9/11 Debate with Kassovitz and Bigard

9/11 debate with Kassovitz and Bigard

9/11 Debate with Kassovitz and Bigard
By World for 9/11 Truth

We talked about it earlier in October. This was meant to be a historic debate as it was first announced that Niels Harrit and Éric Laurent would also be part of the show. But their presence was judged inconvenient and they both were censored from the debate at the last minute by TV channel France 2. Jean-Marie Bigard who worked on organizing this event wanted a fair and open debate like we've seen on Russian TV in 2008. Not only were they capable of debating the official 9/11 story in a civil manner, inviting experts from all places, they also aired the excellent documentary “Zero - An investigation into 9/11” which over 32 millions had a chance to see on prime time TV for the first time.

The French pseudo-debate turned out to be an orchestrated attack on Kassovitz, Bigard and the entire 9/11 truth movement by France 2 who had clearly not intention to create a fair and open debate in the first place. We deplore this and hope that a true debate will take place on the French scene soon and that no experts like Niels Harrit and Éric Laurent will be censored in the future. We know France is capable of this. We also invite TV channels from all over the world to organize such events and air 9/11 documentaries that raise the most important questions of this part of our century, like “9/11 Blueprint for Truth” and “9/11 Press for Truth.”

Debate with English Subtitles

This debate was aired on October 28, 2009 and is now available with English subtitles, thanks to ReOpen911.info.

Also Read

1. Laughing at 9/11 with Jean-Marie Bigard
2. Debate over 9/11 with Mathieu Kassovitz
3. Éric Laurent’s debate at Tout le monde en parle
4. Niels Harrit on Nanothermite on Mainstream Media in Denmark
5. US Media Pundits Back Away From 9/11 Debate With Charlie Sheen
6. Barack Obama Warns not to challenge Official 9/11 Story

Thanks a LOT

John E. Kroll - Denmark

Looks like France is holding the lead in debating 911 in primetime/mainstream/media...
Shame Harrit was cut out ...

hit piece

what a hit piece, that was no debate. Ludicrous how they attacked the nano-thermite paper. The Truth guys held their ground and did awesome. I hope the ratings go up.

They tried to equate the Truth guys with Nazis. Equate Steven E Jones to a religious nut.

Merci for the nice article

Merci for the nice article world911truth.org!

To help keep France holding the lead in debating 911, if anyone wants to translate this video into any other language, the subtitles are prepared and waiting for you. Just let me know via any means possible :

on the forum.ReOpen911.info/profile.php?id=1069
on 911blogger.com/user/4902
on FaceBook.com/djdavemark
or @yahoo.co.uk


The Association ReOpen911 France is a voluntary citizen initiative, independent from all political, philosophical and religious movements.

Who makes these decisions?

Talk about "inconvenient" truths, disallowing Harrit to appear is ludicrous--at least in a just world.

There's always these mysterious figures making these decisions. Regardless how many, it comes down to individuals.

Who are they??? I mean by specific names.


darkbeforedawn my question exactly!

Great Job !

Kassovitz and Bigard did a great job. They were both very knowledgeable and they covered a lot of ground. They handled the attempt to push specific theories on them very well.

I would just have added that a 757 with a paint job that says "American Airlines" does not identify a specific plane or a specific airline. So whether or not a 757 hit the building - there is no evidence WHICH 757 is alleged to have hit.

No proof of 757

4 witnesses said it was a 757.

4 witnesses said it was a 737.

24 witnesses said it was a large airliner.

Without serial numbers there is NO proof of anything

All "witnesses" could possibly see would be the size and shape of an airplane (if it was an airplane) - and the number and placement of engines. That's it. Even a tail number is just a paint job. As Colonel Nelson has taught us, there are time change parts with serial numbers that identify specific aircraft. Absent these serial numbers there is no proof of an airplane's identity.

That's why I used the word "alleged."

The FACT is - that if the government is in possession of an engine or landing gear, they are also in possession of the serial numbers on those parts. It is a FACT that the government has not realeased those serial numbers - nor have they released any images (other than a dubious puff that appears to be white smoke).

I think this is something that those who debate publically ought to know.

I hope all who debate publically - like Kassovitz, Bigard, Fujita and the host of American celebreties that get a lot of exposure, read this blog - as many posters here have much to contribute. Further, if anyone knows any of these people, I hope they forward Colonel Nelson's article on time change parts to these people. This is not to further the contentious debate on the Pentagon, but to enlighten to the FACT that the government could prove it's story (if true) but refuses to.

Colonel Nelson's article is on Physics911.net and is called "Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle."


Should be serial numbers on the parts at the Pentagon as below

Herblay FRANCE

bonsoir, there should be serial numbers on the parts at the Pentagon as below (°1) or on the others pieces at
. http://mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr/11Sept01/911Pho01.html#BM5



°1 _ _ _ _ _

Straw men

Typical straw man argument, this one is really tasteless with the reading of the names etc, straw man being the onus to submit a whole story. ironically because it is they who are clinging to a false paradigm, not least by attacking Steven Jones' religion instead of presenting the evidence fairly, pushing their missles. I'm suprised they didn't mention holograms honestly, I think both Jean Marie and Mathieu deserve a lot of credit for this brave debate. They are the reasonable ones, it's clear to anyone.

The lynching began one month before the 30 sept 2009 !

Herblay FRANCE

Bonjour ,
infact the emission one month before ( 30 sept 2009) was the beginning of the lynchng see below. Perhaps some one can put up subtitles for that as well.
For further information see
. http://www.911blogger.com/node/21662?page=1
. http://www.911blogger.com/node/21703

Yours John



What an obnoxoius farce!

The host was excessively biased. They interrupted Jean-Marie and Mathieu incessantly. They kept putting up straw men and asking why Jean-Marie and Mathieu believed them when they had already said several times that they didn't believe anything. It devolved into everybody talking at once. I finally had to turn the sound off and just read the subtitles. They never got to building 7 as was planned.

All that can be said is they actually discussed 9/11 on MSM but the format and execution was below the level of The View. i.e. devoid of intellect and long on bullshit, lies and bad manners.

Viva la Jean-Marie and Mathieu for putting up with that outrageous bullshit and getting some truth out in spite of it.

the show is all over the place

the debunkers are idiots as usual and do their best to defocus and blurr issues


nice job, guise. thank you. but next time, do not let debunkers play you like a violin, provoking reactions, shouting,
loosing temper etc. don't get sucked in with techniques such as "oh well explain everything" or "where are the
bodies from flight 77" etc. if you ask a question "how can a hijacked aeroplane fly for hour and a half without any
fighter jets being dispatched" and debunker gets back at you with "oh well, where are the bodies from flight 77"
or "where is then flight 93 and it's passengers", ignore it. don't react, do not address it immidiately. just calm down,
stay focused and keep it simple. also, do not overreact when debunkers have a strong argument. (i know, that is
extremely rare, but does happen once in a while). remember, even the official lie has some truth in it. if they
bring up witnesses from pentagon, don't reply with a question. just merely present an observation that indeed there
were witnesses who reported seeing fliht 77 hitting the pentagon, but that there were also 86 videos confiscated
from around the pentagon and that us gvt refuses to release them and that you've noticed an incosistancy here: why
would us gvt refuse to release even one video when "there were witnesses who said they saw a boeing 757 hitting
the pentagon".

i hope you understand what i was trying to say. debunkers and their psyop techniques are cunning, dirty and mean.
you got to realize that. they will pin holocaust deniers and kennedy on you in a heartbeat, they will use your logic against you,
your points against you, always shifting the focus from what is important (flight77 being hijakced for 1.30h but still no
fighter jets in the air, for instance). same goes for when they ask you "oh well, then how did they put explosives in the
towers". who cares, just reply. remember: you are not here to explain everything in detail. that's the job of us gvt. and
us gvt did not do a good job. that's all. point out the speed of the collapses, and that it is the speed of the collapses alone
that suggests explosives might have been used, and if they were not, you'd l;ike to see some scientific evidence. that's
all. because, remember: debunkers got their narrative together just 2-3 years ago. and the same narrative and the same
discrediting techniques can been seen in every single debunker there is. keep focus only on strong points. speed of the
collapses. no airplane seats in front of the pentagon. 86 videos confiscated. etc.

have these things in mind for the next time. but, all in all, great job, nice job kassovitz for pointing out that neither he
nor bigard ever said anything about any kind of "missile" etc, . thank you guise!

My Favorite Part: 23:58

Did you notice what happens at 23:58?
We discover the "journalist's" are equipped with earpieces! The one sitting in front of Bigard loses his on camera. Bigard notices it and says "Now you're deep shit!" And the other journalist, in front of Mathieu, says (off camera) "Now the CIA won't be able to tell you anything else". He's chuckling at his own remark when the camera cuts back to them. Mathieu and Jean-Marie didn't have earpieces. But these "independent" journalists did. Look closely at 23.42 and you can see it clearly before it falls out. The deck was stacked against them and Mathieu and Jean-Marie were courageous to go through with it when the rules of the game had clearly been changed.

excellent catch

I wonder how it feels to be playing those stoogey roles for the shadowy figures....to have to appear in these events with these ear pieces and say things foreign governments and/or intelligence agencies tell you to say...to have to smear and try to diminish and ridicule brave men like Bigard who put their careers and reputations on the line to reach the people with the truth.
His earpieces fell out! This is great....

Great job!

They did great!

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.


Wow - that was one stacked deck they were dealt from!
That said, Jean-Marie and Mathieu and make an excellent pair and intuitively know how to respond to the kind of attacks we're so used to seeing.
Good work guys.

Good work

...by Kassovitz and Bigard.

Despicable "journalism" from the other three.


That's what we're up against folks... you can show them a passport that flew out of the explosion unscathed and it isn't troubling to them how that could happen.

I absolutely loved how Jean-Marie and Mathieu, with the look of "you idiots" on their face, constantly questioned why the journalists wanted to talk about missiles and other wild conspiracy theories. Excellent!

"Oh, there goes your ear piece.... you're in shit now!!" hahahahahahahahahahaaa Priceless!

Thank you gentleman. Bravo!

A big thank you to the

A big thank you to the translator who clearly worked so very hard on that. I have been dying to see this video.

It was fascinating to see such a clearly orchestrated attack against the two French celebrities.

Here's what I observed:

Note the placing of the skull picture and what looks like a Michael Jackson portrait conveniently placed behind our two celebrities in most of the two-shots. This was done intentionally I believe. I don't what the exact connotation or association is intended to be but I took away the arcane and the sensational. This was not done by accident.

Next they opened the debate into the quagmire that is the Pentagon citing that that is the most talked about. As a official story skeptic, I certainly don't believe that over on these shores. I would think that it is controlled demolition, a subject the hardly broached if talked about at all. Conveniently there was no video shown of the collapses - in particular Building 7. They spent nearly 70% of the program on the Pentagon speculations. This was clearly intended. In their promo video for the Pentagon, they did not show the photograph of the initial damage as well. Their slant was particular evident as well.

The two "journalists" were clearly given talking points as well to go along with visual aides which were conveniently at the ready for their so-called critical rebuttal. That is what the ear pieces were for. A producer steps into their ear and says, okay move on from this and go to this, we still have got this slide to show, etc. The "journalists" worked in concert with the TV show and the production staff who were no doubt helped by some CIA official of some sort whether acknowledged in real life or not.

Body language: The two "journalists" often took the pose of incredulity with their body language and they also used it to condescend to their opponents who conversely held their own little fort by crossing their arms.

Character attacks: I knew Steven Jones would eventually get smeared over his Mormon beliefs. Unfortunately, he is an easy target in that regard. Even I have a problem with it frankly knowing the story of Mormonism. I'm not saying that he's not entitled to his belief but outside the state of Utah, it just doesn't translate that well.
Guilt by association was also employed with the antisemitic references, another classic ploy used by 'them'.

Choice of words: Steven Jones was referenced as the 'inventor' of the nano-thermite theory. This implies that somehow he created and manufactured this evidence to go along with his Jesus in America story. "So-called" was also used to refer to Niels Harrit. Niels Harrit the so-called scientist.

To sum up, this was a calculated and highly staged production meant to ridicule, stump and force the "celebrities" to speculate. They did their utmost not to do so and should be applauded for hanging in there and trying to get some truth counter punches back in.