It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

10 years after the Terror Attacks on 9/11: a Lecture by Dr. Daniel Ganser.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I just saw this on youtube and decided to post this lecture by Dr.Daniel Ganser has written about Operation Gladio his book is called Nato's secret armies it's one of the few looks into the strategy of tension that was used through out Europe and the Mid-east.



edit on 093030p://4526 by mike dangerously because: fixed the link.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 


Almost an hour and a half long?
Can you provide a sort of short synopsis of this video for those members who cannot view the video?
Thanks!



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
He goes through the various issues of the debate over the last 10 years.It's a good run down on 9/11.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Actually the video leaves more questions than answers, which is kind of the point of the video. I is not so much conspiratorial in nature, but more of a common sense, logical response to numerous theories. The problem with this video however is that this man offers no sources.

As an example, he brings up the Larry Silverstein "Pull It" comment. He then explains what the Silverstein camp has said in response to allegations that the "Pull It" comment is an admission of Controlled Demolition by saying the Larry was simply discussing the firefighters and that "Pull it" was in reference to getting NYFD out of the building. He then goes on to say, as a matter of fact, that an expert in Linguistics has come forward and said that he does not believe "pull it" was about firefighters and then goes on to explain the reasoning behind that from the perspective of a trained, professional Linguistics expert.

So who is this expert? That is certainly a professional I would like to hear about, but I did not notice the lecturer offer any proof. Simply made the claim and continued on with his presentation. So in that regard I found the video to be very lacking, however it was a nice change in that these are legitimate common sense questions and any person of average intelligence would ask in regards to the Official Story of 9/11 that have been dismissed by our Government and never answered.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


As an example, he brings up the Larry Silverstein "Pull It" comment. He then explains what the Silverstein camp has said in response to allegations that the "Pull It" comment is an admission of Controlled Demolition by saying the Larry was simply discussing the firefighters and that "Pull it" was in reference to getting NYFD out of the building. He then goes on to say, as a matter of fact, that an expert in Linguistics has come forward and said that he does not believe "pull it" was about firefighters and then goes on to explain the reasoning behind that from the perspective of a trained, professional Linguistics expert.


So is this alleged Linguistics expert have any experience in fire fighting...?

I think not

"Pulling" firefighters from a building goes back to days before radios were in common use. Having members
outside or the pump operators jerk the hose lines was a means to signal the men inside to evacuate

Even today is still taught as a last ditch method to signal the men inside that conditions are becoming too
dangerous - fire fighters are taught to follow the hose lines by touch as guide to finding direction out

What you have here is some verbal masturbation by couple of clowns who have no experience on a fire ground



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyred
reply to post by mike dangerously
 


Almost an hour and a half long?
Can you provide a sort of short synopsis of this video for those members who cannot view the video?
Thanks!





Originally posted by mike dangerously
He goes through the various issues of the debate over the last 10 years.It's a good run down on 9/11.




LOL, perhaps a longer synopsis than that?



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 
They wanted a summary and I gave it to them.I aim to please!




posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MrWendal
 


As an example, he brings up the Larry Silverstein "Pull It" comment. He then explains what the Silverstein camp has said in response to allegations that the "Pull It" comment is an admission of Controlled Demolition by saying the Larry was simply discussing the firefighters and that "Pull it" was in reference to getting NYFD out of the building. He then goes on to say, as a matter of fact, that an expert in Linguistics has come forward and said that he does not believe "pull it" was about firefighters and then goes on to explain the reasoning behind that from the perspective of a trained, professional Linguistics expert.


So is this alleged Linguistics expert have any experience in fire fighting...?


Do you know what a Linguistics expert is lol?


"Pulling" firefighters from a building goes back to days before radios were in common use. Having members outside or the pump operators jerk the hose lines was a means to signal the men inside to evacuate

Even today is still taught as a last ditch method to signal the men inside that conditions are becoming too
dangerous - fire fighters are taught to follow the hose lines by touch as guide to finding direction out

What you have here is some verbal masturbation by couple of clowns who have no experience on a fire ground


Pulling maybe be but 'pulling' is not the same as 'pull it', especially in context of the whole statement. Something a linguistics expert would know.

What you are doing is verbal BS.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Why could pull it not mean "pull" the firefighting operation?



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Debunkers unite!!


If your going to quote my post at least have the courtesy to understand what you read. All I did was provide a description of the video and used an example from it. If you bothered to comprehend my post, you would see where I said I would like to see some proof. I would like sources for his claims.

That is the funny thing about people who search for truth, it makes no difference what side of the issue I believe, it still requires proof in order to be considered truth.

To answer your foolish question, a Linguistic expert knows nothing about putting out fires. What he knows is language and the use of language. In case you were not aware Linguistics is the science of language, which would make a Linguistics expert's opinion on Larry Silverstein's interview in which he uses the term "pull it" perfectly valid.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Pulling maybe be but 'pulling' is not the same as 'pull it', especially in context of the whole statement. Something a linguistics expert would know.

What you are doing is verbal BS.


...and what YOU'RE doing is grasping at straws in desperation. Silverstein said...

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it"

...SO, he's either saying "because there was so much loss of life they decided to pull the firefighters out of a dangerous area", which makes perfect sense, OR "because there was so much loss of life they decided to secretly plant controlled demolitions and then cover it up so that noone knows about it", which doesn't make a lick of sense even when you read it twice. He specifically said later that he was referring to the firefighter operation when he said "pull it", and it's the only thing that makes sense in the context of the rest of the sentence. If you want to believe he's lying, fine, but you need to know you have nothing but your own abject paranoia to base it on.

Move along. Nothing more to see here.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
My son is taking a political science class and sent me an article his class had to read.

I like this paragraph from it:

We also could not have predicted that the unity and resolve of that September night would give way so quickly to the fear and fear-mongering of the next ten years. A decade after 9/11, our political leaders continue to permit the fear of terrorism to dominate our political and legal discourse. Terrorism has existed throughout history in various forms, and its threat persists today. But, by defining the struggle against terrorism in existential terms—as a “war” without geographical or temporal limits—our leaders are asking us to accept a permanent state of emergency in which core values must be subordinated to ever-expanding demands of “national security.”

THought this kind of tied in with the title of the OP.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ANOK
 


Why could pull it not mean "pull" the firefighting operation?


Because people are never referred to as 'it'?

And coincidentally 'pull it' is a well know demolition term. Please don't try to claim it isn't.

So if you look at his statement logically it makes less sense that he was referring to firefighters, who BTW had stopped working on WTC 7 hours before it collapsed. I thought Frank Fellini had 'pulled' the firefighters out by 11.30am.

On top of that the owner of a building has NO say over whether the fire department should stop its operation. That is a public safety issue.


edit on 11/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ANOK
 


Why could pull it not mean "pull" the firefighting operation?


Because people are never referred to as 'it'?


People are not "it".

A firefighting operation would be considered an "it".




And coincidentally 'pull it' is a well know demolition term. Please don't try to claim it isn't.


Yes of course, look here:


Can you uh, show me the cables attached to WTC7 please? Also, I'm still waiting for your pictures of entire floor sections being ejected outside the footprints of WTC1 and 2. I've given you about three months now. Still waiting for it.




So if you look at his statement logically it makes less sense that he was referring to firefighters, who BTW had stopped working on WTC 7 hours before it collapsed. I thought Frank Fellini had 'pulled' the firefighters out by 11.30am.


According to Frank Fellini they made the decision to not fight the fires in WTC7 due to the damage done to it and the fires that were burning. (Notice the little part about his account where he said that chunks of steel were ripped between the 3rd and 6th floors and that gave him fear of the building collapsing, plus the fires?) However, firefighters did report they were around WTC7 right up until 3PM when Chief Nigro made the final "pull" order, and many others report they got pulled from WTC7 and Ground Zero around 3-3:30PM. Now, recall, Nigro was the Chief of the Fire Dept, which means his orders trump all. Frank Fellini was just a chief. Still high on the totem pole, but not high enough. What it appears to have happened is that either A) he is off by his recollection of times regarding the rescue and recovery actions; B) due to the chaos of the day orders were either lost, ignored, given but not received, given then countermanded, etc. 3) He believes that orders were given but it may not have been carried out. Funny you are so hung up on what one fire chief said about the firefighting operations around WTC7, but then completely ignore the parts where he also saw heavy damage AND fires burning out of control and he believed that WTC7 was going to collapse due to the combo. Also, you ignore the other firefighters that report they were in and around WTC7 till 3PM, or those that saw WTC7 burning end to end and all the way up, tilting, leaning, groaning and buckling, bulging, etc. Or the actual fire commander in charge who states that they made the decision to PULL the firefighting operations around 3PM. Picky picky picky!




On top of that the owner of a building has NO say over whether the fire department should stop its operation. That is a public safety issue.



But he can go and tell the fire dept to go and rig up a burning, leaning and buckling building in record time and blow it all to hell?
Public safety issue?

Edit to add:
Here is Fire Commander Nigro's account. Pay close attention to his timeline:
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Here is Frank Fellini:
graphics8.nytimes.com...

More on "pulling:
www.911myths.com...
edit on 11/4/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I can vouch for the "pull" order, decision to clear the area around WTC 7. Was in my firehouse in NJ waiting
We were waiting in case needed in NYC, also were covering for neighboring city as they had sent entire
day shift to NYC to assist at WTC. They were operating at World Financial Center (WFC 3) across West St
from WTC 7 . WFC had been damaged by debris from collapse of WTC 1 and fires started by debris.

Shortly aftetr 3PM heard over the radio (our radios have their frequwency programmed in) the orders to clear
the collapse zone around WTC 7. Since WFC was inside collapse radius of WTC crews were forced to
evacuate the area.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
On top of that the owner of a building has NO say over whether the fire department should stop its operation. That is a public safety issue.


But the NYFD when told to by the owner of a building rigs it with explosives and destroys it.....

You really are getting silly now!



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor
But the NYFD when told to by the owner of a building rigs it with explosives and destroys it.....


And whoever said they did that? Firefighters rigging a building for implosion demolition? I don't think so mate.


You really are getting silly now!


No, you are just making things up.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Have anyone managed to bring up a reason why WTC7 had to be demolished in secrecy? Noone died in the building, its presence was hindering the SAR operations where WTC1 & 2 had fallen, and it wasn't as if Silverstein wouldn't recieve any insurance unless the building collapsed entirely.

The FDNY has stated repeatedly, that they knew the building was going to collapse, several hours prior to the actual collapse, so what were they doing, standing around wasting their time?



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
Have anyone managed to bring up a reason why WTC7 had to be demolished in secrecy?


Because it takes a lot of work to set up a building to 'implode', and that in itself would raise many difficult questions?

Like... 'er how did you know to do that in advance?'

Like ...'er did you do that to WTC 1 and 2 also?'




posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by spoor
But the NYFD when told to by the owner of a building rigs it with explosives and destroys it.....


And whoever said they did that? Firefighters rigging a building for implosion demolition? I don't think so mate.



Silly Truther.... You just said it. You are telling us that Larry said pull it to the firemen as in blow it up.

Do you get the connection, or do we need to explain further ?







 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join