Earlier this week, the magazine of the European Physical Society, Europhysics News, published a 3,000-word feature article by Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Robert Korol, Tony Szamboti, and Ted Walter, entitled 15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses.
Europhysics News bills itself as the magazine of the European physics community. That sounds about right — given their circulation of around 25,000 copies per issue!
It is with great enthusiasm that we invite you to read the online version of the article, which can be accessed for free at EurophysicsNews.org. The hard copy will be distributed to the magazine’s 25,000 subscribers in mid-September.
Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation withEDP Sciences. It is distributed to all our Individual Members and many institutional subscribers. Most European national societies receive EPN for further distribution. The total circulation is currently about 25000 copies per issue.
60,000 and Counting!
That brings to a staggering 60,000 the number of engineers and scientists who will be exposed to our literature in the coming weeks — 35,000 who will receive a copy of World Trade Center Physics and 25,000 who will receive the current issue of Europhysics News.
You can help grow that number by purchasing copies of World Trade Center Physics in bulk — virtually at cost — and distributing them on your own, either by popping them in the mail or by handing them out.
Nearly 3,000 copies have been sold since World Trade Center Physics went on sale a few days ago. We’ve got 7,000 left in stock waiting to be distributed around the 15th anniversary of 9/11.
Place your bulk order by Monday, August 29, and you’ll receive the package by Saturday, September 10 (this applies to U.S. residents only).
Join Us We Are Change New York
JUSTICE IN FOCUS
9/11 | 2016
A Weekend Symposium in NYC
Join co-sponsors Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, 9/11 Truth Action Project, NY State Legislative Action Project for 9/11 Justice, and the 9/11 Consensus Panel for a weekend symposium on the pursuit of 9/11 Justice 15 years after the fateful events of September 11, 2001.
Hundreds of researchers and activists will come together in the historic Great Hall of Cooper Union in New York City on Saturday, September 10, and Sunday, September 11, 2016.
Together, in this 800-seat auditorium, we will discuss the state of ongoing efforts to expose the truth and obtain justice for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent victims at the World Trade Center and that continue to serve as the pretext for the Global War on Terrorism.
The conference will feature keynote addresses from renowned legal figures, as well as panel discussions on the role of the Deep State and the significance of the recently declassified 28 Pages, presentations by movement leaders and researchers, and day-long evidentiary hearings on the forensics evidence and eyewitness testimony at World Trade Center’s destruction, which will be conducted by a panel of esteemed lawyers.
Day One: Saturday, September 10, 2016
Master of Ceremonies: Mark Crispin Miller
Creating Our Enemies: From the Mujahadeen to ISIS Wayne Madsen, J. Michael Springmann, additional speaker(s) TBA
9/11 as “Strategy of Tension” Judge Ferdinando Imposimato Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy
Meet the “9/11 Truth Action Project” Bill Jacoby, Sander Hicks, Wayne Coste
World Trade Center Science: Education and Research Lay the Groundwork for Justice Richard Gage, AIA, and Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, P.E., S.E.
28 Pages to 80,000 Pages: Transparency as the Path to a New Investigation Les Jamieson, Jeff Steinberg, additional speaker(s) TBA
Lessons from Landmark Cases Applied to Prosecuting 9/11 Daniel Sheehan Public Interest Attorney, Author of The People’s Advocate
Justice in Focus: Toward Prosecuting the Crimes of 9/11 Daniel Sheehan, Gary Null, Mark Crispin Miller, Wayne Madsen, additional speaker(s) TBA
Day Two: Sunday, September 11, 2016
Master of Ceremonies Dr. William Pepper, Esq.
Panelists (on various panels throughout the day) Jane Clark, Michael Diamond, Yvonne Bushyhead, Bill Jacoby, Dave Meiswinkle, Mustapha Ndanusa, Mick Harrison, Andrew Kreig, Bill Veale, David Cole, Vance Green, Doug McKenzie, Les Jamieson, Barbara Honegger
Guest Panelists Daniel Sheehan and Judge Ferdinando Imposimato
Presenters of Evidence David Chandler (Physicist/Mathematician), Jonathan Cole (Civil Engineer), Richard Gage (Architect), Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey (Forensic Structural Engineer), Dr. Steven Jones (Physicist), Dr. Graeme MacQueen (Peace and Religious Studies), Tony Szamboti (Mechanical Engineer)
Here all about the incredible two-day program in this interview:
Tickets for this one-of-a-kind event, which will mark 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, are on sale starting Saturday, July 23. An early-bird discount is available through Monday, August 15. The first 50 people to purchase tickets will receive an event poster signed by the keynote speakers and masters of ceremonies. Tickets prices are as follows:
This event will be Live-Streamed! And this is not just your normal grainy boring live-stream video with people walking in front of the camera in the front row and that you can’t hear who is saying what!
We are planning a “live-mixed” video stream via Google Hangouts on YouTube with two cameras and a direct feed from the projector and house sound. All of this can be brought to you for only $10 for the whole weekend.
After each session the video archive will be immediately uploaded to YouTube where you can watch it at your liesure via your private link!
So you can enjoy the Justice In Focus two-day symposium right from you own home.
Tickets for the Live Stream go on sale soon. Stand by!
Do your part to ensure the success of this historic gathering by forwarding and posting this message and by encouraging friends and colleagues to attend. We look forward to seeing you there!
A summer with his grandfather was all it took for him to be inspired.
When Mukund Venkatakrishnan was 14, he visited India and was tasked with helping his grandfather get tested and fitted for a hearing aid. He saw what a costly and difficult process it was and resolved to find an alternative.
“Since audiologists are specialists, even finding and getting an appointment with one in India was really hard,” said Venkatakrishnan, who is now 16. “And then we got ripped off.”
Venkatakrishnan said they spent about $400 or $500 on doctor’s appointments and about $1,900 on the hearing aid itself. He realized that hearing is a luxury many people in developing countries can’t afford. “In India, the median household income is $616 a year,” Venkatakrishnan said. “If someone in India saves all year without spending a penny, they still can’t afford a hearing aid.”
Venkatakrishnan’s device is unique because it not only tests a person’s hearing with a series of beeps, but it also programs itself to become a hearing aid. It only costs about $50 to make and can be used with even the cheapest set of headphones.
Unlike with traditional hearing aids, if the ear piece gets damaged it isn’t costly to replace — you just buy another set of ear buds.
In its current form, the device is about two inches and looks like a computer processor. Venkatakrishnan is planning to bring it down to about one inch and encase the operating system. He envisions the device, which has a standard headphone port, fitting into someone’s pocket.
What makes the device ideal for developing countries is that it works with any pair of headphones.
Venkatakrishnan even created a way for users to calibrate the device themselves.
Each device has an audio file of the sound of hands rubbing together. To calibrate it, a person just has to rub their own hands together and match the volume of the audio file with the volume of their own hands.
If the user can’t hear their own hands, someone else can calibrate it for them.
Venkatakrishnan, now 16, spent two years teaching himself to code, building the audio program and developing the device. He made it completely on his own but received guidance from engineers, like his father, and audiologists.
Working with the doctors, he conducted tests on patients with hearing loss to make sure his device was accurate.
The device works by first administering a hearing test — press green if you hear the beep, yellow if you don’t
Venkatakrishnan said there’s also a fair amount of stigma associated with wearing a hearing aid.
“Getting my grandpa to first admit he needed a hearing aid was difficult,” he said. “I’m hoping that since my device uses headphones and isn’t in-ear, it will reduce some of the stigma.”
Venkatakrishnan said his 81-year-old grandfather is already really excited about the device. He plans to show it to him when he visits India this summer.
While Venkatakrishnan is eager to make a difference, he isn’t trying to make money off his invention.
He’s adamant that the audio software remain open source so other developers can modify and tweak it.
And he’s hoping an organization that already has connections in developing countries will want to mass produce and distribute the device.
“I’ve just started talking to someone from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,” Venkatakrishnan said.
His device could have broad appeal. There are roughly 360 million people around the world who suffer from hearing loss. And in the U.S., only about 2% – 3% of people with mild loss use a hearing aid. (His device is targeted to people with mild to moderate hearing loss.)
Medicare doesn’t cover hearing aids and hearing aids cannot be sold over the counter in the U.S.
When he isn’t teaching himself to code and trying to combat hearing loss, Venkatakrishnan said he likes listening to music and running long distances. He’s already run “quite a few half marathons” and has been playing violin for 12 years.
Venkatakrishnan, who was born in India and moved to Louisville, Kentucky, when he was three, said he’s beginning to consider colleges. He’s a junior and is looking at Stanford, Georgia Tech, Berkeley and MIT — his “stand out choice.”
He thinks he may want to do something with coding or engineering but he’s also interested in business.
For now, he still has tweaks to make to his device, which he hopes to use to help others “amplify life.”
Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.
A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”
“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”
“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.
However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.
Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.
For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC leaseholder’s comments.
“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.
Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the FEMA report, the New York Times and evenPopular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions taken inside WTC 7.
Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term “pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
“While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.
Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.
“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest,” said Bartmer.
EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage.”
The host asked Singh, “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”
“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.
Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.
In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.
“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”
Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent ’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.
Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.
Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it actually fell.
Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.
Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting, “I was there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11 attacks,” fails to ring true.
However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged.
Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.
Porter J. Goss, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in 2005 approved of the decision by one of his top aides to destroy dozens of videotapes documenting the brutal interrogation of two detainees, according to an internal CIA document released Thursday.
Shortly after the tapes were destroyed at the order of Jose Rodriguez Jr., then the head of the CIA’s clandestine service, Goss told Rodriguez that he “agreed” with the decision, according to the document. He even joked after Rodriguez offered to “take the heat” for destroying the tapes.
“PG laughed and said that actually, it would be he, PG, who would take the heat,” according to the document, an internal CIA e-mail message.
According to current and former intelligence officials, Goss did not approve the destruction before it happened, and was displeased that Rodriguez did not consult him or the CIA’s top lawyer before giving the order for the tapes to be destroyed.
It was previously known that Goss had been told by his aides in November 2005 that the tapes had been destroyed. But a number of documents released Thursday provide the most detailed glimpse yet of the deliberations inside the CIA surrounding the destroyed tapes, and of the concern that the decision might put the CIA in legal jeopardy.
The documents detailing those deliberations, including two e-mail messages from a CIA official whose name has been excised, were released as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.
This article appeared on page A – 12 of the San Francisco Chronicle