Roland Dumas, who was a socialist deputy, Foreign minister of France (equivalent to the U.S. Secretary of State) and also President of the Constitutional Council, has said three times, recently, that he rejected the official account of the events surrounding 9/11.

*** Video interview from the late night show "Tonight or Never" 12/16/10:

"I'll tell you what I think about September 11. I don't believe it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncEXUx-ChLQ

*** My interview (by phone) for Oumma.com 12/17/10

Question: You said last night on Frederic Taddei’s show that you do not believe in Sept. 11. What do you mean by that?

Roland Dumas: I think it cannot be more clear. I do not believe what was told about it.

Question: What do you mean exactly?

Roland Dumas: There are many abnormal facts in the official version. I read and studied a lot of research done on this issue. Many items do not hold up (to scrutiny). Just look, for example, at the hole in the Pentagon made by the plane. It's much too small. And there are other less known aspects.

Question: Does the official version seem to you to be untrue or just incomplete?

Roland Dumas: Again, just take a serious look at it to get an idea. ... Indeed, the official version does not hold up (to scrutiny).

http://oumma.com/Roland-Dumas-Le-11-Septembre-je-n

*** My interview (on record in the film below) for Oumma.com 12/21/10

Thank you for giving us this interview with Oumma.com. I want to revisit the issue in which you participated in the tv show with Mr. Taddei. You said you "do not believe in Sept. 11." Quite simply, what did you mean by that?

Well, I meant that there was a controversy that has developed, which is still developing, in the United States first, then in Europe, about the conditions of this serious incident. Because it's obviously very serious. But now, I would not go into details of things because I do not know the truth-until now-but I am still impressed by the arguments that are given on both sides.

That is to say? Do you rely on specific elements, for example, to doubt the official version?

Demonstrations were made by specialists, including pilots, university professors, scholars, who have been measuring various locations, including the phase of the plane on the Pentagon and they tried to demonstrate that it did not fit at all sizes of aircraft, etc.. So if you want, it's technical details, which accumulated with each other, that are controversial. And, as any controversy, there are pros and opponents of the arguments.
I know the official theory, from the US, and I also know the theories that have been built up and presented by university professors, they are many-and by experts who have studied this problem. And, therefore, it is controversial. You know the nature of any controversy, is that there are arguments on one side, arguments of the other.

What kind of items you notice to doubt the official version of September 11?

Public components. Everything that has been published in America in particular, in Europe, also in Germany, everywhere, and which tells obviously this event of exceptional severity rightly deserves and because of its severity, it is discussed. There are arguments that formalize the American doctrine and others that contradict it. It is a controversy.

But do you think the official story is rather a lie?

Oh no, I would not say that. I would say that there are arguments for those who support the official and others who contradict it. But I mean they all have official value each other, force value anyway.

Many U.S. officials have spoken, not of American guilt, but about a "cover up" : that the Bush administration have deliberately covered up incriminating evidence in the survey around September 11.

That, I do not know if it's true. But finally, what I thought was surprising was that the U.S., which has so many ways, that puts so much wealth in their protection, could not have prior information and concomitant, more accurate on these events. So this, already, raises suspicion.

There was no air defense, for example, worthy of the name?

That example, of course. When you think that some years ago, a plane flew over the Soviet Far East, or an American aircraft- and I think that the warning had been given immediately, the aircraft was shot down in the seconds just after. So what is true for the Far East would not be true for the protection of the heart of the Empire? It seems questionable. In any case, here, at least there is something to dig.

But you still believe the involvement of Al Qaeda in the attacks of Sept. 11?

I do not think. I have not at all ... I do not replace those who study ... First, I am not American and then I do not have the elements. It is possible that this is Al Qaeda, in which case it will appear at one time or another ...

Therefore, the involvement of Al Qaeda, your feeling?

Me, I have not found any trace, in what I read, about a formal involvement of Al Qaeda. Anything is possible ... I feel that Al Qaeda is something informal, to which we link all kinds of events more or less direct. This is not a coproration, with an address, schedule and employees who would be there on time or not, etc ! I think, I repeat, that this is a satellite like that, which is said to bring together thousands of actions.

Guy Sorman, who was your opponent in the debate led by Frederic Taddei, said about you, the next day on his Internet blog, that you are a "conspiracy theorist". What do you reply?

"Conspiracy theorists" ... yeah. It is an expression of his own. I do not know how he justifies it. If it means that I will decipher something resembling a plot of a conspiracy, why not! I'm like everyone else. But I do not see why there would be a disgrace to this explanation because, simply, someone thinks with his head and common sense.

You have long evolved, Mr. Dumas, inside the political and diplomatic circles. What is the rumour, on Sept. 11, there? What is your perception of what is said?

We do not talk much about it in France. France is much more concerned, outside of specialized services such as the Quai d'Orsay, which I don't belong anymore- and intelligence/military information, outside of these fringes very knowledgeable and which have exchanges with allied countries - we are the allies of the Americans-, the French are much more concerned about the presidential election and its renewal.

But do we share your doubts, for example, in your entourage?

That I do not know. I have not done a survey.

You do not have the opportunity to talk with friends in political or diplomatic circles?

No, no ...

If I understand, you have no particular theory on Sept. 11? You have doubts about the official theory.

I just have a doubt ... with things that are unexplained or inexplicable, but which can be explained, then we must repeat the process and deepen the investigation.
For now, there has been no formal analysis showing that this was an attack from Al Qaeda. I do not believe or I'm wrong or I forgot, but it remains to be demonstrated.

Besides the Bush administration which has formally accused Al Qaeda.

Yes, but that's another thing, Americans. We were talking here about the French and the Europeans.

You want there to be an international investigation, for example, to formalize this accusation?

For example, of course. There could be an international investigation, why not. With experts, aeronautic workers, people specialized, somewhat well balanced to say the truth.

I heard that Iran, next year, will want to create an international jury to investigate September 11. What do you think?

It's a good idea, but finally, Iran is a bit suspect. It is suspected as all those who want to do it today. It would be better something that is more neutral, such as Switzerland or the Nordic countries, which would be accepted by everyone.

http://oumma.com/Entretien-exclusif-avec-Roland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEF1OVxeCkc