There’s nothing wrong with questioning events and proposing alternate theories; yet you wouldn’t know this, from the way many who do this are treated. An intelligent, logical, critical-thinking person can see that, many things which happened on 9/11, were highly abnormal and inconsistent with the explanations we were given, by those in the government and media.
How is it that many supposedly educated, critical-thinking individuals, have been so well trained to protect government claims and government propaganda, instead of thinking for themselves and arriving at their own conclusions? Why do we allow these government propagandists, or people who have been duped by this propaganda, to keep us from having a substantial public inquiry?
It has now been nearly 10 years since 9/11 and while a substantial portion of the population now questions the official stories; it is still considered taboo, under most circumstances, to pose questions which indicate a non-belief in the official version of events.
Discussing these theories has lead to many firings and quite often ostracism from friends, co-workers and family; but these questions are perfectly logical questions. Why do people resort to such immature measures in response to simply questioning an event? Why not just answer the questions and come to the conclusions reached using logic?
Is there, perhaps, a fear of using logic to question these events? Might the conclusions reached possibly put people in a position of conflict with long-held views?
The following are some of the most important questions about 9/11, which remain unanswered or inadequately answered:
- Why did Brig. Gen. W. Montague Winfield, director of operations at the National Military Command Center, ask an inexperienced Capt. Charles Leidig to take his place as director of operations, just minutes before the 9/11 attacks (8:30AM), then resume control, only after the last plane had crashed? Why was Capt. Leidig then promoted to Rear Admiral in the wake of 9/11?
- Why were many of the military brass, who failed to take protective measures, promoted in the wake of 9/11?
- How could the towers have collapsed after mere jet impacts and minor fires, despite the fact that laboratory experiments and computer simulations, intended to duplicate these circumstances failed to produce a collapse? Why did the government still claim that this was what happened despite evidence to the contrary?
- How could an amateur pilot, who had only flown single engine Cessnas, fly a Boeing 757 for the first time ever and execute a 270 degree turn at 800 kilometers per hour, then fly at 460 knots near sea level, only 6 meters off the ground for 1 Kilometer?
- How could a 757 execute the 270 degree maneuver which hit the pentagon, which was well outside of the parameters the jet was designed to operate under?
- How did a civilian airliner pass the multi-layered zones of protection around the Washington D.C. area without being intercepted by fighters or shot down by the anti-air defenses?
- How is it that planes known to be hijacked were not intercepted for the 20 minutes – 1 1/2 hours that they were supposedly flying after hijack. Why was no-one in the military or the government held responsible for the stand-down that must have occurred on that day, given that the government knew planes were hijacked well before the crashes? Who ordered the military stand-down on 9/11?
- How could controllers identify a jet as AA Flight 77, despite the fact that it was lost from radar for 36 minutes and the supposed plane near the pentagon had no transponder signal.
- How is it that the FBI claims to have known the identity of 19 supposed hijackers without providing evidence to this effect? How is it that many of these supposed hijackers were found to still be alive after the event?
ZERO: An Investigation into 9/11, has one central thesis – that the official version of the events surrounding the attacks on 9/11 can not be true. This brand new feature documentary from Italian production company Telemaco explores the latest scientific evidence and reveals dramatic new witness testimony, which directly conflicts with the US Government’s account.
Featuring presentations from intellectual heavy weights; Gore Vidal, and Nobel Prize winner Dario Fo, the film challenges assumptions surrounding the attacks. In the words of the Italian daily newspaper, Il Corriere de da Sera, “What results is a sequence of contradictions, gaps, and omissions of stunning gravity.”
The importance of this film can not be overstated. If its thesis is correct, the justification for going to war in Iraq is built on a series of outrageous lies.
On Tuesday 26th February, Europarlementarian Guilietto Chiesa invited his colleagues and the press to attend the screening and debate of the Italian-produced documentary named ‘ZERO, an investigation into the events of 9/11’. Object of the screening was to create political awareness of the faulty official investigation into the events by the 9/11 Commission.
Besides Mr Chiesa, the panel consisted of Japanese parlementarian Fujita, Dr David Ray Griffin, film distributor Tim Sparke & the director and producers of the film.
After his opening statements, Mr Chiesa welcomed his guest speakers, including the producers, director and distributor of the documentary. Mr Chiesa pointed out that he was unable to find any distributor in his native country of Italy and was happy to find a company in the UK, led by Mr Tim Sparke, to handle worldwide distribution of this important film. ‘It is important to realize,’ he emphasized ‘that the movie was made thanks to contribution and donations of hundreds of citizens who feel a new investigation is more than warranted.’ No less than 450 people worked on this documentary on a voluntary basis. They never received any kind of payment. Their reward is the movie itself, which they feel is an instrument to create awareness and a means to provoke a political debate in Europe.