$6.00 donated in past month
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay FeatureRelated Categories: International | Police State and Prisons
‘Building What?’ campaign is brilliant strategy for 9/11 Truth movement
If campaign to get Building 7 investigation succeeds, then it's just the beginning (http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com)
It’s an inspired move. Take a single event from 9/11 and ask for a local investigation to determine how it happened. In this case, the goal is to have officials in New York City launch an investigation into why World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.
The smaller scope makes it more likely to succeed, and the fact that New Yorkers are asking their city to investigate leaves the federal government out of it – for now, anyway. And it’s clear that other so-called investigations into this event have shed no light on how this 47-storey building came straight down at near free fall speed (6.5 seconds) when it wasn’t even hit by a plane.
The campaign, called Building What?, was organized by families of people who died in the Sept. 11 attacks. It is co-sponsored by NYC Coalition for Accountability Now and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization that includes more than 1,200 members. AE911Truth is devoted to the dissemination of scientific evidence about what happened on 9/11. Their stated goal is a truly independent and open investigation of what happened that day.
And there’s a sign from an unlikely source that the Building What? campaign might get results. Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera, who scoffed at 9/11 Truth claims not that long ago, now seems to be willing to look at the issue. Recently, he had two representatives from Building What? on his show to discuss the subject. Considering the almost total absence of discussion about Building 7 on network TV, this is a considerable accomplishment.
A TV publicity campaign was mounted by Building What? this month that featured an ad that ran more than 350 times in the New York area. The commercial can be viewed at buildingwhat.org. It states a simple case, that official explanations have not told us the whole story. All the people in the ad lost a loved one in the attacks.
If you haven’t heard about Building What? yet, you’re probably wondering where the name comes from. Last year, arguments were being presented to the New York Supreme Court as to why an investigation should be launched into the collapse of Building 7. Justice Edward H. Lehner, when Building 7 was mentioned, said, “Building What?”
This is a perfect name because most people haven’t heard about the third skyscraper that collapsed that day either. In fact, it was finding out about Building 7 that led me to begin seriously questioning what happened on 9/11.
And this campaign is a perfect entry point to knock down the official story. And if it succeeds, it will open up the whole question of whether any part of the official story of 9/11 stands up to scrutiny. It’s possible that this could put irresistible pressure on Washington to have a real investigation of 9/11.
Any investigation of this collapse will inevitably lead to the twin towers because they, like Building 7, had pools of molten metal beneath them that took months to extinguish. This fact alone suggests a strong link between the three events.
Building 7 housed offices of the CIA, Securities and Exchange Commission, Secret Service, FBI, and the City of New York’s emergency command centre. Its collapse was reported by several news outlets, most notably the BBC, well before the collapse happened (23 minutes early in the BBC’s case).
Also, city employees Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, who were trapped in the building for a couple of hours, reported major explosions in the building before the twin towers collapsed. Jennings said that when they got down to the lobby, it was in ruins.
And then, of course, is the subject of Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for the entire World Trade Center complex. He said on a PBS special that a decision was made to “pull it.” He later claimed that he meant pull the contingent of firefighters, but this isn’t believable given that no firefighters had been in the building for several hours. And if it was explosives, how did they get there? This screams “inside job.”
The subject of the 9/11 evidence is so vast that many simply aren’t prepared to invest the time or energy to understand it, and this works in the government’s favour. Many who might be sympathetic, simply will remain detached from 9/11 Truth. But confining the question to why Building 7 fell could gain the campaign more widespread acceptance. And if the mainstream media starts getting interested, then everything could change. I’m not holding my breath on that one, but you never know.