A Personal Journey to Reality

[Carsten Wiethoff]

This morning I had the feeling that I need to talk to the world, whoever is interested in listening, about 9/11. Since about 10 years I feel this urge every year around this time, sometimes I talked, sometimes I didn't, and after a few days everything went back to normal. Except in the year where my marriage broke up or in the year where I got so excited that I called the FBI New York Field Office in the middle of the night to tell them about a suspicious victim of the plane crashes, who still seemed to receive a pension. I had to get on medication to come back to a normal life experience.
This year I think, something has changed. I have made a decision. I am no longer willing to accept uncertainty at certain positions, no more suspicions and revelations that cannot be proved, and no more false self weakening doubts on false statements of fact. From now on I am back to knowing things, at least if I really know them. "Be precise in your speech" is one of the rules of Jordan Peterson that I want to follow. In my heart of hearts I have always been an engineer and a scientist, I want to understand the world and how I can make it better. You need to understand, how things work in order to improve anything. I also want to know, why things happen. What motivates people to act in a certain way, why does someone sacrifice his own life for somebody else, why can certain systems not work together or at least in parallel, but fight each other with every dirty trick a sick mind can imagine?
I know exactly where I was on 9/11. And the days after. I did not have any suspicion of being tricked, I trusted most mainstream media to at least not manipulate me, and if I felt that there was information missing, I tuned to BBC or AFN or I read Swiss newspapers, which had at least a somewhat different perspective. I was naive. Cracks began to appear. Some "documentary" that claimed nonchalantly that Lee Harvey Oswald had waited in his lair for hours, before his prey appeared, struck me as odd. Is there no quality control? Mistakes like that can be resolved even from the Warren Report, do "documentary" writers even know what they are talking about? Sometimes I believed in a simple mistake and tried to correct it, but never got a response. Is there anybody listening? And the "errors" are always occuring in the same direction, I have never seen a documentary falsely claiming that Oswald was not in the School Book Depository, the only ideas that were entertained were that the Russions or the Cubans "got him". Anyway, after 9/11 I genuinely wanted to understand every detail, of what had happened, I copied the Comission Report from the internet and read it on a flight to Finland, printed on paper, hundreds of pages. I listened to all available mp3s from the comission hearings and I found it odd that Minetas testimony was not available, even if he had been questioned in a public session. During a period of unemployment (fully paid, no worries) I discovered the first fora and some of the early films. I am still a member of pilots for 911 truth, I am an aviation enthusiast and I can relate to the precise way of speaking most pilots have. It slowly became clear that several things were going on:
- relevant information on the internet tended to disappear without notice
- only rarely people collaborated in a constructive way
- the spectrum of opinions about what actually happened ranged from a simple comission report narrative to space aliens and everything in between.
- basic facts could not be proven, like the lists of passengers or the hijackers. Instead there were multiple versions, changing on demand. Or the lists were admitted to be incorrect, but were never corrected.
- even if sometimes it could be demonstrated that for example one of the engines lying on the street was not of the correct type for the airplane from which it supposedly stemmed, the discussion ended there and nobody could establish anything that would have withstood a serious evaluation. Or conflicting evidence suddenly appeared. Everything became an opinion, there were no facts, only contradicting information.

Yesterday I listened to an interview with a young, brilliant German scientist, master in physics, PhD in Mathematics, who looked into the WTC in 2014 and 2015, a long time after I was there. He said in no uncertain terms that according to his scientific analysis of the available evidence all three buildings in NY must have been destroyed by controlled demolition. And he can prove it. He also made a few remarks that the term "conspiracy theorist" is not defined in a scientific way and should therefore not be used or accepted in polite conversation. Never.
I agree.
From now on I know certain things:
- Somebody wired the buildings and detonated them at 9/11.
- A proper investigation never took place.
- The justice system of the United States is defunct.
- Democracy in the US and most western states does not exist.
- Any media that reported something else did not tell the truth.
These are scientific facts until proven otherwise.

I am a bit worried of how the transition from the postfactual to the factual will happen for the rest of the world, but I am back in Reality.

[Magda Hassan]

Hi Carsten! Lovely to see you are well and on your journey. It is an interesting ride. Unexpected detours. But we have to get there in the end. ::bluebaron::

[Carsten Wiethoff]

Hi Carsten! Lovely to see you are well and on your journey. It is an interesting ride. Unexpected detours. But we have to get there in the end. ::bluebaron::

Hi Magda, you are looking good, even if I cannot see you. It has been a bumpy ride. But as I said, I am in reality, the haze of uncertainty is gone. Beautiful weather outside, isn't it?

[David Guyatt]

I lso agree Carsten, that the three towers were brought down by controlled detonation. We all need to start beliueving in our eyes rather than fake narratives. By the way I'm also a fan of Jordan Peterson.

In case you haven't read it - although you probably have - the December 2002 article by John Pilger provides, for me at least, the reason why 9/11 was needed by the elite faction that control America. The article appeared in the New Statesman. Today, that journal along with pretty much every other print and broadcast media in the Anglo-American world wouldn't even consider an article from Pilger - that's how much the elite narative have taken control.

I'm still a bit surprised that Pilger's article hasn't been erased as this happens a great deal nowadays - not just with Pilger but with many writers who present stories that conflict with the official narrative.

In the last analysis, the official 9/11 narrative is unravelling day by day. The day should arrive when the mass murderers ultimately responsible for it - and I don't mean the Saudi's etc but those elite in America who commissioned this murderous event - need to be arrested and tried and to spend the rest of their lives in prison. These people are pathological serial killers on steroids and there is no place in society for them.

16 DECEMBER 2002
John Pilger reveals the American plan: a new Pearl Harbour

Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was a "catastrophic and catalysing event".

BY JOHN PILGER
·
·
·
· The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to avenge the American "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend" following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.

One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism.

The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
How has this grand strategy been implemented? A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.

On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.

Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities'", which she compared with those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war.

Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary". Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.

In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists".

In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States. This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite caution.
You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have power. The thread running through their ruminations is the importance of the media: "the prioritised task of bringing on board journalists of repute to accept our position".

"Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have never known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may laugh at the vacuities in Tony Blair's "Iraq dossier" and Jack Straw's inept lie that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to "explain"). But the more insidious lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube station, are routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are black propaganda.

This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere ventriloquists' dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million suffering people is discussed by liberal commentators as if it were a subject at an academic seminar, at which pieces can be pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to do.

The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the brutality of modern imperial domination, but how "bad" Saddam Hussein is. There is no admission that their decision to join the war party further seals the fate of perhaps thousands of innocent Iraqis condemned to wait on America's international death row. Their doublethink will not work. You cannot support murderous piracy in the name of humanitarianism. Moreover, the extremes of American fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at us for too long for those of good heart and sense not to recognise them.

https://www.newstatesman.com/node/192545

[Carsten Wiethoff]

Hi David, good to "see" you again.
Did you ever read the original document by PNAC? It is the perfect encapsulation of the NeoCon mindset, the world is basically ours, and all we need to do is play the right cards at the right time, and the stupid American people will give us any authorization. All others, like Germany and Britain are our vassals anyway and are not even asked for their opinion.
It is the same mass-murdering arrogance that smells out of Brzezinskys (or similar) book "The Grand Chessboard". Kind of the American "Mein Kampf".
Interesting fact: for a long time it was basically impossible to read "The Grand Chessboard" in English and completely impossible to read it in German, so only very few Germans knew about the content of the book. Then a small, somewhat obscure publisher (Kopp Verlag) gained the rights and did a completely legit German translation of the book, marketing it for under 10 Euro.
https://www.amazon.de/Die-einzige-Weltma...166&sr=8-1

The German title is "Die einzige Weltmacht" (The only Superpower).
After Kopp made advertisements for this and other books on german railway stations, the german railway was forced to cancel the contracts, because allegedly Kopp Verlag had a extreme right wing, Nazi program, which is completely counterfactual.
Imagine: "American Neocons" suppress advertisements for the scriptures of their own supreme leader, some Germans might actually read them and get the correct impression...

[Anthony Thorne]

Good discussion.

Robert Kagan invokes Pearl Harbor imagery on the first page of his opening essay in the 2000 volume PRESENT DANGERS: CRISIS AND OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA'S FOREIGN AND DEFENCE POLICY. That book features a contributed essay by Wolfowitz, has a spooky blood-red title design on the dark cover, and appears slanted to a readership familiar with the prior activities of the Committee on the Present Danger. A degree further and Kagan could have simply titled the book GET READY, BOYS, with a picture of a big arrow pointing towards the WTC complex, but caution obviously won out.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

Good discussion.

Robert Kagan invokes Pearl Harbor imagery on the first page of his opening essay in the 2000 volume PRESENT DANGERS: CRISIS AND OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA'S FOREIGN AND DEFENCE POLICY. That book features a contributed essay by Wolfowitz, has a spooky blood-red title design on the dark cover, and appears slanted to a readership familiar with the prior activities of the Committee on the Present Danger. A degree further and Kagan could have simply titled the book GET READY, BOYS, with a picture of a big arrow pointing towards the WTC complex, but caution obviously won out.

Brzezinsky also invokes the Pearl Harbor trope in the Grand Chessboard.
By the way, the Kopp Verlag made good money on that book, it is in its third printing and selling as Number 7 in International Politics on Amazon. And the reviews give me any reason to believe that the readers fully understand the message.
Also I forgot to mention that the demand to stop advertising for the book allegedly came from the "far left" with the possibility to threaten sabotage acts on the railway system. Seems to be some Gladio operatives in Germany are still alive and kicking. And so I know that the justice system in Germany is also defunct, because these "left extremists" never could be found.

[David Guyatt]

Hi David, good to "see" you again.
Did you ever read the original document by PNAC? It is the perfect encapsulation of the NeoCon mindset, the world is basically ours, and all we need to do is play the right cards at the right time, and the stupid American people will give us any authorization. All others, like Germany and Britain are our vassals anyway and are not even asked for their opinion.
It is the same mass-murdering arrogance that smells out of Brzezinskys (or similar) book "The Grand Chessboard". Kind of the American "Mein Kampf".
Interesting fact: for a long time it was basically impossible to read "The Grand Chessboard" in English and completely impossible to read it in German, so only very few Germans knew about the content of the book. Then a small, somewhat obscure publisher (Kopp Verlag) gained the rights and did a completely legit German translation of the book, marketing it for under 10 Euro.
https://www.amazon.de/Die-einzige-Weltma...166&sr=8-1

The German title is "Die einzige Weltmacht" (The only Superpower).
After Kopp made advertisements for this and other books on german railway stations, the german railway was forced to cancel the contracts, because allegedly Kopp Verlag had a extreme right wing, Nazi program, which is completely counterfactual.
Imagine: "American Neocons" suppress advertisements for the scriptures of their own supreme leader, some Germans might actually read them and get the correct impression...

Yup Carsten, I have read that odious document a number of times. Like you I was astonished by the sheer self-serving arrogance shown in it. The quicker the neocons get nailed to their own cross the better for me.

I didn't know about the German translation of the Grand Chessboard (I read this equally noxious book decades ago btw), but am not really surprised. Things are somewhat changing in Germany and Europe now but Merkel has been a US pawn in the past. Sad. But I live in the ultimate poodle paradise when it comes to having an elite that bends over every time America coughs. I suspect that the UK will be the very last nation on earth to cut the binding ties from Washington...

[Carsten Wiethoff]

For additional clarity regarding my personal journey I want to explain the changes that happened to me recently in more detail.
Up to that point I was pretty certain that Bin Laden had not been the head of the operation, and on towers one and two I was not sure, I thaught the Nanothermite study to be real, but not strong enough to stand up in court (not that that ever was tested). And I was basically sure that something was wrong with the planes hitting the steel columns and that the very strange live video footage anomalies pointed to in "September Clues" were real. So when talking to friends I would often, out of insecurity I would mostly hide what I knew and more ask them for their opinion, and most of them would have no idea and only very few would ask for my opinion. And then I would basically say that I believe nothing of the official story and this is all so much bigger and basically the whole world is involved and we are all fucked, pardon my french. In other words, I behaved, like a conspiracy theorist would do (if such thing existed).
So from now the pattern will be different. If I feel like it, I might casually drop, that since I know that all three towers were demolished and that this could not have been done by the "Terrorists", it was clear that a different crime had been committed than officially was declared. And that different people are responsible.
Then it depends on the reaction, some possible chain of reactions might be:
Oh, you are also one of them, who believe in this. Answer: It is not a question of belief, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then different things can happen, but the worst could be that they declare me crazy without even asking, why I knew. Then I would ask, if they know some different truth or how else they could judge my knowledge without ever having looked at any evidence.

In general, I feel much better, knowing what I know and finding out what others know, and if someone does not want to talk, that's fine.

If really someone names me a conspiracy theorist I would tell him that this offends me, like he had called me a slur, and what he really means with that word.
If someone calls me an antisemite, I would profusely beg for forgiveness, I did not know that the towers were Jewish.

And so on and so on hopefully, until there talking ends and the real party begins. Or some person is out of my life. Can happen, never did, at least not for politics-

[David Guyatt]

Good discussion.

Robert Kagan invokes Pearl Harbor imagery on the first page of his opening essay in the 2000 volume PRESENT DANGERS: CRISIS AND OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA'S FOREIGN AND DEFENCE POLICY. That book features a contributed essay by Wolfowitz, has a spooky blood-red title design on the dark cover, and appears slanted to a readership familiar with the prior activities of the Committee on the Present Danger. A degree further and Kagan could have simply titled the book GET READY, BOYS, with a picture of a big arrow pointing towards the WTC complex, but caution obviously won out.

Anthony, do you remember a Yank naval officer dating back to the late 1990's (I forget his name, but he wasn't a particularly nice guy based on the communications I had with him) who wrote a book that, at the end, prophesied that the Bush family would ensure there would be a major US cataclysmic event in the new millennium. He claimed this was to make sure that the massive crimes of the Bush family never came to light because Poppy Bush realised if Americans found out about them they would all be hung from the trees.

I didn't regard him as particularly honest type - he had worked for the Bush family in a covert role - but that para or two caught my eye. It could all have been balls of course, but when 9/11 happened I remembered it. If I remember his name I'll post back to post it here.

PS, I'm not suggesting that should what he said have any validity, this would be the only reason (Bush family crimes) behind 9/11. These deep events usually happen when a confluence or compelling reasons combine to form an irresistible decision. And I seem to remember a report that the Bush family bought a massive ranch in Latin American (Paraguay) that had no extradition treaty with the US and the speculation was that this could be used to bail out to in case of need. However, I didn't do any digging to see if the story had legs or was simply another one of the numerous unsubstantiated conspiracy theories we encounter on a regular basis).