The New Building 7 Ad is Here

Dear Friends,

The new Building 7 ad is here, and with your support, it will be saturating the NYC airwaves one month from now.

Since December we have raised over $75,000. We now need only $25,000 more to launch the second round of TV spots, which will reach another one million viewers and bring us even greater media exposure—the kind of exposure that will ignite widespread discussion of Building 7 and generate enough public pressure to bring about a new investigation.

New TV Ad

Please watch the new ad, and please donate generously. Many of you have donated two or three times already; we ask you to donate just one more time to push us across the finish line.

We are also pleased to announce that “Remember Building 7” is officially the new campaign name that will take us into next phase of our effort.

While “BuildingWhat?” was the perfect articulation of why Building 7’s collapse has not been properly investigated, it became clear that we needed “Building 7” to be in the name if we are to reach the point where no one will ever respond with the words, “Building what?”, when Building 7 is mentioned.

Today is also the day of our conference at the University of Hartford: “Investigate Building 7: A Call to Reexamine the Most Important Event of Our Time.” For those of you who are close to West Hartford, we encourage you to attend. Events run until 9:30pm, and we have a stellar lineup including all of the family members featured in the ad—Jane Pollicino, Bob McIlvaine, Manny Badillo, and Valerie Lucznikowska—as well as Richard Gage, Dr. William Pepper, Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Kevin Ryan, Tony Szamboti, Mark Crispin Miller, and renowned journalists Leslie Griffith, Craig Unger, and Dick Russell, who will be discussing his new book coauthored with Jesse Ventura, “63 Documents the Government Doesn’t Want You to Read.” More information is at For those of you who cannot attend, you will be able to see footage of the event in the coming weeks, and during this year’s anniversary when a major French TV channel releases its documentary about our campaign.

Thank you for believing in our strategy.

Your generous support will continue to make the difference.


The Remember Building 7 Team

For more details about the Remember Building 7 campaign, visit


We (over at ReOpen911 France) will be translating this vidéo into French.

We'll send the subtitles over to the BuildingWhat account. If anyone else want's to help translate the video into another language send me a message and I'll supply the transcript/subtitles (My911BloggerUserName at

Campaign Should Better Link WTC 7 To WTC 1 & 2

At present, the "Building What?" campaign might only seem like an issue of accountability regarding building construction integrity to the general public, regarding the collapse of a building that apparently didn't even create a loss of life. This issue alone may not generate the kind of public support required to move public officials to reinvestigate.

Future efforts would do well to raise awareness about the scientifically established evidence of high-tech explosive incendiaries contained in the post-collapse 9/11 dust. Such presentations might make the campaign more controversial but the risk seems necessary.

Educational drive

I see your point of view, but the problem is this building collapsed on 9/11 as well, so it's not just a problem of a simple building construction integrity. Building 7 collapsed onto itself and is the elephant in the room. A lot of people have woken up to what really happened after watching that building collapse at free fall. Also, has an evidence section listing many important key points including the explosive residues found in the WTC dust.

If we all get behind this campaign it has the potential to open a lot of doors. The most important point is to be able to create a national public discussion.

Will Current Ads Compel Enough Interest From General Public?

The uninformed public may simply not be motivated to further investigate what may arguably look like a fire induced collapse of a general building that didn't create a loss of life.

But an ad tactfully questioning whether unique and dangerous materials linked to the WTC buildings played a role in WTC 7's destruction might generate more interest from the viewer. And if one can be compelled to consider the forensic evidence of foul play with WTC 7, they may naturally link such foul play to much greater foul play with WTC 1 & 2.

- Marketing & Targeting Audiences -

This new Building 7 ad is wonderful!
Great ad!

Aidan, you have a good point regarding the significance of the forensic materials found. This aspect certainly would attract attention and stimulate interest with many people. Perhaps someday, someone will take the reins and make a TV ad utilizing this aspect in order to promote or some other campaign. There is a specific public audience which might find the forensics very interesting.

Here's the rub from my perspective (having spent a lot of personal money on promotion with my past businesses)...
- Marketing & Targeting Audiences -
There is not one catchall advertisement (or medium) which will target everyone.

The objective in promotion is to attract attention and then get the targeted audience interested.
Each audience (group of people who share common traits) have their own buttons or areas of interest.

Example: The Fanta soda ads do not appeal to me. They are designed for a younger crowd. I was not the target audience because I am an old curmudgeon... ...but Scotch Whisky ads tend to target my attention. ;)

I think that this current new ad targets a nice broad, middle American audience. But it will not grab the interest of everyone.

An audience with John Gold traits would probably find the forensic evidence ad unappealing.
A CSI fan might become extremely interested in the forensics.

We are fortunate with 9/11 Truth in that there are many entrance points with which to attract attention and gain interest. We have an abundance of varied topics and approaches which we can utilize.
We also have many forms of media (word of mouth, DVDs, flyers, signs and stickers, newspapers, editorials, authors, celebrities, professionals, letters to the editor, internet, blogs, videos, comment sections, radio, TV, events, college classroom discussions, etc.)
Different approaches.
Repeating the message from different angles.

The grassroots Building 7 campaign has been a real win for our side.
My thanks to all who are making things happen.

WTC Dust Evidence Maybe More Compelling Than WTC 7 Videos

Debunkers can do a reasonably good job of framing WTC 7's collapse and footage of it as being fire induced.

But unreacted nano-scale explosive incendiaries tied to the WTC buildings is the virtual "smoking gun" - in fact "loaded gun" - evidence of 9/11 foul play. Asking NYC authorities to explain it's presence in lower Manhattan circa 9/11 is a reasonable and risk-free position.

Incrementally introducing the NYC region to the evidence of WTC foul play is prudent but can hopefully be followed by future ads containing details about the WTC dust evidence that hasn't been refuted for 3 years. This evidence will be understood by "CSI" savvy viewers. People will "get it".

Most people presented with

Most people presented with evidence of explosive dust from WTC 1 and 2 will balk and start asking about chain of custody issues. So that approach lacks the visual "money shot" aspect of seeing WTC7 collapse. To understand the dust argument you need to back off and do some minor research and it gives people the leverage they need to start poking holes in the research. So while I agree that dust evidence is compelling, it isn't ironclad because people can always question Dr. Jones methods, or the legitimacy of the journal that published him.

RJ Lee & USGS Dust Spheres Corroborates "Jones" Dust

Doubts about sample integrity fade when it becomes known the government's own samples contain anomalous iron-rich microspheres, consistent with those formed by the ignition of the red chips found in the "Jones" dust. Plus, dust samples were sent to multiple parties by individual collectors. To argue that ordinary non-scientists could manufacture nano-scale explosive materials and introduce them into their saved dust samples is implausible.

The dust evidence is as reliable and compelling as collapse video evidence of an already burning and damaged WTC 7. The dust findings have not been refuted for 3 years, even by those highly motivated to prove them wrong.

french tv at conference

Thanks for translating this wonderfully concise powerful ad. We want to replace the old saying "Remember the Alamo." Building 7 is the smoking gun proving demolitions took place with foreknowledge.

When at the conference in West Hartford yesterday I met a film crew from France doing a special program on 9/11 for what I was told was for a major television station. I do not recall the name, but the organizers at the event would know. Bob McIlvane is a powerhouse.. I am glad the crew was there.. and gave them some dvds of interviews I had recorded at a local community tv with Bob Bowman and Chris Pratt.. (For those interviews link to and scroll down the list for films by FLYBY NEWS.)

Thank you for ReOpen911 France.. This is a world issue.. and united wel shall overcome the corruption and deceptions.

Remember Building 7- 30 Second Commercial.

So we're asking people to remember something that they weren't aware of to begin with? That is asking quite a bit. Slogans like "Remember the Maine" or "Remember the Alamo" worked because everyone was aware of those events and they served as rallying cries for the Mexican and Spanish American Wars.

I agree with Aidan that we should do a better job of linking WTC7 to the rest of 9/11. After all the family members lost their loved ones in WTC1 and 2, not building 7. WTC7 is a good gateway drug to the rest of 9/11, but it needs to be connected to all the other events, not isolated from them. Geraldo, who seemed somewhat sympathetic to the BuildingWhat campaign, failed to draw the obvious implications of its collapse. In fact, he started off his segment on Geraldo at Large by saying, "It is the one 9/11 mystery that endures..." No, it is just one of many.

Support the Campaign: Help Fund the Next Round of TV Spots

If anyone can come up with a better 30 second ad, I'd bet RememberBuilding7 would be open to considering it. Or if you want to try to raise the money and air it through some other organization.

Otherwise lead people to the following resource provided at the end of the video:

Any other good ideas or constructive criticism can be placed here as well:

Logo and breaking the myth

the logo of Remember Building 7 says it all. The twin towers are there.. and it has Building 7 too, up front, which was missing in the 9/11 Commission Report. For a 30 second ad, simplicity and the key component, watching the building collapse with family members and professionals questioning the official report..

If those saying they have better ideas, please do make a 30 second spot that is better. That would be more helpful than just individual alternative opinions. Actions speak louder than words.. And those doing the work are our most important allies for change and transformation from the 9/11 myth.

Ten long years...

...."After all the family members lost their loved ones in WTC1 and 2, not building 7."

That's absolutely true and that's why this campaign is not the end of our efforts. We're not stopping with building 7.

This is simply how we go mainstream. After almost 10 years, it's about time...


I'd have to say this is an ingenius campaign and commercial. This building is put in the context of 9/11 and the need to know "what happened that day." Most anyone can see that it's being imploded. Once they go to the website they will see the '7 Facts about Building 7' which details reports that there was discussion of demolishing the building. "Explosive Residue" is detailed under "Evidence" with a link to the nanothermite paper. AE's link is under several sections, including Co-sponsor. So anyone interested in those "1,400 + Architects & Engineers" is going to get a full dose of Twin Tower Demolition evidence straight on.

That said, I would ask Tony and anyone else who gets TV interviews out of this to clearly point to the explosives in the dust as a way of ramroding the case on National TV for Building 7's investigation.
And yes, I like that "Building 7" is now in the name of the campaign. I also like this logo better. Much cleaner and sleeker.

Great Ad ! Thanks!

This ad packs in a lot with just 30 seconds!

Combining Architects, Engineers and Family

will change minds.

Nessun dorma (No one sleeps)

With a great sincerity of effort much more is possible than most people think.

Thanks to all involved,

The reaction to Paul Potts

The reaction to Paul Potts saying he wanted to sing opera was one thing, but laughing at Susan Boyle simply by the way she dressed and walked on to the stage is quite another!!

That is precisely the kind of audience we are facing, until we say "we told you so"!

As far as the adverts go, it is a learning process. We thought the first one was brilliant but in order to make an impact that has to be discomfort and a real risk-take, but it would have to be carefully thought through.

MEMO- How WTC 7 could collapse-Written July 15 1998


"January 26, 2008
Memo Details Objections to Command Center Site

“Seven World Trade Center is a poor choice for the site of a crucial command center for the top leadership of the City of New York,” a panel of police experts, which was aided by the Secret Service, concluded in a confidential Police Department memorandum."

"The memorandum, which has not been previously disclosed, cited a number of “significant points of vulnerability.” Those included: the building’s public access, the center’s location on the 23rd floor, a 1,200-gallon diesel fuel supply for its generator, a large garage and delivery bays, the building’s history as a terrorist target, and its placement above and adjacent to a Consolidated Edison substation that provided much of the power for Lower Manhattan."

"The eight-page memo reveals that police officials asked a variety of in-house experts in various disciplines and an outside expert to prepare a detailed analysis of the site’s vulnerabilities."

“This group’s finding is that the security of the proposed O.E.M. Command Center cannot be reasonably guaranteed,” the commander of the intelligence division, Daniel J. Oates, wrote in the July 15, 1998, memo to the police commissioner.

"The memo said the conclusions were based on analysis by police officials with expertise in infrastructure, building security, explosives, traffic and ventilation systems, who also consulted the Secret Service, including the agency’s New York special agent in charge, Chip Smith."

“Mr. Smith agrees with this assessment,” the memo says in its concluding paragraph, “even though his own office is in Seven World Trade Center. He acknowledges that the security of his office is a continuing concern because of the public nature of the building and the other reasons specified in this report.”

"The memorandum was provided to The New York Times by a law enforcement official not affiliated with a rival political campaign."

Some might find this particularly interesting, in that if it is true that column 79 failing would bring the whole thing down, there is good reason to believe that would have been known because......

"The memorandum sets out in detail the reasons why the Police Department concluded that the site was a poor choice for a command center, including its vulnerability to a biological attack and the ease with which a bomber could have damaged the building and crippled the center."

"It has nine sections, the longest one headed “Explosives.” It describes a blast analysis conducted by the Police Department’s bomb squad, aided by the Secret Service, which looked at the likely impact of bombs of varying sizes, from one that could be carried in a car or a van to a large truck bomb."

"The analysis, a standard practice used routinely to determine street closings when the president or another dignitary is in New York City, uses a computer system derived from the military and based on projections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

"It concluded that the largest of such bombs would have led to the collapse of the building."

"It has nine sections, the longest one headed “Explosives.” It describes a blast analysis conducted by the Police Department’s bomb squad, aided by the Secret Service, which looked at the likely impact of bombs of varying sizes....

..."It concluded that the largest of such bombs would have led to the collapse of the building."

I'd like to see this memo. I would hope they didn't conclude that a bomb blast taking out column 79 would collapse the whole building. Because NIST basically says column 79 failing brought down the whole building. The memo according to the article does say..."It concluded that the largest of such bombs would have led to the collapse of the building." And where would that bomb have been placed according to this study I wonder?
The NY Times according to this article has this memo. I'd like to see it. Would anyone else?