Im curious if anyone practices vipassana that does not come from the theravadan reformation project? (mahasi, goenka etc)
All I come across seems to be from that tradition. Anyone that practices chan or tibetan vipassana?
From my reading tibetan vipassana somewhat comes as a result of the shamatha practice. When coming to a certain level of shamatha skillfullness one let go of the concentration and investigate the senses as they arise instead. At least from what I understand.

Try checking out some mahamudra- Clarifying the Natural State there are short sections on concentration and insite.

Aint that theravadan stuff given Bhikku is an theravadan monk?
Also question was if anyone on this forum practices non theravadan style vipassana. Do you use the non theravadan methods?

Yes Andreas, I do have much experience in the Tibetan tradition.  What you have said, that shamatha leads to vipassina is basically correct, but I have understood it slightly differently.  The way it was explained to me, initially we practice shamatha, calming the mind, which leads to vipasina, or insight, specifically a moment of insight.  It is not so much that one style of meditation gives way to another, but that as a result of practicing shamatha our minds become clear enough to gain genuine insight, i.e. realization/attainment. 

In my experience, shamatha in the Tibetan tradition is not quite as heavily focused on concentration as the shamatha found in Therevada.  The Tibetan shamatha I practiced was essence bringing the mind back to the breath, or bringing the mind back to the present moment, not intensely concentrating to the suppression of thoughts as might be the MCTB Shamatha.  My practice was based on the shamatha-vipasina meditation taught by Chogyam Trungpa.

Initially, when I first started meditation, I practiced Shamatha-Vipasina meditation, but after finding MCTB I switched to straight (theravadan) vipassina.  After reaching 4th path I switched back to the Tibetan Shamatha-Vipassina because I found straight Vipassina somewhat irritating.  In some sense it seems these different styles of mediation are simply good for different people.  I have no doubt they go the same place; one of my friends has attained up to 3rd path MCTB using the tibetan mediation style.  Ultimately it comes down to what you prefer and feel will allow you to practice most effectively.

howdy
much of the tibetan tradition for monks and lay practitioners has a long theravadin education as well as training in following the breath for both concentration and vipassana.

most of the practices which are unique to mahayana , vajrayana etc. are meant to be practiced only after a basic training in both vipassana and shamatha that are brought to a certain level.  the more advanced practices are generally focused on 'imagination' or on mental objects and visualization.  each practice has different phases, generation, completion etc. each of which leads one from the apparent to the transcendent.

in my limited exposure there is not a lot of direct practice to see the 3Cs but quite a lot of theory which points to them.  during the meditation itself there is usually a strong  focus on the illusory nature of everything..especially in the later phases of each meditation that when combined with the generation phase and the later phases of the meditation urges one to experience the non-dual nature of things.