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.

 

Remote Viewing 9/11- Amazing Revelations That DON'T Support the Official Story

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
So here is a video I stumbled upon, and it has probably been posted, but a search did not turn it up. Anyways, seriously, if you haven't seen this series of videos, prepare to be amazed. Here is the first:



In these videos two of the supposed best remote viewers in the world in a blind test described accounts far different from the official story.

Now I have long held that the hijackers were hijacked by their handlers, and the planes taken over by remote control.

So you can imagine my jaw dropping when I saw what one of these guys says- and which basically says exactly that.

Whoa. Like seriously. Whoa.

It is a vast long series of trailers, and I think you can access the playlist of all of them here:
www.youtube.com...

Gotta run and go to work now, but any additional info would be appreciated.
edit on Mon Jan 12th 2015 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I'm not blasting on you when I say this but,

As long as I put remote viewing in front of anything I want to speculate about it becomes more credible? I may be mistaken but I didn't know that remote viewing was actually a real thing that is scientifically based and repeatable? I am watching your vid but I remain HIGHLY HIGHLY skeptical about it. On another note it is interesting at the very least thanks for posting as I have not seen nor heard of this series.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Brotherman

Well just keep an open mind about it. I don't necessarily believe in it either. But the info in there is, well, startling to say the least. And I haven't even watched the others yet. That's a project for when I get home later tonight. And yep, Ima watchin them. The first one intrigued enough, considering they were actually setting out to corroborate the Official Story! But what they found came as a big surprise. Planned meetings from high powers, and all kinds of stuff. Bizarre.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Ha..sorry, but Courtney Brown? Hasn't he been shamed enough to just go away already?

Either way, these "remote viewers" have had ample time to get their stories down as to what they are "remote viewing". As far as them having the same idea you had about the planes being remote controlled.....that has been kicked around since about the day after 911, so again, it was an already stated idea that these guys just latched on to and used.

Anything with Brown in it may as well be written off as comedy IMO.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

The thing about it is, is that I don't understand this project. Firstly the host explains two seperate people on opposite sides of the planet are describing the same events with no preconcieved notion of their target, how do I talk about a target that I don't know about/ what it is? Secondly what is the one guy listening too in his headphones as he states it keeps reminding him of 9-11 etc etc. IDK I would like to know the methodology of this "project"



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Remote viewing has a long and established history. It is one of the rare, 'far out there' subjects that received millions and millions of dollars from the US government over many years. There is credibility behind remote viewing and those not familiar with it should do some research. I researched it more carefully than most things that cross my path because of it's credibility and read 2 books on the subject.

I haven't seen this movie or project and didn't know it was even out there. Thanks for the post. I have seen the viewers previously during my research into the topic, they are both well established in the field.

Now to source the movie without losing an arm and leg....



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Didn't the US government spend a lot of money on remote viewing in the past? And take it seriously when it would benefit them ?



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Awesome find, look forward to viewing the other videos! Have to go back to work. S&F



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
The video is just a trailer, if you want to watch the whole thing you have to go to farsight.org and pay for the full videos.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: TrueAmerican

The thing about it is, is that I don't understand this project. Firstly the host explains two seperate people on opposite sides of the planet are describing the same events with no preconcieved notion of their target, how do I talk about a target that I don't know about/ what it is?


You have a target number which is probably what you see on the top of the whiteboard.. So all they know is that number, and have to see what it relates to. What I wonder is the target an envelope with pictures of 9/11 in it or what is it exactly?

But that's the general idea. Someone else knows the target and designates it as a numbered envelope usually.

It's not like the US didn't try to use remote viewing of Russian sites to gain data all the time.. The only question is did it work.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: TrueAmerican

I'm not blasting on you when I say this but,

As long as I put remote viewing in front of anything I want to speculate about it becomes more credible? I may be mistaken but I didn't know that remote viewing was actually a real thing that is scientifically based and repeatable? I am watching your vid but I remain HIGHLY HIGHLY skeptical about it. On another note it is interesting at the very least thanks for posting as I have not seen nor heard of this series.


Whether remote viewing is scientifically repeatable, and therefore testable, tells us nothing about its authenticity. I see people make this mistake too often. Science only studies the physical world insofar as something can be controlled and repeated. Science thinks that anything that does not submit itself to physical scrutiny is either not real, or not worthy of study, and this is simply absurd. Do we honestly think that science has reached the pinnacle of discovery, even though we know that science builds on what has come previously? Again, this says nothing about the legitimacy of remote viewing. Maybe it is real, maybe it is fake, but because it is untestable does not immediately make it fake.
edit on 1/12/15 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I'm not sure Jiggy,

So the way I look at this is kind of like this, Two guys are talking about an event that had already happened years prior with a goal to support an official report, they have had plenty of time to read watch and learn all kinds of details with or without knowing that this is their target but they already have had certain images and things in their mind concerning the event. They "remotely view" a past event as though they are there (back in time) and then make "shocking" revelations that in no way can be confirmed or denied, or they are making wild ass things up based on looking at pictures that reminded them of 9-11 or whatever. I didn't know I can time travel mentally and then gather verifiable facts from this adventure in time. It seems way to far fetched to me no matter who threw money at it.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Not sure on this although I do believe in RV the planes i have seen to be almost holographic in yt videos flying with one wing so I'm not sure that real planes were used as for the towers being nuked this I do believe



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I hear Nuclear, Missiles, remote control planes, planning at desks....everything that someone at some time has suggested in this very forum, and even at least one scientist suggested EMP, one demolition expert now deceased, said emphatically WTC7 was dropped by controlled demolition, and never changed his mind.
Now, I sure ain't no remote viewer, but I sure as Hell can remember stuff, I'm sure we all can.
George Tenet and G.W. were #ting themselves in case one would split on the other as to just how much they did know in advance..which was plenty, but they stayed in line, as that's how the whole ridiculous 'Official story' is what we still have today..officially!
Yu's can call it remote viewing if you want, I would call it the 'official' and 'alternate' history of 9/11 review.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Remote viewing has shown itself to have been of use during the cold war with one operative receiving medal's for his operation's for the US military's "The stare at goat's department" also known as the stargate program (it was the real stargate program nothing to do with wormholes etc).

The Problem arises in that the mind of the operative has to be in a specific state, many claim all can do it but that is not how the US and there Russian opposite numbers worked it, they chose subject's with a high paranormal ability and selected only the most promising candidates.

As you know the human mind has many sources of potential data and it is likely therefore that whatever mechanism is at work in successful remote viewing can receive interference if the subject know's there target, this mean's that the more familiar they are with the remote viewing target the more likely they are to have there impression's altered by there notions and idea's of the target.

Even if the do not know the target but are simply given a co-ordinate and asked to remote view it if they are familiar with the target then they may at some level of there consciousness then recognize it, perhaps subconsciously but once again this may allow interference.

One other source of potential interference is the presence of other mind's, since we do not know the mechanism by which remote viewing work's it is at least conceivable that this mechanism may also act as a conduit by which the will, belief and perception of other mind's may introduce erroneous date to the subject and perhaps skewing there impression's.

On a personal note I have no doubt of the validity of remote viewing but it is very much outside understood or empirical scientific rational and so fall's very much into the if you believe it category.

Interesting.

As for the terrorist attack on the twin tower's while there may have been some dirty work I do believe it as caused by terrorists and remember a plane full of passenger's gave there own live's to prevent another one, they were not fighting suicidal government agent's.

Still I will always remember Bush's slip of the tongue when he was at the sight but it is conceivable for all his failing's that he was merely in a stupor, the world trade centre towers were a symbol of the Manhattan skyline famous throughout the world, perhaps even more well known than the stature of liberty from the 70's onward and the city just does not look right without them, a hell of a lot of innocent people died there and I truly do not believe it was the work of the US government though there was the statement of one guy who said he was stepping over body's in the lobby?.

There is a possibility that someone knew the attack was coming and used it to there own end's, massive wire transfer's could have been made and then covered up in the chaos among many other possible scenario's so I do not totally discount the possibility and think it is valid then there is the third tower.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: KnightLight
You have a target number which is probably what you see on the top of the whiteboard.. So all they know is that number, and have to see what it relates to. What I wonder is the target an envelope with pictures of 9/11 in it or what is it exactly?
But that's the general idea. Someone else knows the target and designates it as a numbered envelope usually.
It's not like the US didn't try to use remote viewing of Russian sites to gain data all the time.. The only question is did it work.

Anything can be in the target envelope. Numbers for coordinates, a picture, a subject phrase, literally anything.

Often the work is done 'double blind'. So the person who knows the target never is in contact with the viewer, a second person makes a second envelope with the number of the first envelope and hands it to the viewer.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I'm not sure Jiggy,

So the way I look at this is kind of like this, Two guys are talking about an event that had already happened years prior with a goal to support an official report, they have had plenty of time to read watch and learn all kinds of details with or without knowing that this is their target but they already have had certain images and things in their mind concerning the event. They "remotely view" a past event as though they are there (back in time) and then make "shocking" revelations that in no way can be confirmed or denied, or they are making wild ass things up based on looking at pictures that reminded them of 9-11 or whatever. I didn't know I can time travel mentally and then gather verifiable facts from this adventure in time. It seems way to far fetched to me no matter who threw money at it.


Honestly, commenting about remote viewing without having any clue of what it is or how it works looks really silly.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Sorry, a scientist tries to explain how remote viewing works
edit on 12-1-2015 by noeltrotsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky
Or how it doesn't work?
Link



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Please tell me remote viewing is not been regarded as a serious source now on matters regarding 9/11....



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join