The Journey. From Babylon to Zion, from ignorance back to innocence. To meet destiny and opportunity halfway with a little work and the benefit of the doubt.
Cheeseburgers and chocolate biscuits are more nutritious than some of the most popular baby foods from Britain's leading brands, a report claims.
The food company Heinz comes under fire in the research which found that Farley's rusks – a classic weaning food – contained more sugar than chocolate digestives, while its mini cheese biscuits, aimed at toddlers, contained more saturated fat per 100g than a McDonald's quarter pounder burger with cheese.
The survey by the Children's Food Campaign of 107 foods marketed for consumption by babies and young children – all bought from mainstream British supermarkets – shows that a high proportion of these foods are high in saturated fat, salt and sugar. Only half of all the products surveyed were low in saturated fat, salt and sugar, while for Heinz products this figure was one in four.
In the case of Cow & Gate, one in nine products were high in sugar.
Its Baby Balance bear biscuits were also found to contain unhealthy trans fats – which have proven links with heart disease – and were also poorly labelled. The biscuits have recently been withdrawn from sale.
The Children's Food Campaign (CFC) works to improve children's health and wellbeing through better food, and is supported by more than 300 national and local health organisations and 12,000 members of the public.
CFC joint co-ordinator Christine Haigh said: "Many foods marketed for babies and young children are advertised as 'healthy'. In reality, in terms of sugar and saturated fat content, some are worse than junk food. In particular, failing to correctly label products that contain dangerous trans fats is outrageous."
The results of the survey follow those of an investigation in 2000 by the Food Commission which exposed the high levels of sugar in baby biscuits, and which urged manufacturers to reduce the amount.
In a statement, Heinz said: "Farley's rusks have been enjoyed by generations of babies, and some adults too, for 120 years. Enriched with vitamins and minerals, the unique Farley's rusk recipe has remained virtually unchanged."
The company said it offered a range of reduced sugar rusks providing 30% less sugar than Farley's original rusks: "They [Farley's rusks] also contain very little fat and, in keeping with the special nutritional needs of infants, contain no added salt." Heinz said it was misleading to compare its mini cheese biscuits with a McDonald's quarter pounder with cheese which is consumed in a much larger portion size.
A spokeswoman for Cow & Gate said: "Today, more than 90% of the Cow & Gate baby food range contains only naturally occurring sugars and … no added sugar."
The explanations given for the WTC destruction have all been completely unscientific, supported by no physical testing and ostensibly crafted by computer models that the public is not allowed to see.
Have you ever wondered if we are living in a video game?
We have an official government body producing a supposedly well-researched report on one of the most important events in modern US history, but they refuse to let anyone see the computer models on which their conclusions are based. That fact alone should force all rational people to demand a new investigation into 9/11 immediately.
Generally speaking, there are several groups that either oppose a new investigation into 9/11 or remain deafeningly silent on the issue. The most important one is the government itself--government agencies, members of Congress, the president. Another very important group is, obviously, mainstream media--TV, newspapers, radio, magazines. A third group is scientists. I realize that there are now hundreds of architects and engineers who have signed the AE9/11Truth petition calling for a new investigation, but it seems there should be even more. I understand professional courtesy, fear of job loss, and the "wisdom" of staying out of politics, but scientists are people too and, like the rest of us, they have personal honor, a commitment to truth.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released its final report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building No. 7 (WTC 7) in August 2008 followed by a very weak revision of that report in November. The report itself is stunning in that NIST has admitted that WTC 7 fell at freefall for over 2 seconds, while at the same time providing little or no evidence for their theory of why the building collapsed. Despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.
An important factor is that the funding for science is controlled by the federal government. Universities cannot survive without federal grants, which amount to tens of millions of dollars each year for an average university, and research scientists cannot survive without grant money that comes from the government or from major corporations. Also, scientists are people, just like you and I, who are as easily fooled by ego-based deception as any other people, and perhaps more so in some cases. Being right is vitally important to professional scientists, and the status quo is important also. I think it is not easy for some scientists in the US to accept that average citizens in our country could have noticed such extreme deception before they did. In other words, people like to be right, they like to be liked, and they like to be free, in that order.
We don't all agree on the details, but in my view, 9/11 is a wake-up call that can be used for the purpose of realizing our own limitations, and thereby making adjustments to how we live and interact with each other, and how we prioritize the education of our children. Once we tap into this ongoing "inside job", we will have the power to make lasting positive change in our society.
Here is the official US govt reply to these questions;
CBC News: Evan Solomon interviews Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission co-chair
In the hours following the airplane strikes on the two towers, a global myth began to spread that the World Trade Centre collapsed due to fire and mechanical damage.
The only problem is that no steel structure has ever before collapsed due to fire, it is historically unprecedented. Over 400 cases of fire in that type of skyscraper are known prior to 2001, and none have collapsed. Not one.
The fires in the WTC1 and WTC2 towers were oxygen-starved fires of this nature, as could be seen from the large quantities of black smoke. The jet fuel was burned up within a few minutes, and the temperature would never have exceeded 650° C. This is true no matter how much jet fuel there was. It is also difficult to achieve high local temperatures in a steel structure, because the heat is conducted away and spread throughout the whole structure. According to official computer simulations, no components of the towers reached temperatures above 600° C.
Steel melts at 1,500° C, but begins to soften at around 425° C. Half of the structural strength has been lost at 650° C, and the steel begins to glow red. But even if only half of the structural strength remains, the structure can easily bear two or three times the load.
Surely then, the explanation must be that the enormous weight of the debris from the collapse of towers WTC1 and WTC2 damaged the building or its foundations to such an extent that it collapsed?
When tall buildings are exposed to extreme earthquakes, they tip over as they fall. If there is enough room, they sometimes tip right onto their sides.
WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this.
Earthquake damage
It therefore wasn't damage to the foundations that caused WTC7 to collapse.
Two official explanations of the events in Manhattan on 11 September have been put forward by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).
In the final FEMA report, WTC7 is hardly mentioned. They note that there were fires in the building, but do not attempt to explain the collapse.
The final NIST report was released in September 2005, but the section covering WTC7 was left out, with the promise that a final version would be released later. Publication has been delayed several times, and we are still waiting for it.
In a draft summary of the WTC7 report from April 2005, NIST admits that they have only worked using the hypothesis that the collapse of WTC7 was a "normal" collapse. They try to make a case for this by presenting a diagram in which a bearing column is purportedly destroyed by the fires and the mechanical damage seven hours earlier. The vertical collapse of this column is supposed to have pulled the structure apart horizontally, after which the building collapsed in one synchronous movement.
The NIST report simply presents this hypothetical sequence of events. The authors do not go to the trouble of actually claiming that this is what happened.
