Note: The original title of this article is: "Chauprade, the man who forms officers and deforms History."

Article translation by Sott.net

© LePoint.fr
Aymeric Chauprade, professor at the joint Defense college, uses his “scientific” authority to confirm conspiracy theories on 911.
Aymeric Chauprade is a geopolitician who doesn't hide his convictions. As Philippe de Villiers' former campaign director at the 2004 European election, and leading editor of the Revue française de géopolitique [French review of geopolitics], he's very cautious about Turkey's integration into the European Union. In July 2007, during the Catholic revival movement's summer university sessions, he and other opinionated participants reflected on the theme: "Is nationalism a sin? " He criticized the recent White book on defense and national security; quite a courageous stance on the part of a professor who is supposed to keep in line with national defense policy.

An expert columnist for Le Figaro newspaper, and a seminal author whose books are acquired by the hundreds every year by a number of military colleges, he recently published a big, richly illustrated book on the Clash of civilizations - a theme so treasured by late Samuel Huntington, who died last month.

Logically, as a geostrategy specialist, Aymeric Chauprade is interested in the "post-911" world, the evolutions of which he analyses in a way complying to his political conception. Now, he is within his rights to do so, but one might also wonder why the ministry of Defense granted the CID's (Joint Defense College) chair of geopolitics to an ideologue who publicly harbors such strong convictions.

Let's note that all French officers who have a future in the military, as a well as a number of foreign officers - that is several hundred military officers each year - follow the professor's teaching at the military college in Paris. Yet, it appears that in his book, this professor is offering a rather curious take on the 911 attacks.



Comment: As you will see, there is nothing "curious" about Prof. Chauprade's take on on the 9/11 attacks.



In his 10-page general introduction, he presents the many conspiracy theories published on this event as "a hypothesis not lacking in arguments, even though it isn't necessarily convincing". This hypothesis is in fact the vision of "those who think that a Machiavellian US-Israeli conspiracy marked the beginning of a US war against the rest of the world". Is this a balanced point of view? With differing sources? No. Perhaps Chauprade, who claims to have played a powerful part in the revival of French geostrategic studies has done some personal research to confirm new sources and unquestionable studies on this alleged plot? No. Most of the time, the reader is only fed with a complacent compilation devoid of any hindsight, and most of the time in the indicative mood.



Comment: The above Le Point comments on the fact that Prof. Chauprade is simply questioning the official US government 9/11 theory and pointing to the well-researched evidence pointing to US/Israeli government involvement in the attacks, employ the same old tactics used by pro-US government agents who dismiss out of hand any suggestion that the official story cannot be correct. They provide no evidence to justify either their adherence to the official US government conspiracy theory (that 19 hijackers commanded by Osama bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan carried out the attacks) or their refusal to accept the alternative and much more credible conspiracy theory - that members of the US and Israeli governments conspired to carry out the attacks in order to justify the launching of a never-ending world-wide "war on terror", which in turn is being used to justify the expansion of the geo-strategic interests of these two nations and their ideological partner-nations.



"Scientific" authority

What about the New York WTC twin towers and Pentagon attacks carried out by terrorists trained by Al-Qaeda? "The new dogma of international terrorism", an "official version, thus dubious. The WTC "fire was not as violent as has been claimed by the 911 commission. The shock wave couldn't provoke the collapse [...] Only a controlled demolition by explosives can cause such a quick and perfect collapse" says the professor, [and] the rest is in the same vein.



Comment: Indeed, and the Professor's claims are entirely reasonable and backed up by a large amount of evidence.



One would think that this professor would show a certain rigour. The problem is that he uses his "scientific" authority to confirm these conspiracy theories which he doesn't question, from which he doesn't distance himself. One example: he takes for granted the fairy tale accusing GW Bush and/or US intelligence of setting up the attacks in order to justify a war. This version claims that a "mystery" surrounds the collapse of WTC's Tower 7, which was destroyed without being hit by a plane. While official US services took the time to answer these questions in a document published on the 21th August last year, professor Chauprade doesn't mention this source in his book, which was printed last December! That's not surprising, since the bibliography he offers on this issue contains seven one-sided sources, all favorable to the conspiracy take.



Comment: Clearly the Professor is showing a great deal of rigor in refusing to blithely and blindly accept the ridiculous US government 9/11 theory. All true scientific processes must take into account all available evidence rather than cherry-picking only the evidence which supports a pre-established belief. Clearly there is a mystery surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 - it fell, for no good reason, 9 hours after the attacks began.

To this day no US government agency has satisfactorily explained the reason for this collapse, and we would be indebted to Le Point if they could point us to a source that does so. The US government report that Le Point refers to is the NIST report of 2007 into the WTC 7 collapse. The report has been shown to be little more than a whitewash. As for the sources that the Professor uses, we have not had a chance to review his book, but if as sources for his argument he offers the many books by serious and informed authors such a David Ray Griffin, then Le Point has no reason to claim that such sources are one-sided. Anyone who has impartially investigated the research available on the 9/11 attacks will immediately understand that the evidence for a US/Israeli government conspiracy is far from one-sided, and is instead stark and compelling.



At the end of these utterly biased 10 pages, the author wonders: "How couldn't such a conspiracy be unmasked in a country where so many counter-powers play a part?" But it's that simple, Professor: it never existed!



Comment: And here Le Point gives us a clear example of the type of "scientific" analysis that it employs in dealing with the strong evidence for US/Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks - ad hominem attacks, blind belief in the official government version and a lot of ostrich-like, head-in-the-sand outright denial of the evidence.



Aymeric Chauprade, Chronique du choc des civilisations. Actualité, analyses géopolitiques et cartes pour comprendre le monde après le 11-septembre [a review of the Clash of civilizations. News, geopolitical analyses and maps to understand the post 911 world], Chronique-Dargaud, 240 pages, 31 euros, ISBN : 9782205062205