“Building What?” 9/11’s forgotten smoking gun

One of the biggest “smoking guns” indicating that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated, not by Arabs in caves, but by elements within the US Administration, is the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building (aka WTC 7). Look at the video of the collapse, below, and ponder upon whether you have ever seen such a thing before that was not achieved by a controlled demolition.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a group set up by architect Richard Gage, AIA, for fellow architectural and engineering professionals to counter the official story given to the public about the collapse of the three World Trade Centre skyscrapers on 11th September 2001.

The official account of Building 7’s collapse, incidentally, has been changed by NIST several times. Was it fire? Collateral damage from the Twin Towers? NIST have even said that hypothetical blast events are being considered for their contribution to the collapse of WTC 7.

A group called “Building What?” wants to raise awareness of this major clue which helps expose the real culprits of 9/11.

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 why did 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.

Watch the TV Ad Millions of New Yorkers Will See:

The BBC reported the collapse 26 minutes early. Reporter Jane Standley was actually seen discussing the collapse on BBC World with Building 7 still standing behind her!

The studio anchorman that day was Philip Hayton. Members of We Are Change UK questioned him about the early reporting of WTC 7’s collapse during a speaking appearance.

The BBC reporting on the collapse of a building which is still standing.

Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11– at first– but then recalls the situation when it is described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who reported the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in the background.

“A lot of eyebrows were raised,” We Are Change reporters point out in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including a number of engineers. Hayton responded, pointing out that he was not aware of the situation with WTC 7. “This sounds so significant– I’m just amazed I didn’t know about this… This is completely news to me.”

“So, is there no official explanation?” Hayton further probed.

We Are Change continues to explain the delayed NIST report on WTC 7 as well as the response from a BBC editor who claimed 9/11 tapes were “lost” in a ‘cock-up.’

“I sense that you think there’s a conspiracy here– but you might be right,” Hayton concluded.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to “Building What?” 9/11’s forgotten smoking gun

  1. Stewart,

    I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with you over WTC7. I don’t think that the US Government or US agencies such as the CIA orchestrated a demolition of WTC7; such a suggestion is extremely improbable (I might even say, ridiculous). This is a far-fetched conspiracy theory which is easily dismissed.

    I’m well acquainted with politics and activism, and it is a world of intrigue, and conspiracies and cover-ups do happen – but I don’t believe this ‘WTC7 was a controlled demolition’ conspiracy theory for a moment; it is very flimsy, full of holes (and the motives are highly implausible too).

    I don’t know if you’ve considered the arguments put forward in the following link but if you haven’t you might find it a worthwhile exercise:


  2. P.S.

    As an example of a credible conspiracy theory, the argument that David Kelly was murdered (and made to look like suicide) has much merit. There are undoubtedly conspiracies of the sort that seek to protect the people behind politically motivated assassinations. Genuine conspiracies have a credible motive, are realistic in practical terms and usually have very few people who are in on it – and ultimately for claims of a conspiracy to be believed they must be proven with evidence [and/] or (more often) with testimony from one or more conspirators. I’m afraid that the ‘best’ genuine conspiracies generally succeed in their aims without being exposed – much less proven!

  3. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thank you for your comments, Richard. The collapse of Building 7 is just one of many unlikely events of 9/11. I was hoping to have time to write more on the subject today, but was at a birthday party! I don’t use Silverstein’s ‘pull it’ quote because a) I’m not sure what he intended and b) the collapse speaks for itself. Emergency service people even heard a countdown.

    The motives? Well, the building was full of spooks’ offices (CIA, Giuliani’s command ‘bunker’ etc) from where the whole shebang may have been orchestrated. There may have been another plane intended for hijacking, with the target being Building 7. If it was already primed with explosives like the Towers then the decision may have been made to ‘pull it’ in the way conspiracy theorists want it to mean, because if it had remained intact, the charges would have been discovered – as well as the evidence linking the CIA to the plot.

    What I see, and what many architects and engineers see, is a controlled demolition.

    And you may know that the debris from the WTC was rapidly shipped to China for disposal. Strange thing to do with the evidence from one of the world’s major crime scenes.

    9/11 has conspiracy written all over it. More so even than Dr Kelly’s murder.

  4. How about a piece on critical thinking and the evaluation of evidence?



    PS I will await your response to my questions on your piece alleging that most of the worlds scientists are in a conspiracy before tackling this next slew of allegations if thats OK.

  5. Stewart Cowan says:


    Tell me this. Do you never believe the evidence of your own eyes?

    How about the fact that no steel framed skyscrapers have ever completely collapsed due to fire – except on 9/11 when three did? Yet another strange coincidence.

    I never said the world’s scientists are part of the conspiracy. Clearly, many are very sceptical of the official tale. Many more will be fearful of getting involved.

  6. Johnnyboy says:

    Thanks for posting this Stewart. The world – and many Christians – do need to see and hear this still.

    Richard – never mind all advanced theories and speculation. But I’m confident you know about gravity and acceleration. If you need to refresh on the details, look here for instance:


    I have no idea who did what on 9/11, or why. But I know that 50 story buildings – on fire or not – simply do not fall symetrically and totally to the ground in some seven seconds (more or less free fall speed, and you have the formula). So, if see a building that does exactly that, I know for sure that somebody somehow made that happen.

    SImple physics and clear observation. Easypeasy.

  7. A conspiracy to murder one man is one thing, a conspiracy of CIA involvement in 9/11 is quite another. I don’t know the 100% truth regarding 9/11 of course, but I doubt a CIA conspiracy.

    I hope you don’t spend too much time on 9/11 conspiracy theories as it may detract from your blogs on other themes and which you cover so well.

  8. Johnnyboy,

    I know a thing or two about freefall: I did an unintentional 45 feet fall in June this year and I’m still recovering!

    If it was a demolition, what explosives evidence do we have?

  9. len says:

    As this building WTC7 was destroyed in( apparently )seven seconds it must have been a catastrophic event that caused this.

  10. Stewart Cowan says:


    Thank you. I think it is that easy. I ask people to show me a collapse like Building 7 that wasn’t a controlled demolition and they never can. I wonder why.

    Everyone does need to know, because these attacks are the basis for the removal of our freedom.

  11. Stewart Cowan says:


    The trick with pulling off a huge conspiracy is that only a few people need to know what’s really going on, e.g certain politicians, industrialists, secret service bosses and their specially chosen psychopaths.

    I don’t spend nearly as much time on 9/11 as I used to, but then, I am now convinced it was an inside job. Can’t be anything else after years of study. And I truly wish it wasn’t so.

  12. Stewart Cowan says:


    If the support columns hadn’t been blown, the resistance between floors would have produced a much slower, and more eratic, collapse. Seven floors collapsed PER SECOND.

  13. When a dredger on the Thames ran down and sank a pleasure boat, the dredger was sold abroad. Tony Blair’s accounts were shredded when the Parliamentry Allowances scandal loomed. Etc.

  14. Building 7 should have ‘fallen over’. However, it not only WENT STRAIGHT DOWN, but two others on the same site, that suffered ASSYMETRICAL damage, ALSO WENT STRAIGHT DOWN. Never mind WHO did it, the odds are too far above chance for uncontrolled events. Maybe God is back, and behaving a bit like Arnie? That is certainly more likely than the explosive-free theories.

  15. Stewart Cowan says:


    I was recently talking to someone involved with autism in children. She is convinced, as are many others, that vaccines are the primary cause. I agreed. We also agreed that if you go against the official version of events you are considered a conspiracy theorist.

    Evidence doesn’t seem to matter to most folk. They would rather believe in outrageous coincidences time and again.

  16. Wow are there any popular and /or right wing conspiracy theories you don’t agree with?

    This is a genuine question.

    Please let me know.



  17. Stewart Cowan says:


    Right wing? What?

    Popular? Yes, that’s because, in this case, at least, it is an obvious conspiracy.

    You still think Building 7’s collapse looks cushty?

    You keep lovin’ your masters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>