cptgaio

3. If you don't want things to be contested, stay on topic and don't shift the goalposts by adding confusion to confusion: conspiracy theories with accusations against the U.S. government are one thing, the responsibilities of the same regarding security are another; otherwise, since we're at it, we can also talk about Roswell if you want, and you’re still creating confusion. I’m talking about evidence provided by one side and evidence provided by the other; I’m talking about the lack of sources on one side and certainty of them on the other. Then, as I already said, nothing is stronger than what one wants to believe for sure, so it's up to you. My sources are objective because they are based on logical and scientific findings, while the sources you mention are based on chatter, insinuations, lies, and manipulations. 5. I quoted the first link I had on hand to help you understand the general seriousness of the individual (and anyway, on that page, there are all the links you’re looking for; avoid playing the game “Meyssan makes one mistake only,” which is as old as the hills...) citing a mistake that proves his bad faith, one of many since he has made tons, but since you just glanced over it, here you go: L'inventore del grande complotto - Corriere della Sera from Corriere della Sera (I hope this source isn’t considered hostile by you conspiracy theorists...) a nice profile of the person in question... you tell me not to bring up Mazzucco anymore and propose someone worse... do yourself a favor: don’t bring him up again; it’s an insult to your intelligence. The rest of your post is just backdoor chatter to which I have already given responses and sources. Bye.

Come on Jurix, it’s clear that that’s a typo!

Beautiful book, good review

7. Well, it's not that complex: just for the attack on the Pentagon, there are at least 150 eyewitnesses (let's not count those in the WTC: the fact is that almost all of them have "visions" that match, except for two or three who turned out to be quite unreliable sources and coincidentally the conspiracy theorists rely on these last ones...). Then add all the first responders at the Pentagon; I'll post a link to the photos in a comment above, (and I repeat I keep talking about the Pentagon because the numbers are smaller than the WTC and it's to give an idea of how the figures "fly") who removed parts of the plane (the conspiracy theorists, I repeat, claim that there was never a plane). I don't know how many there were, but certainly a lot. It doesn't end here: it's assumed that the conspirators corrupted experts, technicians, investigators, airport security personnel, airport staff who boarded the 19 terrorists, etc., etc., and so on, not to mention the families of all these people. Is it possible that among all these people, in seven and a half years, no one has spoken? You know, it would be the scoop of the century... I repeat and then I would like to close this story because it's becoming grotesque: all the conspiracy theories so far have proven to be against all scientific laws, logic, and even common sense...

6. But what questions are you asking? Clearly, all the attacks have been claimed by Al-Qaida, and conversely, this should be proof that the terrorist organization is interested in targeting civilians... and then, less political weight, I hope you're joking about the WTC and the Pentagon... less political weight? The truth is that where conspiracy theorists want to see oddities, they cling even to (unstable) flights of fancy regarding if and/or but, while if the same things then become evidence against them, they are all too ready to contradict themselves by evaluating them as "different," "not relevant," etc. etc.

P.S. Regarding point 5: "has he been accused of defamation?" I don't know, but the question is another: if his book had been credible, don’t you think he would have found some political support to give it political legitimacy? Is it possible that all members of the U.S. Parliament are evil conspirators? ;-)

5. Come on, Meyssan... exposed for years: undicisettembre: Meyssan e l'incendio all'Old Executive Building

Point 4: the case is different, but Gerald Ford became president of the U.S.A. without being elected by the citizens (not even as vice president, since he took over from Agnew) because it was necessary to provide governability to the country even after an event (also extraordinary, though not like 9/11) such as Watergate. Everything you say in this point is rather "background": with ifs and buts, history is not made.

P.S. Regarding point 3: "The extent of the damage caused also requires maximum clarity and transparency, which FOR ME has not been achieved, precisely to avoid possible legitimate doubts: every investigative avenue (internal, economic) should have been pursued to the end, and even here..." Forgive me, but this phrase suggests a predisposition towards conspiracy thinking. The paths to follow must be based on objective evidence and not on "for me or for you," and regarding September 11, there have been plenty of analyses and investigations, but I repeat for the umpteenth time, the so-called alternative paths (i.e., those of conspiracy theorists) to the objective evidence of the facts have always been based on false, manipulated, or distorted premises.

Point 3: Calm down and keep a cool head; you're getting confused. Until proven otherwise (and there haven't been any, at least so far), even the U.S. Government is not responsible for the attacks but rather Al-Qaeda. And even if you put it in terms of negligence and responsibility of the Government regarding security, the argument doesn't hold up because you're shifting the "goalposts": are we talking about who organized the attacks (and this is what conspiracy theorists discuss, including in this film) or something else? You’ll see that these are two different matters. As for the evidence, the argument is the one I've stated above, and you're still a bit confused: conspiracy theorists are accusing someone; in a logical world, the burden of providing evidence (real evidence, perhaps) in support of their theories should fall on them. The point is, none of it has proven true.