Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Masters of Parallel Universes

Surajit Dutta
Much as we may dislike the fact, the results from quantum physics are unequivocal: parallel universes do exist. Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, at the same time, while it exists as a probability distribution, which is resolved into either a live cat or a dead one by the act of opening the box and observing it. But until the observation is made, both parallel universes can be said to exist, and there is no way for us to know which one of them we inhabit.

Quantum effects dominate in the micro realm of subatomic particles. For instance, the laptop on which I am typing this contains millions of transistors which are created by implanting ions into silicon substrates to create patches with built-in electric fields and interconnecting these patches with etched aluminum wiring. Each transistor relies on the phenomenon of quantum tunneling: while in normal physics it is impossible for an electron to find itself on the wrong side of a built-in electric field, in quantum physics the electron is a probability distribution, not a particle, and quantum tunneling works reliably enough to support the entire electronics industry. But if you scale your circuit up, the chance of a pickup truck successfully “tunneling” through a brick wall becomes too minuscule to be of practical interest. It is still possible, but it would take anywhere between right now and several lifetimes of the universe hence to observe that result.

Oddly enough, such quantum effects are quite normal to observe within the political space. Here the physical objects involved are far too large to give rise to the parallel universes of quantum physics, but the narratives they give rise to are not. This is because the narratives are a matter of perception, and there can be historical periods, such as the present one, when the peephole through which the political establishment and the mainstream media allow us to see the world becomes so tiny that it becomes a toss-up as to whether or not any given photon will manage to find its way through it.

Here, reality becomes fractured into parallel universes as soon as we make the realization that we are being lied to. Were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? No, and the vial of white powder which Colin Powell menacingly held up at the UN was fake. The Iraqi mobile biological weapons factories did not exist. Was Al Qaeda active in Iraq prior to the US invasion? No, we know that it wasn't. These lies are now known to be factual—uncontested, commonplace knowledge. Next: do we make the arbitrary leap of judgment and declare that that's all the lies we will have ever been told, or do we admit the possibility that this is only the tip of an iceberg of lies, that lying is a modus operandi for the operatives behind them? If we do, then, to be conservative, for every official narrative we must construct one or more unofficial but also plausible (and perhaps much more plausible) narratives. Each of them constitutes a parallel universe, and we can't know which of them we inhabit until some happy accident—a leak, an investigation, a damning bit of physical evidence, or an outright admission of complicity or guilt—collapses the probability waveform, destroying all the parallel universes but the real one.

Many people have been conditioned to think that this is the realm of “conspiracy theory.” Unfortunately, the term doesn't apply. First, the existence of a conspiracy has to be accepted as a given: nobody ever perpetrates a heinous act of murder, mayhem and destruction by telegraphing their intentions ahead of time. If they do, the event usually doesn't go off as planned, and in such cases it is usually announced that a conspiracy has been uncovered and a plot thwarted. Thus, the use of the term “conspiracy” is gratuitous; it goes without saying that there always is one. Secondly, the term “theory” is gratuitous as well: a theory is a mental construct designed to account for a given set of observations. But what if all you do is point out the observations (which are in the public domain, there for all to see) and make no effort whatsoever to account for them?

However, there is one theory that accounts for a very large class of such observations, and it is so simple that it is often overlooked. It is this: that the government and the official sources of information are normally lying. We already know that they have lied in the past (Iraqi WMD and al Qaeda in Iraq are two particularly well-known examples, but there are many others). The question then becomes, When did they stop lying (if in fact they did)? Was there a conspiracy to stop lying? There would have to have been one, because we certainly haven't heard any statements made by public officials to the effect that “We will now stop lying.” Or did they spontaneously all stop lying at the same time? The probability of that happening is pretty low; it could, of course happen—any time between right now and several lifetimes of the universe hence. So if you believe that they have indeed stopped lying, then I suppose that makes you a conspiracy theorist par excellence. The conservative assumption is that they are still lying.

There are lots of people who have been working to keep these parallel universes alive in one form or another, by collecting and collating bits of information, by offering partial explanations, by evaluating the official explanations as to their logical consistency. They have been doing this in spite of being ostracized as “conspiracy theorists.” To be fair, they have sometimes been glorified as “truth-seekers” or “truth-tellers” and that must provide an ego boost for some people. But really what they have been doing is generating, and sustaining, alternative narratives and keeping parallel universes alive, so that at some time in the future we will find out which one we have been inhabiting all along.

Some people make the mistake of refusing to listen and to explore these parallel universes, because it makes them ill at ease not to know which one they happen to inhabit. But if you accept the extreme likelihood that the official narrative is a bunch of lies concocted to hide the truth, then there is some comfort to be gained in at least knowing something that might not be a lie. Once the initial hesitation is past, it becomes a fun, if somewhat macabre, hobby, because puzzling evidence jumps out at you just about everywhere you care to look.

An important precondition of being able to interpret the result of Schrödinger's thought experiment is being able to figure out what a cat looks like. Here is a specific example. Currently, there are two parallel universes. In one, Russian troops have invaded Ukraine. In the other, Russian troops did not invade Ukraine. What makes this difficult is understanding what is meant by Russian troops. There are Russians in eastern Ukraine. There are troops in eastern Ukraine. A lot of the troops in eastern Ukraine are in fact Russian. But there are no Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Get it? To qualify as actual Russian troops, they would have to have enlisted in the Russian military, and would have to take their orders through the Russian chain of command. And these ones obviously don't. There is a strong political connection with Russia, but the military one is tenuous. The latest “proof” of Russian invasion, offered by the Ukraine's president Poroshenko in Munich, consists of some Russian internal passports and military service certificates found in eastern Ukraine. Funny thing is, when you are inducted into the Russian military, you have to surrender those civilian documents. Sometimes a perfectly viable, though quite short-lived parallel universe can be concocted by twisting things in small ways.

But most of the time a parallel universe pops into existence when things get twisted in impressively brazen and shameless ways. A lot of people start with 9/11. The twin towers collapsed because they were hit by jet airliners because, you see, kerosene melts steel. Was it special, magic kerosene, and were the buildings were made of special, magic steel? Maybe that's why since then skyscrapers can't be insured against fire any more. Previously it was thought that skyscrapers can't collapse due to fire because they are made of steel, and a hydrocarbon-based fire isn't hot enough to melt it. What fools those civil engineers must have been! Turns out, all you need is some kerosene!

Then the two skyscrapers spontaneously collapsed into their own footprints—all on their own—and so the entire industry of demolition experts (whose job is to mine tall buildings with explosive charges and detonate them under computer control to keep the buildings from toppling over) has since been retired. Skyscrapers are now known to pose a huge fire hazard due to the melty steel of which they are made, and they must all be demolished right away. But don't hire any demolition experts, since we now know that their entire industry was a hoax, because skyscrapers collapse into their own footprints all by themselves. Just take some retired old jets from American Airlines (they have plenty of them) and fly them into the skyscrapers unmanned using remote fly by wire technology.

Another “plane” hit the Pentagon. That plane had no engines, since none were found (but in spite of this it not only flew, but executed a pirouette worthy of a jet fighter). Also, it had no seats (the passengers must have mimed sitting down and buckling up) and no luggage (they must have traveled really light). The perpetrators' identity was found out thanks to a passport found at the World Trade Center site. It was a magic passport; unlike the steel girders of the twin towers, a kerosene fireball could not even singe it.

Fast-forward to the latest staged atrocity: the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. The perpetrators were clearly well-trained, disciplined commandos, who executed a flawless mission, making it likely that they were special service people of some country or other. But then one of them magically forgot his ID in the getaway car—just like that passport magically found in the wreckage of 9/11. (Do commandos take their civilian IDs with them when they go on a secret mission?) And then the alleged driver of the getaway car surrendered to the police, saying that he has an ironclad alibi. The fact that he surrendered was reported in the media; the reason why he surrendered was not. And then the person charged with conducting the investigation killed himself while working on his report. Did his report agree with the official narrative?

Reminds me of another staged atrocity: the Boston Marathon bombing. The very large number of special ops people milling about the scene before the firecrackers went off has been noted, but clearly they had nothing to do with it—they were just enjoying their day off, all dressed the same. The two patsies who were blamed for it—the Tsarnaev brothers—were well-known to the FBI. After the firecrackers went off, a crew of specialists immediately descended on the scene, with actors posing as victims and fake blood being tossed about. Video evidence shows them taking a long time to stage photo-ops of the supposed atrocity.

The ensuing media campaign with “Boston Strong” stickers was identical to the “Je suis Carlie” campaign following the Charlie Hebdo event. And as with the Charlie Hebdo event, there was a concerted effort to kill the alleged perpetrators before they could answer any questions in ways that might contradict the official story. In the case of the Tsarnaev brothers, the attempt to kill the younger one failed. The boat in which he was hiding, scared and unarmed, was riddled with bullets, and after he surrendered an unexplained emergency tracheotomy was performed on him, but he is still alive, and defiant of the efforts to frame him.

But the most interesting part came after the event, when Boston was placed under military occupation, with residents forced to stay inside their houses for fear of being machine-gunned down by troops rumbling down the streets in APCs, supposedly in pursuit of a couple of kids. The real rationale for the event was to impose martial law on Boston (the cradle of the American Revolution) on Patriot's Day (which commemorates a signal event that started it). If you read into these events just a little bit, you just might come to the conclusion that the US is no longer a constitutional democracy but a military dictatorship and a police state ruled by an oligarchy that likes to stage gruesome special events to show just how far above the law it really is.

Or take the Malaysian Airlines MH-17 shoot-down over Eastern Ukraine last year. Again, the media campaign was clearly set up before the event. The clairvoyant western observers know who to blame: it was the “Russian-backed rebels” and they used a weapons system provided by Russia. This was repeated endlessly, using a technique used in advertising: “proof by repetition.” Never mind that the rebels had no ability to shoot down that airliner. But the truth has been slowly dribbling out. Flight MH-17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet fighter from Dnepropetrovsk using an air-to-air missile. (The rebels had no aircraft; why was it armed with one?) The name of the pilot is now known. The person who identified him is in Russia, in witness protection. Russian investigators are pursuing leads, and there is a good chance that we will eventually find out who issued the criminal orders.

I could keep going in this vein for a really long time, piling bits of puzzling evidence upon other bits of puzzling evidence. But the whole point of this exercise is to try to get across to you of one very simple, basic point: if you insist on ignoring all the obvious lies you've been told for years and years and dismiss everything but the official narrative as a “conspiracy theory,” then that makes you something of a mind control victim. And I don't want you to be a victim.

One last thing: if you find yourself living in a Schrödinger box, do what you can to avoid ending up dead. I'll leave it up to you to work out out the details of that, but the hint is simple: your likelihood of ending up dead is higher if you believe in lies. Don't be a dead cat.


Mario Medjeral said...

Excellent post! Psyops are made to challenge the questioning of the status quo, to enforce the silencing of alternative rising strategies/views, to create a threat which is supposed to 'unite' us against whatever government defines as an enemy, we keep quiet because there is so much media drumming the 'official' version and it makes me so ridiculous by voicing a lone voice against it. The problem here is, that I justify my inactivity/lack of resistance by assuming that at the end of the day, nobody is mad enough to start WWIII. This is wrong. Enter Zizek: "We know about the danger, but we don’t believe it can really happen—and that’s why it can happen. That is to say, even if we don’t really believe it can happen, we are all getting ready for it".

Rhisiart Gwilym said...

This member of 'Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth' says: Bravo Dmitry! Very well said. The rule is simple: all pols, pols' Psaki-ette spokes-muppets, and their stenographic corporate-media hacks should be presumed to be lying until proven to be speaking truth. And the less said about the Barbie'n'Ken-clone 'news' anchors on USuk TV the better...

Bill said...

Thanks for an interesting article.
I have no problem for instance believing that the twin towers were destroyed by means other than the plans.
But, something I've never seen explained is how it is possible to prepare 2 very large building for demolition without anyone noticing. Your an engineer. Maybe you can explain how it was done?


Thomas Baspeyras said...

Well, regarding the murders at Charlie Hebdo, I don't think conspiracy is a much needed explanation — except perhaps the conspiracy of the victims against themselves. The news of the shooting in Paris came as a big surprise for most of the world, as well as many French people not paying attention. Yet, Charlie Hebdo — formerly a satyrical anarchist magazine in the 70s that got itself a neo-con director in the 90s — made every effort to piss off muslims on an international scale. As a result they have been receiving a continuous stream of threats and insults for well over a decade, had their office firebombed, their website hacked, and the director enjoyed his own dedicated policeman for his permanent protection (who, incidentally, died on the job). At the time of this writing, the surviving editorial board still insist on their freedom of insulting any religion they like, although with a marked preference for the religion of the poors and the coloured. Darwin award anyone ?

Now, let's look at the perpetrators: does it takes skills, training and discipline to shoot down a bunch of mostly ageing cartoonists in a small meeting room? My grand-father was a hunter, like thousands of ordinary men in the countryside, and I believe every deer, hare or pheasant he brought to the table had been a much tougher shot than this. Most ordinary crimes are committed with weapons such as hammers or scissors, and that involves a lot more efforts and risks too. Also, committing a high-profile crime is an excellent recipe for suicide. Especially if you are armed to the teeth. Swat teams may brag about their supermen job at the bar to pick up girls, but facing other men with war guns, they do the chimp-sensible thing : shit their pants and pull the trigger 'till the lethal danger is minced. The would-be djihadist had it coming to them, and if they did not understand it, they were really stupid too. There is an awful lot of competition for a Darwin award this year — like every other year I guess.

Not that I deny the possibility of a staged attack, but knowing the actual french context in detail, I don't see the point of a governmental effort to organize what was set in place by the willing protagonists above their own heads, ancient tragedy-style. Stupidity is one of the greatest force of human history, and we should never overlook it as a likely cause — quite likely in that one case.

Tomuru said...

I find it amusing that today I view Western media they way I used to view Soviet media and visa versa. Every institution ultimately becomes what they hate the most. The U.S. used to hate totalitarianism. China was anti capitalism. Japan was anti nuclear and now are trying to get that genie back in the bottle. I wonder how many others exist? I do hope you are on your boat after penning this last piece. It may hit too close to home.

Ronald Langereis said...

A beautifully constructed argumentation. I never realised every time one is reading an article one may fall into a parallel universe. Calling it by that name, there must be an awful lot of them between people on an infinite number of planes of perception.
It reminded me of the words of Jean-Claude Juncker, "When it gets serious you have to lie." Even that was a lie in itself, as it suggests his lying is an exception rather than the rule.

Ronald Thomas West said...

There is another way of looking at parallel universe; there are precisely two universe, the pair of brains each of us possesses, and we should inhabit both. Between this universe are multiple dimensions or perceptions of reality. Like a hologram, shifting the plane of one's perception reveals multitude of dimension but cultural conditioning limits this to certain extent for some, and to a severe extent for most. For those whose reality is severely constrained, these unfortunates are easily manipulated and mass media serves a certain purpose in the regard. But more importantly, when the severely constrained perception is embodied in a Poroshenko, this reinforces a certain limitation, reducing flexibility and increasing brittleness. His perceptual universe is subject to stress and greater resistance to flexibility and wider perception increases the brittleness those stresses are applied to. Cosmic forces will break him, that's how nature works

Judy said...

Absolutely brilliant post Dmitry! And thanks.

This was yesterdays question "Is this another one of your conspiracy theories?" It is a question that means "I am switching off listening now. Whatever else you say is just blah blah blah nonsense!" But you are so right. Why do people not question an establishment that has proved to be liars?

Alongside your post this morning was some good news. Angela Merkel said in as many words - over my dead body will I support weapons being sent to Ukraine. Hurray, she is defying Washington. Of course Washington will send weapons anyway. But I feel confident that Hollande and Merkel are planning to send peace-keeping forces to try to enforce a de-militarised zone between Kiev and the Donbass region. It would give the US a choice between changing its plans for Ukraine or losing their EU allies by continuing to stoke the violence.

It seems more likely that the French will be whipped for this insubordination first, rather than the Germans. Either more terror attacks or slanderous allegations to oust President Hollande. (But with Nicholas Sarkozy and Marine Le Pen singing the same tune only louder, I would be surprised if that gets any result.)

For me seeing the results of people's votes sends a powerful message that blasts through the parallel lies and false media. For instance the lie that the people of Syria were rising up to overthrow Assad, was torn to shreds by nearly 90% of the people showing their support for him. The vote in Crimea that over 90% didn't want to be part of the new Ukrainian government, tells a contrary story the media spiel. And the vote in Greece, that people are willing to stand for hope and change, despite the bullying, threats and media scaremongering.

Once a glimmer of that parallel universe gets through, there is no going back.

Dmitry Orlov said...

Ronald -

You have to keep in mind that Poroshenko's brain is fundamentally at odds with itself. When speaking in Russian, he sounds conciliatory and reasonable; when speaking in Ukrainian, he sounds rabidly nationalistic and genocidal. The funny (if the term even applies) thing is that he seems to not understand that Russians understand Ukrainian, and that his Ukrainian rants are recorded and reported. It's really quite remarkable.

Mister Roboto said...

Well, I tend to think the USA until its inevitable dissolution will always be a nation of dead cats, on account of the fact that automatic conformity and superficial physical attractiveness are always more important than intelligence and actual ability here. Combine that with the money-worship and the idea that you can make lies be the truth by living in a carefully cultivated fantasy world, and you end up with a society from which you really can't expect very much at all.

Unknown said...

I don't want to argue about all the details of a 9/11 operation and coverup, but if it were true then the US government as we know it is a farce and the true "deep state" rulers are so diabolical & powerful that one should either flee to a remote location or meekly submit to them rather than resist. It's hard to imagine how any part of our government could be so competent to pull something of that scale off & what exactly was the motivation (other than more $$$)

However, it's quite a bit easier to imagine that the Boston bombing has a hoax to practice a city lockdown; that the Ukrainians shot down MH-17 in a false flag attempt (I'm certain of this), that Putin gives at least tacit and probably direct support of Russians entering Eastern Ukraine, and that Putin & the FSB was behind the apartment bombings because Russia was getting dismembered with Yeltsin in charge.

One of the most obvious, persistent conspiracies the US government pulled off was the UFO hoax to coverup flights of various secret aircraft. But although many government officials lied, nobody was ever hurt so it doesn't shake ones faith in humanity.

And more than anything else I'd like to see what is in Fort Knox, my guess is "dead cat."

Jacob Gittes said...

It is not Dmitri's job to figure out how the perpetrators managed to set charges in the buildings before 9/11.
It was his job to point out the laws of physics and engineering.
Since you asked the question about how they did it, why don't you try answering it?
There are certainly hundreds of possibilities. Have fun with it.
I'll give it a try:
I read that the new owner of the building (and investigate him while you are at it) fired the old security firm in the months before the attack. Also, elevator maintenance was going on.
Does that help you on your way to writing the story you want written?
If it is hard for you to write the story of how they planted the charges, does that negate the laws of physics and engineering?
What is more definitive: unchanging physical constants and scientific principles, or our lack of imaginative audacity?

Jim R said...

I'd like to know more of the details of the publicity campaign. Who wrote the press releases? And whose idea was it to write them?

Oh, and what ever happened to that Spaniard who tweeted from the ATC tower that day?

Also, it was 3 not 2. Skyscrapers.

Denaliguide said...

"The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it."

Joseph Mengele, 3rd Reich

The justification is always: " We MUST do it, because THEY are doing it."

And to this, the POGO cartoon character says : "We have met the enemy and he is us."

I think that is enuf words.



Anonymous said...

Dmitry, I wish you could convince JHK about some of this; he says he is allergic to conspiracy theories. Considering he is someone who brought Peak Oil more into light, with The Long Emergency, it would seem he would be more open minded.

Are the rest of the collapsniks as conspiracy averse? If you follow the Peak Oil/Peak Resource issue, and are data-driven, then certainly a few of these topics (i.e. 9/11) can't be ignored. Or is it that most people can't handle the cognitive dissonance?

Thanks for your excellent commentary on the whole Russia/Ukraine thing. It is refreshing to read an honest assessment of things.

Anonymous said...

The real data point to ask about is WTC Building 7; wasn't even *hit*, and it fell 'nicely'...

ArtS said...


3 buildings fell in 9/11, not 2.

Building 7 wasn't even hit.


Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dammerung said...

Parallel universes exist? Excellent news!

Now we can invade Saudi Arabia Prime^Zeta^Zeta3 and steal all their oil...

Bob Brannigan said...


I have always enjoyed your no nonsense style, but this time you have hit it out of the park!

As for truth, I doubt we can ever know it. All we can know is that which is not true, because it can not be true. e.g. Kerosene did not melt the steel, because kerosene can not melt steel. The rest, as you say is all about probabilities.

Unknown said...

Very good post indeed. But don 't overrun yourself Dimitri. When I saw the Charlie images and video 's I also immediately said it were professionals, but very fast had to review that to "Ex professionals". So either guys who were lured into believing they acted on their own, or really were acting on their own. France is filled with generations of frustrated ex professionals. Which makes it maybe a triple or quadruple parallel society.

Lancer said...

Good question Bill. I was a military engineer in the Canadian army for 15 years and have used explosives extensively. Preparing a building for a controlled implosion is a noisy, dirty, arduous task. Not sure how that could have been done without notice in the WTC

Rhisiart Gwilym said...

@Bill, go to the AE9/11Truth website and do a long, thoughtful browse there. To do that properly, and let all the information brew and mature in you mind, will take you several weeks, at least.

At the end of that process, you will see the outlines of how it was done. The why requires some more study as well, at other best-quality websites handling the 9/11 matter. Choose judiciously!

And be sure to see the AE full-length video: 'Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out'. That answers a lot of questions for the Inside-Job virgins; you know: the people who so far have only heard the official 'nineteen islamic suicide guerrillas' cospithirry nonsense with which we've all been gavaged this past 13+ years. Anyone with the necessary openness of mind - and enough moral courage - can get the real picture pretty quickly from places like AE; and there are plenty of others too.

Though be warned: you'll also find quite a lot of idiot/lunatic/innumerate/ascientific/psyops/professional-troll dross sites as well. As I said: Choose judiciously! Stick with basic physics, and you'll be fine.

@peakfuture: I tried an email conversation with Jim K about the real 9/11 story, and he became dismissively obscene immediately. Jim has, to my knowledge, two big blind spots: won't face the reality about the inside job; and won't hear anything about the utter criminality of Israel. I say this with regret rather than hostility. I love Jim's work, and feel great affection for the curmudgeon himself. But - well, we all have blind spots, without exception, it seems. And those are two of Jim's. One of the odd signs of them are that whenever he writes on either subject, his normally sparkling and hugely entertaining prose turns at once to wet cement. Sure sign of a cognitive-dissonance glitch there, to my mind.

Unknown said...

@Nathan Donaldson:

It's hard to imagine how any part of our government could be so competent to pull something of that scale off & what exactly was the motivation (other than more $$$)

What was the motivation? Well, what happened after the towers came down? We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Would it have been possible to get (a majority of) the public to accept two invasions in a row without such a dramatic act of 'Islamic' terrorism?

By the way, has anyone else here noticed that, suddenly, after years of being a non-issue in the MSM, we're now hearing constantly about those 28 pages redacted from the 9/11 report? Does anyone here smell a 'regime-change' op coming on in Saudi Arabia? I remember, about 10 years, seeing a map printed in the Atlantic Monthly--but supposedly obtained from the US Army War College--showing Saudi (along with Syria, and most other ME countries) carved up into 4 or 5 pieces. To be sure, the tone of the article was more stochastic than normative, but now I wonder...

Stone said...

To Bill,

Re. your question concerning the preparation of the Twin Towers for demolition.

You will find a pretty detailed account of how the towers might have been set up for demolition in the following 2009 article by Jim Hoffman:

"A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario. A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means,"

available (for free) at:


A very interesting and clear piece of writings, as is all Hoffman's stuff on 9/11.

forrest said...

So maybe the folks who sold the steel were metallurgically-challenged and alloyed it with something cheaper?

Unknown said...

Don't forget the "ISIS" "beheadings" of "hostages" in which there is no blood spurting. And in the neat little shots of the "heads resting on the bodies", note the ruddy complexions.

I've seen people more pale after giving a single pint of blood.

Great great blog, Dmitri.

Jacob Gittes said...

@Nathan Donaldson:
Keep in mind an important fact that is at odds with your view of the government's competence:

When the government wants to do something that is important for its own power, or for the bankers or military-industrial complex, it is VERY competent. Thanks inventing nuclear weapons, spy satellites, hiding the crimes of banksters, etc.

When it claims to want to do something for the average man, is is indeed incompetent: e.g.:
create an efficient and humane medical system, prosecute bankers, promote world peace, etc.

Reading between the lines said...

Dmitri,you have a superb analytical mind sharpened by an understanding in physics.Very good post and I must also say that you have a very intelligent following.Give me hope .

stevelaudig@gmail.com said...

The US government hasn't come clean yet on the Kennedy assassination[s]; or "Remember the Maine"; or the Lusitania; or Tonkin Gulf. Or for that matter "El Robo". Recall they "disguised" themselves as Indians at the Boston Tea Party... Liars one and all.

Isabella said...

I read all over the internet and have for some time Dmitry, and no-where have I come across a mind like yours. You have an insight, a penetrative ability coupled with a range of knowledge that one very very rarely finds.
And to add to it all - the lovely picante sprinkling of dry acerbic humour. "all it takes is kerosene" is going to end up in my lexicon I know.
Thankyou for going to the trouble to write and bring so much pleasure to all your followers.

Dr. Doom said...

I recall discussing the habits of a particular colleague I once had the misfortune to work with to a visiting student from Germany. I was trying very hard to explain the colleague's apparently complex behavior, that sometimes what he said could be trusted and sometimes, not so much.

I've always remembered his response. He simply asked "How does one become a part-time liar?" Indeed.

Anonymous said...

The Copenhagen interpretation "explains" or depicts the results of certain experiments in terms of superimposed probabilities prior to the actual observation.
In Schrodinger's box the cat is either alive or dead; it cannot be both or neither. So how can the irrational Copenhagen interpretation be right? The assumption is that the probability math says so, so reality must follow suit, therefore the cat is both alive and dead. First the math, then reality. This is the current state of irrational physics, crowned by "M-theory" and "string theory." So for these "geniuses" the cat is both alive and dead.They have bowed to the mathematics of probability.
This mysticism or magic within physics theory allows one to posit a pseudo-mechanism: that of the act of observation which collapses the set of probabilities into the one real state, which presumably did not exist beforehand. It is indeed wonderful how the faculty of sight has the ability to mold reality! Of course, we have no idea why a particular collapse or outcome actually occurred, we have only a general so-called "law." In relation to the cat, the outcome is either alive or dead, but the theory does not and cannot tell us why which one is the actual outcome. Apparently the miraculous nature of the faculty of sight cannot choose the outcome. It is at this point that we fall into a real rabbit hole--the "many universes" fantasy. This is seriously considered by our geniuses. In other words, imagination now rules the roost and this naked emperor is duly admired. Science fiction has become science. Fantasizing now serves as scientific explanation, duly dressed up in complex mathematics, of course, which makes it all good and true. However, like it or not, we have absolutely no way of knowing what determines the specific state of the collapse of the probabilities. To "explain" it by saying that that's how it worked in our universe satisfies only quantum geniuses but hardly normally intelligent human beings. The big problem here is that physicists simply don't know but can't admit it. So they detour into the land of fantasy science fiction.
Of course, rather than posit many universes, why not posit many possible places? The cat is either dead or alive, but either way it is beside the point. Physics isn't interested in alive or dead, it is interested in here or there, which doesn't have to be another universe, but simply in another position. We can now leave the demented idea that the universe doesn't exist unless we are looking at it (and we can't spin around quickly enough to verify this notion!). Obviously, the subject is a mirror for the phenomenon, which in this sense actualizes it for that subject, but only lunatics, or what amounts to the same, solipsists, imagine that their individual subjectivity creates reality. But this is just what current theorizing is proposing, namely that the observer determines outcomes.
One is reminded of Goethe's saying that ignorant men raise questions that were answered by wise men a thousand years ago.

Unknown said...

There was a TV programme where the collapse of the twin towers into their footprints was explained as a consequence of their unconventional architecture. Each was built using an internal and external steel skeleton, the concrete floors of each storey resting on cross-beams fixed at each end to these. The proposal then was that at the levels where fires had been burning the cross-beams sagged, tearing the moorings off at the ends, causing those floors to collapse onto the ones below. The momentum and weight then tore those off their moorings in a sequential pan-caking collapse.

On the one hand this sounds plausible. An examination of videos should show where the collapse started relative to where the fires were burning. Tests can be done to see if a kerosene fire can indeed cause steel beams to buckle. Perhaps these have already been done.

On the other hand this also suggests that the collapse could be initiated by relatively small explosive charges placed at the mooring points of cross-beams on only a few upper storeys. This would be essentially unobtrusive.

The real fly in the ointment is the collapse of the third building of the complex, WTC7. This was, I believe, of conventional steel frame construction, was not struck by anything, yet caught fire and collapsed into its footprint in classic explosive demolition style.

So, as Dmitry suggests, assume everything we are told is a lie, and work from there.

As regards Ukraine, the good template for this latest Anglo-American misadventure is Vietnam:

Geopolitical agenda against China = Geopolitical agenda against Russia
Saigon regime installed by US = Kiev regime installed by US
Diem = Yatseniuk
South Vietnam = Banderastan Ukraine
Communist aggression = Russian aggression
Edward Lansdale = Victoria Nuland

They’re even talking of a DMZ now, for crissake! I can already see in my minds eye the last American helicopter out of Kiev after a long war.

lev said...

Please research the "Hutchison effect and 911"
Id also like to state that this patent was bought out by the US government. Also some of Teslas work was never made public particularly the method he used to vibrate the multi-level apartment he was staying at from his room.

Stone said...

Correction to my post above:

A very interesting and clear piece of writing, as is all of Hoffman's stuff on 9/11.


Anonymous said...

@government action:
I wonder why people generally assume so much government interference? Not that it changes the bottom line much but please consider this:
In very many cases it is totally sufficient to simply remain passive (or nudge just a tiny bit) to achieve a close to optimum outcome from the MIC perspective.

You manage and confine the info on an actual plot, watch closely, set the stage and hang back.

Granted, WTC(7) needed significantly more stage setting than the other incidences, but (@lance) I think it is totally doable e.g. with thermite-like substances - especially if you don't really care how the thing comes down.

Most of the other cases work significantly better if you apply the "watch and nudge" principle. Much easier to deny. Much smaller staff footprint. Thus much easier to contain information. And looks much less "agency designed". You also have the option to keep the asset or burn it depending on how things develop (public reception, change of convictions, etc.) Finding a passport is a very convenient way to end it, as you don't have to come up with a fake witness or so. With control of social media you can also foster these events if you are so inclined.

A German perspective:
You may dimly remember the NSU-affair in Germany where a bunch of Nazis killed a wide variety of people (mostly "Ausländer" but also a cop (with affiliation to the far right sector - handler?)). The head of that committee (Edathy) got burned through underage porn info leaks complicating the story somewhat.
If you assume the officially designated far right wing stay behind units in Germany (SBU, you know Gladio etc.) just became assets of secret service, with a convenient lack of paper trail, you get plausible win-win scenario.
Significant funds are openly transferred to the right sector, officially for paying undercover assets in the organizations posing a threat to democracy.
The German (far) right has traditionally been a lynchpin for Germany's geopolitical role, and expanded into the US secret service a good while ago.
Now overt US establishment narrative comes mostly from "Transatlantiker" (members of the Atlantik-Brücke organization).
The covert one is currently making another mess out of Parliamentary Committee investigating the NSA. They are seriously considering to switch to typewriters. At the moment it looks like they are burning through committee heads and members at an unsustainable rate (next possible in line - no joke: http://nina-warken.de/images/IMG_20141121_111236.jpg). The current one is charged with "rough treatment" of his woman, giving non-2+4treaty government organizations an angle of attack on him. Also I assume Ströbele, and perhaps one or both of the "The Left" members to be largely uncontrolled. I just hope they and their loved ones look before they cross the streets. Further, I assume preparations are underway for a 2+4 treaty amendment/exit contingency. They'll have to start it anyway in case they cannot bring the ex-GDR party on board and it lands in the next government. But all this takes time if you want to minimize mess, and you have to.
From a German perspective there is more than enough potential for a bad hiccup: NSU, MS Estonia, Barschel, Echolon, Oktoberfest are just a few that stand out. Don't even get me started on Belgium for example.

re Ukraine
I would urge not to simplify things too much. It is entirely possible that none of the major players involved there are with both feet on the bright side. Of course the geopolitical situation is very different, but I can't quite get the Condor Legion and their (gradual) perception out of my head when I look at Russian involvement in the conflict.

Kniall said...

Funny, I went to bed last night thinking, "I live in a world where skyscrapers freefall!"

One of the tragi-comic paradoxes of 'parallel universes', where possibilities exist until they become true then 'collapse' into objective reality, is that skeptical people, who consider themselves careful to not believe official lies, are themselves prone to believe in fantasy.

Take the 'actors theory' that has been going around since the Sandy Hook shootings. While there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that a 'hidden hand' is behind events like mass shootings and terror attacks, there is insufficient evidence that this 'hidden hand' literally stages these events (crisis actors, fake blood, etc). Thanks to 'proof by repetition', the 'skeptical' ones thereby stave off the collapse some of these 'parallel universes', and the 'reality-creators' remain free to spellbind the people with magic.

Isabella said...

Would like to add, I just "love" the Cat by Surajit Dutta, but am curious. His whiskers are on the wrong side!. Does this have a relevance to Schroedinger that I'm missing. :)

Roger said...

The primary aim is to destroy scepticism of any kind that might be disruptive to the status-quo. I think the point that is sometimes missed by some commentators is that many people, perhaps an actual majority, are complicit in these deceptions. Human beings do have an innate capacity to follow reason, but many choose not to do so. Pressing psychological buttons is the way in which Truthmongers are able to get their way. People live by fear, fear of strangers, fear of death, fear of loss of control, fear of debt, poverty, disease etc etc, and the punters readily lap up what is comforting to them, until, of course, reality dawns, usually too late. They will then turn on the sceptics for somehow making what they said was real, real. Then again, Misdirection -Fog and Mirrors, rather than outright lies serves the purpose better. In his book, Lake Wobegon Days, Garrison Keillor wrote a footnote called "95 Theses 95" and in one part he says "You misdirected me as surely as if you had said the world is flat and north is west and two plus two is four; i.e., not utterly wrong, just wrong enough so that when I took the opposite position—the world is mountainous, north is east—I was wrong, too, and your being wrong about the world and north made me spend years trying to come up with the correct sum of two and two, other than four. You Gave Me the Wrong Things To rebel Against". This is exactly what the status-quo wants to happen to you, be Sceptical, be very Sceptical.

Brow Furrowed said...

Bravo. This is your forte Dimitry, paring the the data down and packaging it into it's most understandable, rational form as to make it accessible to all but the irretrievably brainwashed. That said, even I have trouble acknowledging the implications of these deep state events at times, because it means I have to change in some way and I don't like change.

I'd like to post a link to one of the most riveting interviews I've heard recently on the history of NATO's involvement in false flag events. In the interview Julian Charles refers to 9/11 as being akin to a deep state coup d'etat. Here's the interview: http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2015/600-int-70

Isabella said...

Can a person "be" Schroedingers Cat"?

If she never actually went to the village meeting to drum up cannon fodder, then we never had a world where one incredibly courageous and angry lady told the world her truth. However since she did, the box opens on another world. But then since we each have our own box, I guess if her truth is one you can't handle, you just decide she isn't there and go your merry way.
Only ---- Ayn Rand -- (I'm not a follower, by the way) did have a few truths. You can avoid reality. But you can't avoid the results of avoiding reality.
So - where does that leave you when decide to avoid to avoid opening a box because she don't want the world it might show you.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jacob Gittes said...

Regarding comment above, stating "... there is insufficient evidence that this 'hidden hand' literally stages these events (crisis actors, fake blood, etc). Thanks to 'proof by repetition', the 'skeptical' ones thereby stave off the collapse some of these 'parallel universes', and the 'reality-creators' remain free to spellbind the people with magic."

What, exactly, is your evidence that there is insufficient evidence?
I've read and viewed extremely numerous bits of evidence, circumstantial, photographic, logistical and in the form of "just too many coincidences" that "these events" (which events, exactly, are you referring to? We're talking evidence here, so you must be specific) are indeed staged and initiated by organized groups that are most likely government run. The groups may be shadowy and illegitimate parts of the government, but hey - most parts of government are illegitimate.

What I believe you are doing is a subtle form of the "begging the question" fallacy: you pre-filter the evidence out there based on your preconceived notion, and then, voila! Magically, the evidence that supports the "hidden hand" no longer exists.
In a way, you are actually an example of what Dmitri was talking about. Except that you've popped the wrong parallel universes, like most of the MSM viewers, publicly "educated", and consenus-reality imbibers.

Jonathan said...


The word "staged" can stand for either prepared-for or simulated. I'm pretty sure Kniall intends the latter when writing "literally staged" -- though, I do seem to remember reading of a coup plan that involved jamming/hacking/etc the electromagnetic spectrum and national Internet to create a simulated electronic media sphere inside Syria apparently portraying regime change. Aside from hearsay, the times of the dodgy IS beheading videos and dodgy visual evidence from the Donbass, the repeal of Smith-Mundt and the warmongering by the US suggests to me that such a capacity is being actively developed and tested and is a key component of social control in the medium term.

Unknown said...

Dr. Judy Wood did careful analysis of the Twin Towers collapse and has correctly concluded that a "DEW" is the only thing which can properly account for all the facts and evidence.

Kniall said...

Regarding the above commenter who seeks "evidence of a lack of evidence", try reading these:





Somebody seeded the idea - after the Sandy Hook massacre - that these terror events that are conducted and exploited for political gain and social control, are wholly staged (ie, nobody really dies), and by now 'conspiracy watchers' START with this assumption, a priori, then seek evidence that confirms their 'actors theory'.

False-flag attacks are very much real, but the idea that the Sandy Hook shootings, Boston Bombings, and Paris attacks DIDN'T ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE, is pure lunacy. Why would intel operatives go to all the trouble to STAGE deaths when they can far more easily produce terror by actually killing people?

As an "imbiber" of spurious nonsense about fake blood and crisis actors, you've drunk the kool aid handed out in spades by intel agencies, whose primary post-op role is to "run the conspiracy theorizing off the rails" by loading it with fantastical BS. This is then held up by the MSM to the wider public as evidence that anyone who doesn't believe the official narrative is a complete kook.

Unknown said...

response to Seamus Padraig:

Afganistan is not a Cuba, it's not a conspiracy worthy target and has only been a Pentagon money pit for over three decades, perhaps the CIA skims money off of poppies but thats doesn't offer enough of an explanation.

Iraq is a different matter: however there are two immediate flaws with the Grab Iraq theory:

1) If the conspirators wanted the oil then why did they disband the Iraqi army immediately and bring on the resistance? That's just stupid as hell.

2) If 9/11 is a total fiction then why were 15 out of 19 hijackers supposedly Saudis & not Iraqis. Why then go thru the weak sauce lies about a Iraqi intelligence officer meeting in Prague, yellowcake in Nigeria and so on. It would easier just to implicate them from the beginning. Might as well throw a few Iranians in there for good measure.

The only conspiracy motivation that would add up in hindsight is amped up military spending because that is all the war on terror has ever accomplished. If the alleged conspirators were competent enough to pull off such a large scale heinous act and coverup then you should also assume they succeeded in whatever their goal was.

Francisco said...

To Kniall and others who believe there can be no stagings start by watching the documentary put together here (top left title with link)


There are a total of 19 presentations in it. To cut to the chase a bit faster, you could start with the one that begins at about 36:10, dealing with mostly with legislative measures, and then watch the subsequent ones. Try to explain those new laws.

Or maybe begin by looking at the Katie Foley vs Alex Israel identity issues. These are most likely the same person. First she appeard as an acquaintance of Lanza, then as a sister of James Foley.

Start with this one:
Ummmmm Ya Think?

Then this



In the last video explain to us the presence of those three "policemen" interviewed after Sandy Hook and then seen together dressed in black as security guys or something in the Boston bombings. Or about the kid killed in in Sandy Hook and then killed again in a school shooting in Pakistan.

Finally do you know there are companies like this? check out their activities and pictures.

IIF Data Solutions - Role Player Support

"Role Player Support Services?

"Turning Ideas Into Reality"?

Brow Furrowed said...

It would do us well to be very wary of jumping to any conclusions and to be very discerning regarding supposed evidence. I say this because I believe (though I have no evidence to support this claim) that holes are deliberately punched into the storyline of these events to entice just such conclusions being reached. The term I've heard for such a strategy is kook baiting.

As an example, imagine how the 911 truth movement would've progressed if Loose Change and other documentaries of that ilk had not concluded that it was an inside job, but instead highlighted the many anomalies and challenged the evidence scientifically. Such an approach would've made the general public far more amenable and may have created doubt in many minds. But no, those strident documentary makers were soon seen in interview after interview making such claims, often with representatives of Popular Mechanics ridiculing these claims in a fallacy fest. This set the 'truther' agenda for the coming years, with ever more outrageous claims than these, leaving the sober, methodical approach to be being continually overshadowed.

An example of kook bait would be the phenomenon of crisis actors taking part in some of these events. One of the major players making this assertion was a character called Dallasgoldbug who has his own YT channel. I don't know who this guy is, but so many of his claims are so mind-numbingly ludicrous, that if crisis actor were indeed being used in false flag events, the well has been well and truly poisoned.

Anonymous said...

Russians knew that there were no news in the Izvestia ("news") nor truth in the Pravda ("truth"). Yet Westerners are ready to uncritically believe the official story spewed by their compliant and accomplice media.

V. Arnold said...

Yes, alternative/non-western media rules (after careful vetting).
Being in Asia for the last 12 years and breaking the western news addiction, is like being free of the matrix; two very distinct realities (parallel universe?).

American believe they are "free" because they have failed to test the boundaries of their alleged "freedom".
In fact, as long as one is an American citizen, that one is the property of the U.S. government, no matter where you go on planet earth.
And that is a fact...

Rhisiart Gwilym said...

And take anything Judy Wood has to say on 9/11 with a couple of truckloads of salt. Energy weapons, indeed! So can we have a basic physics theory on how those work, please? And some demonstration models to look at in detail?

Failing that, forget the DEW moonshine and stick with the provable, off-the-shelf technologies that were actually used, and have now been proven to have been used by standard, peer-reviewed practical science work on available samples from the demolitions.

DEV is - pretty certainly - a credibility-spoiler psy-op. God knows what Judy Wood thinks she's doing. A bona fide true believe in the Free Energy movement perhaps? A movement of hopeful people who - you have to say - MAY be onto something; MAY be; I admit that without sarcasm, truly; but who still can't demonstrate their ideas with reliable replicability, I think.

Or is Judy just taking the thirty pieces of silver, and saying whatever's required of her… Lot of that about amongst credentialed scientists these days, especially in US-EU, as all the gathering, scandalous evidence or 'experimental' results fixed or suppressed to order for big-biz and/or big-realpolitik interests demonstrates more and more clearly lately.

Bob Brannigan said...

@Rhisiart Guilym

I think you summed up the Judy Wood situation pretty well, but she still puzzles me.

From what I have read, she has done some credible science in the past. I suspect that she, like many others have done long and late hours in the lab, with little recognition.

She now has a soapbox, and she is making the most of it.

A very common technique of CIA/covert types is to use a patsy or "useful idiot" either as an instigator or as a source of disinformation. It could be as simple as encouragement, or cash funding through an untraceable third party, without the victim even having a clue that they are being played.

I recommend a recent documentary that gives some good insight on how such things are done. Just Google "Everything is a
Rich Man's trick". It is eye-opening, infuriating and depressing.

john said...

Rhisiart Gwilym and Bob Brannigan:

so, if you all don't know about something it doesn't exist? Judy Wood is the ONLY one (and she's highly qualified) who has conducted a thorough forensics investigation of the physical evidence in lower Manhattan regarding the attacks on 9/11 and made it available to the general public. rather than engage in gratuitous dissing of her work, perhaps you should actually read the book and then give us some kind of meaningful refutation of the evidence therein presented.

Jacob Gittes said...

This thread has died, it seems, but I just wanted to clarify:
I use the word "staged" to mean both events with actors and no real victims, events with real victims where a group or agency conducts the operation to place the blame on someone else, and mixed events, with both actors and real victims.
9/11 was a good example of an event with both.
Immediately after the event, one could view (and still can on videos) actors or shills inserting the "burning jet fuel caused structural steel to melt" meme into the media.

I'm sorry to belabor this, but Dmitri's metaphor is great, but should be expanded upon:
Reality, whatever that is, is known only within human brains. Maybe theoretically there is an objective reality, but if there is, it is known only by subjects who reconstruct it.
We don't want to get into metaphysics here, or epistemology, or a nominalist versus reality debate, but as Jose Ortega y Gassett pointed out, people who have different models of reality live in different realities.
Once one's reality has flipped due to the realization that false flags are common tools of manipulative statecraft, there is no going back.
However, that also means that there is no hope of "converting" others to your reality.
One must be humble, of course: only events we personally experience first-hand can be known with some certainty, and even there, human memory and perceptions are flawed.
Thus, a new event may or may not be a false-flag, and one's prejudice about it will be a real problem.
However, better safe than sorry: once someone or something or some government is a proven liar, it is safest to assume they will continue to lie.
Nobody ever lost money or their lives by over-estimating the duplicity or evil of government.

Unknown said...

The analogy between quantum physics and the prism through which MSM and political establishment want us to look at the events is absolutely incredible.
No wonder when the establishment figures retire from higher echelons of public/military service, they are employed as experts by the mainstream media.

Unknown said...

Sorry guys, I don't get it. There has to be some consensus on what words mean, or nobody will ever understand anyone.

"Staged" can't have 3 meanings.And "false flag" gets tossed around so much it is becoming meaningless.

If something didn't happen but we are told it did, that is a LIE (used to happen a lot with events in other countries, less and less possible since internet)
If it didn't happen but there is video/audio evidence, it is Hollywood or photoshop, ie a HOAX (eg beheading videos).
If it did happen but there is a huge coverup, it is a COVERUP (eg TWA800 for a successful one and USS Vincennes for one nobody believed even then).
If it did happen and some authorities did it (includes caused it, not necessarily with own hands)with a view to getting approval or opportunity for some otherwise unacceptable action, that is STAGED (eg Boston -- the lockdown, warrantless searches etc).
If it did happen and some authorities did/caused it with a view to creating a casus belli THEN it is a FALSE FLAG (eg Gulf of Tonkin)... with the obvious proviso that a casus belli has to be big and serious. The days of starting a world war over the death of a single archduke are gone. And it has to look like it was done by the proposed enemy.

In addition, there are many cases of real action -- by individuals, other agencies, other nations etc -- which they do for their own reasons, but which can be grabbed and used to advantage. So not everything the authorities (or others) get benefit from was their doing. They may be seen doing coverups sometimes, but that may be to cover sloppy prevention or investigation, not the actual act itself.

Then there are the DAMNED JOKES which are probably the most important for people to recognise and laugh off the stage immediately. eg The single guy running into the Canadian parliaments; the single known-mentally-ill guy taking hostages in a Sydney coffee shop etc.... being paraded as TERRORISTS is ridiculous and what they did is not terror. Nutcases have gone into secure buildings or taken hostages before. It's normal disturbed-person behaviour. Everyone should laugh out loud if the government tries to paint it as terrorism.

Charles Edward Owens Jr. said...

A long time ago someone handed me a Rubik's Cube. I wondered how it worked, as I could not seem to solve it, But it could come apart, and once apart be fit correctly back together. Then while at a relatives house they had a Rubik's revenge, and were getting mad at it being unsolved. I looked at a bit and then took it apart and put it back together solved. It was constructed differently, but still it could be put together once, so it had to be able to be taken apart, so I thought.

I never trust the scene before me, it might be a bird hiding in the tree, or just an oddly shaped fungi, or nothing but my mind seeing something that isn't there. This might have all been trained into me as I was taught to walk by age 7 months old, being walked on my parent's bed, the surface never even, I had great balance very young.

Humans are sinners as we are taught in the Bible, so it is a forgone conclusion that Gov'ts made up of people will be sinners, IE lie and do it a lot too.

Thanks for the posts, found you first when reading the OilDrum ages ago.