ONE PIECE OF DEBRIS TOO MANY
A piece of debris from the Boeing 757-200 of American Airlines flight 77 was found on the lawn of the Pentagon, on 11 September 2001. Thierry Meyssan's investigation doesn't hold water. There's no longer any room for doubt: the plane did in fact crash upon the Department of Defense. Open and shut case.
But the newspapers that published the photograph of this debris as evidence may have been hasty by failing to carry out some elementary verifications. Indeed, they seem to have found a piece of debris of whose existence the Pentagon itself was unaware. It would be hard to identify, moreover, from which part of the Boeing this piece of sheet metal might come.Debris from a "pulverized", "melted" and "gasified" airplane
The famous photograph was taken by Mark Faram, a photo-reporter for the CNA agency and initially used in Navy Times (see the Photo Section of this book, page XVI). It was published for the first time in France in Le Monde on 12 March 2002. Later, numerous other newspapers ran it full-page and in color.
This photo represents a piece of twisted sheet metal, white and red-colored, resembling a piece of aeronautical debris. For all of the newspapers that discussed the affair, this picture meant a great deal more than that: it was photographic proof that flight AA 77 had actually crashed on the Pentagon, since naturally, it represented debris from the Boeing 757- 200 belonging to American Airlines.
It was Le Monde that set the tone in this matter. Published at the top of a page entitled, "Internet Conveys an Extravagant Rumor About 11 September", the photograph is captioned thusly: "This picture was taken by a military photographer from the Navy Times, on 11 September 2001. According to the Associated Press agency which distributed it, the photo shows a piece of debris from the plane on the western heliport of the Pentagon. AP makes it clear that pieces were scattered from the point of impact all the way to the neighboring highway. It is one of the rare documents available from the photo agencies. Mark Faram, author of the snapshot, confirmed its authenticity to Le Monde on Monday, 19 March."
The editorial, published the same day, was even more categorical as to what the paper's staff thought of the picture: "Witnesses saw the airplane before it crashed into the Pentagon, a photo even showed a piece of the fuselage a hundred meters from the building." 
At the same time, and without fear of contradiction, the newspaper reassured readers surprised by the lack of material evidence of the plane's presence: experts -- anonymous ones -- explained that the aircraft had disintegrated on impact and had, moreover, melted. "The impact released an extreme energy, provoking the pulverization of the plane," noted one of them, "and an immediate blaze. As opposed to cars, planes are above all composed of aluminum, which starts to liquefy towards 1,050° F and the structures of the aircraft melted." 
Later on, other newspapers took up this argument, although it was contradictory with the photo of the alleged debris. "What about the absence of the wings? The experts in aeronautics are categorical: composed of aluminum, they simply melted in the fire," French weekly magazine Marianne analyzed. 
Why not? But then, one should find one hundred tons of melted metal. That is not the case. To explain this mystery, one then informs readers that the temperature reached the point of gasification. "The intensity of the heat caused by the conflagration can easily pulverize the aircraft. Meyssan does not know it perhaps, but at 5,400° F, aluminum transforms into a gas!" Entrevue magazine lectured knowledgeably. 
Of course, no one asked themselves what would be the consequences of such a hypothesis. If the plane burned at over 5,400° F within the building, at the level of the ground and first floors, how are we to believe that the upper floors could have resisted so elevated a temperature? And how did the authorities identify the victims presumably found in this furna-ce? Because, as further indisputable proof of the plane crash at the Pentagon, Liberation made clear to its readers that a passenger "had been identified thanks to her fingerprints." 
How can we believe that metal melted, that it was "gasified", and yet the human bodies were still identifiable?
According to these newspapers, the airplane was thus "pulverized", before "melting" and being "transformed into gas". But they have nevertheless categorically identified a piece of debris that was not burnt at all.The Pentagon did not find any debris
The publications that have presented this piece of debris in fact refute the official version. From the press conferences held at the Pentagon from 12 to 15 September 2001 it indeed emerges than no important piece of the airplane was found. According to the Department of Defense, the only elements that were retrieved were the black boxes and a beacon light, on 14 September 2001.
On 12 September, a journalist asked Ed Plaugher, the fire chief of Arlington county, whether anything was left of the plane. His response was unambiguous: "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." 
During another press conference held on 15 September, this time concerning the reconstruction of the Pentagon, Terry Mitchell was in turn questioned about what he could see as evidence of the plane. He indicated that one could only see "small pieces". The next question interests us in particular: "Well, how far in? [were these pieces of the airplane to be found?] Again, we're trying to figure out how it came into the building ..." The official response is eloquent: "Can we finish the video first and then we'll go back?" The journalists approved and of course Mr. Mitchell never went back to this question which is nevertheless primordial. 
Questioned also about the material evidence of the plane, Lee Evey, the head of the Pentagon renovation project, responded that there was "considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring. It's just not very visible [...] None of those parts are very large, however. You don't see big pieces of the airplane sitting there extending up into the air. But there are many small pieces. And the few larger pieces there look like they are veins out of the aircraft engine. They're circular." 
On 14 September, the Department of Defense announced that the emergency workers had found the two black boxes, at four o'clock in the morning.  Then a beacon was found, but after that nothing more. The search was interrupted when the demolition/reconstruction work began. Of the supposed debris of the Boeing photographed by Mark Faram, there was never any mention in official statements.
In the first days following the attack, the authorities therefore mentioned only the existence of small debris, unidentifiable metallic fragments, which could have been from something quite different.
None of the firemen, architects or DoD officials saw any piece of the fuselage on the site of the attack -- with the exception of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (see our chapter "Disappearance of a Plane" below). Therefore the French press had six months later found a piece of the aircraft that was totally unknown to the Pentagon itself. Six months later, the FBI can almost reconstitute the plane
But the version of the Department of Defense is not the only official version of the story. Six months later, yet another version of the facts was offered. In April 2002, shortly after The Big Lie was published in France, Valerie Labrouse of the Digipresse agency returned to Washington.  There she contacted the authorities so that they might express their views on the subject. The statement from the FBI is troubling: its agents were said to have recovered a large part of the debris, making possible a nearly complete reconstitution of the wreck of the Boeing. This version was confirmed by Chris Murray, the FBI spokesman in Washington, when questioned by Liberation: "The pieces of the plane are stocked in a warehouse and they are marked with the serial numbers of flight 77." 
More than six months after the events, memory even returns to several witnesses. Ed Plaugher, the Arlington fire chief who testified in September 2001 as having only seen small pieces of the plane and not "sections" of the fuselage, was questioned once again by Valerie Labrousse. He denied his own statements: after having recalled arriving on the scene 35 to 40 minutes after the attack, he recounts having seen "pieces of the fuselage, the wings, the landing gear, pieces of the engine, seats. I can swear to you, it was a plane." Before making clear that it was an "airliner".  Thus, 35 to 40 minutes after the crash, as fires raged inside the Pentagon and with temperatures neighboring 5,400° F, high enough to burn the plane's cabin, one could approach the inferno and make out seats from the Boeing. Ed Plaugher even indicates having "seen" (sic) one of the two black boxes, that nevertheless would not be found until three days later. A black box that is officially unusable because it was left exposed too long to extreme heat.
Liberation published another testimony on 30 March 2002, confirming the presence of debris. According to Arthur Santana, "emergency workers collected pieces of the plane all over the place. The pieces were put in brown plastic bags that were marked with the letters "evidence" and part of this zone was surrounded by yellow tape. A big piece of the plane, lifted by two persons, allowed you to clearly see the letter "C" of American Airlines." 
The Parisian daily also published another account, that of Mike Walter: "After the explosion, I walked in the direction of the Pentagon. I was more than a hundred yards from the impact, but there were pieces of fuselage all over. Several times I had to step over the debris. I even remember someone picking up a piece and having their picture taken, with the Pentagon in the background." According to Liberation, "the journalist nevertheless confirms the debris of the plane was not in large-sized pieces." On 11 April, Jamie McIntyre, CNN correspondent at the Pentagon, confided to Paris-Match the manner in which he experienced the crash, which occurred while he was in his office at the Pentagon. "I immediately ran towards the scene of the crash. Hundreds of pieces of plane littered the ground, including a piece of the fuselage and a part of the cockpit window that CNN had analyzed by experts." 
We're now being told of imposing pieces of debris that are identifiable and even of photos taken of these pieces. However, none of these pictures (with the exception of Mark Faram's) have been published, or even preserved by the press agencies. Why? And how is it that the Pentagon, which only found, officially, a beacon and two black boxes, was unaware of all this debris from the Boeing on its own lawn?
Without calling into question the reliability of this new testimony, at the very least it raises the question of its interpretation. A problematical photo
The argument that allows this unidentified fragment of debris to be made into a piece of the fuselage is the resemblance of its colors. In effect, it seems that the red bordered by white corresponds with the colors of American Airlines. However, the first troubling detail is that the piece of debris does not seem to have the characteristic silvery color of the American company's planes. Furthermore, upon examining closely photographs available of the Boeing 757-200's owned by this company, it appears difficult to identify any spot from which this piece of fuselage might have come from.
The curved bend of red and white excludes it from being part of the very angular letters "AA" that are featured on the tail. In the same way, a study of the wide red, white and blue band that runs around the cabin and also figures on the plane's nose allows one to assert that the piece of debris does not come from there. The wings have no red at all, but only black and white. The underbelly of the aircraft is solely of a metallic gray color. There thus remains only the word "American" inscribed on the side of the Boeing. But again there is a problem: the shape of the colors seems to indicate that it belongs to the corner of a letter. And therefore one should see, just to the side, the border of the letter that follows. However, one is unable to make out any such thing in the photo. There is the possibility that it's from the last letter of the word. But there, we have yet another problem: one should be able to see the outline of the door, adjacent to the letter "n". Nothing like that appears in the photo.
The piece of debris having been deformed by the explosion, it seems nevertheless dubious to assert that it absolutely could not come from a Boeing owned by American Airlines. But it's just as dubious to affirm that it is necessarily part of the cabin; nothing is less certain and no piece seems to correspond with it. As for the colors that we are told are necessarily those of American Airlines, they are above all those of the United States. One therefore finds them on a great number of official or military vehicles and aircraft.
One recalls that, according to numerous witnesses, a helicopter was parked in front of the facade, just before the explosion. Some of them say that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon first hit the helicopter before embedding itself in the facade.  Why couldn't this piece of debris have come from that helicopter?"It's not evidence, but it's presented as if it were"
The Pentagon itself declared in September 2001 that no important pieces existed. There is thus little chance that this famous fragment of debris comes from flight AA 77. Herve Kempf, a journalist for Le Monde, could not be unaware of all these inconsistencies. On 23 March 2002, during the television program + Clair aired by the French TV station Canal +, Thierry Meyssan confronted him with the contradictions raised by the publication of this photo in the Parisian evening paper.
Thierry Meyssan: "This is a very interesting falsification. The newspaper Le Monde, seeking to mislead its readers, has published a photograph originating from an official photographer of the navy of the United States."
Daphne Roulier, presenter of the program [in English]: "US Navy."
Thierry Meyssan: "In this photograph, one sees a piece of metal that is not identifiable. [...] The Department of Defense told us that only the plane's beacon was found on the lawn. Thus, according to the authorities, this is not an element of the plane. Yet the newspaper Le Monde [...] uses this as an argument. [It] pretends to be ignorant of the press conference held on 15 September that we [Thierry Meyssan and Herve Kempf] discussed at length. And you questioned me several times about this photograph. But to lend further credibility to it, they indicate that they contacted the author of the photograph to assure themselves of its authenticity, about which no one doubts, but which says strictly nothing as to the significance of the picture. [...] I would like to know why the newspaper Le Monde tried to mislead its readers with this photo. [...]"
Herve Kempf: "Well now! It's very interesting that Thierry Meyssan cites this photo and what he says about it is true. That is to say, I agree with him and there was a debate over it among the editorial staff at Le Monde, because the editorial staff there is not a monolithic bloc. And personally, along with other journalists, I was opposed to the publication of this photo that was presented as evidence. You are perfectly right to point out that it isn't evidence and it's presented as if it were. 'Ah! You see now that Mr. Meyssan is wrong because here is a piece of debris from the plane!' If one reads the caption attentively, however, one sees that there is no ambiguity."
One can indeed reread the caption of the photograph, quoted above, and agree with Mr. Kempf: there is no ambiguity, this piece of debris is presented as part of the Boeing's wreckage, even if the paternity of this authentication is attributed to Associated Press. As for the editorial, it was totally affirmative. For the record, let's quote the Associated Press's own caption: "A piece of the plane wreck lies next to the heliport on the west side of the Pentagon, after a terrorist attack on Tuesday, 11 September 2001 in Arlington, Virginia. Debris from the plane was spread beyond the expressway and military medical teams were mobilizing to bring first aid to the wounded."
What, then, has Herve Kempf just told us? That he knew that this photograph did not represent "evidence". That he said as much during a meeting of the editorial staff. But since "an editorial staff is not some monolithic bloc", the other journalists, who formed a majority or were higher up in the hierarchy, nevertheless chose to publish this photo without any guarantee as to what it might represent. And its publication is even accompanied by a caption and an editorial that aim to leave the reader in no doubt as to the nature of the debris, that of course it comes from American Airlines' missing Boeing 757-200. Now that is an interesting conception of the reliability of information within a newspaper.
Herve Kempf's televised declaration is very hard on the newspaper he works for. We questioned the journalist in order to allow him to express himself further and go back over this episode. He thinks the photo does in fact represent a piece of the Boeing, but also confirmed that he was opposed to its publication: "I had a problem with the utilization of the photo as proof For me, what counts is the context, the author, the conditions in which the document is produced, the sociological environment of this production. [...] Well, at that time, we hadn't been able to question Mark Faram. We had contacted him by e-mail and he had merely confirmed being the author of the photo." Kempf develops his methodological conception of investigative reporting: "For me, the essential thing is the testimony. I'm trained as a historian, and in history, testimony is primordial." We will see later that the analysis of various testimonies also should have resulted in greater caution. In the meantime, it does seem that Le Monde showed reprehensible haste: they published a photo of debris without taking any methodological precautions, without even having talked about it with the author, and without taking into account the contradictions that this document raises in relation with the Pentagon's official version. We have here a lack of rigor on the part of Le Monde, all the more surprising because the newspaper's editorial piece devoted itself to preaching lessons in professional ethics to Thierry Meyssan.Convince the reader at any cost?
On the evening of 23 March 2002 when the Canal + program was broadcast, the French public thus learned that the photograph of debris published in Le Monde did not constitute "evidence". It also learned that this piece of debris was not included among the elements officially recovered by the American military. Its authenticity, insofar as being debris from the Boeing, was thus in serious doubt.
And yet, in the days following the broadcast, numerous publications would, without fearing to lead their readers astray, continue to reproduce this photograph as evidence against Thierry Meyssan's investigation. Successively, Marianne , Entrevue  and Paris-Match  would all publish Mark Faram's photo again, without the slightest rhetorical precaution.
For Saveria Rojek, a journalist for Paris-Match who works in the United States, Herve Kempf's contribution on Canal + did not constitute sufficient motive to block publication of the photo. This journalist, as a matter of fact, had the nature of the debris "authenticated" by an expert. According to the latter, the color green that he discerned on the internal part of the debris was characteristic of the paint used in the aeronautics industry to protect the cabin from corrosion and this proved that we had here a fragment of debris from American Airlines flight 77. Saveria Rojek also received the opinion of the photographer, Mark Faram: "I arrived at the scene four minutes after the crash because I was having breakfast in the Pentagon building. The place looked like a plane crash site. I was in the Navy during the 1970's and was assigned to emergency rescue operations, including airplane disasters. I've seen plenty of crash scenes. When I saw this piece lying on the ground, I had no doubt: it was a piece of an airplane. That silver color, those blue and red stripes, it was undeniably an American Airlines plane. It was the biggest piece that I saw. It was absolutely impossible that someone could have brought it to this spot because there was practically nobody there at that time. Other smaller pieces were scattered all around, silvery aluminum-colored and green on the inside." The authentication by the expert and the photographer's testimony thus permitted the journalist to publish the photo "whatever the case may be".
However, numerous questions remain unanswered. For example, since this type of paint is also used for helicopter cabins, how does its presence permit one to affirm that it had to be debris from a Boeing 757-200? From which part of the plane does it come from? Why did the American authorities not recover it? Why was there no other visible debris? Was it because the plane had disintegrated, melted and been gasified? We've received no answers to any of these questions.
In an inset to the same article, Paris-Match also published a second piece of "evidence". In a pile of unidentifiable materials, one can barely distinguish a dark, circular form, vaguely resembling a tire. In view of the poor quality of the photo, one wonders if it's not one of those psychological tests where each subject is invited to project his or her own fantasy. Yet Paris-Match affirms that it has reproduced there, "dislocated, but perfectly identifiable (sic), a tire from the landing gear", that had also "been found". This tire was found by whom? Shouldn't the happy owner of this cumbersome object have sent it to the American authorities, who in September possessed only a beacon and black boxes? There again, no answer...The "counter-investigation" on Internet
The same haste characterizes all of the newspapers that published this photo of debris presenting it without any reservations as belonging to the Boeing 757-200 of American Airlines. Most of the journalists did not even carry out the minimal checking that Saveria Rojek did in gathering the opinion of the photographer and an expert. The counter-investigative effort was finally reduced to very little indeed. In their desire to counter a "rumor coming from the Net" many newspapers thought it useful to send readers to two Internet sites presented as the ultimate references: the French-language Hoaxbuster  and the English-speaking Snopes.  The work of counter-investigation does not, however, seem to have carried out any better by these sites.
Snopes, for example, as opposed to the official version, affirms that "all five rings" were damaged by the Boeing. To support this assertion, the site published a photo of the Pentagon undergoing rebuilding work, taken on... 11 March 2002, six months after the events, and above all, after the authorities had demolished the entire wing for reconstruction.
According to the authors of these pages, this proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the plane caused considerably more damage than that described in The Big Lie. But since, apparently, the contradiction doesn't bother them, a few lines later they make it clear that -- only -- three of the five rings were damaged by the plane. Faced with such a presentation of the facts, it is no longer eventual proof of the plane's existence that one is looking for, but rather some sign of sincerity from the site's authors.
Again contradicting itself, Snopes indicates a little later in its text that, "according to what witnesses describe and what the photos show", the plane hit the ground before impact, which considerably reduced its speed and thus the damage it could cause. To our knowledge, no witness has related such a version. Besides which, the various photographs officially released on the American army's sites show that the lawn was perfectly intact. Snopes does not in fact cite any testimony on this point, nor has it published the photos to which it refers...
In order to explain the disappearance of the wings, the two sites give the same response: they were folded back against the cabin, and then penetrated inside the building with rest of the plane, before finally burning or melting. "It's highly probable that they were folded back along the cabin at the moment of impact", Hoax buster explains with great seriousness. "As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior, the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane."
This highly "original" explanation does not permit us to understand the lack of any impact by the wings against the facade. One does not see very well how the impact of the plane's nose could have caused the wings to retract. It's nonsense in physical terms: with the kinetic energy, the broken portions of the wings would have been propelled forwards rather than backwards along the fuselage, and would have struck the facade with their leading edges like a whiplash. In passing, the authors' reasoning forgets that the jet engines -- two of the most resistant parts of the airplane -- are fixed to these same wings and would have necessarily "marked" the facade.
Lastly, to explain the fact that this Boeing could have escaped the fighter jets sent in its pursuit, Hoax buster launches into a most curious explanation: "Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:43 am. The American fighters took off at 10 am (that is, more than a half hour after the crash) and contented themselves with following flight 93 that ended its journey in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. And if they had chased after the [Pentagon] plane, they would not have shot it down over an urban area (this would have the effect of producing many more victims)." One does not know the provenance of these suppositions. All the more so as NORAD has, on the contrary, officially let it be known that two F-16's took off at 9:30 am (see Appendices), that is, six minutes after being notified of the hijacking by the FAA and thirty-five minutes after the aircraft's transponder was cut off.  Thus, in trying to fly to the rescue of the official version, Hoax buster contradicts it.
How does one explain the excessive esteem that journalists have for these two sites, which are manifestly unfit for this type of work? The people writing for Hoax buster themselves recognize that, "we're not experts in aeronautics, or in plane crashes, or in explosives". Paradoxically, after having attempted to discredit an investigative book by calling it "rumor by Internet", some newspapers had no problems about seeking recourse, with considerable complacency, in Internet sites that are relatively incompetent on such technical terrain...
Also, why have these newspapers cited so many -- anonymous -- experts, at times contradicting their own statements about the existence of debris from the plane? Why haven't they cited Francois Grangier, an expert accident investigator, who is usually invited by the French media to comment on air catastrophes? Is it because he recognized publicly that the Boeing in no case could have struck the facade? "What is certain when one looks at the photo of this facade that remains intact is that it's obvious the plane did not go through there. It's like imagining that a plane of this size could pass through a window and leave the frame still standing. But it's obvious that if there was a plane, it must have hit somewhere else". 
Looking to defend the official version, the authors of L'Effroyable mensonge [The Horrendous Lie] questioned Francois Grangier. Unfortunately, the latter confirmed his analysis: "I think the trajectory as far as one can make it out today rules out an impact against the facade, but more likely one upon the roof "  All of the official declarations and photographic images, whether they come from the American army or press agencies show without any ambiguity that the aircraft did not strike the roof but the facade (see the Photo Section of this book).
So why don't the partisans of the official thesis seem more disturbed by this manifest contradiction or even pay any notice to it?
1. 'Internet vehicule une rumeur extravagante sur le 11 septembre' [Internet Conveys an Extravagant Rumor about 11 September], Le Monde, 21 March 2002.
2. 'Un avion a bel et bien frappe le Pentagone' [A Plane Really Did Hit the Pentagon], Le Monde, 21 March 2002: www.lemonde.fr
3. 'Rumeurs -- Le pape a-t-il organise les attentats du 11 septembre?' [Rumors -- Did the Pope Organize the September 11 Attacks?], Eric Dior, Marianne, 1-7 Apri1 2002.
4. ' Ardisson complice d'une imposture' [Ardisson an Accomplice of Fraud], Entrevue, April 2002.
5. 'Pourquoi la demonstration de Meyssan est cousue de tres gros fils blancs' [Why Meyssan's Demonstration Is a Tissue of Lies], Liberation, 30 March 2002.
6. 'DoD News Briefing', Defense Link, Department of Defense, 12 September 2001: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001 ... 12asd.html
7. 'DoD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation', Defense Link, Department of Defense, 15 September 2001: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001 ... 5evey.html
8. 'DoD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation', op cit.
9. 'Black Boxes Found at Pentagon Crash Site', American Forces Press Service, Defense Link, Department of Defense, 14 September 2001: www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09142 ... 09142.html
'Flight Data and Cockpit Voice Recorders Found', Defense Link, Department of Defense, 14 September 2001: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001 ... 25-01.html
10. 'Dossier 11 Septembre', Digipresse: http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site/do ... ?dosnum=60
11. 'Pourquoi la demonstration de Meyssan est cousue de tres gros fils blancs' blancs' [Why Meyssan's Demonstration Is a Tissue of Lies], Liberation, 30 March 2002.
12. 'Ed Plaugher: La memoire a rebours' [Ed Plaugher: Memory in Reverse] Digipresse, 22 May 2002: http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site/pa ... 87&doss=60
13. 'Pourquoi la demonstration de Meyssan est cousue de tres gros fils blancs' blancs' [Why Meyssan's Demonstration Is a Tissue of Lies], op cit.
14. 'Pentagone, la rumeur pulverisee' [Pentagon: The Rumor Pulverized], Saveria Rojek and Romain Clergeat, Paris-Match, 11 April 2002.
15. See notably: 'Blesses, incendies et debris au Pentagone" [Wounded, Fires and Debris at the Pentagon], Agence France- Presse, 11 September 2001. Article reproduced by Cyberpresse: http://www.cyberpresse.ca/reseau/monde/ ... 13337.html
16. 'Rumeurs -- Le pape a-t-il organise les attentats du 11 septembre?' [Rumors -- Did the Pope Organize the September 11 Attacks?], Eric Dior, Marianne, 17 April 2002.
17. 'Ardisson complice d'une imposture' [Ardisson an Accomplice of Fraud], Entrevue, April 2002.
18. 'Pentagone, la rumeur pulverisee' [Pentagon: The Rumor Pulverized], Saveria Rojek and Romain Clergeat, Paris-Match, 11 April 2002.
19. http://www.hoaxbuster.com/hdossier/pent ... agone.html
(the English expression "hoax buster", modelled on the title of the famous film Ghostbusters, designates someone who "expels rumors".
21. 'NORAD's Response Times': chronology distributed to the press on 15 September 2001 by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). See document in Appendices.
22. + Clair (television news program), Canal +, 23 March 2002.
23. L' Effroyable mensonge [The Horrendous Lie], Guillaume Dasquie and Jean Guisnel, ed. La Decouverte, June 2002, pp. 43-44.