transcript mentions a

The transcript mentions a fire in the Eisenhower building -- this is the first time I've heard of this, is it important?

Meyssan brings up again that

Meyssan brings up again that the Pentagon is protected by a system of automatic missile batteries on it's roof or around it's property.

I've not been able to find any info to confirm or deny his claim.

Please email me if anybody knows of a mainstream source that supports this claim that the Pentagon is protected by a missle battery system.

I don't know but I see no

I don't know but I see no indication in my, limited, web research that such a thing happened. The only references I see are ones that Meyssan claims. The building was repaired in 2002, but there is no mention of any fires. Also, on Google Maps satellite view I saw the building is still standing, where he claims it was completely destroyed. Unless it was some other building he was talking about, I am not sure this checks out. I would like to see the video he is talking about on ABC news that is mentioned in other statements by Meyssan.

There were also some other claims in the interview that I have never heard about and could not independently confirm. Like the law about pilots carrying arms, I don't think that pilots were allowed to have arms until after 9/11.

I would like to see some supporting evidence for the rest of his new claims.

My recommendation, is until this stuff can be indecently confirmed and evidence is produced, I would remove it from the main page of the blog because it does not appear do pass basic truth tests.

I, too, find some of TM's

I, too, find some of TM's claims to be unsupported by any other sources I've ever seen. Perhaps some of the 'new' (unfounded?) claims are a matter of translation ("kindergarten"?)...

But frazzled wants to suppress the info for that reason? Gee, if that were a good practice, we'd have to suppress and, among others, for their unsupported statements that Bush was "lying" or that it was "impossible" for Bush to have seen, on TV, what he said he saw when he said he saw it.

I don't know where TM comes off saying that "Bush calls Rice and says: 'I have just seen on the secure video-screen that the first plane went into the first tower.'" or even that "Such a hall [with secure comm equip] was prepared at the kindergarten." (I believe that Bush does and did have access to secure video transmissions that ordinary citizens do/did not. I also am quite sure he had access to such secure comm equip in the presidential limo in which he was riding at the time the 1st tower was struck.)

OTOH, at least TM is thinking along the lines of how Bush could have seen what he later said he saw, instead of foolishly minimizing/mislabeling and dismissing Bush's twice-stated 9/11 evidence without cause or evidence, as is practiced by the decision-makers at the web sites whatreallyhappened and cooperativeresearch (plus others).

So while, like frazzled, I'd like to see supporting evidence for TM's "new" claims, if his info deserves to be suppressed, fairness would demand that we require supporting evidence for other 911 truthers' old claims, which also do not "pass basic truth tests", or else suppress their [dis]info too. (If TM's words should be suppressed when we cannot see from where he got his "facts", then we should definitely suppress sites where we can clearly see their faulty logic!) Why haven't we done that?

Perhaps because democracy is supposed to be the open marketplace of ideas, and when we suppress ideas, we are suppressing democracy. (Too bad there are so many, including "leaders" [misleaders!], within the 911 truth movement who do suppress info, and make largely-unchallenged, unsupported and even unsupportable statements.)

I don't want to suppress it,

I don't want to suppress it, these claims are worth checking out, want to have some independent confirmation before it becomes front page news. It is this kind of thing that discredits 9/11 truth movement if you can do simple checks and find nothing that backs them up. Put it somewhere where people can find it, under the heading "Needs to Be Researched" on a separate page but not front and center until some of it can be confirmed. If it can be confirmed independently then by all means put it on the main page.

If I were someone who just started researching 9/11 and I came across this and found nothing to back it up, I would quickly fall into believing that all 9/11 claims are like this go no further. Lets put the most compelling stuff where people easily find it.

On the other hand, as a

On the other hand, as a newcomer to this site, I did not see the Disclaimer on the main page which says we should do our own research. The danger with this is people will not see this and assume that we all think it is true.

Some filtering needs to happen. I could claim that space aliens came and invaded Bush brain which made him do it, which seems plausible but I would have a hard time proving it. Should that be put on the main page?

Extreme claims, such as buildings being destroyed, require some proof. has some extreme claims like that many of the world leaders attend occult rituals. They actually have a video of one of these events. We also have proof by membership in Skull and Bones which was even covered in the mainstream media.

Hey, I'm for providing

Hey, I'm for providing examples nearly as much as I'm against suppressing ideas.

In fact, speaking of, that site recently recognized for connecting dots that comprise such great evidence that Dems have been providing staged, fake, phony opposition to (for!) Reps for longer than I've been alive:

hi folks, great blog this,

hi folks, great blog this, here's a link to speculation about where Theirry gets his unsourced information. You may have seen it.