Pubblicato   da    novembre    2006.            HOME 

English version                                                                                     Italian version






By Giovanni De Sio Cesari

( )


 The problem- Science- Common sense- Conclusion





For many years we have witnessed the refusal of the official reconstruction of the September 11, 2001 attacks : an  infinite series of newspapers, videos, films, books and the Internet they talk  about  the "conspiracy": The theory  is introduced in a myriad of contrasting versions , however, they have in common an essential concept: the September 11, 2001 attacks  are not imputable to  Muslim terrorists but to an inner group in the USA that  staged a “dark  conspiracy “for their own political ends. The supporters of the conspiracy recognize that the thesis is indeed extreme: however they assert that the facts are not political motivated but from  incontrovertible scientific facts : the attacks cannot have taken place  according  to the  official version  and therefore anther version must be found. Often it is a supposition or hypothesis it is however far from been clear. The contradiction is not based on a political level but on a scientific one. Therefore it doesn’t openly sustain any other  version.




Then we must examine the problem on the scientific plan: therefore we ask what we actually do know. The facts are exceptional ones: they are unprecedented. It has never happened that airliners  of that dimension were launched  at highest  speed against buildings. The effects appear amazing. Two immense skyscrapers collapsed , a fourth airliner disintegrated completely   in the impact with the Pentagon. Are  effects of this sort possible?  The question rises spontaneous. An independent National Commission  named  by  expert specialists in several technical and scientific disciplines  answered substantially  positive , in an impressive number of technical relations that fills 33 books. It is true that the experts gave for discounted that the cause were those indicated by the authorities and now they had to simply, justify the effects. It is a fact that they did not find compatibility between the causes and the effects . There are a great number of " self- styled “experts” that assert that the effects could not derive from the causes and an other  large number of self- styled “expert” that  assert that those  theories  are without foundation. We don’t speak about " self- styled" in derogatory  sense but only because of  it is very difficult (or impossible)  to judge effectively if they are or they are not  really  the “experts”. The problem therefore is left to the judgment of  common people : as an example: is it    possible  or  not possible that an airline  of very large dimension can disintegrated completely in the impact with the Pentagon or those   effects  can derive from a missile. But common people do not have any idea about effects of an impact of an airline or of a missile. Nobody would think to ask the common people to judge if the wings whose airliner was equipped with were capable or not of making it fly: it is a question for specialists. To judge if an impact of that kind is possible or not   to disintegrate is a more complex issue and infinitely more controversial one. The expert can advance only hypothesis, but only hypothesis ,I would specify, not incontrovertible certainties. But anyone who has a bachelor degree in engineering a  technical diploma, is  mechanical worker or and simply  read some scientific articles believes to be able and competent. But  common sense it is very deceptive in science : the heliocentric  hypothesis was far from the evidence of the common  sense and the theory of relativity appears still more absurd to the common  sense: clearly what  appears to be common sense does not have  scientific relevance : the essential point of the speech, we think,  resides just in this: the common person  is called to judge about things he does not have a minimal competence and he belives therefore to accept the scientific theory while ,actually, he is moved only by his political prejudgments. Who is affected by anti-Americanism believes the theory of the conspiracy. He who has confidence in the Americans will reject it with disdain; In either case he will believe to estimate scientific facts while in effects, in both cases is moved only by it’s own political convictions.




It is impossible for common  people to resolve the problem on the scientific plan, we think, as well as the specialists: then we can  inquire to the facts according to common  sense. We do  not examine  the technical and scientific aspects: we look at  the context of the events. We leave out the technical and scientific aspects. We examine  what is certain: four airliners were hijacked they disappered  with their human cargo of hundreds of people, two buildings amongst  the larger in  the world  collapsed on impact with two airplane, an other airliner  is missing almost  without leaving a trace.

The  Pentagon has been hit from something flying that disintegrated .

According to the official version a group of 18 fanatical Muslims hijacked four airliners , launched  two against the twin towers, one  against the Pentagon and one would have fallen for the revolt of the passengers. Which are the alternatives version. We examine them  in the light of common sense.

1) the landslide of the two towers was not due (only) to  the impact of the airliners  but to previously hidden explosive: It is not understood the strange reason why two attacks would have been made together. Even without the fall of the Towers the mass media effect would have been enormous. If the airliners  could not hit the towers how then can                                                                                                                                     the presence of tons of explosives be justified. Why risk of being discovered in the difficult operation of mining the entire building. In whatever way  we look at the matter common  sense suggests that it would have been madness, an  absurdity.


2) The airplanes that hit the towers were not hijacked but military jet without pilots. But this means that the two airliners hijacked would have had  to be hidden, some place and therefore destroyed without a trace, that  all the occupants would have to be killed and  their bodies made to disappear. Then the airliners  immediately after hijacking had  been substitutes  with other airplane of equal power and largeness without the radars picking up the  substitution. These are all operations of such difficulty and complexities that would be unlikely to remained hidden. Even in this case the common sense makes us think how absurd is such hypothesis .


 3) the third  airliner has not fallen in the place  indicated by the authorities: For sure the airplane with all the its human cargo has disappeared: Why would it have been made to disappear? It can instead be thought that it has not fallen for the revolt of the passengers but shot down by a  military jet: This hypothesis is not against the common sense: The authorities would have preferred to show  heroic Americans bring down  the plane rather then   shot down by military jets . But in this case the substance of the events would not change: it would have been a Muslim attack and not an inner conspiracy


3) the Pentagon would have been hit by a missile and not by the  hijacked  airliner.

The common sense  then asks where  is  the airliner that disappeared and why would have been replaced with a missile with the hope, however vague, that the missile could pass for an airliner: It is indeed incredible for the common sense to believe that an attack of such secrecy would have been carried in a way that could have easily being uncovered .At the very list  another hypothesis can be considered : the hijacked  airliner has been shot  down from a missile and that an other  missile, for error, hit   the Pentagon: the hypothesis seems very  remote however it would guarantee the governmental thesis of the Muslim attack and not that one of the inner conspiracy. The alternative hypothesis  therefore appears completely                                             impossible when examined with  common sense: At best  the only  hypotheses that would remain possible is that the authorities had not told the whole truth but not a  matter of a conspiracy


The reasonableness of the hypothesis of the conspiracy can also be examined in its complex. Let’s admit that an inner group wanted to lead an attack for having a  pretext                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                of an armed force intervention  or for any reason. It appears clearly to the common sense that the September 11, 2001 attacks   appear too complex, very difficult to execute and, above all, they would have needed the complicity of a very, very large number of persons, all things that surely would render their secrecy very difficult to maintain: the conspiracy theory would have surely preferred attacks much easier to execute and to hide. To exemplify: they could  provoked  outbreaks of explosions in trades centres , trains, publics offices with the dead of   thousands                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       of persons, they could have killed the President or other important person , a bomb could have being  made to explode in the  Senate. All things incomparably easier to hide, feasible with a  limited number of persons and not difficult for one powerful organization to  operate the event of 11 /9 and to make it pass for a Muslims attacks. Why then embark on a difficult and uncertain enterprise like the September 11, 2001 attack : it would have been contrary to good common  sense .


Again why  blame extremist Muslims: it would not have been easier and more productive blame Saddam Hussein as the enemy. inasmuch as the country to invade fundamentally was Iraq?

 We finally examine  the general background .It has  never happened that the intelligence agencies have deliberately provoked  a great number of victims of  Americans citizens : it would be a fact  absolutely without precedent in the course of the history not only of the USA but of all the history .

. Instead he is easy to see that the 11/9 has not been the  first  of the Muslim attacks against Americans citizens and in European country   generality:  they have been some before with hundred of victims, the same Towers had been object of a  previous attack: other attacks have been carry out  after. Let’s add  that following the news of the attack the  fundamentalist  Muslim world  exploded in unrestrainable manifestations of joy barely  controlled by the  authorities: obvious sign that corresponded to their way of  perceiving  the fight against  the West: We do not know with certainty if  al Qaeda was really  directly responsible or not  but the fact is that al Qaeda like all other fundamentalist organizations approved the attack it is an indication  that it  fits in totally with their strategy.





In conclusion we cannot by a scientific point of view exclude perhaps the hypothesis of the conspiracy because in truth we know much too little: however, to a superficial examination like ours the idea of the conspiracy meets many and very great inconsistency that the common sense can easily discard. This obviously does not mean necessarily, that the USA Administration cannot have cultured the occasion of the attack for their own hegemonic ends, or that it has not made other errors in the conduct of its politics. But this is another problem: what we have tried to examine here is whether or not the September 11, 2001 attacks can likely be seen as suspected  of  an inner conspiracy.