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 the 911 attacks

page: 5
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




The reason I posted this, I just wanted to share that remote viewing is very real and when done professionally in a controlled environment the results can be staggering.

And yet we still can't find MH370.
ISIS leaders take months to track down.
Bombings in Paris and Brussels.

RV is BS !




posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I don't understand how this RV stuff works. But, if the person has already seen a video of the towers or formed their own opinions in the matter (likely) isn't it tainted?



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Awesome. You are using an example where we have no information about controls. No information about results. I believe one person was the sole judge of accuracy. We have no idea what was disclosed. Every single control used in an actual experiment is absent. These experiments were replicated using actual controls and when controls were put in place, such as blind judging, it was a 100% failure every time.

I can ask you to remote view what color my room is, red or blue, and you will have a 50% chance of being right. It doesn't mean you remote viewed anything. Proper controls make RV have a ~0% success rate.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent


And yet we still can't find MH370.
ISIS leaders take months to track down.
Bombings in Paris and Brussels.

RV is BS !


Perhaps no one has remote viewed any of the above, that is why.

As far as RV being BS, can you produce any credible scientific proof that it is BS?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

"it comes up, ther is a flash, the ngine ignotes, it does not come up, the thrust is amazin, then it launches up" "this is coming up of water, i say submarine launch"

"it s a submarine, POPEYE i dont know why i am saying popeye, popup?... popeye, anyway looks like a launch sequence of a stubby missile"

Part 1 , 43 min mark by Dick Allgire


this pretty much fits the video of the submarine launch you posted.

About eyewitnesses who "saw a plane" at the pentagon: yes there have been some. most working at the Pentagon itself. A Taxi driver who changed his story several times.
And to this day there was not a single video released, that would show a plane.
From the probably best guarded building on this planet.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Awesome. You are using an example where we have no information about controls. No information about results. I believe one person was the sole judge of accuracy. We have no idea what was disclosed. Every single control used in an actual experiment is absent.


The early post I made will never disclose the five year investigation that was done, because the RV was RV a Top Secrete base and that information is still Top Secrete.


These experiments were replicated using actual controls and when controls were put in place, such as blind judging, it was a 100% failure every time.


Where is your information coming from? Or is this your "opinion"?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: svetlana84

Visually it would be pretty easy to hide. The Atlantic is home to SOSUS however. It was originally set up to detect Soviet subs coming into the Atlantic near Greenland and Iceland, and covers most of the Atlantic. A missile being launched has a fairly unique acoustic signature and would light SOSUS up like a Christmas tree. It can also be detected a long way underwater.


You're a bit clueless aren't you. Why would a US operation care about US defenses? And there were ongoing war games to account for any one who was outside the loop.


Because the conspirators don't want thousands of personnel in on the conspiracy. Zaphod makes valid points regarding radar and hydrophone detection of submarine launched missiles and you have no response-- maybe because you have no knowledge of the technologies involved.
The RV stuff sometimes fails, like it did here with missiles and demolitions. These are the same old theories being regurgitated in a new wrapper. Do you think that claiming RV "seeing" missiles and demolitions will make it so?


I think you're the guys regurgitating. And the ones who seem unclear about the technologies or the facts of that day.

But that's okay. You're just here to muddy the water. Everyone gets that.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Is there a public SOSUS record of 9/11 ?

If so, can you provide a link?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Can you give a summary about that link?
Or your take on it?

Thanks in advance



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

See my answer to samkent, last post on page 3
on how RV works and how to avoid compromised/tainted inputs.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: samkent

"it comes up, ther is a flash, the ngine ignotes, it does not come up, the thrust is amazin, then it launches up" "this is coming up of water, i say submarine launch"

"it s a submarine, POPEYE i dont know why i am saying popeye, popup?... popeye, anyway looks like a launch sequence of a stubby missile"

Part 1 , 43 min mark by Dick Allgire


this pretty much fits the video of the submarine launch you posted.

About eyewitnesses who "saw a plane" at the pentagon: yes there have been some. most working at the Pentagon itself. A Taxi driver who changed his story several times.
And to this day there was not a single video released, that would show a plane.
From the probably best guarded building on this planet.


I find it intriguing that the defenders of the official story didn't show up when this thread started. Some standard RV debunkers showed up. But not them. They only showed up when we started putting the pieces together.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: svetlana84
About eyewitnesses who "saw a plane" at the pentagon:


So this missile had 757 wheels, 757 undercarriage, carried DNA from all the passengers and crew on Flight 77, it used 757 engines, it had 757 seats strapped to the top of it, it had the luggage of Flight 77 strapped to the bottom of it, it also had the same wingspan as a 757..


From the probably best guarded building on this planet.


Please detail exactly what the Pentagon had guarding it....



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

No opinion. the only opinion is yours. I asked for scientifically verified RV experiments and you show me one with literally zero controls and as far from scientific as possible.

Let's keep this simple. Show me scientifically sound experiments where RV was a success. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: svetlana84
About eyewitnesses who "saw a plane" at the pentagon:


So this missile had 757 wheels, 757 undercarriage, carried DNA from all the passengers and crew on Flight 77, it used 757 engines, it had 757 seats strapped to the top of it, it had the luggage of Flight 77 strapped to the bottom of it, it also had the same wingspan as a 757..


From the probably best guarded building on this planet.


Please detail exactly what the Pentagon had guarding it....


The old aircraft junkyard has all those things. Except for the black box, which had a serial number matching one of the first black box prototypes that were never even installed on a plane.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: svetlana84
About eyewitnesses who "saw a plane" at the pentagon:


So this missile had 757 wheels, 757 undercarriage, carried DNA from all the passengers and crew on Flight 77, it used 757 engines, it had 757 seats strapped to the top of it, it had the luggage of Flight 77 strapped to the bottom of it, it also had the same wingspan as a 757..


From the probably best guarded building on this planet.


Please detail exactly what the Pentagon had guarding it....


en.wikipedia.org...

You didn't know this?
That would mean you never actually investigate anything in actuality. As everyone suspected all along.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I'm gonna pipe in to say one thing then leave again.

That link to Pentagon Force Protection Agency? It says founded May 3rd 2002. That would be after 9/11.

I'm guessing you didn't do the same as what you're saying hellobruce didn't do.

That's me gone, bye.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
en.wikipedia.org...

You didn't know this?


What has that have to do with Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon....


That would mean you never actually investigate anything in actuality. As everyone suspected all along.


If you had actually bothered to look at that link you would have seen


Agency overview Formed May 3, 2002


So as expected, your "research" consists of posting links you do not even bother to have a quick look at!

So how about actually answering my question!



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I'm gonna pipe in to say one thing then leave again.

That link to Pentagon Force Protection Agency? It says founded May 3rd 2002. That would be after 9/11.

I'm guessing you didn't do the same as what you're saying hellobruce didn't do.

That's me gone, bye.


And before that it was just some unguarded military building?

The pentagon was well guarded before 911 with military police just like how they guard air force bases.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I'm gonna pipe in to say one thing then leave again.

That link to Pentagon Force Protection Agency? It says founded May 3rd 2002. That would be after 9/11.

I'm guessing you didn't do the same as what you're saying hellobruce didn't do.

That's me gone, bye.


And before that it was just some unguarded military building?

The pentagon was well guarded before 911 with military police just like how they guard air force bases.



You drew me back in. Bad you.

No, the pentagon was not guarded like an Air Force base. You want to know why? No place to land a plane.

Their actual security was more along the lines of a secure building (which is EXACTLY what it was).



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I'm gonna pipe in to say one thing then leave again.

That link to Pentagon Force Protection Agency? It says founded May 3rd 2002. That would be after 9/11.

I'm guessing you didn't do the same as what you're saying hellobruce didn't do.

That's me gone, bye.


And before that it was just some unguarded military building?

The pentagon was well guarded before 911 with military police just like how they guard air force bases.


Please show me what specific protection it had against an incoming plane. If you want to say it was incredibly secure from ground forces I will not argue that point.
edit on 5-4-2016 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)







 
42
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join