9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland. , page 1

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

Topic started on 29-1-2012 @ 12:06 AM by Prokofiev

YouTube Link

I don't think this has been posted/discussed previously on ATS, so i'll make it my first thread.

This is a lecture in Basel University, Switzerland about Sept. 11th. It's presented by Dr. Daniele Ganser, done together with three professors from Indiana University Bloomington in the United States.

www.danieleganser.ch...

His motivation to do this research was the simple fact that, as a historian, he feels that an event which triggered international wars must be studied and dealt with in an independent way.

Something from the lecture I'd like to point out:

October 2nd 2001: first time in History that NATO's article 5 was invoked.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

www.nato.int...

Watch the lecture because it's pretty well done.

edit on 29-1-2012 by Prokofiev because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-1-2012 @ 01:59 AM by WhereAreTheGoodguys

Half way through it now. Its good that people are still researching this in a non biased way. I pray to God one day we will know the truth.

Thanks for posting this.

edit on 29-1-2012 by WhereAreTheGoodguys because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-1-2012 @ 02:15 AM by lagnar

How are Historians planning on writing the History of 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan?

No matter what you think about 9/11, and whether "they" want it done or not, the recording of History requires that the research be done.

Even if it's after all the "players" are gone, History will inevitably be recorded and corrected if need be.

Perhaps people like this (unbiased and professionally in pursuit of his goal) deserve provisions for a secret service of their own?

If you're afraid of this topic, find a way to watch this video alone. But do yourself a favor and watch this video.

S&F for sure.

reply posted on 29-1-2012 @ 09:41 AM by psikeyhackr

His outline makes no sense to me.

How he can talk about LIHOP and MIHOP without talking about conspiracies first makes no sense to me.

I don't see anything there about the physics of skyscrapers. Don't skyscrapers have to exist before airliners can be flown into them. Since the Empire State Building was 70 years old on 9/11 and there are lots of skyscrapers around the world shouldn't they be a well understood subject.

Since 9/11 skyscrapers have suddenly become complicated and mysterious.

psik

reply posted on 29-1-2012 @ 12:43 PM by WhereAreTheGoodguys

He is not drawing conclusions.. He is just giving a outline of things that need to be looked into. To me it just shows that "somebody" is still looking into it, namely scholors from this country and others.

One of the points he makes is most of his students are now 21 meaning they were 11 years old when it happend and a lot just dont know the general idea of what happened. He done a great job of giving a general over view so if people wanted to pick up or find an area of intrest they could have a place to start.

There is nothing to debunk in his presentation all of it is facts just meant to spark intrest in the subject.

Face it this is not ever going away.

edit on 29-1-2012 by WhereAreTheGoodguys because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-1-2012 @ 09:35 AM by ICanThink

Excellent lecture and overview of the story!
Thar is what we need - to bring the fact that it was not investigated properly to the light and to seed some doubts of the official story in general public without going too deeply into conspiracy theories.

He makes an interesting claim however: whoever tries to study and work on the event, may lose his job and ruin his carrier. I would like to see some examples(apart form David Ray Griffin).

reply posted on 30-1-2012 @ 09:36 AM by Darkwing01

reply to post by Prokofiev

Very interesting, basically reflects my overall view.

There may be specific things that debunkers will try to argue, but overall it comes down to a simple question: Who are you going to believe?

Neither the authorities who sold the "surprise" story nor the physical and historical documentary evidence on their own really strongly support that case. The only reason you would gravitate towards it is if you were predisposed to do so for emotional reason.

I sincerely doubt that history will be kind to the "surprise" theory.

edit on 30-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-1-2012 @ 10:37 AM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WhereAreTheGoodguys
He is not drawing conclusions.. He is just giving a outline of things that need to be looked into. To me it just shows that "somebody" is still looking into it, namely scholors from this country and others.

Noone is disagreeing there are many areas that need to be looked into. The point is that just because there are areas where information is missing it doesn't give anyone license to fill in the gaps with answers they're manufacturing themselves. Otherwise you might as well just say the 9/11 attack was staged by leprechauns.

Don't you agree?

reply posted on 30-1-2012 @ 10:43 AM by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by GoodOlDave Otherwise you might as well just say the 9/11 attack was staged by leprechauns.

Don't you agree?

No , do not agree.
Leprechauns only come out at night.

But, if we apply Occam"s Razor, It was a inside job.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

reply posted on 30-1-2012 @ 03:44 PM by Prokofiev

Originally posted by ICanThink
He makes an interesting claim however: whoever tries to study and work on the event, may lose his job and ruin his carrier. I would like to see some examples(apart form David Ray Griffin).

that is indeed an interesting claim. even though he could be lying (to make his research work seem more valuable), i believe he's telling the truth.

he didn't even have to tell it, common sense tells you it's dangerous to research 9-11 if you have an important role in any institution (university, political party, tv channel, government itself etc...).

we can only guess how many proeminent figures tried to investigate and be public about 9-11, but were "advised" not to go any further...

reply posted on 30-1-2012 @ 04:19 PM by ICanThink

Originally posted by Prokofiev
he didn't even have to tell it, common sense tells you it's dangerous to research 9-11 if you have an important role in any institution (university, political party, tv channel, government itself etc...).

There are 2 ways to come to a conclusion that OS is a lie. Make the research personally, internet is full of the information, and there is not way they can stop it, but only can make it more difficult; or listen to a credible source, which is far more easier. That's why it is important to punish and discredit anyone, credible to public, who attempts to doubt OS.
You can throw a mass of logic and facts at people, but they will not believe. But if someone significant, let's say Obama, says on TV that it was an inside job, even the most hard core OSer will believe him at that very moment. It is because people given up to use their own brains and look for authority or at least group common knowledge.

reply posted on 30-1-2012 @ 08:54 PM by WhereAreTheGoodguys

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WhereAreTheGoodguys
He is not drawing conclusions.. He is just giving a outline of things that need to be looked into. To me it just shows that "somebody" is still looking into it, namely scholors from this country and others.

Noone is disagreeing there are many areas that need to be looked into. The point is that just because there are areas where information is missing it doesn't give anyone license to fill in the gaps with answers they're manufacturing themselves. Otherwise you might as well just say the 9/11 attack was staged by leprechauns.

Don't you agree?

I agree partly, but what he was talking about was just facts none of the crazy stuff you hear from some people. It was just an objective look at the events. I think its fair and should be done..

I dont know about you but I have young kids that go to school and did you know that some "history" books are already putting in the "Official Story" as fact and teaching it to kids here in America ? I dont thinks thats right, because there are so many un answered questions.. and so many shady people involved. ( you know how I feel about that Bush family)

I think this all is totally healthy to be honest. It needs to be done in a free country. Yes there might be nuts like me who think the Bush family is a cancer eating our country from the inside... But maybe some nut will inspire someone one day who will find the keys to the truth.. Its what free speach and living in a free country is all about.

reply posted on 30-1-2012 @ 09:06 PM by infinityoreilly

reply to post by Prokofiev

Watched the whole thing last night and a couple of things stuck out.

Number 1- I had not seen the video of the firemen talking about the bombs uncut before, very interesting! The cussing and anger they displayed as they were clearly taken aback by what had just happened to them, and the reporter asking them to clarify that the explosions were not associated with the plane impacts. Then one of then says he saw the second plane hit the other tower and described it as 'black' in color, another part of the interview I had not seen before!

Number 2- Didn't happen until the question answer session at the end, so I bet most who watch this will not get there! The lecturer didn't mention the anthrax attacks at all during his presentation which annoyed me! Speaking for myself, the highjacking and crashing of planes into iconic buildings is horrible but most of us don't fly or work at WTC or the Pentagon. So while shocking, you can compartmentalize it and not be personally affected. But when the attack comes through the mail everyone is a possible victim!
So the very first question from the audience was about the anthrax attacks and the speaker said, I'm not quoting exactly, that the 2 senators that received envelopes were trying investigate the attacks. Is this right, were Daschle and Leahy trying to start an investigation? I think they were against The Patriot Act but I don't remember this other angle.

Peace Infinityoreilly

reply posted on 30-1-2012 @ 09:37 PM by Prokofiev

reply to post by infinityoreilly

there are some nice, lesser discussed, details about 9-11 in this lecture. i watched it like a month ago, before i could make a thread on ATS, so some things i don't remember so well.

i'll watch it again soon and make a post with the most important and less discussed details.

cheerz

reply posted on 30-1-2012 @ 10:11 PM by impressme

reply to post by GoodOlDave

The point is that just because there are areas where information is missing it doesn't give anyone license to fill in the gaps with answers they're manufacturing themselves.

Manufacturing themselves? Dave please demonstrated where they Manufacturing answers?
Second line.

reply posted on 31-1-2012 @ 07:49 AM by Darkwing01

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Noone is disagreeing there are many areas that need to be looked into. The point is that just because there are areas where information is missing it doesn't give anyone license to fill in the gaps with answers they're manufacturing themselves. Otherwise you might as well just say the 9/11 attack was staged by leprechauns.

Don't you agree?

I don't think that is the issue Dave, the issue whether you are going to search for more and more ludicrous physical explanations just because the idea that Bush lied is implausible or whether you are going to search for more and more implausible political explanations just because the idea that 9/11 is uniquely resistant to explanation in terms of the scientific method is ludicrous.

I don't find find the idea that Bush lied implausible, at all.
I do find the idea that 9/11 is uniquely resistant to explanation in terms of the scientific method highly implausible indeed.

Believing in leprechauns is inadvisable because they are physically unlikely to exist, not because it is offensive to short Irishmen to do so.

edit on 31-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 31-1-2012 @ 12:17 PM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by lagnar
How are Historians planning on writing the History of 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan?

No matter what you think about 9/11, and whether "they" want it done or not, the recording of History requires that the research be done.

Even if it's after all the "players" are gone, History will inevitably be recorded and corrected if need be.

ROFL

Can history defy the Laws of Physics?

Can historians tell? Do historians care?

psik

reply posted on 31-1-2012 @ 01:37 PM by hooper

reply to post by psikeyhackr

ROFL

Can history defy the Laws of Physics?

Can historians tell? Do historians care?

psik

Yes, and as we are all well aware - you and you alone are in charge of determining exactly what does and does not defy the laws of physics. I am sure all historians are well noting your objections.

reply posted on 31-1-2012 @ 04:14 PM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

ROFL

Can history defy the Laws of Physics?

Can historians tell? Do historians care?

psik

Yes, and as we are all well aware - you and you alone are in charge of determining exactly what does and does not defy the laws of physics. I am sure all historians are well noting your objections.

I am dying of the deadly sarcasm.

Ten years of physicists not even talking about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.

What can be more brilliant than that?

psik

reply posted on 1-2-2012 @ 12:12 PM by hooper

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Ten years of physicists not even talking about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.

First, we have to consider a few things here;
A) You somehow or another are privvy to the conversations of all physicists, everywhere, all the time, which would make you, well basically, God.
B) Physicists don't talk about it because they are all dumber than you.
C) Physicists don't talk about it because its not relevant and its not an issue.

So, either your God, smarter than evey physical science PhD in the world, or you're wrong.

I'm going with "you're wrong" unless you can prove A or B.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^