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.

With few exceptions, journalism of any kind has never been about seeking the truth and reporting in an objective way. That, as much as any other story, was part of a narrative. The fact it's gotten so blatant in gaming is a larger symptom. The fact it is that easy to shape is also a byproduct of an industry that reacts in horror and shock, rather than investigates with objectivity.
Talking points are used to shape a unified narrative as much as out of sheer laziness on the journalists' part. But being this fascist about it, in such a cavalier way (shadowbanning, anyone?) is just plain stupid and reckless. While boycotts usually don't last or do much in the way of damage, If some news outlets saw a serious enough drop in numbers, they might at least think about biting the hand that feeds them a little less hard.

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.