Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Massimo Mazzucco is an Italian with a Japanese name that speaks good English and is a frequent guest on GCNlive.com radio shows.
He lives at least part-time in California and was involved in Hollywood film making. He is an innovative skilled photographer and videographer and award winning cinnematographer.
His video, New American Century, can be vied on YouTube.
His video, Cancer the Forgidden Cures, probably can also be viewed online as he states people who buy the DVDs can copy and distribute them at will. He is on Wikipedia.
He seems like a really nice, intelligent, reasonable, and truth telling person.
I heard him today say he is coming out soon with a new 9-11 video that will purportedly take the best from "all the best from all the major 9-11 truth sources" and highlight them in the film.
Apparently several radio talk show hosts in the "truth movement" are going to be focusing a lot on 9-11 in the coming months to show how so many of the geopolical events the world we are now experiencing can be traced to 9-11.
Massimo in his earlier film on 9-11, the New American Century, focused on Bush, Cheney, PNAC, and the neocons being the culprits of 9-11. I am sure his new film will revolve around that same hypothesis.
What I think will be interesting is that all the wrong misleading "findings and research" of all the main 9-11 truth groups will again be foisted on the all the people who listen to alternative radio on the Internet. I am sure all the Dr. Steven Jones and Architects and Engineers stuff will be strongly reinforced in the next few months by this "9-11 truth establishment" propaganda video. It will be all the more saleable because Massimo's movies heretofore have had some unusual footage and great screenplay and he presenats as such a personable forthright person with no agenda, including no money making agenda.
Here are few of the inclusions and exclusions and themes I bet will be part of this new video, which will be heaviliy pushed in the next few months on many alternative radio shows.
Only mention of no-plane will be strictly in relation of Pentagon event
Little or no focus on cause of the physical events at the Twin Towers.
The focus, if any at all, on Twin Towers physical events will probly be limited to
people hearing explosions,
and maybe a little William Rodriquez testimonhy thrown in.
The work of Dr. Steven Jones will be emphasized.
The work of Architects and Engineers and Richard Gage will be emphasized.
There will be a strong focus on Building 7 just as is now the emphasis of Architects and Engineers..
There will emphasis on term "controlled demolition" and probably no correct defintion of that term will be given, but it will be just understood by viewers that that term means the placement of traditional "explosives" to demolish a building.
The work of Dr. David Ray Griffin will probably receive some emphasis.
It just thought it would be interesting to sort of anticipate this film and see if I, and maybe others participating here, can predict accurately the content of this soon to be released propaganda film.
Thanks for reposting it Jeannon. I don't know how that happened.
It occurs to me that we now have two discussions ongoing that refer to nanothermite's possible role in the destruction of the Twin Towers. I'm not sure what the best way to handle that is. Ideally, all these related posts should be in one discussion thread so that any interested members can have easy access to them.
Here is the verbatim section of the Jones/Harrit et. a. paper that refers to Ms MacKinlay:
"On the morning of 9/11/2001, Ms. Janette MacKinlay
was in her fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty
St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC
plaza. As the South Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of
dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break
inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly
wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building.
The building was closed for entry for about a week. As
soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment,
she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick
layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a
large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art
piece. Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006
paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample. In November
2006, Dr. Jones traveled to California to visit Ms.
MacKinlay at her new location, and in the company of several
witnesses collected a second sample of the WTC dust
directly from her large plastic bag where the dust was stored.
She has also sent samples directly to Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and
Kevin Ryan. Results from their studies form part of this report."
Even though her sample was collected within a week of 9/11/01, it was not tested for 5 years. During that time it was moved from New York to California. The only other information supplied was that it was kept in a plastic bag. It is impossible to predict what it might have been exposed to in the interim.
In retrospective studies such as the Jones/Harrit et. al, which admittedly are of less explanatory power than prospective, controlled, blind ones of the type I have proposed, it is important to be as precise as possible with respect to handling samples lest inadvertent errors occur which can invalidate the conclusion(s).
The most appropriate sequence in a matter such as this where a poorly controlled (due to problems with standardizing sample collection and preservation) retrospective analysis was carried out and a preliminary conclusion was made is to obtain samples of dust from known and accepted sources such as the USGS (if it's samples were saved) or one of the other entities that carried out dust studies. These should first be subjected to the identical tests carried out by Jones/Harrit et. al. to see if the same results are obtained. If so, then a prospective, controlled, blinded study could be devised to see if the red/gray chip material can be generated utilizing known samples of nanothermite as a cutting agent on a properly constructed mock-up of the Twin Towers. This would be the best way to validate their theory because they would be able to attribute all of the results to nanothermite effects only.
I found the above article interesting. Who wrote it? One problem I note is that in the Schwartz comments about the dust findings that were alluded to, no mention is made of the high strontium concentrations that were found by the USGS. This suggests an attempt to hide the fact that a nuclear fission explosive reaction took place to a high degree of probability.