//** * * */

9/11 "Truthers" are running a digital billboard in Times Square showing building collapse

9/11 "Truthers" have paid for the digital billboard in Times Square and are running an ad today that states "WTC 7 came down in a classic controlled demolition" and then shows the collapse of building 7.

It's the 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth ' group at rethink911.org who have placed the 15-second video on a massive billboard in time square today of all days. Building 7 conspiracy theorists believe a controlled demolition involving fire or explosives caused the building to collapse, since it wasn't hit by any plane. Building 7 housed several government agencies, including the Emergency Operations Center known as "Giuliani’s Bunker".

CBS owns the billboard space in Times Square and the cost to rent it is $175,000 a month. The 15 second collapse will run on the billboard starting today, and continue until October 5.

Adland® works best in Brave browser. Adland® is supported by your donations alone. You can help us out by donating via Paypal.
Anonymous Adgrunt's picture
comment_node_story
Files must be less than 700 KB.
Allowed file types: jpg jpeg gif png wav avi mpeg mpg mov rm flv wmv 3gp mp4 m4v.
ReasonedDissent's picture

How this gets less hate and exposure than "brands using 9/11 to sell shit" I will never understand...

kidsleepy's picture

It's easier to make fun of brands on Twitter "who we all know aren't people but were told they were by Mitt Romney" or something, than it is to deal with something way more disturbing that was created by real people.

Dabitch's picture

Corporate personhood has been established since the 1800s, and how they became people you can't sue is in interesting one, but yeah taking that and turning it into ye old "brands are people" is a bit.... Say, what is everyone smoking these days?

Spending $175,000 for an ad to run in New York today is quite up there. I too am surprised people aren't tuning their outrage radar to be outraged about that today. Perhaps they're too busy being outraged at those outraged by the brands tweeting 9/11 things.

Orangublackntan's picture

Hey you can't fit much information in that bit of time, but if it wakes someone up it's worth it! Free fall acceleration is not easy to do. If you are new to the evidence also check out the consensus points at www.consensus911.org

kidsleepy's picture

That's the problem. You may not realize this, but this entire site, Adland, is devoted to advertising.
And as an ad, this one is confusing, provides very little information, and except for images of buildings going down-- which most likely offended a lot of people on today of all days-- gives the viewer no incentive to seek out more information.

And speaking of offended people, Times Square is the spot for tourists, most likely the American comes are coming from the heartland and are probably greatly offended by the images. As a piece of communication, this makes me question if the creators know anything about advertising. Who exactly were they trying to talk to?

Let me go ahead and give you a hint. If your initial answer to the above question was "Everyone," then it is incredibly misguided. You can sell Toyotas to "everyone." But subject matter like this, which can be described as either whistle blowing or conspiracy theorizing, is too polarizing a subject matter to appeal to "everyone."

Perhaps it was meant solely as a publicity stunt. If that was the case, it was also a poor one. More people were spending their days on twitter trolling brands who were remembering 9/11, rather than thinking about the New World Order.

Whether an ad is meant to sell a product or an idea, it has to be clear, concise, and persuasive. Time will tell how big of a failure this ad was. But let's just say I am not betting that a platoon of newly recruited Truthers are going to descend on Pennsylvania Avenue this week.

ReasonedDissent's picture

I no longer feel it necessary to comment on this post. Thank you kidsleepy.

Tom's picture

@kidsleepy

What is your suggestion? They have 2000 architects and engineers signing their petition and get zero coverage from the biased/controlled/propaganda media. If you have something to question why not question that. How can it be with all the news agencies in America, all the journalists, all the editors and a group of 2000 scientists can't get any coverage when they want to talk about the science of 9/11 on 9/11. Why don't you wonder about that?

Why don't you wonder what their message is as obviously these 2000+ scientists from various fields feel there is something important to tell us all? The 9/11 Commission had a total of zero scientists on it, but you listen to them...? What is the message from these scientists? To them it is the white elephant in the room. They have a 47-story, steel, fire-proofed, high-rise with 52 perimeter and 24 interior columns still in tact after the towers collapsed suffer a sudden, total, global, symmetrical collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition. These scientists measure the buildings descent in the video and determine that the descent of that roof line in the video occurs at free fall acceleration (the gov does not take that measurement the real scientists do take it!). It is IMPOSSIBLE for a building to collapse at free fall without Controlled demolition.
The Government's response in NIST's report is to say that the video these scientists observe (observation is a big part of science) and the measurement they have taken of free fall is totally irrelevant because according to NIST the entire internal structure of the building collapsed FIRST. Yes first the inside of the building collapsed and then we all watched the facade of the building collapse on TV and so the observation and the freefall mean nothing. Additionally, this total, global, symmetrical collapse comes from "FIRE". Yes the 24 interior and 52 perimeter columns collapse in side the building but the outer facade somehow remains standing for us all to see. The government makes their report and leaves the real world of science by generating a computer model to support the far fetched conclusions in their report. They release that report in Oct 2008 then in July 2009 they make that computer model's input data SECRET. Yes they violate the scientific process of "full disclosure" and hide the data. They do this knowing that hiding the data makes their model invalid scientifically, but get away with it because no one questions them and their practices. The one thing other scientists would want to validate would be the computer model but you cannot do that when you cannot see the input data used in making the model. Why don't you question that...?

You probably also do not question the 28 pages in the report called “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001” being classified since 2002 either. According to those who read these pages they tell us who provided intelligence support and financing for the hijackers, but you probably do not want to know that either because it is disrespectful. You do not want to know that Saudi Arabia sponsored the attacks and W. Bush let them remain viewed as an ally then attacked Iraq instead because he'd wanted to do that since getting into office. Gee what does that say about 9/11? What does it say that the President mislead the entire nation on purpose and covered up Saudis involvement? What does it say that we have a media that will not go after that story when they have 5+ senators and congressmen who have read the docs and tell us they inform us of who financed and provide intelligence for the hijackers on 9/11.

So what do you want them to do? What should their forum be? How do you gently break this very bad news to people?

9/11 was an inside job, deal with it!

kidsleepy's picture

My suggestion is the same suggestion I would make to someone running a tampon or candy or beer or insurance ad that made no sense: go back to the drawing board and make a point that people can understand, or choose a different medium if your point is unclear.
As I said in this thread before, this is an advertising site. Ads have to make a point quickly, regardless of what kind of ad it is. The average attention span is 8 seconds. Your post above is more than two pages long. And you want everyone to know the truth about something that happened thirteen years ago.
Put your conspiracy/truther hat down for a second. And objectively think about it from a communication standpoint. If it takes more than two pages of facts to explain everything-- and someone decides its a good idea to skip all that and run a billboard in times square with zero information-- do you see how there is a disconnect? Do you see why this is not a good ad?
I don't even know why I'm bothering trying to explain. Oh wait, yes I do. Because this is an advertising site.

Tom's picture

My post was not an add.

I guess they think the total, global, symmetrical collapse of WTC7 is a simple visual point people can understand. The AE group thinks that many people have not seen it due to media blackout after 9/11/01 and probably believe just showing it will wake some people up.

Dabitch's picture

The short spelling of "advertising" is "ad". Also we saw it live on TV and that's plenty.

Tom's picture

No it's not plenty if you cannot put 2 & 2 together.
It was an ad as in advertising.

It is also freedom of speech so you'll just have to get over it.

Dabitch's picture

Don't be dense. Nobody here said that you weren't allowed to do it. We're critiquing the ad as it's not doing a good job of an ad, which is selling the idea (product/service) to new "customers". This is simply preaching to the converted and offending everyone else while possibly just perplexing tourists.

Also, you might have to look up the definition of a joke in a real dictionary some day.

kidsleepy's picture

It's a 15 second piece of confusion pointing to a website the majority of people are not going to visit. If you want to defend the right to free speech no one gives a shit about, knock yourself out. But it's also my right to critique it. And as an ad, it was a waste of money.