HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
on 10/4/02 18:16, Richard Roper at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK > --------------------------- > > Can someone please supply an English translation? > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK >> --------------------------- Here it comes. Though the text mainly comes from babelfish I checked its accuracy and looks more or less ok. Cheers! > > Conference of Thierry Meyssan under the auspices of the Arab League Which > financed the attacks of September 11? > > Arab version > > We reproduce below the text of the conference pronounced by Thierry Meyssan, > April 8, 2002, in the Zayed Centre, Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), under > the auspices of the Arab League, in the presence of the diplomatic corps and > of the international press. This intervention was followed questions and > answers which are in the course of transcription and of translation. > > Your Majesty, Excellencies, Mesdames, Messrs, > > > As of the first minutes which followed the first attack against World Trade > Centre, officials suggested at the press that the sleeping partner was Oussama > Ben Laden, the paradigm of Eastern fanaticism. A little later the very new > director of the FBI, Robert Mueller III, showed by name nineteen kamikazes and > required all the means of his agency and the services of information to track > their accomplices. The FBI never proceeded thus to an investigation, but > co-ordinated a hunting for the man who took, on the eyes of the American > public, the pace of a hunting for the Arab. So much so that some excited > attacked, even killed, of the Arabs whom they naively regarded as collectively > responsible for the attacks. > > There no was either investigation of the Congress. This one gave up exerting > its constitutional function at the request of the White House, allegedly not > to attack the national security. > > There was neither investigation of the press. This one was convened in the > White House and was summoned to abstain from any investigation not to harm the > national security. > > If we analyse the attacks of September 11, we notice initially who they are > vaster than recognises it the official version: > > 1) We know only the implication of four planes, whereas it was one moment > question of eleven planes. Moreover, the examination of the crimes of insider > trading made in margin of the attacks shows bear speculations on three > companies of aviation: American Airlines, United Airlines and Royal KLM Deutch > Airlines. > > 2) We did not integrate the attack made into the appendix of the White House, > Old Executive Office Building (known as " Eisenhower building "). However, the > chain ABC diffused on line, the morning of September 11, of the images of a > fire devastating the services of the presidency. > > 3) We either did not take the measurement of the collapse of a third building > in Manhattan, independently of Twin Towers. This third building had not been > touched by a plane. It also was however devastated by a fire before breaking > down in its turn following an unknown cause. This building sheltered the > principal secret base of the CIA in the world. The agency devoted its means to > it to the economic information to the detriment of the strategic information > and large the dam of the lobby military-industrialist. > > If we consider the attack made with the Pentagon, we note that the official > version is an enormous lie. > > According to the Defence Department, a Boeing 757, which one had lost the > trace above Ohio would have crossed 500 kilometres without being located. It > would have entered the airspace of the Pentagon and would be descended on the > lawn from the heliport, would have rebounded on this one, would have broken > its right wing against a power generating unit, would have struck the frontage > on the level of the ground floor and of the first stage, would have entirely > engulfed themselves in the building, and would have been entirely consumed > there, leaving other remainders only two unusable black boxes and fragments of > body of the passengers. > > It is obviously impossible that a Boeing 757 can escape during 500 kilometres > from the civil radars, the military radars, the fighters launched to its > continuation, and with the satellites of observation which had been just > activated. > > It is also impossible that a Boeing 757 enters the airspace of the Pentagon > without being destroyed by the five batteries of missiles which protect the > building. > > When one observes the photographs of the frontage, taken in the few minutes > which followed the attack, before even as the civil firemen of Arlington did > not have time to deploy, one observes no trace of the right wing on fire in > front of the frontage, nor any hole in the frontage having allowed the plane > to engulf itself in the building. > > Without fear of ridiculous, the Defence Department affirms that the tempered > steel engines would have been dematerialised under the effect of the shock, > without so to speak damaging the frontage. The aluminium of the fuselage would > have entered in combustion to more than 2 500� Celsius inside the building and > would have been gasified, but the bodies of the passengers whom it contained > would have burned so little which they could have been later on identified > thanks to their fingerprints. > > Answering the journalists at the time of a press conference to the Pentagon, > the head of the firemen indicated that there remained " no bulky remains of > the apparatus ", " neither piece of fuselage, nor nothing of this kind ". He > declared that neither him, nor its men, knew what he was occurred of the > apparatus. > > The study of the official photographs of the scene of the attack, taken and > diffused by the Defence Department, shows that no part of the Pentagon carries > mark of an ascribable impact to a Boeing 757. > > It is necessary to go to the obviousness: it is impossible that the made > attack on September 11 at the Pentagon, killing 125 people, was it by means of > an airliner. > > The scene of the attack having been devastated as of the following day by work > immediately undertaken, one has only partial elements to reconstitute the > event. These elements convergent towards a single assumption which it is not > possible to validate with certainty. > > An air controller of Washington testified to have observed with the radar the > appearance of a flying machine with approximately 800 kilom�tres / heure, > moving initially towards the White House, then operating a very brutal turn > towards the Pentagon where it would have been crushed. This controller > attested that the characteristics of the flight could be only those of a > military machine. > > Several hundreds of witnesses indicated to have heard " a strident noise > comparable with that of a fighter ", at all with that of a civil aircraft. > > Eyewitnesses indicated to have observed " something like a cruise missile with > wings " or a machine of small size, " like a plane which can contain 8 to 12 > people ". > > The machine penetrated in the building without causing significant damage on > the frontage. It crossed several rings of the Pentagon, opening in each > partition which it crossed a hole increasingly broader. The final opening, of > perfectly circular form, measured approximately 1,80 meter diameter. While > crossing the first ring of the Pentagon, the machine caused a fire, as > gigantic as sudden. Immense flames came out of the building by licking the > frontages. They were withdrawn also quickly, leaving behind them a black soot > cloud. The fire was propagated in a portion of the first ring of the Pentagon > and in two perpendicular corridors. It was so suddenly that fire protection > protections did not have time to be activated. > > All these testimonies and these observations could correspond to the shooting > of a missile of the last generation of type MGA, provided with a hollow-charge > and a point of depleted uranium of type BLU, guided by GPS. This type of > machine has the appearance of a small civil aircraft, but it is not a plane. > It produces a whistle comparable with that of a fighter, can be guided with > sufficient precision to enter by a window, bores the most resistant > shieldings, and causes - independently of its effect of boring an > instantaneous fire releasing a heat of more than 2000� Celsius. > > This type of machine is developed jointly by the Navy and the Air Force. It is > shoot from a plane. The machine which was used with the Pentagon destroyed the > part of the building in which the new centre of command of Navy was under > installation. Following this attack, the head of staff of Navy, the admiral > Vern Clark, did not join the room of command of the National Joint > Intelligence Military Centre like the other staff officers, but left the > Pentagon precipitately. > > Who could thus fire a missile from the last generation on the Pentagon? The > answer is brought to us by the confidences of Ari Fleischer, spokesman of the > White House, and Karl Rove, secretary-general of the White House, near > journalists of the New York Times and Washington Post. Confidences which the > interested parties themselves contradicted eighteen days later, pretexting to > have expressed themselves badly under the blow of the emotion. > > According to these close relations of George W Bush, the Secret Service > received during the morning a phone call of the sleeping partners of the > attacks, probably to establish requirements. To credit their call, the > attackers revealed the secret codes of transmission and authentication of the > presidency. However, only some people of confidence, located at the node of > the apparatus of State could have these codes. It follows that at least one of > the sleeping partners of the attacks of September 11 is one of the leaders, > civil or military, of the United States of America. > > To credit the fable with the terrorists islamists, the American authorities > imagined kamikazes. > > > Although it is possible to people organised to introduce weapons with fire > into airliners, the kamikazes would have used as only weapons of the cutters. > They would have learned how to control of the Boeing 757 in a few hours of > simulator and would have become better pilot than professionals. They could > thus have realised without hesitation the complex manoeuvres of approach. > > The department of the Justice never explained how it had drawn up the list of > the kamikazes. The companies of aviation indicated the exact number of > passengers on each aircraft and the incomplete lists of passengers not > mentioning the people embarked to the last moment. By controlling these lists, > one observes that the names of the kamikazes do not appear in it, and that the > number of not identified passengers is only three in flight 11 and that of two > in flight 93. It is thus impossible that the nineteen kamikazes all were > embarked. Moreover, several of the people blamed since appeared. The FBI > however maintains that the hijackers were identified without possibility of > error, and the complementary information disclosure as the dates of birth > makes any homonymy improbable. To those which would doubt, the FBI brings a > ridiculous proof: whereas the planes burned and that Twin Towers broke down, > the passport of Mohammed Atta would have been miraculeusly found intact on the > smoking ruins of World Trade Centre. > > The existence of hijackers, those or others, is attested to us by telephone > calls that the passengers would have passed to their families and to the > authorities. Unfortunately, those are known for us only by hearsay and were > not published, even when they would have been recorded. It was not possible to > check that they were actually passed from such or such mobile telephone, or of > such or such interphone. There still, we are summoned to believe the FBI on > word. > > Moreover, it was not essential to have hijackers to carry out these attacks. > Technology Total Hawk, developed by the US Air Force, makes it possible to > take the control of an airliner in spite of the crew and to guide it remotely. > > Remain the scarecrow Oussama Ben Laden. If it is admitted that he was a > collaborator or agent of the CIA during the war against the Soviets in > Afghanistan, one tries to make believe that he would have been turned over and > would have become the public enemy n� 1 of the United States. This fable does > not resist, it either, with the analysis. The French daily newspaper, Le > Figaro, revealed that last July, Oussama Ben Laden was hospitalised at the > American hospital of Dubai, where it accepted in particular the visit of the > head of post office the CIA. American chain CBS revealed that, September 10, > Oussama Ben laden was under dialysis at the military hospital of Rawalpindi, > under the protection of the Pakistani army. And international reporter French, > Michel Peyrard - who was a prisoner of the taliban- told how Oussama Ben Laden > lived openly in Jalalabad, in November, while the USA bombarded other areas of > the country. Moreover, can one believe that the largest army of the world come > to stop it in Afghanistan did not reach that point, while mullah Omar would > have escaped with the American armada while fleeing with a scooter? > > Within sight of the elements which I have just presented to you, it appears > that the attacks of September 11 are not ascribable to foreign terrorists > resulting from the world arabo-Moslem - even if if certain executants can be > Islamic -, but with American terrorists. > > The shortly after the attacks of September 11 2001, Resolution 1368 of the > Security Council of the United Nations recognised " the right inherent in the > individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter " and > stipulated: " the Security Council invites all the States to work together to > translate into justice the authors, organisers and sleeping partners of these > terrorist attacks and stresses that those which take the responsibility to > help, support and lodge the authors, organisers and sleeping partners of these > acts will have to return accounts ". > > If one wishes to answer the call of the Security Council, to apply Resolution > 1368 and to punish the real guilties, the only means of identifying them with > precision would be to constitute a board of inquiry, whose independence and > objectivity are guaranteed by the United Nations. It would be also the only > means of preserving international peace. While waiting, Your Majesty, > Excellence, Mesdames, Messrs, the military actions external of the United > States of America are deprived of legitimate base in international law, which > it is about their recent action in Afghanistan or their actions announced in > Iran, Iraq and in many other countries. � > > Site of the Zayed Centre: www.zccf.org.ae Text in Arabic: > www.zccf.org.ae/LECTURES/A2_lectures/201.htm --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
