It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NYC CAN Releases TV Spot

page: 1
67
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+41 more 
posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   


The new TV Spot released from NYC CAN which will be airing to 1 million NYer's.

Enjoy.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Considering they only reached 1/10 of their donation target for the first week, I'll have my doubts that they'll reach a million viewers.

ETA: And why are they showing the 'shortened' version of the WTC7 collapse? Surely in their quest for truth, it would be suitable to show the full collapse, starting with the east penthouse.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by roboe]


+6 more 
posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
...starting with the east penthouse.


Why, so we can see the classic sign of a controlled demolition?


The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble.

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.


science.howstuffworks.com...

Be sure to play with the 'How Building Implosions Work' Gif about halfway down the page.

Then look at this...



...and explain how the outer walls/facade ended up ON TOP of the debris pile from a natural collapse? Physically impossible without being controlled, and your 'penthouse kink' is the central columns dropping ahead of the outer columns as per a classic controlled demolition implosion. Without that the outer walls would fall to the path of least resistance, which would be outwards in this case, and end up on the bottom of the debris pile.

Edit; BTW thanx for posting this Tiffany, people are not going to let this one go.

[edit on 8/26/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I guess honesty isn't a cornerstone requirement in the search for truth.

Over 1,200 archtiects and engineers HAVE NOT question the collapse of building 7.

That is a blatant lie.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Can you prove that it is a lie?

You know there are hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers in this world? How do you know that 1200 of them don't question the reason why the building fell?

In my opinion, the way WTC7 fell could only be possible if the very bottom of some of it's load bearing supports were completely compromised. As far as we all know, there was no major damage to the bottom of WTC7. There was some damage to the top and front, maybe, but the bottom? Not likely, it was protected by other buildings. And we all know fire can not completely compromise this support, that is unheard of.

Something compromised the bottom of WTC7.

FYI - I am an engineer.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


star and flag to you
the truth stands or falls under its own weight
which is more than could be said of building 7
this IS the issiue that i have shown people and they have responded with WTF there is more to this thing than i thought

xploder



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
S&F







Over 1,000 Professional Architects and Engineers agree that the mysterious collapses of WTC Building 7 and the Twin Towers on 9/11/01 need to be re-examined and investigated. The NIST report is proven to be unscientific and false, using evidence NIST either ignored or gathered and used itself.

I used the public domain video created by NIST, available here:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

NIST in their own words admits free fall speed:
www.nist.gov...
"Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"

The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation? by Eric Douglas, Architect
www.journalof911studies.com...

FireFighters for 9/11 Truth:
NFPA 921 on High Order Damage:
firefightersfor911truth.org...

Shear Studs: A Case Study:
911research.wtc7.net...

Van Ramiro's SuperThermite experiment was courtesy of Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" TV Show on TruTv (formerly CourtTV) from Episode 2 on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2 Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007
www.journalof911studies.com...

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
www.ae911truth.org...

NIST Report on WTC 7 dissected by Engineers:
ae911truth.org...



Inside Job!

[edit on 26-8-2010 by KIZZZY]


+5 more 
posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I still don't understand why people would think that low energy fire can bring down skyscrapers.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I wonder which station, if any,will run this ad? I'm sure they are going to have a hard time finding a spot and if they do, it will be some obscure channel at 4am. If they could find anyone to air it, then this would do great I suspect. These days, you have to stoop to the level of the public and reach them on their own mental grounds, which basically means running ads on primetime.

In fact, I'm thinking about donating to their cause after a little more research. I'm familiar with NYCAN, though I'm going to research the effort.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
Considering they only reached 1/10 of their donation target for the first week, I'll have my doubts that they'll reach a million viewers.

ETA: And why are they showing the 'shortened' version of the WTC7 collapse? Surely in their quest for truth, it would be suitable to show the full collapse, starting with the east penthouse.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by roboe]


lol TV commercials aren't cheap....they charge you for the length of time you use. The answer to your question is implied in your first comment...



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
1 200 engineers express doubt over the collapse compared to the 1.5 million employed in the US who don't?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
1 200 engineers express doubt over the collapse compared to the 1.5 million employed in the US who don't?


1200 engineers who OPENLY express doubt, compared to the 1.5 million who are too scared to loose their jobs, too scared of ridicule for asking hard questions, and or just don't care, or just don't have doubts.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by IsALL]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
THIS IS BEAUTIFUL!! OPEN YOUR EYES. A NEW AGE IS REALLY DAWNING.

There has never been a question in my mind that the truth about 911 was going to be reavealed. The only barrier is fear of the truth.

The 911 odessey is the perfect chronograph of the global awakening currently picking up steam and rapidly approaching critical mass.

Imagine how frightening it must be for Tom Brokaw's "greatest generation" to accept the concept that agents of their government executed the most horrific terrorist attack against american citizens in history.

Many of us casually exclaim that 911 was an inside job without considering the depth of the implications.

What if, for instance, Dick Cheney was behind it? Who else was involved? How deep does the conspiracy go? Were members of the Joint Chiefs involved? How would you prosecute them? At what cost to the citizenry? Would the army be mobilized against the citizens?

What do they know that would lead them to believe WW3 was a good idea? Was it something as simple aand dim witted as profits for the military industrial types or something more sinister and purely evil?

Is there really a satanic cabal of the illuminati, masons and religious orders lead by lizzard men from a distant planet who feed off of human fear and pain?

I believe an evil cabal has run the world since the dark ages. 911 was a last ditch attempt to maintain control and create a prison planet before too many people woke up.

What they did not take into account was the forces of light would naturally react in an opposite and more than equal direction.

What they did is actually speed up their certain demise and we are the incredibly lucky generation to have a front row seat to rise of global awareness and the dawn of the real new age!

Time is speeding up. The ball is picking up speed. We have past the "energy of reaction" needed to start the reaction and the enthalpy curve looks like a roller coaster that starts ten feet from the peak of the main hill and the drop is a cliff-like curve.

Buckle your seats and get ready for free fall



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
This is just like the the list of scientists the Creation Institute compiled which lists 650 scientists who express "doubt" over the claims of evolution. It does not mean they do not believe in it, just that they express scepticism over it. The National Center for Science Education even responded by compiling a list of scientists named "Steve" who support evolution.

This means nothing and it's a blatant appeal to authority. 9/11 truthers crack me up.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerry_Teps
 


Jerry... To sit there and think you know the 100% truth about 911 is what cracks me up. In reality, you don't know anything accept what has been told to you, and that is hilarious.

You can NOT claim to know everything about 911, because a lot of things are still "classified".

Getting people to question things which we still don't have answers to is a right step in the right direction to getting those answers.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by IsALL]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerry_Teps
 


ahhahahhahahaha

if you ask questions, you are a conspiracy nut

Living in the US and having to work ... well, you better be quiet, otherwise they take your job, thats the fact



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsALL
reply to post by Jerry_Teps
 


Jerry... To sit there and think you know the 100% truth about 911 is what cracks me up. In reality, you don't know anything accept what has been told to you, and that is hilarious.

You can NOT claim to know everything about 911, because a lot of things are still "classified".

Getting people to question things which we still don't have answers to is a right step in the right direction to getting those answers.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by IsALL]


Where did I say I know 100% what happened? The logical response to a ridiculous unsubstantiated claim is scepticism. Unless you can prove conclusive evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, then frankly, i'm going to consider you delusional.

Even if 9/11 was an inside job, it is still credulous for you to believe it is so without sufficient evidence.

The mentality of truthers astounds me.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
the greatest injustice of our time is that psychotic mass murderers can kill thousands of innocent office workers and others and still walk free after so much proof of the crime has come to light

no greater proof exists of the fascist death of the legal system and governments in the UK Israel and the USA , the home of the communities of killers who participated in the 911 mass murder event

even today confused people add their names to the roister of mass murder complicity by their work to hide cia and mossad involvment,bizarre, and pointless, everybody knows!!!!!



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
Where did I say I know 100% what happened?


So... if you don't know 100% what happened... are you at least at all curious to know? Do you have any questions about it?

If you don't know 100% what happened, than it is safe to say you don't know the 100% truth? Do you not care about the full truth and nothing but the truth?


Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
The logical response to a ridiculous unsubstantiated claim is scepticism.


The logical response to ANY claim should be skepticism. It doesn't matter it if is ridiculous, or substantiated, there should always be skepticism or you will forever eat what ever is spoon fed to you, including sweet deceit.

Your opinion of what is "ridiculous" and what is "unsubstantiated" is like a pair of blinders over your eyes prohibiting you from seeing the 100% truth, because believe it or not, the truth is often ridiculous and unsubstantiated.


Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
Unless you can prove conclusive evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, then frankly, i'm going to consider you delusional.


Where did I ever mention anything about an inside job??

Now I think you are delusional. Not only do you not know the 100% truth... but you also jump to conclusions. I bet you jumped to conclusions of that happened on 911 too.

Just because people question what happened on 911, and what brought down WTC7, doesn't mean they all think it was an inside job. There is 1000 other possible explanations. Why are you settling on one if you are not closed minded and or jump to conclusions?


Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
Even if 9/11 was an inside job, it is still credulous for you to believe it is so without sufficient evidence.


It is credulous for someone like you to jump to a final conclusion about 911 without knowing anything about what happened on 911. All you know is what has been told to you.... and you don't even know if it was a lie. You even admitted that you don't know the full 100% story.

Credulous - "willing to believe or trust too readily"

What is credulous is for someone like you to trust, and believe a story that was spoon fed to you.


Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
The mentality of truthers astounds me.


Your mentality astounds me.

You label me a "truther" just because I want to know the full truth of an event, which is not spoon fed to me. What does that make you? A "swallower"? I think it does.

You swallowed a story, and you don't care about what you swallowed. If you did, you would be a truther too.

How dare you judge me and jump to conclusions about my opinion. I despise you.


[edit on 27-8-2010 by IsALL]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsALL

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
1 200 engineers express doubt over the collapse compared to the 1.5 million employed in the US who don't?


1200 engineers who OPENLY express doubt, compared to the 1.5 million who are too scared to loose their jobs, too scared of ridicule for asking hard questions, and or just don't care, or just don't have doubts.


AND...those others that don't even know about WTC7.

A funny illogical tactic used by loyalists who believe the entire world
knows about WTC7.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join