Toronto 9/11 Ad Campaign Launched: Subway Riders Will See Footage of WTC 7 Collapse

All this "shortest proof of all add" is designed to do is distract people from why the world trade center was destroyed and keep them focusing on how.

Thats right, thats it, get your nose right down onto that grindstone. Now keep it there…

good, you're doing good.

Not why the buildings fell, only how the buildings fell.

Are we really still not beyond comprehending the entire middle eastern conquest that began as a result of and has waged ever since 911?

Thats it, good, keep you nose on the "how" grindstone… only there, thank you.

reply to post by intrptr


But physics can't be locked in a vault for only special eyes to see.

Most of the evidence for 911 does not have that clause

Putting these ads on subways will fit in perfectly next to all the other ads about one-click wills, bargain-priced exotic vacations and promoting abstinence in teens, as there's not much more accuracy and honesty in one over the other in my opinion.

But this makes me wonder why this organization feels it's so important to convince Canadians (and Britons) of a conspiracy theory to begin with? Even if they manage to convince more Canadians that it indeed was a conspiracy involving controlled demolitions, what good would come of it? How would it contribute to "the truth" getting out, or holding those responsible to public condemnation or justice?

This ad campaign in Toronto just seems so pointless to me. I doubt it will have its intended effect here.

Aleister
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

I try to always side on the side of fairness. If an ad is going to show the fall of building 7 it should show the fall of building 7, and not part of it. If I had to make a bet I'd bet on it not being a controlled explosion but a horrible series of events which took the building down. What I'm saying is I'm not conversant on the nuts and bolts of the case, thus have no "horse in the race" simply because my opinion is not an expert opinion.

What is unfair about leaving out the penthouse collapse?
Do you believe the penthouse falling is the smoking gun to the theory of all the support columns going at the same time and then 8 floors being essentially missing since the building was able to achieve free fall for 2.3 seconds?
That would be the only reason I see of it being nefarious to leave out those extra seconds.

reply to post by Sremmos80


I repeat, I do not know the details and data as well as you do, so I can't comment. It's not a topic I've personally investigated and, more importantly, memorized, to the extent that I can hold an educated discussion on it. So I cannot be the "poster" defending or opposing one viewpoint or another on this. Have said that several times already. As I said, my tendency is for fairness - journalistic and historical accuracy - which is why when I watched the ad I realized that some of the collapse was missing, which led me to remember OSOTCoin's thread, which led me to link it here to add something which I found personally interesting to the discussion.

the best way to reach canadians is to use a beer cartoon
to whit:
its friday, you get home from laying blocks all day
( the average canadian guy can lay the whole block in a day)
you have a stack of ten two-fours in the middle of the garage floor
(so you don't have to drink and drive because your truck is shut down, it has no-rad )
you put down the bag with the new tool in it your wife bought you for your birthday ...its a drill
you take out the first beer from the top case...
you pop the cap with a bic lighter because you don't have a bottle opener

suddenly all your cases collapse into a pile of flattened cardboard...
no glass, no leaking precious liquid heading for the drain!
you turn to the camera and in your best buggs bunny voice you say:
"but then, i never studied law"

where did all the beer go?

reply to post by Danbones


You Hoser…

Hey Take off, eh?

Maybe if the "ad" was a beer commercial more Northerners would pay attention. Not that they give a frost bitten appendage anyway.

reply to post by intrptr

look at the bright side:
close to 80 % of canadians are computerized
when it comes to whether they are hot or cold on the truth
and when facing the spin cyckle coming out of washinmachine DC,
the temperature of the 80% ...is a single digit

and yeah; i am a loud Canadian




eta
I thought the lion at the start of the trailer really suits the topic of those giving us the OS mentioned in the OP

reply to post by Danbones

spin cycle coming out of washinmachine DC,

LOL-- controlled demolition of my chuckling ribs.

They destroyed all the proof ASAP.

The subsequent events were invading Iraq with FALSE accusations of WMD (glad they freed Iraq and gave them democracy they are doing great! NOT) and chasing ONE MAN, ONE MAN in Afghanistan again killing thousands of innocents, again crying that democracy is needed, but in reality are spending the land to squeeze every last drop of opium, cannabis it can yield. Oil, drugs, fake accusations. God help us.

Plus, implementing new rules to control us given that terrorist are everywhere it can even be you!

Guilty until proven innocent mentality.

All those who don't want another investigation are sold souls. You don't fool me anymore.

reply to post by ArchAngel_X

But this makes me wonder why this organization feels it's so important to convince Canadians (and Britons) of a conspiracy theory to begin with? Even if they manage to convince more Canadians that it indeed was a conspiracy involving controlled demolitions, what good would come of it? How would it contribute to "the truth" getting out, or holding those responsible to public condemnation or justice? This ad campaign in Toronto just seems so pointless to me. I doubt it will have its intended effect here.

No one in the mainstream cares what they think. If there was anything to this then the hundreds of periodicals, radio stations, TV outlets and citizens in general would support these adds-they don't.

Also, just attacking Building 7 is proof to so many that they have no proof of anything-just conjecture.

zazen
What I'd like to see, and what might turn me around on 9/11, is just one video or film of a building collapsing in that fashion due to fire. Certainly in the history of the world there must be ONE video of a building falling down like that which is NOT due to controlled demolition.

I'm with you.

Another scenario that might cause me a rethink is if any building /architectural safety codes were affected by what was learned on 9/11. Clearly safety codes should be changed if fires or partial damage to a building caused spontaneous free-fall.

After more than 10 years, no high rise building safety codes have changed. Everyone should be afraid to enter these death traps.

Here's an angle on the pentagon, found here; timeline

[/URL]

ATTN: GREATER TORONTO AREA!

Richard Gage is speaking in Toronto on Thursday March 20th. You can find the details at ReThink911.ca It would be nice to meet some fellow ATS'ers at the talk. Let me know!

Toronto here.

I started seeing this add already, but i forgot where i saw it, probably not subway because i dont take it anymore(school over / have car).


Only 20% Canadians are blind is not bad imo, compared to American ratio, can i say 50% are blind? or is that too high? i met pretty crazy wack jobs that would defend bush to the bone.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

After more than 10 years, no high rise building safety codes have changed. Everyone should be afraid to enter these death traps.

Agreed, nothing has been changed. Why? I don't know. Money most likely.

I can't see how watching another building fall has anything to do with WCT 7 unless they were exactly alike. We have only had video abilities to record such events for the past 50 years or so. Without video to record them falling, logically, there could have been dozens that fell from just fire.

Besides how something falls is not evidence of why it fell. My first Federal Grand jury term a defense lawyer(now a Federal judge) instructing the panel on evidence gave this example.

'If a tree fell in your yard and smashed your car you can't accuse your neighbor of deliberately cutting it down unless you can first prove that it was cut at all. Unless you can show injuries to the tree from a mechanical devise-then where and how it fell would be meaningless because it could have simply been the wind.

Same thing with building 7. Until you can prove that the building was prepackaged with explosives how it fell is irrelevant-just like the tree.It matters none how many engineers look at the video of the building falling-until they can prove it was imploded-their observations are meaningless-again like the tree.

And there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone planted explosives anywhere in that building. Nothing..No people coming forward and admitting planting the explosives..no sales receipt showing the purchase of large amounts of explosives..no bill of lading concerning it's delivery nothing other than speculation and conjecture. That is why the mainstream media could care less-show some real evidence-and they will be all over it-so will I.

There is no evidence that it was prepackaged with explosives and detonated-however there are mountains of evidence that it wasn't.

Of all the affidavits in the Archives most are repetitive and not that important. Some however, are.

The former NY police commissioner Bernard Kerik said in his long, long disposition that he instructed the Mayors people to tell him to meet at the office of the OEM in building 7 to come up with a plan to deal with the situation. Arriving at the location they heard a 'great' rumbling noise of the building collapse and ducked behind the Post Office till it was over. Afterwards, entering the lobby he said "The Mayor and I looked around and the building was on fire, the lobby was filling up with smoke and the ceiling looked like it was about to collapse on us" "We looked each other in the face and just ran out of the building and started going north"

That is powerful evidence that CAN be put to a grand jury that 6 people in all-saw the same thing the condition of the building at 11:24 that morning. The fact that the entire thing collapsed some 6 hours later is plausible and is evidence.

That is why the media, or anyone else could care less about building 7 Not a shred of evidence that explosives were planted and exploded and plenty of credible evidence that it wasn't.

The video of the building falling is simply immaterial. That is what closed the book on building 7

spooky24
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

 

After more than 10 years, no high rise building safety codes have changed. Everyone should be afraid to enter these death traps.

Agreed, nothing has been changed. Why? I don't know. Money most likely.

I can't see how watching another building fall has anything to do with WCT 7 unless they were exactly alike. We have only had video abilities to record such events for the past 50 years or so. Without video to record them falling, logically, there could have been dozens that fell from just fire.

Besides how something falls is not evidence of why it fell. My first Federal Grand jury term a defense lawyer(now a Federal judge) instructing the panel on evidence gave this example.

'If a tree fell in your yard and smashed your car you can't accuse your neighbor of deliberately cutting it down unless you can first prove that it was cut at all. Unless you can show injuries to the tree from a mechanical devise-then where and how it fell would be meaningless because it could have simply been the wind.

Same thing with building 7. Until you can prove that the building was prepackaged with explosives how it fell is irrelevant-just like the tree.It matters none how many engineers look at the video of the building falling-until they can prove it was imploded-their observations are meaningless-again like the tree.

And there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone planted explosives anywhere in that building. Nothing..No people coming forward and admitting planting the explosives..no sales receipt showing the purchase of large amounts of explosives..no bill of lading concerning it's delivery nothing other than speculation and conjecture. That is why the mainstream media could care less-show some real evidence-and they will be all over it-so will I.

There is no evidence that it was prepackaged with explosives and detonated-however there are mountains of evidence that it wasn't.

Of all the affidavits in the Archives most are repetitive and not that important. Some however, are.

The former NY police commissioner Bernard Kerik said in his long, long disposition that he instructed the Mayors people to tell him to meet at the office of the OEM in building 7 to come up with a plan to deal with the situation. Arriving at the location they heard a 'great' rumbling noise of the building collapse and ducked behind the Post Office till it was over. Afterwards, entering the lobby he said "The Mayor and I looked around and the building was on fire, the lobby was filling up with smoke and the ceiling looked like it was about to collapse on us" "We looked each other in the face and just ran out of the building and started going north"

That is powerful evidence that CAN be put to a grand jury that 6 people in all-saw the same thing the condition of the building at 11:24 that morning. The fact that the entire thing collapsed some 6 hours later is plausible and is evidence.

That is why the media, or anyone else could care less about building 7 Not a shred of evidence that explosives were planted and exploded and plenty of credible evidence that it wasn't.

The video of the building falling is simply immaterial. That is what closed the book on building 7

Hmmm, you don't mention any video existing of the tree falling, bad analogy at best. Try again?

reply to post by spooky24


HOLD THE DAMN PHONE!!!! we cant compare WTC to any other building that has ever been built but comparing it to an accident involving a tree and couple neighbors is fine............. seriously?????!!!!

Also you say there could have been dozens that did fall do to fire, but since we don't have video then it was not recorded? Again, seriously? How long have we as humanity been recording things on paper?
Find me a skyscrapper that was brought to a global collapse that falls at almost freefall speed form uncontrolled fires...
I don't need a video, find me a written account

There is proof that some one planted explosives, look at the collapse. No way a random chain of events causes a collapse with 2.3 seconds of free fall, eight floors were gone no resistance at all! How does fire achieve that?
Well I lied, towers 1 and 2 faced the same devastating chain reaction...
What mountains of evidence prove agains the CD? Please elaborate to us all
As far as NIST goes it was all brand new events that have never been seen before
Brand new phenomena

toastyr

spooky24
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

 

After more than 10 years, no high rise building safety codes have changed. Everyone should be afraid to enter these death traps.

Agreed, nothing has been changed. Why? I don't know. Money most likely.

I can't see how watching another building fall has anything to do with WCT 7 unless they were exactly alike. We have only had video abilities to record such events for the past 50 years or so. Without video to record them falling, logically, there could have been dozens that fell from just fire.

Besides how something falls is not evidence of why it fell. My first Federal Grand jury term a defense lawyer(now a Federal judge) instructing the panel on evidence gave this example.

'If a tree fell in your yard and smashed your car you can't accuse your neighbor of deliberately cutting it down unless you can first prove that it was cut at all. Unless you can show injuries to the tree from a mechanical devise-then where and how it fell would be meaningless because it could have simply been the wind.

Same thing with building 7. Until you can prove that the building was prepackaged with explosives how it fell is irrelevant-just like the tree.It matters none how many engineers look at the video of the building falling-until they can prove it was imploded-their observations are meaningless-again like the tree.

And there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone planted explosives anywhere in that building. Nothing..No people coming forward and admitting planting the explosives..no sales receipt showing the purchase of large amounts of explosives..no bill of lading concerning it's delivery nothing other than speculation and conjecture. That is why the mainstream media could care less-show some real evidence-and they will be all over it-so will I.

There is no evidence that it was prepackaged with explosives and detonated-however there are mountains of evidence that it wasn't.

Of all the affidavits in the Archives most are repetitive and not that important. Some however, are.

The former NY police commissioner Bernard Kerik said in his long, long disposition that he instructed the Mayors people to tell him to meet at the office of the OEM in building 7 to come up with a plan to deal with the situation. Arriving at the location they heard a 'great' rumbling noise of the building collapse and ducked behind the Post Office till it was over. Afterwards, entering the lobby he said "The Mayor and I looked around and the building was on fire, the lobby was filling up with smoke and the ceiling looked like it was about to collapse on us" "We looked each other in the face and just ran out of the building and started going north"

That is powerful evidence that CAN be put to a grand jury that 6 people in all-saw the same thing the condition of the building at 11:24 that morning. The fact that the entire thing collapsed some 6 hours later is plausible and is evidence.

That is why the media, or anyone else could care less about building 7 Not a shred of evidence that explosives were planted and exploded and plenty of credible evidence that it wasn't.

The video of the building falling is simply immaterial. That is what closed the book on building 7

Hmmm, you don't mention any video existing of the tree falling, bad analogy at best. Try again?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the typical moving of the goalposts associated with Truthers. Sigh...

Sremmos80
reply to post by spooky24

 

HOLD THE DAMN PHONE!!!! we cant compare WTC to any other building that has ever been built but comparing it to an accident involving a tree and couple neighbors is fine............. seriously?????!!!!

Also you say there could have been dozens that did fall do to fire, but since we don't have video then it was not recorded? Again, seriously? How long have we as humanity been recording things on paper?
Find me a skyscrapper that was brought to a global collapse that falls at almost freefall speed form uncontrolled fires...
I don't need a video, find me a written account

There is proof that some one planted explosives, look at the collapse. No way a random chain of events causes a collapse with 2.3 seconds of free fall, eight floors were gone no resistance at all! How does fire achieve that?
Well I lied, towers 1 and 2 faced the same devastating chain reaction...
What mountains of evidence prove agains the CD? Please elaborate to us all
As far as NIST goes it was all brand new events that have never been seen before
Brand new phenomena

edit on thWed, 19 Mar 2014 13:29:38 -0500America/Chicago320143880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

How about instead YOU show ME ANY example of ANY building or buildings suffering the same damages and stresses to which those buildings were subjected on 9/11. Oh that's right...you can't. Feigning obtuseness is not a valid argument.