cptgaio

SERTES | Date: 23/1/2009 21:6 | Rating: — | Rating for the Film: —Explanations of how the molten steel was formed in the foundations
Explanations for something that wasn't there? For something that is an urban legend? I repeat, read the book.

SPOT | Date: 23/1/2009 11:22 | Rating: — | Movie Rating: — The direct attacks on Massimo Mazzucco made in some comments demonstrate the level of cowardice that certain characters possess.
Aside from the fact that cowardice is another thing (like preventing Mazzucco from expressing his opinions, and it doesn’t seem to me that anyone has done this, and I think that just as he can express them, it is my right to say that in my opinion, his opinions are based on a highly incorrect approach and with clear distortions, and I have provided arguments for this opinion of mine, and he could bring arguments to his if he wanted), it seems quite funny to urge people to inform themselves on the Internet (as Caz says, investigating on the Internet is a bit of a mess) when I have simply invited others to read a book that shows a different and objectively more credible perspective. I don’t think I have exaggerated in my tone; I have given my opinion on Mazzucco's "professional approach." If he wants to refute me, he can do so; nobody is stopping him, and if he finally provides objective data to support his thesis, I will be ready to change my opinion. The fact remains that voices much more authoritative than mine (and allow me to include Mazzucco himself) have repeatedly refuted the theses of this film. It seems to me that the one being cowardly and not wanting others to voice their opinions here is someone else (you, for example), but you can see for yourself.

Sfascia: perhaps I didn’t explain myself well: the political consequences are one thing, affirming that Mazzucco's theses are credible is another for all the reasons of logic and common sense that I explain in the posts above. I don't believe that what I say is the truth, but I am sure of one thing: those of Mazzucco (I will never tire of repeating it: notorious deceiver) are nonsense. Then everyone is free to think as they wish, and their certainty in believing that we've been taken for a ride could also be my viewpoint or not. For sure, if Mazzucco is right, it means that almost an entire nation wanted to sacrifice over 3,000 people, because those are the numbers involved to give weight to his version, but fortunately, he is wrong, and the book I recommend explains with objective evidence why. Additionally, I wouldn't confuse one thing: antipathy towards the Bush government and/or anti-Americanism in general as evident proof; it would be a grievous mistake. I repeat, saying that conspiracy theories are unfounded does not absolve the political responsibilities of the U.S. administrations (because placing the blame solely on the last one would be another serious error, considering that the Middle Eastern problem arose long before) but simply asserts that there needs to be evidence before accusing someone, not mere chatter or distortions. I hope I made myself clear. Bye.

Thankssss!

cute...

Seen in person, one of the most painful moments of my life...

Esteemed, not ERsteemed...

WOW, WRECKING CARROZZE is divèrs_!!! WRECKING CARROZZE | Date: 22/1/2009 19:39 | Rating: — | Movie Rating: —
It's a divèrs comment!
In the meantime (since the publication of the intriguing de-review to today) I legally downloaded the footage; assuming that the "truth" will never be known, I dare say that some objective data that are difficult to dispute "would emerge" from it: the Boeing that the CIA claims crashed [just above the grass..] on the Pentagon, where would it have ended up? Disintegrated? Shredded? It seems that not even a shred has been found.
ERsimio Sfascia, the remains have actually been found; in the final consulting report of the investigations, there are even photos, but Mazzucco's "documentary" doesn't show them. I recommend reading the book I suggested above. Best regards.

I don't know, they might interest me.

Hmm, interesting your speech, and I agree that Odifreddi and Poildoro are somewhat integralists in their trust in Logic, and personally I often distance myself from their positions (see Odifreddi's quarrel over Proust, for example), but on other matters I believe that only Logic can save us from the metastases of metaphysics (and in this "documentary" they are everywhere). Without dragging Aristotle, Russell, Wittgenstein, or Gödel (which is not spelled this way, but unfortunately I can't find the correct spelling for the "o") into it, to dismantle this "documentary," it is sufficient to appeal to common sense, which states that to weave such a complex plot, the presence among organizers, witnesses, people to guarantee silence/consent, etc. etc. of such a high number of American citizens and non-citizens (I remind you that in NY there are not only U.S. citizens...) would have required half a nation (considering second-degree connections... relatives, colleagues, etc. etc.)... do we really want to believe that?