Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The Lion, the Witch, and the World Trade Center

     In the British movie The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, children are shown stepping into a wardrobe and magically finding themselves in a wondrous land called Narnia.
     In series of British movies, Harry Potter and his friends are shown walking through the wall of a train station, harming neither themselves nor the wall. Of course it was done through the magic of computer technology. They then find themselves at Hogwarts, a school for aspiring witches and wizards.
     What about Boeing 757's? Do you think that airplanes in real life can pass through walls that easily? I'll address that question later in this article.
     The most tenacious theory of events occurring on September 11, 2001, is the planes theory: the theory that commercial airliners struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This theory comes in two species. The first is the theory that novice pilots were flying some of the most sophisticated aircraft on Earth and flawlessly executed some highly difficult maneuvers. The second version is that the planes were navigated by remote control.
     A flaw in the second theory was revealed when three professional commercial airline pilots, using computer simulation, attempted to duplicate the official version of the strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Only one in three was able to duplicate an attack on the World Trade Center. None of them were able to duplicate the attack on the Pentagon because it's impossible for a commercial airliner to fly 20 feet above the ground for over a mile at 530 miles per hour.
     What about the "ball" theory? At the moment that the second tower was struck, a news camera, shooting from a helicopter, on live television, showed what looked like a ball moving toward the South Tower. It was moving at a steep angle, and at a speed too slow to be a commercial airliner.
     No, I'm not going to tell you what the ball was. That's beyond my expertise.  Richard Hall, a former aerospace engineer with remarkable computer skills, has thoroughly examined the question and provided his answers. I, on the other hand, will for now stick to eliminating the impossible.
     My "eureka" moment came at the 3:26 mark of the second part of his video, "9/11 - Fake Plane 3D Analysis Proof of an inside job - Pt 2."  That's when I noticed something that Hall didn't seem to have noticed. In fact, I'm not aware that anyone has ever mentioned it.
     At that point, the video shows, in slow motion, the alleged footage of a commercial airliner passing into WTC 2. In this slow motion video, you can see that no glass shatters; no concrete pulverizes, and there are is no explosion. Even more surprising, both wings disappear into the building—supposedly crashing into steel-reinforced concrete at 590 miles per hour—without even slightly buckling. Take a look here.
     After all these years of wondering what happened to the planes—and being told by the 911 Commission that burning jet fuel (kerosene) had vaporized them—I can offer you a more reasonable conclusion: They safely landed at Hogwarts or in Narnia.
     Flight 77, which flew over—not into—the Pentagon, was not seen fading into a building. An unexpected and unrecorded tornado must have snatched it away to the land of Oz, where it suddenly landed on Nancy Pelosi's sister.
     But let's get back to the World Trade Center videos.
     At the 4:24 mark part 1 of the video ("9/11 - Fake Plane 3D Analysis Proof of an inside job - Pt 1,") Hall shows a side-by-side comparison of a live shot of the "ball" hitting WTC2 and an almost identical shot from the NBC Evening News. I say "almost" because, in the NBC footage, both the ball and the background are matted out; and the image of a commercial airliner is inserted.  (Link)
     There can be no mistake that the second video clip is a doctored version of the first.
     What about all the witnesses who claim they saw a plane crash into WTC 2?   Only 20% of the witnesses say they saw or heard a plane. Only 5% say they saw and heard a plane. In Les Miserables, Victor Hugo wrote that, if a crowd of people is told that such-and-such happened, you can always count on someone claiming that he saw it.
     Just to make sure that witnesses would claim they saw it, a D-list actor was hired for the job. He remembered his lines in spite of the unrealistic dialogue that was designed to promote the "official" version of events. (Link)
     Okay, so I've presented proof that two of the videos are fakes and that one of the witnesses is a fake. What about the others?  If the other videos and the other witnesses were legitimate, then there was no need to generate fakes—but they did generate fake videos and false witnesses. Since the powers that be saw a need to generate fake videos and false witnesses, then we must reject the theory that commercial airliners crashed into the World Trade Center.
In other articles, I presented abundant evidence against the theory that a commercial airliner had hit the Pentagon.
and
     In one of these articles, I asked, "What happened to Flight 77's Passengers?"  If no planes hit the World Trade Center, we should ask, "What happened to the passengers of Flights 11, 175, and 77?"
     Reports vary as to how many crew members and passengers were on each of the four planes. If we take the highest number, there were 266 total. That's 233 passengers, 25 flight attendants, and 8 pilots. (Link) 
     The seating capacity (not counting seats available for crew members) for Flight 93, the only one of the planes for which substantial wreckage was found, was 182. Wikipedia gave a higher figure: 289, which I doubt. In either case, I believe that 266 prisoners and Judas goats could have been transported by that one plane.
     In a previous article ("World Records that Guinness never Mentioned") I gave evidence that Flight 93 didn’t crash; it was shot down by a missile.
     Yes, I'm getting into the theory that the planes were switched. Actually, I don't have to go that far.  My theory is that the passengers were switched.
     I'm not going to make the mistake of trying to theorize just how the switch was made. If I did, the theory would become the issue. Any flaw in the theory would give the conspiracy deniers an excuse to draw attention away from the facts.
     Other researchers have offered copious facts supporting their theories, but they were still theories. No, instead of dwelling on theory, I'll simply state the facts.
     On March 13, 1962, the CIA presented then-President Kennedy with a proposal called Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a planned false flag operation designed to blame Cuba for terrorist acts against the United States, thus providing an excuse for an American invasion of Cuba.
     There are two points to consider here. The first is that the CIA had proposed false flags similar to 911 and for the same purpose as 911: to start a war to advance government policy.
     The second point is that Operation Northwoods envisioned the switching of planes to carry out some of the terrorist acts. It isn't necessary to prove that the CIA really could switch planes on 911; it's necessary only to show that the CIA seriously believed that they could switch planes and that they had the will to do so. (Link) 
     It's not likely that all the passengers were shot out of the sky. In a time of panic and confusion, some passengers would have been needed as Judas goats to herd the innocent passengers onto Flight 93.
     I've already provided compelling evidence that at least one September 11 passenger is still alive and living under another name. ("What Happened to Flight 77's Passengers?") If my theory is correct, there are likely others. Many researchers have noted that all four flights carried an unusual number of government and military insiders. Some of them may have been the Judas goats, and they may be alive somewhere.  Other researchers are already at work on this issue.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Our Valley of Decision

     In a separate article, I wrote that businesses, society, and the environment are mutually dependent. I argued from that that the most sustainable model for businesses as well as for society and environmentalists is one that recognizes this fact and seeks a dovetailing of interests.
     That’s the way things work for most businesses anyway. As long ago as 1776, Adam Smith wrote that, when businessmen and politicians converse, corporate social responsibility is the furthest thing from their minds.
     Our history books tell us that from 1869 until 1877, William Magear (“Boss”) Tweed and his cronies stole an estimated $200 million from the city of New York. In today’s dollars, that would be around $2.7 billion.
     Just think of how much they could have stolen if they’d been in control of something larger than a city—say, the United States Treasury. Hmm. Just how did they do it?
     Well, pretty much the same way that Dubya Bush did it, and Mr. Obama is doing it now. Bush, Cheney, Emanuel, and Obama didn’t invent such embezzlement schemes as bid-free contracts, or regulatory waivers that favor friends and shut out competition, nor did they invent economic blackmail. They did, however, perfect them and come up with a few ideas of their own.
     By comparison, Boss Tweed was practicing a life of austerity and self denial. The Bush-Obama Administration has stolen more than $14 trillion from America’s taxpayers, and there’s no end in sight.
     They get away with it because we let them. Oh, worse than that; we rewarded them after they had done it, thereby encouraging them to steal ever larger sums of money and further violate our liberties.
     In the year 2000, Bush stole the presidential election and employed fraud to launch—not just one, but two—wars that have been highly profitable for himself and his cronies. Some 1.5 million innocent Iraqi civilians were killed as a result, but what’s a couple of million Iraqis compared to trillions of dollars in stolen assets?
     Under the laws of every jurisdiction in the United States, it’s a capital crime to commit a felony that results in a death. Fraud is a felony in every jurisdiction in America, and thousands of Americans died as a result of that fraud.
     According to noted court attorney Vincent Bugliosi (http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/ ), any district attorney whose jurisdiction had been the home of a serviceman killed in Iraq can bring capital murder charges against George W. Bush.  In Texas, Bush’s home state, governors are especially fond of the death penalty.
     It would have been poetic justice for Bush and Cheney to suffer a lethal injection by means of a flu shot made by Baxter. http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/08/vaccine-deaths-and-injuries-skyrocket.html    Instead, the American people re-elected Bush President. 
     Bush and his cronies rewarded American gullibility by getting greedier and more brazen. In just one day in late 2008, they stole $1.2 trillion, with no accountability as to where the money went.
     As you will recall, it was informally called the Bankster Bailout Bill. The banksters had made home loans to people who they knew could not repay the loans, then they took their homes away from them, then the fraudsters cried poverty. Not one homeowner was saved by the Bankster Embezzlement Bill.
     Obama was elected on the promise of Hope and Change. What he delivered was a seamless transition. The only way you can tell the difference between Obama’s policies and Bush’s before him was by the date that the crimes were committed.
     I’ve recently learned that Obama’s embezzlement has gotten even greedier and more brazen than I could have previously imagined. Let me give you a preview:
     With no legal authority to do so, Obama has ordered standards that no coal-fired electrical plant in America could possibly meet. In the same act, he has given General Electric a waiver. One of the consequences of this deed is that the City of Austin, Texas, has to buy electricity from Mexico at premium prices. Who do you think owns that plant in Mexico? General Electric; that’s who.
Please take a look at the following video:
     For a video that’s both entertaining and infuriating, see Max Keiser’s take on a wide range of embezzlement issues over the past ten years:
     During the 1870’s, Boss Tweed and his cronies were limited to stealing everything they possibly could from one city: the City of New York. During our time, high-level gangsters are using national leaders to steal everything they can from all of America and many other nations.
     The Truth is a powerful weapon against these robbers and mass murderers. Boss Tweed and his cronies were ousted by an informed public. The Truth—reliable information—can save us in our time as well.
     Don’t expect that a change of political parties can save us. Only this month—February 2011—Republicans in the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to extend the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, the measure that shredded the Bill of Rights and ushered in rendition and torture of political opponents, electronic strip searches at airports, warrantless wiretapping of our citizens, and too many other abuses and usurpations to count.
     How did your congressman (I won’t call them representatives) vote? Here’s a link to how they voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml
     Americans who had already kept themselves informed didn’t believe for a minute that a change in party leadership in the House of Representatives would signal a return to liberty. For the banksters and their kleptocratic henchmen, it’s business as usual.  Remember that the election of Obama was largely a reaction against the robber Republicans, and that didn't work for us either.
     Don't expect any other quick fixes such as a constitutional amendment or a Constitutional Convention either.  There is no quick fix that will free us from the responsibility of safeguarding our liberties.
     To oust the kleptocrats and restore the Bill of Rights, we don’t have to go as far as Egypt and Tunisia did, nor must meekly submit to being herded to the FEMA camps. Peaceful resistance is still an option in most countries. There are countless reliable web sites informing us as to how we can protect ourselves and how we can restore our freedoms.
     Scroll to the top of this page and find the link for Recommended Web Sites. That’s a start. Find the Table of Contents at the top of this page and read other articles telling people how systems really work, as opposed to how most people think they work. Stop buying into the kleptocratic lies that divide Democrats against Republicans, conservatives against liberals, native-born against immigrants, straights against gays, blacks against whites, Christians against Muslims—well, you get the picture.
     There are 307 million of us in America (6.7 billion in the world) and only a few thousand of those gangsters. The criminal sociopaths at the top know that they can succeed only if they keep us divided against one another. If we stand united in passive non-cooperation, they are powerless against us.
     By all means, pray; but roll up your sleeves and pray on your feet.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Sustainable Fit for Business, Society, and the Environment

     Regardless of whether you consider yourself an environmentalist, almost every person has certain things in common with environmentalists.
We want our food, water, and air to be free of things that are likely to make us sick or kill us. However we understand the word likely, we agree that we want to be healthy. Many of us would like to enjoy optimum health.
     We also appreciate beauty, especially natural beauty. You don’t have to be an environmentalist to appreciate beautiful scenery, especially if it’s a vacation destination. No brochure for a travel agency or tourism bureau ever displayed a polluted pond full of dead fish.
     Environmentalists and other people are not divided by their differences in values or necessarily by matters of fact. They are divided by perceptions that are often mistaken by both sides of the debate.
     Many of the perceptions that divide us are mere shibboleths. A belief or disbelief in global warming has nothing to do with whether you want a clean environment. People on both sides of the debate want to be healthy, they appreciate natural beauty, and they want goods and services of reasonable price and quality.
     The latter point brings us to another thing that environmentalists have in common with almost everyone else. We’re often divided by the mistaken belief that there’s a conflict between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate profit. There isn’t. No matter how much people hate business, they still want jobs.
     Businesses, societies, and the environment have mutual needs. To whatever extent the needs and values of all three areas dovetail, the interests of all three are advanced.
     Thus, it doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game in which each side benefits only to the degree that the others lose.
     That’s not to say that any business can locate wherever its managers please, then magically come up with a sustainable strategy. Sometimes the fit just isn’t there, and the business is not suitable for that particular society or environment. Australians, for example, would probably never consider starting a dingo farm next door to an infant daycare center.
     This farm (above) is located only a few meters from the wetlands outside the city of Taipei, Taiwan.  Clean water, of course, is vital for raising food crops.  A gray heron, one of many wetland birds, (at right) co-exists with human activities on this farm.
   
     The stream you see at left is waste water .  The  protected wetland helps to purify the water.  Because of the cleaner water, fishermen are able to make a living by catching fish that are safe to eat. (See below)

     A clear example of a win-win situation is the Golden Riverside Park in New Taipei City (formerly Taipei County), Taiwan.
     More than ten years ago, the Danshui River was horribly polluted, the ferry had been defunct since the Guandu Bridge was built, the fishing industry was ailing, and Danshui itself was a sleepy college town. It was such a sleepy town that, at night, motorcyclists could race along its major streets with little fear of hitting someone.
     Wetlands—the lungs and kidneys of Taiwan’s environment—were freely used as trash dumps by businesses and individuals. This was especially tragic, since only 20% of Taiwan’s wastewater is treated at waste treatment plants. Wetlands shoulder the burden of cleaning up the rest.
     Since the Guandu River Bridge was built during the 1980's people no longer need a ferry to cross the Danshui River.  Since the wetlands have been restored, and the water is much less polluted, the Guandu River Ferry has enjoyed a new career as a picturesque form of tourism.
 
     The lamentable economic and environmental situation changed when the Taipei County government laid plans to restore the wetlands. Restoration of the natural wetlands and the construction of other wetlands has improved water quality, attracted wildlife, attracted tourists, created businesses that rely on tourism, and improved the social and economic well being of the entire area. 

     The photos above and at left were taken at one of Danshui's tourist areas on a slow weekday.  On weekends, it's far too crowded for bicycling. 

      Just think of how many jobs are saved or created, and how many other human needs in the area are met by fully functioning wetlands.


     The video below shows a panoramic view of tourist-related businesses along the riverbank, bicyclists, the Guandu Ferry, the mountains, the wetlands, and the Guandu Bridge.
video


(For more information on the importance of wetlands, click the following URL:)
http://eng.sdec.tpc.edu.tw/bin/home.php 

     On the other hand, let’s suppose someone were irresponsible enough to allow the construction of a chemical plant along the wetlands. Let’s further suppose he were reckless enough to permit the dumping of toxins into the air and into the wetland’s water table, on the grounds that this measure would create jobs.
     It’s true that expanding a petrochemical plant into an ecosystem's lungs and kidneys could create some jobs. We can be sure that  jobs would be created for medical personnel specializing in the treatment of various cancers and respiratory ailments.  Furthermore, undertakers (illustrated above center) wouldn't have to wait as long for customers, nor would hospitals or medical schools have to wait as long to make claims on your organ donor card (illustrated above right). 
     Can we say, though, that the only jobs that matter are the ones created by businesses with pockets deep enough to contribute oceans of money to political campaigns?
     How many jobs would be lost? How many lives would be shortened due to cancer and respiratory illnesses? How much natural beauty would be destroyed? No, each person is valuable, as are each person’s health and general well being. Any business that is given privileges at the expense of society and the environment becomes a menace to society, the environment, and most other businesses.
     The value of a person’s job can’t be measured by how much it contributes to the GDP. GDP measures money spent, but it doesn’t measure value received.
     Look at a loaf of bread. The manufacture of a plastic bread wrapper contributes more to the GDP than the production of the wheat that goes into the bread. The wheat, on the other hand, contributes more value to the finished product. It’s the fit among all factors—the ingredients of the bread, the quality of the water used in growing the wheat, and social needs—that give bread its overall value.
     In the video below, you can see what happens at the end of the river.  At low tide, people forage for crabs and various other foods from the sea.  They, too, depend on relatively clean water for food safety, and GDP has nothing to do with it.  Each person has value that can't be measured in dollars and cents.
video

     Just as “jobs” is used as a rationale for corporate greed and depredation, certain giant corporations sometimes use “environmental protection” as a rationale for destroying their competitors. In such cases, environmental legislation is written to give favored businesses virtual monopolies.
     But that’s the subject of another article.