, page 1 and 2.


Yours sincerely

CCE-Group† cce-award














Armstrong Politicians and the camels.

Listening camels. Armstrong Politicians love them.

Camels donít know to formulate and to apply criteria.

Therfore they stay blockheads all their life, easily to manipulate, to rule, to exploit.

In regard to subjects he doesnít know enough of, everyone can be a camel. Listening to Armstrong politicians, lying with pokerface 7 years,† you as an ignorant may believe them. But you do not need to stay a camel. By gathering facts, by formulating criteria and by applying criteria, laying criteria as a pattern over utterings of politicians, you† become able to differentiate between lie and truth. Letís apply criteria together !


You become


the king

No minister, no government can rule you any longer with lies.

A criterion is a search pattern to find the truth. For each question you need a special criterion or a set of criteria.

Letís train a bit to work with criteria. Here we shall apply criteria mainly in the fields† innovations and cheap clean energy.


But before - as an example - we shall build criteria and work with them in a highly controversional field, which everyone knows, where the power of criteria can be demonstrated better than anywhere else. In no time you become member of an esoteric club of firmly knowing people, while billions of people around the globe stay in ignorance and uncertainty. Untill today, the club of firmly knowing people comprises only some million people.†

From the example you can learn, that the ruling powers mustnít be afraid of some million people, knowing the truth firmly, as long as they can hold the big majority in ignorance or uncertainty with repeated lies. Uncertain crowds, unable to thrust through to certainty, always believe in authorities, their insurance. You can learn that it is sufficient for authorities, controling the massa media, to deny, to combat the truth firmly to hold the crowds calm and uncertain. An uncertain massa doesnít act. The massa cannot get certainty because the individuals donít know enough of gathering facts, of building criteria and of applying criteria to find the truth. Seems to be too difficult.

On culture level 2, the phase we are in now, the criteria-technology could be tought and learned in school. But no clear teaching in this direction is to be seen. Here those, who didnít learn it by themselves, are about to get a private lesson from scientists.


Our example case is 9/11.

1.. The version of the authorities is:

On 9/11/2001 Arabian terrorists made the buildings WTC1 and WTC2 collapse by flying two hijacked airplanes into them. The airplanes ignited a fire. That fire melted the steel pillars and made the towers collapse.† 10 years later a ceremony for the victims was held. The same story was told.

If it is a lie, then it is an Armstrong lie: still living by repeating it longer than 7 years by the actors, the authorities and their massamedia, repetition with poker faces.

If it is a lie, then it is an aggressive lie: the opponents of that story were said to be crazy, spreading a conspiracy story.

If it is a lie, then it is a successfull lie. More than 6 billion people of 7 billion people on the globe are still believing in the story. At least they are uncertain, thinking that it could be true.


2.. The version of some million people around the world is:

On 9/11/2001 the towers WTC1 and WTC2 were blasted by an expert team from the top to the basis. The towers collapsed after a series of carefully programmed detonations. The preparations to place the explosives in the huge buildings must have taken weeks. That cannot have been the work of a group of hijackers, armed with short knifes. The influence of the striking airplanes (or rockets with attached wings) has been limited. The ignited fire was limited to small parts of the huge building. Not even in the parts in fire the heat could melt the special steel of the building. The fire was by far not hot enough.

Only special substances, placed in advance (and thus not by the hijackers), could melt the steel. Such substances have been found in the rubbish by experts from universities. A sea of melted iron was detected under the rubish by a satellite , registering infrared radiation. It took many days before the sea of steel ceased to radiate infrared.


Two entirely different stories! Which is true?

Which criteria could we use to make our decision?

Letís take a closer look on the stories!

Which terms are all important in them?

Fire has caused the collapse (story 1).

Explosions of carefully placed bombs have caused the collapse (story 2).

Fire and explosion: the two keywords!

Now we have to build search patterns, criteria:

What is a fire? What is an explosion?

After having defined fire and explosion, after exactly knowing, what it is, after having a sharp vision on the differences between fire and explosion, we can go out to replay the videos of the towers collapsing to look what we meet. Within the videos we can study the processes again and again and extract the facts.


What is an explosion? Let us gather properties of an explosion!

What do you see during an explosion? A short expanding lightning. How long do you see the lightning? Have a second, or less. Which form has the lightning? Ball-form. A ball, which gets bigger rapidly, then disappears suddenly. Which colour has the ball? Jellow red or wit, depending on the exploding substances. What do you see after half a second? Smoke, a lot of dust and flying broken elements.

Do you have now a sharper vision on explosions? Can you lay that pattern of properties over the video you are going to replay again and again?


What is a fire? Let us gather properties of a fire.

What do you see during a fire? Light. How long do you see that light? Minutes, hours, continuously as long as the fire is burning. Which form has the fire-light? The flames are going up with the hot air, one tongue (candle) or more fire tongues are pointing upwards. Normally the volume of a fire is rather constant, with oscillations and circulations in the top region of the tongues. Normally no quick expansion. Which colour has the fire? Red, jellow, partly blue. Quick changing colours. What do you see after the fire stopped burning? A bit of smoke, ashes, no dust, no broken flying elements.

Do you now have a sharper vision of fire? Can you lay that pattern of properties over the video you are going to replay?


Do you see the differences between explosion and fire?† Which properties of explosion and fire differ most?:

The duration differs much: explosion: half a second only. But fire is ongoing plenty of time.

Also in regard to expansion there is a big difference: an explosion shows ultra-quick expansion of the fire-ball,† while a normal fire doesnít show expansion. And if well, then a rather slow expansion, never ultra-quick expansion.

In regard to the form of the seen bright light again a big difference:

An explosion shows a typical fire ball, expanding.

A normal fire can have a lot of differnt forms, but never ball form. The basis of a normal fire is always broader than the top region with peaky tongues.


So far we extracted 3 pairs of sharply differing properties: 3 criteria. In contact with our study-object, we can ask now: ďWhat do we see? A or B?† Expanding or not expanding? Ball form or no ball form? Long time or have a second?Ē


Now let us replay one of the available videos of WCT 1!

We see plane 1 strike the tower. A hole in the front of the building and balls of jellow-red fire, expanding rapidly; sure a series of explosions, exploding fuel and/or other exploding substances more. After this short-time wall of fire-balls, rolling through a small part of the building, we see smoke and some smaller fires, burning continuously. During the following 30 minutes no big changes. The building is standing firmly. The striking airplane had only a limited influence on it.

On a photo, shot 1/1000 second before the strike of the airplane, the nose of the plane is bursting by an explosion. Surely there has been placed an explosive together with a precision-ignation-apparat to produce a maximum of demolition!† Placed by terrorists, armed only with short knifes? That can be doubted. Itís a hint on possible other wrongdoers. But no hard proof. Therefore. letís go on to find better proofs for version 1 or version 2 !


WTC1 is standing firmly. A big cloud of black smoke, coming out of the small burning part, is rising into the sky. While a second plane strikes WTC2, tower WTC1 continues to stand firmly for another 15† minutes. But then a sudden change:† round fireballs flash in the burning region, disappear immediately, letting back clouds of dust, and the huge building starts to collaps. You have to replay the video several times and concentrate on this moment to see the flashes, because of their short life time, half a second or less. Typical explosion! The dust produced by these detonations is covering the flashes of the following detonations, one line and two lines under the first blasted line of the fassade of the building. The tower is collapsing rapidly, in about 15 seconds. But half way down you can isolate a line of jellow-red fireballs, melting together to a giant firewall horizontally along the whole line of the fassade, welling up ultra-rapidly, in a region, were seconds earlier never has been a fire; surely explosions. Additionally, still farer down, in a region, not yet reached by dust an falling rubble, you can see single detonations, spread over the fassade, higher and lower, left and right, probally demolishing extra strong structure points of the building as preparation of the whole-line-destruction following seconds later. Clearly explosions! And such a lot, that no other conclusion is possible than: there have been placed explosives earlier. A carefully programmed demolition with explosives is going on.

Play and replay the video many times. And other videos from another angle too! Clearly you can see the described processes. Because you have criteria now to distinguish between explosion and fire, you can lay these search patterns over the ongoing processes and make up your decision: collapse by a huge quantity of programmed explosions, not by fire. That is the truth. There is no uncertainty! Thatís already enough. But you can go on and find much more proofs of the big cheating: A motive of the wrong-doers is present: they wanted to manipulate the ignorant citizens of the country into the Iraki-war. And they were using more lies than the 9/11-lie, as you know today. A thread of Iraqui weapons of mass destruction was not present, is known today. It was an additional lie of the 9/11-liars, a part of their lying-campaign to get the war. That part has been dismantled officially, but the 9/11-lie officially not yet. Not only the US-government, but also the governments of the European States and the European Commision in Brussels are repeating it continuously. What is our conclusion, seeing this? Later on we shall see, using criteria, that they are also repeating another very bad lie continuously:† ďCheap clean energy is not yet possible!Ē, while they are suppressing Cheap-clean-energy-Technologies.

We scientists pretend it here. We donít want that you believe us. We want that you see it and know it firmly, using criteria.† Please go on reading here !††† Government††† Armstrong Award