Remote viewing the 911 attacks

A scam? that's an "opinion".

I have yet to see any evidence that our military using remote viewing currently is a scam?


What the RV sees supports many 911 research from around the world. Including mine.

The hard core fact is, the government lied about all the events that happened that day and the fact that our government paid millions of dollars to NIST to fabricate pseudo science to fool Americans people to show how the WTC fell down.

Another fact is, the circumstantial of evidence of a major cover up "definitely" goes all the way to the White house.

The fact is the official narratives of 911 are mostly lies concocted by the Powers That Be.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Doctor Smith

It was a one in a million chance that they predicted an island hit by earthquakes and tsunami in the past would be hit by an earthquake and tsunami again?

You keep forgetting about the (Biggest Nuclear Disaster of of all time) detail. Those reactors should be able to stand up to whatever the environment can produce. No one expected that this could ever happen.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

No one but the Japanese engineers.

But a review of company and regulatory records shows that Japan and its largest utility repeatedly downplayed dangers and ignored warnings -- including a 2007 tsunami study from Tokyo Electric Power Co's senior safety engineer.

"We still have the possibilities that the tsunami height exceeds the determined design height due to the uncertainties regarding the tsunami phenomenon," Tokyo Electric researchers said in a report reviewed by Reuters.

The research paper concluded that there was a roughly 10 percent chance that a tsunami could test or overrun the defenses of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant within a 50-year span based on the most conservative assumptions.

mobile.reuters.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58


But the Japanese engineers weren't the remote viewers. The remote viewers could not have known the nukes weren't sufficiently engineered.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

And there's no reason that means they "saw" it. Years before the accident there were scandals about faked reports and false repair reports.

In an interview in 2007 after Tokyo Electric’s Kashiwazaki nuclear plant was struck by an earthquake, Ishibashi said fundamental improvements were needed in engineering standards for atomic power stations, without which Japan could suffer a catastrophic disaster.

www.bloomberg.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

YOUR research how much do you know about STRUCTURAL DESIGN zip nada zilch

What the RV sees supports many 911 research from around the world. Including mine.

Just because the (alleged) remote viewers aligned their results to support conspiracy theories does not make them correct.

Tomorrow, I could claim that I remote viewed ancient Egypt 4500 years ago and saw that the pyramids were built by non human beings from outer space and it would make neither my experience nor the wild theories any more credible.

What would really help their case is if they could name specific individuals that were involved in the cover-up. You know, like some of the people who planted the alleged explosives for the alleged controlled demolition?

By the way do you know anybody that works for NIST? Because I do. The thing is, it would be impossible to falsify the commissioned report without it eventually being completely debunked. That hasn't happened yet because in science you have to take something that's published and reproduce it in the lab to see if it works before it can be accepted in academia.

These wanna-be psychics haven't contributed anything to the argument.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

By the way do you know anybody that works for NIST? Because I do. The thing is, it would be impossible to falsify the commissioned report without it eventually being completely debunked. That hasn't happened yet because in science you have to take something that's published and reproduce it in the lab to see if it works before it can be accepted in academia.

What planet have you been on? Nobody that knows their head from a hole in the ground buys the NIST whitewash report. What a disgrace.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Nobody that knows their head from a hole in the ground buys the NIST whitewash report.

Except for the majority of Americans.

You really ought to expand your method of inquiry.

The planes brought the twin towers down, not any secondary explosives. The whole 'pull it' line theory that was promulgated by Alex Jones has also since been debunked.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

The planes brought the twin towers down, not any secondary explosives. The whole 'pull it' line theory that was promulgated by Alex Jones has also since been debunked.

I disagree.

We all have "opinions" but are they the facts?

The fact is the WTC were "over designed" to handle fully loaded, full of fuel 707's for multiply impacts, the worst scenario that was expected was the WTC would completely burn from the top down, however the WTC would never have collapsed.

The fact is the outer shell of the WTC was designed like a "fish net", meaning you can punch all the holes you want in the WTC but it would have never fell.

Another fact is, all the circumstantial evidence points to demolition and nothing else. Another fact is, NIST "pseudo science" report doesn't stand up to real science.

The official narratives of 911, the WTC, are lies.

originally posted by: Informer1958
The fact is the WTC were "over designed" to handle fully loaded, full of fuel 707's for multiply impacts,

Sure about that? Care to show exactly where the designer stated that?

The fact is the outer shell of the WTC was designed like a "fish net", meaning you can punch all the holes you want in the WTC but it would have never fell.

According to who exactly? Anyway, the facts showed that they were wrong!

Another fact is, all the circumstantial evidence points to demolition

Actually, there is zero evidence for demolition!

The official narratives of 911, the WTC, are lies.

Wrong again, the lies are coming from those pushing explosives, thermite, beam weapons from space, mini nuclear weapons, holograph planes, pod carrying planes firing missiles etc. etc.

a reply to: Informer1958

Are you aware that the aircrafts that crashed into the towers were 767s and not 707s?

The Twin Towers were built in 1966. They can say that they were built to withstand the impact of a 707 but the truth of the matter is that the analysis of its capability to withstand an impact from a 707 was overinflated so that it could meet the requirements of their fully covered insurance policy. Is it really stretching the truth so much to assume that they were naive in believing that a plane was incapable of taking down a building? Because it obviously did.

Let me be clear about some things:

I don't doubt for one minute that the Bush administration Let An Attack Happen in order to justify the invasion of the middle east (specifically Iraq). But this idea that the CIA ninja'd their way into the towers to rig them with explosives without any shred of evidence or any eyewitnesses is just bogus. And let's not forget they would have had to shoot a missile into the Pentagon, and completely fake the downing of flight 93' along with hours of blackbox recordings. Not to mention the family members of these jet passengers would have to be in on the cover-up as well. The amount of labor and persons required to cover all that up is simply inconceivable. It would have to be literally hundreds perhaps thousands of government employees from multiple agencies all getting their stories to match and be expected to take the truth to their graves. Get the F*** out of here with that sh*t.

It was a national tragedy. People have a hard time dealing with the reality that something like that could happen but it did happen... People will do all kinds of crazy mental gymnastics and speculate to their mind's end until they can latch onto something that they can use to justify suppressing what really happened. There are people that even think that there were no planes at all. Hell, there are some people (even on ATS) that think to this day that the moon landings were faked and that NASA has been perpetuating one huge lie since the 1950s.

And you want me to believe some pathetic wanna-be psychics finally found the smoking gun from some vivid wet dream they had? Get the F*** out of here with that.

If these guys had the ability to Remote View, why not do something productive like Remote View the archives where the remaining unsealed 28 pages of the 9/11 congressional report are? At least that could be verified. Why not Remote View inside George H W Bush's mind to learn every CIA secret since WW2? They could kill so many birds with that stone. While they're at it why don't they remote view the secret archives of the vatican and fill in some of the blanks of our written history?

But they didn't. Instead they threw some BS claims that was a pantomime of all the most popular 9/11 conspiracies so that people like you and many others in this thread would foolishly jump up and declare 'PROOF.' And guess what, it worked. S&Fs all around for anyone that articulates the 9/11 conspiracy theories!

Way to deny ignorance. You want to talk about a real conspiracy? Talk about JFK. At least that coverup was doable.

well there's no doubt that RV-ing was taken extremely seriously by the military for some time. is it still? who knows.

it wouldn't surprise me if that project was still ongoing. do i believe in the validity of remote viewing? i don't know. but i can't dismiss it out of hand, because i don't know.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Yes the CIA was very interested in RV. The problem is that some scientologists had infiltrated both the CIA & NSA (and DIA for that matter) and sold them all lies. Swann, Puthoff, Taarg, & Price were master tricksters, yes they were.

To find out more on that subject click here.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Are you aware that the aircrafts that crashed into the towers were 767s and not 707s?

Are you aware that a 707 has a significantly higher speed capability. So it would do much more damage due to the kinetic energy? Kinetic Energy = 1/2 of mass times velocity squared!

707 will do more damage than a 767

a reply to: Informer1958

The fact is the WTC were "over designed" to handle fully loaded, full of fuel 707's for multiply impacts, the worst scenario that was expected was the WTC would completely burn from the top down, however the WTC would never have collapsed

Exactly correct.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Except he's being slightly dishonest there. And by slightly, I mean a lot.

He starts out comparing the 707-320B to the 767-200, but then he jumps to the 707. There were four models of 707s, the -120, -120B, -320, and -320B. All had different takeoff weights, and all had different cruise speeds.

The only 707 with a maximum speed over 600 mph was the -120B, which had a maximum takeoff weight of 257,000 lbs. The -320B, which had the heaviest MTOW, at 333,000 lbs had a top speed of 480 knots, or 13 knots slower than a 767-200.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Exactly correct.

Except he had nothing to do with the design or construction of the WTC's... and as history showed, he was wrong!

But let us see what the Chief Engineer on the construction of the Twin Towers of The World Trade Center says about 9/11...

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Are you aware that a 707 has a significantly higher speed capability. So it would do much more damage due to the kinetic energy? Kinetic Energy = 1/2 of mass times velocity squared!

I counter with.

The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened .

and

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

What planet have you been on? Nobody that knows their head from a hole in the ground buys the NIST whitewash report. What a disgrace.

Did you notice that 2 out of 3 of your videos have no author ?
No one willing to stand up and say "I produced those videos and I stand behind them.".
Any first year law student would get them tossed out of court.

For that matter the conspiracy side has never produced and evidence that would stand up in court.
It's all been conjecture and pseudo science.
Not one of the members of ae911 has produced anything court worthy.
Even their fearless leader stops short of giving real proof. He only suggests.