The following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian presidential candidate Dr. Fawzi Ghazzal, which aired on Egyptian TV on August 29, 2005

Host: A newspaper reported that you support and even demand the return to power of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. How do you explain this?

Ghazzal: My explanation is that I demand legitimacy. I demand that legitimate (rule) be established, because it was the American occupation that ousted Saddam Hussein. All the current leaders came to power under the American occupation. I believe that legitimacy must first be restored to Iraq. We must return to the situation prior to the war in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein will be in charge, because he is the legitimate president. And afterwards, the Iraqi people must have its say. When the Iraqi people has its say, we will honor its (decision). If they want Saddam Hussein, let it be Saddam Hussein. If they want someone other than Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people must make this change and not the American occupation because what happened in Iraq can happen in any other Arab country. They can do to another president what they did to Saddam Hussein.

The following are excerpts from an interview with French author Thierry Meyssan, which aired on Jaam-e Jam 2 TV on August 30, 2005. The interview is translated from Persian.

Meyssan: The events of 9/11 saddened me like everyone else. But I also felt that we were not being told everything.

Obviously, nobody knew everything at first, but it turned out later that they didn't want to tell us everything. As a matter of fact, on September 11 many people watched the events on TV, and we repeatedly saw the footage of a plane hitting a tower, and throughout that day all we saw was that footage. You have probably also seen the picture of people trapped in the tower throwing themselves out of the windows. But despite these details, people couldn't understand what was had happened. TV commentators said they didn't even know the whereabouts of the US president. Everything was mixed with violence that day, and it was impossible to understand anything.

In the following days, some senior US officials gave their impressions of what had happened, and recounted what they had been doing that day, and only then was it possible to reconstruct some of the events. But when we look back upon that day, we realize that what we were officially told about the events was presented hurriedly and without any investigation, and it was impossible to understand what had happened that day merely on the basis of this.

First of all, no investigation had been carried out. You might recall that when the news about the first plane crash was broadcast, it was clearly impossible to determine whether the crash was an accident or an attack. But one minute and 27 seconds after the first plane crash, CNN broadcast a picture of Manhattan - because there is always a static camera directed at Manhattan. Then the network broadcast footage of one of the twin towers burning and immediately afterwards, the CNN commentator said he had just talked to senior officials over the phone, and that this was not an accident but an attack by Osama Bin Laden. So this was the shortest and swiftest investigation in human history. They said: "We don't know anything, but we know who the criminal is, and we have nothing further to say about it." They said these attacks were carried out by Islamists from Afghanistan, and that they had hijacked four planes with box cutters. Of course, this is one possible use for a box cutter!

[...]

On the basis of what we were told, not all the details of the event are clear. First of all, we know that a week before 9/11, there were transactions in the world's leading stock markets involving the stocks of various airlines and insurance companies that subsequently became victims of the 9/11 events.

In order to organize such transactions, a special economic network is necessary. This can be easily detected, because every transaction and every stock are documented in archives. If we want, we can find out easily who was responsible for the attacks. All we have to do is repeal the Financial Privacy Act, and those responsible would be immediately detected. But we didn't do so because bank accounts are very sacred. They are even more sacred than world peace.

According to America's official account of the events, we don't have a clear picture of what happened in Manhattan. We all remember the scene of the two towers collapsing one after the other. But that afternoon, another tower collapsed. That third tower was not hit in any way by a plane, so there was no reason for it to collapse. Initially, people thought that the collapse of the two towers had caused an earthquake, causing the third tower to shake and collapse. But a committee of experts now says that such a thing is impossible. On the other hand, New York firefighters said that they themselves had seen and heard explosions in the third tower's foundations, as if dynamite had been placed in it. No investigation was carried out, and they don't want to know anything about this matter. But this is an extremely sensitive issue, because this tower was the world's largest headquarters of the CIA, except for its main headquarters.

The third thing that has not been clarified in any way was the issue of the fire in one of the buildings adjacent to the White House on September 11. We are used to seeing the famous picture of the White House and a large park. But right next to the White House there is a large building, which is rarely shown because it is very ugly, and it is related to the 1930's. It is called the Eisenhower Building. All the US presidential services are located in that building.

This building was completely destroyed by fire, but no explanation was given. Why has nothing been said about the third Manhattan tower and about the building adjacent to the White House? It's very simple. They did not have any plane that could serve as a pretext. It could not be said that some plane crashed here, and that this was the handiwork of Islamists from overseas. Therefore, since there was no plane, no explanation could be given. So it is presented as if nothing happened.

We see that what America says officially is not only incomplete but also falsified. If we examine some details carefully - particularly details pertaining to the Pentagon - we will realize many things. As for the incident that claimed 160 lives, they said it was because of a Boeing 757 that the Islamists hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon in a suicide attack. If we examine the details carefully, we see that some of the witnesses say something different about this Boeing.

They say that they saw some object hit the building at top speed, but they couldn't determine whether it was a Boeing or something else. If we examine the damage to the Pentagon, we conclude that this damage could not have been caused by a Boeing. It was caused by a missile. According to the Pentagon, the object that hit that spot was a plane. But a Boeing 757 weighs over 100 tons, and if it came close to the building, its speed would have been between 500 to 800 kilometers per hour, rising to between 800 to 1,200 kilometers per hour. But if a Boeing had indeed hit the building's first floor, the building would have been totally ruined. This is like a truck crashing into a building, and destroying it, not merely making a hole in it. When we magnify the picture, we see that the missile entered through this door, which is five to six meters wide. But the width of a plane is 38 meters, including the wings, and its tail is 12 meters long. Despite this, there is no sign of destruction in the vicinity. According to what they say, the attacking object entered here, passed through the building, and exited here. When it went through the building, it formed a tunnel. It passed through the walls, but did not cause any collapse or debris, and exited from here. The hole was 2.3 meters in diameter, and this clearly couldn't have been a plane.

We face an important issue: If this was a missile and not a plane, who fired it? After all, you cannot talk about Islamists or caves in Afghanistan anymore. This was a missile fired by American soldiers in order to kill another group of American soldiers. This points to an internal problem within the American system.

Behind the events of 9/11 there were clearly various groups, at odds with one another. It cannot be said that one man was behind these events and that the orders were given from one place. It should be said that the Manhattan events were terrorist acts. The destruction of the towers was intended to spread fear and terror. It terrified people. But the attacks on the building adjacent to the White House and on the Pentagon were not intended to spread fear. This was something else: an attempt to assassinate people in power. I don't think any of the assassination attempts were carried out by Islamists, as the official American version goes. That is an embellishment, a total lie, and an attempt to cover up internal disputes in America.

[...]

In my opinion, the US government was fully informed in this affair. I have mentioned this in my book. Many foreign intelligence agencies warned America about what was about to happen. The intelligence agencies of Egypt, the Zionist regime, France, Germany, and Russia sent reports to their American counterparts. All these reports had a clear and common message: Attacks would be carried out against American interests, and perhaps against Israeli interests as well. These attacks would be carried out by planes of American commercial airlines, which would be hijacked and crashed into targets. The targets would presumably be large buildings, the main target would be in Manhattan, and these events would will take place in the week of September 9. This is completely accurate information that would have helped (the US) to take measures that would have made the attacks more difficult, if not preventing them.

But the US government did nothing to prevent these attacks. On the contrary: While for 40 years there was an American aviation law requiring pilots to carry arms, this law was repealed right before 9/11, even though the US government had received warnings about the high likelihood of these events. If we disarm the pilots even though they are at risk - this means we want these events to happen. When the US government is now asked about this matter, it says that it has always received similar warnings and that it was impossible to know whether this warning was more important than the others, and that its only mistake was in sorting the information. This may be the case. Since this discussion began, it has been said that certain CIA, FBI and NSA officials conveyed messages to the US government that a certain incident is possible. They warned and sent reports about this. If these were only low-ranking officials, the fact their warnings were not taken seriously could be understood. But Russian President Vladimir Putin told an American TV channel, four days after the events, that when the Russian intelligence services had conveyed their initial report to America, he had called Bush personally to remind him of the report's importance. If one does not pay serious attention to information brought by a low-ranking official, this is one thing... But what about disregarding a phone-call by the Russian president? This is hard to believe. We see, therefore, that the US government allowed these events to happen. This is passive cooperation.

But if we examine the case more carefully, we see that this was not merely passive cooperation. Bush is directly responsible in this affair... Maybe not for all the incidents, but at least for the first. We have what Bush himself said at a press conference in Orlando, which he repeated seven days later at another press conference. Therefore, if he did not manage to make himself clear the first time, he could have made up for it the second time. But he repeated the exact same words, and said that on the morning of September 11 he was at a kindergarten in Florida, in the South, to deliver an important speech about the importance of learning to read in kindergarten.

When he went into the kindergarten he was told he had to hold a top secret phone call under strict security conditions with Mrs. Rice, his National Security advisor, and he was asked to go into a secure hall prepared for him for that purpose.

When the US president travels around a large country like America, halls are prepared along his route, equipped with means of communications, such as telephones, videos, and so on, so he can talk to his joint command, his residence, and with the White House, without fear of being tapped. Such a hall was prepared at the kindergarten. Bush calls Rice and says: "I have just seen on the secure video-screen that the first plane went into the first tower." Then he entered the kindergarten, and did not appear to be agitated. Actually, when such incidents occur, the US president immediately says a few words of condolence to the victims' families. But he goes in, and showing no concern, he makes his speech about learning to read in kindergarten. Then, while he is still talking to the small children in front of the TV cameras, one of his cabinet members comes up to him and tells him that a second plane hit the second tower. If you were in charge of the cabinet and said such a thing to the president, you would wait for an answer. The cabinet members generally have to wait around the president to receive instructions, but they moved away, as if they didn't have to wait for an answer. It was like reporting on some ongoing operation. At any rate, the US president is silent for a moment, his face grows a little dark, he makes his apologies, and leaves the kindergarten class to prepare a short speech. Then he leaves Florida. There is just one problem: Nobody knows what footage he saw of the first plane hitting the first tower. The reason is simple: None of the TV channels throughout the world had the footage of the first plane hitting the first tower. The first footage is by two brothers, French journalists. They were preparing a report on New York firefighters. That day they accompanied the firefighters, who went out to the area because of a gas leak. Suddenly they saw the plane coming and heard a terrible noise. They lifted their heads and saw the plane hitting the tower. Then the two reporters reached the World Trade Center with the firefighters to help the victims. The footage they filmed was later given to others through the Gamma press agency. The footage was broadcast at midnight Washington time. Therefore, when Bush saw the footage of the first plane hitting the tower, nobody had this footage except for the American intelligence cameras that were at the site to film the incidents. If they were present at the site to film the incidents, they must have anticipated such an event. And if the US president knew about such an incident, what does this mean? It means that politically he is directly responsible for the incident. I am not saying this about the other incidents as well, but he was responsible for the first. It is even possible that he was involved in giving approving the first operation, but encountered a more extensive operation.

Then the Pentagon affair occurs. Attacking the Pentagon with a plane or a missile poses one problem: There are missile launchers are installed around the Pentagon and on the roof. If a plane, a missile, or anything enters the Pentagon's airspace, the missile launchers would be activated. They may not be able to intercept the relevant object, but a missile will be fired. Either somebody deactivated the Pentagon's missile system - and that means that somebody in the American military was responsible - or else there is another reason, a very simple one. All the armies in the world have systems to prevent "friendly fire". In missile and anti-missile systems, before (a missile) is fired, a radio-wave is sent to identify whether the object in question is "friend" or "foe". If the code is "friend" - the code of the American military - the missile system is not activated. This is completely automatic, and there is no need to push a button, or anything. Therefore, the only way to attack the Pentagon with a flying object is for this object to have the American army's "friend" code. In fact, the Pentagon was attacked by a US army missile fired by American military personnel. So there was indeed a confrontation within the American apparatus. As you know, this is nothing new. Unfortunately, the internal dispute within the American apparatus goes back to the days of the wars between North and South. These internal disputes have never been resolved.

[...]

Over the past few years, the threat of domestic terrorism has hovered over America many times. Every year the FBI publishes a document about domestic terror attacks. (According to this document), there were at least 100 terror attacks perpetrated by Americans against Americans. In 1995, a significant terrorist attack was perpetrated: A bomb was planted in a building in Oklahoma City, and the main target was an FBI office. This attack exacted a toll of 108 victims. If we look at it closely, the target of the Pentagon attack was not the Secretary of Defense office. The Secretary's office was at another corner of the building. The was the new center of the American navy. This new command center was being built, and the new navy commander had come there to supervise the work was progressing. Only a few moments after he left, the missile struck the Pentagon. At that moment, all the senior officials in the joint command left their offices and entered the shelters under the Pentagon, except for the navy commander, who apparently felt he was the main target. Therefore, the only thing beyond doubt is that this assassination attempt is related to the American apparatus. Three days after the events of 9/11, the secretary-general (sic) and the White House spokesman were interviewed by various American newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and New Yorker. They said: "We were very scared that day."

Around 10 a.m. - when the Pentagon and the White House were attacked - the secret service, responsible for protecting the president's life, received a phone-call from the people behind the attacks. This is very interesting. If they called, they must have presented a demand. But they said no such thing. All they said was that they had used the American president's secret code to demonstrate how dangerous they were. This code makes it possible to make changes in the command centers and in the president's instructions. So everybody was gripped with fear. This is why the president left secretly for a base in the center of the US to give instructions personally from there.

The fact that the attackers had the secret code shows they were not regular American soldiers. They belonged to the top US military officials, because only few people have America's code - they may even be counted on the fingers of one hand. The person responsible for at least one of these attacks was a top official in the American army. If a retaliation operation needs to be carried out against those responsible for these attacks, one must take action against the real perpetrators at the top of the U.S. military.

You just asked another question: Was there any indication that Islamists were involved? One might think that the Islamists were drawn into this affair, not as the main planners, but as those carrying out the plan, or as members of one American group against another. Maybe. That's a theory. But this is the only theory raised by the US government. In order to prove this theory, America is giving different indications. The problem is that whenever we look into these indications, they turn out to be false, erroneous, and an afterthought. Ultimately, we have no clear proof about the Al-Qaeda network's involvement. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm saying that it does not prove a thing. On the other hand, you recall that the US government had promised to provide sufficient evidence for Al-Qaeda involvement in the affair. US Secretary of State General Colin Powell undertook personally and publicly to present a comprehensive report on the affair. Until the war in Afghanistan, this was a genuine promise. Ten months have passed, and we still don't have this report. The reason is that they had no proof. One of the most well-known stories that they concocted for us is that there were 4 planes hijacked by 19 terrorists, and the FBI immediately published the list of the 19 terrorists. How could they have prepared this list? The FBI is not telling us since this is a secret. But why these 19, and not some other 19? Is it because they happened to follow them through phone-calls? Were the names of these 19 on the passenger lists? No. In my opinion, none of them were on the flight lists. But they say that there were a few who boarded the planes at the last moment, and their names were therefore not on the passenger lists. The problem is that the number of people who boarded the planes is smaller than those 19 terrorists that the US is presenting. So practically it is impossible that all 19 boarded the planes. However, among those 19, 6 are still alive, so they couldn't have been on the planes, or they would be dead. They are generally Saudis, and they held interviews with the international press. The strangest case is that of Muhammad 'Atta, who is mentioned as the leader of this terrorist group. Nobody tracked him down, but his father is certain that he is alive, and that he called him the day after 9/11. He says: "My son has never been involved in such crimes. He does not kill civilians this way. If he fights, he kills soldiers and not civilians." Whom should we believe - the FBI or Muhammad Atta's father?