Operation Accountability France has started

I Try to contact Dasquie for several weeks... no answer.
I intend to draft an open letter to expose the contradictions of his "investigation".
He quotes, for example, 3 experts. The only real specialist of the air crashes answers him " the trajectory shows an impact on the roof, not against the facade ".
And his military expert tells us that "the plane was transformed into missile".

And i don't speak about his "witnesses"


In any cases, you are right not to wish to write him. It would be a waste of time.

Open letter to Guillaume Dasquié, with full presentation of CIT:
http://faitsdivers.blog4ever.com/blog/lire...uie___l_ef.html
Also published on ReOpenNews & Agoravox.
ReopenNews

In the recent 9/11 debate on the television network France 2 featuring Jean-Marie Bigard and Matthieu Kassovitz against three France 2 "journalists" who were defending the official story, the France 2 "journalists" pathetically attempted to debunk the missile theory using Mike Walter's testimony, even though Bigard and Kassovitz repeatedly said that they did not believe the missile theory. The "journalists" insisted on playing the strawman clip of Walter anyway, and just before it begins Kassovitz says:

The exchange begins around 23:50

11 Septembre: Kassovitz & Bigard sur Fr2,l'objet du scandale
by ReOpen911

Ha! wow.

The smallest possible reference and it was said wrong.

A great disappointment but this debat was not very good anyway.

A little consolation.
The CIT is quoted here , on the website of the Swiss association "11 septembre.ch" (Nouvelles) via our open letter to G. Dasquié.

http://www.reopen911.ch/

Thierry Meysan and Pierre Henri Bunel answered our Open letter.
An interview of Thierry Meysan will soon be published on the Ikky's blog http://faitsdivers.blog4ever.com.
The work of the CIT will be discussed there.
PH Bunel sent us a short text in which he recognized the importance of your work.

Excellent!

Great job kropo!

Here it is:
http://faitsdivers.blog4ever.com/blog/lire...s_et_faits.html

Reading now.

rough google translation

Google translates the most relevant quote from Meyssan as:

kropotkine, can you give us your own translation of this section? Google's translation is pretty bad.

Very interesting.

It almost seems as though he is indifferent to our findings since he already believes that no plane hit the building. As if what we have uncovered is not new.

Unless it's a translation issue.

Here is the bad translation of the relevant question about our work:

If I understand the translation correctly it seems like he accepts the notion of a flyover and that our assertion has "proceeded without a hitch".

Meyssan says about CIT & the flyover.

Let us go to the subject. Quantity of people testifed to have seen or heard this plane. It is not new. The contribution of the Citizen Investigation Team, it is to have reconstituted its route and to have shown that it did not crash, was not shoots down and pursued its road without blocks.

This raises two questions. At first, this plane entered an air space protected without being destroyed. Then, I cannot refrain from thinking of this surprising telegram of AFP: " URGENT A plane goes to the Pentagon ". How " could a person in charge of FBI " know that a plane went to this target, rather than to the other one in Washington?

Then whe ask about the flyover/flyaway

T.M.: This question never arose. On one hand because nobody has ever taken issue that people saw a plane near the Pentagon, on the other hand because the contradictions are not between a theory and testimonies, but between the various testimonies. To make fast: Donald Rumsfeld entered complete jacket in the heart of the oven and saw calcined fragments of Boeing. He went out from it very shocked, but his shirt always so clean. Fire brigades entered in the heart of the oven thanks to their amiantées combinations and they did not see fragment of plane, nor track of fuel. Who says the truth?


And his conclusion:
However, I did not change opinion. Today, the hypothesis of the missile is the only one who reports facts and is compatible with noticed them. It) applies to the main explosion, that arose at half past nine. But we know that another explosion had arisen previously, further to which the order had been given to evacuate partially the building ship.


Take note that Pierre Henri Bunel wrote that from his point of view, the missile came from the south & the plane flew from the North and flyover the bulding.
All in all it is positive.

Craig use Reverso for your translation:
http://www.reverso.net

Yeah it sounds like they are supportive but I don't think they have looked closely at what we have done.

They are reducing what we have accomplished to "theory" while conflating the FACTS we have uncovered with the missile theory.

Bottom line there is ZERO evidence for a missile since it makes no sense to accept the security video as valid.

I hope they take a closer look at this information.

Also the notion that he could say that some of the light poles "may have been blown by the explosion" leads me to believe he is not aware of our experiences with the cab driver.