cptgaio

Ps: the ones about the missing debris from Pittsburgh and the smaller "hole" in the Pentagon are urban legends that have been debunked for years by objective evidence. Seriously, do some research.

So: on the issues of the "spontaneous collapse of the building next to the towers, the melting (!) of the towers' "frame" from a simple kerosene fire when they melt at temperatures at least double, the hole in the Pentagon (too small for a 757) and the almost complete absence of airplane wreckage both at the Pentagon and in the forest near Pittsburgh as well as the pulverized concrete debris that is hard to imagine resulting from a single collapse," the book provides (and seriously, not with distortions) all the evidence to refute conspiracy theories. Regarding Eco, it is true that he does not talk about 9/11, but his contribution is a general commentary on conspiracy phobias (and do you really think that if it didn’t align with the editorial line of the book he would have agreed to appear in it?) while Odifreddi offers a political analysis of 9/11 focusing on the true faults of the American Government, which are certainly not those vaguely proposed by Mazzucco but are, in fact, political issues (the same discussion as Eco; I don’t think Odifreddi is that stupid as to be exploited as you say...). What surprises me is that you place on the same level "organization" and "acceptance" of 9/11, which are two completely different things (this is where this "documentary" leaks from all sides). The difference between a "documentary" and a book is that the former proposes a thesis based absolutely on unreliable and historically refuted evidence, while the latter is based on scientific findings. Of course, if you confuse "material collapse" and "exploitation of the consequences" (something Mazzucco does extensively), things change. For example, Odifreddi's theses on the moral responsibility of the Bush administration do not at all contradict the objective evidence that refutes conspiracy theories, but rather offer a broader political perspective that goes beyond the simple and trivial reconstruction based on at least folkloric reconstructions. To say that Odifreddi supports them is to say something absurd. The same goes for Eco. Then, if you think they are signing a book that in your view goes in the opposite direction, you are doing a disservice to your own intelligence, not theirs. No offense, but don’t limit yourself to web pages. Dig deeper for real.

To say that Polidoro is debatable is to say that Cicap (one of the few anti-debunking organizations functioning in Italy) is as well. Come on.

Polidoro a questionable figure? Perhaps, for heaven's sake, this Mazzucco who has been diving into every possible conspiracy theory for ages. I repeat, read the book I mentioned above, which is edited by Polidoro but features contributions from Odifreddi, Eco, Montali, Shermer, Randi, etc. (are all of them disputable as well?) and you will see that the so-called "evidence" presented in this "documentary" is nothing but distortions. Try it to believe it.

mmm, but who says that the scripted plot of a radio drama is necessarily just pure entertainment? We're talking about the very History of Radio, come on. Caz's argument is highly debatable because it disregards something that actually has a most noble history (I've already mentioned Orson Welles, I believe, but there are so many others that could be cited as important). We're not talking about someone taking a book and proposing it word for word; we're talking about revisiting it and creating a screenplay. I repeat, if we discuss this, then we should also discuss Cinema, Theater, Opera, etc., because with the due differences in medium, we are talking about the same thing.

I recommend reading "11/9: La Cospirazione Impossibile" edited by Massimo Polidoro and published by Piemme to understand how many lies this "documentary" tells.

Caz, Caz...it only makes sense to exist for what you like, huh! :-D

Hmm, seeing some comments, it seems that it's still not clear that we are not talking about "reading a book" but rather about a scripted reinterpretation: I would like this to be clear because there is a difference.

I understand, but if you start from the assumption that "if something is interesting," any reinterpretation of a fact, a book, a film, a record, etc., is worthy of attention only if it suits your taste, I think that’s a bit of a limitation (or not?). However, we’re not talking about “small talk” here; we’re talking about reinterpretations (which, I repeat, if we dismiss this, we dismiss them all), and that’s different. Also, not to be polemical, but 99.99999% of what a human communicates to you can be found in books (since they are written by humans, indeed ;-))—it’s the way it’s communicated that makes the difference (the famous empathy): a reinterpretation, then. I understand you when you say that the pleasure of reading is something unique (I think so too), but indeed here we are not talking about reading, but something else.

You cannot judge me, the Radio, in its entirety by the programs you mention, as it is like judging music by taking just the Take That (and I don't think I'm exaggerating with the comparison). Then, regarding the discussion about fairy tales, my comment was an example, and I still find it quite sad to categorize something for "children" as something negative when, in reality, there is a whole popular culture (I don't think I need to remind you of the work of Calvino or Sgorlon, to name two, in this regard) that is our very essence. Of course, I'm not saying that those who listen to an audiobook do so in that context, but rather that it stems from that context (the pleasure of storytelling and being told stories, a tradition unfortunately lost in modern society: I think you know what "filò" was). The radio and then audiobooks drew and draw inspiration from this tradition that is absolutely rooted in our DNA.