Sept. 11 ‘Truthers’ Mark Anniversary

With a billboard in Times Square and a global ad campaign, a group keeps questioning what happened twelve years ago

  • Share
  • Read Later
Robert Giroux / Getty Images

Smoke pours from the twin towers of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York.

Smack in the middle of the northern half of Times Square there is a glass booth that sells tickets for Broadway shows. The scene is lit at all hours by hundreds of neon signs, news tickers and depictions of giant M&Ms climbing over Manhattan landmarks.

Stand by the ticket booth this week and glance across the street. Plastered to the side of the Doubletree Hotel, you’ll see an ad for a new ABC television showdigital posters for Broadway staples. Look east and you’ll see a 54-foot tall, 48-foot wide sign, that says, “Did you know a 3rd tower fell on 9/11?”

As the world marks the twelfth year since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, a campaign called the ReThink911 Coalition is drawing attention to one of the lesser-known events of that day–the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Prior to the Sept. 11 Attacks, 7 World Trade Center was a 47-story building just north of the Twin Towers. When the North Tower collapsed, debris hit Building 7, igniting a fire that burned out of control over the course of the day. At 5:21 pm, nearly seven hours after the North Tower came down, 7 World Trade Center crumbled quickly to the ground.

“The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail,” the NIST concluded. “The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.”

(MORE: On This 9/11, Enough With the Fearmongering)

In 2006, Richard Gage, a San Francisco-based architect, founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which doubts Building 7 collapsed because of fire. Gage and other architects and engineers argue that 7 World Trade Center came down in a free fall, which could only have been cause by a deliberate demolition explosion. More than 2,000 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the building’s collapse.

The Sept. 11 attacks were barely over when the first conspiracy theories began to emerge. Some argued that the Pentagon wasn’t hit by a commercial jet, but rather a cruise missile; others contended that the Air Force shot down Flight 93; some even argued that the entire attack was staged as a pretext for war and scaling back civil liberties. Such views have always been in the minority, but, according to polling, were closer to the mainstream than perhaps most Americans imagined. Five years after the attacks, a Scripps-Howard poll found that 16 percent of Americans thought it somewhat or very likely that explosives brought the towers down. More than a third of those surveyed thought it was somewhat or very likely that the government knew about the attacks and took no action to prevent them.  Between 2006 and the 10th anniversary of the attacks, that number waned. In August 2011, a poll taken for a BBC documentary found that 15 percent of Americans still believed that the government was involved in the tragedy, while 68 percent rejected a conspiracy.

Gage’s organization has continued campaigning while many other groups have retreated from view. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 makes up large part of the ReThink911 coalition, which spent $44,000 to put the billboard in Times Square at the heart of midtown Manhattan this week. The group says it raised $225,000 from more than 2,00 donors, the majority of whom gave contributions of less than $100. They’re using the money to put up signs and billboards in seven American cities. They will be advertising in Vancouver, Toronto, London and Sydney too.

The nearly quarter million dollar campaign is well within the reach of the coalition. According to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s IRS filings as a non-profit organization, the group took in $288,893 in contributions and grants in 2011, the latest year for which filings are publicly available. With an additional $180,464 in program service revenue–money an organization charges for services–giving the organization a total revenue f $469,362. City Outdoor, the owner of the billboard, said that the four-week rate to rent the space is $80,750. The company would not comment on whether it has considered rejecting the advertisement.

PHOTO: Help Identify This Photo: The Moment The Towers Fell

250 comments
ncfo20
ncfo20

HOW TO BE A 9/11 TRUTHER!


1. Get all of your information from YouTube videos, Alex Jones, and 9/11 twoofer websites.

2. Reject any information that may disprove your fantasy, regardless of the source.

3. Assume that any professional who defends the official story has been paid off by the U.S. Government.

4. Assert that over 100 peer-reviewed papers published in major physics and structural engineering journals which support the official story, are all wrong.

5. Convince yourself that anyone with evidence of 9/11 being an inside job has been killed or threatened. This is the only explanation as to why there has been no engineering or physics paper with calculations disproving the official story.

6. Act superior to anyone who is not gullible enough to buy into conspiracy theories.

7. Wear a tinfoil hat at all times.

kick-ass-@ngel
kick-ass-@ngel

Only in the U$A on 9/11, buildings that were on fire - for only a SHORT period of time - were pulverized and crumbled down to dust.
In OTHER countries, blazing hot fires in skyscrapers that raged for over 24 hours, didn't come down.
The U$A needed a new Pearl Harbour to stay Top Dog and dominate the world.
The blue print to do so was already scripted by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in september 2000 and turned into yet another false flag operation (totally patented by the U$A as usual).  Read the PNAC document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century and wake the hell up.
Americans are too scared to even consider that the evil didn't come from outside, but was an inside job.
Too many loose ends to be tied up, where the heck is inspector Columbo if you need him...huh?

barrymead
barrymead

There exist more reasons than CD, to mention all would use so much space it would be pointless. I have solid evidence in my own work, yet it is rejected, take Nat Geos skewed lie that thermite was impossible to use to cut steel as they used 175lb and it wouldn't. Then John Cole uses 1.5lb to slice steel in half...Did Nat Geo retract a deliberate lie? No, instead popular mechanics  lend support to that lie to suggest the conspiracy debunked. There is one way to know- Do your own open minded research. Sibel Edmonds is a good start the Anthony Shaffer and then wtc 7.

But spend a good month and learn all you can, then see what holds water and what doesn't. If you will not then that meand you just dont care. And it is not disrespect-it began with survivors,families and first responders asking for answers, it carried on with even 9/11 commissioners saying they were meant to fail and the cia lied. Still reasons add up. Go look and see the many add up to say, we do NOT know it all.

AndyEttinger
AndyEttinger

Larry the Hated Jew should sue sorry saps like Brian Good and his fellow hammerheaded carping sharks.

Only an idiot would say the things that are said about Larry by the 9/11 truth movement.All you have on him is the fact that he's a rich Jew.If being in the same club as Julius Streicher,Rudolf Hess,Heinrich Himmler,Henry Ford,Charles Lindbergh and Reinhard Heydrich doesn't bring shame to your senses then you are absolutely hopeless and less than weasels.

Noloferratus
Noloferratus

The people against 9/11 truth seem to have nothing to say to excuse how all three building fell too quickly to be primarily the result of office fires. These anti truth people resort to name calling while apparently claiming to be of superior intellect. If those against the truth are supposed to be so superior in intellect then why do they consistently fail to provide a valid counter argument to that of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth? I submit that the anti truth forum posters are probably  paid shills who know almost nothing about Architecture or science on the grounds that their post show a lack of any technical understanding of the problem with the NIST findings.

Incidentally "oregonstu1" on a different topic, how do you figure the people who believe Obama is Kenyan are "nut jobs" when his birth certificate has already been scientifically proven to have been forged by a law enforcement agency?

AndyEttinger
AndyEttinger

Speaking of Guinness,Brian the snugbug should be in the record book for Idiotic and Nutty Suppositions.Just get a rise out of his latest Larry the Evil Jew concoctions,wherein the bad,bad,Zionist purposely led idiots like he and his fellow Controlled Demolition Cultists astray with his ruminations on the decision to pullaway from #7 before it fell on everyone's heads!!!!

Chief Hayden? Dismissed with the weak wave of a nutjobs hand.

Heavy fires on many floors? Cavalierly dismisses the recall of folks who WERE RIGHT THERE and have no reason to lie about it.

Forget Brian,you've been housed.In a big way.

DemimondeMesilaThraam
DemimondeMesilaThraam

If this had been an ordinary crime, it would have gone to trial. Instead, there has been obstruction on every level of official inquiry into this most important event, despite there being motive, means and opportunity. Calling us conspiracy theorists instead of questioners and researchers does not necessarily make it so, but it is tragic that we get written off because of the idiotic conjectures of a minority of the movement as a whole. Unfortunately, within the 9/11 skeptic movement (which I much prefer to "truth movement" since that implies absolute knowledge) there has been too much emphasis on issues such as controlled demolition which mean nothing since they prove nothing about culpability, and distract us from the more important things such as what was going on - and what was NOT happening -  immediately before and during the event. 

oregonstu1
oregonstu1

Nice smear job it the headline, attempting to associate the 9/11 truth movement to the nut cases that think O'Bumma was born in Kenya. The NIST report cited here has been completely discredited and refuted, no mention of that in this puff piece, however. The nature of the fires in WTC7 are misrepresented here also, these were minor scattered fires that could not have possibly have generated the heat required to melt steel. The fire temperatures themselves were not nearly high enough, and the temperature of the steel itself would have been considerably lower than the fire temperature because steel conducts heat away from the heat source. Steel melts at about 2800 degrees, the fires burned at around 1200 degrees, and the temperature of the steel would have been well below 1000 degrees, not anywhere near hot enough to melt or even soften. Here is a much better source of information on the WTC7 collapse and the NIST report: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201


By the way, the government is now calling anyone who doubts the official narrative on 9/11 a potential terrorist: http://digitaljournal.com/article/358624

intruth
intruth

Building 7's collapse is the number one smoking gun of 9/11.

A second major smoking gun is the complete omission of Building 7's collapse from the 9/11 Commission Report!

"Two towers fell on 9/11" is the fairy tail.  That third building is a dead giveaway of something very fishy.  Everything possible has been done to minimize Building 7's collapse from the public's mind to the point of practically denying its existence!  

Nasty little Building 7 - why won't you go away quietly???!!!


DanielNoel
DanielNoel

A billboard on Times Square that does not insult the intelligence of the passerby? Is this a harbinger of morality in advertising? Or are billboards reverting to the usual pitch to make their gullible readers feel bad because they have not emptied their savings into some gadget they don't need?

Love,

Satyakaama
Satyakaama

Excellent and meticulous work by AE911Truth has shown NIST lied about the presence of shear studs on the key girder of WTC 7. This is very straightforward.

. http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/786-nists-claim-in-its-final-report-about-the-lack-of-shear-studson-the-floor-support-girder-between-columns-44-and-79-is-exposed.html

A FOIA also showed NIST lied when they omitted flange stiffeners on the key girder (please scroll down page and see the pertinent see video).

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/789-groundbreaking-wtc7-video-expose-independent-investigators-reveal-critical-errors-and-omissions-in-nist-report.html

Satyakaama
Satyakaama

Hi again. Here's the abstract of a paper in the International Journal of Structural engineering.

http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=47711 The paper is entitled, "Temporal considerations in collapse of WTC Towers."

That paper is referenced in this paper http://911inacademia.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/preview-some-misunderstandings-of-wtc-collapse-analysis.pdf , in which the authors argue the collapses of the Twin Towers should not have progressed as they did had the collapse been natural.

Satyakaama
Satyakaama

Silverstein could have said "kick it," "push it," "smack it," or "resurrect it," and in the context of the rest of his sentence structure, it would have implied bringing WTC 7 down intentionally.

Every person I've shown that video to, without letting them know the content ahead of time, has said Silverstein meant they demolished the building.

While Silverstein's quote probably should not be taken as "proof" of demolition, any honest investigation would question him about the matter. Silverstein apparently lied about talking to the fire commander. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106581 So, who knows what else he might have lied about?

Oh... and "pull down" does mean to demolish a building. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pull That's damn close to what LS said. Speaking loosely and informally, "pull" can mean to demolish a building--and the given definition doesn't limit it to the use of cables.

It's not proof, but any person with genuine concern about 9/11 would ask to have the matter further clarified by questioning Silverstein under oath, and by locating others he spoke with that day, and corroborating or dis-corroborating his testimony.

Simple enough?

ncfo20
ncfo20

@kick-ass-@ngel In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner.

AndyEttinger
AndyEttinger

Forget "disrespect" for the first responders,BM.It's just plain dopey that you DISCOUNT what the first responding FDNY says about what they saw down there.

Quit the Controlled Demolition Cult,it's rendering you a hapless,feckless buffoon.

snug.bug
snug.bug

@barrymead For a good five-minute video showing Nat Geo's phony test and Jonathan Cole's thermite cutting charges, see the Youtube Incendiary Experiments

snug.bug
snug.bug

@AndyEttinger Andy, I've never given Mr. Silverstein any reason to sue me.  I am not one of those bigots, like Dr. Kevin Barrett and his admirers, who thinks that Mr. Silverstein admitted that he blew up the building.  You are smearing me.   Try mounting a real argument and then maybe you won't humiliate yourself so with your lying ad hominems.



AndyEttinger
AndyEttinger

@Noloferratus Hey dumbass,President Barack Hussein Obama,our twice elected President was born of a lily White mother hailing from Kansas,USA.If that's not enough to make him an American then the fact is:the problem lies with people like you,who just cannot think things through.

So just shut the fugg up and quit calling your superiors "paid agents" or "shills",OK,Goober.

snug.bug
snug.bug

@AndyEttinger Chief Hayden's report is not corroborated by anyone, it is contradicted by NYPD photo evidence, and it was ignored by the official investigative agencies.   The firefighters have ample reason to exaggerate the fires in WTC7.   They had to explain why they did nothing to stop an $831 million building from burning down, and the real reasons--that the fires were so wimpy they weren't worth fighting, and there was a reasonable concern that there might be bombs in the buildings--were politically incorrect. 

 Also, many of the firefighters were probably fooled, as you are, by the appearance of smoke pouring out of entire south side of the building, when in fact that smoke was sucked up from fires at WTC6 and WTC5.  NIST says that fires only persisted on 6 floors.  On none of those floors do we have photos showing fires before 2:00.

snug.bug
snug.bug

@oregonstu1 You're right.  The claim  that "debris hit Building 7, igniting a fire that burned out of control over the course of the day" is not a very accurate way of putting it.    WTC1 collapsed at 10:30.  The first photographs of fires were taken at noon, and those fires went out pretty quickly.   Fires persisted on only 6 floors, and the first photos of fires on any of those floors were at 2:00.  

The fires in WTC7 were hardly "out of control".  They were not controlled because FDNY chose not to fight them.  Office fires burn in one place for only 20 to 30 minutes, NIST tells us, and the structure had fire ratings of 2 hours and three hours.



Noloferratus
Noloferratus

@IsaacNewton You are exactly right! There is literally no way for the NIST findings to account for the speed of the building's fall.

snug.bug
snug.bug

@Satyakaama Even simpler is the notion that Mr. Silverstein deliberately made an ambiguous remark in order to inspire bigoted conspiracy theorists to invent bigoted conspiracy theories and make fools of themselves doing it.  The architects and engineers seek to approach the issues in a scientific manner, and dwelling on personalities is not part of that.

snug.bug
snug.bug

@AndyEttinger BOTH of the federal investigations of WTC7 discounted what the first responding FDNY had to say, Andy.    We've already discussed this.  Why do you refuse to learn?  Why do you spread untruths about 9/11?

AndyEttinger
AndyEttinger

Buggy Brian,if you can't figure out that falling for the "Larry confessed" shenanigans is the dead give away that you're ready to believe the worst about a rich Jew then you are the classic case of a guy who can't see the forest for the trees!

Besides being just a miserably stupid piece of misinfo/disinfo that actually concludes that the FDNY blew up #7 ( "....and they made that decision to pull....") your nutty notion that Larry actually lied on purpose to draw suckers like you in is the best evidence that you buy the "wily,evil Jew" concept that pervades this world.

You've revealed yourself to be the sap that you are.

snug.bug
snug.bug

Says the guy who has to resort to lying ad hominems to give the impression that he has a point.

snug.bug
snug.bug

@Noloferratus @IsaacNewtonNIST claims they've accounted for it.

They claim that in the seconds preceding the visible collapse there was a period of column buckling.  They claim that they tracked a pixel along the roofline and saw a change in color from shadow to sky.  They did not identify the pixel, and they did not provide any detail on their data.  We should be demanding that they provide the evidence supporting this claim instead of denying that it exists.


AndyEttinger
AndyEttinger

@Satyakaama If we had a dime for each cement head who just cannot get off the schneid with this adherence to a BIG WRONG we'd have enough to pay Les Jamieson's diaper service for the next 10 years.

"Pull down" means pull down with cables.Or,more exactly,what you,yourself, do with your pud all day long.


"Pull",in the context that your whipping boy said it,clearly meant to pull away any search and rescue operation in the vicinity of the tower.
Pull away is just exactly whatthey did to protect anyone near the building in case it fell.

Which it did.

Give it up,Homer.the hayride's over.

snug.bug
snug.bug

@AndyEttinger @snug.bug Your photos don't change the fact that NIST claims that structural damage from flying debris played no part in  collapse initiation.  If you disagree with NIST, you should be joining us in calls for new investigations. 

The footage does not show  smoke pouring from many, many floors.  I've already debunked this.  NIST says that fires persisted on only 6 floors.  If you disagree with NIST, you should be joining us in calls for new investigations. 

The obvious reason not to fight the fires in WTC7 were 1) they were so wimpy there was no need and 2) there was testimony of explosions in the building from Mr. Hess and Mr. Jennings and 3) there was evidence of an explosion in the form of an elevator car blown out into the hall.  

The fires were not out of control.  They were uncontrolled  as a matter of choice.  There was water available at West Street.  There's a photo of it being sprayed on WTC6.

Why do you obsessively repeat  erroneous claims I've already debunked?

AndyEttinger
AndyEttinger

@snug.bug @AndyEttinger Honestly,Bri,you have more chutzpah than 118 Texas Jew haters!

The footage and photos of the south side of #7 clearly show numerous gashes,pockmarks and holes from the IMPACTS of #1

The footage and photos also clearly show smoke pouring out of many,many windows and floors illustrating a building fully involved in a major conflagration which wasn't being fought for obvious reasons having nothing to do with a conspiracy by the FDNY to blow the thing up.

There were search and rescue operations in the VICINITY and the out of control FIRES eventually brought the tower down.Every firefighter you quoted said the building was in big trouble,in case you missed your own point.

Next week we'll work on preparing an eggs and bacon sandwich for breakfast.You know,the more challenging stuff.

You're finished.

snug.bug
snug.bug

@AndyEttinger @snug.bugThe FDNY recollections are completely contradictory.  You don't know what you're talking about and you make stuff up.

Chief Frank Fellini said: “When [the north tower] fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade.” Captain Chris Boyle said the hole was “20 stories tall”.   Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said the problem was not a hole at all but a “bulge,” and it was “between floors 10 and 13".  Chief Daniel Nigro spoke of “very heavy fire on many floors”.  Harry Meyers, an assistant chief, claimed "it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories".  Another firefighter claimed it was “fully engulfed. . . . [Y]ou could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other”.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Why do you so persistently spread misinformation about 9/11?  What would make a person do that?


AndyEttinger
AndyEttinger

@snug.bug @AndyEttinger It's like watching a dog chase its tail or putting Scotch tape on all four of your kitties' paws and enjoying that for a minute!

Face it,Brian,you've boxed yourself into a corner and you have no escape whatsoever.The FDNYrecollections are not contradictory,excpet in the fevered minds of the Controlled Demolition Cult.If you were able to think it through without the element of bombs in your theory you'd see that the FDNY statements about #7 are completely consistent with,and indeed prove,that the building came down from impacts and fires.

You'll come around.

snug.bug
snug.bug

@AndyEttinger @snug.bug I didn't say I was in love with NIST.  Either you don't read my posts or you are deliberately trying to spread confusion. I didn't try to disappear anything.

You can't have it both  ways.  The firefighters and NIST can't both be right about WTC7.   And if you're going to go with the firefighters, you'll have to pick and choose because their stories are mutually contradictory.  So tell us, Andy.  From your extensive research of the nonsense posted on lying propaganda websites about the firefighters' statements, which statements do you find credible and which ones do you not?



AndyEttinger
AndyEttinger

@snug.bug @AndyEttinger I've already given you multiple shellackings,Bozo.Good luck with your continuing attempts to disapper the FDNY recollections.

Nothing I said was untruthful.Your love affair with NIST,et al. is reall rather poignant!

snug.bug
snug.bug

@AndyEttinger @snug.bug You make up your mind based on made-up "facts" posted on lying propaganda websites--talking points you are too lazy to verify.  

100% of what I post is facts.  I have no need of  conjecture and speculation.  

AndyEttinger
AndyEttinger

@snug.bug @AndyEttinger The last desperate flop,tossed out by a bankrupt mind with an argument fetish.

Brian,you and your miserable,robotic Controlled Demolition Cult have been so totally thrashed that you have been relegated to the brine shack,where you pipsqueak embarrassing proffers like:"..You're an agent" and "You're on the payroll",or:"you're just repeating propaganda that you read on the internet".

How ridiculous is that,since 90% of what you babble is conjecture,speculation and misinfo/disinfo from,where else,the internet!!

I make up my own mind based on the full panoply of ideas and facts of this story.You,unfortunately,are still carrying on like you just saw "Loose Change" for the first time over at a Urantia gathering at Les Jamieson's house.

You're finished,jackoff.

snug.bug
snug.bug

@AndyEttinger Andy, I never said Mr. Silverstein confessed to anything.  Learn to read.  Why do you spread untruths about 9/11?

snug.bug
snug.bug

@AndyEttinger @snug.bug @Satyakaama Andy, you continue to spread confusion.  Mr. Silverstein's spokesman  Dara McQuillan made a statement September 9, 2005  clarifying that the context of Mr. Silverstein's statement was that "Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

They were talking about withdrawing firefighters from WTC7.

You have a bad habit of rewriting the facts so they make sense to you.

AndyEttinger
AndyEttinger

@snug.bug @AndyEttinger @Satyakaama Hey mushroom addict,you're a flat out liar!

There were certainly search and rescue operations in the vicinity of #7,as #1 fell down right there.Which is what Larry and the FDNY guy were OBVIOUSLY discussing.

Your dishonest claim that there was none of that going on INSIDE #7 is merely a stunt,akin to a sleight of hand artist in a sleazy traveling circus.

snug.bug
snug.bug

@AndyEttinger @Satyakaama Andy, you continue to make up your facts.  "Pull" in the context of Mr. Silverstein's statement can not mean "pull away search and rescue operations" in WTC7 because there weren't any.   You pretend to knowledge that you do not have, and that spreads confusion.  You should stop reporting your imaginings as if they were facts and instead stick to things that you can prove.



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,107 other followers