Messages

I totally agree, but it's also convenient to tell people not to fight their fears but to comprehend them and to integrate them once assumed and understood.

I agree with what you posted . I didn't intent to imply one should repress these fears, simply that a lot of fears to do with OBE are panic related. Repeated experience of them (not being too scared to try again, or trying to ignore them) shows they have no basis and they slowly fade away.
I've had some pretty terrifying encounters during the vibrational state, with things by my head and screaming in my ears - but I saw them as a direct manifestation of blind panic. Perseverance and facing them made them go away.

Hey Guhan,

Everything you describe in your post shows you are making excellent progress. Fear will lessen as you get more familiar with these states and experiences.
I remember the first time I attempted to consciously project, I saw a hand too . It was like a fist, then the hand opened in front of my face, the palm facing towards me.

Hey projektr,

First I'd like to say the fact you are so aware of such hypnogogic happenings is a good sign. I've found a very close link between AP and the hypnogogic state. So being aware of any hypnogogics is a good step on the road to OBE.
Secondly, you can probably tell from my previous posts I'm pretty much on the wall in regards to what OBEs represent. I think the OBE experience in itself is worthy of exploration regardless of its possible foundations – even if it 'might' be hallucination (which I'm not saying it necessarily is ).
The sheer amount of people who experience OBEs from all cultures and countries show the OBE experience itself transcends any single belief system or philosophy.
I don't think one needs to buy into any belief system of what an OBE is or isn't, it's enough to focus ones intent on experiencing the OBE state. So for now, I attempt to explore the OBE/AP state on a philosophically neutral ground.

Hey projektr,

This sounds very much like hypnogogic hallucinations. They are usually experienced in states you describe, just on the edge of sleep and not trying to maintain awarness. Most common auditory hallucinations including banging and having your name called.

The steel wouldn't have to melt, theoretically, but at the same time, even weakened steel won't just up and fail instantly, across a whole floor. Even if a whole floor of columns were heated to 600 C, it probably would not collapse.

Looking at the picture here:



It doesn't seem like uniform collapse, looking at the angle of the falling upper part of the tower. Has there been any kind of estimates on how much of the steel support would have to fail or be weakend to cause collapse – taking into account the sheer tonnage of the upper floors?

The molten metal in question is from WTC2. WTC2's collapse initiated on the same floor the metal was pouring from.

I haven't really followed these events to be honest. But is there conclusive evidence this substance isn't either ignited jet fuel, or other liquefied substances raining out of the building? Is there anything which proves it has to be molten metal?

A structural engineer I know and speak to regularly thinks that incendiaries would only have to be placed in the core structure on the mechanical floors, which were reinforced, and provided the above floors with more stability. You may come across engineers describing the WTC Towers as three buildings stacked one on top of another. When you see the light, windowless bands on the WTC Towers, those were the reinforced mechanical floors where each new set of floors would be "stacked" (more like solidly welded across multiple floors; very rigid cores, and very flexible perimeter/truss systems).

Has there been any estimation on how much thermite would be needed, where it would be located, and projected estimates of how long it would take from detonation to collapse? I'd be interested to see anything like that.

The amount of scholars coming out against the official report is actually pretty staggering, in my opinion. Some 75 professors alone are on board with Scholars for 9/11 Truth alone, and that organization is even lacking the membership of a lot of other relevant people that agree with them, like the structural engineer above that I know personally (he isn't a member of S9/11T for reasons of not wanting to put his job at risk for his opinions -- understandable I suppose), a mechanical engineer that I know (that also isn't a member), researcher Jim Hoffman, LP SE Charles Pegelow, etc.   S9/11T lists its members and their expertises here: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

I've read a fair few people are backing such theories – I'll be interested to see how it pans out.

[office building]

Jingo please explain to me what other "stuff" is stored in an office building so that it will burn at those temperatures. I never heard of rugs, curtains and paper burning at those temperatures.....
Get some steel, bang it up a bit, then put some cloth and paper over it. Then put gasoline over it. Then put it into a confined space (so the heat will get even more intense). Light it up and keep the fire going with more "curtains, rugs and paper" for the time the WTC burned.... guess what the steel won't melt 

Well if a standard house fire can reach temperatures of 1000-1100 in a few minutes of starting, why is it so unfeasible to think that a fire fuelled by jet fuel and stoked by winds funnelling through the destroyed sections can reach slightly higher?
Google house fire temperatures, or phone your local fire department if you don't believe this.

Oh and just listen to eye witnesses..... there was an explosion coming down the elevators, there was an explosion in the basement, etc.

There are a lot of reasons for explosions, as mentioned in other threads recently.

I know the arguments against this are also strong... but there is more then just that event. Look at the Ibn Laden confession tape, its not even him on it.

I agree there is a lot of very dodgy stuff going on around the periphery of these events. But such things could be people utilising 9/11 to achieve goals that they wouldn't have been able to before it. This happens a lot in the UK, bad events being used to hide slightly less severe events. 

All peaces of the puzzle dont fit in the offical story , its truly disgusting the media is totaly owned by the illumnati the only way to reach the masses. I hope google does not give the govement what then want 

I haven't got time to reply to everything yet, but something I will not agree on is the pentagon conspiracies. please read the following link in full, and at least the following 20 pages. It will answer all your questions:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Sorry Jingo, when looking at this from a purely scientific standpoint it could not have happened. Air plane fuel cannot burn at temperatures to melt reinforced steal (which was used in the construction of WTC). That alone is enough to explain what happened that day.
Buildings DO NOT collapse from fires which burn for a short time, that has been proven over and over in previous fires and explosions.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

  LOL the mind control of the media has worked well on you

My mind is my own (as far as that can be said of mind). Blindly believing vast conspiracies on the evidence of a few photos and not reading anything but conspiracy theories into this event is being controlled in my opinion.

Wake the hell up, Look at the patriot act the goverment wants to know what we look up on the net ! MSN and Yahhoo gave info to the goverment good thing google didnt  . Rember what bush sed if your not with us then your agenst us

We have similar in the UK. I'm very much against the whole biometric ID cards and centralised DB – and I will leave the country if it ever comes into effect. What I do not do is read new world orders vying for global dominance into these ideas. I see them as very misguided ideas of a government out of touch with its populace. Such ideas usually have their roots in revenue than anything else – those in the UK look into Browns ideas for selling information for the proposed centralised DB to marketing companies etc.

Suggesting this is a government conspiracy kind of suggests a relatively trivial political conspiracy. I don't think this was the case at all. I don't think Bush was an important figure in any of this. I don't think Rumsfeld or Condi were important figures, or any democrats or any other politicians for that matter. The only people that have gained, and gained enormously, are those that head off the corporations that produce for our military complex, and relate to resources located within the countries we are currently occupying as a direct result of the kicking-off of this so-called "War on Terror". These kinds of people have so much money and power in the world that they're effectively a collective monarchy. Fascism is when these groups gain significant influence over a governmental body. I think this is happening now. I don't think government is so much the problem, but military politics as guided by the corporations that make so many billions/trillions off these wars, and have infiltrated/lobbied their ways into influential positions in this country and abroad.

Most people who are advocates of such 9/11 conspiracies usually do put the blame at the governments door. This is why I posted as I thought this thread was coming from that direction too.
I can't deny some people have gained enormously from these events. But that is not proof enough to link them.
I'm not really a believer in the whole NWO conspiracies, as once again I see tenuous links trying to tie everything together. With the information floating around in today's world it's possible to link anyone to near anything tenuously.
I agree the War on Terror in a worrying thing, and although it seems to have been set off by 9/11 – I think it would have happened anyway under the current American government. 9/11 just happened to be a good excuse – another would have been found in it's absence.

The alternative is that Muslim extremists infiltrated these buildings, and not only planted explosives, but also planted them in a very sophisticated way, and detonated them in an even more sophisticated fashion, which appears to me to have intentionally designed to make the collapses look natural (ie, the explosives are detonating in a progressive wave, and they even appear to have been initiated by silent incendiaries). Adding WTC7 to the equation, not only being relatively insignificant from a terrorists' perspective, but also housing several federal agencies, including CIA offices, seems to make this idea a little more improbable, to me at least. Not to mention the lack of claims of explosives-planting by terrorists if they were really to blame, and the federal reports that seem to intentionally ignore most all of the most key evidences in reaching their conclusions.

To be honest, this hasn't really been of enough interest for me to look into it in detail. To make a proper conclusion as to if explosives were used at not, I'd need to look at everything. What floor the collapse started from, what floor these 'sparks' came from, how long after they appeared did the building collapse, where there any explosive noises prior to them appearing? If so how long before? etc. Also, I'd have to question where the explosives were placed (surely at the core structure?) and how that led the incendiaries to leak out of a window at the side of the building instead of filling any number of internal cavities, or falling down internal voids etc.
A lot of theories are stating the fact the building fell as it did (rather than toppling over) was proof of explosives,  yet others are saying the fact it fell how it did is proof sophisticated placements of explosives were used (hence stating terrorists couldn't have done such an act) – yet the buildings were built to fall how they did.
I just feel we haven't got all the answers – so we can't really make any definite statements.
If terrorists did plant explosives, perhaps there is secrecy around it because the government hasn't got all the answers yet.
I just find the prospect of certain American figures blowing up these towers, and only fringe elements challenging them with dubious evidence as unlikely as the prospect of terrorists planting bombs. I really do sit on the wall, but lean towards it being a tragic terrorist event – with the government not divulging all details. Unless some radical evidence presents itself to counter this, I'll sit where I am.

I am not saying I have the answers, I simply don't see even half enough evidence to implicate the government in a conspiracy to blow up its own towers. I am open minded to other theories of the towers collapse – just not the rest of the grand conspiracy.

I can be open minded to this (the thermite) - although i'm not a total believer. I still don't see why it has to be a Government conspiracy rather than explosives planeted by either the terrorists or other cells to ensure of demolition.

A building blew up with thermate would see liquid metal pour from the building in the time from detonation to the time of full collapse (seconds)? Please provide sources.

Hey lady of the ring,

Welcome to the forums. I hope you enjoy your time here

It's possible to dream of having OBEs (I've done this a fair bit). What usually tells me if it was an OBE or not is my state of mind. In dreams, one is a passive observer. In OBEs I am lucid, conscious and have full control. I am not simply an observer; I have full control, and the ability to think like when awake.
If you were conscious and self aware, and rolled out like you did. It sounds very much Like an OBE.
Many OBEs seem to consist of a mixture of dream state and 'reality' events/objects. I find it best not to separate things too much (conscious dream state - OBE - LD etc), just be aware of the experience and work from there.

Something of an interesting read can be found here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

The official story is total lie, the towers were blown up with thermate, that has been proven. I know it must hurt when your own government  wants to kill you, but if you are in denial of it, well that's just stupid

Proof?

If one leaves the propaganda spread by anti-establishment, anti-American proponents, and looks into the true science of the events, then one will see it was a tragic event. Not the biggest cover up in history by a nation who can't even keep secret their presidents' affairs or Governments corruptions.
I'd be interested to hear your critque of the points made here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

That's interesting . I remember reading about Robert Bruce's work with blind people, he developed a technique to allow them to project, and it tunred into NEW. But in the cases he noted, the blind people couldn't see during projection. They described it being able to feel in every direction at once - further than their arms would normally stretch.
I'd be interested to read more about this person. People who are blind from birth do not grow the areas of the brain used for sight (as they are not used - it seems brain growth and development is directly linked to use) - usually the hearing areas take over those bits. As dreams, visualisations, day dreams and sight all use the same circuitry (which shouldn't exist in this person), the fact they believe they are seeing is a pretty amazing thing. Did they list any websites or at least give a name? Also, what show?

What I just didnt understand though is that I am totally willing and interested in the neuro aspects of what might trigger an OBE.  I do believe that the brain has an important role.  So while I sat and listened to all of his explanations as to what an OBE could be caused by (dissociation, dislocation, hypnagogic/hypnapompic hallucinations, narcolepsy, etc etc etc) he would not even listen to the possibility that the consciousness might.... even just a small possibility may exist outside the brain and that the brain might be just an 'interface' to the physical.  This even with the fact that in all the years of neuroscience study, they have yet to be able to pin poin the exact point of consciousness in a physical sense in the brain, and that quantum physics allows for multiple dimensions.... 

I've met my fair share of people who are totally focused on the physical, and anything outside of it is ignored. I'm quite lucky that most people I know are pretty open minded. Just a few weeks back I was telling a work college at my new place of work about my interests, and he was fascinated – although it wasn't always so easy in the past.
I'm not sure what drives people to be so disbelieving. I'm pretty open about my beliefs, but I won't preach to people. If someone asks questions or my opinions on such matters, then I'll answer. But I always let them know this is my experience and doesn't necessarily negate theirs.

I do consider myself on the middle of the road... I do agree with much of the occult thought on OBEs... but I base my beliefs on my own experiences... In one OBE I was able to contct my Father.  He appeared alot younger than when he died. Anyway I was able to verify how he looked with an old photo that my Mother later showed me.  SO for me, that is proof of life after death in a fully conscious form.  I also believe in a body that has some definate substance... as I have seen it in a mirror while in real time (etheric) projection.
Some things I still remain skeptical about (but do not discount the possibility of) are negative entities, attacks by entities, and astral 'rape' that has been mentioned on Astral Society by some.  I have not encountered these things myself, so I can not say for one way or another... but I do not say that because I have not seen them myself they certainly do not exist... they might!   

I guess my experiences regarding energy bodies and such have led me to believe they are belief constructs – as above, this doesn't negate either of our beliefs – it's simply the path we are walking now .
I'm pretty middle of the road too, but I find myself flipping erratically from one side to the other. I can be pretty logical and 'grounded' but I can also be very creative and find myself floating quite far out from baseline realities shores. I usually come to these forums during my logical phases .

Anyway.... I do need to find someone who will at least respect my beliefs and not mock them.

Definitely. Having someone you can be totally open about these things with helps a lot. Just recently I was telling my partner I'm giving some serious though of visiting the Monroe institute next year to do a course. She thought it was a great idea, and she could fly over after it finishes and we can holiday in America for a few weeks .
My life has shown me that being true to yourself, being open and positive draws the things to you which you need. So you will meet someone who will be open to these things .

Drugs are something which has been with mankind from its earliest origins. Drug use is found in the animal kingdom. Drug use might have been the genesis of our mystical experiences and religions and the foundation stones of society (certain theories link early mushroom experiences with language construction). Drugs do not destroy society; current drug education and enforcement create the problems. Countries which have responsible drug policies which don't treat users like criminals have little of the problems the countries have who actively enforce zero tolerance drug policies.
I am very much of the opinion people should be free to experience any mind state they want as long as they do so responsibly. This means education not enforcement.
Regarding AP and OBEs, their cause is chemical (drug) based in the brain. I'm not saying this means such experiences are confined to the brain, but they might be a physical trigger to induce such experiences. Many of the drugs which can cause hallucinations are actually clear of the brain once those hallucinations start (they act as triggers for natural processes, not the cause).
The drug issue is not a simple one and it won't ever go away. Problems arise from misuse – which in no small part is the fault of bad and lying drug enforcement propaganda. Many lives could be saved with education.
Perhaps this place isn't the best forum for drug discussions because most people either know very little about them, or are very biased against them from a lifetime of negative reinforcement. Add to this the hazards of allowing drug based discussion and the moderations problems of that.
Either way, it seems nothing productive comes of it on the whole – just arguments.

Hey Synergy,

Sorry to hear about your relationship ending under such circumstances. I've been there in the past; my last partner wouldn't even listen to OBE experiences and was very much centred on the physical. So I had to keep that side of myself hidden. Luckily my current partner knows all about my experiences, and I can talk openly about them. My family sort of know too. They know I'm into pretty 'out-there' stuff anyway, so I can talk to them about these things anyway.
I sort of agree with you about skeptics but I also feel the same way about total believers in these matters. While skeptics stick to the material – some people who do or have experienced OBEs believe anything at all regardless of proof outside of self. Blind belief is as bad as no belief, walking a middle path seems wisest.
I have been experiencing OBEs since earliest childhood, and although I would love to see them as proof of survival after death – I really can't (yet). Everything I've experienced in the astral has utilised a living brain. For all I know, perhaps there is an 'information' survival after death, our electromagnetic brainwaves imprinted on the strong magnetic field of the earth, information accessible by other electromagnetic organisms (brains). I have no proof of this theory either, but it ranks as high as any astral theory – i.e. they both require belief.
I also have a lot of problems with established occult philosophies on these areas, because at best they are totally inconsistent. Take for example the old soul idea. It sounds nice and romantic, but, according to such philosophies the AP and afterlife exists outside of time. So the term 'old' only has meaning in the physical. Also, taking time away, we are each as young, or old, as each other (in any plane), and this is totally disregarding we are point points of awareness of a greater consciousness.

Skepticism works both ways too. It's easy for us to call 'non-believers' skpetics, but unless we familiarise ourselves with the latest scientific developments – especially in the area of neurology, we are simply being as blind as those we consider to be blind. We are taking our own reality, holding onto it, and ignoring all else.
I have read fairly widely into the brain and latest findings, and at the least, if we do exist outside of the brain – it will not be in the coherent, critical form we do now. Perhaps that's what the brain is, a structure which gives blind consciousness a focus until it dissolves away. I really don't know.  But I'm willing to be open to other possibilities, rather than potentially stagnate in ideas which stretch back to a time when man lived in a very different world (and so interpreted it so).

This isn't meant at you . After I started consciously projecting, I read every piece of material I could find. And I bought into the traditional astral views. I took on their philosophies, and chakras, and energy bodies, and karmas, and reincarnations. Years later, during a period of soul searching, I dropped all these ideas. They weren't mine. They were memes carried through the ages, taking the road of least resistance. Even a long established belief is just that. If I had remained a firm believer, my experiences would have been filtered through these beliefs and they would have become a stronger and stronger reality to me (the way of the astral). I really want to remove as much baggage as possible and try and see the astral experience in the purest light. If we do survive death, I don't want to spend a long time dropping ingrained beliefs and limitations based on energy bodies and levels etc. I want to see past all this to the fabric of the astral/reality itself.

I still hold survival after death as simply a possibility right now – perhaps some day I will experience something which will give me undeniable proof .

The moral of this meandering post is know your self, and question everything, even question the questioning – and that too. Beliefs are comfortable things, but unless we challenge them, we don't grow.

I Love Divine Comedy too . And Soldier Girl is very much a  favorite . I think it's the song that got me to listen to their other stuff - I also saw them at Glastonbury in '03 - and it was a bakingly hot day, so i lay on the grass with my eyes closed listening to them .