The Princeton Random Generator that “predicted” 9/11

911, All, News: US, Science, She speaks…, Technology

The Princeton Random Generator that “predicted” 9/11

September 6, 2011

(Sept 6, 2011) Now with the Ten-Year Anniversary of 9/11 only a few days away, stories and facts have yet re-emerged like a hungry bear from it’s den after a long winters hibernation.

Therefore, while perusing the internet, I came across The Telegraphs “21 Awful Truths About 9/11“…

OMG!…. Here is number eight on the list:

“Three hours before the attacks, a machine called a Random Event Generator at Princeton University predicted a cataclysmic event was about to unfold.”

Since this one was new to me, I decided to do a bit of searching around on the internet to find the Princeton postings….

First of all, I would like to preface this that I DO NOT LIKE statistical analysis. Perhaps it is from my early college years when I was a computer programming major. CS majors were required to take a stats class in which we had to write with Pascal code (I know… I’m dating myself) to solve the statistical problem at hand. Talk about a double-whammy. I hated that class…. I believe it was shortly thereafter I realized that programming was not my cup-of-tea.

Following my change of major to a much more enjoyable computer graphics, graduation, then back to college (I was on the long-term plan… if there was such a beast as “Student” as a major, that would have been mine) to study geology and the earth sciences, I can still hear one of my geology professors carrying on about statistics…

“Statistical numbers must be used carefully. They can provide you with factual data, or a bunch of $#!&@!. It is no secret that the same set of statistics can be provided to several different groups. And each group, working independently of the others, are able to achieve different results dependent upon what outcome they are striving to achieve.”

In returning back to the topic at hand you will better understand why I rambled about my Geo Prof… (by the way, have I mentioned I DO NOT LIKE statistics?)…

Here is what I found on one of the Princeton sites:

1. download daily raw datafile for June 16 through September 20, 2001
2. calculate daily empirical mean and sd per egg
3. exclude any raw egg values less than or equal to 50 or more than or equal to 150, and eggs with daily empirical means > 103 or < 97, or sd > 6 or sd < 8 (these thresholds are used as indicators that the eggs malfunctioned; well over 99% of the egg data were usable)
4. use resulting mean & sd to calculate a t-score (199df) per egg, per day
5. t (199df) is approximately equal to z, calculate z-squared per egg
6. sum up all z-squares across eggs, per day, keeping track of the number of eggs
7. create 5-minute consolidations of the per-second data, as sums of z-squares
8. analyze data using 6 hour sliding window
9. calculate z score equivalent for the resulting chi-squares & df
10. calculate odds associated with the z scores
11. plot results

Then this site shows several different plots (I am only posting a few, but feel free to check them out yourself here.)

By the way, have I mentioned I DO NOT LIKE statistics?

Now, I am no dummy. In fact, I am a member of the Mensa Society with a tested IQ of 160. Having said this… what the hell is an egg?

I pondered doing a bit more studying so I could better understand what I just read, but my overwhelming dislike for statistics has taken control. So I look around the internet little further to see if I can find a Princeton site translating all this mumbo-jumbo. And I do find another site which is written in more proper English. So I read:

“The following material shows the behavior of the Global Consciousness Project’s network of 37 REG devices called “eggs” placed around the world as they responded during the periods of time specified in formal predictions for the events of September 11 2001.”

Well, there is my answer to the famous riddle, which came first… the chicken or the egg. I will take mine over-easy please. I now have my answer as to what an “egg” is.

After reading about Z-scores, Deviation of Means, and such (amid the flashbacks I was having of Pascal-Statistics), I finally come to:

“The graph of data [below] from the formal prediction for September 11 shows a fluctuating deviation throughout the moments of the five major events, during which ever-increasing numbers of people around the world are hearing the news and watching in stunned disbelief. Times of the major events are marked by boxes on the line of zero deviation. The uncertain fluctuation of the EGG data continues for almost half an hour after the fall of the second WTC tower. Then, at about 11:00, the cumulative deviation takes on a strong trend that continues through the aftermath period and ultimately exceeds the significance criterion. There were 37 eggs reporting on September 11, and over the 4 hours and 10 minutes of the prediction period, their accumlated Chisquare was 15332 on 15000 degrees of freedom. The final probability for the formal hypothesis test was 0.028, which is equivalent to an odds ratio of 35 to one against chance.”

And then it goes into Deviation of Variance. By this time, I’ve had enough. The flashbacks are too overwhelming. (By the way, have I mentioned I DO NOT LIKE statistics?) Now, if you have made it this far in reading this… congratulations! There is a reason to my rambling, and here are MY thoughts and questions back to these Random Generator-ist-people….

Yes, I believe in randomness of the universe. I also believe in coincidence. Your generator coincided with a MAJOR catastrophic event. Okay… well, two events. Apparently it also predicted the bombing of the American Embassy in Africa in August 1998. What about all the OTHER catastrophic events it did NOT predict? Hurricane Katrina? Oslo killings? The earthquake and tsunami in Japan? Virginia Tech? Steve Jobs stepping as CEO of Apple? These are only a few of a long long list which has been occurring since your Frankenstein creation.

Can your generator… or better yet… YOU explain why these events were NOT predicted? If it has, please… send this my way. I’m dying to see all events having been predicted. Can it predict the next winning set of lottery numbers? If so… THEN you have something useful.

Just like my Geology Professor discussed, you took data and tied it to 911 simply because you wanted that correlation. I firmly believe this was coincidence. I do not believe any machine can predict the unknown, especially human action. It may be able to provide PROBABILITIES, but not on the randomness of human behavior. For the sake of your argument, though, let’s say a machine is able to predict human randomness … how do you know the flux in data was not intended to predict that a dog would be hit by a semi at that exact moment (well, 5 exact moments) it spiked? Shame on you, Princeton. I had thought much better of you than this. Okay… I’m getting too serious now. This whole idea has had me laughing so hard my deaf dog has been able to hear me. (you think I’m joking???)

The Random Generator did NOT PREDICT 9/11… it COINCIDED with it.

By the way… have a mentioned I HATE statistics????????????

UPDATE: Sat. Sept. 10, 2011… I have done a bit more research on this topic.
Please click here to see my newest post with more details.

TAGS:

911, catastrophic events, predicted, predicted 9/11, Princeton, Random Generator, statistical analysis, statistics, World Trade Center, WTC

28 responses to “The Princeton Random Generator that “predicted” 9/11”

What is the Random Number Generator and it’s results that “predicted” 9/11? « Motley News

September 10, 2011 at 6:11 pm

[…] my recent posting – more like a ranting – about the Princeton Random Generator which […]

LikeLike

Reply
Joseph Albaugh

September 29, 2012 at 9:22 pm

I just stumbled across all this stuff myself. I’m just a housewife from Orange County with average IQ and from the proposal I read in 1998, it was being “predicted” a lot earlier than 10 minutes prior to the event. But I second the questions, here what about all those other events, I’d think the weather (Hurricaine Katrina) would be more likely be predicted than planes taking down buildings!

LikeLike

Reply
1. Anonymous
  
  October 31, 2015 at 4:30 pm
  
  with the random generator, you can only predict “thoughts” but with others aspects of modern science, it may be possible to predict things like hurricane katrina
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Ralph Dave Westfall

February 3, 2014 at 1:51 pm

As a wild speculation, perhaps there was some kind of quantum signalling moving backward in time from the increased electronic activity–radio, TV, Internet, telephones, etc.–that occurred as 9/11 unfolded? That’s something that “big data” researchers might be able to test.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Kerry
  
  June 22, 2017 at 10:46 am
  
  Hello Ralph, quantum signalling yes, but moving backward in time from the aftermath? I think that is extremely unlikely. However, 911 was a very big operation involving a lot of people (those who prepared and/or committed the crime) with a helluva lot of forward planning, execution logistics and aftermath spin control. As it came closer to the time of the attack, the number of people directly involved must naturally have increased, thus synchronising in their thoughts and intent. This would increasingly de-randomise the REG outputs. Consider that the REGs didn’t literally predict anything. They merely got a handle on collective thought patterns.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Brad Arnold

August 31, 2015 at 5:39 am

When I first heard of this, I figured the Global Consciousness Project was continually receiving a feed from every one of their “eggs” (i.e. random number generator sites) and running a statistical analysis of that data feed. Instead, what it sounds like is that they went back to the approximate time window (of any given incident) and ran a statistical analysis on that chunk of the data feed. Naughty, naughty – that invalidates the integrity of the feed because you are cherry picking the time window.

That being said, never the less such a statistical abnormality is significant, although it ought to be compared to the deviations within the data feed over time. Without knowing the statistical treatment the entire data feed has been given, and without knowing the exhaustive nature of the statistical analysis of that cherry picked time window section of the data feed, it would be irresponsible of me to say anything (of meaning) more.

Let me add a private entity ought to also set up “egg data feeds” with real time statistical analysis, given the potential profit such a venture could deliver. My understanding is that the random number feeds started delivering off base results before the 911 events occurred. There is every reason to suspect that the future affects the present (I know this sound preposterous but it is a QM truth).

BTW, I am a member of Mensa also, and a USCF National Master at chess, plus have particular talents when it comes to the comprehending of (charitably characterized as) obscure paradigms. Incidentally, The Singularity is coming.

LikeLike

Reply
1. DTV
  
  February 28, 2019 at 4:07 pm
  
  YOU SAY:
  There is every reason to suspect that the future affects the present (I know this sound preposterous but it is a QM truth).
  
  TO SUSPECT…?
  
  OF COURSE THE FUTURE EFFECTS THE PRESENT…
  
  THE PRESENT IS THE SUM OF YOUR LESSONS FROM THE PAST AND YOUR EXPECTATIONS OF THE FUTURE.
  
  IT REALLY IS. JUST ASK ANY QUANTUM PHYSICIST.. OR ANY GRANDMOTHER…
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply
Anonymous

October 31, 2015 at 4:28 pm

it probably did not calculate the other catastrophic events of the world because people did not plan it. in the terrorist attacks, many people probably planned it, as well as the bombings. everything else, nobody planned it or only one person had to do with it

LikeLike

Reply
Anonymous

February 4, 2016 at 11:48 am

They were not predicted because 9/11 was organized by our government to be one of the largest global catastrophes. The conscious energy of those orchestrating it was so powerful that it was picked up in the RNG.

LikeLike

Reply
Anonymous

June 2, 2016 at 7:41 pm

All the planes stopped in the air , I know where I was standing when it happened- northern Alberta Canada..I suggest you look into your statistics a bit more to see how many people worldwide were AFFECTED by the other events.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Michelle
  
  June 9, 2016 at 5:47 pm
  
  “All the planes stopped in the air?” Seriously? You really think that? Then why weren’t there thousands of plane crashes as that’s what would have happened if they just stopped in the air. Which, btw, is not possible due to the physics behind the speed and acceleration. For a plane to stop in midair, it would have to crash into a very large and very strong solid object. And the sound as the energy transfers from the plane to the object would be loud!
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Syed
    
    May 28, 2022 at 11:58 pm
    
    The way you stopped on this comment and start giving an explanation on how planes can’t stop in mind air tells me everything on how your brain works. Lol
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Daniel Hill

July 11, 2016 at 11:09 am

The Global Consciousness Project is a real thing, which has produced real results. We cannot explain these results, and answers that lean towards pessimism fall flat when extraordinary results- such as those produced before, during, and after 9/11, are cross-referenced with controls, such as normal time windows. Princeton uses enough “control” time windows to rule out the possibility of either coincidence or bias.
Pessimists cannot believe that this is a real thing. But by stating that “Well, the project didn’t predict other events- such as that plane crash, or that tsunami, or that volcanic eruption,” they are not invalidating the 9/11 results. They are unintentionally confirming the project’s success- which measures not events, but the worldwide reaction to these events. They are two separate and distinct things, and although Princeton, and The Global Consciousness Project,” cannot say for certain what the “cutoff” point is at which results will or will not be measurable, the results from 9/11 cannot be ignored, and to do so is to contaminate the results, the conclusion being not that the results are not real, but that one’s own skeptical bias is.
This very specific type of consciousness, this “impossible knowing,” has a precedent in another experiment conducted called “remote viewing.” Remote viewing, in which a person or group of people are told to mentally locate a person or object without any information provided as to the who, what, or where, is an extreme example of an experiment that makes a strong case for the “connectedness” of everyone, and everything, in that results are bafflingly accurate and conclusive. Attempts at uncovering either bias or “helpful hints,” intentional or otherwise, have proven futile, leaving even the most skeptical scientists and quantum theorists to grudgingly conclude that “Yes, the results seem to point in an impossible direction, but until we know why, it remains outside the realm of science.”
This “outside the realm of science” is mistaken by pessimists to mean “outside the realm of reality.”
But what scientists really mean is that science is measured based on the “scientific method” in which to become scientific fact, an experimental process must continually produce predictable results. The truth is, sometimes remote viewing works, and sometimes it doesn’t. But when it does work, there is no explanation, and no “coincidence” that can be pointed to, as landmarks and geographical features sketched out by the remote viewing participants are accurate and specific.
So The Global Conciousness Project’s results are similar, in that sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. But the data from 9/11 is compelling, and has precedence when considered alongside other experiments, such as remote viewing.
The answer I would give as to why this is so, and why we can’t predict outcomes, comes from all places, the Bible- ironic, since I’m non-religious (but spiritual!). But even so: “The Ways of God Are Mysterious, And Are Known To No Man.”

That says it all, doesn’t it?”

LikeLike

Reply
Daniel Hill

July 12, 2016 at 2:40 pm

The Global Consciousness Project is a real thing, which has produced real results. We cannot explain these results, and answers that lean towards pessimism fall flat when extraordinary results- such as those produced before, during, and after 9/11, are cross-referenced with controls, such as normal time windows. Princeton uses enough “control” time windows to rule out the possibility of either coincidence or bias.
Pessimists cannot believe that this is a real thing. But by stating that “Well, the project didn’t predict other events- such as that plane crash, or that tsunami, or that volcanic eruption,” they are not invalidating the 9/11 results. They are unintentionally confirming the project’s success- which measures not events, but the worldwide reaction to these events. They are two separate and distinct things, and although Princeton, and The Global Consciousness Project,” cannot say for certain what the “cutoff” point is at which results will or will not be measurable, the results from 9/11 cannot be ignored, and to do so is to contaminate the results, the conclusion being not that the results are not real, but that one’s own skeptical bias is.
This very specific type of consciousness, this “impossible knowing,” has a precedent in another experiment conducted called “remote viewing.” Remote viewing, in which a person or group of people are told to mentally locate a person or object without any information provided as to the who, what, or where, is an extreme example of an experiment that makes a strong case for the “connectedness” of everyone, and everything, in that results are bafflingly accurate and conclusive. Attempts at uncovering either bias or “helpful hints,” intentional or otherwise, have proven futile, leaving even the most skeptical scientists and quantum theorists to grudgingly conclude that “Yes, the results seem to point in an impossible direction, but until we know why, it remains outside the realm of science.”
This “outside the realm of science” is mistaken by pessimists to mean “outside the realm of reality.”
But what scientists really mean is that science is measured based on the “scientific theory,” in which to become scientific fact, a process must continually produce predictable results. The truth is, sometimes remote viewing works, and sometimes it doesn’t. But when it does work, there is no explanation, and no “coincidence” that can be pointed to, as landmarks and geographical features sketched out by the remote viewing participants are accurate and specific.
So The Global Consciousness Project’s results are similar, in that sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. But the data from 9/11 is compelling, and has precedence when considered alongside other experiments, such as remote viewing.
The answer I would give, as to why this is so, and why we can’t predict it comes, from all places, the Bible- ironic, since I’m non-religious (but spiritual!). But even so: “The Ways of God Are Mysterious, and Are Known To No Man.”
That says it all, doesn’t it?

LikeLike

Reply
1. Michelle
  
  July 18, 2016 at 11:51 pm
  
  Hi, Daniel. Sorry I didn’t approve your comment more quickly. Work has me pulled away from blogging much more than I like. Both comments look to nearly identical with a few differences. Is there a preference to which one you’d like to keep in the comments as I’ll remove the other one. Doesn’t make sense to have them both. If you want them both to show, though, I’ll leave them as they are.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
barkinginthedark

October 4, 2016 at 12:31 am

Michelle – i would just like to mention the CIA’s intelligence briefings that DID predict 9/11 – and were completely ignored by the blood lusting bush/cheney/rumsfeld criminal troika of evil. “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” headlined the CIA PDB…i’m still saying” wow”.over it. continue…

LikeLike

Reply
DTV

February 28, 2019 at 1:59 pm

EXPLAIN THIS///
PICK3 NY LOTTO ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WAS…… WAIT FOR IT…

9-1-1

YES THATS A FACT..

2 MONTHS LATER.. WHEN FLIGHT 587 CRASHED INTO BROOKLYN/QUEENS
THE WINNING PICK NY LOTTO NUMBER WAS…. WAIT FOR IT…

5-8-7

LikeLike

Reply
1. Michelle
  
  March 11, 2019 at 8:43 pm
  
  Sounds like we entered into the twilight zone on those two dates.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
DTV

February 28, 2019 at 2:28 pm

ONCE A YEAR, GIVE OR TAKE… THIS ALWAYS HAPPENS.. WHEN THE THREE DIGIT LOTTERY NUMBER IS ALSO THE DATE.. ( THERES 1000 NUMBERS AND 365X2=730 DRAWINGS). IF THATS A “COINCIDENCE”.. IT MAY BE.. ITS ODDS ARE MORE LIKE 1000:1, RATHER THAN THE 35 TO 1 CITED ABOVE.

THE LOTTERY IS ALSO A RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR, THE SAME AS THE EGGS…BUT IT IS LOCALIZED.

AND…WHEN TWO EVENTS EACH WITH ODDS OF1000:1 OCCUR WITHIN A 2 MONTH PERIOD…THAT IS THE ANOMALY I WOULD BE INVESTIGATING. THATS “HIGHLY” UNLIKELY.

FRAME THIS, WITH THE LOCALIZED NYC MARKETPLACE OF 10 MILLION PLUS FOLKS ALL THINKING THE SAME THING AT THE SAME TIME….

IT MAKES A PRETTY STRONG CASE FOR “GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS”

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
DTV

February 28, 2019 at 3:41 pm

KEY DIFFERENCES:
THE EGGS ARE USED TO “PREDICT” OR FORETELL.. SUPPOSEDLY…

THE DATA I CITE, ARE FROM A RANDOMLY GENERATED NUMBERS …FROM IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EVENT OCCURRED….A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.

BUT IF THE QUESTION IS ONE OF “CAN GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS EFFECT REALITY”… THIS AVENUE MUST BE EXPLORED. AS IT EXHIBITS “CAUSE AND EFFECT” RATHER THAN COINCIDENT (AT THE SAME TIME) EVENTS, LIKE THE EGGS.

IN OTHER WORDS, FIRST THE 911 ATTCKS OCCURRED, AND THEN THAT NIGHT THE LOTTERY WAS 9-1-1.
SAME WITH THE PLANCE CASH IN NOV 2001… FLIGHT 587 WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS ALL DAY, THE THAT NIGHT THE LOTTERY WAS DRAWN 5-8-7. CAUSE AND EFFECT. NOT COINCIDENT (SAME TIME) THIS IS IMPORTANT. 2 DIFFERENT THINGS

THIS LOTTERY DATA, IMHO PRESENTS A MUCH STRONGER CASE FOR “GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS” THAN DO THE EXPENSIVE PRINCETON EGG WORLDWIDE EGGFARM LOL. PARTICULARLY BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO PROVE CAUSALITY RATHER THAN COINCIDENT EVENTS.

MY QUESTION IS THIS: “WHY ON EARTH IS PRINCETON USING GLOBAL DATA TO PREDICT/ANALYSE LOCAL EVENTS? WTF? THAT JUST DOSENT MAKE ANY SENCE.

AND.. IN THE PRINCETON EXPERIMENT… IF A CORRELATION IS FOUND TO EXIST…IF THE NUMBERS ARE SUDDENLY NON-RANDOM.. OK…. BUT WHERE ON THE PLANET WILL THE EVENT OCCUR? SOMETHING SEEMS TO BE GOING ON EVERYDAY, SOMEWHER ON THE PLANET…. SO I GUESS THE EGGS PREDICTED IT.. LOL. THE PRINCETON EGG EXPERIMENT IS NOT REALLY DESIGNED TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING

AT BEST THIS EXPERIMENT CAN ONLY PROVE “COINCIDENCE: NOT CAUSALITY, AND EVEN IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IT DOES” PREDICT” A CONICIDENT EVENT… WHERE? WHER ON THE PLANET? AND WITH ALL THE BS GOIN ON TODAY

AND I AGREE WITH THE LADY WHO SAID…. THE CIA “PREDICETD” BIN LADEN WOULD ATTACK US ON AUGUST 8TH, 2001. WHICH IS OVER 1 MONTH OF NOTICE…. PRINCETON ONLY GAVE US 4 HOURS… LOL BUT TRUE.

ITS LIKE THIS.. THE EXPERIMENT THEY ARE DOING…IS SIMPLY NOT AN APPROPRIATE METHOD TO ASSES THE QUESTION OF “GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS”.. ITS LIKE AMISMATCH OF THE EXPERIMENT AND THE QUESTION THEY ARE TRYING TO ANSWER..

AND THEY USING GLOBAL DATA TO CORRELATE WITH LOACL EVENTS…. ITS A MESS…

THE PRINCETON EXPERIMENT.. ON ITS BEST DAY.. CAN NEVER PROVE ANYTHING TANGIBLE….

AGAIN.. IF THE QUESTION IS THAT OF ” CAN GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS EFFECT REALITY” THIS EXPERIMENT SIMPLY DOSENT CUT IT

OH.. ALL IMHO.. IM ONLY FROM RUTGERS SO WHAT DO I KNOW?

.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
DTV77

February 28, 2019 at 4:29 pm

SO….THEN THE LARGER QUESTION IS THIS:

ARE SMALL PERIODS OF NON-RANDOM ACTIVITY (ORDER) WITHIN AN OVERALL RANDOM SEQUENCE… IS THAT AN ANOMALY? OR IS IT ACTUALLY A SUBSET OF OVERALL RANDOMNESS?

IN OTHER WORDS….IF SOMETHING IS “RANDOM” 100% OF THE TIME… IS THAT REALLY RANDOM?.. NO ITS PREDICATBLE.. A TRUE RANDOM SET SHOULD CONTAIN SMALL BURSTS OF ORDER… IMHO

SO IF THIS TRUE….IT JUST MAKES ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCETON DATA THAT MUCH HARDER TO CORRELATE.. AGAIN IMHO…

I ADMIT TO HAVING STUDIED RANDOMNESS EXTENSIVELY, AS WELL AS PHILOSOPHY.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
1. Michelle
  
  March 11, 2019 at 8:39 pm
  
  You just made my brain hurt…..
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
DTV

February 28, 2019 at 7:16 pm

OH… AND AS FAR AS THE CHICKEN OR EGG DILEMNA… IT WAS CLEARLY THE CHICKEN.

IF THE EGG CAME FIRST.. WITH NO CHICKEN HERE TO SIT ON IT…. IT WOULD NEVER HATCH AND/OR REPRODUCE. SO IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FACT THAT WE LIVE IN A WORLD SATURATED WITH BOTH CHICKENS AND EGGS… ALL U CAN EAT.. JUST ASK THE COLONEL…. WE CAN SAFELY DEDUCE THAT IT WAS INDEED THE CHICKEN WHO CAME FIRST,

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
Mack

September 28, 2019 at 11:12 pm

What is apparent is a great deal of discussion after the event(s), when if the Princeton thing had any true value it would have predicted 9-11 in time for steps to have been taken to prevent it, and taken seriously enough for those in command to have acted.

Which then brings the speculation that predicting the future immediately changes it in some way. Or is that future certain because of the predictions ?

Or maybe in this case (9-11) those in command perpetrated it, or at least allowed it to happen.

One thing is certain in my mind, or what passes for it. There is definitely a Global Consciousness in operation as we speak.
The mind/body (dare I say spiritual dimension) is driven by electro-magnetism. We wouldn’t even think if it was not so (perhaps that would be a mercy).
We all dwell in the Schumann cavity which is excited by 100? lightning pulses a second, and which sets up low frequencies of between 3 and 60 hertz. The primary frequency is 7.83 hertz.

” It has been proven by scientific experiments that tuning into 7.83Hz, the planet’s own magnetic frequency people experience benefits like enhanced learning/memory, body rejuvenation, balance, improved stress tolerance, anti-jetlag, anti-mind control, and grounding.”

We are tuned to the Earth, our home we are so busy destroying. Also as we speak. Is it reasonable to speculate transceiving between ourselves, even on a global scale ?

Could that be the reason why notable inventions have been created nearly simultaneously on opposite sides of the globe ?

Convoluted reasoning as to the Princeton stats/etc may have some value I suppose, but to me they just seem to be incomprehensible number-crunching, except for a few exceptional gifted persons.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
zxqetrkpvr@gmail.com

October 9, 2019 at 3:52 am

For Mayweather, sa vitesse et sa défense est la raison principale qu’il a encore à perdre, ou même d’obtenir totalement renversé à la toile.

LikeLike

Reply
Crossover: Misc. Rabbit Holes FAQ with Uncle Buck’s House Podcast – What's the Story?

April 19, 2021 at 10:59 pm

[…] The Princeton Random Generator that Predicted 9/11 […]

LikeLike

Reply
Repost by Permission: 9/11 Predictor Branded Most Dangerous Man In America Warns Trump-Biden Targeted For Death

December 10, 2023 at 11:58 am

[…] the 11 September 2001 attacks on 25 July 2001, this report continues, it was also reported: “Three hours before the 9/11 attacks, a machine called a Random Event Generator at Princeton Universi…”—was an as yet unexplained seeing of an event joined by other historical oddities like […]

LikeLike

Reply
SORCHA 12/8: “9/11 Predictor Branded Most Dangerous Man In America Warns Trump-Biden Targeted For Death” | saintandrewstwinflame

December 11, 2023 at 12:57 pm

[…] September 2001 attacks on 25 July 2001, this report continues, it was also reported: “Three hours before the 9/11 attacks, a machine called a Random Event Generator at Princeton Universi…”—was an as yet unexplained seeing of an event joined by other historical oddities like […]

LikeLike

Reply