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.

 

9/11 Truth Ads Appearing On TV in New York City

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I don't know how many people here live in NYC, but I was amazed to see this on TV the other day. Apparently these are being aired in the city only, with the intention of getting New Yorkers to take another look at what happened on 9/11. The campaign is heavily focused on Building 7, with lots of video footage of the "collapse" featured in the ad.

When I saw this for the first time, my room mate was watching TV with me. After the ad ended he said "I don't know. That could be any building in that video." I was amazed that I had to correct him and tell him that this absolutely happened. I guess it supports the main point behind this campaign... that most people really don't know about what could be the smoking gun.



And their website:

BuildingWhat.org


I think this is a good thing.
edit on 5-12-2010 by suterlaben because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by suterlaben
 


Yeah its been airing for a while, thats why Geraldo finially had it on Fox News. Thats awesome that its making an impact. Glad your friend got to see it.

P.S. your embed isn't working.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by suterlaben
 


Double post darn.


edit on 5-12-2010 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
It would be good to see a lot more of these broadcasts on air. Seems crazy that many New Yorkers still don't know or care about building 7. Lots of people are awake to it all already and that's a good sign. We're approaching the 10th anniversary soon and I hope the tide of opinion swells in 2011, because if it doesn't then the murderers win.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The best part of the ad is that they don't count the total number of people signed up at A&E for truth, they only count the architects and engineers.

Glad to see people doing the right thing.

SNF as if i had to say that.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by suterlaben
 


Ummmmmmm......

Does it NOT make any difference that the REST of the buildings, in the immediate area surrounding WTC Towers 1 & 2 ALSO were demolished???

POINT is....WTC 7 was going to be torn down anyway!!!! Just as the rest of the buildings that were damaged too heavily to be salvaged were also taken down!!!

This is such a non-story, it is sad to see the ignorance surrounding it being displayed so prominently.

Part of the same old, same old "conspiracy" that just doesn't exist...except in some people's minds.

THINK about it logically.

This entire so-called "conspiracy" ('Building 7') is made up. Because of the way the building collapsed, and the fact that it resembled a "controlled demolition". Well....reports all day were such that, the building WOULD have had to be CD'd, eventually. Torn down. JUST AS others nearby eventually were!!!!!!

WTC 7 failed, on its own. BECAUSE of damage inflicted by falling debris from WTC 1, as IT collapsed.....just as that building's debris also hit other surrounding buildings, leading to their eventual tearing down later....

Do the research!



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by suterlaben
 


This is awesome. But it's strange that there is so many people who are unaware of building 7.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I did the research. Please spare me.

Why are you scared of a non Zelikow investigation? I mean really. The government lies about everything.

WTC 5





edit on 5-12-2010 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by suterlaben
 


Ummmmmmm......

Does it NOT make any difference that the REST of the buildings, in the immediate area surrounding WTC Towers 1 & 2 ALSO were demolished???

POINT is....WTC 7 was going to be torn down anyway!!!! Just as the rest of the buildings that were damaged too heavily to be salvaged were also taken down!!!

This is such a non-story, it is sad to see the ignorance surrounding it being displayed so prominently.

Part of the same old, same old "conspiracy" that just doesn't exist...except in some people's minds.

THINK about it logically.



lol The only thing I'm thinking about logically right now is --- not even reading any of your future posts after this one...



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


So what if other buildings were demolished afterward, how in the slightest is this relevant to a building
being demolished on 911? Seriously whacker you are definately are a disinfo agent!



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Wack, whatever credibility you may have had was just destroyed forever by that latest post. Because I'm sure you're not that stupid, you've exposed yourself as a traitor to this country. This cannot be seen any other way. For you to state that this case should be closed is treason. May God help you.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Wack, whatever credibility you may have had was just destroyed forever by that latest post. Because I'm sure you're not that stupid, you've exposed yourself as a traitor to this country. This cannot be seen any other way. For you to state that this case should be closed is treason. May God help you.


Good grief, the hyperbole the trusters are shoveling out knows no bounds. This whole, "educate people about WTC 7" drivel is nothing but desperate conspiracy mongoring, as it's already established by eyewitness accounts that the collapse of WTC 1 severely damaged WTC 7 and that the fires were doing at least something detrimental to the structure, which gives the NIST report at least some credibility and, more importantly, throws these "controlled demolitions" stories into the trash. The reason why WTC 7 doesn't have as much coverage as other areas is obvious- WTC7 was fully evacuated when it collapsed so noone died. You'll have to excuse the rest of us if we're haunted more by the tragedy of people trapped in the upper sections of the towers and the people on the planes, more than we are the toilet seats and door hinges of an empty building.

If there are people so uneducated that they didn't know WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11, I can't help that any more than I can help most college students being unable to locate Afghanistan on a map...and I've seen THAT with my own eyes so don't go there...but attempting to use this to promote some absurd conspiracy claim based 100% on abject paranoia is being intellectually dishonest. Research the cause of the collapse all you want, in fact do everything you're proposing twice, as far as I'm concerned...but the absurd notion there's some "controlled demolitions" conspiracy involved in the collapse of WTC 7 definitely IS a closed case, regardless of whether you with to acknowledge the fact or not. You might as well be arguing that night really isn't dark and that farts really don't stink.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Your sig says it all , no need to explain



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Good grief, the hyperbole the trusters are shoveling out knows no bounds. This whole, "educate people about WTC 7" drivel is nothing but desperate conspiracy mongoring, as it's already established by eyewitness accounts that the collapse of WTC 1 severely damaged WTC 7 and that the fires were doing at least something detrimental to the structure, which gives the NIST report at least some credibility...


Already established by eyewitness accounts indeed. And the NIST report says it was not a factor. So that means we need a new investigation, and it also means that you are using pieces of contradictory evidence to attempt to...

Well I haven't figured out your motive, but that's irrelevant to this thread or any other for that matter. The methodology is noted. And quite frankly it is laughable.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Quick question:

Why is the fire department spraying water on WTC #5? It was clearly more heavily damaged and beyond
saving compared to WTC #7

If they could save, or contain WTC #5, WTC #7 would have been a snap.

Just an observation...



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
To make this claim (WTC7) and to re investigate it would mean putting NYC fire fighters on the stand and accuse them of essentially lying. I doubt that lawyer would make it out of town.

But there is one bright side to these ads. These misguided people behind the ads are stimulating the economy.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 



Why are you scared of a non Zelikow investigation? I mean really. The government lies about everything.


So the "government" lies about EVERYTHING? You realize, of course, that the government is actually a collection of persons either elected, appointed or hired and not an alien entity, correct? So, based on your observation, all persons within the sphere of government operations can not do anything without lying, which of course begs the question - if the new investigation is to be "non-Zelikowian" and all past and present government actors are out of the question due to their inability to tell the truth - who then should conduct the investigation?

Do you propose to extend the power of government - sub peona power, the power to compel testimony, the power to imprison persons that are non-cooperative, the power to spend government funds, etc to a panel of unelected investigators?

If the answer is "no" to the above, and you don't trust government officials and employees, then what is stopping you from conducting your own investigation now?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Sadly you lack knowledge of fire fighting operations.......

Its called "exposure protection" - an exposure in firespeak is building not on fire which is "exposed" or in danger of fire

Fact that FDNY was pouring water on WTC 5 & 6 was to supress radiant heat coming off building. More important was supressing flying sparks and embers which can fly for blocks

Remember one incident where flying embers ignited buildings 1 1/2 block away from main fire.

Main "exposure building" in that area was the Verizon Building at 140 West - it was main telephone exchange
for Southern Manhattan supporting Wall St and other financial firms.

WTC 5 & 6 were only 8 stories tall and could be reached from aerial ladders or master streams from apparatus

WTC 7 was 47 stories and most of the fires were out of reach (anything above 9 floors not reachable from ground)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


zelikow is a dual citizen he was appointed not elected. Chertoff dual citizen appointed not elected. Zakheim not elected. I don't know what the answer is but not having people with allegence to another country involved in gov or the investigation is a start. Yeah?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I thought the firefighters were fighting the fires in the first 2 towers. I recall them saying they could knock it out. Your saying it's impossible to fight fires this high up with hoses? Not trying to argue just having discussion




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join