Support 911Blogger


Investigate Building 7 : March 26th, West Hartford CT

Please join us for what will certainly be an historic event.

For more information, and ticket sales go to: http://www.Investigatebuilding7.org

Yes - The Focus Should Be On NY Government To Act

Start small and try to expand. A NY investigation can lead to wider investigations. All activist energy should be focused on compelling NY government to act. Unfortunately, awareness efforts outside of the NY area may not produce the direct results that a focus on NY residents would.

NY Government Must Explain Presence Of Explosives In NYC Dust

At the very least, the public is entitled to know why a NYC building or buildings contained dangerous and advanced incendiary explosive materials.

Edit: Will this event be filmed or webcast?

It's obvious

that building 7 was a controlled demolition. It's also obvious that if the government's feet are held to the fire they will claim national security reasons for demolishing it. End of discussion from their perspective, again for national security reasons. That will have absolutely no impact on all the people who will still think that 19 hijackers took down the towers and hit the Pentagon. Nothing will have changed, except a lot of people will have their mistaken beliefs confirmed. Focusing on building 7, I think is the biggest mistake we could make because it was never a real part of the alleged terrorist attack. People will be desperate to believe the official story and their original beliefs, and that explanation will cement those beliefs. They're not going to say, "well, because the government lied about demolishing WTC7, they must have orchestrated all the attacks and killed 3000 people". Those two things don't follow logically. Yes WTC7 is a piece of the puzzle, but we must expose all the anomalies, lies and deceits of 911 if we want to have any hope of rescuing America from the tyrants.

WTC7 changed Geraldo's mind

"And if explosives [in bldg. 7] were involved that would mean that the most obnoxious protestors in recent years... are right." - Geraldo Rivera (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFPobKeSzKQ)

This quote came shortly after the BuildingWhat.org campaign broadcast their ad.

Not to discourage you from exposing other anomalies. :-)

Geraldo is not on board for the whole truth

If I'm wrong, please let me know if he has said something positive about other aspects of truth. I watched the footage over and over when it first aired to try to understand how FOX could broadcast something that's anathema to them. It is clear that he is referring only to building 7 when he says that the most obnoxious protesters ... are right. At the very beginning he says, "it's the one 911 mystery that endures". So everything else has been explained to his satisfaction. This will (I suspect) be a limited hangout that will derail much of the truth movement's progress, when it is finally revealed that 7 was demolished.

Ordinary people desperately need to believe the government version. The alternative is unthinkable for most people and they will jump at the chance to make sense of this. That's a main reason why we have so much trouble making headway. After 7 is revealed as a government approved demolition, they will point to the different type of collapse in the twin towers vs. #7. This will get the government off the hook with most of America. You think we have trouble convincing people now. Just wait till WTC7 is explained. Yes some people will be led to other aspects of this crime, but I still believe this big focus on 7 is counter-productive, because Americans who are troubled or unsure will breathe a big sigh of relief saying, "I told you so", to all their friends and relatives who've been trying to get them to consider the other evidence of wrong doing. This will be the kill switch on their cognitive dissonance allowing them to smugly continue on in ignorant bliss, and we will have an even bigger challenge on our hands. I would almost say that at that point, the game will be over.

However

The truth movement could say that "We had been right all along about the third skyscraper; are you still going to disregard what we have to say?" and point out that it would have been impossible to plan and prepare the demolition of a skyscaper in the course of a couple of chaotic, logistically impossible hours.

You don't know that.

It was WTC 7 that opened my eyes. You jeopardize your credibility by making categorical statements about things that you cannot know.

You're right.

My words could have been better. I suppose I should have said, "I believe..." But in the scenario I paint, where the government finally admits to bringing the building down for national security reasons, people will have no reason to doubt them and our movement will lose credibility in their eyes, and (for some) the previously most compelling reason to doubt the official explanation. After all, the gov. can admit to CD without changing a word of the official 19 hijackers story, and the American people, the ones we need to convince, will be able to say, "see I told you so".

WTC 7: a 47-story story of deception and murder

I understand your argument but I come at WTC 7 more optimistically. WTC 7 creates a powerful WOW moment for newbies. An official excuse that the an enormous 47-story building was sacrificed by demolition for the greater good has not been widely promulgated, probably because the outcome would be so unpredictable. WTC 7 is a smoking gun of the highest order with the power to convince large numbers of people. I can't imagine the high perps want the topic and footage in the spotlight. The strongest argument of the 9/11 Truth Movement is the demonstrable, evidence-based case for controlled demolition. Using WTC 7 to teach this is worthwhile because the follow-up arguments include massive additional evidence for explosive demolition of WTC 1 and 2. Moreover, the case for controlled demolition of WTC 7 can easily be made to a first-time viewer simply by showing a video; there is no previously held myth to get in the way. Also, the deeply disturbing fact of WTC 7's burial by the major media will strike people as highly suspicious. If WTC 7 demoliton goes mainstream, there is good reason to think the house of cards will crumble.

I've heard this argument

many times now... and I don't think people understand the implications of the US government admitting WTC 7 was deliberately destroyed. With all due respect, you certainly show no hint of such understanding making the argument.

Deaths at WTC7 wakey wakey

Permaculturist

We need to remember this testimony
Dylan Avery footage
at 5mins 10 seconds:

/>

SnowCrash, I've contemplated your argument

that the govt. might admit bringing down WTC7 and I conclude it's highly unlikely for some very important reasons:

-- it would have to have been rigged days, weeks or months earlier which implies foreknowledge of the attacks
-- it doesn't explain nanothermite
-- the govt would have to admit holding NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission hostage
-- the crossover to WTC 1 & 2 is too fluid and risky
-- they couldn't just "admit" it without some evidence and naming players
-- they would have to explain why it needed to be kept secret, for which there is no justifiable explanation
-- it opens the door for MSM to devote resources to investigate and I don't think they have enough shills to keep it contained

Our movement needs to take some risk if we want something meaningful to happen, and IMHO placing significant emphasis on WTC7 is a calculated risk worth taking. If by chance they ever admit they lied, it doesn't hurt us to be revealed as being fooled like the rest of the world has been and at the very least, would show that we were justified in our conviction(s) and observations, which right now, a lot of people think we are not.

and there is

insurance fraud, which would open its own kettle of fish. The govt admitting lying about CD on WTC7 is never gonna happen.

I agree

The govt admitting lying about CD on WTC7 is never gonna happen.--911Peacenik

Absolutely.

911Peacenik

That was absolutely not my argument. My argument is identical to yours. You mean Permaculturist's argument.

oops

Sorry SnowCrash, UR right, I was replying to Permaculturist. my bad

Peacenik - my response

Thanks for your detailed response. I will address each of your points below. Remember that the people they are trying to convince are the people who DON'T believe there is anything suspicious. If the scenario I'm suggesting happens, it would be to reinforce their pre-existing beliefs to prevent them coming over to our side. If WTC7 has a reasonable explanation then people will be led to believe there isn't much left to be concerned about. WTC7 was never claimed to be a target so Geraldo and all the MSM can be on board with the strange collapse of 7 and it doesn't change any of the terrorist story. Those of us who know the truth will not be swayed by this explanation because there is too much else that is fishy, but they know they can't remove the truth from our minds, so they would be going after the rest of the population who will only too gladly accept the explanation.

You said:
-- it would have to have been rigged days, weeks or months earlier which implies foreknowledge of the attacks
Yes probably rigged months before for CD at some point after the CIA or Secret Service moved in. So what? They wouldn't claim it had anything to do with the attacks, so no foreknowledge of the attacks is implied. They simply say because of the damage to the building, it had to be demolished to protect national security, and then refuse to discuss the details of national security which they do for every other case of national security and the public is fine with that.

-- it doesn't explain nanothermite
No it doesn't, so they would continue to ignore and deny nanothermite, but in the meantime, millions of Americans will be able to say, I knew those 911 truthers were wrong. And that is the easiest choice for them. Cognitive dissonance makes it much harder to say oh I don't believe that explanation.

-- the govt would have to admit holding NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission hostage
No. They just say that they need to keep national security details secret and NIST and FEMA are subject to national security secrecy too since it trumps everything that happens in America. The 911 Commission can say they didn't investigate 7 because it had nothing to do with the attacks other than collateral damage. They never claimed the hijackers planned to take down 7.

-- the crossover to WTC 1 & 2 is too fluid and risky
The type of demolition in 1 and 2 is completely different from WTC7 - anyone can see that by looking at the videos. The government can simply say it's obvious that 1 and 2 are not CD, but 7 was.

-- they couldn't just "admit" it without some evidence and naming players
Yes they could. They don't need to prove anything or name anyone when they play the national security card.

-- they would have to explain why it needed to be kept secret, for which there is no justifiable explanation
They don't need to explain anything when they play the national security card, and most Americans let them get away with that kind of thing.

-- it opens the door for MSM to devote resources to investigate and I don't think they have enough shills to keep it contained
The MSM has all along protected the perps. That isn't going to change. As the director of the CIA said, the MSM are all owned by the CIA. If anything, the MSM will jump at the chance to promote the intentional demolition of WTC7 as a way to reinforce that 911 truth is wrong and they were right to ridicule us.

You said:
Our movement needs to take some risk if we want something meaningful to happen, and IMHO placing significant emphasis on WTC7 is a calculated risk worth taking. If by chance they ever admit they lied, it doesn't hurt us to be revealed as being fooled like the rest of the world has been and at the very least, would show that we were justified in our conviction(s) and observations, which right now, a lot of people think we are not.

You're right, it is a risk, a big risk, but there are so many things that don't add up as we all know, why focus on the one and only thing the government can explain away with ease? It does hurt our cause to be revealed as fools since that's close to what they've claimed about us since day one. If this scenario plays out as I predict, it will be the death of 911 truth gaining any mainstream public acceptance or understanding. Don't forget we have the MSM completely against us and the truth.

It just baffles me that people have chosen to focus on WTC7 when there is so much to lose, and so many other things that are just as suspicious if not more so.

It doesn't baffle me, at all

This movement is all about the truth concerning 9/11. If the gov't brought seven down, whether they admit it or not, we deserve to know. And we have growing credibility in the scientific world for our arguments and analysis of the collapse of WTC7. If the gov't admits to it, then we will have succeeded. We will have brought them to a level of accountability that is light years from where we are right now.

It certainly

should not be focused on to the EXCLUSION of, the also very obvious explosive demolition of the twin towers, however unconventional that was as a top-down CD. For God's SAKE people, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center exploded and descended from the top all the way down to the ground in little more than three mere seconds beyond the time for any freely dropped object to traverse the same distance if dropped through nothing BUT AIR ALONE, from the same height. I mean like HOW OBVIOUS IS THAT?!!!

Why there are no physics papers published about this anomalie (timed destruction relative to free fall time) is beyond me. Why didn't Staven Jones or anyone for that matter tackle the grade 10 and 11 physics level elements, during the course of the last 10 years...? It's crazy, makes no sense to me at all.

Here we have almost 15,000 architects and engineers formed together as a group, which in and of itself would make up the sum total number of employees in the very largest of consulting engineering and architectural companies in the USA, and that group, God bless them for their work don't get me wrong, but why can't they put together a comprehensive rebuttal to the NIST and FEMA Reports, back it up with basic physics, and get it published in a highly recognized and esteemed engineering and/or physics journal..?

3 seconds beyond freefall for two 110 story buildings. Think about that...

one two three

Does this not violate Sir Isaac Newton's Three Laws of Motion..?

Point being, that in the case of the Twin Towers, the primary "imaging" of the global psyop of 9/11 - their sheer HEIGHT lends themselves perfectly to this argument and analysis. They cannot possibly have "collapsed" absent the use of explosives. Prove that out, and it's available for such a proof, and down goes the official story about 9/11, at THE most fundamental level. In this regard, I think the poster above has a point. No need to focus on WTC7 exclusively, while evading, as if for no reason, the plainly obvious explosive destruction of the Twin Towers, then, now and foreverafter remaining conspicuously absent, the New York City Skyline, in perpetuity.

THAT ought to be the primary focus imho. I just don't get it, why that isn't and why it's all about WTC7. It makes no sense to me at all, given all the evidence, and the sheer self evident truth at the heart of it. There's no getting around it either. Such an engineering and physical analysis, which FEMA and NIST did not address, is UNDEBUNKABLE, since the immutable laws of physics are inviolate.

There's something wrong with this picture, with this deflection away from the Twin Towers, almost exclusively, to WTC7, not the credibility of someone who points this out. I will be interested to see if this post get's voted up or down..

WTC7 is easier to recognize

as a CD, because it resembles a classic bottom-up CD an awful lot (except for the usually clearly audible sounds of explosions). WTC1 and 2 are much more difficult to perceive as CD's, because people can (somehow) imagine this concept of a "heavy" toppart which the first floor of the lower part cannot arrest, causing it to give way, which adds mass to the toppart, making it easier for it to overcome the next lower floor etc etc.. It's something that's there, it has settled into people's minds, and it's very tough to get rid of now. The only way, or the best chance we have of those people reevalueating their opinion/belief about this, is that they see WTC7 collapse first, and point to the fact that NIST claims it is DEFINITELY NOT a CD.
Once people get a grip on the fact that the manner in which WTC7 collapses can only be achieved by some form of demolition (which had to be preplanned of course), they will realize that NIST has been guilty of a cover up. And only THEN they might look at those other two buildings of which NIST tried to explain their demise (and take into account that this explanation might be a cover up as well, which it clearly is of courae, once one realizes what they have done, how they handled the investigation and what they refused to do).

Like said before, a lot of people still don't know about WTC7's collapse. So indeed, the VISUAL observable manner in which it collapses, is key here, because it speaks louder I think, than any lies or fraud that have been put on paper or a computerscreen by the various perps and culprits.

Indeed...

"the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center exploded and descended from the top all the way down to the ground in little more than three mere seconds beyond the time for any freely dropped object to traverse the same distance if dropped through nothing BUT AIR ALONE, from the same heigh

[...]

why can't they put together a comprehensive rebuttal to the NIST and FEMA Reports, back it up with basic physics, and get it published in a highly recognized and esteemed engineering and/or physics journal..? "

I've also often thought along these lines. If the towers had been completely destroyed in 9.3 seconds, no part of the buildings could have been crushed by any other part, as there would not have been any structural resistance, the only resistance having been provided by air. (Actually, isn't the 9.3 second figure for a fall in a vacuum, so adding air resistance would actually increase the time to a bit over 9.3 seconds - 9.5 perhaps?) That really means that only a couple of seconds were left for the *crushing work* that would be needed in a "natural" collapse.

Let's see: 110 stories divided by ~3 seconds = 36 floors per second.

So, as a very rough estimate, only 1 second was available for the *crushing* work needed to destroy ~36 stories.

Is there a fault in this argument? Are we missing something?

7 highly relevant IMHO

Also, not wanting to distract you from exposing other problems with the official story.... but WTC7 is a huge problem for the official fairytale. It was obviously a controlled demolition, and whoever did it were highly skilled at this work... imho, the best in the business. It was the neatest job I've ever witnessed from watching hundreds of CD videos since 9/11.... an absolutely flawless, textbook example of how to take a large building down in the conventional CD method, the building coming down symmetrically, vertically, and into a tidy pile... leaving everything else around it intact.

To do a job like that requires extensive prepping, meaning that this work was obviously undertaken well before 9/11, and by people who had highly privileged access... which takes away from the "al Qaeda" hijacking scenario, implicating others. This. together with the fact that all three buildings came down on the same day connects the destruction of WTC7, and the Twin Towers' implosions inextricably... ie, whoever rigged WTC 1 and WTC2 must have also rigged WTC 7.

As a speculative afterthought: The method of imploding the Twin Towers was different... an rare "top down" demolition. The Twin Towers were of such an unusual shape, with their footprints so small in ratio to the enormous 1400'+ height... had a conventional type of demolition been attempted on the Twin Towers, the slightest timing error in the demolition sequence could easily result in the building toppling sideways, perhaps with a block of many upper stories intact as it hit the ground... meaning that evidence of the remains of the planes embedded in the upper parts of the buildings, together with un-ignited (thermite etc?) charges etc could be spread over a wide area. Obviously, the perps needed to avoid that scenario, so they opted for a "top down" method... this method also killed several birds with one proverbial stone:

(a) by starting the sequence near where the planes went in.. (ie towards the top of the Towers, especially in WTC1), the explanation that "damage from the planes" started the collapse sequence gains traction with an easily led public.
(b) by starting the sequence at the top, the huge cloud of dust from pulverized concrete would completely obscure any telltale flashes from the charges placed in the central core columns
(c) and, as I mentioned above, starting the sequence from the top and working down prevents large blocks of the building from toppling sideways in a botched conventional demo... and avoiding the possible scenario of unexploded charges being discovered by... someone unconnected with their plans... ie members of the public!
(d) and by delaying the collapses until an hour or more after the planes went in meant that the entire world was primed and ready, glued to their TV sets, ready to absorb the extreme psychological blow of "shock and awe".

It appeared to be a very skilled, very slick (and evil) example of a psychological operation, with military precision.

the initial explosions at WTC7

were before the twin towers came down and they produced dead bodies which Barry Jennings stepped over in the lobby area when he was rescued

there were murders at WTC7

this is SO relevant

check Barry's statement:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-09/investigate-building-7-march-26th-...

Barry's testimony...

... about the dead bodies cannot be relied on. He distanced himself from it in the BBC interview, and there is no corroboration.

pls

show link to the bbc clip- thx

Great list of speakers!!

Richard Gage
Kevin Ryan
Manny Badillo
Dr. William Pepper
Dr. Graeme McQueen
Tony Szamboti
Mark Crispin Miller
Bob McIlvaine
Craig Unger
Leslie Griffith
...and more speakers to be added.
http://investigatebuilding7.org/

Do not underestimate the power of a very simple analogy

A fullback can not (N-O-T) run across the goal line as quickly if he had to knock over a few 325 pound defensive linemen -- who were resisting his progress - as he could if his offensive line had opened up a hole that he could scamper through untouched.

Resistance slows things down. It has to. There is no choice.

Please do not underestimate the power of a very simple analogy like that above. It can break through the mantra:
"I don't understand physics." or, "I don't have enough training," etc. etc.

There is NO way the a building can fall through itself at free fall acceleration without its supporting structure being completely destroyed first.

exactly

Also for the twin towers particularly:

The top part of a building can't impact the stationary and intact lower part of the building and carry on with freefall-through-air acceleration as if the impact didn't happen.

The fact that descent continues with freefall-through-air acceleration means that there was no impact with a stationary and intact lower part, so how was the stationary and intact lower part changed such that it offered no resistance ?

Either a giant hole opened up in the ground and the whole building fell into it at freefall or the lower part was control-demolished.

Building 7:

It's a matter of people SEEING WTC 7. WTC 7 opens logical peoples minds into the possibility of other scenarios. WTC 7 woke up my Grandparents, Parents, friends, and my self.

WTC 7 = THE KEY TO TRUTH

Someone...

Should ask Craig Unger to expand upon this.

Good

stuff, Jon

I like this group of 911 fact investigators

Hopefully, they will reach a lot of young thinking minds from the University of Hartford.

God Bless

Sweet. Thanks. and some advise

Be alert for university spam filters. I've had university mailings get kicked back when I gang them up and/or bcc them or add attachments. It's important to email the profs and encourage them the weigh in.

Sunder on What Controlled Demolition Looks Like

Maybe Shyam Sunder could show up in Hartford and tell everyone what controlled demos look like? Here he is in action:

How can this guy

just stand there and claim without any reasonable argument whatsoever, that WTC7's collapse did not look (no, it only seemed that way, according to him) like a controlled demo? Unbelievable. I don't get it, I don't get it why not one person has reacted to this statement with something like "Well mister Sunder, on what basis do you conclude that it's not a CD?" Absence of loud bangs?
What about the roof? What about the acceleration of the roofline? How can a supposedly natural collapse, which starts with the failure of just one column, achieve the same result as months of meticulous planning and preparation with explosives?
How the hell did he get away with this performance?
He should've been buried right there with proper questions and arguments.

"Art of Lying" criteria for executive positions on Govt

Sandberg,
You bring up an important point about "performance".
The lies over the past decade by high officials in government and corporations have become more brazenly obscene.

Danse's new movie, "Lifting the Veil" highlights examples of this blatant lying.
It is well worth viewing for all audiences.
http://vimeo.com/20355767

Lupe Fiasco drops Building 7 bomb

I'd never heard of Lupe Fiasco until a few days ago.... but apparently this guy is a rap sensation and he has over 2 million hits on his youtube song: "Words I Never Said." "9/11 Building 7, did they really pull it?"

Better in Japan

This Just In from BUILDING WHAT?

BuildingWhat

Dear Friends,

The BuildingWhat? campaign is thrilled to announce that two weeks from now on Saturday March 26 we will be holding an event in West Hartford, CT to unveil our new TV spot and kick off a marathon six-month effort to create widespread awareness of the collapse of Building 7. With your support and the support of thousands of others, the TV spot will air in late April and be seen by millions of viewers in the New York Metropolitan Area, setting the stage for an even larger ad campaign during the week of the 10th Anniversary of 9/11.

Investigate Building 7: A Call to Reexamine the Most Important Event of Our Time will run from 9:30am to 9:30pm on Saturday March 26 at the University of Hartford’s Millard Auditorium. This historic event will feature the most articulate voices in the growing movement to bring about a new 9/11 investigation. Experts who have studied the events of 9/11 extensively will introduce irrefutable evidence demonstrating the need for a new investigation, and they will be calling upon New York City elected officials and the media to reexamine the most important event of our time, starting with the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

A ticket for this full-day event is only $20. We are counting on you to fill this beautiful 400-seat auditorium because major international news media will be filming the event, and we are also likely to draw coverage from domestic news media including live television coverage.

For more information and to buy tickets online through the University of Hartford’s box office, please go to InvestigateBuilding7.org. Tickets will be available at the door, but seating capacity is limited, so we strongly urge you to buy your tickets online now.

For those of you who are too far away to attend, we will be releasing the TV spot online as the event commences. For those of you who can come, we look forward to seeing you there!

Sincerely,

The BuildingWhat? Team

Speakers

This looks like a very good event!

I'm always concerned, however, when an event has the door open for "surprise" guest speakers that can appear at the last minute. If there is a finalized list of speakers, that's typically better for everyone in terms of people who have committed to the event not having to be concerned if someone ends up being involved who is controversial.

That's not to say that I would expect someone controversial, only that it can happen and can be a problem.

Indeed

Thanks for being vigilant about this.

Well if it's the case that somebody

is going to be controversial about WTC7, you can always show him this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSzdOgeUOjU

Let that person look at this video and listen to the audio especially, and then kindly ask him to explain how that conversation that can be heard in the video, can be reconciled with an impossibly known "natural collapse" of a large steelframed building, that was on fire here and there, and had some damage too some random places.