The real mastermind behind 911

Discussion
1

For those of you who have been troubled all these years about the mismatch between the official government story and the facts of the 911 events, I suggest that you open your mind to the possibility that the truth has already been revealed and it is now available to the public courtesy of a documented phenomenon known as remote viewing.
Two of the world's best remote viewers looked at the events and recorded their impressions, which comport amazingly well with the facts and a whole lot better than the hogwash official government story/whitewash/coverup.
You can watch the events through their eyes here:
http://farsight.org/demo/Mysteries/Mysteries_10/Mysteries_Project_10_targets.html
It was recorded in two parts. Each part will cost you $15 but then you can watch it and re-watch it as often as you like. THIS WILL BE ONE OF BEST INVESTMENTS OF TIME AND MONEY YOU HAVE EVER MADE. Just knowing the truth is priceless. I don't LIKE the truth, but for me if felt like a huge burden lifted as all of the cognitive dissonances were dissolved.
AFTER you view both parts, then take a look at this biography on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Carlucci

It won't make any sense to you until after you have viewed both remote viewing videos. After you have viewed them, you will understand why I included this link.
After you have done all of the above, please write back and share your impressions. Let's keep this dialogue alive. This needs to go mainstream!
Nina
P.S. By the way, the Farsight Institute has also viewed the JFK assassination. That is also in two parts. I have only watched the first part so far, and so far it is quite evident that, as pretty much everyone knows by now, the official story on that is also hogwash. Still, the details are fascinating. Looking forward to the second part.

2

Thanks Nina….did you see this deathbed confession of a CIA employee who is taking credit/blame for pulling Building 7? See below.

Mike

Published on Jul 13, 2017
CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’
79-year-old retired CIA agent, Malcom Howard, has made a series of astonishing claims since being released from hospital in New Jersey on Friday and told he has weeks to live. Mr. Howard claims he was involved in the “controlled demolition” of World Trade Center 7, the third building that was destroyed on 9/11. Mr. Howard, who worked for the CIA for 36 years as an operative, claims he was tapped by senior CIA agents to work on the project due to his engineering background, and early career in the demolition business.
Trained as a civil engineer, Mr. Howard became an explosives expert after being headhunted by the CIA in early 1980s. Mr. Howard says has extensive experience in planting explosives in items as small as cigarette lighters and as large as “80 floor buildings.”
The 79-year-old New Jersey native says he worked on the CIA operation they dubbed “New Century” between May 1997 and September 2001, during a time he says the CIA “was still taking orders from the top.” Mr. Howard says he was part of a cell of 4 operatives tasked with ensuring the demolition was successful.

Mr. Howard says the World Trade Center 7 operation is unique among his demolitions, as it is the only demolition that “we had to pretend wasn’t a demolition job”. He claims he had no problem going through with the deception at the time, because “when you are a patriot, you don’t question the motivation of the CIA or the White House. You assume the bigger purpose is for a greater good. They pick good, loyal people like me, and it breaks my heart to hear the shit talk.” ...

http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/

The narration of this article does not constitute an endorsement of its contents or point of view, by this channel. Our viewers and subscribers are encouraged to draw their own conclusions.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law.

3

Thank you, Mike. The CIA guy's confession is perfectly consistent with what the remote viewers saw!
Nina

4

I hadn't heard about the ex-CIA employee's confession, that's very interesting. Typical of the media to bury important news like that.

  I'm more skeptical about remote viewing. Here's some of what Wikipedia has to say about it:

Michael Shermer investigated remote viewing experiments and discovered a problem with the target selection list. According to Shermer with the sketches only a handful of designs are usually used such as lines and curves which could depict any object and be interpreted as a "hit". Shermer has also written about confirmation and hindsight biases that have occurred in remote viewing experiments.[31]

Various skeptic organizations have conducted experiments for remote viewing and other alleged paranormal abilities, with no positive results under properly controlled conditions.[4]

Sensory cues

The psychologists David Marks and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff’s remote viewing experiments that were carried out in the 1970s at the Stanford Research Institute. In a series of 35 studies, they were unable to replicate the results so investigated the procedure of the original experiments. Marks and Kammann discovered that the notes given to the judges in Targ and Puthoff's experiments contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. They concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates.[32][33] According to Terence Hines:

Examination of the few actual transcripts published by Targ and Puthoff show that just such clues were present. To find out if the unpublished transcripts contained cues, Marks and Kammann wrote to Targ and Puthoff requesting copies. It is almost unheard of for a scientist to refuse to provide his data for independent examination when asked, but Targ and Puthoff consistently refused to allow Marks and Kammann to see copies of the transcripts. Marks and Kammann were, however, able to obtain copies of the transcripts from the judge who used them. The transcripts were found to contain a wealth of cues.[34]

Thomas Gilovich has written:

Most of the material in the transcripts consists of the honest attempts by the percipients to describe their impressions. However, the transcripts also contained considerable extraneous material that could aid a judge in matching them to the correct targets. In particular, there were numerous references to dates, times and sites previously visited that would enable the judge to place the transcripts in proper sequence... Astonishingly, the judges in the Targ-Puthoff experiments were given a list of target sites in the exact order in which they were used in the tests![3]

According to Marks, when the cues were eliminated the results fell to a chance level.[4] Marks was able to achieve 100 per cent accuracy without visiting any of the sites himself but by using cues.[n 5] James Randi has written controlled tests by several other researchers, eliminating several sources of cuing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests, produced negative results. Students were also able to solve Puthoff and Targ's locations from the clues that had inadvertently been included in the transcripts.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

5

Have you watched THESE remote viewing sessions and read on the website about the controls used for THESE sessions. Kindly comment on THESE if you would be so kind.

Nina

6

Thanks for posting these, Nina.

For what it’s worth, I trust the remote viewing phenomenon more than I trust Michael Shermer. For what it’s also worth, so, apparently, does the government. Congress renewed funding for the Stanford Research Institute’s remote viewing studies for over 25 years during the Cold War. Only 1 year at a time, since the matter was controversial; but they couldn’t do without the intelligence that SRI was supplying. On a local level, when a well-known remote viewer was called in on the Patty Hearst case, he described a diner near a freeway overpass where she and her kidnappers were hanging out at that moment; a cop who was present recognized the site, in Vallejo, from his description, and they nabbed them immediately. In none of these cases was there an issue of a judge getting cues in assessing a match. In the JFK video from Farsight, one of the viewers himself, once he had filled in enough detail, recognized the target as the JFK assassination, so he made his own “match.” It was interesting that he saw things he had never heard about before (nor had I), like a command-and-control center at the top of City Hall, with a secret state-of-the-art device for scrambling radio communications to the teams dispersed around the Plaza. I was vexed, in watching the 9/11 videos, that I couldn’t imagine what instructions had been given to the viewers. Any mention of the time or place, for example, would have made it a dead giveaway. After watching the JFK videos, however, it seems clear that they were given nothing but a number for the target, like 14b or 10d. They were simply sent an e-mail saying, “You have a target.”

7

Well, I'm certainly not going to watch videos online for which I have to pay $30, when there's so much great video material out there I won't ever have time to watch that is available for free!

  But the Patty Hearst case sounds fascinating and worth further research. I don't understand enough about what you're saying about the other cases Michael.

  By the way, I asked about the reported CIA agent confession re: Building 7 on Quora, and so far got three responses, all indicating the story is fake (including one from a self-identified "truther" who does believe it was a controlled demolition):

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-an-ex-CIA-employee-has-confessed-to-helping-destroy-the-World-Trade-Center-Building-7

  Maybe there are in this case good reasons why the mainstream media ignored the story after all. But I'd be curious to hear rebuttals from anyone here who's convinced it's real.

  If you're wondering why my name there is "Winston Smith" (after the 1984 protagonist), I changed it in protest of the site's "real names" policy (like Facebook, they want to know people's real identities). After not using the site in a while, I logged in and discovered I was blocked from posting because they didn't like my previous user name, which was something like "oOoOo Starchild oOoOo" (I'd set it up that way because they require two-part names and wouldn't take simply Starchild). So now they have something less related to my actual name. I encourage others to similarly adopt a fictitious identity if using the site.

  It is a useful forum for spreading pro-freedom ideas and challenging assumptions by asking pointed questions however, especially as they seem to have a broad international user base – sort of an opportunity for snippets of Socratic dialogue. A former journalism professor of mine observed that the media is not very successful at telling people what to think, but quite successful at telling them what to think about. As libertarians, we obviously want people to think more questions of freedom and government power, abuse, etc. Here are a few of the other questions I've recently asked there:

Are there any governments in the world which recognize the right of secession (people constituting a majority in some region starting a new country)?
Canada, apparently, which I didn't know!

Do organizations other than governments grant recognition to new countries? Is there a list showing who has recognized countries excluded from the UN?

If it's not okay for governments to discriminate on the basis of race, why is it okay for them to discriminate on the basis of nationality?

When you take out a bank loan, does the bank create the money out of thin air by adding an electronic entry to your bank account?

It's been said that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" (for breaking the law). Is this true no matter how many laws there are?
(This one surprised me by drawing a bunch of surprisingly well-argued statist responses; your rebuttals welcome!)

Does anyone really own property if they have to pay rent in the form of property tax to the government in order to keep it?
(Ditto to the above.)

If top government officials receive taxpayer-funded protection because they're unpopular and at risk, should other very unpopular people get the same?

Which government or regime is the worst in the world, and why?

Has the Constitution changed since 1919, when a constitutional amendment was required in order to prohibit a drug (alcohol)?

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

8

Thanks, Starchild. I will reply here only to the part about remote viewing.

The Patty Hearst case is pretty typical. Note that there is no issue of someone having to judge whether a match with the target was achieved. Much of the research at SRI I think is still classified, but I remember one example that has been made public. A viewer was given geographical coordinates and asked what he saw there. The coordinates were in Siberia. He reported seeing a gigantic steel sphere, made of sections bolted together. The government said, "Yes, we can see that from satellites; we want to know what is inside." "A weapon to shoot down satellites." I would recommend Russell Targ's books on remote viewing; one of them is subtitled Memoirs of a Blind Biker. Targ, a physicist who co-invented the laser, has had 20/200 vision since birth. He bicycled around New York City, where he grew up, but found the winds and hills too much for him when he came to Stanford, so he attached a 3 hp motor to his bike. An actual motorcycle required a different license, so, when he wanted to upgrade, he had his ophthalmologist write a letter to the DMV certifying that "his vision had not changed in the last 5 years." So he now drives a motorcycle while being legally blind. Your kind of a guy?

One of the non-LPSF friends to whom I sent the message about the Farsight Institute replied by quoting their material on Mars, which sounded embarrassingly ridiculous. I was intrigued enough by it that I watched several others. Contrary to Nina, I would not argue that the 9/11 and JFK videos were worth $15 or $30. I do find all of them worthwhile just to watch remote viewing in action. I do think you would likely find worth $15 the videos on Mars or especially on Iapetus, where the content is guaranteed to be not only new but mind-blowing. The viewers are of course just describing what they see, without knowing where they are. Both of them complained of difficulty breathing in the thin air in one video, for example, and concluded that they must be at very high altitude; they were actually on Mars. In the JFK video one of them got a strong clue about the time frame when he smelled Vitalis. He hadn't smelled Vitalis since he was a kid, and figured the target event must have been in the '50s or '60s.

9

Huh. Do you know what explanations have been given for how remote viewing allegedly works? Is it believed to work based on quantum entanglement, or...? Are you suggesting that having poor natural vision (e.g. Russell Targ) is somehow connected? Or is he not a remote viewer himself? If he is a remote viewer, does he somehow use his extrasensory talents to ride a bike? I'm confused?

  And you believe it's not just seeing, but smelling, breathing, etc.? That people with this ability, from no more information than (a set of coordinates? an object that had been in a location?) can report detailed multi-sensory information as if they were actually in a remote place, or perhaps even acquire information about it not knowable from mere sensory clues (if the person you mention saw equipment inside an unusual building in Siberia, how would he know its purpose was to shoot down satellites, assuming that answer was determined to be correct? A lucky guess?)

  There are possible mundane explanation for the phenomenon, such as that people claiming these remote viewing powers are secretly communicating with others who, for instance, do things like look up geographic coordinates, etc., and report back to them somehow, perhaps via tiny microphones hidden in the ear or something. (Sounds implausible I know, but is it any more implausible than the idea that they actually have these powers?)

  In evaluating stuff like this, I'm mindful of the fact that I've been to multiple magic shows in my life where I've seen things happen in front of my eyes which I know are staged, yet haven't been able to figure out how they were done. That's why I think it's important to have people with knowledge of magician-craft, like James Randi, be involved in testing/verifying any claimed supernatural abilities. Here's an article that discusses how a couple volunteers recruited by Randi fooled the people running an expensive university research project with their supposed psychic abilities for several years:

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4044

  The most amusing/amazing part is that even when Randi confessed to the researchers and explained how his recruits were doing it, they didn't believe him! It took him publishing a magazine article about it to bring the research to a halt.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

10

Starchild,
I am not sure this particular group that you addressed is going to be able to answer your questions. For answers, consider spending some time on the Far Sight Institute website. There are tons of resources there. Why not consult the experts? Answers are at your fingertips.

Also consider viewing the Mars and Iapetus sessions. Glimpses at answers are there. I am asking YOU, as you ask of others, to have an open mind. What we don't know about how the universe works far exceeds what we do know.

Nina

11

Nina,

What do you think of the Randi demonstration Starchild describes?

Warm regards, Michael

Starchild,

I am not sure this particular group that you addressed is going to be able to answer your questions. For answers, consider spending some time on the Far Sight Institute website. There are tons of resources there. Why not consult the experts? Answers are at your fingertips.

Also consider viewing the Mars and Iapetus sessions. Glimpses at answers are there. I am asking YOU, as you ask of others, to have an open mind. What we don't know about how the universe works far exceeds what we do know.

Nina

12

Thanks, Starchild.

I don't think anybody has any idea how remote viewing works. I don't take that to mean that it doesn't exist. We also don't know how to explain how ordinary consciousness works-how it's possible for us to speak, or compose symphonies-or life itself. We don't have to go that far: We don't even know how gravity works-how the moon creates the tides, for example. We have a word for it, and a formula for its strength, but that doesn't explain how it happens. I support debunking efforts in general-and there are undoubtedly a lot of charlatans-but I also think that a strong denialist position is dogmatic, arrogant, and unempirical.

Targ himself hasn't made any claims I know of for his own remote viewing abilities. He functions mainly as a trusted scientist interested in the phenomenon.

My own abilities are extremely limited; I have only two small successes to speak of, and the more significant of those occurred while I was asleep. In 1996 I was flying to Phoenix to see a friend, also named Michael; my scheduled arrival was on a Friday at 7:30 p.m. The night before the flight I had the strangest, most complex dream of my life-a dream within a dream, where in the inner dream I fell unconscious. The outer dream was concerned with my flight the following night; the skies were very stormy, with lightning, and various delays made us an hour and 55 minutes late. The next morning I e-mailed Michael, so as to have a paper record just in case, that I had dreamed that my flight would arrive at 9:25. The plane boarded for an on-time departure; then, before we pulled back from the gate, a "mechanical item" was found; by the time that was fixed, we had lost our place in the take-off queue; by the time we were cleared, weather in Phoenix had turned bad. We pulled up to the gate at 9:25 on the nose. A delay of 2 hours in the dream could easily be shrugged off as coincidence; an hour and 55 minutes was impressively specific.

Card-guessing tests of remote viewing are the least convincing; in Georg Polya's phrase, "Chance is the ever-present rival conjecture." But the viewers for Farsight are regularly going out on a limb, literally not knowing what they are talking about, but merely describing what they experience, which is sometimes amazing to them. As in narrating dreams, that can be a challenge, when the experience is indistinct, confused, or unfamiliar. That is especially the case in describing civilizations that are very technologically superior to ours (e.g., "The craft is tethered to the ground, but it's not a physical tether-maybe electrical?"). The strongest claims here are for structures with underground rooms, not visible from the surface, at particular locations on Mars and Iapetus (a moon of Saturn). They could be tested with an unmanned probe to those celestial bodies, but the government would certainly not be willing to fund that, potentially giving credibility to viewers who have also spoken about 9/11 and JFK and MLK.

13

I ussed "denialist" because "skeptic" sounded too much like "agnostic," and it seems to me that people like Shermer take an "atheistic" position. That said, I wouldn't disagree with skepticism as you characterize it as the default position, with the burden of proof on those who assert the existence of the phenomenon.

As for believing that artificial underground structures exist on Mars and Iapetus, believe feels a bit strong. I would personally bet that they do, but wouldn't try very hard to persuade anybody of that position. I characterized that as a strong claim because I was thinking of it as currently verifiable in principle, rather than unverifiable, in the sense that we do have the technological means of verification; it's just that no one who could afford the verification process cares that much about it. That may not always be true. I considered it a strong claim because it could not be argued that someone in that location were somehow communicating information to the viewers; those locations are uninhabited.

14

Starchild:

I will pay the $15 for you to see either the video on Iapetus or on Mars, your choice. I can give you the money at the Ghirardelli Lagunitas event on August 20 or send you a check, let me know. I expect in return that you will make at least a brief comment on it, but I have no expectation that it will change your mind about anything.

15

Mike,

  I don't think "denialist" is the right term, because that term seems to presume that a phenomenon exists, whereas I feel that skepticism should be the default position, i.e. the burden of proof should be on those asserting the existence of extra-sensory abilities, supernatural phenomena, or other things that don't seem to mesh well with our scientifically documented knowledge of the universe.

  That said, I don't think I take a strong position against the possibility that such things may be real. While I am skeptical by default, I wouldn't say I'm certain they don't exist. Many things about the universe remain unexplained, and that's probably a vast understatement. Certainly I can't explain your dream experience, and have no reason to think you're making it up. On the other hand, experiencing a couple such "weird" incidents over a lifetime would seem to be within the realm of coincidence, and is a far cry from being able to exercise remote viewing abilities at any time.

  Do you believe there actually are underground buildings on Mars and a moon of Saturn? Why do you characterize those currently unverifiable claims as strong?

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

16

Nina,

  I think I have an open mind, but I'm not necessarily going to go and spend a lot of time researching something. Most of the times I've done so, I've kind of fallen into it accidentally. The consensus "rules of the road" for online discussion seem to be that it's up to people trying to convince others of something to go and do that research and present the evidence they can find in the forum where the discussion was taking place. I mean, how would you feel if I asked you to go spend some time on skeptic websites reading about the debunking of various claims of psychic powers, etc.? Would you be inclined to do so?

  If you consider it worth it to you to pay the cost for me to watch the videos you mention, I'd be willing to watch them on that basis, but would warn you in advance that I don't expect to be convinced (not saying it couldn't happen, but I wouldn't expect it).

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

17

If it's worth it to you Mike, I'm willing to watch whichever of the videos you most recommend on that basis. However I unfortunately won't be at the Lagunitas event since there's a Libertarian National Committee meeting that weekend.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

18

I'm at the airport now, returning late on the 6th, and don't have my checkbook with me. But I'll mail you a check on my return, if you'll remind me of your address. You might try Iapetus.