dark schneider

@chinaski: I don't see much difference between a group of people rushing into skyscrapers and killing 3000 people in the name of Allah or government officials destroying buildings (with people inside) for interests and/or the safeguarding of the country (?!). These are two actions I wouldn't want to think about. But they happened. It's not a matter of being able to sleep at night. The world is this way. The very fact that 3000 people died is serious. It's just that it's easier to admit it's someone else's fault...without taking anything away from Americans who may be right about terrorists (even though I don't believe it), but who hide or omit important details about the events that occurred. If I can't sleep at night because I can intuit or think that there is something (even if I don't know what) involving the American government, then you shouldn't be able to sleep at night either because you might be afraid of a terrorist planting a plane in your ass. After all, if they've breached the most impenetrable defense in the world, what the hell is stopping them from getting to everyone's home...?

In my opinion, puntonicaz hit the nail on the head fully. I agree that the deeper you dive, the less you understand. I would also add that the reason why no one knows well the events of Piazza Fontana and, more generally, our local tragedies is because here in Italy everything tends to serve political issues (right vs left), further undermining the possibility of understanding the truth (the more I delve, the more I get confused). Plus, there’s the mystery of state secrets…

I haven't researched the author, but I’ve done some deepening in recent days considering the rebuttal of this conspiracy hypothesis. From my perspective, nonsense exists on both sides, but I believe that America's official position in its argument regarding the events of September 11 is incomplete and lacking. It's curious that those who disprove these conspiracy theories (which, as presented in the documentary, are not really conspiracy theories, since they are merely an exposition of doubts and inaccuracies) are people who are diametrically opposed and have biases or are enthusiasts, rather than significant figures regarding the event... It’s a bit like what happens with the Italian government: the right acts one way and the left declares it wrong; the left implements a reform (which it hasn’t done for quite some time, but I seem to remember ;D) and the right criticizes it... which leaves us voters (or viewers in the case of the film) with a subjective opinion, which can very well be understood as siding with one or the other party, ultimately overshadowing the fact itself and the question "Why?"... This doesn’t mean that I don’t believe your words CPTGAIO, because I’ve noticed some exaggeration, but it’s easier to accept things as they are...

Do I really have to say what I think about the review? I give it a 2.5, but I round it down to a 2 because I'm in a bad mood.

Anyway, I believe I will take a look at it without any biases, because playing the conspiracy theorist doesn’t appeal to me. I just want to say that I was strongly impressed by the documentary. While browsing through the web, I noticed this: “Eco, in two little pages, does not talk about 9/11. And Odifreddi says that applying the cui prodest test to 9/11 easily leads to the moral culprits, if not the material ones, namely Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. In fact, they had stated in the Project for the New American Century and in other official documents that it was necessary ‘a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor’ to justify ‘a substantial increase in defense spending and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests.’ ‘And what could better satisfy such a description,’ writes Odifreddi, ‘than the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon? At this point, whether the Bush administration actively organized the attacks in New York and Washington, passively allowed them knowing that they would take place, or simply welcomed them as a heavenly blessing once they had occurred unbeknownst to them, might also fade into the background. What I really want to emphasize is that 9/11 provided them with a formal excuse to implement a policy that had been in the works for at least five years, which has so far led to two wars.’ Thus, this seems like an intervention more suited for “Zero” by Giulietto Chiesa. The rest are the usual claims of Attivissimo which are available for free on the web. They tried to exploit the names of Eco and Odifreddi even though the latter states the opposite of their theses!”

I must say that this documentary really struck me, and in my opinion, an official statement addressing many of the questions raised by the documentary wouldn't be a bad idea. Like the spontaneous collapse of the building next to the towers, the melting (!) of the "frame" of the towers due to a simple kerosene fire when they melt at temperatures at least twice as high, the hole in the Pentagon (too small for a 757), and the almost complete lack of airplane debris both at the Pentagon and in the woods near Pittsburgh, as well as the powdered concrete remnants that are hard to explain by a single collapse.

oPS. The vote: I don't know the album.

Beyond any resentments, the review is fluid and suited to its purpose, though not without a few blunders (even if they give an identity to the review itself).

On the Iraqi issue, I think it's all a farce by now. Nowadays, it’s enough to say something on TV to be believed. "We will withdraw our troops from Iraq"... Of course, I would add, once we've drained everything we came for. Then there was the claim about emissions: what do you see wrong (if it's not the truth) in reassuring people? After all, Bush did it too. "Don't worry, there won't be any more attacks because now we're going to kick the ass of those sons of bitches terrorists who have lost their way! (and who synchronized to hit their targets at regular intervals of exactly 1 minute while flying over the world's busiest skies without the intervention of military jets to check why they had severed communications)."

I'm sorry, but believing in nonsense is part of both of us. You believe in what your American buddies tell you. I don't... at least not in everything. I try to think for myself, unlike you who staunchly defends those you find "nice." There's no problem in opening a debate, but I've already seen that it will lead to gratuitous insults and, frankly, I'm not in the mood and not extremely informed about the facts. But I'm certainly not going to look them up on Studio Aperto like you might...