It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Remote viewing the 911 attacks

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 06:48 AM
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I know personally that remote viewing can work to some degree, sometimes extraordinarily so. I've been interested in RVing for years and have the official manual that the US Army developed to teach their viewers.

I'm 20 minutes into the video and it is fascinating, but Brown's problem in presenting this is that he has violated one of the cardinal rules of RVing. He has not told or shown us exactly his procedure for prompting the session. That is the key issue in RVing. What info was the viewer given, if any? Sometimes it can be a picture sealed in an envelope. Sometimes it is a set of map coordinates. Never should it be even a hint of what is to viewed. Any such hint no matter how seemingly subtle and innocent is called "front-loading" the session and is to be avoided at all cost. So that critical aspect is very important to anything that seems to come out of the ether to the viewer's awareness.

In failing to inform us of that aspect, all the critical mind can do is to doubt the whole of it, and that is terribly unfortunate.

ETA: I've been blaming Brown for not properly presenting RVing in this thread. But, actually, the thread started with part 2 of his series so he may have fully covered the details of how his viewers were prepared for the sessions in part one. If so, he should have prefaced part 2 in some way with that information or at least directed us to it. Nothing is more vital to showing the results of RVing in a good light other than that exact standards were used in the early steps to not front-load the viewers. Fail there, and everything that follows is easily dismissed.

edit on 4-4-2016 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 07:31 AM

I have not seen the whole video yet.
But up to minute 30 the guy is spot on:

- he sees skyscrapers
- clouds of debris and dust in an city environment
- military type guys launching a missile type towards buildings

As i said, i have not seen the whole video yet, so i will come back when i have.

For everyone who has no experience or knowledge in RV it is very important to note: the viewer gets nothing more than a number or some letters or combination of. which is like a case randomised case number. So they would not know this is about 9/11.

So already mentioning stuff like: city environment, explosions, clouds of debris means they are spot on.

I would love to have a transcript of the whole sessions. it s just easier to process text then audio for me.

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:08 AM

originally posted by: svetlana84

I have not seen the whole video yet.
But up to minute 30 the guy is spot on:

- he sees skyscrapers
- clouds of debris and dust in an city environment

Just like millions of other people who saw it on tv.... the same as the people making up this "rv"!

- military type guys launching a missile type towards buildings

Well, they got that wrong, as there was no missile launched!

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:23 AM
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The remote viewing ALSO saw the second plane fly into the building.
What else happened? Is live TV how you get all your daily information? Seems a bit problematic knowing how television is run, and who owns the broadcasting companies, don't you think?

I was addressing that one aspect of the days events. I got lucky to see it, had the news on the west coast unusually early, and on CNN, which I never do. Eebn today, I don't tune in major news networks, basic brain washing and mental conditioning 101, for the main stream.

But that particular morning I happen to be up early and for no apparent reason turned on the TV (all the channels were carrying live broadcast of the first tower burning). I happened to be walking by and saw the live shot of the second pane go in. It was a tight shot, I almost missed it, at first thought it was replay from the first plane, only realizing some time later I just saw it live.

No I don't watch the 'news', I know better, it bores me anyway. Claiming remote viewing after the fact is well, debatable, given it already happened. What I saw was kind of unique since a, I don't watch the news b, I had no inkling why I just happened to turn it on that particular morning, and c, it was remote viewing for me, I saw it happen thousands of miles away from where I was… how remote is that?

Claiming I saw it in m mind after it happened would be an attention getting tactic. Further claiming they faked it live, but this guy saw it 'remotely' would be amusing.


posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:34 AM
Wow, still not through the whole video, but i ask everyone to go the 1:28:00 time mark (and later). The second guy paints a portrait, described him as 'president adviser' and member of 'pnac'.

The portrait looks a lot like Donald Rumsfeld!

Edit/addition: he speaks with an accent from Illinois (where Rumsfeld was born!!!)
edit on 4-4-2016 by svetlana84 because: see edti addition

Second addition: he mentions the guy is standing on a desk. Which describes Rumsfeld again:
The stand up guy
edit on 4-4-2016 by svetlana84 because: noted in post: second addition

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:36 AM
I was waiting to catch this one day.

It's a conspiracy!

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:56 AM
Name one time where remote viewing helped the world.

Rv is the same crap as palm readers.

My mother was into that stuff when I was a kid.
She went to hers sisters favorite psychic one day.
This huckster told her she saw me wearing a white overcoat in my career.
I wear Dickies and twist a wrench for a living.

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 09:11 AM
I watched all of it.
This is something I do as well and no I'm not just saying it,
I have remote viewed for many years including
blind tests that can be found right here on ATS's very own
remote viewing testing thread. If these were truly blind, meaning ONLY the
targets were numbered for reference & no other info was given;
My conclusion is this was a very well described target and lends credence to what is suspected by many in the Cheney, oops I mean 9/11 attacks.
Well done Dr Smith thanks for sharing a great thread.
Here's the ATS remote viewing thread.
Disbelievers feel free to tell me if we are charlatans
pulling infomation randomly out of thin air .
edit on 4-4-2016 by UnderKingsPeak because: thread

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 09:15 AM
Now i watched the whole video.

Regarding RV there are different levels to check.

First level is for the sceptics: Does it work at all.
For this video, i d say 100% the viewers only get a target number, they have no idea of what when where etc. all they know is the number (or number/letters combination).
And they describe 9/11.

BTW: here are remote viewing targets described Farsight 9/11

Next level would be: how precise and detailed are the viewers report.
I d say in this case very precise. Daz Smith (the bald guy) even mentions: it smells like New York. Dick Allgire paints a portrait, which looks so much like Rumsfeld, mentions him as the 'cold bastard' who would have no problem in killing people and then going home and play with his granddaughter without moral problems, he describes him down to his smell (can t confirm Rummies smell..) that he stands at his desk (comfirmed) has a high voice and a Illinois accent (he has). Plus he mention him as president advisor and even pnac member.

That's very precise.

All in all these RV sessions support the inside job theory:

- teams described putting 'putty type material' onto structures inside the towers
- commanding teams in AWACS
- the planning of the operation in a command room with no windows, shielded against eavesdropping

As the guy says in the outro RV is never proof.
But i d rate these sessions as very detailed, and there is lots of evidence.

I advise everyone; watch the whole video. It s worth it. Very interesting stuff.
And thanks to the OP for posting!

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 09:41 AM
That's Dick an image from google youll see its Dick.....
RVing is not a science.....its a latent human ability....stronger in some people...
But available to everyone....great thread....despite the naysayers...

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 09:44 AM
a reply to: hellobruce

1: you don't seem to get the difference between TV and RV.
TV you get fed with audio and visuals by a broadcasting station which get their information from different sources, including the pentagon, cia, fbi etc.
RV all the RV viewer gets is a number/letter combination, like for instance MYST-10F
That s ALL the information he gets.

Completely different ballgame, or to stay in this allegory: it s totally different sports.

2. about the rockets: 15 years later and still no proof an airplane in the pentagon.
But lets focus on the RV here, the Pentagon has been discussed in so many threads already and all the threads have gone sour.

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 10:21 AM
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Disbelievers feel free to tell me if we are charlatans
pulling infomation randomly out of thin air .

And yet the thread died after a couple of months.
Seems that the people on here didn't find it compelling enough to continue.
It's like an ouija board. You play with it a couple times then you realize it's BS.

all the RV viewer gets is a number/letter combination, like for instance MYST-10F That s ALL the information he gets.

That's making up connections that you want to see.

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 10:30 AM
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

We can scientifically test RV. It's been done. It's been found to be unreliable, it's fake.

Can you post a link to such a study?

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 11:22 AM
very interesting when the second guy in the bit about the pentagon mentions POPEYE, what's POPEYE he says. He gets that word popping up and doesnt realize why as he's mentioning other missiles such as Polaris.

Just goggling Popeye Missile real quick and it's interesting what wiki has to say about it....

An inertial guidance system pilots the missile towards the target; for terminal homing the pilot can control the missile directly via an INS and data link, aiming via either a television or imaging infrared seeker depending on the missile model. It is not necessary for the launching aircraft to direct the missile—control can be passed to another platform while the firing aircraft escapes the area. There are two choices of warhead for the export versions, a 340 kg (750 lb) blast/fragmentation or 360 kg (800 lb) penetrator.

sounds pretty spot on

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 11:31 AM
Now i am watching Part 1 of the video (the second video posted in this thread).

at 1hr 16 min Dick Allgeir (the guy with glasses and iphone headset) describes a station: military NSA style, circular anntenna array (much like the wullenberger array).
EDIT: he places it at Virgina / EDIT OFF
I did some research and found the Sugar Grove Station, Pendleton County West Virginia with such an antenna array.

Unfortunately on this device i cant upload pictures, and i admit it's a shot in the dark.
But that's what we have the ATS community for :-)

Maybe someone can upload pictures from there? Maybe add a screenshot of Dicks scratch?
And or post info s of other stations which come to mind?

Thanks in advance
edit on 4-4-2016 by svetlana84 because: see EDIT in post

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 11:36 AM
What can RV tell you that watching a building implode by design that would be any different from watching the WTCs implode? Air strikes were for what? was a by it and watch the truth unfold.
It was by it?
But...if RV helps lift the fog of miss information so be it...the truth will set you free.

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 11:54 AM
I can't speak for anyone else who watched this video, but I know it was rather unsettling.

For those of you who don't have time to watch this video, I can help summarize some of the information these remote viewers saw revolving around the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Towers.

I was jumping around to save time when trying to gather the main points, so if any one needs to correct me on some of the things I've mentioned or missed, feel free to comment or add to it. I would also like to get your take on it.

The documentary was put together by the Far Sight Institute who according to the Director, Courtney Brown, Phd, they use the exact same techniques used by our military for remote viewing. He goes on to say that he fully trusts the two remote viewers in this documentary because many of the thing they have viewed in the past have proven to be very accurate.

I don't know much about Remote Viewing, but I do know they don't know what they're viewing before hand. The documentary uses two separate viewers viewing it at two separate times to help back-up and give some credibility to the accuracy and common visuals each viewer was seeing.

Basically, as far as the Pentagon was concerned, they viewed it not as a plane that flew into the building but a missile or cruise missile that was directly under control by 3 or 4 military men in uniform. What I found puzzling was the viewer stated they were dark and had facial hair (middle eastern men or just U.S. military?). It seemed like it was fired from a military ship. They went on to say it was highly controlled and secret and the men formed like a brotherhood or elite squad. They saw the impact and commotion and emotions involved by the people inside the Pentagon.

As far as the towers were concerned, the viewers saw 3 different groups of highly secret military personnel/business related people who planned and controlled the plane that flew into the towers. He describes seeing one group sitting on an AWAC's plane in front of monitors strapped to their seat. It seemed like they were insinuating the military used unknowing terrorists to carry out the planned terroristic attack used to cover-up secrets and using it as a stepping stone for something that would be planned later.

The viewers saw a small group of military personnel placing clay like explosives around the building supports inside the towers. They said one guy was the main leader and a top advisor to the president. The viewer drew a picture of this guy and said he was in his mid or late 40's and had piercing eyes. He said this guy had no remorse or feelings about killing innocent people. The viewer also saw a secluded conference room with this leader and a handful of men sitting around a large high quality conference table planning 9/11. Nobody was allowed to leave the room with their secret documents except the leader who was managing the meeting. All documents were stored in a safe upon leaving the room. He also mentioned the room had "white noise" to keep anyuone from secretly recording conversations.

If anyone watched the video, who do you think this leader was? I was thinking Donald Rumsfeld, but they said this guy was in the military and Rumsfeld was also much older than what the viewer described.

The viewer also describes a scene of a guy standing at a drafting table with blueprints. He starts describing a thin drawered file cabinet that holds maps and prints. I could relate to this because I taught CAD drafting. What he was describing was a blueprint filing cabinet. He also described the large analog monitors and said they were forging blue prints.

They go on to say they don't know what happened to the people on the planes and whether foreign governments were also involved. They didn't remotely view building 7 or the plane that was either shot down or crashed near Pittsburgh, PA.

I don't know much about remote viewing, but I do know they don't know what they're viewing before hand. If this remote viewing is accurate then it gives additional possibilities that 9/11 was planned by a few very powerful and secret people in our military and possibly a foreign government.

edit on 4-4-2016 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 11:55 AM
a reply to: JaMeDoIt

But...if RV helps lift the fog of miss information so be it...the truth will set you free.

Goto any news outlet with RV info and see how far you get.

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 12:09 PM
a reply to: WeRpeons

its actually interesting you mention rumsfeld. When he was describing the person I was trying hard to think of people in the bush admin who fit that type of description. it definitely wouldn't be cheney, he doesn't have a widows peak or the hair described by the viewer.

but, when the viewer mentions the Chicago accent, having been at one point from Illinois it got me curious. and guess who was born in Illinois? Rumsfeld. Also, he mentions the person having a crew-cut when he was younger because perhaps he had been in the military at some point. Rumsfeld was also in the military, the Navy to be specific and he does have those thin wire frame glasses as well. i could also see Rumsfeld looking as a "nice guy" but, someone who could order the death of civilians and play with his grand-daughter an hour later. no remorse.

interesting stuff for sure. if only these people could perhaps meet with a talented police sketch artist and we can get a good composite drawing of some of these people. imagine that?

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 12:24 PM
a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

I didn't know that much about Rumsfeld's background, but when you look at the sketch or the guy with glasses, and how he describes him as a top advisor that was the first thing that entered my mind. It was also odd to see Rumsfeld caught on video helping injured people into ambulances. You kind of wonder if he did that on purpose to help cover-up the fact he was part of the planner of these attacks. You would think he would have immediately gone to the white house or been on a conference call with the president and other military advisors.

Thanks for adding your insight! What was your take on the dark guys with facial hair? We're you thinking they were of middle eastern decent?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in