It always starts with a goodbye

by Markus Langemann //

It always starts with a goodbye.

Six words, one sentence that opens up a whole world of images and emotions. 

Just six words that manage to describe hope and sadness, uncertainty and relief at the same time. Meaningful words that manage to provide comfort and draw courage from them. Six words that connect the top and the bottom. Six words that capture the pain of the heart and its great flutter at the same time.

A sentence that could be read personally or politically.

A single sentence is like a whole book.

It is a phrase attributed to the contemporary playwright Botho Strauß.

You have not been able to read anything here for a few weeks because I personally had to say goodbye, which had its own timetable. I am only writing this to you because some of you, dear readers, sent me worried or even impatient letters asking about the whereabouts of publications. This showed me, even in my grief, that we are probably connected in a special way. They thirst for information and the idea of categorizing events far removed from the daily drone of the unreflective content slingers that the overpowering media brands we are so familiar with have mutated into.

I very much appreciate the trust placed in me, and I want to use it responsibly.

Farewells can creep up on you quietly or burst out brute and uncontrolled like a Gottschalk joke. In these times, people often have to say goodbye. Unintentionally and often insidiously. From dear friends who think differently, from cherished habits that they knew differently, or familiar political and media faces that they once saw differently. They have been let down by sources of information that have accompanied them throughout their lives. After the phase of agony, quite a few of them have started to think and see for themselves again.

It always starts with a goodbye.

The times seem to be as characterized by the emotional rollercoaster of farewells and beginnings as perhaps the last time around September 2, 1945.

Be that as it may, I am now also saying goodbye to the worry that you might want to place me where unenlightened minds like to place freelance journalists: on the political fringes.

The last time I was on the sidelines was when I was once again the last to be picked for a team on the football pitch. That's because even as a little boy I was better at watching soccer than playing it. Back then I was uncomfortable, today I wouldn't care if I was only deemed worthy of being on the sidelines.

Because with you, I know I am in the midst of those who appreciate the broader view, the change of perspective.

Labeling is a matter for wholesalers and retailers, and recently, unfortunately, also to an excessive extent for the caste of loudspeakers in politics and the media. So let us cultivate the label-free and protected space of curiosity and practice and preserve the endurance of surprising contradictions. Let the Club of Clear Words be the virtual space of unsupervised thinking and a haven of discourse that seems more in need of protection than ever before.

If I don't seem sure-footed myself, please bear with me. The terrain in which I am walking is unsafe, mined and under camera surveillance.

Whether you are politically on port or starboard is irrelevant here on board, let us as a fine society remain open; but critically accompany those who want to melt down and reshape our cherished values and norms through their political actions for the benefit of a few.

The ability to adopt and allow a change of perspective is an elementary ingredient of a free press; it is an important component of an elixir for an ailing democracy.

Generation 9/11

On September 11, 2001, I was sitting in my office in the afternoon, still in my thirties. There was a TV on the wall. CNN was on, as it often was in those years. In the middle of what I was doing, I was suddenly a live eyewitness to the Armageddon of modern times. The collapse of the Twin Towers in Manhattan.

Years earlier, I had visited this World Trade Center several times. On the 107th floor, I sat in "Windows on the World", the restaurant that was often described as "the most spectacular restaurant in the world". I still remember what it felt like to have youthful fun on the dance floor, right next to the windows. To this day, I have never been able to reconcile that feeling with the racing of my heart at the sight of the unbelievable.

The world became a different place on that September day just over 20 years ago. You all know it. Much has been written and shown since then about that day and the collapse of the towers.
I had archived my copy of the BILD newspaper the day after because I realized in the midst of the shock that it was a testimony of lifelong significance.

So why return to this world-historical day so much later? Perhaps now, because many of us have learned during the coronavirus pandemic that there is a difference between reality and media reality. Perhaps because our time of political upheaval has made you sensitive and critical of the language of the media. Perhaps because many of you have now, of necessity, acquired media analytical skills and are able and willing to decipher the greatest terrorist catastrophe of modern times and the stories about it.

Perhaps because an analytical look today at this event from yesterday helps us to better understand the present.

Dr. Ansgar Schneider is a physicist, mathematician and has spent a lifetime meticulously analyzing the physics behind the collapse of the towers. That sounds dry and brittle.

I promise you an exciting time and a gain in knowledge.
Take your time and put alcohol to one side, the lecture lasts over 120 minutes and you won't fall asleep. If you watch or listen to it on a car journey, the journey will go by faster than you drive.
His forensic lecture seemed like a crime thriller to me. Schneider seems like a crime scene cleaner to me.

Share post:

23 Responses

  1. Dear Mr. Langemann,

    Thank you very much for your very personal words, which really touched me. I am more of a numbers person and am not nearly as good with words as you are. The difference between your contributions and the majority of the writing profession is striking in terms of content and style and reveals the media disaster of our time.

    Thank you for writing for us.

    Best regards
    Stefan Mayer

  2. It was a big mistake on the part of us citizens entitled to vote, and thus the sovereign of this country, to entrust the most important task of our state to a cool-headed former GDR functionary with a rather dubious understanding of democracy just a few years after 9/11 and thus in the middle of what was probably the greatest crisis in the Western world's self-image after Vietnam.

    Her first victim had already been her inner-party supporter and soulmate Helmut Kohl.

    The second victim was truthfulness and therefore enlightenment in the country. Since then, (scientific) facts - similar to the GDR - are often only (scientific) facts if they have been absolved by the authorities and are, of course, without alternative.

    If we don't finally wake up, the third victim will be our democracy and therefore also our freedom. The ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court on climate issues should be a warning to us all. In the long term, no democracy can withstand an excess of propaganda and a lack of socially relevant, i.e. widely discussed, dissent. As voters, we can hardly escape the SEDization of federal politics. Helmut Kohl once said: "The important thing is what comes out in the end". But no matter what we vote for, it hardly changes the result, i.e. realpolitik.

    Examples: Corona, climate change and climate protection.
    On these gloomy, lightless November days, we drive past hundreds of idle wind turbines and yet every day we are told by TV energy experts and schoolchildren that we are virtually swimming in green energy and only need to shut down the nuclear and coal-fired power plants that are blocking the grids and we will have arrived in the land of climate-protecting bliss. You would think that nobody would be naive and gullible enough to believe this propaganda from the climate protection industry, which has been pampered with hundreds of billions of euros, or even from a few inexperienced teenagers. Yet even the CEO of our country's largest automotive group has announced that he will align his industrial production accordingly. The chemical industry alone, which is to convert its production, would have to produce 600 TWh in future (see https://www.chemanager-online.com/themen/industriestandorte/vci-studie-transformation-ist-technologisch-moeglich) from the system of so-called renewable energies in order to become climate-neutral (for comparison: all wind and solar plants in our country have not yet generated 150 TWh of electricity in the current year - gross! https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&year=2021&stacking=grouped&interval=year). Behind closed doors, of course, industry bosses know that all in all this is completely unrealistic, at least without massive energy imports. However, in a country where even CEOs of well-known automotive companies suddenly find themselves behind bars and have plenty of time to think about their sudden career endings, while truants are stylized as media icons, the willingness to contradict a chancellor known for her silent, but all the more certain revenge is understandably low.

    With open eyes and an alert mind, you can see that our country's energy system is in free fall and the frequency of near-blackouts across Europe is increasing (see https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/energie/handelsblatt-energie-gipfel-kurz-vor-blackout-europas-stromnetz-waere-im-januar-fast-zusammengebrochen/26820168.html?ticket=ST-6825531-OhgjGQIQSDob0MP4dO7S-cas01.example.org), but what a (media) miracle, it doesn't fall, not even slowly.

    The same applies to the topic of climate change: the input variable "CO2 level" is subtly shifted in the direction of "human activities". We are thus led to believe that the observed man-made climate change is factual proof of the CO2 thesis: in the following ZDF report from the Terra X series, the viewer is made aware of this subtle shift in scientific truth between min. 3:45 and 4:25 (see https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/terra-x/klimafaktoren-was-bestimmt-das-klima-100.html). In reality, it is only quite likely that we humans are significantly influencing the climate. Which should come as no surprise to anyone given all the changes we are making to the environment. It is particularly damaging that for this shift in perception in climate research, the most important component of the atmosphere for life on earth apart from oxygen, the trace gas CO2 (proportion currently 0.042%), has to be demonized.

    Since the construction of the first wind farm at the end of the 1980s, climate change in Germany and Europe has significantly detached itself from the global trend and has been rising unchecked ever since: see WELT report: https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article158110222/Wetter-aendert-sich-in-Deutschland-besonders-krass.html (DWD diagram 1). This second large-scale experiment with our atmosphere after massive CO2 emissions and the first clumsy attempts by climate researchers to explain it can be seen as proof that climate change is largely misunderstood. The fact that the decades-long weakening of terrestrial winds, i.e. winds over land, have been and continue to be ignored by climate research is a fact and can only be explained by the fact that the primary objective of climate research is not to find the cause of man-made climate change but to prove the CO2 hypothesis. This also explains why researchers travel to the Arctic to investigate climate change. Neither the cause of climate change nor proof of CO2 as the cause can be found there. However, climate researchers do find images there that are highly effective in terms of publicity and are ideal for underpinning the suggestion of CO2 as the cause of the mega-catastrophe of climate change in a media-effective way. The fact that melting glaciers are at best evidence of the sum of man-made changes in the environment is (deliberately) concealed. This must be the case, because the many changes to our environment naturally include ever more monstrous wind turbines. Politics, industry, science and the media are working hand in hand to present us with a new reality.

    If climate researchers wanted to confirm CO2 as the cause, they would instead travel to the depths of the Sahara and record the night-time temperatures. If the global mean temperature of the globe is rising by a good 1.5 degrees due to CO2, the mean night-time temperature in the Sahara should have risen by a multiple of this value. If this is the case, it can be seen as almost proof of the CO2 thesis. If this is not the case, the CO2 thesis is probably the greatest (self-)deception in the history of science. As long as the German research ship is only rolling over ice masses in the Arctic and has not yet been converted to cope with the sand seas of the Sahara, the truth will probably remain hidden in the depths of physics. After all, it is easy to check via the Internet and Wikipedia (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Erw%C3%A4rmung) would, however, put an abrupt end to the comfortable Arctic tourism of climate researchers via specially reserved cruise ships with icebreaker capability. For oceanographers with a thirst for adventure in the Arctic and Antarctic, this would be one big disaster, as they would be tied to their writing rooms in future and would have to use the same thing for climate research that Einstein used to penetrate the distant worlds of mathematics and physics: their alert minds. But then you might also have enough time to think about why only a marginal mini-climate change can be observed west of the Red Sea in the sparsely populated desert landscapes of Egypt and Sudan, while climate change is suddenly rampant on the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman), as if separated by a ruler. CO2 therefore seems to be a very special substance if it only has its full effect where it can panic people, preferably climate researchers traveling to the Arctic, or where it can bring us all closer to our climate-related misdeeds. What could be more symbolic than oil-rich Saudi Arabia, what less than the deserted and innocent Egyptian desert?

    It gives hope that there are always upright scientists like Dr. Ansgar Schneider who are willing to venture into mined restricted areas of thought and continue working on the mega-project of enlightenment. In times like these, when you can win the Nobel Prize in Physics with pseudo-science, this is no longer a matter of course, not least because all too many scientists and experts allow themselves to be deterred from intensive reflection by such sentences from leading climate researchers, which can now even be found in German school textbooks and are probably intended as a deterrent: "To understand the phenomenon of climate sceptics, a brief look at the backgrounds and organizations is also helpful. The three archetypes of climate sceptics are the paid lobbyist (the coal industry in particular is fighting against emission reductions), the Don Quixote (emotionally committed laypeople, often pensioners, including some journalists - many are actually tilting at windmills) and the eccentric scientist (there are a few of these, but almost never climatologists)." (Stefan Rahmstorf, published in the Seydlitz textbook for grammar schools: "Geography - introductory phase").

    Anyone who dares to question statements by (scientific) authorities nowadays is quickly defamed as a climate denier and often associated with conspiracy theories, Reichsbürger, right-wingers, etc. (see the report by Bayrischer Rundfunk: https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/keine-erhoehte-gefahr-von-blackouts-durch-die-energiewende-ein-faktenfuchs,SbF5xjM). You can't blame people for not risking their existence for the sake of finding the truth, especially as this truth disappears behind the veil of censorship anyway, the further south in the republic or the closer to Mainz the faster and more thoroughly.

    9/11, corona or climate change/protection make no difference. As long as those responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e. G. W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney, are not behind bars (time is slowly running out - Donald Rumsfeld has already passed away in 2021), their methods of covering up the truth have been successful and are consequently very popular in this country, especially among representatives of the red-green-black spectrum. 9/11 and its consequences are therefore not over and our future of freedom, democracy and prosperity is still in great danger.

    1. Dear Dr. Aßmann,

      I feel the need to thank you from the bottom of my heart. I am a layman when it comes to climate and energy issues, but an interested layman. My strengths and expertise lie elsewhere. In fact, I've only been working more intensively on climate and energy issues since 2018. As with the coronavirus issue, everything here in the mainstream runs under the motto "5 chairs, one opinion". Opposing, critical views like yours are ignored or defamed with the usual fighting words. With success. And I confess, for a while it was successful for me too. I didn't know any other point of view.

      It's not about whether you are right about everything. It's about the fact that you have broadened my horizons and given me new perspectives. Thank you for that. I claim to be able to distinguish very well between fact and opinion. And you have given me a lot of facts that are worth thinking about.

      What makes me sad and angry is that it is not you who get a wider forum but people like TV-Hirschhausen. This is a doctor who has never worked as a doctor. He has been a self-proclaimed (!) climate researcher since 2018. The hot summer of 2018 "inspired" him to do this. That's when he came up with the idea. He is of the opinion that it is enough to "make yourself a little smarter" and believes that there are no knowledge problems, only motivation problems. Hirschhausen is aware of his popularity and wants to use his popularity to get the topic "out of the left-wing nutters' corner". A TV comedian, presenter and activist at the same time (he can separate the two), who outed himself as an old taz comrade. A person who, like me, is actually just a layman, but who fancies himself an expert, writes books on the subject (or has them written) and sets up foundations. A person who suggests that fundamental rights need to be redefined. Read for yourself. You'll need a strong stomach for this.

      Incidentally, his foundations are benevolently supported. See

      If you sometimes feel like Don Quixote ... that's not the case. You reach people. At least to me. Thank you very much for that.

  3. Dear Dr. Wessel,

    Your question is easy to answer.

    In the Sahara, solar radiation is around 2,500 kWh/m² a (Germany: 900 .....1,100 kWh/m² a - see. https://www.maz-online.de/Nachrichten/Wissen/Forscher-aus-England-Wird-die-Sahara-bald-weltgroesster-Energielieferant).

    Consequently, in the Sahara, the annual amount of energy from the sun is distributed over an area of 100 km x 100 km:

    2,500 kWh/ m² a x 10 to the power of 10 m² = 25,000 billion kWh/a

    down. This corresponds to 25,000 TWh/a or 10 times Germany's final energy consumption of around 2,500 TWh/a, of which slightly more than 20% of electricity is used.

    This means that even assuming a solar efficiency of 20% and a power-to-X transformation efficiency of 50%, 100 km x 100 km of net solar area in sunny areas of the earth would be sufficient to produce Germany's entire energy demand in a climate-neutral neutral way and convert it into storable/transportable chemical fuels and combustibles.

    The Greens have known this for a long time (https://twitter.com/RoHeAss/status/1143103416446660608). But they are blocking this knowledge for ideological reasons (their dogma: "The energy transition can only be successful if it is local, decentralized and networked"). Because this knowledge means the end of their climate change scare campaigns and therefore a rapid loss of power in the end. In particular, their pet project, i.e. the transformation of our society, would fail. This transformation is also the pet project of our "climate chancellor". As she said so beautifully on 22.04.2021 in the 19:00 Today news:
    "We are facing an enormous Herculean task. It is about nothing more and nothing less than the transformation of our entire way of life and economy.

    This transformation would fall through with the pre-calculated realization. A catastrophe for convinced socialists a la Merkel, Esken, Habeck & Co.

    Knowledge is power. Not knowing (the population) is securing power!

    Best regards
    Roland Aßmann

    1. Thank you very much Mr. Aßmann,
      I am now much better informed. I would like you to write an article on the subject that highlights the issue in the alternative media, ideally in all media, and invites discussion. We are all aware, I think, that climate change is supposed to be the next and even bigger bogeyman to condition people for further disenfranchisement. Some of those around me are already no longer able to discuss the issue and are completely terrified. Only not when they are ordering their next plane ticket or filling up their SUV (vehicle for the elderly and disabled). We should work on that urgently.

    2. Dear Mr. Aßmann,

      This seems to have solved the technical problems of energy supply, at least in broad terms. The solution to the political blockade could be similarly challenging. As already mentioned, information is needed. It may even be possible to set a trend by example.

      The next inexhaustible source of anxiety is the overpopulation of our planet. Eight billion people fit into four counties in Lower Saxony, one per square meter. An almost incomprehensible thought despite all the fear propaganda. If we now allocate 1000 square meters of agricultural land to each person as a basis for life, we find that there are one hundred and seventy-five billion of these 1000 square meters of agricultural land in the EU. In other words, roughly twenty times more than all the people in the world would need. Furthermore, this means that an error by a factor of twenty would still not refute the conclusion that the EU alone has enough agricultural land for the entire world population.
      I think this makes it clear, just as with the energy supply, that we only have a fake political problem, not a scientific one or one that can be understood by common sense - i.e. Corona.

      1. Dear Mr. Wessel,

        if you google the agricultural area of the EU, 175 million hectares are displayed. Since one hectare = 100 m x 100 m = 10,000 m², that is therefore 1750 million or 1.75 billion times 1000 m² (for comparison: 0.45 billion people live in the EU). It seems to me that you have miscalculated by a factor of 100. Be that as it may. In principle, you're right. It is, of course, total nonsense to use lots of diesel to plow, harrow, sow, spray and harvest a huge proportion of the EU's agricultural land and drive the result directly to the biogas plant with huge tractors without being part of the food chain. This is all the more true as the Power-to-X technology described above has long been available on an expanded laboratory scale, as have huge uninhabited areas with high solar radiation for solar power production, and feeding the world's growing population is anything but secure. It is a failure of our increasingly unchristian society as a whole and the churches in particular, which have been dragged into the red-green quagmire of increasingly ideologized rather than humane politics by their clueless church leaders, that such actually criminal machinations in dealing with food are characterized as exemplary both by large sections of left-wing technocratic politics and by the increasingly agitating media.

        It is a frightening characteristic of this crisis that fascism has put on a red-green-black camouflage cloak these days and thus sees itself as permanently immune to humanistically based criticism in its thoughts and actions. When the camouflage is lifted, the same misanthropic brown fascism is revealed that questioned the very substance of life more than three quarters of a century ago. The increasingly fascist coronavirus measures also send their regards. And once again, the churches are on the wrong side.

        Best regards
        Roland Aßmann

        1. Dear Mr. Aßmann,
          You are right, factor 100. Nevertheless, the agricultural area of five billion hectares worldwide is sufficient for fifty billion inhabitants, assuming 1000 square meters per person. I hope this time it is correct, please check.
          This means that there are no increased CO2 emissions, at least if closed agricultural cycles are maintained. I would like an explanation of what would happen with methane.
          Many of us can certainly understand why you are dismayed by the fact that democracy is in retreat in almost all Western countries and why you attribute fascist connotations to this development. Ortega y Gasset made this the subject of his "Revolt of the Masses". Post-factual politics is the euphemism for this. Facts are of no interest or are made to fit.

          Now, right now, everyone should finally get off the couch and take a public stand, ideally outdoors and together with many others.

          Yours sincerely
          Herbert Wessel

          1. Dear Mr. Wessel,
            have found the following:
            "The statistics deal with the agricultural area worldwide in the years 1961 to 2016. In 2016, there was an agricultural area of around 48.63 million square kilometers worldwide."
            So you are probably right, at 1000 m² per person on earth, that would be enough for 48.6 billion people. But soils are not as productive everywhere as they are here. As long as people in the world are starving, it is a crime to destroy food for energy production. This is all the more true as the contribution to our energy consumption is marginal and there are alternatives to energy production that are not in conflict with food production.
            Best regards
            Roland Aßmann

  4. If you don't ask, you stay stupid. Those who are not allowed to ask should remain stupid. That's how it is when the truth is not the whole truth. However, the whole truth is the basis for decision-making processes that should lead to an individually and collectively balanced result.
    I am sure that pressing problems such as resource consumption, environmental pollution, climate change, military conflicts and economic warfare would have been dealt with long ago and solved as far as possible if the majority had unhindered access to information on the underlying conflicts of interest.
    Take solar energy, for example: according to Elon Musk, 100×100 miles of solar cells cover the energy needs of the USA and an area of one square mile of batteries is enough to store energy. That makes me wonder why I didn't know that and is it true? That would instantly pull the plug on the whole climate change panic industry. It would also be clear that we could have a decentralized, self-determined energy supply.

  5. Dear Mr. Langemann,
    Thank you very much for making Mr. Schneider's presentation available, which was written in 2019, i.e. before "Corona", and thus makes it clear how reporting, or rather propaganda, has been working for a long time. I was just as shocked by this "assassination attempt" 20 years ago as all my friends and acquaintances. The only thing that puzzled me was the way the Twin Towers collapsed, which as an architect I couldn't quite understand. Why did they collapse so vertically? Only with Corona, which seemed strange to me from the beginning, did the topic of 9/11 interest me again and actually made me realize that the worst crimes are caused and carried out by those in power without regard for the suffering of those affected. My faith in the politicians and the "quality" journalists has been completely lost due to the way in which the people are being coerced/discriminated against. I/we can only hope that alternative sources of information such as yours will continue to gain weight and that there will be a turnaround in this human drama that we are currently experiencing. I am 66 years old and hope for fairer times.

  6. Dear Mr. Langemann,
    I would like to thank you for your commitment and for a lecture, a quiet and initially "dull" lecture, which contains the explosive power to put into words and precisely formulate one's own thoughts and insights that have been dormant for a long time and to make them available to the inclined audience.
    I would like to thank you and Dr. Schneider for having the courage to show your face with this format in these difficult and threatening times for all awake people.
    Giving up is not an option

  7. Dear Mr. Langemann,
    Even though I am in the middle of moving - I am leaving the beautiful city of Hamburg for a rural life - I would also like to say a very clear 'thank you' for your true journalism, which hardly exists in this country, but also in the rest of Europe, in the States anyway.
    The choice of topics, the interview partners, and last but not least the journalistic care, which also includes beautiful language, gives me hope for the future, makes me less lonely, makes me no longer doubt my sanity and shows me that we can all create something new together.
    The Club of Clear Words, Gunnar Kaiser, Boris Reitschuster and the Corona Committee will be immortalized by me as a farewell to the neighbourhood with golden spray on anthracite-coloured building plinths. I owe it to all of you, regardless of the financial support. support. And the neighbors will have a slightly different memory of me. It is not easy to say goodbye to this beautiful old apartment, but there is a magic in the beginning of next year...best wishes to you and your team.

  8. Dear Mr. Langemann, this lecture was a blessing for me. Thank you very much for it.
    In the Gas Lightning world these days, I'm struggling through the news. Be it the ones I try to avoid, the official ones, or the ones on Telegram or wherever you have to laboriously gather the truth. I don't know what hurts me more, the lies of politicians and the propaganda media or the descriptions of the suffering they cause. I felt that Mr. Schneider's intelligent and calm lecture really defended me and my claim to science and truthfulness.
    At the time, I was already struck by the twisted use of language and the distorting logic of the press on the subject. I also noticed the completely different approach to theories about similar events in Russia. And neither has improved over the years. On the contrary, it started almost two years ago in a way that I could not have imagined for the worst-case scenario. Nevertheless, I was initially taken in by the propaganda on the current topic. It made it very clear to me that propaganda works. Your film with Daniele Ganser and the lecture just now made me realize something else. I had considerable doubts at the time about the official narrative (precisely because of the collapse of the buildings looking like a demolition, the premature reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 and the insurance policy of the new owner, which another commentator has already mentioned) In conclusion, I was of the opinion that these attacks were at least not "clean" and that the Bush administration and CIA must at least have known about the planning of the attacks, yet this had been lost on me over the years. I was still annoyed by the tendentious language on 9/11 and others, but somehow I adopted more and more the desired view on 9/11. See, propaganda still works afterwards. It is frightening. Perhaps my personal experience with Gas Lightning has made me a little more sensitive to the distortion of truths.
    I wish I had the clarity and calmness of Mr. Schneider and could pass on the last part of the lecture to the people around me who have fallen victim to the Corona mass psychosis in the difficult conversations of these days.

  9. A very interesting lecture which, especially in the second part, sheds an illuminating light on the processes and mechanisms that are more than relevant today. I have recommended the Club of Clear Words so often and hope that the readership has expanded as a result.

  10. Dear Mr. Langemann,

    It is long overdue to finally tell you how enthusiastic I am about your eloquent style of speaking and writing. For me, it's like sipping Seim, reading you, listening to you.

    You are an expert!

    All I want to say about the content is: d'accord.

  11. In the beginning there is always a farewell and in every beginning there is a magic...

    Dear Mr. Langemann,
    Her words are both moving and hopeful. They reveal an authenticity and vulnerability and at the same time a power that presents human strength..... and that is healing.
    As a silent reader, I have experienced so much strength, insight and yes, even healing through your words, and now is the time to thank you for that.
    Not only the apt analyses and the pointed finger-pointing, but also your polished way of expressing yourself have inspired me and made me feel at ease again in the swamp of Anglicisms and neologisms, oh, what a relief.
    I feel at home in your "refuge of unsupervised" thinking, I have already recommended your site many times, it even serves as a basis for discussion with my grandchildren - thank you very much, Mr. Langemann.
    With best wishes
    Petra Stöhr

  12. before i take a look at the interview, i would like to thank you, mr. langemann, from the bottom of my heart for your touching words in the introduction to "in the beginning there is always a farewell".
    i very much appreciate your always wonderfully flowery, fine, deeply witty and sensitive language. it creates a connection in me. thank you very much for that.
    with regard to your grief, to the grief we all experience in the cycle of life (or in the quadrature of it), the idea of a change of perspective to the 6 words of botho strauß occurred to me, since the word "farewell" is often fraught with drama.
    I shorten it to 4 words, although the view is expanded, undramatic, meaningful and open to the new.
    i would like to intitolize this change of perspective with "what begins at the end". (one of my romantic titles).
    personally, i'm looking forward to both the end and the beginning.
    and hope to meet you again and again, mr. langemann, in the free-spirited world of language, of enlightenment about the complex interrelationships of our "existence" . thank you again

  13. thanks
    for the exciting presentation by ansgar schneider.
    it makes perfect sense.
    i still have the pictures in my mind's eye that went around the world that day, every minute, over and over again. traumatizing.
    but questions already arose back then and have now been answered and at the same time the corona regime's activities have become more understandable (not more acceptable!)

  14. Dear Markus Langemann !

    I was very touched by your words,
    and I would like to thank you for your openness,
    which has become more than just rare during this time! ...

    unagitated, highly intellectual, and at the same time understandable and comprehensible,
    and with a highly developed - almost "literary" - style.
    You can get to the heart of the matter with a feeling for language! ...

    My esteem and great respect for you! ... 🙂 ...

    As a high-tech engineer, I was aware of 9/11 at the latest after the vertical collapse of WTC 7
    It's clear that this was a planned demolition, and that there's something really fishy about the Bin Laden story,
    especially as the very next day a customer, real estate expert and lawyer, told me,
    Documents on precise details of the insurance contracts of a certain Larry Silverstein,
    owner of the Twin Towers had sent ! ... 😉 ...

    I then spent several years dealing with the technical details to varying degrees.
    this "controlled demolition", and - inevitably - also with the countless,
    have to deal with the sometimes hair-raising conspiracy theories surrounding this event ...

    I think this has taught me to check facts as precisely as possible for their validity,
    and not to be guided by emotions in this respect ...

    and one thing above all: when it comes to money, I now trust ALL the players to do ANYTHING !!! ...

    should you need information on - technical - "9/11 details : my archive is "jam-packed" ! ... 😉 ...

    Yours sincerely !

    Thomas Brandmayr

  15. What an interesting interview. I felt the same way as Dr. Schneider at the time. I didn't want to believe what I was reading. I wanted to refute these "conspiracy theorists", these crackpots. That was my motivation to look into the subject. And the more I immersed myself in it, the more I realized how stupid I was. It took me a long time to admit to myself that I was the idiot and not those who, arrogant as I unfortunately was, I called idiots.

    I found Dr. Schneider's detailed answer to Mr. Langemann's question "Are you a scientist?" particularly beautiful, intelligent and modest.

    "To me, his forensic lecture seemed like a detective story. Schneider seems like a crime scene cleaner to me."
    I subscribe to the first sentence one hundred percent. But I would choose a different metaphor. Dr. Schneider is more of a questioning detective and forensic investigator of a crime. The US government, NIST, CIA and co. quickly cleaned up the crime scene to prevent serious detective work. Example: The steel building beams at the aforementioned collapsed WTC 7 were immediately removed, shredded and mixed with other construction waste. This rendered them unusable for forensic purposes. The crime scene was thus contaminated. Just one of a dozen "oddities". The most amusing oddity for me to this day: "unfortunately" the black boxes, the indestructible flight recorders, were not found in the rubble of the Twin Towers. A first and unique occurrence in a domestic crash. However, a perfectly preserved ID card belonging to one of the assassins was found - in the rubble.

    1. Dear Mr. Löcke,

      My aim is to bring more objectivity to the discussion about climate protection and climate change, but I can't resist the occasional sideways jab at the all-too-human weaknesses and vanity of climate researchers. At the beginning, I thought like Richard-David Precht. If there is even a 90% chance that the climate researchers are right, then we must take radical action: see min 16:00 onwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la5qvwE_k6k

      However, through my involvement with the energy transition and the associated climate protection measures, I have learned that wind and human behavior are not independent factors in the climate context. Thanks to my in-depth technical training in fluid mechanics and turbomachinery as part of my mechanical engineering degree, it was relatively easy for me to determine the flow potential of the wind over Germany at the end of 2014. All the basic factors and meteorological observations are documented: Wind atlas, air pressure differences, Ekman spiral and wind shear and can be converted into a flow potential using the Bernoulli and continuity equations. This was the first time I had serious doubts about the seriousness of our state institutions, especially the Federal Environment Agency. In the study "Potential of onshore wind energy" (see https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/potenzial_der_windenergie.pdf) calculated wind energy expansion scenarios and arrived at an absurdly high potential for wind energy from a flow theory perspective. All attempts to point out their error to those involved, i.e. government agencies and the wind industry itself, failed. The Hessian state government even went so far as to actively manipulate a legislative process in order to conceal or suppress this indisputable physical fact. Since then, my sensors have been on red alert when it comes to the manipulation of facts and truth.

      Stefan Rahmstorf, head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research PIK, initiated the next step on the path of knowledge. What had happened? ÖRR-TV had the audacity to invite the well-known meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann and a so-called climate skeptic to a talk show alongside the usual climate Cassandra callers from climate research. On the show, Jörg Kachelmann contradicted the climate researcher's claim that the number of severe storms has increased. This prompted Mr. Rahmstorf to tweet the symbolic image of the earth as a flat disc the next day and link it to Jörg Kachelmann and the climate sceptic. My doubts about the seriousness of climate research were triggered. Afterwards, I asked Mr. Rahmstorf various questions on Twitter. His answers did not always sound logical. When he became increasingly backward in his arguments, he blocked me. The full arrogance of this researcher can be judged by his publicly formulated answer to various friendly and factual questions: "Yes, climate research can answer all these questions conclusively and has already done so. There are corresponding studies on all these questions. If you were following science - for example by regularly reading scientific media such as Spektrum - then you would have been aware of this. Please forgive me for not having the time to give everyone here detailed tutoring on all their questions." (Stefan Rahmstorf, 09.08.2018, 12:40 p.m., see letters to the editor on https://scilogs.spektrum.de/klimalounge/hitze-ohne-ende/). The fact that it has now been refuted by scientific studies on several points should only be mentioned in passing. For example, the influence of contrails is now rated higher, one of my questions (see https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article215249522/Luftverkehr-und-Klimawandel-Kondensstreifen-sind-das-Hauptproblem.html)

      If climate researchers were sure of their cause, such behavior would not be necessary. Just as there is no need to see confirmation of their theory behind every drought, every forest fire and every flood. Green politicians in particular have started to copy this behavior. After all, it is so easy to see proof of the CO2 theory behind all these spectacular events, especially the rapid melting of glaciers, particularly in the northern hemisphere. The researchers equate the input variables "CO2 level" and "human activities". Their justification is the assertion that no other causes than CO2 or greenhouse gases can be considered for the observed temperature increase since around the beginning of the 20th century. TV meteorologist Karsten Schwanke explains this "proof" on his Twitter page: https://twitter.com/KSchwanke/status/1188876098299449345

      The next step on the path to realization was initiated by a documentary by Deutschlandfunk. In a radio report, they reported on the phenomenon known as stilling. Meteorologists have been observing for decades that the global terrestrial wind, i.e. the winds over land masses, are decreasing on average. The order of magnitude is considerable. We all know that wind and evaporation are directly related. However, very few people know that evaporation (technical term: evapotranspiration) contributes around 50% to the cooling of the Earth's surface, and climatologists are also less aware of this, even though the connection was described almost a century ago by the German meteorologist Heinrich von dem Borne in his publication "Evaporation Studies" following in-depth studies and experiments. He introduces his study with the following remarkable words: "With the help of apparatus, it will probably never be possible to determine the actual evaporation of land areas, as important as such a determination may be with regard to climate research, the earth's water balance and the like."

      This prompted me, also on the advice of a WELT editor, to write to the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg in 2018, which is renowned for climate research and to which the current Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded, and ask where this effect, i.e. less wind due to the human transformation of the earth's surface and thus less evaporation, is in the list of possible causes of climate change. Here is the original answer from a Max Planck climate researcher:
      "The basic question you raise is whether an Earth with weaker winds will be warmer, and whether the warming that we have been experiencing since industrialization might be a temporary response to a roughening of Earth's surface. It is an interesting line of thought which I had not considered before, although others may have. However, I did not consult with colleagues, so the thoughts presented below are just an informal attempt to think through this problem, in the hope that my way of thinking will be of help for you." or translated: "The basic question you raise is whether an Earth with weaker winds is getting warmer and whether the warming we have been experiencing since industrialization might be a temporary response to a roughening of Earth's surface. It's an interesting line of thought that I hadn't considered before, although others may have. However, I have not consulted with colleagues, so the following thoughts are just an informal attempt to think through this problem in the hope that my thinking is helpful to you."

      Now I ask you, Mr. Löcke, how can climate science, which now dominates almost all of politics, indeed all of society including the judiciary in its thinking, and which even allows or even justifies restrictions on freedom by the Federal Constitutional Court to stand unchallenged, still formulate such a sentence in 2018? What is worse, however, is that there is still no conclusive answer to this day, yet climate researchers continue to equate "CO2 levels" and "human activities" as virtually the same input variables for climate research as a matter of course more than a year later: see https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/terra-x/klimafaktoren-was-bestimmt-das-klima-100.html, 3:45 and 4:25

      It is unmistakable that climate research has not done itself any favors by committing itself early on to CO2 or greenhouse gases as the almost exclusive cause of the undeniable climate change that is taking place before our very eyes. Now, they can no longer get out of this stunt without completely losing face or their scientific reputation and possibly even being hit with massive lawsuits for damages. Here, too, corona and the climate change debate are no different. The only difference is that countries like Sweden or Poland are taking a completely different, more liberal approach to coronavirus than we are - and are more successful. What many people don't know: in Poland, restaurants, hairdressers, etc. are still open without 3G or even 2G. People who wear masks in public are increasingly looked down upon. Furthermore, the vaccination rate is much lower than in Germany. Nevertheless, the incidence is significantly lower than in Germany. This allows us to categorize corona. The issue of global climate change is different. However, there is now sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the official classification of the "CO2 thesis". Above all, the so-called chain of evidence is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese. The reason why people don't notice this is that, despite the many reports on climate change, almost nobody is prepared to look into its physical principles.

      The consequences are fatal. We believe that a butterfly in the Amazon can influence our weather. However, we deny that tens of thousands of monstrous industrial plants, some of which are now almost 300 m high and designed to do nothing other than slow down the wind, have an impact on the weather and climate, even if international studies now suggest otherwise (see https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/). Sorry, but this is a level of naivety in society as a whole that is almost pathological. If we continue down this path consistently, we will probably destroy the climate as we know it and run the risk of triggering the very climate tipping points that we actually wanted to avoid as much as possible. There is another and less risky way - for the climate and society - as my answer to Mr. Wessel here shows. This is why the philosophers Precht and Habeck are so wrong in their analysis and why the 90% probability mentioned at the beginning is not nearly enough, not to mention the question of whether it is 90% at all.

      I would like to conclude with the thought-provoking words of an MPI climate researcher when asked about the disproportionate climate change in our country since the introduction of wind energy:
      "Research is being carried out into the effect of wind energy on the ground-level climate. For example, a colleague of mine at the University of Hamburg has investigated the influence of wind farms in the North Sea on the regional climate of the Hamburg metropolitan region. Although the effects are statistically significant, they can by no means explain the observed increase in the annual mean temperature in the region. Conversely, a correlation between temperature and wind energy seems plausible to me. More wind energy is being used because of concerns about global warming..."

      Best regards
      Roland Aßmann

      1. Sorry Mr. Löcke,

        due to an inadequacy of the editor (resolution of the assignment of the answer to a specific comment after leaving and returning to the edit mode) in connection with a carelessness on my part, my answer is unfortunately attached to your wrong comment.

        Despite an immediate written request, the CdkW team was apparently unable to make a correct allocation.

        Best regards
        Roland Aßmann

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Welcome to this platform for the cultivated exchange of arguments.

We have forgotten how to endure contradiction. It is okay to disagree here. I would like to ask you to remain respectful and polite. Insults and hate comments will be removed in future, as will calls to vote for political parties. I reserve the right to delete insulting or derogatory comments. This public forum and its inherent opportunity to exchange arguments and opinions is an attempt to uphold freedom of expression - including freedom of dissent. I would like to see the old-fashioned virtue of respect cultivated here.

"Controversy is not an annoying evil, but a necessary prerequisite for the success of democracy." Federal President Dr. h.c. Joachim Gauck (ret.), only 5 years ago in his speech on the Day of the Basic Law.