Remote viewing the 911 attacks

originally posted by: jimmybob
The Port Authority had even applied to have it demolished several times but was denied due to the asbestos risks and costs in the hundreds of millions.

Care to provide a valid source for that claim?

In early 2000 the towers were condemned due to asbestos health issues

Care to provide a valid source for that claim?
Who "condemned" them?

EDIT:

On second thought, I'm just going to turn this post into a whole new thread. For those of you wanting to continue the topic of Remote Viewing and its roots in Scientology & Clandestine Intelligence, come check it out in the new thread.

a reply to: jimmybob

I think they only made 4.1 billion eventually but I really dont care.

You make it sound like LS walked away with money in his pockets.
He put that money and more into the new building.

a reply to: jimmybob

In early 2000 the towers were condemned due to asbestos health issues before Silverstein leased them. The insurance was doubled and a new terrorist clause insurance was added.

Asbestos was only in one building - lower 1/3 of North Tower (up to floor 37) before its use was banned

It was encapsulated (coated with rubber compound) to prevent flaking. As floors became vacant the asbestos was
removed.

Insurance was doubled?? Silverstein wanted to insurance each building for 1 Billion, Investors wanted 7 billion total
settled on 3.55 billion for entire complex. Strange wanting to insure buildings for LESSS......

As for terrorism WTC was bombed in 1993 - truck bomb planted by Islamic terrorists in parking garage killed 6 and
injured 1000, left 500 million in damage

Investors insisted on adding terrorism coverage ......

a reply to: firerescue

Insurance was doubled?? Silverstein wanted to insurance each building for 1 Billion, Investors wanted 7 billion total
settled on 3.55 billion for entire complex. Strange wanting to insure buildings for LESSS......

Not quite.
He wanted each impact counted separately making 7 billion in insurance payout.
The insurance company said it was one event worth 3.55 billion.
They settled on 4.577 billion.

But you could have looked this up on non conspiracy web sites.
Conspiracy minded people only look at conspiracy sites for their info.

Back to the remote viewing thread.

The FBI's speedy retrieval of the tapes is corroborated by several witnesses, among them Jose Velasquez, a gas-station supervisor whose security cameras allegedly recorded the moment of impact when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. "Within minutes, the FBI was there and took the film," Velasquez told the "Richmond Times Dispatch."

Article


Why the FBI is holding the video's of the impact only raises suspicion. Nobody can be blamed for not trusting them as they were involved in the first Trade center bombing in the 90's.

In RV terms, what does the acronym A.O.L. stand for?

(I know in this instance it doesn't stand for America Online. )

Daz uses it several times. It appears as though he's using it when part of session makes him think of an object or an event. Although he's not directly getting that from RVing.

But I'd like to know what the letters actually stand for.

a reply to: Moresby

I don't know about remote viewing but it usually means Absent With Out Leave. Too many acronyms being thrown around.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Why the FBI is holding the video's of the impact only raises suspicion.

The tapes have been released, why claim the FBI are holding them?

Why did you expect the cameras would be filming another building?

a reply to: hellobruce



I'm interested in your "take" on the conspiracy nut
theory that says the FBI confiscated video from the
gas station and hotel across the street from the
Pentogram.

Is it a urban legend or real?

Seems to me if that video exists, they would certainly
want to provide it to prove to all the nuts that they
are telling the truth. If the Pentagon was in court
trying to prove it, you better believe they would use
every piece of video out there to cover their butts....

Just curious.....Cause these 28 pages could be HUGE!!!!

Thanks

a reply to: jabbathehut

Is it a urban legend or real?

They did confiscate the videos.
They did release the content of those videos.
The videos did not show the plane.

But you shouldn't expect to see the plane because the cameras were aimed at the businesses interests not up in the sky.

originally posted by: jabbathehut
Is it a urban legend or real?

That video footage was confiscated is real...

That the video footage was released is real....

Seems to me if that video exists,

It does exist, why do you think it was not released?

Just stop and actually think for a minute....

You are a business that has set up video cameras, what do you point them at.... areas that are of interest to you, or you point them at another office building that has nothing at all to do with your business?

a reply to: hellobruce

The tapes have been released, why claim the FBI are holding them? Why did you expect the cameras would be filming another building?

These photos show that the Citgo Station provided an excellent unobstructed view of the Pentagon crash site. Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

pictures

Peter gets the LAST WORD: I am sure that you (FBI searcher) are aware that FOIA exemption (b)(7)(A) which applies to law enforcement records requires a showing that the production of such records or information could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. The two CCTV videos purportedly show what several witnesses have publicly stated they observed: Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon on 9-11-01. As I stated in the appeal of my initial request, the debate over what hit the Pentagon has thrived due to the apparent contradiction between the eyewitness and physical evidence. Whereas a large body of reports of eyewitness accounts strongly supports that a twin-engine jetliner (Flight 77) swooped in at a very low altitude and exploded at or in front of the Pentagon, photographs of the facade and lawn show an absence of aircraft debris or a pattern of damage consistent with such an aircraft. The resulting evidence vacuum has created the conditions for a protracted controversy about what hit the Pentagon. The lack of evidence of large aircraft debris in post-crash photographs of the Pentagon's exterior, combined with the refusal of officials to produce evidence supporting the official story, has led many skeptics to believe that the damage was caused by something other than a jetliner hitting the building. Further, there is neither video footage nor any photographic evidence in the public domain showing a jetliner approaching or crashing into the Pentagon. Not only has the government refused to release footage that would clearly show how the Pentagon was attacked, it has also seized footage not belonging to the military. The FBI reportedly confiscated video recordings from three locations shortly after the attack (Sheraton National Hotel, NEXCOMM/CITGO gas station, and the Virginia Department of Transportation). The FBI has, in its latest response admitted possessing at least two of these CCTV videos. These two recordings could provide decisive evidence about the crash and end the controversy. All the perpetrators who directly participated in the hijacking of the jetliners and the subsequent attacks are dead. Even assuming that the FBI is conducting an ongoing investigation, the release of the two CCTV videos would in no way jeopardize, compromise, or hinder that investigation since the videos merely show what everyone already is aware of ? Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

Picture of area construction before impact. How did they know to hit exactly there?

However, the FBI claims those stills were 'leaked' by the Pentagon and NOT officially released. Therefore, the FBI doesn't considered them to exist! In the Sneak Preview - 911 Pentagon Tapes article, a helicopter was prominent in the 'leaked' stills. Its function was to remote control the aircraft at the construction entrance located at ground level to make it appear the plane actually penetrated the Pentagon:

The renovated Pentagon section that was targeted had special steel, kevlar reinforced masonry walls and 'blastproof' windows. Jack Singleton explains how the aircraft got partially into the Pentagon: "Where the plane came in was really at the CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE," says Jack Singleton, president of Singleton Electric Co. Inc., Gaithersburg MD, the Wedge One electrical subcontractor. "The plane's left wing actually came in near the ground and the right wing was tilted up in the air. That right wing went directly over our trailer, so if that wing had not tilted up, it would have hit the trailer. My foreman, Mickey Bell, had just walked out of the trailer and was walking toward the construction entrance."

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
These photos show that the Citgo Station provided an excellent unobstructed view of the Pentagon crash site.

Once again, just why do you think Citgo would have a camera pointed at another building?

Have you bothered to watch that video?

Once again, just why do you think Citgo would have a camera pointed at another building?

a reply to: hellobruce

They always have them pointed out towards the gas pumps and parking lot to catch vandals and to see what they drove in on.

First you say they released the video but they haven't. Are you working for someone?

Again. Why do you think the witness thinks the impact could be seen on the film if the camera was pointed any other way? Why wouldn't the authorities release it if they have nothing to hide?

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
They always have them pointed out towards the gas pumps and parking lot to catch vandals and to see what they drove in on.

Yes, they are not pointed at other buildings...

First you say they released the video but they haven't.

They have released it, I even posted the Citgo one....

Again. Why do you think the witness thinks the impact could be seen on the film if the camera was pointed any other way?

Did the witness's work at Citgo, and know what thew camera's were pointed at, or did they just assume?

Why wouldn't the authorities release it if they have nothing to hide?

Why don't you do some research, and you would realise it has been released.... and posted in this thread!

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Picture of area construction before impact. How did they know to hit exactly there?

They were not aiming at a particular part of the building - they were aiming to hit the building in general ......

Reason hit that section of Pentagon was that was the side presented to the aircraft as it came out of turn and lined up
to strike the building .

Conspiracy types like to state that striking newly renovated section of Pentagon was part of plan, in next breath
will state that the hijackers could not fly well enough to hit the building !

a reply to: firerescue

Conspiracy types like to state that striking newly renovated section of Pentagon was part of plan, in next breath will state that the hijackers could not fly well enough to hit the building !

Those planes were remote controlled or those pilots were trained with exactly the same aircraft.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Those planes were remote controlled or those pilots were trained with exactly the same aircraft.

Your evidence for that claim is what exactly?

a reply to: hellobruce

Why don't you do some research, and you would realise it has been released.... and posted in this thread!

Post it again. Your video doesn't work. I looked back a couple pages. Don't have time for another let down. I'm sure you have nothing.