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: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
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.


A little history -




posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Moresby

You said yourself this thread was a discussion about a lot of things. One of the things it became quickly was a debate on whether or not Remote Viewing was real. The links I've contributed to this thread provide more data for every user on ATS to use to come to their own conclusion as to whether or not Remote Viewing is real.

If anyone's guilty of derailing this thread it is YOU for thinking that attacking my post would ever boost your credibility.
edit on 4/5/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Those guys can play their games. We can just move on. Imagine if every discussion of cars first had to entertain a debate on Henry Ford's isolationist politics or antisemitism.

Anyway ...

I'd like to get back to the discussion of group organization. This is covered by both Dick and Daz. And they both seem to see very hierarchical structures. These look more like military operations rather than intelligence operations. And it's a very small group of people. Thirty-six at most. Or as few as eighteen. The focus on military individuals and training suggests something other than AQ. And both seem to see a demolition team. Even if such a team were AQ it wouldn't fit with the official story which argues commercial planes are the sole instrument of destruction.

I'd like Farsight to do some future RV sessions focusing on these individuals.
edit on 5-4-2016 by Moresby because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: PsychicCroMag

The 'beer can' mostly stayed in the building, denser objects like the gear and engines came out the other side. Theres footage of that, I think.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Yeah..but what does your illigitimate, abandoned, adopted brother do? It was all a mix up. They told your Mama he would "wear Dickies and twist wrenchs".



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: KeithCooper

LOL, thanks for the chuckle…



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Moresby

That was also a detail which struck me, when the demolition team is described by Daz, he says "they have done this hundreds of times"

In the beginning of the description of the team i was with 'special ops team'.
But the 'hundreds of times' remark let me believe professional demolition team.

Special ops would have training and experience in explosives. But i guess not 'hundreds of times' and would not reach such a highly precise result.

Reminds me of the trucks of "Manhattan demolition" which have been seen in front of the towers.




posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
or even better this one, since it fits the "white/grey van" description




posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: Moresby

That was also a detail which struck me, when the demolition team is described by Daz, he says "they have done this hundreds of times"

In the beginning of the description of the team i was with 'special ops team'.
But the 'hundreds of times' remark let me believe professional demolition team.

Special ops would have training and experience in explosives. But i guess not 'hundreds of times' and would not reach such a highly precise result.

Reminds me of the trucks of "Manhattan demolition" which have been seen in front of the towers.



Yup, it's all that. And the fact that they seem unable to describe the event without this notion of multiple teams. This is much less evident in the Pentagon sessions. Which could be merely a missile launch.

I try to stretch and bend their information to fit the official story. But it's next to impossible.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: svetlana84

Don't forget that in 1998 and 1999 the Port Authority submitted demolition plans to the NYC Council to demolish WTC 1 & 2 by use of demolition, NYC Council voted both times, No.

NYC Council claimed it was far to dangerous.
edit on 5-4-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Don't forget that in 1998 and 1999 the Port Authority submitted demolition plans to the NYC Council to demolish WTC 1 & 2 by use of demolition, NYC Council voted both times, No.


Do you have a valid source for that claim, like the council minutes?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Moresby
We must be onto something. Because we have so many classic examples of thread derailment. Now the Scientology card is being played.


Study of RA leads to Scientology links. How is looking at the subject thread derailment?


Nonsense. It only leads there if you want to go there. The info was introduced for thread derailment purposes only. And this thread is not about RV in general. It's about several specific sessions.


Maybe a Scientology mindset helps remote viewing. Why are you afraid of going there? Are you worried that when the ties to Scientology are pointed out, the results of the 9/11 RV will be less believable by the readers? Considering that this RV was inconsistent with reality, it is not believable at all.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moresby
Those guys can play their games. We can just move on. Imagine if every discussion of cars first had to entertain a debate on Henry Ford's isolationist politics or antisemitism.

Anyway ...

I'd like to get back to the discussion of group organization. This is covered by both Dick and Daz. And they both seem to see very hierarchical structures. These look more like military operations rather than intelligence operations. And it's a very small group of people. Thirty-six at most. Or as few as eighteen. The focus on military individuals and training suggests something other than AQ. And both seem to see a demolition team. Even if such a team were AQ it wouldn't fit with the official story which argues commercial planes are the sole instrument of destruction.

I'd like Farsight to do some future RV sessions focusing on these individuals.


It seems that Courtney Brown has a few problems with reliability www.ghosttheory.com...

RemoteViewer.Org has this background on Dr. Brown’s RV training and qualifications:


Courtney Brown took an Eight Day remote viewing course taught by Psi Tech, and subsequently created his own remote viewing institute – Farsight, teaching SRV. (Scientific Remote Viewing)

A full eight days, that must have been exhausting!
So I looked into Psi Tech:


Since 1989, when PSI TECH ushered the remote viewing technology out of the confines of military intelligence, PSI TECH has been the world leader in developing, testing, and refining Technical Remote Viewing training programs for our students. PSI TECH pioneered commercial remote viewing services and was the first company to offer remote viewing training. We also pioneered the world’s first remote viewing distance learning programs, which in the last decade spawned an entire industry.

PSI TECH currently offers the public several remote viewing training options, including our Generation II TRV Self Study Courses and the new Technical Remote Viewing University, which delivers unparalleled convenience, flexibility and real-time support to our students. (More)

And since the successful completion of that course, Dr. Brown has successfully attempted to perpetrate a fraud regarding a planet sized UFO following along in the wake of the Hale Bopp comet.


On January 14, 1997 a photo attributed to a “mystery astronomer” and purporting to show a “companion object” near Comet Hale-Bopp was posted on the web sites of radio personality Art Bell and author Whitley Strieber. This was the long-awaited photo given to Bell and Strieber by remote viewer Dr. Courtney Brown, first mentioned by Brown and his Farsight Institute employee Prudence Calabrese on Art Bell’s nationally syndicated radio program on November 29, 1996 [see CNI News vol 2, no. 18 of Dec 1]. On that show, Brown and Calabrese claimed that remote viewing of Hale-Bopp showed the companion object to be huge and “sentient,” possibly a “planet-sized spacecraft.” They also said they believed the “mystery astronomer” would come forward within a few weeks to confirm the existence of the companion.

However, just one day after the photo was posted, it was shown to be a hoax, casting grave suspicion on the “mystery astronomer” and on the remote viewing efforts of the Farsight Institute. The fraudulent nature of the photo was demonstrated on James Neff’s Enigma web site, www.anc.net/~neff/fake.html.




"In 1998 Prudence Calabrese, [Courtney Brown's assistant] offered a confession regarding the practices she had observed at Farsight which is excerpted here."


“I am writing this to confess my sins: bad science and bad judgement. I will make no case to exonerate myself. As a person who is quite capable of making intelligent decisions, and as a person trained in the sciences, I am embarrassed at the way I have failed my friends, my fellow remote viewers, and my scientific upbringing.

“What I participated in over the course of a year and a half was nothing less than the manipulation of the public’s mind, not by outright lying, but by the selective representation, improper analysis, and overblown presentation style of remote viewing data.

“It does not matter that I never had the intention of misleading the public. It does not matter that I was carried away by what I, myself, had ‘seen’ during remote viewing. It does not matter that I was a student of remote viewing, involved in a learning process. It does not even matter that I, in as vocal a way as possible within the confines of my employment, spoke openly about the problems inherent in targeting the unverifiable, and drawing conclusions from the data obtained.

“I failed in my moral responsibility to let the public know exactly what was occurring with the data on esoteric targets publicly presented by The Farsight Institute (under the direction of Dr. Courtney Brown).

“The data are both flawed and incomplete.


“All of those esoteric ‘special projects’ done at Farsight, and still linked to in the ‘Sessions’ section of The Farsight Institute Web Site were done under one or more of the following less-than-optimal conditions:

1. Semi-blind sessions, where the monitor knows the target and the viewer does not. All sessions where the monitor knew what the target was are flawed, due to the potential (and likelihood) for telepathic overlay, subtle leading by the monitor, and leading by cuing from the monitor.

2. Selective presentation (in ALL projects), where only the sessions that the analyst feels are “on target” are presented. Others that have opposing viewpoints, or data not consistent with the analyst’s interpretation of the data are discarded. In some cases, the analyst was also a viewer!

3. Leading Cuing, where the tasker makes an assumption and names the unverifiable thing in the target cue. Example: “Martians under Santa Fe Baldy (current time)” or “Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp comet.” How can such sessions provide objective data? If the cue says Martians, then Martians the student viewers will find.

4. Deep analytical overlay, due to strong ideas on the part of the analyst about what should or should not be in the data.

5. Methods and procedures that changed on a sometimes daily basis, without the benefit of looking at the comparative results from a selection of controlled sessions, before something was implemented Institute-wide.

“The truth of the matter is this: we do not understand, yet, what occurs in remote viewing when the subject matter is unverifiable. I personally believe that ‘extraterrestrials’ exist in some form and have been interacting with humanity for eons. I personally believe that there may have been Martians on Mars. I personally believe in the possibility of many things that I can not prove. I want to search for the truth behind these things, and I will use remote viewing to assist me in some way. I will not, however, use remote viewing as the answer to anything. It is just one more tool that we, as conscious human beings on the planet Earth, possess.”

Prudence Calabrese has since disappeared from the public and even presumably the remote eye. She did come forward after September 11th and claim, in typical psychic fashion, to have predicted the attack back in 1997 while still part of Farsight."



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine




Dr. Brown has successfully attempted to perpetrate a fraud regarding a planet sized UFO following along in the wake of the Hale Bopp comet.

Quite successfully. This guy believed it.
lunatic
edit on 4/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   
What in the name of Jiminy Christmas does Hale Bopp have to do with this thread?

People are really worried about the content of this thread. All the monkeys are coming out of the trees.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Moresby
Do you think Courtney Brown has anything to do with this thread?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

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?


What on earth makes you think a jetliner crashed into it ?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 09:33 PM
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).


Why in the world would a plane want to land at the Pentagon ??

After all the wars and hijackings in the world, do you not believe that using PLANES for BOMBING and as WEAPONS had not truly been considered ???



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.



You saying the Pentagon is a sitting duck for any and all attacks from the sky ?

BRILLIANT!!!



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
What on earth makes you think a jetliner crashed into it ?


Well, there are the eyewitnesses, the physical evidence of 757 wheels, 757 undercarriage, 757 AA fuselage parts, 757 seats, the DNA from the passengers and crew from flight 77, luggage from Flight 77, the data recorders from Flight 77, the damage caused by a 757 sized aircraft.... How much more evidence do you want?



new topics




 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join