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: 6
42
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Detail wha the pentagon had guarding it?

I refer to the picture in this Pilots for truth thread, showing the Pentagon on 9/11, with 3 cameras on the said of the impact.

In the same thread all the sourrunding cctvs (gas station, hotel) are mentionend as well.
Pilots for truth

Plus the FBI file proving they received 16 video surveillance tapes from the Pentagon:
Scribd FBI file




posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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).


No place to land a plane? Tell that to the moron who was said to have landed one there on 911! LOL

I had assumed the pentagon would have been guarded, and believe it was. You could not go spelunking on the pentagon grounds prior to 911 and not expect to get arrested or at best, slightly detained. It just would not have been prudent then or now.

The entire point of this is to show that there would have been plenty of camera footage, although officially this is denied pretty much. But there was a video aired once on 911 that showed a missile. I saw that one on the national news.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
The pentagon was well guarded before 911 with military police just like how they guard air force bases.


You could do tours of it, and just how was it guarded against a jet airliner crashing into it?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I know what the topic is about, but your statement I answered to as wrong.

I've never seen any missile footage. Proof of that would be needed.

As to what was actually guarding it. That would have been the United States Pentagon Police. Very similar to a mix state police and private security.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: hellobruce

Detail wha the pentagon had guarding it?

I refer to the picture in this Pilots for truth thread, showing the Pentagon on 9/11, with 3 cameras on the said of the impact.


So it was guarded by camera's.... just how would they have stopped a plane?


In the same thread all the sourrunding cctvs (gas station, hotel) are mentionend as well.


Yes, and the tapes of them have been released.

You do not seem to be aware what they would have been filming - hint, it would NOT be another building!







posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




I've never seen any missile footage. Proof of that would be needed.


Same goes for plane footage. None presented for the pentagon so far.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I mixed up the words guarded and surveillance (or whatever verb form of surveillance there is).

Still waiting for plane footage of that day.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: hellobruce

I mixed up the words guarded and surveillance (or whatever verb form of surveillance there is).

Still waiting for plane footage of that day.


And you won't get any clearer footage from the guard station than there already is.

Remember this was done in 2001. CCTV was not a seamless thing back then. There are no missing seconds (as people point out), it's just the way the camera is set to record (looks like 1 frame per second +-).

ETA: If it wasn't a plane, what was it and where did the plane, crew and passengers go? Also, how could the black box for the plane be found (with all correct data) if there was no plane?

Leaving the thread now as I was just posting about that one thing and I hate 9/11 discussions.
edit on 542016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Interesting video OP. I personally believe remote viewing to be the real deal as I have successfully applied the methods of the first remote viewer albeit on a much more basic level. I was shocked that what I had written down actually applied about 95 percent to the hidden picture. Prior to that experience I seriously questioned the veracity of RV though I was aware that the American military and CIA had funded programs that produced positive results. I am a student of the scientific method and as such this phenomena is all that more interesting to me. It also, at least in my mind, lends credence to Jung's theory of a universal mind and perhaps that of the quantum mind. Very interesting results were indeed drawn from this video. The boss man, IMO, seems to look more like Rumsfeld.... But not really. I wonder who he is.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Remote viewing in two letters BS.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:14 AM
link   
I'll bite. Watching it now.
My man said 'squeaky clean' in the first minute. Already off to a good start



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:40 AM
link   
The video is quite interesting. I am not sold on remote viewing at this point, but I don't discount it either.

Interesting video. Star and flag OP.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Throwing something in and announce you will leave the thread is a cheap shot.
And you have done it twice now in this thread.

I am aware of the tech back in 2001 with a 1sec framerate.

But as posted in my post above (which everybody seem to ignore) there have been 3 dome cams on the side of the pentagon that was hit, so they pointed to the incoming flying obiect, that should be enough frames for 3 cams to produce one single picture.

Even more so, if ot was a plane which is slower than a missile.

But keep your own word on not coming back to the thread, if you want to keep up credibility.
Else come back with that pentagon footage which would show a plane, you had 15 years to produce that.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

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.


Lol.

Formed in 2002



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed




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.

Even after 911 the PFPA is kind of lame.
From their website:



PFPA provides a variety of services to its customers to include emergency services, parking management, lock installation/services, classified waste disposal, access control, building pass issuance, mail screening, and law enforcement.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

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.


No one with any sense 'gets that.' What they do get is the ploy to claim missiles and demolitions under the new banner of RV. Unfortunately for the recycle crew, enough time has passed and enough information has been published to taint any remote viewing of such an event unless the viewers have been in isolation since 2001.
There was no evidence for either missiles or demolitions the first time these theories were postulated so the only conclusion is that the remote viewers were wrong.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: svetlana84




But as posted in my post above (which everybody seem to ignore) there have been 3 dome cams on the side of the pentagon that was hit, so they pointed to the incoming flying obiect, that should be enough frames for 3 cams to produce one single picture.

Even more so, if ot was a plane which is slower than a missile.

You are assuming that they were operational that day.
Lets remember that construction was finishing up.
Were they even hooked up yet?
If they were, why look at constructions crews?
The cameras were high up to look down. Not to look up for planes.

You might want to check your missile speeds.
The large ones are substantially below the speed of sound.
600 mph is typical. Not much faster than flight 77.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine




No one with any sense 'gets that.' What they do get is the ploy to claim missiles and demolitions under the new banner of RV. Unfortunately for the recycle crew, enough time has passed and enough information has been published to taint any remote viewing of such an event unless the viewers have been in isolation since 2001.



What do you mean? I assume the RV-ers didn't know what they were looking at.(I haven't watched the vid yet)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I'll take the video for what it is.

But I have to say; reading the first few pages of this thread, is very evident, that people try VERY hard to form a belief of what happened.

From what is evident in this thread and my tenure on ATS as a member and lurker since 2004, it's those who believe what they saw on tv (UK broadcast nailed it with jumping the gun, proving the orchestration of media on that day), and what they are told by talking heads - who are paid to lie.

It's pathetic. We have the words of deceivers and liars who conspire to for control over the many.
Or we have water downed information and 2nd hand assumptions on conspiracies trying to tell an alternative.

Regardless of TRUTH. What IS, many are not being true to themselves by "giving up" and sticking to the status quo.

It's a dis service to your Mind, body, spirit to allow talking snakes to form your perception. Don't take my word for it....



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: svetlana84




Throwing something in and announce you will leave the thread is a cheap shot. And you have done it twice now in this thread.


I just saw him do the same thing in another thread.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join