someone please translate to english!
peace!

it’s with English Subtitles

Here is the traduction
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaveez_mathieu-kassovitz-talks-about-911-o_news

Even though I do not know French, I felt very connected to Kassovitz. It truly is ashame that him and the 3 others will not be able to debate any Official Story followers.

This was supposed to be a “debate”?

The first interviewee, Kassovitz, asks some disturbing questions about what happened on 9/11. He very carefully avoids stating any theories about the subject, knowing full well that that would shift the discussion from the extraordinary anomalies of that day to any theories he might pose.

The second interviewee, a philosophy professor, briefly echoes Kassovitz, adding nothing new. He’s obviously very uncomfortable speaking publicly on this subject.

The third interviewee, an Albanian, dismisses Kassovitz’s questions, not by addressing the substance of a single one, but by some perverse analogy:

1) The government-owned media of the former Soviet bloc for many decades told an endless stream of lies about the U.S.;

2) Therefore, apparently we’re supposed to infer, if at this point people call into serious question the conduct of the U.S. government, we should assume it’s the same kind of lying that characterized the old Soviet bloc media.

This kind of argument is what’s known as a non sequitur. It’s so blatantly ridiculous that it’s a sad commentary on the state of liberal arts education that intelligent adults present sit through it with a straight face.

The fourth interviewee, the woman, also opposed the idea of people asking questions like those posed by Kassovitz. At first she just rambles without coherence. Finally, having failed to put together any kind of argument against Kassovitz — not even a bad argument — she repeats the Albanian’s argument!

Finally, the fifth interviewee again argues by analogy. Only his analogy isn’t about the Soviet bloc media. Instead, he states that questioning 9/11 events is like questioning “the Holocaust.” (Remember, it’s a serious crime in France to question the official government position on what happened during “the Holocaust.”) Carried to its logical consequence, it’s wrong to question anything, because that’s analogous to questioning That Which May Never Be Questioned In Any Way, Shape, Or Form: viz. the French government’s version of “the Holocaust.”

Do not question the bill you get at a restaurant, because it’s analogous to questioning “the Holocaust.” Do not question whether you were graded correctly at school or on your job performance review, because that’s reminiscent of questioning “the Holocaust.” Never question handed-down truths, because that’s akin to questioning “the Holocaust.”

To recap:

Five intellectuals are interviewed. One raises some very troubling questions about the U.S. government’s claims about the events of 9/11. Another seconds him, adding nothing more. The third talks about the Soviet bloc media’s lies about America, insinuating without elaboration that questioning 9/11 must be the same sort of lying. The fourth echoes the third. The fifth compares questioning 9/11 with questioning “the Holocaust,” with no argument beyond an assertion of analogy.

This is supposed to be intelligent programming? These are supposed to be brilliant intellectuals worthy of national television?

Pathetic.

I totally agree with Mathieu Kassovitz for his intelligent and objective assessment of the official version of the 9/11 events. And I admire and agree with McCosker’s synopsis of this so-called intellectual debate. It amazes me that intellectuals can actually disagree with Kassovitz’s point that it is man’s inherent right to question. Our western values and democracy are built on such inalienable rights to question authority without which we would be moving toward a fascist type of environment. I am no intellectual, but I definitely have enough intelligence and intuition to know when an intellectual is pandering to his subjective and biased feelings that colour his reasoning faculties. Man’s ability to question is an essential part of our culture and upon which our freedom depends. These so-called intellectuals fill me with such abhorrence that they could just sit there making vacuous remarks to which more gullible people can be misled by such sophistry.

The American Constitution was built to protect man’s inalienable rights, and especially from tyranical governments that all too often subjugate the populace to their own ends. And this is what is happening in America. And the fact that the media rarely debates this topic is already an indication as to how much it is controlled by governments.

I have done some research on the matter and I cannot but concur with Kassovitz. Too many unaswered questions to what appears to have been a partisan offical report construed to mislead rather than to assuage the public. And the question posed in this video as to whether it merits a debate is tantamount to saying do we have the right to question authority or accepted mass opinion? There are so many inconsistencies in the official report and questioned by so many respectable experts in the field, and by so many politicians and even by certain CIA officials that not to question is absurd. It astounds me that people can be so gullible as to think that politicans or governments have no hidden agenda. Why do you think the CIA was created but to be used by the President to do those covert and secret operations that the government knew the people would object to and that would undermine the public’s sense of justice and democracy. And while Presidents pander to the public and prat on about justice, liberty and humanitarian values, it employs the CIA to do those things that undermine those values.

We have arrived at the point where anyone who questions a government’s offical report can be labelled a conspiracy theorist whilst demanding that we should accept the government’s own conspiracy theories without question. This smacks of fascism to me.

French debate 911