IEEE Fellow Addresses Blackout Investigation

posted by ewing2001 on Tuesday December 09, @11:47AM

IEEE Fellow Addresses Blackout Investigation, …and he’s not very happy

by Michael Kane

December 9th, 2003  

Everyone on the U.S.-Canadian joint task force to investigate the August 14th, 2003 blackout was required to sign a confidentiality agreement. I spoke with Jack Casazza , life fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), who said he’s been involved in six blackout investigations in his career, and not one has involved task force members signing confidentiality agreements. What’s the big secret?

Advertisement

He believes that the investigation has been politicized, and the task force has been filled with political appointees, not experts. What he says he would have done (though he made light of the fact he has six similar investigations under his belt, and he isn’t looking for one more) is get the most qualified independent experts to do the work.

  “The qualifications of the (current) joint task force are that of political appointees,” stated Mr. Casazza on a brief phone interview. He continued…  

“If the government (has control of) the report, there’s not going to be much investigation into what extent the government was at fault”.  

Mr. Casazza placed the blame on a complex restructured network (what I would call deregulation) made by the government under the guise of promoting ‘free markets’. In reality what was created is an unreliable energy paradigm in which the participants are concerned only in maximizing their profits.  

Global Free Press readers will recall last month, I wrote a report entitled “First Energy: Blackout Scapegoat”. In this report I examined First Energy being staged as the fall guy for the blackout, because they get to have their cake and eat it too. Under the current structure, any fines from ECAR to First Energy are paid voluntarily, which means they don’t get paid. So they get the blame, but don’t pay the price.  

Mr. Casazza warned that what we are going to hear coming from the task force now is that all these concerns will be addressed in the “next phase” of the investigation. In reality though, he says, “the direction of the report needs to be reviewed”.  

I couldn’t agree more. Thank god for these professional experts taking a public stance in regards to this information, for there is much more to be uncovered here. When I addressed the joint task force and spoke at the New York public comment meeting just three days ago, I had told the task force that there were many potential holes in the tree causality scenarios that they presented in their report. Mr. Casazza pointed out precisely one of those issues in this regard.  

I will call this, “which came first, the surge or the tree?”

  Just because a tree branch is found burnt from a 345 kV power line doesn’t mean it was the cause of the blackout, it may have been a reaction to the blackout. Not only that, many of the trees that are said to have made contact with the five 345kV lines that went down in Ohio were never witnessed even after the fact. Mr. Casazza even stated to me, “apparently someone went out there and cleaned things up”.  

He made clear he couldn’t comment on that, which of course he can’t. He wasn’t out in Ohio looking on the ground for burnt tree branches.  

It appears the evidence was “cleaned up” before a proper investigation could occur, and fails yet another smell test. There are still ways of determining what really happened on that day if the right people were looking at the correct data. Mr. Casazza pointed out determining what the power loads were on the lines in previous days preceding the blackout could help to solve “which cam first, the surge or the tree?”  

As I have been saying since August, something is clearly not right here. There is a cover-up happening that is so poor it is painfully obvious this administration has no regard for the intelligence of the peasants, such as I. Well maybe they will show some respect for the international reputation of registered Republican and energy field expert Jack Casazza.  

And while we’re speaking about finding the truth here, the Air Force must be required to release all their documentation pertaining to what HAARP was used for at precisely 4pm on August 14th, 2003 and earlier that day. Until this is done, there is no possible way of being certain what really happened, and why.

peace eternal

m>k<

NY Times Blackout on Blackout

Claim nothing “newsworthy” at NY public comment period  

By Oliver J. Midelson  

On Dec. 5th, the NY Times covered the public comment period in Cleveland, Ohio, but not the public comment period in their own backyard on that very day. Why?  

Matthew L. Wald at the NY Times, who covered the public comment meeting in Cleveland, didn’t attend the NY meeting but said a Times reporter was sent to cover it. When asked why there was no coverage of the meeting, Wald replied, “I don’t believe there was anything newsworthy”.  

It’s odd that the NY Times didn’t find anything “newsworthy”. As Global Free Press readers know, Michael Kane’s comments were posted at the top of our news. A New York resident and American citizen presents a well written report with supporting documentation proving the blackout was part & parcel to a multi-faceted military test and the Times doesn’t see the news value?

  The Acron Beacon Journal and Forbes found the New York public comment meeting newsworthy; both publications covered the event and simply pretended Mr. Kane wasn’t even there. Why didn’t the NY Times do the same? Are they afraid to play the same fantasy game so close to home?

  This is just one more nail in the coffin for the mainstream press. Such publications have relegated themselves to being lucky if they get one part of the story right by mistake. With the blackout, the coverage has been pitiful, and all of the important information has been effectively blacked-out.

  Mr. Kane has requested a letter writing campaign to point out to the NY Times their deficiency at realizing what is, and isn’t, “newsworthy”.

letters@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com
  cc:   
      executive-editor@nytimes.com, managing-editor@nytimes.com    

Write a brief comment of dissent and copy and paste this report into your email, or just link to the report. Feel free to cc: any local and alternative media sources.  

“I don’t request this to try to change the hearts and minds of the NY Times,” said Michael, “…but just to let them know we are watching, and a new media is being created that will hold them accountable for what they do, and do don’t do”.  

Michael Kane at GFP:
here and here 

<  Bob Kerrey named for 9/11 Commission | Private Military Contractors: "The point of no return"  >