• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When will the AE911 petition finally reach juggernaut strength of 1%?

When will the AE911 petition reach juggernaut strength of 1%?

  • 20 years

    Votes: 3 1.4%
  • 50 years

    Votes: 2 0.9%
  • Never

    Votes: 80 36.4%
  • Who cares?….it's retarded anyway.....

    Votes: 135 61.4%

  • Total voters
    220
I just noticed that Robert McCoy no longer is on the Board of AE911Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/about/board.html
lists only:
  • Richard Gage, Founder & President
  • Dan Barnum, Secretary
  • Tom Spellman, Treasurer
  • Kelly David, Chief Operating Officer

I don't know the when and why.
 
I communicated with McCoy shortly after I departed AE... At the time he seemed to not be a CD leaner... so it surprised me when he signed and became a Board Member. I would like to believe he left because he determined they were blowing smoke.... but he'd probably want to remove his signature as well as flee the board. He had good "creds" to be on their team. Will we ever know?
 
Craig McKee, a frequent writing contributor to AE's homepage, made cryptic comments earlier this year during one of his monthly "Truth Teleconference"'s that he thought Gage was by now merely the poster boy while McCoy was calling the shots (and I think McKee was unhappy with that) - sounded like a power struggle.
I also remember that Wayne Coste must have left the Board over disagreements about policies and action.

I'd wager that McCoy stepped down over disagreements.

Speculation: Perhaps McCoy, while still a truther, wanted to position AE911T more solidly on issues other than mere skyscraper collapse stuff - perhaps state outright that indeed airliners crashed in all four locations; and was rejected for fear of alienating a large and growing segment of the TM - the no-planers.
 
Statistics for 2015

A) The Petition

It has been a sorry year for the AE911Truth "Petition": For the first time since they started in 2007, they added less than 100 new A&E signatures - only 95, less than half the number of the previous year, and 13% less than the previous record low of 2012.
The "General Public" or "Other Supporters" list also scored a record low: 621 new signatures is 69% under the 2014 number, and 65% under the previous record low of 2013.
Here's the development of the rate at which signatures came in over the years:



Total numbers increasing through the years:




An important reason for those record lows is of course that, for some reason, they didn't verify new A&E signatures for about 4 months, between late April and early October (but they did let "Other Supporters" through). I think they belatedly verified some, but not all, of those that signed in summer months during the last quarter of 2015, making that a fairly good quarter - better at least than Q4/2014:




B) Facebook-Likes

In 2014, the FB-page https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth increased their "Likes" from 250,000 to a bit over 300,000 - an average of 141 Likes/day. This is ~25% less than the average had been between August 2012 and December 2014 (I don't have detailed data before that, and only a few data points before 2015).

Total likes:


Likes/day - monthly resolution only since Dec 2014:


I have commented several times already how jumpy the data is - there are phases with very few new likes, and then suddenly jumps to very busy times, and as suddenly, jumps back. With the obvious exception of the 9/11 anniversary, I have never spotted any event that would trigger theses changes. My hypothesis is still that they are buying likes, and are getting on some days and not on others. This graphic displays such phases of varying lenth:



C) Homepage traffic

What I am monitoring here is the number of "Content View Hits" displayed at the bottom of their legacy page design - http://www1.ae911truth.org/
This count was discontinued for a while in 2010 - don't be confused by the gap there.
Traffic in 2015 was considerably below the previous four years. The comparison however may not be valid - they switched to a new homepage design, which perhaps facilitates fewer "Content View Hits" without actually having fewer visitors or visitors finding less information.



Througout the twelve months of 2015, the average hits/day oszillated between 3169 in June and 5154 in January, with no clear trend. The usual spike in September was less pronounced than it was in some other years:
 
Last edited:
My sense about the AE board stuff is that the board is a rubber stamp for Gage. AE is his baby and he is the ultimate decider... even if all the ideas are not his. My sense is he wants everyone on the same page and going in the same direction... the one he wants it to go and so when there is some dissension, disagreement the board member is replaced. Another possibility is that they step down because they can't get AE to do something they feel would be a smart move. Realizing that it is swimming upstream they simply leave.

AE seems to have resisted actually doing any "research" which would support their main thesis... or undermine some of the key elements of the "official narrative" such as collapses CAN take the time they did... or that fire can cause a building to collapses... Once these are acceptable as possible... regardless of whether they were in play on 9/11.... AE loses ground by admitting that the collapses could have occurred "naturally". So no research which might have such findings is undertaken and they stick to the same bullet points... path of most resistance and so on...

Calling for a new investigation is a way of their avoid actually discovering anything on their own and keeping the cash flowing. If Hulsey opens up the possibility that fire could cause a building collapse... it will be bad news for AE
 
Statistics for 2015

A) The Petition

It has been a sorry year for the AE911Truth "Petition": For the first time since they started in 2007, they added less than 100 new A&E signatures - only 95, less than half the number of the previous year, and 13% less than the previous record low of 2012.

How does this compare to the number they claimed to have signed at the AIA convention and other such events? I seem to remember Gage claiming hundreds.
 
How does this compare to the number they claimed to have signed at the AIA convention and other such events? I seem to remember Gage claiming hundreds.

Excellent question :D

After the AIA Convention in mid-May, they claimed 150 new signatures. One would think that a majority of those would come from degreed architects, even licensed architects (being a licensed architect in good standing is a requirement for full AIA membership).
Only a few days ago they claimed 110 new signatures from the Architecture Boston Expo (ABX) in mid-November - "Fully half of them were AIA members".

That would be like 150 + 55 new architects on the petition, right?

Wrong.
VERY wrong.

Before the AIA Convention, they had 338 licensed + 123 unlicensed architects = 461 total.
At the end of the year: 347 licensed + 126 unlicensed = 473 total architects
That's + 12.
Not +200.
Of course, +12 is 1.5 signatures per month - that the usual slow dropping of signatures they get anyway.
As usual, Truthers are wrong by more than an order of magnitude.

The only event that yielded a few recognizable signatures was the NCSEA Summit in Las Vegas in early October where they claimed "25 New Structural Engineer Petition Signers". I have indeed seen as many CE or SE, and have reason to believe that about 13 or 15 of those have been entered into the database from paper signatures gathered in Vegas.
 
Since the beginning of the year, they added 92 signatures - that's almost as many as they had in all of 2015 - and surpassed the 2,500 mark. They are now at 2,509 (they show 2,510, but I subtract one who appears twice).

On January 01, the categories were distributed thusly:
Category|Number|Percent
Licensed Architects|347|14.4%
Unlic. Arch.|126|5.2%
Professional Engineers|456|18.9%
Other Engineers (US)|914|37.8%
Non-US A&E|574|23.7%
Total|2509|100%

The 92 new signatures are distributed thusly:
Category|Number|Percent
Licensed Architects|25|27.2%
Unlic. Arch.|2|2.2%
Professional Engineers|15|16.3%
Other Engineers (US)|22|23.9%
Non-US A&E|28|30.4%
Total|92|100%

So compared to the past, licensed architects and non-US signers are overrepresented.
The former, I am sure, are from the backlog they created at the AIA and ABX conventions, although they are still far short of the alleged 200+ new architects. 8 of 11 that were verified in the past 2 months have only one simple sentence as their "personal statement", which is unusual and possibly points to having been filled out on a paper form with limited space for free text.
The Non-US came almost all during the last two months. It seems that they assigned someone to go through a backlog to verify foreigners. [ETA:] They didn't add any foreigners in all of 2015 - lost three instead. So there has to be a backlog!
 
Last edited:
Oystein, In the AIA poll thread a couple of weeks ago I knocked together a guestimate graphic to throw some perspective on the oft-trumpeted "+2500 AE professionals" AE911Truth soundbite:

The reality is less impressive:

tinytroof_zpsmc8lapbq.jpg


I'd like to get a less fuzzy estimate (as of April/May 2016), for how this 2500+ AE professionals looks, expressed as a percentage of the total eligible pool of potential signatories, in order to make a more accurate graphic.

Any help much appreciated :)
 
Last edited:
Do people ever have their names removed?
I would think over the years since it was started a few must have had a change of mind.
 
Do people ever have their names removed?
I would think over the years since it was started a few must have had a change of mind.

I did... I first had no issue with a more thorough investigation... I was not aware of how nuts AE911T was at the time. I found out and had my name removed.
 
It continues to please that such threads still seem so necessary for those that cannot see where , following the money , leads to .
It reinforces the simple fact that more and more people believe that the official explanation is silly and shameful .I mean !! Six out of the 10 commissioners themselves disowned the Official Investigation .
To my surprise , I only recently caught up on ex CIA Susan Lindauer 's whistle blow . If there were no other evidence in the world relating to 9/11 , her testimony is sufficiently devastating to blow everything wide open . Either that or she should be prosecuted and locked away forever -- no chance .
But if you are wedded to the 9/11 Conspiracy Report that is called the official US position , your mind set is unlikely to be able to respond .
9/11 was some False Flag .
 
It continues to please that such threads still seem so necessary for those that cannot see where , following the money , leads to .

Yes, try following where the money donated to AE911T, or to the Basile thermite study, eventually leads to. You may find it entertaining (or, in the latter case, not).

Dave
 
It continues to please that such threads still seem so necessary for those that cannot see where , following the money , leads to .
Richard Gage, he takes in over 500,000 dollars a year, and travels the world and buys nice suits. Pays himself at the lowest tax rate so his money can be used for travel; some how he faked getting tax free status, or some no-profit BS... The money points to fraud, spreading lies about 9/11, or overwhelming ignorance and we are lucky someone who can't get a job, someone who maybe insane gets money from idiots, from 9/11 truth fringe few followers, true believers; a faith based celebration of ignorance called 9/11 truth.

It reinforces the simple fact that more and more people believe that the official explanation is silly and shameful .
Actually less and less; as people join in the idiotic claims of 9/11 truth, the rational ones see there is no evidence and leave faster than free-fall... 14 years of lies, and no evidence; and you can't list anything but BS for your failed beliefs and nonsense you post on 9/11.

I mean !! Six out of the 10 commissioners themselves disowned the Official Investigation .
You sure are gullible, the 9/11 Commission is not the FBI. The FBI did the biggest investigation in history, and you turn to the 9/11 Commission which you have no clue you cherry picked a quote to make up BS. You have no clue what the 9/11 Commission did, or their scope. Zero knowledge of what the report was about; you can't pick apart the 9/11 Commission on one issue... Big fail, no evidence.
To my surprise , I only recently caught up on ex CIA Susan Lindauer 's whistle blow .
She is blowing her own whistle, she, like you, has no evidence. But keep on blowing that whistle of woo. Toot-toot, we have no evidence...

When did Susan work for the CIA? lol - she has delusions of CD by thermite, and no evidence.

Lindauer is mentally ill. Susan Lindauer has a long history of being delusional. Anyone can see she is seriously disturbed with the BS she comes up with.
What was her job in the CIA? You might want to find a real source next time for your inside false flag fantasy (IFFF).

Since Susan has mental issues, you could help her earn the Pulitzer for your and her claims. Take her evidence, add your evidence, run to the nearest newspaper, and earn the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate. What did you say? You lost the evidence? Better luck with Bigfoot.

If there were no other evidence in the world relating to 9/11 , her testimony is sufficiently devastating to blow everything wide open .
LOL< this is it, there is no other evidence, and she has no evidence. Thus you only blow 9/11 truth lies wide open. You don't have any story to refute 19 terrorists did 9/11, you have failed opinions based on silly claims you googled about 9/11, from 9/11 truth liars, dumbed down for a fringe few followers, gullible followers.
Either that or she should be prosecuted and locked away forever -- no chance .
For not having evidence, for spreading nonsense about 9/11? Is that a crime? Is it a crime fooling gullible people by spreading half-backed nonsense on 9/11? Does she have a book? What is her evidence? What is that, you can't say? lol

But if you are wedded to the 9/11 Conspiracy Report that is called the official US position , your mind set is unlikely to be able to respond .
Did you miss the FBI investigation? You have no evidence for your claims, how can anyone believe you; you have taken no action, and if you had evidence for the claims you can't explain, you need to go to the FBI and break the big story you have in your fantasy...

9/11 was some False Flag .
And you have done nothing, you have no evidence, you have no clue how to explain your fantasy. You will do nothing more than post no evidence, and make silly claims. You can't figure out 9/11 after 14 years - that is the going record.

The fact is you offer no facts, no evidence for your inside job false flag; This is why AE911T grows so slowly, there is no substance, and AE911T take no action, except to beg for money by faking a movement, and asking for a new investigation and spreading lies about 9/11; lies of CD.

AE911T, a movement which only product is exposing how gullible less than 0.1 percent of all engineers are. You are the fringe few like less than 0.1 percent of all engineers... Are you an engineer, or an other. Have booked a tick on the Chemtrails Train to woo? Bigfoot camping trip?
 
Last edited:
Oystein, In the AIA poll thread a couple of weeks ago I knocked together a guestimate graphic to throw some perspective on the oft-trumpeted "+2500 AE professionals" AE911Truth soundbite:




I'd like to get a less fuzzy estimate (as of April/May 2016), for how this 2500+ AE professionals looks, expressed as a percentage of the total eligible pool of potential signatories, in order to make a more accurate graphic.

Any help much appreciated :)

Of the 2,510 signatures as of yesterday, 372 are listed as "licensed architects", of which ca. 117 are identified as AIA members. I remember that the number of AIA architect members is in the vicinity of 85,000, so we can estimate that anywhere from 0.1% to 0.5% of the AIA members have signed the petition.

471 are listed as Professional Engineers, i.e. having a license in at least one US state. I am not perfectly sure, but the number of P.E.s in the USA is roughly 1 million - I remember estimates ranging from 800,000 to 1.4 million.
Thus, roughly 0.05% of the US P.E.'s have signed up for woo.

Of the other three categories
* unlicensed architecture degree (that probably means: never worked as architect)
* unlicensed engineers (many engineering branches don't require licensure)
* Non-US architects and engineers
I cannot with any confidence at all estimate their number among the total population, and hence no percentage of signers. It is of course more than obvious that 602 foreign signatures represent only a minuscule percentage of the architects and engineers worldwide. E.g.: There are about 10 architects from German and about 45 engineers. Assuming that Germany's population has about the same percentage of architects and engineers as the USA, these compare to roughly 25,000 architects (0.04%) and a quarter million engineers (0.018 %) - and this is quite certainly underestimating the population.
When you come to populous countries like China (1 signature total), India (8 signatures), Brazil (12), Pakistan (5) or Russia (3), it becomes quite apparent that the foreign signers really ought not be counted, they are meaningless.


It's difficult to understand numbers like "2,500".
It becomes clearer how few people actually signed up when you consider that in all of New York City (five burroughs; pop. 8.5 million), only 26 A&E have ever signed this stuff. There must be tens of thousands professionals in the City, and they got only a couple dozend? In the city where it all happened? How bad is that?? Only 6 are listed as PEs - there must be more than 12,000 PEs in NYC.

Suppose someone did a poll of Gage's 1,900 US signers and asked them if JFK was victim of an "Inside Job" conspiracy, and only 0.05% = 1 answered yes - would anyone say that AE911Truth supports JFK CTs?



TL;DR: About nearly 0.05% of the US engineers with a license, and between 0.1% and 0.5% of the licensed US architects support Gage. If you combine the two groups, the percentage is somewhere between 0.05% and 0.08%. The unlicensed people are difficult to assess, and the foreigners are entirely irrelevant.
 
Suppose someone did a poll of Gage's 1,900 US signers and asked them if JFK was victim of an "Inside Job" conspiracy, and only 0.05% = 1 answered yes - would anyone say that AE911Truth supports JFK CTs?

On this forum? I can think of a few who would not only claim it, but try to ridicule anyone who disputed the claim.

Dave
 
Go to the ae911truth.org homepage, hover over "What You Can Do" and click on "Membership". This redirects you to the URL ae911truth2016membership.org - titled:

"2016 MEMBERSHIP"
And if you click on the internal link "2016 PRIORITES", it takes you to, well:

2016 PRIORITES

What are these?

I'll quote them and assign them numbers, then discuss, as time allows:

1.) "WTC 7 Evaluation: AE911Truth is currently funding the first unbiased and transparent computer modeling of WTC 7, which is being conducted by Dr. Leroy Hulsey at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Learn more >>"

2.) "Why Good People Become Silent—Or Worse—About 9/11: This ongoing series of AE911Truth articles by professional counselor Frances Shure, which explores psychological resistance to information that contradicts the official account of 9/11, will be published as a book in September 2016."

3.) "The “How” of Controlled Demolition: AE911Truth will begin researching the methods used in the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7, and will be publishing our findings."

4.) "Weekly Webinars: To be launched in February 2016, AE911Truth’s weekly webinar program will allow founder Richard Gage to give presentations to hundreds of professionals and members of the public each week."

5.) "AIA WTC 7 Resolution: AE911Truth will once again mobilize members of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to submit a resolution to be considered at the AIA National Convention in May. The resolution will call upon the AIA to officially support a new WTC 7 investigation."

6.) "3,000 Milestone: With 2,426 architect and engineer petition signers at present, AE911Truth will strive to reach the 3,000 mark by this year’s 9/11 Anniversary."

7.) "Student Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Scheduled to launch this spring, SAE911Truth will be the vehicle for thousands of architecture and engineering students to sign our petition and organize on-campus student groups. When these students graduate, they’ll become signatories of the AE911Truth petition for professionals."

8.) "WTC 7 Evaluation Outreach: AE911Truth will introduce hundreds of student chapters of the American Society of Civil Engineers to the WTC 7 Evaluation study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks."

9.) "Online Video Production: AE911Truth will reach more young people through short, entertaining, science-based videos that are specially primed for going viral."


1.) through 3.) are under a headline "RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS"
4.) through 6.) are under a headline "PROFESSIONAL OUTREACH"
7.) through 9.) are under a headline "STUDENT MOBILIZATION"


1.) and 2.) are carry-overs from last year - ongoing projects.

1.) wtc7evaluation has not seen any updated article or news this year so far.

2.) It is difficult to understand why an organisation comprised of, and supposedly catering to, technical professionals and having such a narrow focus on the WTC collapses that they don't even cover the four flights, nor the events at the Pentagon and near Shanksville, would give so much room, time and perhaps even money to a practitioner of psycho-something. A psycho-babbler who has zero scientific publications to her name. A nobody.

3.) Is new and interesting: AE will publish which methods were used to demolish the WTC? Really? As in "present specific, falsifiable hypotheses"? That sounds like we'll have a couple of debunking field days ahead of us :)

4.) and 5.) are already covered in their own threads here.

6.) This was written some time near mid January, when they had 2,426 A&E signatures verified. Since that time, they averaged 0.8 new signatures per day, to get to the current number of 2,514. It's 134 day to go till the 9/11 anniversary, so they are on a pace to reach 2,625 signatures. I have no idea how on earth they expect to make it to 3,000. I have inside information that they currently have a backlog of a bit over 200 unverified signatures, of which typically 2/3 would eventually get verified - I can attest that these numbers are plausible. That would give them 140 or so signatures from backlog. Let's be generous and say they get 100 more verified from the coming AIA convention, plus the usual daily trickle of perhaps a signature every other day, and the absolute best they can hope for until the anniversary is to exceed 2,800. If they ever make it to 3,000, the numbers are pimped and doctored.
My prediction is 2,650.

7.) - 9.): I have not yet seen any specific, focused action that constitutes this "Student Mobilization".
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom