Remote viewing the 911 attacks

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
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)

The attempt to recycle the missiles and demolitions theories by using RV as a cover assumes a great deal about the remote viewers unbiased viewing. I understand that there will be testimonials and claims of disinterested remote viewers and blind viewing but this looks too much like a put-up job.
The Pentagon strike was a plane. All the evidence points to a plane; even the impact explosion says jet fuel and not missile warhead. The idea that it was a small missile is wishful thinking on the part of those that want it to be so. The RVer's were viewing something else on a different channel.

a reply to: pteridine

Nothing you said adds any validity to the statement I contested.

remote viewing AFTER the event is entirely pointless and, essentially needless with so much evidence out their.
remember, the purpose of project stargate was to gather information on current activities (is this guy a spy?) or predict future events (will russia nuke us?).
viewing recent history that had global coverage without a bias is impossible.
as has already been pointed out, remote viewing doesn't work and is peddled by charlatans.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

The conclusions I have seen is that there are statistically significant results with RV, it just not reliable enough to get actionable intelligence, which was the supposed reason the RV projects were stopped, officially.

They did exist for more than two decades so there must have been something there. I am pretty sure such projects still exist.

a reply to: samkent

Look, i can't believe that people even discuss the security at the pentagon, being in construction or not.

Back in 2001 i lived in a very shady part of a city. Redlight district, shady bars, liqour stores and a lot of shops which are obvious money laundering operations, lots of places where you could literally everything under the counter. You get the scenery.

Each and every of these places had cameras, some places would even have the double doors. a knock on door one, face check via cam, door opens, massive blokes checking for weapons and the you might be allowed to the next door.

And you still believe that the most important place for the biggest and most expensive army in one of the most advanced countries on this planet has as lower security setup than my local biker gang led liqour stores?

If so: Don't you think the american tax payer would have to ask some serious questions?

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: pteridine

Nothing you said adds any validity to the statement I contested.

"What do you mean? I assume the RV-ers didn't know what they were looking at."

Note that you are making an assumption. Note also that there is absolutely no evidence for a missile strike on the Pentagon and overwhelming evidence for an airliner impact. For the Towers, there is no evidence for demolitions and in the absence of such, it leaves only thermal weakening of the steel and gravitational collapse.

This means that the remote viewers were viewing something else. Apparently, RV is not definitive.

a reply to: svetlana84

If so: Don't you think the american tax payer would have to ask some serious questions?

The plane hit the one wing that was undergoing construction.
Had it hit another wing I'll bet there would have been more camera footage because people were going about their normal activities.

Even if there were several cameras worth of footage, history on here says people would still say holograms and missiles.

There are 196.9 million square miles on Earth.
You can't get me to believe some RVer can zoom into one building for any day past-present-future and tell us what's going on.

It's probably best to ignore the thread hijackers. And go back to analyzing those fascinating remote viewing sessions.

One of the issues that hasn't been addressed is the notion suggest by Dick that one of the heads of the operation may be female.

Who do you think he was referring to? Condoleezza Rice?

And what about the notion that the group was never less than six people, and never more than twelve? That suggests the group had some formal organization. And wasn't a mere ad hoc creation as some researchers suggest.

a reply to: svetlana84

A summary?

How about this:

The CIA had been involved in Remote Viewing experiments during the Cold War in order to maximize their efficiency on Psychological Warfare.

The thing that I took away from that link which really blew my mind was:

Ingo Swann, Hal Puthoff, & Russel Taarg (these were the CIA/NSA affiliates that designed, conducted, & controlled the RV experiments at SRI) WERE ALL SCIENTOLOGISTS. Not just any Scientologists, but OT7. In the 70s that was the highest level attainable. But the fact that these experiments for the government were designed by Scientologists should be considered an immediate red flag to the validity of their research. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the late Ingo Swann himself was a double agent of some kind.

My personal take on it? There probably is something to Remote Viewing but the government's official conclusion was that yes RV is real but it cannot be controlled and it has no real practical application as a weapon for the military.

But... Dr. Jacques Vallee thinks (or thought) very highly of Ingo Swann when Swann was still alive. This always puzzled me. I suspect Dr. Vallee may have been projecting some sympathy to Scientology in order to avoid being declared a suppressor.

This is a lecture Dr. Vallee gave at the International Remote Viewing conference in 2008. It's definitely worth watching.



edit: I can't get the video to embed. Perhaps a mod could fix that for me? Anyways here's the direct link to youtube:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Moresby

You are right about the hijackers.

On the woman in the team. Condi comes to mind.
But my gut feeling says someone closer to Rumsfeld.

Maybe (and that s at shot at the dark) Victoria Clark?
As assistant secretary of defense for public affairs she was always close to Rumsfeld.
Worked already for Reagan, H.W Bush and G.W. Bush

Vitcoria Clarke


As said, total shot at the dark. She just comes to mind, since she is close to Rumsfeld.
And i don t remember any other woman in Rumsfelds staff.

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: Moresby

You are right about the hijackers.

On the woman in the team. Condi comes to mind.
But my gut feeling says someone closer to Rumsfeld.

Maybe (and that s at shot at the dark) Victoria Clark?
As assistant secretary of defense for public affairs she was always close to Rumsfeld.
Worked already for Reagan, H.W Bush and G.W. Bush

Vitcoria Clarke


As said, total shot at the dark. She just comes to mind, since she is close to Rumsfeld.
And i don t remember any other woman in Rumsfelds staff.

Would have never have thought of Victoria Clarke. It's an interesting notion. She's definitely up there in elite circles.

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?

a reply to: intrptr If i remember correctly the tv stations are on a few second delay is that considered live Tv.?(ok not a serious question) Saw where the screen briefly went black as the second beer can hit the tower,and came out the other side. Quite a feat considering a 15lb goose can crush the nose of a 757 in flight.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

But the fact that these experiments for the government were designed by Scientologists should be considered an immediate red flag to the validity of their research.

There are indeed very interesting and outright creepy connections from mil/gov organisations to Scientology and even Aleister Crowley.

I would not put up a red flag on the validity of the research because of this.

Or would you question the validity of the research of the Jet Propulsion Lab because of such connections?

The occult and the secret mil/gov organisations had always strong and weird connections.

For instance the "Babalon working rituals": Jack Parsons, rocket scientist and founder of the Jet propulsion labarotory met with scientology founder Ron L. Hubbard to perform the ,Babalon working ritual' which was based on Aleister Crowleys work.

The goal was to incarnate Babalon through sex magick rituals.

It's an interesting and very dark topic. Especially given in what high positions these guys have been. There are existing ATS threads on this. A dark dark rabbit hole..

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.

a reply to: Moresby

Excuse me? I posted a link containing documented cases of RV being used by the military. The most renowned (or well known) Remote Viewer in modern history is Ingo Swann. I think it's very relevant to point out that he had ties to Scientology.

I am still on the fence when it comes to Remote Viewing. Please don't be an idiot.

I don't care what the officials Narratives 911 supporters believe, after 15 years, most Americans know we were lied to about 911.

Furthermore the military used RV for over 20 years, if RV didn't work and was all "assumptions, and opinionated", then why did the military use it for 20 years??

Surly they would have discovered RV didn't work, and it sure wouldn't have taking them 20 years to find out.

The hard cold fact is, RV does work and is very accurate when done by a seasonal professional.

Why is Russia and China still using it?

I have shown credible evidence in this thread that proves with out a shadow of doubt that RV works and is very accurate.

Some of you in here defending the Official narratives of 911 have also dismiss RV, yet none of you have shown any real scientific proof that RV is all a hoax.

"opinions" are not the facts in dismissing RV.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Moresby

Excuse me? I posted a link containing documented cases of RV being used by the military. The most renowned (or well known) Remote Viewer in modern history is Ingo Swann. I think it's very relevant to point out that he had ties to Scientology.

I am still on the fence when it comes to Remote Viewing. Please don't be an idiot.

How is Ingo Swann's religion at all relevant to a discussion of some RV sessions about 9/11?

It's about as relevant as a discussion of the eating habits of George Bush's dog Barney. Actually less relevant than that.

Or would you question the validity of the research of the Jet Propulsion Lab because of such connections?

No, because Parsons was a disciple of Crowley and the OTO. Crowley and most in the history of Magick like Blavatsky never publicly denounced Science as a form of understanding paranormal phenomena, they embraced it (like Parsons). Scientology on the other hand, has repeatedly attacked disciplines of Science in order to indoctrinate their members so that they would never question the position of Authority that Scientology declared itself to be.