cptgaio

@Spot: well, it seems to me that I recommended a book where Attivissimo appears from the first post (I guess you don't read my posts) and regarding the credibility of our respective sources, darling, I don't think there's any comparison between us (meaning mine are credible). Do what you want, keep citing urban legends that have already been thoroughly debunked. Do what you want...

Anyway Diomio, there are a ton of witnesses...at least a hundred officers, let’s be serious for crying out loud.

It's fake. Altered frames. By the way, poorly synchronized too. What's hard to understand?

Come on Zurk, that video is very famous and clearly fake; you don't need to be technical to understand that. I'm saying it again, let's not fall into the ridiculous...

@Sfascia: I almost forgot, here are the photos of the wreckage of the plane from the Pentagon: Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
And here’s an article about the hole in the Pentagon: undicisettembre

I'm talking about comment 124...

Yes, him, the one who in at least three interviews has changed his version of the facts... yes, yes...
undicisettembre: William Rodriguez e l'esplosione nei piani sotterranei

Well, for example, the fact (that I have already mentioned) that Mazzucco is "known" for supporting Tullio Simoncini, a doctor struck off the register for his theories on iodine tincture (and I won't say more because the topic is really sad) seems to me a good argument for the fact that the individual tends to mystify; there are also court rulings regarding this. Concerning the "documentary" in question, it is more of a logical issue, and my arguments are based on the fact that in multiple instances (the most direct and clear being the book I mention, written by people who, unlike Mazzucco, provide scientific reasoning) many conspiracy theories (including the one we are discussing now) have been objectively refuted. I don't think it's that hard to understand; if you want, I can cite from memory since I don't have the sources handy (I, unlike many of you, don’t settle for the internet jungle). I can bring up the fact that in the book, one of Mazzucco's super-witnesses is "unmasked" as unreliable; I can point out that many images in the "documentary" are presented in a deliberately partial or even incorrect manner (this too has been demonstrated with scientific evidence in the book), and I could go on, but I prefer to insist on the fact that Mazzucco is mistaken for the simple reason that his theory goes against all logic (physical, chemical, human, etc.) and common sense (which never fails). That said, I repeat, everyone is free to believe what they want.

"DESTROYING WAGONS | Date: 23/1/2009 8:28 | Rating: — | Rating for the Film: —
@CapitanGaio: forgive the question: why wouldn’t the conspiracy theorist Mr. Mazzucco "show them to us"? Do we annoy him? Another thing (forgive my ignorance): who drafted the "final consultation of the investigations"? An authoritative commission from Uzbekistan, a Finnish committee? Or those who demand to pass off as "truth" what you seem to most eruditely possess the credentials of?
First question: well, because if he showed them his theses would go up in smoke, it doesn’t seem that complex to me. Question 2: Well, the inquiry commission was American obviously, but the number of people involved directly or indirectly (among witnesses, experts, etc. etc.) makes one think that if there was a conspiracy, it was not just state but popular. Obviously, this is a conjecture, but it stems from common sense and, let me say, from the hope that such an immense mass of people (I don’t want to say something stupid, but estimates spoke of figures in the 5 digits...) didn’t sacrifice over 3000 lives..."

Then Mazzucco has to explain this to us as well: Luogocomune - Tullio Simoncini: Renaissance Man - Medicina - Notizie