"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Documentary


"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" is a 5 hour documentary that summarizes 12 years of public debate on 9/11.

While aimed primarily at a general, uninformed audience, the film also contains some new findings that may be of interest to advanced researchers.

The full version of the film is online at luogocomune.net

Thanks for your help in propagating this information.

Massimo Mazzucco

9/11 - The New Pearl Harbor: Irrefutable proof the attack was staged, neatly indexed.




0.01:02 - 12 parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11

0.14:10 - The debate: main issues


0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors?

0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory" (radars, transponders)

0.22:00 - The military drills

0.29:40 - Specific warnings

0.33:08 - The chain of command

0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments

0.39:50 - The Mineta case

0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken"

0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary

QUESTION: The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for the last 30 minutes, was following on radar, had the means to shoot it down, and should have done so in order to protect the Capital, but they didn't. Why?

QUESTION: In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the "young man", can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?


0.57:15 - "Piss-poor student pilots"

0.59:38 - Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175)

1.01:52 - Ziad Jarrah (UA93)

1.03:06 - Hani Hanjour (AA77)

1.04:00 - The debunkers' positions

1.06:00 - 2 simulations of the Pentagon attack

1.13:10 - Someone knew?

1.16:40 - Airport security cameras

1.20.15 - The missing black boxes


1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones?

1.28:20 - Impossible speeds

1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?

1.38:35 - The cellphone calls

1.48:30 - The debunkers' position

1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where?

QUESTION: How could the terrorists be "preparing to take control of the flight" at 9:45 when they had already been in the cockpit for more than 15 minutes?



0.02:35 - Downed light poles

0.03:30 - The missing plane

0.04:30 - The official version

0.05:24 - Problems with the official version (wing, ailerons, tail, engines)

0.13:09 - The mystery hole

0.14:10 - The debunkers' explanations

0.16:20 - Conclusions on damage analysis

0.17:00 - The missing tapes

0.18:30 - Security video analysis

0.23.40 - Pentagon summary

QUESTION: Given that, according to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, "the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft (p. 40)", and that "it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of the fuselage could have retained structural integrity at this point in its travel (p. 40)", can you explain what caused the most perfectly round exit hole in the outer wall of the C-Ring?

QUESTION: Given that the maximum fluctuation between the two cameras would translate in a difference of 25 feet in the position of the plane, can you provide a valid explanation for the large discrepancy between the two corresponding frames (23:19)? Absent a valid explanation for this discrepancy, we must conclude that at least one of the two frames is the result of intentional manipulation, or "photoshopping".


0.24.15 - The empty hole

0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations

0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion?

0.34:50 - The debris field

0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis

0.38:50 - The small white plane

0.41:40 - "Let's roll"

0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93

QUESTION: Can you explain how most of an airplane weighing 100 tons could end up buried deep underground in a hole that closed itself up before the first responders arrived? (31:51)

QUESTION: Since the plane was carrying 8 to 10,000 gallons of fuel at the time of impact, can you explain why there is no plume of black smoke raising from the ground after the initial explosion? (34:45)

QUESTION: Since the plane is supposed to have hit the ground in one piece, can you explain how it was possible for debris to be found 6 to 8 miles from the crash site on a day when only a light breeze was blowing? (37:16)

QUESTION: Since they were only 20 minutes away from Washington and for almost 6 minutes the passengers had been unable to enter the cockpit, why didn't the hijackers continue flying towards the Capital? (43:25)

QUESTION: Even if they thought they couldn't make it to Washington, why didn't they try to crash the plane onto a small town nearby? Why crash the plane in an empty field where they knew they could not kill any more victims than those who were already on the plane with them? (43:30)


0.45:10 - Introduction

0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret

0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein

0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers

0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?

1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1

1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2

1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation

1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation

1.18:50 - Law of physics violated

1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall

1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E

The "Sagging Trusses" Theory: Problem - 1. No proof of insulation "widely dislodged". 2. No proof of temperatures above 250ºC (480ºF) (1:10:58)

QUESTION: Can you provide any evidence that the fireproofing from the steel trusses was "widely dislodged" by the impact of the planes, which NIST has made a necessary condition for the collapses to be caused by fire? (1:14:48)

QUESTION: Can you provide any evidence that the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough, and lasted long enough, to seriously weaken steel in the areas where the initial collapses occurred? (1:14:51)

QUESTION: Can explain how a sagging truss weakened by heat could pull and eventually break apart the structure it is attached to with no external force being applied to it? (1:15:00)

QUESTION: Given that "the building section above came down essentially in freefall" (Source: NIST NCSTAR1 - p. 146); given that for freefall to occur no supporting structure must be present; and given that the falling sections did not have any extra energy to destroy the structure below, can you suggest anything different from some kind of demolition for the removal of the supporting structure which was necessary for near freefall speed to be achieved? (1:27:32)


(Twin Towers continued)

0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions

0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives"

0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses)

0.15:00 - "Fuel in elevators shafts" theory

0.23:25 - Debunkers: "Explosions not recorded by tv cameras"

0.30:26 - Squibs

0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage)

0.35:00 - Ejecta

0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts

0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses?

0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures

0.45:30 - Debunkers' explanations

0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams

0.47:40 - Molten steel

0.51:05 - Molten concrete

0.53:50 - Pulverization

0.57:40 - Victims vaporized

1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers

INTERESTING FACTS: 1. Major elevators renovation. 2. Heavy equipment moved on empty floors. 3. Bomb sniffing dogs removed. 4. Unprecedented power down (first time in 30 years) (4:31)

Fuel in elevator shafts theory: 1. No regular elevators from top to bottom. (Diagram 1 | Diagram 2) 2. Personnel not cremated by "fireball". 3. Volumes not considered (15:41)

QUESTION: Given that after the initial explosion and the ensuing fires there wouldn't have been enough jet fuel left to pour down the elevator shafts in substantial quantities, can you explain the at least three separate explosions reported by multiple witnesses at the time of the first impact in the North Tower? (29:16)

QUESTION: In particular, can you explain the huge explosion reported by multiple witnesses in the basement of the North Tower moments before the impact of the plane? (29:31)

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the huge explosion that literally devastated the lobby of the North Tower, according to multiple witnesses, about one hour after the impact of the plane and before the collapse of Tower Two? (29:40)

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the big explosion reported by Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess on the 8th floor of Building 7, before either tower had collapsed? (29:51)

QUESTION: Can you explain what caused the multiple explosions recorded by different camera crews including the BBC and CNN, after the towers had collapsed and before the collapse of Building 7? (30:00)

QUESTION: Can you explain how more than 100 witnesses, most of them firefighters and policemen, could have all "been mistaken" in reporting explosions at the WTC? (30:15)

QUESTION: Given that what we see is clearly not glass from a broken window but concrete and debris, can you explain what caused the squibs observed 30-40 floors below the level of collapse? (32:45)

QUESTION: Given that the falling, upper sections of the towers had no additional energy to destroy the healthy structure below, where did the energy to hurdle these large chunks of structure at such a distance from the towers come from? (37:39)


1.05:10 - Introduction

1.06:35 - Official version by NIST

1.09:36 - Collapse computer simulation

1.11:00 - Fire computer simulation

1.12:20 - Debunkers: "Building 7 weaker"

1.14:25 - Pre-knowledge

1.19:00 - Symmetry

1.20:00 - Freefall


1.22:30 - John McCain

1.24:35 - The last word


To Massimo Mazzucco

I have viewed some parts from the DVD's. I want to say thanks and also give respectful suggestions.

First, the Thanks. In what I've watched so far, the 911Truthers were given the last word. Appreciated. Also, some very effective footage, such as the Mineta testimony. You have, of course, the ability to reach a lot of people, so I hope you will continue.

Suggestion. Near the trailer's conclusion, we have Ceecee Lyles. As far as I know, the way her call is portrayed there is not substantiated. If I'm wrong, then somebody please correct me.

I think that unsubstantiated material will, in the long run, push viewers away.

The Press For Truth video at this site is excellent in my opinion.


Well-researched information here:


And... any of the material from AE911Truth, or rethink911, that deals with WTC 7 (really).

And... from 911Blogger, posted by gerrycan1 (humorous but cogent):


A painstakingly accurate film about 9/11, viewed by a national--or worldwide--audience would of course be a major breakthrough. What I imagine being most dramatic, is a film that focuses on a specific part of the event (WTC buildings, or a person or persons) that clearly demonstrates the official narrative is false. What is shown must be demonstrable by testimony or forensic evidence.

Thanks for your comments.

Thanks for your comments.

Re CeeceeLyles: I'm not sure what you mean for "unsubstantiated." What you hear in the film is the original recording downloaded DIRECTLY from the Massaoui trial website. You can find it in the infamous Flash animation of the 4 flights. I wouldn't use anything less than that, given the sensitivity of the issue.


Thanks for the reply. I

Thanks for the reply. I watched more of your DVD's, in the parts about WTC 1, 2, and 7. Thanks for repeatedly showing the absurdity of the debunkers' claims. The superimposed text-questions work well, and the narration is professional. I wish you great success and hope your work leads to a new investigation.

Foreknowledge of two more hijacked planes around 09:03 heading t

Thank you very much, because i found a very interesting piece: A CNN-interview of Secret Service agent Nelson Garabito, which I cut out from your documentation.
Do you have more material about this case, perhaps an interview with Garabitos FAA-counterpart Terry van Steenhagen?

Nelson Garabito said CNN, that shortly after the second plane-crash he was informed by the FAA about four "outstanding planes": Two hit the towers, the other two were heading towards Washington DC. One was "approximately 30 minutes out", the other "was 45 minutes" out. Clearly he spoke about Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon at 09.37! But at 09.07 Flight 77 was missing in the FAA-radar, nobody knew where it was!
The other "outstanding" plane could have been Flight 93, but it was hijacked at 09:28. At 10.03 it crashed 125 Miles away from Washington D.C., but Flight 93 started 42 Minutes too late! So it could have been in Washington much earlier. Perhaps Garabito did not know that.
Foreknowledge of two more hijacked planes around 09:03 heading towards D.C.

30 Minutes Out

30 Minutes Out, even at five miles per minute, spells serious long range radar!

The local radars can only see about 50 miles out, so one must ask, just where is Nelson getting his information from?

Here is his testimony:


• On page 10 he says 30 miles out coming in fast and low.

How can they see altitude on a plane that has no transponder? Dulles and DCA can't see altitude. They don't see speed until Dan Creedon at DCA tags the craft with a "LOOK" block in the final minutes of the loop.