@Pixies: you will forgive me if I don't answer every single one of your questions about the event (which would pose interesting and contradictory issues if they hadn't already been established as urban legends) because, besides being many in the book and in the links I've posted here, I think you'll find everything you need. However, if you want, you can read this, which is a thorough and objective analysis of the "documentary" in question:
Inganno My intention is not to dismiss you, but I seriously believe I have provided all the useful information on the topic. What I find curious and want to ask you (not to stir controversy but because you are my direct interlocutor at this moment) is why conspiracy theorists are never asked for objective evidence for their claims (try to find a single source referred to in Mazzucco's video that isn't false, altered, or distorted) and yet there is a tendency to accept their claims as credible while those who refute them are asked for even the most insignificant detail? (Curious, isn't it? True without evidence in the first case and false until proven otherwise in the second: a bit biased as an attitude). For example (but we could also discuss other conspiracy theories like the one claiming that contrails from airplanes aren't produced by them but are actually chemical substances being dispersed for military purposes: something Mazzucco, among others, claims), you tell me, "as for the too many errors of the conspiracy, I remind you that we're talking about enormous facts." And I calmly reply, sure, they are enormous facts, but, excuse me, shouldn't the fact that those who hold certain claims are continuously caught making mistakes raise some suspicion after a while? Instead, you continue to give credit to those who refute them, not only asking for more and more but even proof of the proof, and so on ;-).
I will answer your question about the "target" of terrorism, but first, let me clarify something about the topic: do you really think that in the Twenty-First Century, in a country like the U.S.A., killing the president and vice president would be enough to decapitate the entire system? Absolutely not; there are alternatives in power vacuums for certain events almost everywhere (in the U.S., but I could be mistaken since the assassination of Lincoln). Anyway, aside from that, while there are definitely dark sides (but not those "unveiled" by Mazzucco or other conspiracy theorists), it is obvious to say that there is no single type of terrorist act (and in Italy, unfortunately, we are experts), and each should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. September 11 cannot be compared to anything else, just as the Bologna bombing cannot. But sticking to the field you've gone into, I could ask you: what about London and Madrid? Why not target Charles or Felipe (the two heirs...) or even the kings, or the Prime Ministers? Is that a conspiracy too? Because if it were true, it wouldn't just be a whole nation conspiring... it would be the whole world... do we really want to believe that the U.S. government has corrupted thousands of witnesses, hundreds of investigators (both official and independent), forged thousands of pieces of evidence (all conspiracy theories have been debunked on this topic), and terrible things to involve directly or indirectly masses of people with five-digit numbers? And if it were, two issues: A) A plan that colossal would then be caught so naively by "directors" who most of the time have never directly seen a witness, an evidence, or a location (Mazzucco had never been to the Pentagon at the time of the first edition of the "documentary")... what fools... B) But is it possible that in seven and a half years, in this mass of conspirators, no deep throat has ever surfaced? I would reflect on these questions. Goodbye.
