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.

 

9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

page: 16
50
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

No thanks. I'm into radios, and was back when cell phones started. I know how they were designed and operated, uses them myself flying in airplanes. Back in 2000 they did not work worth a damn in an airplane. I tried, many times.




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And the aircraft involved had seat back airphones on them still.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Some worked, some didn't. Some say American had terminated the contract months earlier.

If one takes the time to read the transcripts of those phone calls, one discovers that the conversation is rather forced, rather theatrical, a bit nonsensical.

Magnificent sleight-of-hand.




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And American themselves say the phone contracts were ended after 9/11.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Likely American and UA were not completely innocent in a training exercise scenario. Tapes were destroyed in an FAA facility. They really screwed up allowing several of the dispatchers be deposed in the Moussaoui trial. Discovery can be embarrassing, so it's best suppressed. That deposition showed 93 still airborne in Illinois 30 minutes after it supposed crashed.

Not all calls were from airphone. Bye mom, this is your son_________. So theatrical.....



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The farsight institute remote viewed 911 very professionally, and the viewers disclosed that small nuclear devices were used to bring down the buildings. That explains the cesium levels and deuterium measured after. It explains a lot of things unlike the official baloney. The officials who were charged with investigating 911 simply can't explain a single thing correctly, because that would conflict with what their employers want to see. Remote control of planes existed then only for the military, and wasn't available commercially before the event.
911 was a nuclear demolition event, and the officials cannot explain the truth without exposing their employers.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
The farsight institute remote viewed 911 very professionally, and the viewers disclosed that small nuclear devices were used to bring down the buildings. That explains the cesium levels and deuterium measured after. It explains a lot of things unlike the official baloney. The officials who were charged with investigating 911 simply can't explain a single thing correctly, because that would conflict with what their employers want to see. Remote control of planes existed then only for the military, and wasn't available commercially before the event.
911 was a nuclear demolition event, and the officials cannot explain the truth without exposing their employers.


Speaking of baloney, the Farsight Institute has cornered that market. How small were the "nuclear devices?" Do you have ANY idea of what a nuclear weapon would do even at the smallest sizes available? Why would any plotter use a nuclear weapon and not a general purpose explosive like Semtex which could be bought on the international market or a custom explosive that may not be easily detectable with common analytical techniques?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


Speaking of baloney, the Farsight Institute has cornered that market.


Are you suggesting that the Farsight Institute are lying?

If so please post something credible that proves Farsight Institute loves to make up lies and Remote Viewing is not real?
edit on 26-3-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Are you suggesting that the Farsight Institute are lying?


Are you suggesting they are telling the truth and not just making crap up?


If so please post something credible that proves Farsight Institute loves to make up lies and Remote Viewing is not real?


How about you show it is real....



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce


Are you suggesting they are telling the truth and not just making crap up?

How about you show it is real....


I asked the question first.

Secondly, I know you have run a quick research on the Farsight Institute to find out if they have been proven lairs. Had you found anything you would have posted it.

Remote Viewing does work if the viewer is trained well, I cannot speak for amateurs RV. It works so well that our government still use it today.

Like Area 51 is so Top Secrete that Congress is not allowed to have any information to what goes on there, and so is RV programs.

The fact is, the United States is not the only country that use RV, China, and Russia have their own programs as well.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


Speaking of baloney, the Farsight Institute has cornered that market.


Are you suggesting that the Farsight Institute are lying?

If so please post something credible that proves Farsight Institute loves to make up lies and Remote Viewing is not real?


I am suggesting that the Farsight Institute believes their own press releases. Certainly, they truly believe that they can remote view. They must not have viewed what they thought they viewed because they did not view a man portable nuclear demolition charge. Maybe they were looking elsewhere and saw someone else's nuclear demolition or maybe they are just batcrap crazy.
As a point of reference, the tunable warhead in a nuclear demolition can be dialed all the way down to a ten ton TNT equivalent. Did you or anyone else notice a ten ton blockbuster bomb go off?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


Maybe they were looking elsewhere and saw someone else's nuclear demolition or maybe they are just batcrap crazy.


Thank you for your "opinion".

So all you have are your assumptions to what you want to believe in. Calling the Farsight Institute "batcrap crazy" just proves to me you are afraid that their RV may have seen the truth.

However we are all entitled to our "opinions" weather it's right or wrong. I have done a lot of research in remote viewing and I can confidently say RV does work and has been proven to be very accurate.

What the remote viewers saw, doing a blind study at the WTC was not what our government told us, in fact I will go on to say that the remote viewers saw powerful men sitting at a table before 911 even happened, planning out the attacks, and they were not 19 hijackers.

Do I believe the Farsight Institute findings? Yes!



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


Maybe they were looking elsewhere and saw someone else's nuclear demolition or maybe they are just batcrap crazy.


Thank you for your "opinion".

So all you have are your assumptions to what you want to believe in. Calling the Farsight Institute "batcrap crazy" just proves to me you are afraid that their RV may have seen the truth.

However we are all entitled to our "opinions" weather it's right or wrong. I have done a lot of research in remote viewing and I can confidently say RV does work and has been proven to be very accurate.

What the remote viewers saw, doing a blind study at the WTC was not what our government told us, in fact I will go on to say that the remote viewers saw powerful men sitting at a table before 911 even happened, planning out the attacks, and they were not 19 hijackers.

Do I believe the Farsight Institute findings? Yes!


Thank you for your "opinion." Batcrap crazy was just one possibility; the other was that they remotely viewed some other device on another channel. If you have done a lot of research in remote viewing, then you know it does not always work, or did they forget to mention that? You can believe what you want to believe in your alternate reality but the facts are that NO nuclear demolition was used, hence the remote viewers are in error. What you did was confuse the "opinions" of the remote viewers with what are termed "facts." Did anyone see a nuclear explosion equivalent to ten tons of high explosive? I find the concept laughable and right up there with Judy Woods' death rays from space; meant for the technically inept and gullible.
Of course the remote viewers saw powerful men sitting at a table before 911 even happened, planning out the attacks, and who were not the hijackers. You don't think the hijackers did the planning, do you?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




Do I believe the Farsight Institute findings? Yes!

If you believe one conspiracy then you'll believe them all.




About The Great Pyramid of Giza, this is probably the most important remote-viewing project ever done at The Farsight Institute, and it is fitting that this project is the one that highlights our disclosure campaign.




But in time, the release of this project will be seen as the event that changed the direction of thinking on this planet in a major way.

That was in early 2014.
Seen any change yet ??????

He goes on to say.


Of course, there will always be disagreements. 1,000 years from now there will still be people who do not believe that remote viewing is real.

So no change at all.

About Brown


Among a variety of controversial topics, Brown has claimed to apply remote viewing to the study of multiple realities, the nonlinearity of time, planetary phenomena, extraterrestrial life, UFOs, Atlantis, and even Jesus Christ.[3] According to Michael Shermer "The claims in Brown's two books are nothing short of spectacularly weird. Through his numerous SRV sessions he says he has spoken with Jesus and Buddha (both, apparently, are advanced aliens), visited other inhabited planets, time traveled to Mars back when it was fully inhabited by intelligent ETs, and has even determined that aliens are living among us—one group in particular resides underground in New Mexico


This Brown needs doses of lithium not press coverage.
Oh that's right the press ignores him already.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


If you have done a lot of research in remote viewing, then you know it does not always work, or did they forget to mention that?


On the contrary it does work when a trained professional RV is in a controlled environment on a blind study or did they not tell you that?

IRREFUTABLE REMOTE VIEWING PROOF


Some of the most well-known success stories credited to the operational military remote viewing unit are the finding of a downed Russian aircraft in North Africa, locating a kidnapped American General in Northern Italy, discovering a hidden Soviet weapons factory in Siberia, describing the construction of a top-secret Soviet submarine in Northern Russia, predicting the failure of a Chinese atomic bomb test three days before it occurred, and accurately forecasting the release of the first American during the Iran hostage crisis.

Even though the research project was met with early success, the CIA would regularly send independent analysts to test the remote viewing team. After the declassification of the program, during a presentation at the Arlington Institute, Hal Puthoff remarked that, “The CIA was not happy seeing us achieve good results. Their hope was to prove that the research the Russians were doing was simply nonsense. So every time we got excited about a good result the CIA would get more depressed.”

In one instance, a validation target was chosen by a figurehead at the CIA, and he opted to see whether or not the remote viewing team would be able to accurately describe his friend’s vacation cabin in West Virginia. To ensure no collusion could occur within the research project, none of the team members, including the physicists, were told the designated remote viewing target.

Pat Price and Ingo Swann were the two remote viewers who worked on the project. Ingo described that there really wasn’t much going on at the target site, simply some woods and a few cabins. However, unbeknownst to the project tasker, just over the ridge from his friend’s cabin was a top-secret NSA research facility. During the remote viewing session, Ingo quickly picked up on this hidden complex and began to describe it, figuring that it was the intended target since there wasn’t much going on near the original coordinates that were provided. Additionally, it was later discovered that the greater the effort expended to hide a person, place, or thing, the brighter it shines and stands out to a remote viewer.

When Pat Price viewed the validation target, he also picked up on this facility. Being slightly more adventurous than Ingo, he decided to move his mental perception down into the underground hallways and recite the name tags of people walking around in the building. He also stumbled across a room that contained a locked safe with documents inside, and was able to describe what was written within.

After the remote viewing team completed the project and passed the information back to the CIA, the entire intelligence apparatus of the country, including law enforcement, showed up at SRI’s doorstep demanding answers. The NSA facility did actually exist, and the remote viewing report was so accurate that the team was interrogated on the premise of national security.

A CIA evaluation statement about the event was declassified in 1996, and reads, “Pat Price, who had no military or intelligence background, provided a list of project titles associated with current and past activities, including one of extreme sensitivity. Also, the code name of the site was provided.” This started a congressional investigation called by the US Intelligence Oversight Committee to determine if there was a security leak. After a five year investigation the parties involved were cleared, and the future head of the CIA, John McMahon, made the decision to start actively using the remote viewing team against the Soviets. They were given the green light to proceed with their research, which lasted for an additional 15 years.

STATISTICAL EVIDENCE

Skeptics often claim that anecdotal examples, like those provided above, are simply an act of cherry picking the data, and even the remote viewing Wikipedia page states that the program only achieved a measurable accuracy result no higher than random chance. These statements couldn’t be further from the truth.


www.thestateofreality.com...

That's is one of my reasons I don't trust Wikipedia because the truth is their enemy.

Now you can dismiss all this as "Batcrap crazy" and assume our government doesn't lied to We The People or cover up their crimes and all our politicians have their best interest for We The People.


What you did was confuse the "opinions" of the remote viewers with what are termed "facts."


Oh, now I am confused. This debate about remote viewing is not about what you think of my beliefs or your ridiculing me and by lumping RV with "Judy Woods' death rays from space; meant for the technically inept and gullible," and if that's all you have on this topic is your "opinions" backed up by no facts, then you have sadly lost this debate.


edit on 26-3-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: hellobruce




Oh no, the "pod people" are back....

These thing run in cycles.
Last week it was nukes.
Next week it will be holograms.


The silly "nukes" claim is back again!



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


If you believe one conspiracy then you'll believe them all.


You couldn't be any further from the truth.

Oh, now you can read my mind as well?

Carry on.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed




911 was a nuclear demolition event, and the officials cannot explain the truth without exposing their employers.


So explain why no radiation was detected at the WTC site

New York City Board of health dispatched health physicist with sensitive radiation detection equipment - he was on scene
just before South Tower collapsed,

Did not detect radiation

As did the FDNY HAZ MAT squad, The EPA, ATF, FBI and other alphabet agencies at the scene

The smallest nuclear devices fielded, MK 54 warheads for "Davy Crockett" recoiless rifle, with yields of 10 or 20 tons (.01/.02 KT) generate lethal burst of radiation 350-400 meters. Why did nobody suffer radiation sickness..??



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue


As did the FDNY HAZ MAT squad, The EPA, ATF, FBI and other alphabet agencies at the scene


None of them would never lie.

Yet the lying EPA said the air at ground zero was safe to breath, interesting so many first respondents and firemen died several years later from cancer in their lungs and upper respiratory problems from the wonderful clean air at ground zero.

No, the government would never lie, and there is no such thing as a conspiracy either.
edit on 26-3-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine


If you have done a lot of research in remote viewing, then you know it does not always work, or did they forget to mention that?


On the contrary it does work when a trained professional RV is in a controlled environment on a blind study or did they not tell you that?

Oh, now I am confused. This debate about remote viewing is not about what you think of my beliefs or your ridiculing me and by lumping RV with "Judy Woods' death rays from space; meant for the technically inept and gullible," and if that's all you have on this topic is your "opinions" backed up by no facts, then you have sadly lost this debate.



You seem to be perpetually confused. RV may work but to claim it is always accurate is not correct. I will explain the obvious to you again. The smallest man portable nuke ever fielded was the equivalent of 10 tons of TNT. Got that? Ten TONS of TNT. If that smallest nuke had been used do you think it would have been noticed? Do you think an explosion the equivalent of TEN TONS of TNT would have been quiet? Do you think that there could have been a bit of a flash when it went off? Would you expect some hard radiation and maybe some thousands of broken windows blocks away from the over pressure of such a bang? Would you expect fallout for miles around? You may not have noticed if something like that had happened but I'd bet other people would.

Now, consider that such an event was not recorded. No ten ton TNT bomb kaboom for WTC1. No ten ton TNT bomb kaboom for WTC1. No blinding flash for WTC1. No blinding flash for WTC2. No thousands of broken windows from the shock wave from WTC1. No thousands of broken windows from the shock wave from WTC2. No fallout for miles around from WTC1. No fallout for miles around from WTC2.
Actual direct viewing is even better than remote viewing. Those are the facts. RV didn't work. Your opinions on the subject don't matter because this time the RV people were wrong. Alas, you have lost the debate. No nukes regardless of what the RV people claim.
I recommend that you look into the hacksaw and socket set conspiracy. I remotely viewed, physically and temporally, Mossad agents unbolting support beams and the Bush reelection committee sawing away on the columns.




top topics



 
50
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join