“Building What?” Campaign to Raise Awareness of Building 7

Via BuildingWhat.org:

More than eight years after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, New York Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner was hearing arguments in a courtroom less than a mile from Ground Zero about a ballot initiative to launch a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks. When the lawyer for the plaintiffs sponsoring the initiative explained that the 9/11 Commission report left many unanswered questions, including “Why did Building 7 come down,” the Judge replied quizzically, “Building what?”

Like Judge Lehner, millions of people do not know or remember only vaguely that a third tower called World Trade Center Building 7 also collapsed on September 11, 2001. In any other situation, the complete, free fall collapse of a 47-story skyscraper would be played over and over on the news. It would be discussed for years to come and building design codes would be completely rewritten. So, why does no one know about Building 7? And what made Building 7 come down?

The answers to these questions have far-reaching implications for our society. The goal of the “BuildingWhat?” campaign is to raise awareness of Building 7 so that together we can begin to address these questions.

, , , , , , , , ,

  • Anonymous

    I appreciate and applaud the sentiment, but like too many Americans today I can’t afford to send money to all the causes; to battle all those “thousand points of confusion” (which a former prez happened to lift from their strategy plan, renaming it “thousand points of light” — the original phrase was “a thousand points of confusion, and within each point, another thousand points of confusion, to utterly confuse and bewilder the masses.”)

    Anyway, any American over the age of 35, and who is able to read, and still doesn’t understand 9/11/01 is a certifiable Ameritard and this advert will probably be of little use.

    Anybody with working synapses and a normal array of neurons, has looked into the backgrounds of the passengers aboard those four commercial airliners that day and realized many of them fall into the same unique three groups, with three other people falling into two unique categories, the two female passengers as targets of opportunity, and the third person, a male physicist, from the Directed Energy Section of the Naval Surface Weapons Center.

    Blackstone Group, AIG and Veritas Capital, working through the computer systems of Deutsche Bank, Marsh (AIG subsidiary) and Cantor Fitzgerald’s TradeSpark, with the absolute collusion of the offices of the Vice President and SecDef, did transfer trillions of dollars in the preceding 12 to 16 hours prior to those computer systems, and personnel unwittingly and unknowingly involved, being destroyed by those two airliners crashing into the towers and their subsequent collapse.

    Ignore the endless technical arguments and focus on the victims, and on following the money, and those cached pages of transmissions originating from those sources, that became accessible online around 2003 or 2004, when the Web achieved critical mass level.

    Sure, you can look into EurekaGGN’s involvement the weeks prior, and look further into all the military, federal and local exercises that day (the most crucial one, the airplanes flying into the National Reconnaissance Office in Reston, VA, located close to Dulles Airport, weren’t primarily about sowing seeds of realtime confusion — although that helped, certain — but to evacuate the Operations Center so that no human on duty would task the usual geostationary sats to the airspace above NYC and the Pentagon.

    But if anyone is serious, follow the money, and ignore all the endless peripheral stuff; and that small change operation where puts and shorts on the airlines and some of the companies residing in the WTC?

    IGNORE, please! That was someone picking up some loose and small change, as those transactions took place on those computer systems destroyed that day within the two towers, and the profits made ended up in Alex Brown firm, which was a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank (which conveniently always seems to go unreported, of course). The main item were thsee trillions being offshored that day, later to be laundered through all those offshore hedge funds which suddenly spurted in growth, beginning in 2002.

    Follow the money….always, follow the money.

  • Jtararasky_0101

    None of the buildings fell at or near free fall velocity. This has been shown countless times. Countless photographs and videos show structural elements that have fallen well below the collapse point.

    You just can’t make those kinds of claims anymore without sounding crazy, like that guy that claims there were people on the ground with gravity guns. It is time to drop the free fall myth.

    • Anonymous

      The mere crushing of the underment would cause the buildings to fall slower than free fall. Obviously, the buildings didn’t fall from space or off a cliff. They fell slower than “free fall” because it takes time to crush building materials under any weight, a matter of overcoming the resistance of the structure itself.
      While I agree they didn’t actually free fall, I fail to see what that distinction really proves, since they DID fall -pretty much straight down. The questions still remain as to “why” and “who”…..
      and of course “how”.

      • Jtararasky_0101

        The claims that building 7 (and both towers) fell at free fall are false, the claim that building 7 fell within its own footprint is also false. Evidence on those points is contained within the photos that are commonly used in 9/11 websites, and yet they nearly always make claims that contradict the physical evidence. In order to deal with this issue rationally people just have to accept that neither of those claims has any factual basis and yet virtually all of the sites that discuss building 7 claim they actually happened. Would you accept their opinions on “why” and “who” when they lie about what and how? There needs to be much more rigor in the truther movement, and much more willingness to accept established fact rather than making claims that are so easily disproven.

        • 5by5

          Jtyararasky_0101: “The claims that building 7 (and both towers) fell at free fall are false, the claim that building 7 fell within its own footprint is also false.”

          [Sarcasm Alert!] Because why should you believe your own eyes when you watch it fall into it’s own footprint, or believe the results of using a stopwatch and simple Newtonian physics?

          LOL. The only one sounding like an idiot here is you, sport.

          The commercial in question makes no claim to “free fall” speed (so you’re setting up a straw man argument from the get-go), and most who speak intelligently about that portion of the issue simply point out that the building falls at NEAR free fall speed, as if there weren’t the amounts of physical material in the way resisting that fall that there actually was. The only way the speed which WAS clocked could happen is in a controlled demolition. The end. period.

          Those are the physical facts. The only thing open to interpretation is the questions which come after that, like “Who set the charges and how?”, and the one question that nobody wants to deal with, which is, “What was their motivation? WHY?”

          • Reece

            You obviously don’t know what a false flag act is. There was great money to be made in the middle east (oil, contracting, and war) by those of supreme power. There is a reason why our own government/federal reserve would conjure such a scheme. I suggest that you watch this video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3767487358149440770#

          • verbatim

            A false flag operation is where someone attacks themselves and then blames it on someone else in order to create a justification for attacking them. 911 consisted of hijackings by a group of Saudi nationals – in order to justify an attack on Iraq?? The FBI website does’nt explicitly cite Bin Laden for 911.Did they just forget to plant some evidence that Bin Laden was behind it and that the Iraqis were involved? The first thing you put in place for a false flag operation is the evidence that the people you want to attack were involved – read Operation Northwoods – I don’t see it mentioning an attack by a group of Canadians. Colin Powell had to drag himself to the UN with a WMD spiel worthy of a truther website (it at least had the merit that they had been developing WMD in the past) when they could have bypassed the whole thing with some planted evidence that Iraqi intelligence and Bin Laden were in on it. Do you think that would have been difficult to do? The question I’ve never seen asked let alone answered is , if 911 was a terrrorist attack what would have been the response of the US government to it? The whole idea of a false flag operation is that you plausibly respond to an attack. The response tells you nothing about whether the attack was false or genuine because the response would be the same – by definition.

          • Jtararasky_0101

            You know nothing about controlled demolitions. Not a single demolition expert in the entire world has come forward to say that these were controlled demolitions. Not one, after ten years. Your opinion on the matter pales in comparison to theirs, I hope you agree. What I said is true and based on the facts: the truther websites frequently claim both free fall and in its own footprint, both of which are completely disproven by photographs commonly shown on their own websites. You can believe it was a conspiracy all you want, but don’t pretend to have facts that you don’t. Please research this rather than taking them at their word. Reality based skepticism is great. Fantasy based skepticism is worthless. If you have a photo showing any of the buildings collapsing within its own footprint, bring it on. I have looked for ten years. It doesn’t exist.

            Many truthers, including the commenters here, ignore the problems with fantasy based skepticism because they happen to agree with the conclusion. I do not because that is a poor way of thinking, irrational and disconnected from reality. If the actual collapse time isn’t good enough for a conspiracy theory, then that point should be dropped from the fantastical claims of truther websites.

            Fact over fiction. I am a skeptic, and I am as skeptical of the common truther claims as I am of any other claim. The fact that most truther websites ignore verifiable facts makes them a poor source for analysis of those facts as well.

      • Anonymous

        See, the individual you are responding to is a prime example of nitpicking to the extreme, ignoring the obvious that the three structures fell as if any and all resistance had disappeared — which occurs in a controlled demolition.

        Now, others will always go for something which appears to obvious to those of us with the minimum of abstract intelligence, and background and experience.

        Ignore them. Don’t waste time replying to them. Follow the money. Follow the facts. Look at the obvious.

        Anyone who passed high school physics ignores the poster, Jtararsky. Please heed my suggestion to avoid wasting any of your valuable time. I’ve done it again and again, myself.

        They just want to tie up resources and time.

        • Anonymous

          I am apparently a glutton for punishment….

          Good advice, thanks!

        • Jtararasky_0101

          No, they did not fall as if any and all resistance had disappeared. As I mentioned before, even the photos on truther websites show that claim to be flat out false. Major parts of the structure can be seen falling well below the collapse point.

          That isn’t nitpicking, that is photographic evidence that the buildings did not fall in the way you claim. Until you can deal with the vast amount of evidence that you are wrong on that point you are dealing with fantasy instead of reality. You want people to ignore the facts. Why? That isn’t looking at the reality, that isn’t caring about the truth. That is faith, religion, not fact based thinking.

          Try harder. Your kind is why people think truthers are gullible.

    • mike796

      freefall a myth? Jtararasky…..i think you may be slightly errorsome in that. Nist tried to publish a 40% slower than freefall time for building 7. It was challenged and they then changed it to 2.25 seconds of freefall in thier appendix. Nist themselves said freefall could only occur in a demolition.

  • verbatim

    A false flag operation is where someone attacks themselves and then blames it on someone else in order to create a justification for attacking them. 911 consisted of hijackings by a group of Saudi nationals – in order to justify an attack on Iraq?? The FBI website does’nt explicitly cite Bin Laden for 911.Did they just forget to plant some evidence that Bin Laden was behind it and that the Iraqis were involved? The first thing you put in place for a false flag operation is the evidence that the people you want to attack were involved – read Operation Northwoods – I don’t see it mentioning an attack by a group of Canadians. Colin Powell had to drag himself to the UN with a WMD spiel worthy of a truther website (it at least had the merit that they had been developing WMD in the past) when they could have bypassed the whole thing with some planted evidence that Iraqi intelligence and Bin Laden were in on it. Do you think that would have been difficult to do? The question I’ve never seen asked let alone answered is , if 911 was a terrrorist attack what would have been the response of the US government to it? The whole idea of a false flag operation is that you plausibly respond to an attack. The response tells you nothing about whether the attack was false or genuine because the response would be the same – by definition.

  • mike796

    freefall a myth? Jtararasky…..i think you may be slightly errorsome in that. Nist tried to publish a 40% slower than freefall time for building 7. It was challenged and they then changed it to 2.25 seconds of freefall in thier appendix. Nist themselves said freefall could only occur in a demolition.

  • Riddle796

    The ‘building what?’ campaign…..is it even real? As an interested observer from the UK i can not help but notice how, other than the video’s being available on youtube and limited number of other locations, there is remarkably no news about the campaign in the press at all. Having questionaired New Yorkers on a social networking site, not a single person has reported seeing the advert.

    Try finding a reference to it on any mainstream media network….i havnt found one.

  • Riddle796

    The ‘building what?’ campaign…..is it even real? As an interested observer from the UK i can not help but notice how, other than the video’s being available on youtube and limited number of other locations, there is remarkably no news about the campaign in the press at all. Having questionaired New Yorkers on a social networking site, not a single person has reported seeing the advert.

    Try finding a reference to it on any mainstream media network….i havnt found one.

  • breando

    Wow, even the shills made it to this site as well, not mentioning any names Jtararaasky.

21