Essays – Page 3 – Aleksandar Šarović

What God Wants

What God Wants

Jesus Christ is supposed to create Heaven on Earth when He returns to Earth. After long-term scientific work, I concluded that equal human rights would bring Paradise to Earth. If I’m right, does that mean I could be Jesus Christ?

God created a wonderful world

Something has created the nature in which we live. Nature is complex, functional, rational, beautiful and harmonious. If one pays attention to any part of nature, one may notice perfectionism in the logic of its creation. I doubt it could have been developed without help from a tremendous intelligent power. I have accepted the name of this power is God. I doubt God has control everywhere in nature; instead, I believe God has created a super algorithm capable of bringing the best possible results in generating forms and relations of nature. For example, if people discover that it would be better to jump instead of walk, God’s algorithm might build them wings in a few million years. We, the people, have to learn from nature to understand God.

The origin of religions

Some individuals have claimed they received messages from God and passed on his will to the people. This was the origin of all religions. Religions contain ancient wisdom that brings good to people, which is why we can say that they carry the will of God. The Bible has presented wise and beautiful words of God. The following verses from the Bible confirm that God wants people to create a good society:

Psalm (89:14) ‘Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you.’

Amos (5:7,15) ‘Ah, you that turn justice to wormwood, and bring righteousness to the ground! …Hate evil and love good and establish justice in the gate.’

Galatians (5:22-23) ‘The Spirit’s role in a person’s life is to perfect the person’s character, to make him like God. Its fruits, being shown in human behaviour, are the divine attributes of God: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control…”‘

Colossians (1:9-10) ‘The essence of all true spiritual knowledge lies in God’s divinely ordained laws. It is God’s desire that we be “filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding… in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.”‘

Isaiah (9:6-7) “The government will be upon His [Christ’s] shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace, there will be no end.”

Micah (4:4) “Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid.”

But why do the messages of God in the Bible pass only the knowledge from the time when religion originated? Why has God, as almighty and all-knowing, not teaching people science or how to build a good society? Does the lack of knowledge in the Bible mean that God’s messengers invented God’s words, or could they not understand his words well enough? However, since different people received different messages from God, they have formed different religions. But God has not sent different messages to diverse religions; he certainly did not deceive people.

Mistakes of religions

The range of material written in religious books is very comprehensive but not helpful in defining a good society. God is not a blabberer; he is a highly effective creator, meaning his messages should also be effective. In contrast, many sentences in religious books confront wisdom and cannot make a good society. Such sentences definitely cannot be sent by God.

Many religions force people to follow the will of God obediently. God certainly does not want to force people into anything because coercion cannot make a right. Power over people is a need of spiritually undeveloped people. Control over people is a privilege that brings evil. This control creates stupidity, greed, hatred, destruction, wars, and hell on earth. It has nothing to do with the will of God. With this in regard, the religions which force people to follow God are in confrontation with the intention of God. God does not need power over people. He is far above such need. God wants people to create a good society.

Can we assume that among those people who wrote religious books were some who wanted to reach power over people? When you see how quickly today’s religious preachers improvise verses from the Bible to achieve intellectual superiority over religious people, we can assume some writers of holy books did the same. These people entered wrong ideas into religious texts that have nothing to do with the will of God. They created contradictions in the Bible. For example, God’s 6th commandment states: “Thou shall not murder,” and Jesus Christ, Son of God, according to Luke (19:27), said: “But as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king – bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.” The contradictions in the Bible do not present the mistakes of God but of people. They have prevented the progress of society. God wants people to live well, but people deviate from his will.

I have discovered how to achieve the will of God

My philosophy, based on equal human rights, will bring the righteousness and justice demanded in the Bible. Moreover, equal human rights will solve society’s problems and create Heaven on Earth. Therefore, equal human rights must be God’s will.

Today, we have defined equal human rights insufficiently. Equal human rights are established formally, while reality suggests they are not equal. Presidents of countries may send people to war, and people cannot do it to them. Bosses may fire workers, and workers cannot do it to them. Teachers may force students to accept knowledge, and students cannot do it to them. Where are the equal human rights there? Throughout history, authorities have prevented the development of equal human rights to maintain their privileges. As a result, equal human rights have never existed, which is why society was never good.

Equal human rights imply that all people have equal opportunities in their lives. This includes the right of all people to participate equally in the decision-making regarding all issues of common interest. However, until recently, it was impossible to establish equal human rights because nothing could collect the needs of all people and harmonize the optimal decisions that may satisfy all people. This has become possible with the development of computer technology.

We need a democracy that will successfully follow individual and collective needs. I believe such a democracy must give people equal legislative, judicial, and executive powers. Everyone shall get equal rights to evaluate others for whatever they do. Each positive evaluation should bring a small reward to the assessed person, and each negative assessment should result in a small punishment. Such a policy would make everyone work hard to please others and avoid hurting anybody. This should create a good society. The equal evaluating power among people presents a new form of democracy, and the freedom of evaluation presents a new state of anarchy. Therefore, such a policy can be called democratic anarchy. Democratic anarchy alone should be capable of building a much better society than we have today. I have presented democratic anarchy in more detail in the article Democratic Anarchy is the Future of Democracy.

***

Equal human rights also mean that every person must have the right to work. As long as there is unemployment, such a right does not exist. Unemployed people have to accept poorly paid jobs to feed themselves. It causes the exploitation of workers. Shortening work hours may reduce unemployment till it is completely removed. It will raise the demand for workers and their salaries in the free market until exploitation is eliminated. This will create just relations in the production processes. Workers will earn greater wages, purchase more, and the economy will grow. Such a policy would solve today’s socioeconomic problems and build good capitalism. I have defined good capitalism in the article: Full Employment is a Turning Point of Capitalism.

Equal human rights are supposed to improve the economy significantly. The ultimate stage of equal human rights will create an equal possibility for workers’ employment at every public work post at any time. It will be necessary to open a permanent competition of workers for every public work post. Every public job will be filled by the worker who offers higher productivity, more responsibility, and demands a lower wage. It is nothing but a developed work market that is open at all times. I know it sounds impossible because such a division of labour never existed, but realizing it is just a technical problem.

I have defined an economic system that will effectively evaluate workers’ productivity, harmonize workers’ rewards, and define workers’ job responsibilities. Of course, such an economy cannot be realized soon because it will require a lot of development before people embrace it. But once people establish it, the burdens and benefits of a living will be justly distributed, forming a just economy. In addition, no company can be more productive than one where each job gets the best available worker. As a result, private companies will lose the productivity battle with public companies, sending capitalism down in history. This will create good socialism. I have defined it in the article: Developed Marked of Work will Create Socialism.

The final result of establishing equal human rights will be visible in good communism, where people will develop equal consumer rights. Socialism will teach workers to value work more than money. Then, all people may voluntarily assign all their incomes for taxes, making all goods and services available free of charge. This will be good communism, which should be a synonym for Heaven on Earth. I believe that nothing more than equal human rights is needed to create a good society, and nothing else can make it. I have presented the bright future of humankind in the scientific book Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society.

Also, I have shown the result of my work through three stories in three screenplays, Good Capitalism, Good Socialism, and Good Communism, for ease of understanding. By reading these screenplays, people can learn how to save the world from social evil and make it a good place to live.

Then, am I Jesus Christ?

Messiah is supposed to save the world from social evil and make it a good place to live, so I publicly proclaimed myself a secular messiah five years ago. Those rare people who have read my proclamation probably consider me a character from a fairytale. People can hardly accept new critical ideas because they have not developed an ability to think independently by living in an alienated society that authorities have established.

Might it also mean that “I am the way, the truth, and the life”? (John 14:6) According to the Bible, God will create Heaven on Earth (Amos 9:13-15). Christian authorities believe Jesus Christ will be highly involved when returns. Since I have defined Heaven on Earth and belong to the Christian religion, should it not mean that I am Jesus Christ and that my path only leads to God the Father? I asked this for the first time 19 years ago here: Am I Jesus Christ?

The Church has not accepted me as the Messiah because I have not seen or heard God the Father (Or I am unaware of it, which does not help). According to the Bible, Jesus Christ and God the Father are one. But then, should not Jesus Christ have presented much more knowledge to be equated with the world’s creator? He showed less understanding of this world than ordinary people do today. Also, it is hard to tell how much Jesus Christ’s teaching was original or a reflection of his time. Egyptians preached another world before him.

According to the Bible, I also cannot be Jesus Christ because I know nothing about another world and eternal life. However, I can say something about it from a secular point of view. In the article Everlasting life, I quoted the studious Christian website “2001 Translation Bible,” which translates the original Bible written in Greek again. In the article “Does the Bible promises eternal life?” the answer is: “The fact is, it doesn’t… at least, not in those exact words. Why not? Because the Greek word that other Bible translators render as “everlasting” (aionos) doesn’t mean that. It’s what we get the English word “eon” from, and it means a long time.” Due to the different meanings of related words in other languages, Bible translators have sometimes interpreted the lyrics freely.

I accept the possibility of eternal life because I do not have evidence that it does not exist. However, I asked myself whether eternal life is desirable, even in spiritual form. (The laws of physics deny the eternity of matter.) One could say that the actor Christopher Reeve was practically destined for a spiritual life. He fell from a horse, broke his neck and was immobile for life. He did not like such a spiritual life, was unhappy and even thought of suicide. But suppose eternal spiritual life exists. Can one imagine this eternal life if an individual desires a glass of red wine that they could never drink?

Why do Christians believe that eternal life must be good? I think I have an approximate answer to this question. People who are not free, people who are afraid, are not able to satisfy the needs of their lives. And there is no difference between authorities and their dependents here. Narcissistic authorities need to achieve societal supremacy and are slaves to their megalomaniac ideas that cannot be realized. People who live under the oppression of authorities and obediently follow them cannot meet their needs. They both do not live well and fear death because they feel their lives have not satisfied their expectations. I believe that is why they need faith in a much better and eternal life in heaven.

People who live in freedom and who are responsible for their lives live in its fullness. Such people are not afraid of death because they recognize that they have fulfilled their life expectations through living. Death brings them freedom in the broadest sense because they practically do not need anything anymore. Spiritual writers have shown such a state of mind in their work. For example, Henryk Sienkiewicz in the book “Quo Vadis.” In real life, Albert Einstein presented it by refusing surgery to prolong his life. I believe God made the best solution for the people, and having a longer life than God predicted would be a disadvantage. God allocates a good life and death as a gift to the people who follow his will based on a productive way of living.

Finally, numerous Christian interpretations of the Bible suggest that Heaven and Hell are not locations but states of mind. If this is true, I should be accepted as a candidate for Jesus Christ’s work position because my philosophy based on equal human rights will make people love unconditionally, bringing freedom, justice, peace, wisdom, and joy to everyone. If my philosophy creates Heaven on Earth, there is no reason for Jesus Christ to come the second time to Earth. Then, the question would be, does he exist at all? It would be wise for the Church and Christians to examine my philosophy and determine if I might be a candidate for Jesus Christ’s work position for creating Heaven on Earth.

Authorities block my philosophy because every social improvement must take power from them. As a result, people can hardly see my work. And thanks to the alienation authorities have imposed throughout the history of civilization, those rare people who have read it have not recognized the importance of my work. Consequently, social progress is plodding. Accepting me as a candidate for Jesus Christ’s work position will make people pay attention to my work, dramatically accelerating the coming of Heaven to Earth.

18.10.2013

Cancer and Conspiracy

Cancer and Conspiracy

Cancer is the leading cause of death in the USA immediately after heart disease. The accepted methods of treatment: chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are very aggressive to humans. Chemotherapy uses poisons such as mustard gas to kill cancer cells. Cancer cells are weaker than healthy cells in the human body and by the use of poisons die before healthy cells. Of course, healthy cells die in the process as well as the human defence system against diseases. Radiation operates in a similar principle and surgery removes the cancerous tissues.

According to statistics of the American Cancer Association, 60% of patients survive cancer. These statistics may be exaggerated because of more favourable statistics regarding the fight against cancer suit the association better. It should be noted that according to the same statistics, people who survive cancer 5 years after the detection are considered cured. If the cancer returns after this period, it is a new case. This suggests that cancer survival is realistically below 60%.

Furthermore, under the influence of cancer-fighting drugs, people sometimes experience fatal heart attacks. If this or similar cases of deaths are not attributed to cancer, which is possible because it is a grey area, then the real survival rate is significantly below 60%. People younger than 45 years present 3% of the total number of deaths, while 70% of fatalities come from those aged 65 and over. The older bodies are weaker and bear the aggressive treatment harder.

The American Cancer Society predicts that every other man of the present population will get cancer while one in four will die from it, and one in three women will get cancer and each fifth will die.

This information should alert the American government to accumulate resources in the fight against cancer, but they do not. I guess the American government is convinced that enough has been done in the battle against cancer. In the last 40 years, the United States has spent over 200 billion dollars trying to cure cancer, but the cure is not found. It seems the apathy has overcome which accepts that nothing more can be done. The truth is that the whole fight against cancer is under the control of big business whose insufficiently successful treatment methods earn massive profits and that is more important to them than the lives of people. Dr. Peter Glidden explains it well in short.

There are many theories of cancer originations, as well as alternative methods of prevention and treatment of cancer in which nothing is invested.

Dr. Otto Heinrich Warburg (1883 – 1970), one of the leading cell biologists of the twentieth century, in his book “The Metabolism of Tumours,” claims that the primary cause of cancer is a lack of oxygen in the cells. Normal cells cannot survive without oxygen, whereas cancerous cells can. According to him the primary cause of cancer is the replacement of the oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar. Cancer is no more than a defence mechanism that some cells use to survive without oxygen. The support of this hypothesis lies in the fact that the heart is the only organ that hardly can have cancer because of the lack of oxygen in the heart causes heart attack and death.

Dr. Warburg exhibited that the lack of oxygen creates acid cells. Tumorous cells are highly acidic. A healthy pH level (potential of hydrogen) in the cell has a value of 7. All values less than that are acidic which is unhealthy. A lower pH signifies lower concentrations of oxygen molecules, which destroy healthy cells and help the growth of cancer. All values above 7 are alkaline, which has a higher level of oxygen molecules, favouring the growth of healthy cells and hindering cancer growth. According to Dr. Warburg, tumorous cells cannot survive in the presence of high concentrations of oxygen.

Dr. Otto Heinrich Warburg received a Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1931. He was also the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Cell Physiology in Berlin. It is surprising that the work of such a high authority has not been supported for over 80 years. To be clear, it is not easy to convey oxygen into the cell body because the kidney discards the excess of acidity and alkalinity. However, there are no justifications for the lack of research in the field of increasing the alkalinity of the body which, according to Dr. Warburg, will eradicate cancer.

Dr. Theodore A. Baroody, in his book Alkalize or die, from 2002, wrote: “Any stressor that the mind or body interprets and internalizes as too much to deal with leaves an acid residue. Even a mild stressor can cause a partial or total acid-forming reaction.” And continued: “The countless names attached to illness do not really matter. What does matter is that they all come from the same root cause: too much tissue acid waste in the body.”

This introductory presentation suggests that cancer is the result of an unhealthy lifestyle. Unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, and stress reduce the supply of oxygen to the cells and thus favourite the occurrence of cancer. So we can prevent cancer by eating healthy and being physically active. Exercise increases breathing and thus provide more oxygen to the cells which strengthen the body.

Food creates acidity or alkalinity in the body, all depending on what one eats. Unhealthy eating habits that produce acidity and should be avoided are meat, milk, sugar, refined flour, salt, and all their products. Healthy alkaline foods one should increase consumption of are raw fruits and vegetables, whole grains, honey. In this regard, cancer can be suppressed or reduced through a diet prevalent in alkaline foods. Elderly and sick people need to consume mostly such foods.

Dr.George W.Crile (1864-1943) one of the most excellent American surgeons claimed: “There is no such thing as a natural death. All deaths from so-called natural causes are merely the endpoint of progressive acid saturation. Any form of poor health indicates a disturbed state of body chemistry balance – generally an acid state. In fact, over-acidity is common to all health-robbing conditions. An infant is highly alkaline. An 80-year-old person is highly acid. Death is 100% acidity.” Also, he stated: “It is entirely impossible that cancer appears in a person who avoids foods that produce acidity and who rids the body of the acidity with a healthy alkaline diet. In general, cancer is not contracted nor is it inherited. What you are inherited eating habits, environmental and lifestyle. This can result in cancer.”

It has always been known what healthy food and healthy life are. A government that is concerned about the lives of the people would have to inform the public about the difference between healthy and unhealthy lifestyles. One cannot say that the governments in the Western world do not try to suppress cancer. The Canadian government, for example, recommends a healthy diet and sport and recreation. It calls for free clinical examinations for early cancer detection. It cures all citizens of Canada for free. (However, I cannot help feeling that the Government, by paying the bills for all citizens, primarily supports the Canadian medical industry.) It banned smoking in public places and introduced high taxes on cigarettes. Nevertheless, governments need to stimulate healthy lifestyles a lot more.

Western governments should stimulate the production of healthy food by applying tax burdens on unhealthy foods and by prohibiting the use of harmful ingredients in food. The food industry nowadays mostly processes foods with acidic characteristics, then for inexplicable reasons, removes its nutrients and inserts unhealthy substances. For example, from wheat they remove proteins, fats, and minerals, so only acid starch in the end remains. Then they bleach it using chlorine which destroys nutrients in the human body. Such food is consumed far more regularly than cigarettes, and therefore it most likely presents a more significant source of cancer than smoking. But taxing junk food would reduce the profits of the food industry; one of the most profitable industries for big business. They will surely oppose it. Big companies sponsor election campaigns in Western governments, and they will not act against their interests. They will not be taxing junk food.

Big businesses lobby in the parliaments of Western countries to permit the use of antibiotics, pesticides, preservatives, and toxins in food production to create higher profits. They have established the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international standard for food production with which they impose rules for food production worldwide. In such a manner they plan to impose unhealthy food ingredients to all of humanity. This will make people ill worldwide. Furthermore, sick people are profitable to the pharmaceutical and medical industries. These industries really have no interest in healing people because healthy people do not need their products and services. The production of food, drugs and medicine, complement each other in creating profits and not in the health of people. We live in a very unhealthy and immoral society, physically and spiritually.

Big businesses support only those methods for treating cancer which bring profits to them and reject methods that do not make money. The average initial cancer treatment through adopted methods costs around $50,000. Big profits certainly discourage the medical industry from finding a cure for cancer, and it is indeed not interested in finding an inexpensive one.

Dr. Tullio Simoncini, Italian doctor and oncologist, born in 1951, practiced the use of baking powder in the fight against cancer. Baking powder, or sodium bicarbonate, has a pH value of 10 and, as such, according to Dr. Warburg, is very suitable for the treatment of cancer. Dr. Simoncini claims that cancer causes the fungus Candida albicans, which is explained in his book: “Cancer Is A Fungus.” Baking powder is indeed the best-known anti-fungal drug, and traditional medicine recognizes it as a cure for many health problems. Besides, baking powder is very inexpensive and adequately used is not harmful to the health of people in any way.

Dr. Simoncini’s teachings have attracted a lot of people suffering from cancer worldwide in the last 20 years. There are numerous testimonies that Dr. Simoncini cured their cancer. Many of them were scrapped by modern medicine. Unfortunately, one patient died after his treatment. I do not know if Dr. Simoncini made a mistake in the therapy, but he lost his medical licence in court and was sentenced to a prison term of three years. It was because his method of treatment was not permissible by the Italian authorities. In the United States 600,000 people die each year from cancer, and of course, no doctors lost their permit nor were they sentenced to jail because they used the legalized methods of treatment.

The regulation of cancer treatment in the world is mainly based on U.S. policy since the United States is recognized as the leader in the development of modern medicine. In America, the procedures are regulated by The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), The American Medical Association (AMA), The American Chemical Society (ACS), The National Cancer Institute (NCI), and so on. Big businesses have used their economic power to develop control over these institutions and systematically suppress or ban all natural ways of treating cancer. Modern medicine considers natural healing unverifiable and prohibits doctors to use natural medication even though there is plenty of evidence on the effectiveness of treatment.

Science completely withdraws from Dr. Simoncini. First, it should be noted that science is very conservative and secondly, the big capital has been directing it for centuries. Science cannot develop without money, and big businesses only support science which is suitable for them, ignores science that is not useful to them, while science which acts against their interests corrupts or sabotages. Thus, scientific books are saturated with a large amount of incorrect or insufficiently correct knowledge. A scientist who adopts incorrectly or incompletely right knowledge would hardly accept their mistakes even when they become aware of it.

Medical doctors criticize Dr.Simoncini’s work with the thesis that it is not supported by science and clinical practice and that it is contrary to the widely accepted facts of oncology and microbiology. Besides that, scientific circles claim that the work of Dr.Simoncini has no scientific evidence supported by credible experiments and clinical trials. How can he prove his claims with scientific evidence and clinical trials when his method of treatment is not permitted when clinics are forbidden from using his process of healing? Thus medical science actually prevents the healing of people.

Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, an American nutritionist, has treated cancer patients for more than 30 years by using only natural, healthy food. He argues that the results of his treatment of pancreatic cancer are better than the results achieved by chemotherapy. He has no problem with the authorities because no one can charge him for treating people with healthy food, but he does not have support from the American Institutes without which one cannot effectively fight cancer.

Dr. Gonzalez accuses conventional medicine of not supporting natural healing methods but trying to undermine them. In his book “What Went Wrong” he presents the struggle for recognition of his treatments by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and the National Cancer Institute. He did not succeed because biased scientists have sabotaged his work. They were entirely disavowing the positive results of his work. Alternative methods of cancer treatment cannot get support.

The adoption of the natural methods for cancer treatment and for the implementation of clinical research, must not be prevented, especially not because there are no side effects of such therapies. This does not necessarily need to eliminate chemotherapy and radiation as accepted methods of combating cancer. Clinical trials expanded by new treatment methods can present whether the results of such an anti-cancer treatment can be better. I believe it can be. I have as a philosopher come to the conclusion that truths in nature are very simple and we just need to see them. Therefore, I believe that the cure for cancer is somewhere among us, and we just need to pick it up.

I believe that a cure for cancer would have been discovered or at least good prevention if big capital did not prevent the effective fight against cancer. Big businesses are secretly united within a single entity and manage to lobby their interests in all governments, institutes, universities, and the media of the Western world, and thus they realize the power that rules the Western world. If there were two centers of power, they would fight each other for supremacy, and we would see it. You saw how uncooperative Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi ended up. There is an incredible conspiracy behind the big business. I wrote about it in the article: “Jacob Rothschild is Guilty for the Conspiracy Against Humankind.”

Through analyzing the failure of the fight against cancer, I cannot help feeling that big businesses use cancer to reduce the over-population of the planet Earth. Cancer is beneficial to big capital because it rids marginalized people, those who do not have enough money for a healthy life, and especially the non-productive elderly. This is a result of the ideology of capitalism, according to which profit is the highest value. The insufficient interest of state governments, academic institutions and the media to solve the problem of cancer suggests that they are all controlled by the same center and are implicitly involved in the crime of murdering people. Conspiracy has affected every pore of today’s society, and I do not see the possibility of a successful contest for the welfare of humankind if we do not face the source of the conspiracy. This is Jacob Rothschild.

October 12, 2014

9/11

My Investigation of 9/11

The US government conducted and reported on an investigation about the 9/11 terrorist attacks with the help of The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The findings are presented in short here: FAQs – NIST WTC Towers Investigation. It states that the planes’ impact, fire, and the heavy load of the buildings destroyed the WTC and the Pentagon.

Američka vlada je provela istragu i napravila izvještaj o terorističkim napadima 9/11uz pomoć Nacionalnog instituta za standarde i tehnologiju (NIST). Ti nalazi su ukratko prikazani ovdje: FAQs – NIST WTC Towers Investigation. Izvještaj zaključuje da su udarci aviona, vatra i teški teret zgrada uništili WTC i Pentagon. Američka vlada je optužila vođu organizacije Al-Qaeda, Osamu Bin Ladena da je odgovoran za 9/11 iako nije dala nikakav dokaz koji bi to mogao potvrditi. Pokušali su uhvatiti Osamu Bin Ladena ali je tom prilkom ubijen što je ostavilo mnoga važna pitanja bez odgovora. Istraga nije uspjela dati uvjerljivi odgovor na osnovno pitanje zašto su tih 19 muslimana to učinili?

Together, the doors opened wide for conspiracy theories. A large number of people disagree with the NIST report. They accuse the US government of destroying the WTC by planting explosive devices in it and crushing the part of the Pentagon with a missile.

One of the leading organizations that accuse the government is “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” The accusations of these organizations are mainly presented on social networks such as Facebook and YouTube. Their reports dominate the topic with thousands of documentaries trying to prove the government did it. These reports are pseudoscientific so I have to disagree with them.

If we analyze motives for the terrorist attack, the government and mainstream US media have found it in the fact that the suicidal terrorists did not like US values, freedom and democracy. Those are really shallow and miserable statements with which I strongly disagree. If they were even slightly objective, they would find motive in the aggressive US foreign policy.

The alternative media has found motive for the alleged government’s involvement in the demolition of the WTC in the desire to get the American people to support the conquering of independent countries in the Middle East. The wars in the Middle East were indeed triggered by 9/11. However, I do not see how US government officials would be able to gain personally from the crime of aggression on these independent countries.

While reading discussions related to 9/11 on various forums, I found the most significant divide was between people who think the government did it and those who do not believe it. I would say approximately half accuse the government of 9/11 and a half don’t. They fiercely argue about why 9/11 happened, who had an interest in it, and finally who did it. They were not able to find convincing answers and an explanation to which all might agree. It triggered me to see the truth about 9/11. I performed my investigation which gave conclusive answers to all of the questions regarding 9/11. I am presenting my findings here.

The twin towers. We all saw two planes hit the twin towers. The planes’ impacts critically damaged them. If the planes were twice as large, they would probably have cut the towers in two. Then the fire weakened the construction of the buildings until the huge loads of the buildings reached critical pressure, causing the crash of the towers. That was the government’s explanation, with which I agree. I wrote the article A Clear Explanation Why the Twin Towers Collapsed in which I have scientifically explained how the skyscrapers crushed down. I believe it is a credible explanation.

The alternative media on social networks have accused the US government of planting explosives which destroyed the twin towers. Thousands of reports and documentaries tried to convince people by using suggestive explanations such as the buildings could never collapse if hit by a plane, or that the explosions which destroyed the buildings were heard by many witnesses. Some of the mainstream media broadcasted or published the accusations of the alternative ones.

I would like to know why not one of these reports asked essential questions like why anybody would try to destroy both twin towers twice at the same time when both of the attempts are extremely difficult to realize? Where exactly would the explosive devices be planted to demolish the buildings the way they went down? Who might plant the explosives? How would planting the explosives possibly go unnoticed by people who work there? Explosive experts would have to plant the explosives exactly at the place where the planes hit the buildings or else the collapse might start elsewhere. That means they would have to know in advance where the jets were going to hit the buildings. This is hard to believe even if the pilots were extremely skilled. But then if the planes hit the building exactly where the explosives were planted, why did they not go off immediately when the planes hit? What exactly might have triggered the presumed explosives and how? What would determine the timing of the explosion? None of that was questioned, analyzed, explained, or discussed, not to mention investigated, which is way too short of a serious accusation against the government.

Here I enclosed one of many very shallow documentaries which try to prove that explosive devices demolished the twin towers: WTC: How The Towers Fell. Instead, it actually proves that the collapse of both buildings was caused by the damage of the planes, fire, and the large weight of the buildings.

The slow-motion video at 38:23 is a well-documented cheat easy to debunk. The narrator states that the top of the building disappears in the explosion. But no explosion is to be seen; there is no high-speed debris flying from the place of the alleged blast. Instead, the documentary presents the implosion of the top of the building and collapsing floors.

One can see eruptions of smoke and fire coming out from the building, but not as the result of explosions, but under the pressure of collapsing floors. Some people believed they heard explosions in the buildings. They were mistaken. If we throw a book on a table, it will bang. Imagine how loud the collapse of the whole floor would bang! That was what those people heard.

The upper part of the building started imploding floor by floor at the level where the plane hit the building. The construction below was rigid and resisted the collapse of nearly 10 stories (see the scale in the above-linked video) which piled on before reaching the critical weight and the kinetic energy of the load, which the construction below could not withstand. Then the weight of the building hammered down floor by floor the whole building to the foundations, almost like a free fall. Yes, the construction was sturdy but not enough to resist the power of the falling load above. The columns below bent and collapsed like nails hit by a big hammer to a hard surface. That is all one needs to understand physics.

And finally, the first building to collapse was hit second by the plane. Why? The second building was hit lower than the first one so that the load above the plane’s impact of the second building was more significant than the weight above the first. The more massive pressure quickened the collapse of the building hit second. That also indicates that the collapses were not triggered by the explosion.

This video proves that all talk of explosive use is devised fraud of false conspiracy creators. It proves the documentary was created on purpose to accuse the government and trick people.

The Pentagon. No camera clearly shows the Pentagon being hit by a plane. The security cameras around the Pentagon had a speed of one snapshot per second while the plane flew at 200 meters per second so that it escaped the camera. That opened the door to conspiracy theorists claiming not a plane hit the Pentagon but a missile. Again thousands of alternative media have created fake pseudoscientific reports claiming a missile caused the Pentagon destruction. So according to these reports, the Pentagon hit the Pentagon with a missile.

These reports did not bother to question where the missing plane was if a missile hit the Pentagon? The attack on the Pentagon occurred at 9:45 AM. Hundreds of people saw the plane hitting the Pentagon and not one person saw a missile. That is the reason these reports did not bother to ask the eyewitnesses what they saw. Even the conspiracy theory stood on extremely shaky legs; not a seriously organized effort has been made to debunk these reports.

All these fake reports cannot cheat those who think with their heads and try to discover the truth on their own. Some individuals fought for the fact but got lost in a sea of fake reports. For example, Jeffrey Hill, frustrated by false statements about the destruction of the Pentagon, conducted his own research nine years after the incident. He searched the archive of various newspapers trying to find the eyewitnesses statements. He found many witnesses and interviewed them by unsolicited phone calls in which he asked them to confirm what they saw on 9/11. After that Jeffrey Hill said: “These people did not talk about hypotheticals based on the size of the hole in the Pentagon or the lack of aircraft debris; they related what they saw on 9/11.” Jeffrey Hill presented the voice recordings and his analysis here: What really happened. ”His conclusion was: “The Pentagon was hit by a plane, end of story.” He proved it.

The Pentagon actually collapsed the same way as the twin towers even though the load above the impact point was much smaller. The longer time under the fire replaced the lesser destructive power of the Pentagon weight.

The WTC building 7. It is the core of the conspiracy theory because the supporters of conspiracy theories stated such a building never collapsed due to fire. To them, it looked like a controlled demolition, controlled demolition, controlled demolition… repeated thousands of times in thousands of reports. In such a way the collapse of WTC building 7 has become a controlled demolition to a large number of people.

However, everything that these reports present is wrong. Actual future events proved that high rise buildings do collapse in the fire. On May 13, 2008, the 13-story building of the Faculty of Architecture, at the Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, collapsed under fire. On 19 January 2017 the 17-story Plasco Building in Tehran, Iran, collapsed during a skyscraper fire.

Also, one could not possibly secretly plant explosive devices in either WTC building. First, planting explosives which can destroy the building requires a lot of time and it cannot pass undetected by people who work there, and second, such explosives cannot be invisible.

The collapse of WTC building 7 really looked like a controlled demolition as it was presented in media, but that does not mean it was indeed a controlled demolition. All these “deep analytic and scientific” documentaries about the collapse of building 7 have “forgotten” to present that its core collapsed 7 seconds before the rest of the building. They skipped that on purpose because this would prove that no explosive was used in the collapse of the building. Please take a look at the following documentary: 9/11 WTC 7 Demolition – Westside Highway CBS Camera Angle at 7:24.

No controlled demolition of any building ever happened in two parts with a 7-second delay. A camera never detected explosion in building 7, nor did anybody see it even though the building was under constant supervision before the downfall.

So what happened? Building 7 was damaged by debris flying from the North WTC twin tower (see the picture below). It burned almost all day after being abandoned by firefighters, which was normal after the ruin of the twin towers. When firefighters abandoned the burning building it’s collapse was just a matter of time. The whole day fire additionally weakened the damaged steel structure of the building. The heavy load of the building destroyed the weakest columns of the core of the building which led to its collapse.

But why did the whole building collapse? The fire did not affect the entire building. I am an architect and engineer and will try to explain it here in a way everyone can understand. The collapse of the core of the building together with the broken corner disturbed the balance of the building static causing the horizontal pressure. As a result, the whole building twisted one second before the collapse, which is visible in the documentary. The controlled demolition cannot cause this twist because controlled demolitions always collapse buildings straight down. These buildings drop, they do not twist. This twist destroyed the building.

Steel construction is strongly resistant to axial pressures but is very weak to bending moment stresses. Steel columns are too thin to keep resistance to big bending forces, especially if exposed to high temperature. They act like wooden sticks. One can easily break a stick by bending it until it snaps and that is the only way to break it. The same happens to steel columns. When the construction of building 7 twisted, the load of the building created big bending moment stress to the steel columns. They bent practically without resistance and in no time on the floor most damaged by fire. Then the building collapsed almost in free fall as we saw. Building 7 started falling in the core slightly ahead of the perimeters. That delay presents the horizontal speed of the collapsing columns under the load.

So the only convincing claim of conspiracy theorists lied in the fact that the collapse of building 7 did look like a controlled demolition, however, steel construction buildings actually could not collapse in any other way. This is the only way building 7 was able to collapse.

The US government could not destroy the WTC even in theory. President Bush acted awkwardly when he was informed about 9/11 which tells me he knew nothing about it. He would not be able to hide it if he knew. Also, I cannot even imagine how the government would find one person in the darkest corner of the CIA willing to kill thousands of fellow citizens. Planting explosives in the WTC would require the engagement of a large number of people. Also, there is no guarantee they would all keep silent. That would be entirely an impossible mission. I’ve found that all of the accusations against the government are incredibly shallow nonsenses leading me to conclude that we are witnessing a conspiracy against the government, innocent of the destruction 9/11.

I hope that this analysis has proved to all that conspiracy against the government exists. OK but who are then the conspirators and why did they accuse the government? Did the conspiracy against the US government have anything to do with the suicidal terrorists who attacked the WTC? I think it did and I will try to explain it here.

Only an extremely powerful organization must have organized a conspiracy against the US government. Only the most influential capital could manage it. The conspirators are the powerful owners of large corporations that rule over the Western world. This capital has the interest to dominate the whole world. They wanted to extend their power over the Middle East by using the 9/11 conspiracy. I’ll try to prove it here.

Big capital needed 9/11 to get support from the American people for aggression on the independent Middle East countries and their conquest. All wars that took place in the Middle East after 9/11 are the result of this conspiracy. The US government could not profit from these aggressions, only the owners of corporations could benefit from it. They are the ones who make money in wars.

Could the 9/11 attack be organized by the attackers alone? Was it a gift from heaven to the owners of corporations that enabled them to attack the Middle East? This is hardly possible. In that case, the mass-organized accusations against the US government would not exist. The conspirators would have to wait for an opportunity to conquer the Middle East countries and that was not suitable for them. I believe that big capital accelerated this process by planning the attack on the WTC. The conspiracy was born.

The conspirators could have relatively easily found people ready to destroy the WTC in Saudi Arabia, where most suicidal terrorists come from. One agent of the conspirators might have contacted one person in Saudi Arabia to find people willing to commit 9/11. It should not have been a difficult task in a state full of religious fanatics, very angry at the US for its aggressive foreign policy. In that case, there was almost no risk for the purveyors of the attacks to be caught. I believe the conspirators did it that way. Those suicidal fanatics most likely received money and support to destroy the WTC. Otherwise, they would have difficulty entering the US or attending flight school for example. But the most rewarding thing to suicidal terrorists was pride for being chosen for such a big task. Ironically they committed 9/11 without knowing they worked for their worst enemies. Some information points to Saudi Arabia having something to do with 9/11, but there is strong resistance to any investigation.

The owners of corporations knew they committed a massive crime by destroying the WTC. To hide possible traces of the crimes, they needed to frame somebody else for it. The US government was the perfect suspect. Big capital accused the US government of 9/11 mainly through alternative media. Massive attacks on the US government points to a large organization that supports this conspiracy. Big capital has done it to prevent the development of an idea which might connect them to the crime. In other words, if big capital was not involved in 9/11, there would be no reason for its accusations against the government. In this case, articles which accuse the government of 9/11 would hardly exist, and nobody would take them seriously. That fact indirectly proves big capital committed 9/11. If the government did help the big capital in 9/11 conspiracy in any way, big capital would accuse another innocent victim. Well, they certainly would not blame themselves!

The government is a puppet on the strings of big capital, and big capital does not mind accusing the government if the accusation benefits them. The owners of corporations do it often because, in such a way the people become aware they cannot change anything, they accept their powerlessness. Whenever people hear that the CIA did this or that, there is no way they would ever know if the rich did not tell them. Simply, the rich control all the means of information coming to people. It does not matter whether the CIA did this or that, accusing the CIA means accusing the government. The accusations have never gone to the rich who control the government and profit from it.

Does it mean big capital plans to sacrifice the government? Of course not! It cannot do it with such shallow accusations and also because the government is innocent in 9/11. If under the pressure of accusations against the government, which are paradoxically controlled by the same big capital, the investigation on 9/11 ever reopens, it would in no time find that explosives were never used and that the government is innocent.

Then big capital would release thousands of objective reports about 9/11 in all of the media, which right now it prevents from publishing, presenting a full shallowness of today’s fake reports. The truth would “win”. That would tell everyone no conspiracy ever existed, which would be false. No investigation would ever be performed in Saudi Arabia where the suicides were engaged, and big capital would walk free as it is used to doing after committing crimes. This is just another deception big capital is a master at.

Part of people who accuse the government right now would not accept the truth as Mark Twain said: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Another part of those people would feel stupid and would be ashamed for being seduced. They would become silent members of society without any wish to rebel again. I have already become aware of it while presenting the truth on various forums. Both of these people are useful to big capital.

Now people need to understand that the conspiracy 9/11 triggered wars worth trillions of dollars. Not to mention how much the conspiracy would be worth to big capital if they succeed in conquering all the countries in the Middle East.

Can one imagine how many conspiracy agents the conspirators could hire with this amount of money? They could not have had problems finding people who would support their conspiracy theory and say whatever the conspirators needed. The public is already programmed not to understand anything because the media continually present nonsense. People are so confused that they do not know what is true and what is false anymore. I want to emphasize that the prime task of a conspiracy is to gain profit for conspirators, but also it is important to hide it by guiding people to the wrong track. Cheating people is the center of any conspiracy.

Among thousands of propagandists who accuse the government of 9/11, I believe hundreds are paid for their job. The rest are so naive followers that they help the conspirators for free. These people do not drop the case even 16 years after it happened.

One of the most exposed conspiracy supporters is Richard Gage, a member of the “American Institute of Architects” and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I can guess how he became an influenced person. Probably he expressed his opinion somewhere publically that the government might be responsible for 9/11. After that, he immediately got great access to the media and lots of money to be able to distribute his opinion wider. That attracted naive people and the conspiracy movement was born.

Dr. Juddy Wood wrote “the Towers didn’t burn up, nor did they slam to the ground. They turned (mostly) to dust in mid-air.” She called the technology that destroyed the twin towers a direct energy weapon but failed to say anything about it. The readers can easily conclude that only the US government is capable of developing such a weapon. But the dust happened just because more than 5,000 cubic meters of extra light concrete was embedded into the building floors as a sound barrier and to prevent vibration of steel construction. The extra light concrete instantly turned to dust under the heavy pressure of the collapse. The shallow observation of Dr. Juddy Wood got significant access to media and scientific lectures. The truth has much more difficulties in breaking in.

The conspirators control media and let corrupted and stupid people speak publicly a lot. There is a considerable number of architects and engineers who do not want to talk about such shallow accusations against the government. Some of them could easily debunk the 9/11 conspiracy but do not have access to media. That is how those who have power in society control society’s opinions.

Richard Gage allegedly leads the group of over 2,500 architects and engineers who support the idea that the government committed 9/11. Here is one of Richard Gage’s propaganda works: Over 2,500 architects and engineers prove 9/11 was an inside job! However, I do not believe he was able to attract that many so-called experts because it is impossible to find that the number of stupid or corrupted architects or engineers. “The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” organization presents pure cheat, nonsense, and pseudoscience; it is more a cult than an organization. Their parent organization The 9/11 Truth is a huge fake organization. This is the only organization which does not provide the founders’ names, nor the names of their leaders; it does not provide any name. That means nobody stands behind their “truth”.

“Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” calls for an investigation which is supposed to uncover who is responsible behind 9/11 but I believe they do not know that they work for these people. “The 9/11 Truth” is a non-profit organization which cannot survive without donors. If they enclose the names of those people who are giving them money that might lead to those people who actually organized 9/11. The investigation just needs to follow the money.

The money would most likely lead to Jacob Rothschild unless it stops at David Rockefeller who recently died. Anyway, they have worked together at the top of the world conspiracy. Jacob Rothschild is a hidden leader of the Western world. He is the owner of corporations and big capital from this article. I do not have hard evidence against him because it is impossible to collect it without an official investigation. My accusation is based on the fact that no one else is powerful enough to do 9/11. I have been investigating Jacob Rothschild from the time NATO attacked my homeland Yugoslavia and published the findings in the article: Jacob Rothschild is guilty for the conspiracy against humankind.

November 5, 2017

References:

Steel being weakened by a jet fuel fire

Building 7 Explained: The Tube That Crumpled

Jacob Rothschild is guilty for the conspiracy against humankind

www.sarovic.com	Humanism
www.sarovic.net	Humanism Updated
www.sarovic.org	My blog