12 questions to the supporters of the official version

It seems like it’s showdown time on 9/11 all around the world.

In the US Charlie Sheen has openly challenged the debunkers to debate 9/11 on Larry King. In my country (Italy) I have done the same with the top debunking TV host, Piero Angela, who has recently attacked the “conspiracy theorists” as a bunch of sickos from national TV. In France, ReOpen911 has posted a rebuttal to Canal Plus' hit piece. Russia Today has written favorably of the Truth Movement. Australia has announced a new conference on 9/11.

In the meantime David Ray Griffin has published his last book on WTC7, Asia Times has come out with their own “50 questions” list, and challenges of all kinds seem to be flaring all over the Internet.

I thought I gave my little contribution by preparing 12 questions in a video presentation that I published on my website on September 11 (this is why you’ll have to live with the Italian subtitles, if you want to make any use of it). Others may have chosen different questions, of course, but the ones I put together do cover all the major areas of the debate, while remaining generic enough for anyone to be quickly placed in the right context.

Hope they can be useful to others as well.

Massimo Mazzucco

Luogocomune.net (our 9/11 section)

"The New American Century" was just presented at the Oakland Film Festival, and is also available online on 9/11 bogger.

If anybody wants a HQ copy of the videos below, please contact me at redazioneATluogocomune.net (replace "AT" with symbol).

12 Questions to the supporters of the official version

Part 1 introduces the method issue, and presents questions on the Twin Towers (briefly touching on the freefall speed issue for WTC7) and  United 93. Popular Mechanics is caught fabricating evidence.

Part 2 covers the hijackings (air acrobatics) and the Pentagon.

Part 3
is about Building 7. It shows how the computer model used by NIST and the real events have nothing to do with each other. The segment concludes with a message from the first responders, dating back to 2006, that seems particularly meaningful in today’s turn of events.

I can answer your first question

Ciao Mazzucco,

In regards to your first question, I might suggest you replace it with another. It really has no bearing. To my knowledge, a designer has never been convicted or possibly even charged for later structural failures. Collapses happen often in the U.S. The Dallas Cowboy's (A US professional football team) practice facility collapsed in a windstorm last year. A Kansas shopping mall's roof collapsed under weight of snow. There are dozens of more examples available. Complete investigations go into their cause in far more detail than we got for the WTC. However, before these buildings go up, they are pre-approved by city planning boards and design professionals as being sound. Building codes mandate strength of materials, strength of connections and support, fire proofing, and evacuations and much more are mandated according to their use permit and building class before the first shovel of dirt is cast. There have been rare cases where the construction company may have been charged (Boston Tunnel) with negligence for shoddy work, but it's rare. In addition, these buildings were designed in the mid '60's over 40 years ago. Leslie Robertson may be the only original designer still alive and as long as he keeps supporting the official story, it will remain that way. There just isn't any precedent for it.

Which leads me to a better opening question for you. There is no precedent in history of a steel skyscraper completely collapsing due to fire. Local failures yes, but redundancy keeps the structure up. Yet on 9/11, 3 skyscrapers collapsed completely to the ground into themselves due to fire. They were all in the same location, it happened all on the same day, and all were owned by the same person. This not only defies the laws of physics, but defies the laws of probability as well. Yet somehow, people knew. NYC mayor Rudy Julianni, in an interview with ABC News, states he was told the building was going to collapse some 15 mins before it did. Who told him this? How could they know? Why didn't he warn anyone? There was also foreknowledge of building 7. BBC, CNN, and local officials all said it was coming down. To explain this, NIST states that an engineer was called in to assess the building and warned of its impending collapse, but fails to mention who he was or what agency he represented or even what agency called him in for the assessment. I think that makes a much stronger opening question.

I hope this helps.

Insieme nella verità

pace mio amico


"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful." - Edward R. Murrow


Foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse is covered in question #11.
Foreknowledge of something never happened before in history, and explained by NIST as a new phenomenon (fire-induced progressive collapse).

The Most Important Question.

Why don't YOU want to know who financed 911?

Thanks for posting here Massimo.

Thanks for posting here Massimo.
I'm a big fan of "The New American Century"