Unbelievable.

[jaydeehess]

Sounds to me the knowledge of a third building collapsing came as a shock...

So, you've never read anything on JREF in the past 10 or so years?
I seriously doubt that you could find a debunker of 9/11 truther claims, in this forum, who have not been aware of the fact that 7WTC collapsed 7 hours after the Twin Towers did.
Here's a thread with over 3K posts from 2007 that speaks specifically about 7WTC. There are earlier threads that are shorter. There are other threads that deal with it in passing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98081


Indeed, there are at least two threads, started in November of 2010, that refer to the 'Building What' campaign of AE911T. This latest campaign, coupled with your assumption that people here are unaware of the collapse of 7WTC simply illustrates that you are highly misinformed.

 

[Orphia Nay]

There are 7 pages of results of threads tagged with "wtc7", going back to 2006 when this subforum began.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=wtc7

 

[RepresentativePress]

It is deceptive advertising because the before picture isn't before, it is during the collapse, the penthouse has already collapsed at that point.

You might want to contact BART and ask them id they have rules against deceptive advertising because the as falsely depicts that picture as "before" yet the collapse is underway, the penthouse has already fallen. The before picture should have been accurate and show WTC7 before any of the collapse started if they don't want to be accused of being deceptive. There are plenty of pictures available of the building before the event started.

I would ask BART to contact Richard Gage and have him explain himself, explain why he is using deceptive advertising. Ask BART to explain why it is deceptive and demand a response from Gage.

Aren't there policies against deceptive advertising?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Why do they assume that people don't know a third tower fell?

Because it fell, but wasn't hit by a plane! That's never happened before! In their minds, WTC7 is the "smoking gun." Anyone who isn't suspicious of 9/11 must not know about WTC7. They think that just that one piece of information is enough to spread troof.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Anyway, BART has every right to take their money, and the advertisers have every right to their free speech. Sorry, we may dislike the message, but there's no reason to legally block them from spreading it just because it's dopey.

Same as the "god hates fags" jackawhacks. I personally would like to beat them to death with a sock full of cock rings, but legally they have a right to believe what they want and speak their minds in public. Take away their rights and you take away my rights by extension.

 

[Muc]

AJM, are you using BART trains regularly? Have you seen that poster on other trains or in other occasions or was this a one-time thing? I'm asking because there is still a possibility that this is not the official campaign yet but a case of vandalism, i.e. people with access to the ReThink911 subway poster (which has been distributed as merchandise for weeks) opening the display and putting it there instead of the paid ad that is supposed to be in there. This could go unnoticed for a while by the people who are responsible for maintining the advertising space. BART probably wouldn't be able to tell because the train advertising has been outsourced to a contractor (who certainly wouldn't be amused).

 

[Muc]

You might want to contact BART and ask them id they have rules against deceptive advertising

There's a link to the BART advertising guidelines in post #10 of this thread.

the ad falsely depicts that picture as "before" yet the collapse is underway, the penthouse has already fallen. The before picture should have been accurate and show WTC7 before any of the collapse started if they don't want to be accused of being deceptive. There are plenty of pictures available of the building before the event started.

I don't understand anyway why they didn't just take one of the many high-resolution pre-collapse pictures from before 9/11 but this really awfully low-res picture from the moment the global collapse of the outside structure was just beginning (it looks particularly ugly and blurry in direct comparision to the probably pirated AP picture under it in the high resolution version of the ad). What's the point they are trying to make?

 

[Orphia Nay]

 

[jaydeehess]

7 WTC took over 16 seconds to collapse, the poster in question seems show a 'before' picture that is about halfway through that collapse sequence, the rooftop structures having already fallen into the building indicating that the core had already suffered massive damage at the moment this 'before' is set.

Its like saying that travelling between NYC and San Francisco by air takes 1 hour because you set t=0 somewhere over the Rockies.

 

[OCaptain]

So why would someone be upset about a poster...??

Because you're obviously new to 9/11 Trutherism, and all excited about what you think you know, that you want to go beat the skeptics over the heads with it.

We've been through ALL of this before, back years before you even thought about coming here to spread your gospel.

Your arguments are old. Your points are wrong, disproven and tired. If you had read before posting, you would have gleaned that.

 

[OCaptain]

I'm sorry, but what is the poster denying? The official conspiracy theory that was fed to the media on day 1?

Google Ali Soufan about what intelligence agencies knew about Al Qaeda and ObL since before 9/11, before you go insisting that ObL was a fall guy.

 

[Brass]

Let's just hope Alex Jones doesn't end up plastering some posters against the Buildabear Group on local subways, too!

 

[CORed]

Last time I checked 47 was less than 50.

Not in truther math.

 

[Bell]

And yes again. It was broadcast *live* on 9/11

Eta: Or at least, it was broadcast. Can't remember if I saw it live on CNN or a recording of it.

 

[Bell]

By the way, I still haven't seen a reason why the fact that 7 WTC was *not* hit by a plane is of any significance.

Eta:

And zero planes hit WTC-7

Cloggy?

 

[LSSBB]

By the way, I still haven't seen a reason why the fact that 7 WTC was *not* hit by a plane is of any significance.

Eta:



Cloggy?

He appears to have skedaddled.

 

[jaydeehess]

By the way, I still haven't seen a reason why the fact that 7 WTC was *not* hit by a plane is of any significance.

I could be wrong but I do believe that many other buildings have caught fire and at least partially collapsed without having been hit by an airliner.

Cloggy?

He appears to have skedaddled.

Well of course he has. There's no use actually debating anything with us. The true believers already know what happened and just shake their collective heads at those of us who question what they see as obvious.

 

[Oz1976]

And.. Why would that claim be false?
Not even the 911 commission dared to come p with an explanation...
If not CD.. Then why did if fall with free fall speed in its own footprint?

Oh no, someone's been "researching" on youtube and is regurgitating 10 year old canards.

 

[Oz1976]

Easy to throw in "BS" and "fantasy" but you never really checked.
Btw.. The core was far from 95% air.. Did you forget about that piece of the structure? The official story that you seem to follow has nice graphics of the floors collapsing.... and forgets the core that would still be standing 400 m in the air...

Your 13 seconds is close to reality... It would be free fall with air resistance.. So, you agree with me.. 9-13 seconds is free fall..
Now,we are getting somewhere...

FYI the core did remain standing for a few seconds, it's called "the Spire" in 9/11 "lore". However you should really ask Leslie Robertson how the WTC was designed. IE, the core couldn't stand without the exterior columns. Which is why the buildings were doomed from impact. Keep "researching" the loony toon side though, it'll serve you well. Er, actually it'll serve us well for some entertainment value.

 

[Oz1976]

B25 in Empire State Building.

And zero planes hit WTC-7

A B25 low on fuel and lost in fog flying slow into a reinforced concrete building.

No plane hit 7 WTC, right, neither did one hit 3,4,5 or 6. Or the other buildings that were destroyed that day. BUT! Something DID hit 7 WTC. Something REALLY BIG.