Prof. Griffin Requests Focus on WTC 7 (SCAD) Running up to the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11!

Please read the whole article here:

SCAD: State Crimes Against Democracy

Conclusion and Proposal of Prof. Griffin's Paper "Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight"

Through these and related means, the truth about the collapse of WTC 7 has been effectively hidden, even though it has existed in plain sight all these years. Even the bare fact of the collapse itself has been so effectively hidden that in 2006 over 40 percent of the American public did not know about it, and in 2009 a judge in New York City, upon hearing a reference to Building 7, asked: “Building what?”

I offer this essay as a case study in the power of the forces behind SCADs or deep events to hide things that exist in plain sight, because if they can hide the straight-down free-fall collapse of a 47-story building captured on video in broad daylight, they can hide almost anything.

I say this, however, not to instill despair, but to point to the seriousness of the problem, and also to pave the way for making a proposal. Recognizing the high correlation between those who know about the collapse of WTC 7 and those who believe that a new – or rather real – 9/11 investigation is needed, I propose that the international 9/11 Truth Movement initiate, starting this September, a world-wide, year-long “Building What?” campaign. Through this campaign, we would seek to make the fact of its collapse so widely known that the mention of Building 7 would never again evoke the question: “Building What?”


Many have concluded that the collapse of WTC 7 is the Achilles heal of the official account of the 9/11 Attacks. Griffin's proposal is just one of many asking for a focus on 7, so there is much support already for this concept and doing it approaching the tenth anniversary seems a very good idea indeed!



He should mention that recent article by Jeffrey Shapiro of Fox

If what he said was true it's a huge revelation, and either way even if it's not then why did he say it and why doesn't Silverstein refute it: "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." -


You have hit upon it with the choice of "Building What?" It's catchy and does not contain "Truth" or "9/11". Get 'em in the door, then give 'em the bad news. ;-) It has a great story that goes with it that so exemplifies the problem. Many people are drawn in just because they have not even heard about Building 7. We are in an information war and we must be media savvy. This is. Let me know if there's anything can do to help promote the "Building what?" campaign.

SCAD and WTC 7

This is a remarkable paper by DRG. It draws together all the evidence that the public has been had and that the event is a SCAD. I like the way he winds up Shyam Sunder with his own words. I suspect that the SCAD concept will become well known in due course and prove very useful.

I would like to see a multi-authored book.

A multi-authored book (Griffin, Scientists, Gage, engineers and others...maybe even a celebrity like Asner).
The "Book Trade" might be one media venue against Wall #1 which Professor Jones mentions in this thread:
I would like to see a multi-authored book with many, many photographs and also a DVD.
This might be a financially viable promotional venue.

Some aspects of the book could appeal to the layman and other aspects of the book could appeal to scholars.
I think a "coffee-table" book design would have wide appeal.
There is a lot of "new" information which has been revealed in the past several years. There is no shortage of written material.
A book would help answer the question aroused during the "Building What?!" Campaign.

The "Book Trade" offers some open doors as a promotional venue (e.g. bookstores, some media, etc.)

excellent idea

I really like your idea of coffee-table format book with lots of large glossy photos and comprehensive scientific explanations in layman's terms... it would be a pricy book but well worth the cost, it would be a one-stop prop for educating the novice as well as a definitive authority on all the scientific and forensic evidence accumulated to date... I hope someone with the resources and capacity to produce such a book takes up this idea.

A "coffee-table book" which is multi-authored ...advantages...

There are many advantages to marketing 9/11 Truth with a multi-authored, large glossy photo "coffee table" book with comprehensive scientific explanations, and also with a layman's presentation.
I once owned a chain of bookstores and a book wholesale warehouse. I see this as a financially viable, self-sustaining form of promotion which can take 9/11 Truth to another level. The multi-authored contributors concept helps to highlight and also promote the book. (Firefighter, Scientists, Theologian, Architect, Engineer, Family Members, Witness, political figure, etc.)

Some advantages...
9/11 Truth will be displayed in every bookstore. !!
The promotional venues / media marketing of the book offer even more exposure. (TV, book reviews, etc.)
The positioning of this subject on the mainstream media venue of bookstores adds to credibility.
The price point of the book can be made viable. (Book prices vary considerably)
Facts do not change. Published scientific works do not change.
The book can be designed also in digital format (Kindle).
Activists will not only purchase the book as "the bible of dissemination", but also help in its promotion.
The book offers a "safe" method of dissemination for those people who know the truth, but who feel intimidated in bringing up the subject.

There are many more advantages. I like the financial viability outlook.

And with a neutral but eye-catching title

and cover, the book would attract the attention and interest of a wide spectrum of the public, then draw them into the wealth of information that exposes the true nature of 9/11.

All it takes to deny the entire article - facts and all

is to see Griffin's name at the top and to say: "Griffin is a nutcase - kook conspiracy theorist."
That's all one who is under the spell of the psyops need say to his/herself. Then one need not read, or evaluate the article.

Now how do we break that spell? That is the question.
I think that the key to understanding the nature of the psyops lies in understanding "shock and awe" - also known as "rapid dominance."

"... rapid dominance will "impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on . . . [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels."[2] (from Wikipedia)



Many people have still not recovered from that overload.

I think that it MIGHT be helpful to educate people to the doctrine of "shock and awe," as that explaiins why people can accept the "miracle" of Building 7's descent at gravitational acceleration in violation of known physical laws.

This is not only an information war - this is a psychological war.

And I now will ask for the umpteenth time: "Where are the psychologists and psychiatrists for 911 Truth?"

Why are they all (almost all) running away from this?

I think the answer is that they are not any more immune to "shock and awe," than is the general population.

Once one understands that we have all been "shocked, awed, and had our perceptions overloaded" - one MAY have a better perspective from which to view the tragedy of 9/11 and its ongoing and tragic aftermath.

Seeing is believing.. 3 minutes - wtc7 demo collapse

I agree that people can dismiss anything by their preconceived projection, fear, and will-full ignorance. Education on shock and awe is okay, but I think that the best way to overcome the aversion to reality is simply seeing a 3-minute video that Robert Bowman put together. It shows multiple views of the building collapsing, highlights that a BBC reporter announced the WTC-7 downfall while this building is seen in the background and does not collapse for another 10 minutes after her report. it shows the small fires in a couple of offices, it emphasizes that no plane hit the structure, and that no steel-framed building ever collapsed due to fires. What makes 9/11/01 different? Media-Congress-Coup d'etat complicity by even such progressive news sources as Democracy Now! and deadly Anthrax sent as a warning?

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.. and people tend to have 3-minutes to view most anything. We inserted this video into my interview with Bob Bowman this spring, in segments of 2 and 3. All the segments are posted here:

Bob Bowman said he has (or will have it posted again) for anyone to download from his site www.ThePatriots.US
Also another great reference for this

I will link to this thread too from

Hey Jonathan!

I just interviewed Bowman for the Visibility 9-11 Podcast and we talked about this article and his video and many other interesting things. Should be up in about a week....

He likes the "Building What?" campaign and rates as you say WTC 7 as the best evidence.

Kind regards John


I just watched your interview with Bob Bowman on youtube ...

it's a really good interview, if you haven't already, you should post a copy here on your blog.

yeah but ...

Griffin is NOT a nutcase, that's what makes him such a powerful proponent for the truth.

Please be careful

When focusing on WTC 7 and noting the fact that it was not hit by a plane, sloppy phrasing can reinforce the misconception that the destruction of the towers is properly explained by the impact of the planes. While WTC 7 is a smoking gun in many respects, so are the towers, and it is counterproductive to allow focus on one to obscure the other. We need the masses to come to terms with the fact that none of those buildings could have come down as they did without being rigged to do so in order to build the political support for a proper investigation.

You are correct

Good insight.

The reason I put that picture up was I liked the moving graphic!

You point is valid, but it is still an important claim to be made upfront by activists about WTC 7. So I disagree with you.

Regards John

"Not hit by a plane" works.

"We need the masses to come to terms with the fact that none of those buildings could have come down as they did without being rigged to do so in order to build the political support for a proper investigation."

and you can START by stating: A third skyscraper also came down on 9/11. It was not hit by a plane. Here is a video of it. What do you see? Ask yourself why you never heard of it. Now take a closer look at the Twin Towers' Demolition.

You two are missing my point

I recommend WTC 7 as a great place to start and use it myself, but I also recommend being careful about your phrasing so as not to reinforce the misconception that the destruction of the towers is properly explained by the impact of the planes, like Griffin did right at the top of his article.

Point well-taken, but strategy dictates . . .

. . . that we use the phraseology that will draw the public's attention.

I think there's actually greater scientific evidence for the demolition of the Twin Towers than Building 7. But that only matters when we can get people to actually look closely at the evidence.

In the meantime, Building 7 was an obvious demolition, and the fact that it wasn't hit by a plane is likely to awaken much of the public--especially those who still doesn't even know about its collapse. So emphasize it to the hilt! And don't worry about what some might conclude at first. It just means we're not challenging the Twin Tower explanation at the outset. One step at a time! Once people see Building 7 for what it is, then we can expand their horizons.

I'd like to get a bumper sticker that says, "IT'S BUILDING 7 STUPID!"

WTC7 vs. Everything else on 9/11

The reason WTC7 sticks out like a sore thumb is because on the day of 9/11 and for years afterward the government had no explanation for its collapse. They had explanations for the collapse of WTC1,2, NORAD's response to the hijacked airliners, the Pentagon attack, the crash of Flight 93 etc. Not that any of these explanations were credible or verifiable, but they at least had something and for 99% of the population that is all it takes, just an answer. They could have provided any explanation, truck bomb, suicide bomber, lightning, fire, a big gust of wind, and most people would have bought it. However, WTC7 was an event without an explanation.

We should also remember that it would have been covered up had it not been for the internet. If there was no internet, 9/11 Truth would probably still be in its embryonic stages, like it was circa 2003, 2004.

Open concealment

No one has observed the guys inside, some of whom were obviously breaking the windows and tossing them out. This can be seen in at least two separate videos. the fellows were in dark heat resistant suits.

Can you give some more information...

and a link and a time etc to find this footage?

Regards John

Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight
Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight

By David Ray Griffin

May 28, 2010 "Information Clearing House"

Don't give denialists any fodder

We all know that WTC7 as well as the other two went down near free fall speed, however, this video clip is sped up. Simple as it seems, that is the kind of thing the OCT/denialists will hang their hats on to call us frauds. They have already accused me at least after leaving a link of the pulverizations ( we really should call them that) because that is exactly what they were). So, I suggest that the proper, actual, almost free fall time clip be used only.

Link to animation gifs

Link to animation gifs
Add gifs if you have them.

Hey that's really cool!

I think I'll use that a the new site I'm setting up!

Thanks for the resource!

Kind regards John

Also on Op Ed News


Original Content at

May 29, 2010

Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight

By David Ray Griffin

Click it into prominence

Click it into prominence.

This short article at OpEd is also worth reading.

Building What? DRG

This article is a good summary of what appears in his book, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC7, which should be required reading for all 9/11 Truthers. No one who is intellectually honest could still defend the NIST report after reading this book.

David Ray Griffin: "A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 43 percent of the American people were unaware that WTC 7 had collapsed..."

In my own opinion, I would say it is much higher. A lot of people don't like to appear to be ignorant when they are talking to pollsters. I would suggest that close to 2/3rd's of Americans are unaware of the collapse of building 7. How many people within your circle of friends and family would even know about WTC7 unless you mentioned it to them?

Positive Psychological Mindset

Before one brings up WTC 7, first introduce the novice to 9/11 Truth to the following:

1. Operation Northwoods;
2. FBI Wanted page for Osama bin Laden;
3. The admission in the 9/11 Commission Report that NORAD did, in fact, monitor DOMESTIC aircraft (and stress DOMESTIC) on 9/11. This talking point has the double effect of showing how the government (NORAD) lied AND how the mainstream press (Popular Mechanics) is a part of the government's disinformation program on 9/11. The novice to 9/11 Truth will then have actual proof that the media is lying about 9/11;
4. That the1993 WTC bomb was made by the FBI and the FBI didn't follow the bombers to the WTC.

These four talking points are all found in mainstream sources. After reading the material, the novice will see that the 9/11 Truth Movement is actually a truth movement, leading the novice to have a Positive Psychological Mindset of the truth movement when he/she then looks at the WTC. That is, the novice will be reading material on the WTC from the viewpoint that the towers and WTC 7 were brought down by explosives!

It's ironic that DRG encourages the use of SCAD (a term derived by the American Behavioral Scientist) to spread the word, but overlooked that psychological conditioning of the novice is needed before one brings up WTC 7 to the novice!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

source materials for SCAD

I would encourage you all to take a look at the original SCAD scholarly articles published by American Behavioral Scientist. Abstracts are available on the web here: click on 'abstract' button. actual articles are available but expensive.

this to me is very exciting. its a new term for false flag operation which is readily understandable: state crime against democracy.

maybe Greg Pallast or Norman Soloman or Amy Goodman or Noam would talk about SCAD whereas they couldn't talk about FFO. (I'm not holding my breath for obvious reasons).

let's keep informing ourselves of the tools used by corrupt states to manipulate us.

Booklet available

I have made an A5 booklet of this article. It's a PDF file which will print out onto A4. Handy for handing out, tabletop displays and mailing. There are 36 pages, so you'll need 9 sheets of A4.

Download from