Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 12, 2014 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes

01:13:14

Edition 174 - Remote Viewing 911

We hear about Courtney Brown and his Team's latest controversial project...

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Across the UK, across continental North America, and around the world, on the internet, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes, and this is The Unexplained.
	And wherever in the world you are, thank you very much for staying in touch with me and this show.
	I am getting enormous amounts of emails now to The Unexplained.
	Every morning I get up, sometimes I have a chance to check my emails briefly at work for this show, and I see that every day I have a full inbox.
	So we really have made incredible progress since I started this show.
	You know, at the beginning of all of this, I would maybe get two or three emails a week about the unexplained.
	And now I get many, many emails every day.
	And I make time to go through them all.
	You've got some very good suggestions to make, and I'm considering all of your guest suggestions and working on them.
	Some very good suggestions about time, travel, and other things as well.
	And also comments about shows.
	And I can tell you that the show we did with Victor Zamet was not the most popular show.
	He did give you cause and pause for thought, but I think many of you felt that he was perhaps not putting forward as credible a case as you would have liked.
	I need to get Victor and Wendy Zamet back on here because I want to put to him some of your specific criticisms, and I think you would want me to do that, so I've just got to find the time to do it right now.
	I go to work very early in the mornings to try and make some money to sustain myself and to be able to keep this going, so I get a limited amount of time.
	And it's all about time management, really.
	It's funny, the older I get, I don't seem to get any better at managing my time.
	So if you're an expert on that, any tips would be welcome.
	I want to talk before we get into this important edition of The Unexplained about the future of this show.
	I've always tried to do it, and I hope this doesn't sound corny or cheesy or stage-managed in any way, but I've always tried to do it as a kind of cooperation with you.
	So I've tried to take it in directions that you've wanted it to go, and I certainly have reacted to your suggestions about the way that I do the show, the things that I say on it, the gambits that I use, and the guests that I have on.
	Now it seems to me that the unexplained is at a bit of a crossroads because it's getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and more and more of you around the world are listening to this free podcast and telling your friends about it.
	Now, with any venture, and I don't think I realized this until the last month or two, you get to a stage where in order to be able to make it meaningful and continue it, you have to make a big decision about it.
	Do you develop?
	Do you do more of it?
	What do you do?
	Or do you just carry on as you are?
	I think we are reaching the launching pad to do something bigger.
	And to tell you the truth, I'm scared about that.
	Once you take steps to expand, then there's no going back really.
	But, you know, you've got to seize the opportunity and grasp the day or grasp the opportunity and seize the day.
	I think it's probably the right way to put it.
	But your advice on what I should do next with this, would you be interested in this, for example, if it was a live show, if I found a way to do that?
	Maybe a few times a week.
	Would that be the way you want to go?
	Or as a lot of people email me and say you're quite happy with listening to podcasts that you can take in the car with you or take to work, some people take them to work.
	Some people on night shifts are hearing this and my voice right now in many different parts of the US, UK, Australia, right around the world.
	That I find amazing, that modern technology can empower us to do that.
	But the amount of response I'm getting from you now makes me feel that I need to take this further to the next stage.
	So if you have any thoughts about that, any thoughts about how I could develop this, how I could fund this, then this is a cooperative effort here.
	You know, I always think that even though I will probably never meet you, you are part of this equation.
	You, Adam Cornwell, my webmaster at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool, who's helped me so much.
	You know, we're a three-person team in all of this.
	And, you know, it's getting to a stage where we need to make some decisions about the unexplained, I think, as we go into 2015, because we'll then have been doing this show for an awful lot of time, and we'll be knocking on the door of 200 hours of programming, produced completely independently and on an absolute shoestring, and proof here to anybody who thinks, can it be done, that it can be done.
	Okay, too much philosophy.
	Now, this week has been a very important week because there was some news earlier this week that we're on the way to proving that telepathy exists.
	Personally, it's one thing that I've always believed in.
	I do believe that people are connected and sometimes people know what other people in other places are thinking.
	Some people are better at that than others.
	I don't understand it.
	It is unexplained.
	The reason I'm saying this is that the show we're about to do is a return visit for Courtney Brown.
	A controversial show because we're at another anniversary of 9-11.
	It's getting further back in history, but nevertheless, it still has that gut-hitting impact that it did at the beginning.
	I won't tell you again because I've told you on other shows about my involvement.
	I covered it on air in London, and then for the first and second anniversaries of 9-11, I went to New York and stayed, first of all, at the Marriott Financial overlooking Ground Zero and got to know the staff there and did a few days of programming from there.
	And on the second anniversary, I stayed at the Hilton, which was also affected, and did a similar kind of thing.
	It made a deep impact in my life for a whole variety of reasons.
	Listen to past shows, and you'll hear some of my coverage from New York, and you'll hear some of the reasons why it's so much a part of my life.
	So, return visit for Courtney Brown from the Farsight Institute, the remote viewing team.
	This time, they've taken on the task of viewing what happened on 9-11.
	Now, you may regard what you're about to hear as a work of fiction.
	You may regard it as the seed bed for some more research.
	I don't know.
	You've got to tell me about that.
	You can communicate with me by emailing.
	Go to the website, triple w.theunexplained.tv, and you can send me an email from there.
	You can also make a donation, vitally received, to keep this work going.
	So they have viewed 9-11 and the chain of events That happened in their view, quite literally, on that day.
	Very interesting listening.
	It is presented by Courtney Brown and the Fireside Institute in a new video presentation, and I suggest that you might want to check that out.
	I'll give you details at the end of this, and I'm sure he will too.
	So, I'm not going to talk anymore.
	I've talked enough now.
	Let's cross to the U.S. and get on again, Courtney Brown.
	Courtney, thanks very much for coming on The Unexplained.
	Well, Howard, I want to say that I am really pleased to be here.
	So, thanks for inviting me back.
	And how's Atlanta?
	I guess you two are moving into the autumn time there.
	Yeah, but it's still warm and still pleasant.
	I like the warm weather here.
	It's about 1,000 feet above sea level.
	And so it's, you know, we're the same latitude as Denver, but they're cold because they're at 5,000 feet.
	But, you know, so it's sort of pleasant here, but it's a little cloudy today, but otherwise good.
	Sounds good to me.
	And we've got a little bit of sunshine here, a little bit of cloud, but nothing to complain about.
	Okay, that's the weather report.
	The last time you came on here, I got a lot of feedback from people, and I just want to deal with some of that if we can.
	Sure.
	Some of the people were amazed.
	A lot of the people were amazed at what you said and quite blown away by it.
	And others felt that you were kind of blinding them with pseudoscience.
	What would you say to people who said that kind of thing to you about remote viewing and the way that you do it?
	Sure, they just don't know anything about it.
	And that's fine.
	That means it's a good situation because they have something to learn.
	You never want to be in a situation where you have nothing left to learn.
	So it's an exciting time for them.
	But you have to understand that when people think that they're getting cutting-edge science at the university today, you're looking at absolute cutting-edge science that was over 100 years ago, meaning the main infrastructure of physics as it's taught in all universities worldwide is quantum mechanics and relativistic physics.
	That's as advanced as it goes.
	Now, quantum mechanics and relativistic physics goes back 100 years.
	There has been absolutely no change whatsoever in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics for over 100 years.
	That's how old the stuff is.
	So while there is lots of advances in specifics and technical stuff, I mean we do quantum computing now, we have applications, we've combined the Copenhagen with the Copenhagen interpretation with relativistic physics to get the standard model.
	I mean we have done refinements, but you still have the basic fundamentals over 100 years old.
	No science lasts 100 years old unchanged.
	So that tells you what we're in for is a completely new understanding of physics.
	In fact, that's what people like Michio Kako have been talking about, that at some point there's going to be just a complete revolution of physics, meaning everything that we did know goes out.
	And what you think is real science, not you particularly Howard, but what these people think is like real science and other things are pseudoscience.
	Well, in not too long a time, we're going to be looking at what they thought as real science as the pseudoscience.
	And if you think that that, if you're listening to this right now, you think that's just hokeum and rubbish.
	Just think about the news from this week that showed for the very first time in a truly scientific experiment what appears to be the existence of telepathy.
	Now, if you'd said 20 years ago, we're going to show you scientific partial proof of telepathy, you may have thought that was science fiction, but now it's 20 years on, science fact.
	So who knows what's right and what will be right in the future?
	Yeah, actually, it goes way beyond that.
	The extent literature on telepathy is really very broad.
	And I mean, it's come out in even like the Psychological Bulletin, the leading journal on all of psychology.
	It's come out.
	Gerald Bem had an article in.
	But there's literally thousands of articles in peer-reviewed outlets all over the place dealing with this stuff.
	What there is, is there's a bulk of people who are simply resistant to the idea because it shatters all previous understandings that they have, or they're just out of date.
	So the idea is if you do accept the existence of the transference of information perceptually across time and space, literally the entire infrastructure of relativistic and quantum mechanics, physics, as we understand it, literally falls apart.
	I mean, you realize it actually is a subset of a much larger realm of reality.
	And so it's like those are the rules that make the universe work within a sandbox.
	So you have relativistic and quantum mechanics, they work, but within that intellectual sandbox.
	Outside of that intellectual sandbox, they simply don't work.
	And so people then are going to have to face the fact that they've been living in a sandbox and that there's a much greater reality out there with a much more involved level of science required in order to do that.
	Which opens the door to remote viewing, because if you accept that, then you accept that remote viewing may be possible.
	We've talked about remote viewing many times on this show, so I don't want to get bogged down into a discussion of what it is.
	But just for new people joining us, because I've got new people finding this show all the time, can you give me your very potted explanation of what to remote view means?
	Sure.
	The 30-second view is it's a mental procedure of transferring information, perceptual information, images, all the sights, all the hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, all the senses across time and space.
	And it's done by the word remote viewing indicate that it is done by people who were trained in the procedures for doing this that were developed by the United States military and used for espionage purposes in their original, at least in their original project.
	Now, the original project, the original program ended in November of 1995 and it was closed down when they knew it was going to become public.
	However, Everyone I know who knows anything about this assumes with some background that they have a huge program now.
	It's way bigger than it was before.
	And if that ever becomes public, they'll close that down and say, oh my gosh, some rogue general did that, don't know how it happened.
	And then they'll start up another one.
	So it's a very big deal that this is used operationally by the United States government.
	And with regard to this latest project that we're going to be talking about today, one of the things that no one's ever asked, but it's actually really important, is it doesn't really matter whether everybody in the world accepts the results of the latest project.
	The reality is that governments all over the world, A, know that remote viewing is real, and they know that what we do here at the Farsight Institute is at the absolute cutting edge, if anything, and that they know that this project is real.
	So it really, this whole stuff of these projects that we do, a lot of people watch them.
	And it's not that we're on the Oprah Winfrey Show yet.
	It's not that there's like billions of people following us, but all the important people follow us.
	Now, look, we're going to get into what I'm about to say much later in our conversation, but if there are powerful people and powerful forces at work in this world, as I suspect and always have there are, are you not surprised that having done what you've just done with this 9-11 project, saying what you've said, and like I say, we're going to get into it all now, are you not surprised that you have not, presumably, had any communication from any of those people telling you to perhaps desist?
	No, we're not too surprised about that, although we did wonder about it.
	And that was one of the reasons we hesitated doing the 9-11 project from the very beginning, because we do work with a lot of people with military credentials.
	But the issue is that you can't live in fear, number one.
	Well, you can, but it's not a good state to live.
	And remote viewing works best when you're not afraid of anything.
	But secondly, the government is split right now.
	There is a huge body of the government and the intelligence community and the military that is royally ticked at what happened with the 9-11 events.
	They're split.
	It's not uniform.
	And so if the governmental inside people were homogeneous, that they were all agreed, we would have been shut down a lot earlier than this.
	So you're saying that some military people are, as you put it, so beautifully royally ticked about this.
	If there is dissent, if there is dissent… Well, it's not just our video presentation, but a lot of other outlets that are not being censored.
	For example, the Architects and Engineers Group is coming out with stuff regularly about anomalous physical evidence dealing with the 9-11 events.
	So there's pilot groups that are doing this.
	There's literally thousands of people.
	It's like an authoritative who's who of important people.
	I mean, there's even a documentary that's a short one, 15-minute, that's hugely popular on YouTube that's been hosted by Ed Asner of all people, the actor and former president of the Screen Actors Guild.
	I mean, it's like the very big people everywhere are talking about this.
	Well, I'll tell you what, if Lou Grant is talking about it, it's got traction because people listen to him.
	Well, the point is that there's a large section in the government right now that they are not capable of actually coming out and saying this is what actually happened, but they are capable of stopping the disruption of people in the public from coming out.
	So if you look at what happened, for example, in the UFO community, the UFO communities have been, the various groups have been regularly disrupted since the Roswells thing.
	So every time somebody organizes, the government went in somehow to try to disrupt them.
	And I'm speaking not sort of just speculating.
	I've actually personally communicated with agency people who tell me exactly what they did and that this has been a regular thing, that it's been a part of the program.
	When those groups organize, you disrupt them early on so they don't become really big.
	And the really big groups in general are pretty, well, you know, if anybody really gets really, really big, they're being allowed to get really big.
	And some of them are, well, I won't go into it.
	I don't want to be sued or anything.
	But the point is that, you know, if you have any really big outlets there, they're approved.
	And so when you talk about the 9-11 stuff, none of that is happening.
	I mean, so I'm very familiar with the disruption type of stuff that intelligence communities in the U.S. have done.
	And you don't see any of that with the 9-11 stuff.
	All right, let's talk about the project because my listeners will be saying, you're talking about all this preliminary stuff, and I got you into it.
	But let's get right into the meat of this now.
	You use two remote viewers.
	You don't do the remote viewing yourself.
	You, as we talked about last time in our previous discussion, you're the kind of ringmaster for this.
	You pull it all together.
	But you've got two guys.
	One is American, one is British.
	There's Dick Algaire and Daz Smith.
	You tell us that these people are working completely independently and they're working on skeletal information that you give them.
	They do not know what they're looking at.
	All they know is that they have a target.
	Yeah?
	Yeah, actually, to say that they are working on skeletal information says more than they actually have.
	They have nothing.
	They get an email from me.
	They don't even hear my voice or see my face.
	They say, we're ready with the new project.
	Start.
	Target one.
	Send me the session.
	End of the story.
	And then they do it.
	So they know nothing.
	So how do you get them started then?
	What kind of a lead do you give them?
	Well, the targets are fully fleshed out by me before the projects, these particular projects start.
	Sometimes we do science projects where the targets are not actually instructed when the remote viewing sessions are done.
	The targets are actually, the sessions are done first without there being a target and encrypted and distributed worldwide.
	And then we have an independent person, independent from Farsight, and at some point come up with a target, give it to us, and then we post it on the web and send out passwords to decrypt the sessions.
	And so it doesn't matter if the sessions are done first or if the sessions are done after when the target is picked.
	But for these types of mystery-type projects that we do, we typically write the targets first, and I have them, and I'm the only person that has them.
	Literally nobody, they don't go up on the web.
	They don't go anywhere.
	They're right here on my computer, and that's it.
	And then I email Daz and Dick, if they're the ones working on the projects.
	Daz in Bath, England, and Dick out in Hawaii, and say, the project's ready, start.
	Send me, there's target one, go.
	And I normally do tell them that there's so that they can budget their time, I normally tell them that there's six or seven targets and, you know, get going soon because we want to finish this within a month.
	So they're not working at the same clock hour together.
	They're working separately, but not at the same time.
	They don't do them on the same day.
	They don't have any coordination whatsoever other than to get that email from me saying, go and please start right away.
	Don't delay because we want to get this wrapped up in a month or two.
	Okay, you choose to look at here Building 7, one of the great enigmas and mysteries of what happened on 9-11, why did it collapse?
	Then you look at the two towers, of course you have to.
	Then you look at the Pentagon and the jet and how that jet was propelled to its final destination or not as the case may be, and who might have been behind whatever might have happened.
	You try and find the plane the day after, which you must remind me about if we don't get to that at the end because there's lots to talk about.
	And preparations for the pancake collapse of the Twin Towers.
	Those are the sort of areas that you went into.
	So let's get into it now and talk first of all about Building 7.
	This is the building that it's often been said was deliberately brought down on that day and didn't have to come down.
	But anybody who was involved in that day on the emergency service side or the political side say, well, Building 7 was so unstable that, you know, it kind of had to collapse in the end because it was so badly affected by all of this.
	There is another story Your Remote Viewing says, and I watched, listen, I was captivated from the get-go, and I made notes, a lot of notes.
	So you probably hear me flipping pages here.
	First session talks about white hot energy, vapor, and this word that keeps coming up, molten metal.
	Time and time again, it's warm, bright clouds, small debris, and molten material.
	Talk to me about that.
	Well, remember, these are perceptual data.
	These are people who are standing up working at whiteboards, remote viewing a target, target one.
	Now, they don't know what that target is, but they're among the very best people in the world currently for being able to do this type of thing.
	That may mean, it sounds like a mystery to everyone else, but you have to see it to believe it.
	And when they perceive things, the target, the actual description of which they should be describing, is actually something that positions their perceptions in space and time.
	So they're like a camera at a certain spot.
	Now, there's no guarantee of what they'll perceive when they go there.
	For example, if I say, go into that room and tell me what you see.
	You'll go into a room and come back and I say, well, I saw a picture on the wall.
	I saw a bed.
	I saw, let me see, there was a light.
	But there's no guarantee that you'll see that there were shoes in the closet.
	So when we send viewers to a target, we like to send more than one viewer to target because they'll all go to the right spot, but they may notice different things, but there'll be a lot of overlap.
	So one of the things your listeners are going to know is that the verifiable stuff that's in the World Trade Center stuff, they got exactly right.
	They got the buildings collapsing, all the energy, they got everything.
	But they also got the rest of the story, which is what they were just noticing things and saying, what is this going on?
	And one of the things, for example, that Daz noticed, but Dick also noticed this, is that the buildings, when they were collapsing, they weren't just crumbling buildings.
	They were vaporizing.
	The buildings were, there was nothing left of the buildings.
	They were just like turning the vapor.
	And there was a lot of molten stuff, like the particles.
	Dick, I mean, Daz Smith clearly describes that one of the keys, he actually perceived that this is a puzzle, and one of the key sort of forensic things that you need to, that would be necessary to sort of figure out is to look at the dust because the dust was molten metal.
	Well, that's what he says.
	In fact, I quote, I've written it down here, look at the particles, the particles are evidence.
	Yeah.
	And so he picked up that it was a mystery.
	He picked up that there was some type of evidence that was needed for it.
	And he picked up that the fact that the particles are where the evidence is, and it was molten metal.
	So the thing is, that Building 7 was so mysterious because never in the history of modern architecture, not once, has an office furniture fire brought down a building.
	So that building could not have come down.
	It would be the first in all of modern architecture to collapse.
	Also, when it did collapse, it collapsed suddenly, like immediately, like within a second.
	Boom, it was gone on its own footprint.
	It looked like an exact demolition.
	That's what demolitions look like.
	Now you say that remote viewers don't They're supposed to give you a stream of material and then maybe make some cogent, coherent hole from it.
	And yet Daz says in this session about Building 7, it is suggestive of maybe a tiny nuclear weapon.
	He uses the phrase something like the Large Hadron Collider, an explosion of heat and energy and mass.
	Actually, that sounds like an assumption.
	Actually, no, they pick up all types of stuff.
	Dick Algaier also picked up some radiation in the debris.
	So he was saying like it wasn't like high potency radiation, but he said it would like set off Geiger counters.
	So you have both of them saying stuff.
	And also you have Daz, for example, clearly describing how people went in to those buildings and put charges around the structural supports of the buildings in advance.
	And I literally got it ready for explosion.
	And so he describes clearly how there were different teams of people.
	Soldiers in disguise, unmarked vans, they told me.
	Yeah, he describes all of them.
	Yonder, these perceptions aren't vague and fuggy.
	These are the best in the world, these viewers.
	And so their perceptions are, they were describing the guys, the clothing, how many people they were, that they were driving vans, and working at night.
	I mean, the whole thing was sort of laid out clear.
	And so this documentary, this is two-part documentary, almost four hours in length.
	This is not something that's boring.
	It's spellbinding because the details are so great.
	I haven't heard a single person watching both parts say that they were bored for even a second.
	Oh, no.
	Listen, I was up this morning at 4 a.m.
	I went a long way out of London, did a radio show, came back, poured myself a great big coffee, started watching this thinking I may fall asleep because I was tired and I still am, but I'm still awake.
	I was absolutely riveted.
	You know, I don't know whether any of it's correct, but it does make a very, very interesting narrative and it does for me launch a zillion questions in my head.
	Just phrases that I wrote down, and I've got pages filled on my notepad here.
	Soldiers in disguise, an organized group focused and following orders.
	Yeah, this is absolutely amazing.
	By the way, we should tell your listeners that when they want to see this, they go to the Forestsight Institute's website, which is www.foresight, F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T.org, O-R-G.
	And yeah, they, you know, it's they, all that, this was clearly from the remote viewing perspective, this was absolutely inside job from the remote viewing perspective.
	It sounds certainly from the first, say, 20, 25 minutes of this, which Daz is mostly involved in, you know, it really does come across as a real-life episode of Mission Impossible.
	I used to love watching that when I was a kid.
	It's a good analogy.
	It does.
	And the only difference is that this isn't a fiction movie starring Tom Cruise.
	This is real.
	That's the difference.
	And, you know, there's also a graphic that we show in the, that was, Daz is a professional graphics artist.
	So while he was still blind to the target, meaning he didn't know anything, he did a professional graphic of what was actually going on with the different teams.
	You know, so it's, I mean, it's as clear as day that this was not, you know, in fact, let me just say, out of all of these stuff, both the remote viewers got the flying objects hitting the World Trade Centers and things like that.
	There was no issue with that.
	And they got the flying object hitting the Pentagon.
	There was no issue like that.
	Neither one of them focused on, you know, crazy Islamic radicals doing something.
	Like that was a very minor part of this entire episode.
	This whole 9-11 thing from the remote viewing perspective and the detail is spellbinding.
	You know, remember, what you do know about the event comes through clearly.
	So all the verifiable stuff is there, but the rest of the picture is also there and it matches the anomalous elements that were actually in the actual project.
	So we're not saying that there weren't any hijackers.
	We're not saying that there weren't some minimally trained pilots, terrorists on those planes.
	We're not saying that.
	But what these remote viewing data clearly say is that was not important.
	Yep, to quote Lee Harvey Oswald, you seem to be implying through this that those people were Patsies.
	Yeah, actually, if you look at this, this was completely orchestrated from the top down, meaning it looks like those people, the way was cleared for them to make sure.
	In fact, I can just interpret that it looks like that the people who actually were organizing this thing were actually terrified that the Islamic pilots wouldn't be good enough to do this, that they'd screw up.
	And so one of the sessions that came in with, you know, I mean, those were very minimally trained pilots, and the aerobatics that were done by those planes, both the ones that, you know, the things that hit the World Trade Center as well as the Pentagon, that was really fancy.
	I'm a pilot myself.
	Trust me, that is really fancy flying.
	Those objects hit the World Trade Center dead on at exactly the right spot.
	And minimally trained pilots really are not that good to get absolutely everything correct.
	And if you talk about the Pentagon thing, I mean, even fancy fighter pilots that are top gun quality may not have been able to get an airliner to do that.
	So we get the situation where Dick Algaier describes in some detail a pilot complete with the headset and all the equipment around him and talks about this pilot being really baffled, bemused, almost on the verge of being scared because he has no control over the plane that he's flying.
	Nothing works.
	What he described was something called uninterruptible autopilot.
	Now that is something that's actually been around for a very long time, but it's been commercially available for airlines to install themselves since 2006.
	Actually the patents were listed in 2006.
	Now companies don't put patents on things until it's been around long enough so that, because as soon as you put a patent on something, you're letting the technology out.
	You're letting people know it.
	Because a patent is public information of how they did it, because they have to describe how they did it.
	So the actual use of uninterruptible autopilot had been around for military uses for a very long time before that.
	And what that is, is you can install this stuff into a jet and remotely somebody can turn it on and the pilot can't do a thing.
	They can't use the radio, they can't use the yokes, they can't, no matter how strong you are, you cannot fly that plane.
	The plane flies by itself, being remotely controlled.
	It's called uninterruptible autopilot.
	And again, December of 2006 is when the patents went in, so that was when it became possible for any airlines to just install it.
	Modern, very modern jets do in fact have that installed on them as a safeguard in case something should happen to the pilots and the airlines need to take over and fly the jet to safety.
	I mean, you're talking about complete control, including a safe landing and everything.
	So, but that again, that uninterruptible autopilot, when you see it being offered in consumer versions in December of 2006, you know it's been around in the military applications for a lot, lot longer.
	And in fact, Dick Algaier in one of his sessions describes it exactly as it operates.
	And described the pilot and put together a very convincing and compelling description of it.
	The only thing that occurred to me, and I wrote down while I was listening to that, and trust me, I was absolutely riveted by this.
	If this was happening to this pilot and he was going through those emotions, why didn't he get on the radio at that point and say, I do not have control of my aircraft?
	Uninterruptible autopilot controls everything in the cockpit, including the radio.
	So he literally couldn't.
	He can do nothing.
	And which pilot was this?
	It was one of the New York pilots.
	So we don't know from that particular remote viewing, from that particular session, it suggests that at least one of the objects that hit the World Trade Center was an object that was being flown by uninterruptible autopilot, and the hijackers were not in control of the plane.
	Now, you tell us all the way through, and I take at face value exactly what you say, Courtney.
	We've talked before about these things.
	But both of the remote viewers don't talk about the Twin Towers, not even at points where it's obvious to anybody who hasn't been living on a Pacific island with no communication for the last 40 years.
	It's obvious that we're talking about 9-11, but they don't do that.
	Now, there will be people who will email me who will say, that is the lie that gives this away.
	Oh, no, no, it's not that.
	You see, what happens is they actually, I mean, if you look at one of Dick's stuff that happens near the end of the part two of the documentary, is he actually draws the Twin Towers perfectly.
	Yeah, and the New York skyline, and the jet flying towards it.
	But the issue is that these are the best remote viewers that exist.
	And they know that they cannot make a conscious mind conclusion of what something is, no matter what, or their fantasies and imaginations will go in.
	So they describe what they perceive, but they're very careful not to label it.
	But sometimes they can't help it, and people, and they do say, this reminds me of 9-11.
	And in a couple cases, they do do that, and they write down that this does remind me of that.
	But then they do that in something called an AOL, or that means an analytic overlay.
	And they do that to get it out of their mind because they're not assuming that that's what it actually is, which is why they don't simply say, this is 9-11, this is the World Trade Center.
	They're describing the actual stuff without labeling it because they don't know what it could really be.
	It could be that their conscious mind is sort of telling them that, but they don't want to assume that.
	And as soon as they did make that assumption, the remote viewing doesn't work.
	By the way, that is why normal people can't do remote viewing.
	They're not trained to do that.
	So when you do see people like Dick Algaier and Daz Smith not using explicit labels, they're doing it on purpose.
	Now there's another aspect to this as well.
	These are the best remote viewers on the planet.
	It's like watching Lang Lang play the piano in Carnegie Hall.
	I mean, he's so good.
	Normal people just can't do that.
	So the point is that with these particular viewers, I knew that they were going to see these stuff right away.
	And it was such a unique event, the collapsing of the Twin Towers and so on.
	I knew that they were going to see that.
	So I had to prepare this long in advance.
	So for years, even on radio, I don't know if I said it on your show, but I said it on many shows.
	And in private communication to them, well, that's, you know, we're never going to touch that one.
	I know the Intel people don't want us to do that.
	We'll never, ever do the 9-11 events.
	And if you go back through your viewing of the pyramids at Giza, then indeed the Great Pyramid at Giza, when we had that conversation, that's what you said.
	Because I said, wouldn't the obvious thing to do be to remote view 9-11?
	And you said, no, don't want to do that.
	Yeah, I said we would never do that.
	And I always came up with funny excuses like, no, I know the government doesn't want us to touch that one.
	You know, and I said that to them.
	So when they were doing this session, after the whole thing was over, it was really funny to actually hear them sort of talking because they were saying, you told us we'd never have this.
	So we knew it couldn't be right.
	So when we saw the Twin Towers, we knew it couldn't be the Twin Towers because you said we'd never do this.
	And so we just kept on describing, which was perfect.
	Now, also, while the sessions were going on, I kept, you know, every week or so, I'd send them another email saying, by the way, just don't worry about your AOLs, don't worry about your conclusions.
	Just keep them dumping them off to the side and get rid of them.
	Let me assure you that neither one of you have the foggiest idea what this project is about.
	So I kept them in sort of in a state of super frustration to the very end.
	So the data just kept on coming in perfect.
	I mean, it was really great.
	So this, I hate to pat myself on the back, but let me congratulate myself.
	This took a lot of mastery to get this project done on my side.
	Almost of the art of deception.
	And look, it proves what I've always believed to be a rule of the mind.
	I believe in the power of mind because I've kind of made it work for myself in many aspects of my life, not nearly as much as I would like it to.
	But, you know, sometimes I've got the things that I want, and I've got them by thinking about them and homing in on them and then deliberately not dwelling on the thought, forgetting it, getting rid of it, dumping it.
	Then the things will happen.
	If you worry something, if it's constantly in the uppermost echelons of your brain, in the uppermost tiers of your brain, it's not going to happen for you.
	It sounds to me like that is exactly what you did with this project.
	You kept throwing them off the scent.
	Yeah, that's exactly what happened.
	And to the very end, and in fact, after all the remote viewing sessions were completely, completely, completely, completely done, they had, we set up for them to have a meeting.
	It was on our, you know, the program GoToMeeting, which is like they can physically see each other in Hawaii and Bath, England.
	And at that point, they were able to open up an email from me that told them what the target was.
	And Dick Algier, previous to that, could not sleep for 36 hours.
	He was so convinced he was going to be so embarrassed that none of his data was correct.
	It was going to be some weird esoteric thing.
	Daz was completely flabbergasted.
	He was so nervous.
	You could literally see sweat beating up on their brows that they were so convinced that this is going to be a very embarrassing event.
	It was going to be something like some ancient anomaly in Timbuktu or something.
	And then when they actually saw the actual target and they looked at it, it was like, oh my gosh, are you, I mean, such a wave of relief came over them because there was nothing they could do.
	They kept on getting the same data and they said, but Tart Courtney said he'd never give this this target.
	You know, and this is, they never communicated while the sessions were going on.
	So this conversation happened after everything was already done.
	That was the first time they actually talked to each other, looked at each other, and they had a conversation like for 45 minutes before they looked at the session, before they looked at the actual project and the targets, just to share their angst about it.
	And then they looked.
	Courtney, my listeners are very skeptical people, and I am to an extent.
	Otherwise, I wouldn't be doing this.
	I am a professional skeptic, but I like to have the ability and capacity to have my mind changed about things.
	There was one aspect of the whole presentation that I just want to go down a little side road on and talk to you about.
	At one point, Daz over here in the UK takes a break to get a glass of water.
	You leave the video running and you put on screen, Daz has gone to get a glass of water.
	And that goes on for, what, 20 seconds, maybe 30 seconds.
	Now, that just seemed to me to be, you were so keen to try to prove to us that this was happening in real time and nothing was being faked.
	It looked like you were trying to deliberately put in evidence that would suggest to people, look, this is absolutely full of veracity because here we've got a break and I've left the camera running.
	It was almost too good to be true.
	Yeah, I did that on purpose precisely for that because the normal video editing would have said, clip that 30 seconds out.
	And I said, well, if I clip it, they won't know what happened in the middle and they won't realize that these are just real human beings and they get thirsty.
	These are long sessions.
	And so it only took a few seconds.
	So I said, okay, let me just tell them what's going on.
	He's having a, and you got the, and it worked.
	You said exactly what I was thinking when I did that, when I left that section in there, I said, let them know that this is real in real time.
	But I'm so suspicious that I thought that there was perhaps a double bluff going on there, and perhaps you had done some cutting and editing, but you put that in to throw people off the scent on that.
	No, I did that just to demonstrate how really this was real-time stuff.
	And it had the perfect effect because it was true.
	It did work.
	I mean, it showed you what the truth of the thing was.
	By the way, let me say, Howard, this is important.
	You are a skeptic because a skeptic is someone who doesn't conclude anything and is willing to look at both sides of an issue.
	So those people who say, this is bunk, this is pseudoscience, this is crazy, I'm not going to look at this stuff, they like sometimes to call themselves skeptics, but they're not skeptics.
	They're religious believers.
	They've already concluded something.
	They are not skeptics.
	You know, I often sometimes get into conversations with people who have credentials from, say, PsycOPS, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal or whatever.
	And they like to call themselves skeptics.
	Hell, they are not skeptics.
	They're religious believers.
	They believe something that they're not going to believe.
	They're saying, I'm not going to believe this no matter what you tell me.
	That's not being skeptical.
	You are a true skeptic.
	A true skeptic is someone who's willing to look at the evidence and, you know, keep an open mind, whichever way it goes.
	Well, there was a germ of what came out from my three hours, 45 minutes or whatever it was of watching this today, of seeding more questions than I already had about 9-11.
	Let's get into the chilling stuff here.
	Dick Arl Gaia.
	And just to talk about Daz and Dick for half a second, without me knowing, later confirmed in the video, these two guys come at it from a totally different perspective.
	I started watching this and I thought, Daz is an artist.
	He must be.
	Dick's more of a scientist, a kind of military guy.
	Just got that feel about the pair of them.
	And that's the truth of it, isn't it?
	Well, actually, Daz is a graphic artist.
	And Dick was a celebrity newscaster like yourself for 30 years.
	However, he has been working with very intimately, he's been working with Glenn Wheeton, who came out of Special Forces Intelligence.
	So that's why he comes across, that's why you had the sort of military sort of sense with him.
	But, you know, he really respects the military type people and so on.
	But, you know, you said, let's talk about the two guys just for a second.
	Howard, you're in Britain.
	Dick Alguer is in the United States.
	Your audience, especially your British audience, and I know you have a world audience, but you have to understand how special this situation is.
	These two guys, Dick Alguer and Dad Smith, they've studied for a very long time how to do this.
	They are literally the best on the planet.
	Britain is one of two countries that has literally the best, there's nobody better, of the remote viewers on the planet.
	Britain is in a very special spot right now.
	And so, you know, having DAS literally in Bath, England, literally, that is a, it's not just a cool thing.
	It's literally a national resource.
	And nobody else has that.
	The United States has a little bit of that.
	England has a little bit of that.
	We have to get to the point where there's lots of remote viewers other places.
	But right now, Britain is actually holding not just a national resource, but a planetary resource.
	And it's interesting to know that these types of people are not only few, far and few between, but they're also in precarious situations.
	Daz is a great graphic artist, but there's not much work for great graphic artists.
	And so, you know, he's really stressed out financially as well.
	So the point is that when we say you have, your audience needs to know how special Britain is right now.
	It's actually holding the equivalent, the remote viewing equivalent of Fort Knox, and there's no other place where you can get it.
	And it's not, yeah, so just audience realize that.
	Point noted, I am now working in a place that is just off the M4 motorway, which Bath is just off the M4 motorway.
	It's one hour's drive from Daz.
	We talked about this last time.
	I must go and talk to him.
	I can take a recorder there, and we'll try and do some stuff if you think he would be up for that.
	Oh, yeah, he would.
	Okay, let's get to the very serious and chilling stuff here.
	It starts to turn that way when Dick describes what rapidly becomes very clearly some kind of military NSA installation, possibly an airlined.
	He thought, military base surrounded by serious fences, all kinds of protection, electromagnetic and otherwise.
	A bunch of people sitting at table with monitors and maps, and they're planning, and they've got a plan.
	And this is a plan that has multiple redundancy built into it.
	There are plan A, plan B, plan C. There are multiple ways that this plan can work.
	But these people are so determined there that whatever it is they're doing is going to work, they'll let nothing step in their way, and they have many avenues to get to the same place.
	Yeah, they were the one orchestrating the entire thing.
	Actually, they were the operational place.
	But yeah, by the way, there was also remote viewing blocking put into that.
	This was the first time in a long time that we actually encountered remote viewing blocking, which was fascinating.
	Described a Faraday cage type shield, an area of cloaking, he calls it, doesn't he?
	They actually had installed.
	Now, we do know of how they do remote viewing blocking.
	So when it happens, we can tell.
	And so when it did happen, I was like, my eyes bugged out and I said, oh, how cool.
	They're trying this.
	This is great.
	Because it was more evidence that we were onto something.
	But we have ways of getting around remote viewing blocking.
	So once we realized it was happening, I just, you know, we fixed it and that was the end of it.
	And we got through.
	But it was so cool to actually see them actually using the blocking.
	And I mean, because we haven't seen that since the late 1990s.
	So this was like really great for us to actually run into this.
	I said, wow, we're really onto something.
	And so anyway, and in fact, Dick Elgire actually did find that and reported it even in a session.
	So this is the first indication that there's a bunch of people ill-motivated behind the scenes trying to make this thing happen.
	And the supposed reason for this is to give the government behind the government an excuse to muscle in on the Middle East and all the rest of it that conspiracy theorists have discussed for a very long time.
	That's where we're at, isn't it?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	The situation is sort of complicated.
	So I'm going to go a little bit beyond the remote viewing data and just sort of describe sort of the history of what's going on.
	In 1993, February 1993, there was a terrorist bombing of, it was actually a van that blew up inside the basement of the North Tower.
	And the building was structurally, it blew out five floors.
	The building was structurally damaged.
	And there was actually a concern, the original plan was for the terrorists to have the North Tower fall on the South Tower.
	So there was actually some structural damage in the building.
	And so the building was in a situation where it needed to come down probably anyway.
	In addition to that, the buildings, all of the three buildings, they were in Building 7 as well as the Twin Towers, they were filled with asbestos.
	I mean, they were built at a time that you just put asbestos everywhere, which is another reason to realize that a fire is not going to bring down those buildings because they had asbestos all over the place.
	Those things don't burn like.
	Which, you know, one thing, it might make you very sick, but it does protect you from fire.
	It does protect you from fire.
	That was the thing.
	But the reality is you couldn't take down those buildings in a normal way.
	You can't dismantle them.
	You're talking, what, is it a billion dollars to take those buildings down?
	I mean, just you can't, once you build a big building like that, it's there forever.
	You can't just dismantle it.
	The only way to take it down is through demolition.
	And then you'd have asbestos flying over the place.
	So the lawsuits would be endless.
	So it was in a complete, there was a situation where there was nothing they could do about it.
	So it appears that what happened was a plan was hatched to say, well, since the buildings have to come down anyway, we might as well get something out of it.
	And there probably was just thoughts saying we definitely need to get rid of Saddam Hussein and we need to control the oil fields and this is going to be a good thing.
	And the only way we can do it is to have a Pearl Harbor type of event where the whole nation gets modified.
	Otherwise, we're not going to be able to invade Iraq again.
	And so this plan was hatched, apparently, and they orchestrated it behind the scenes.
	Now they sort of got cocky over, there was a lot of loose ends.
	I mean, there's evidence all over the place too.
	They were very sloppy in many ways.
	It was also very well done, but it was also very sloppy.
	But the issue is that they probably thought they could get away with anything because they had so much experience telling almost any story you want to the public and having them accept it.
	Whether it was the solitary assassin of JFK or whether it's the UFO phenomenon, extraterrestrial stuff, no matter what they say, they say anything and the media dutifully reports it and the public accepts it.
	And the mainstream media is really tied up perfectly.
	So they probably felt that they could control this and that they could actually do it and get away with it.
	And in large part, they did.
	It's just that we now live in a realm, in an age of remote viewing, and projects like this become fun.
	On the other hand, let's go back to your original statement.
	We would never have been allowed to complete.
	they watch, by the way, do know that they watch everything that we do.
	And even when I was just writing up the targets and they were only on my own computer, you can assume that these Intel people, they are really great.
	I'm sure they get every keystroke that goes on my computer.
	Are they remote viewing you, Courtney?
	No, they don't need to do that because we don't hide anything from them.
	We have a completely open book.
	We don't encrypt anything.
	Well, except if we're doing a scientific project and it's public encryption and so on.
	But we don't hide anything.
	We don't encrypt any phone calls.
	We don't encrypt any emails because we have been told point blank that if we do that, they'll come down on us.
	So we don't do anything like that.
	They don't have to try to get information about us.
	We're a complete open book.
	So the very fact that we were allowed to do this tells you something, that they're split and that there's one large segment of the government intelligent community that is holding off the other side that is sort of probably scared to death right now from doing anything to us or to the other people because somebody's protecting all these groups.
	You get independent outside groups just coming up with all of this information.
	The architects and engineers groups, you get pilot groups, everyone's investigating physical stuff.
	And then you get our remote viewing group doing this.
	So clearly we're being allowed to do this.
	Somebody wants this information out, even though it's very clear that the governmental people can't bring it out themselves, but they can stop us from being interfered with.
	So somebody wants this information out.
	So that's what's so interesting about this.
	When we actually came across this and we found the remote viewing blocking going on, it wasn't like we were in dismay.
	It was like, great, this is so cool.
	Now we get to use our anti-blocking stuff.
	So you get the chance to use the new accessory on the car.
	But there is a mastermind, isn't there, behind this, Courthy.
	It comes much later in your presentation.
	I'm the guy at the top.
	Yeah, guy at the top who is a guy who dresses sharply, smells of soap and fine cologne, and is completely without emotion, would kill his own grandmother, would sell his own children.
	Yeah, we even have a picture of him in the sense that Dick Elga actually drew a nice sketch of the guy.
	And I'm not going to, I hope you don't ask me who that guy is because a lot of people have been emailing me saying, that guy is, and they're all saying the same person.
	So I don't want to say, but we have a really good sketch and so on because there's no way to know for who, you know, who that person actually is.
	He does resemble somebody that everyone would recognize.
	Well, he does resemble a number of people, but this is a person who is peculiarly and uniquely connected, it seems to me in many ways, connected to government, big corporations, and the military, is a sort of triumvirate of a sort of confluence of different things, all converging on this one person of incredible power and great callousness.
	Yeah, and he's not a president.
	No, he's an advisor to the president.
	An advisor to the president.
	There's no indication whatsoever that President Bush was in the loop on this.
	There's nothing in our remote viewing data that says President Bush had any knowledge of this.
	So when you said the phrase, when the phrase is used in the presentation, advisor to the present president or advises the president, that may well have happened.
	This person may have advised the president, but not on this.
	It doesn't appear.
	We don't have any remote viewing data that suggests that.
	Now, it could have happened, but, you know, if I were doing this, if I was one of the guys actually putting this together, and I sort of know how these guys think, I would not have told the president because you'd have to have an innocent look.
	Because the president's the front man.
	He's the guy that's like John Bon Jovi of the group Bon Jovi or Bono of U2.
	He's the guy in front and you want him to look sincere.
	You want him to be completely open and you want the public to look at his face and say, he grieves with us.
	You don't want him to know this stuff.
	And also, if the stuff ever did come out, he's the guy who's going to have to protect everybody.
	So you have to have what they call plausible deniability.
	You have to have a situation where that guy is protected.
	So if I were doing this, I would not have let the president know anything about this.
	And then I would have, again, I would have kept that probably throughout the whole, you know, the whole thing, including the Iraq invasion and everything.
	I would have tried to keep that.
	So even, you know, even at this point, you could probably say it may very well be that if these remote viewing data are correct, it may very well be that George Bush still doesn't know about this.
	But none of this stuff could be done by one person.
	And you sketch out this one very evil mastermind, whoever that person may be, and I'm not going to speculate anyone at all because I want to keep doing this show.
	But you talk about a team of angry, calculated men.
	You talk about the teams of people around the Twin Towers in their various vehicles with their various roles.
	A lot of people, if we are to believe that this was what you're implying that it is, a lot of people were involved in this.
	How come, this many years down the track, not one of them has come forward and said, look, I was there on the day and here's what I did?
	These people were the, as described in the remote viewing data, these are very clearly, Dick Elgar clearly described, these people are the most trusted people.
	Now, we're not talking thousands.
	Dennis Smith actually drew a schematic chart of these people.
	We're talking units here, groups of people, like four to eight people in this group, four to eight people in this group, four to eight people in that group.
	These are the absolute most trusted people.
	You, there are people in positions in which you, There are people in the Tom Cruise Mission Impossible realm that are totally trustworthy and will never break ranks.
	And are we really saying that remote flying equipment that would disable and render a plane uncontrollable by the pilot was fitted to a commercial jet liner without anybody who might have spilled the beans getting to know about it?
	Oh, that's a piece of cake.
	That's easy to do.
	You can easily have that installed on a jet.
	Those things are in maintenance shops all the time.
	You can have orders put through to install something like that.
	And it can be done at a weekend and it's over.
	And they can have special people come in.
	What you're asking about now is so simple and so easy to do, that's not even a joke.
	That's very easy for them to do.
	Look, I've dealt with these Intel people a long time.
	One of the things that they really want the public to know is that they're much less capable than they actually are.
	When you sort of raise issues like this and say, how could they get away with stuff?
	That's exactly what they want you to think.
	Their capabilities go way beyond your farthest imagination.
	I mean, I'm talking way beyond your farthest imagination.
	And what sort of people in the Intel community do you know who would have let you know that?
	I'm not going to give you their names.
	But are they senior and credible people?
	Yeah, some of them go pretty high.
	Some of them are just rank and file, but some of them have So as far as that's concerned, it's hearsay and completely unsupportable, and then a court of law would be thrown out.
	Okay, but I needed to ask you to do that.
	So you can just disregard that.
	So you can just disregard that I mentioned that, but I am just telling you that this issue of installing something like uninterruptible autopilot on a commercial jet, that's like child's play.
	That can be easily done.
	Well, I have a feeling you're absolutely right about that.
	Attack on the Pentagon.
	I always thought it was really weird that the video of the plane going into the building, most of it, almost all of it, if not all of it, has disappeared.
	And I always thought, was this a missile that hit that building?
	And if it was a missile, what happened to the people who were on the plane?
	The description by Dick Olgai, you've got the two guys to look at this, a vector guidance of a streaking object like a Polaris missile launched from the water.
	My first thought, later confirmed in a sketch, missile launched from a submarine.
	Doesn't have to travel very far to get to DC.
	And there you have it.
	Yeah.
	Well, yeah, they actually call them a Popeye missile, not Polaris.
	Polaris is an intercontinental nuclear delivery vehicle, but the Popeye cruise missile is a different type.
	And, you know, a number of countries have them.
	But the issue is that when the Pentagon event happened, all of the video sensors had been turned off except for one.
	And then that one has the explosion happening, but really doesn't have the picture of the jet or anything.
	And then there's an issue that some general who saw the original footage said that the later footage that came out seemed to have a vague image of a jet imposed on it that wasn't there in the original on one frame.
	And there's all types of other anomalous stuff associated with it.
	For example, the thing, whatever it was, flew at treetop level over the trees, some wires and so on, then a few hundred feet above, like 300 feet above the ground.
	Then once it got over the Pentagon grounds, immediately ducked down, like immediately ducked down, and flew and leveled off just a few feet, like four feet above the ground and flew horizontally into the wall of the Pentagon.
	Now, there have been a great many pilots, and there are pilot organizations that you can, we link to them on our website at farsight.org, F-A-R-S-I-G-H-D.org, O-R-G.
	On the main page for this project, we link to all these organizations, or many of these organizations, where you can actually see the pilots talking about it.
	They say, you know, it doesn't matter how skilled the pilot is, a jet aircraft can't, an airliner can't do that.
	It's too big a thing.
	You can't have it, like a fighter jet, like go over a tree and within just a few feet of passing the tree, dive down a few hundred feet and immediately level out and then go next few hundred feet, four feet over the ground.
	I mean, an airliner simply can't do that, let alone do it at near supersonic speed.
	You're going, you know, 550, 600 miles an hour.
	You put any top gun pilot in there, even they couldn't do that.
	So, you know, and then you're talking about a minimally trained roughneck Arab terrorist who just took a few lessons and he's beating Tom Cruise in Top Gun.
	I mean, it's like, who do you're trying to kid?
	And the remote viewing suggesting a missile and suggesting that missile overseen, monitored, and controlled by a bunch of people sitting in an AWAC-style plane, sitting at screens way up in the sky.
	And also the submarine.
	Now, the issue is also, we really looked for American Airlines 77, which is the airline that was supposed to hit the plane, hit the Pentagon.
	Look, the question is, people say, well, then where is the airline?
	I'm sorry, we couldn't find it.
	I don't know where that plane is.
	We couldn't find it.
	And what about the people, the passengers?
	You know, you don't ever hear much about the passengers in that way.
	You hear about some of the passengers with the Trade Center stuff, but if you go through the news reports, you don't hear a lot of people talking about those people.
	I don't know what happened to those people.
	I don't know what went on.
	Maybe there was.
	I mean, the pilot community is, there's lots of people in the pilot community that talk about this.
	And they noticed that there was a strange, that, you know, these, first of all, these numbers, like American Airlines 77, those are just numbers.
	You can have those numbers changed.
	You can insert those numbers.
	I mean, there's all types of things.
	They also don't have any footage of video footage in the airports of the Arabic terrorists in that airport going onto the plane.
	You cannot ask me really to defend the physical anomalous stuff that all those other people out there are talking about.
	All I can really know, all I really know about is The remote viewing data.
	And the remote viewing data say that that was a missile that hit the Pentagon.
	And we did try to find American Airlines 77 and we couldn't find it.
	I don't know where it is.
	It's a big mystery.
	I'm even wondering about it, even if there even was an American Airlines Flight 77, whether the numbers were changed, whether there was an airline, maybe it was knocked out of the sky, crashed somewhere else.
	I have no idea what happened to it, but we couldn't find it.
	I was expecting to find the rubble someplace.
	I'm sorry, Howard.
	I don't know what happened to that plane.
	Okay.
	I wish that this conversation could go on for two or three hours because we could continue talking.
	Sadly, you know, that there are confines of time.
	I have to put this to you at the end of it, Courtney, and we've spoken frankly twice now, so I know you won't mind me saying this.
	Has to be said, okay, it is that many years ago.
	It's more than a dozen years, 13th anniversary, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	There will be families out there.
	There will be relatives of all kinds, people connected.
	Look, I went to Ground Zero, you know, on two occasions and reported from there, first and second anniversary.
	I met the people directly involved, the rescuers, families, all kinds of people.
	It made an imprint on my mind and my life that will be there forever.
	Some of those people, I have no doubt, will say to you, Courtney, what the hell are you doing this for?
	You are just making it all worse for us.
	We want to try and move forward in our lives.
	They can never move on from this thing because it is so big and so deep.
	And this is not helping.
	What do you say to them?
	Living a lie is not helping either.
	And we waited 13 years.
	I mean, it's, I mean, actually more than 13 years, but it's been a long time.
	And so a lot of the initial emotions have died down.
	However, there have been people in the physical side of the anomalous evidence that have been raising this stuff for a long time.
	And when you get people like Ed Asner, the famous actor and former president of Screen Actors Guild, signing on with all of these architects and engineers and you can see the YouTube presentation where he talks about this stuff.
	When you get people of that nature, I mean, you're talking really big people raising these issues.
	These are not new issues.
	We're not the first ones to do this.
	The only thing is that we're the first ones to do the remote viewing of it.
	And our remote viewing matches what the so-called conspiracy people have been talking about.
	Not all of what they've been talking about, but it matches a lot of this stuff of meaning it's, in fact, the people that you often call, or other people often call, the conspiracy theorists, they actually have identified the governmental story as the official conspiracy theory.
	Meaning that this was done by, you know, and just because the government said it so doesn't make it so.
	Now, just put yourself in this situation.
	If you are in a situation where you say, I'm going to believe whatever the government tells me, then you're giving the government permission to do anything they want.
	If they know that you'll believe anything they say, they have carte blanche capability of doing anything because anything they tell you, you'll believe.
	That's not a good way to run a democracy.
	That's not a good way to run anything.
	So when you say that we have done this, we're raising these issues, the remote viewing of this, this is such a big event, the remote viewing of this was going to happen anyway.
	Now it's done.
	Let it happen.
	People can see it.
	They can yell at us.
	They can be happy with us.
	They can do whatever they want.
	But it was going to happen anyway.
	Just like the people who are looking at the physical anomalous evidence, saying that the governmental story just doesn't match up, those people were going to connect the dots as well.
	The only real sort of unique thing about this is that there are a lot of people out there who have studied remote viewing.
	This is different in the sense that we got the two absolute best remote viewers on the planet Earth with huge public track records published in peer-reviewed journals and with tons of projects behind them, all of which are publicly documented on our website, farsight.org, and also in other venues where they've been published.
	We have those people doing this project.
	And the project was designed by me, and that meant it was done perfectly squeaky clean, no leaks, nothing.
	That's the only real issue here.
	The issue is that it was done under the best of conditions by the absolute best of viewers.
	And the results came in like you'd expect them to come in from the best of the best.
	And that's the only issue.
	These were not sloppy remote viewers with a sloppy project, with people in the room who knew what the targets were.
	I mean, this was nothing like that.
	This was the best under the best of conditions.
	And the results are worth a million bucks.
	Well, they were very, very compelling to me.
	I don't know what to make of it, but they've given me a lot to think about.
	You're probably not going to tell me, given what you said to me just, what, half an hour or so ago, but what are you going to work on next?
	Oh, you know, that's the thing.
	We never talk about our future projects because if I even gave a hint that we would, for example, ever even do the 9-11 thing, then we couldn't do the 9-11 thing.
	So I had to prepare that one so far in advance, saying, you know, I had to make the viewers believe that it would never be something like that.
	So whenever we do a project, the people who are the most surprised about what the topic turns out to be are the actual viewers.
	They're the ones who are saying, holy Moses, I can't believe you did this one.
	You had us go there?
	And it's not just this one.
	Like when we did the Great Pyramid of Giza, they were flabbergasted when they ended up seeing this because in the Great Pyramid of Giza project, we actually came across some information dealing with extraterrestrial involvement.
	And they knew that Farsight did not do extraterrestrial targets.
	I mean, I have a long interest in extraterrestrial stuff, but we just didn't do extraterrestrial targets.
	And there it was, but I couldn't help it.
	It wasn't intended that way.
	We were just doing how the pyramids were constructed.
	And suddenly both viewers came in with extraterrestrial content, and they were the most surprised of it all.
	So the viewers with our projects, I have to always keep them guessing.
	So I can never mention on radio even any possible topic.
	In fact, if you really press me and say, well, what about this target?
	The only, what about this project or this topic?
	The only thing I would say is, no, we would never do that, especially if I was going to do it.
	And that's a good point of parking.
	Courtney Brown, it's always good to talk to you.
	Let's talk again, whatever the project may be.
	Please come on here.
	Take care.
	Thank you, Howard.
	Well, controversial, yes.
	Compelling, definitely.
	A return visit from Courtney Brown at perhaps his most controversial project to date, remote viewing 9-11.
	What do you think about what you've just heard?
	Your thoughts?
	Absolutely welcome on this edition or any of our shows.
	Your guest suggestions, always gratefully received.
	Any thoughts about how I'm doing the show and how we can do things better here?
	Always happy to get them through email.
	Go to the website, www.theunexplained.tv, and you can send me an email via the link there or also make a donation if you can and you'd like to.
	Thank you to Adam Cornwell, a creative hotspot in Liverpool as ever for maintaining the website which he designed and getting the shows out to you.
	Thank you to Martin for the theme tune.
	Be good to hear from you again, Martin.
	And above all, thank you to you for spreading the word, telling your friends and being part of this project we call The Unexplained.
	We're still here after all these years.
	To paraphrase Paul Simon.
	More good shows in the pipeline here at The Unexplained.
	But until next we meet, please stay safe, stay calm and stay in touch.
	My name is Howard Hughes.
	I am in London and this has been The Unexplained.
	Thank you very much.
	Take care.

▲