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

[BasqueArch]

This is also how Influenza, Ebola and Dengue spread.

 

[FalseFlag]

"2016 MEMBERSHIP"

*snip*

Thanks for putting all of that info here.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

David Slesinger (of bazantmisconduct.com) appears to have issues with the way AE911Truth operates. Here's an 'open letter'* he wrote on May 4th concerning management and focus of AE911Truth:

http://gagemeetschomsky.blogspot.co.uk


Lots of stuff about funding, petition, internal politics, arguments over direction.

Dunno how much of this is accurate, but nevertheless an interesting window into truther factions and how they interact with each other.


*It's also reprinted verbatim by UK CTer Tony Gosling in a thread about Gage's recent London visit, here

 

[Oystein]

Wow, lots of interesting stuff!

Bits that interest me and I didn't know so far:

Richard ... actually says often that Kelly David, the COO of AE911Truth, runs things.

There has not been an engineer on the AE board since Wayne Coste, the most prolific speaker after Richard, was thrown out of AE WHILE HE WAS STILL ON THE BOARD. I believe Wayne was expelled because of his closeness to me.

outreach to Congress, a team AE no longer allows to exist

Rick Shaddock ... was thrown out of AE911Truth because former AE board chair Robert McCoy objected to where Rick had received his grad degree, not that Rick ever pretended to speak for AE.

founder of the 911 truth legal team ... Susan Watkins had committed suicide

Richard threw me [Slesinger] out

Andy Steele ... coordinates scientist outreach

...my $300/month pay...

those who want to reach out must get an email approved by Kelly David and Bill Jacoby. Then that organizer may only call those who respond to the email.

Slesinger is the first truther I have seen so far other than Shaddock who acknowledges there's a big fat problem with Basile's nanothermite study:

Rick also raised $5000 three years ago to fund the work of chemical engineer Mark Basile, who intends to confirm the nanothermite research of Harrit et al. Basile has stalled out and Gage refuses to assist in pulling that problem together.

Also good that he expresses the obvious:

Please also note that AE no longer processes petition signers in a timely fashion. I urge you to test that system to see if they even try to confirm AE's or others.
...
AE does have a serious problem even processing the signatures. In May 2015 they had about 2350 A & E's. They went to the AIA convention in Atlanta and announced they had signed up 150 architects. They just admitted to having 2500 a couple of weeks ago. Nearly a full year later. It seems hundreds of petition signers have not confirmed their signature because it took too long to get back to them.

 

[JSanderO]

AE.. wrong about the engineering...wrong about the physics... wrong about nano thermite... wrong about CD...

They don't have facts but they have a slick way to raise money and peddle myth.

Pathetic.

 

[Oystein]

Dave Slesinger is a frequent participant of the monthly "9/11 Truth Teleconference" call, the recordings and minutes of which are archived here:

http://houston911truth.net/9-11TruthTeleconferenceArchives.html

Listen to the 30 March recording. From a few seconds before 1:22 hours onwards and going 5 minutes, Slesinger lists some of the complaints he wrote down in the blog. In the next 5 minutes AE911T's Andy Steele and Kelly David respond. This was David's first and only participation on the call.
Later, "Dave Slesinger said he is looking for people who would like to help him write a peer-reviewed letter for the Journal of 9/11 Studies on the issue of AE911Truth’s policy regarding the provision of information to qualified organizers".

 

[Oystein]

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?
...
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."

...

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.
...

Since May 1st, when I posted this, they have indeed increased the pace: AE signatures went from 2,514 to 2,548, which is 2.0 per day. The last time they had more than 60 new signatures in a month was April 2013, when they also chopped down a large backlog.
However, with now only 116 days to go till the 9/11 anniversary, 2 per day will give them only 232 new signatures and land them at only 2,780 total., 220 shy of target: Their current high pace is only half of what they need to meet their target.
And it's rather unrealistic that they can keep the pace: When that backlog melts, they'll be back to the same old trickle.

 

[tinribmancer]

Is there actually a way to expose them as frauds? Can't believe they are actually getting away with this ****. How long has AE911woo been around?

 

[Oystein]

Is there actually a way to expose them as frauds? Can't believe they are actually getting away with this ****. How long has AE911woo been around?

In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.^WP
Can you write down what fraud you allege by listing the proven facts about the element of this definition?
1. Deliberate - can you prove Gage et al have the intention of deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right?
2. Deception - can you be specific?
3. What unfair or unlawful gain do they seek to secure?
4. Who are the victims?

 

[tinribmancer]

In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.^WP
Can you write down what fraud you allege by listing the proven facts about the element of this definition?
1. Deliberate - can you prove Gage et al have the intention of deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right?
2. Deception - can you be specific?
3. What unfair or unlawful gain do they seek to secure?
4. Who are the victims?

The third one is easy, trying to gain money from some sods that don't know any better.

Fourth one is those that swallow everything that 911truth is feeding them with a silver spoon, namely the 911 truthers.

But for the first 2 questions, you need a confession from Gage, Szamboti or Cole. And the only way to get them to confess that they're just doing it to bunch money out of people's pockets, is to do it like in NCIS:

1. Wiretapping their houses.
2. Getting them drunk and hoping they will "spill the beans".
3. Connecting them to a liedetector (but to be honest, I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to "pass the test" so...)

 

[Oystein]

This is the follow-up to post #850. I am tracking AE's current effort to work down the backlog of unverified signatures they built up last year. I heard some weeks ago that they had about 200 signatures to go through, many from last year's AIA convention.

Here are three snapshots of their numbers: A year ago (before the 2015 AIA Convention), 4 weeks ago, and today:

| Apr 26, 2015 || Apr 24, 2016 | May 21, 2016 |||
Category |#|%|#|#|%|Diff.|%
Licensed Architects |338|14%|372|377|15%|+5|12%
Unlic. Architects |122|5%|128|131|5%|+3|7%
Professional Engineers |433|18%|471|478|19%|+7|17%
Unlicensed Eng. |880|37%|936|955|37%|+19|46%
Non-US (A&E) |576|25%|602|609|24%|+7|17%
Total | 2349 || 2509 | 2550 || +41 |

They had claimed 150 new signatures from the AIA Convention, and a substantial number for the ABX in Boston, another architecture event.
Also a list of signatures from a structural engineering convention in October.

I would thus expect that the newly verified signatures would predominantly be architects, followed by PEs, and only a few others.
But no:
Only 12% of those verified recently are licensed architects - that's about the usual long-term percentage.
Professional engineers are even underrepresented.

Since before last year's Convention, they added only 39 licensed architects (+12%) and only 45 professional engineers (+10%) - the total number rose by 9% (+201 from 2349).



Where are all the signatures they claim they collected on paper at the Conventions??


The 2016 AIA Convention is underway. They claimed on Facebook that they already had 110 new signatures on Day 2:
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10153480873571269

We've already had 50 of the industry attendees sign our petition calling for a new investigation — and that was just Day One! 110 signers after two days!

 

[Oystein]

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.
...

I stumbled across an older but quite precise number of licensed architects in the USA:
http://www.ncarb.org/News-and-Events/News/1999/06-Survey-Reveals-Number-of-Architects-in-the-US.aspx

NCARB's 1999 Survey Reveals Number of Architects in the United States

Results indicate that a total of 96,966 architects are living in the 55 reporting jurisdictions, which include all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam.

The survey also reveals a total of 105,466 reciprocal (out-of-state) registrants and 202,432 total registrations in the United States. This means that on average, an architect is registered in 2 jursidictions.

Assuming that these numbers have at least not declined since 1999, AE's 377 licensed architects as of yesterday represent just under 0.4% of the profession in the USA.


ETA: NCARB has reported the numbers annually:

Year | Licensed Architects 2015 |110,168
2014 |107,581
2013 |105,847
2012 |105,596
2011 |104,301
2010 |105,312
2009 |101,673
2008 |104,126
2007 |112,650

AE's 377 licensed architects as of yesterday represent about 0.33% of the profession in the USA, based on 2015 licensure.

 

[pgimeno]

AE's 377 licensed architects as of yesterday represent about 0.33% of the profession in the USA, based on 2015 licensure.

Are all of the 377 from the USA?

 

[Oystein]

Are all of the 377 from the USA?

Four live outside but are licensed in some US state. Some are foreign-born but live in the USA and are licensed there.

 

[Oystein]

On May 21st, almost 3 months ago, I wrote:

This is the follow-up to post #850. I am tracking AE's current effort to work down the backlog of unverified signatures they built up last year. I heard some weeks ago that they had about 200 signatures to go through, many from last year's AIA convention.
...
The 2016 AIA Convention is underway. They claimed on Facebook that they already had 110 new signatures on Day 2:
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/posts/10153480873571269

Couple this with AE911Truth's "2016 Priorities", which they posted in early January:

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.

On May 21st, during the 2016 AIA Convention, they had a total of 2550 signatures, plus ca. 200 unverified from before that, plus ca. 110 new signatures at the Convention. So 310 signatures to add.
They just surpassed 2600 signatures - that's +50 since then! Why were they unable to verify the 110 paper signatures they got in May?

Of course they are badly failing their goal of reaching 3,000 by September 11. At the current pace, around 0.8 signatures per day, they'll get to perhaps 2625 signatures by the anniversary of the attacks. They needed 2.4 signatures per day - 3x what they actually accomplished.

I call that failure, plain and simple.

 

[Oystein]

So they wanted to reach 3,000 A&E signatures by today.
They only got to 2,628.
Since Mid-January, when they announced the goal, that's +202 instead of +574.
FAIL.


On September 03, I downloaded a full set of signatures, with 2618 names then.
This was +70 since the AIA Convention in May; 35 of those are licensed architects. Compare this to 110 signatures they claim to have collected on paper during the Convention - they verified at most 32% of those (considerung they had not verified a large number of architects from two previous conventions, and probably still pick up the occasional online signature between conventions). Perhaps the architects reconsidered once they got home and did 10 minutes of their own research?
FAIL.

 

[DGM]

I suspect they found a bunch of "Chuck U Farly" and "Fred Flintstones" on that list. In hard sells it's often easier to write something down then explain why you won't. Jot something and they let you move on.

 

[Oystein]

Today I noticed two things in AE's numbers:

A) In the last 4 days, between Nov 09 and Nov 13, the deleted 9 A&E signatures and 94 other signatures. I will try and download the A&E list later to see who they dropped. (It is always possible that this is merely a temporary database fluke; for example when they change a record, it sometimes goes "offline" for one or a few days).

B) Much more dramatically, the daily increase of "Likes" on Facebook has crashed from record highs to almost zero.
For context: Between August 2012 (88,725 likes) and the beginning of 2015 (250,000), they added 186 likes/day on average. In 2015, that was down to 141 likes/day - but in the first ten months of 2016, it was sharply up to 353 likes/day, with a peak of 546 in July! I have always thoght that many of those likes must come from bots, not actual people deciding to "like" AE.
Since Nov 01, they are dramatically down to just 5 likes/day!



The strange thing here is that there are no events associated with the strong and weak months. For example, there should be a peak in September each year, as the anniversaries of 9/11 clearly attract curious internet surfers. This is reflected in the page hits of the ae911truth.org homepage:



In some years, the peak is large, in some it is small, but there is always a peak.
Not so in the Facebook "Likes". I have less complete data on that - monthly numbers only since December 2014, and there was a September peak in 2015. But my (limited) data shows no indication that there was a peak in 2014, and there wasn't one 2016. In fact, Sep 2016 was well below the average of the last ten or twelve months.

All this reinforces my belief that most "Likes" are bought, not real.

 

[Oystein]

I haven't posted graphs for the development of the Petition in a long while.

Without much comment, let me quickly dump where they were at the end of October 2016:

|A&E|Other Supporters
monthly| |
quarterly| |
annually| |

And here my favorite graph, which shows how much better or worse each quarter-year did compared to the quarter one year earlier:



This demonstrates alternating long phases of effort and long phases of decline. The current phase, which began a year ago, is mostly their continued effort to verify and add to the online DB signatures they collected on paper at various professional conventions since May 2015, after they had almost stopped verifying any signatures for a year previous to that. Since they hardly collected any paper signatures from non-professional fools, the development of the "Other signers" has mostly decoupled from the A&E: The latter seem to be doing relatively well, the former continue to decline into obscurity.

 

[Criteria]

I haven't posted graphs for the development of the Petition in a long while.

Without much comment, let me quickly dump where they were at the end of October 2016:

|A&E|Other Supporters
monthly| [qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/AE911T/th_AE_Month_PerDay_20161101_zpsfacfmud5.gif[/qimg] | [qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/AE911T/th_OS_Month_PerDay_20161101_zpstof9ekn3.gif[/qimg]
quarterly| [qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/AE911T/th_AE_Quarter_PerDay_20161101_zpsiaboho70.gif[/qimg] | [qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/AE911T/th_OS_Quarter_PerDay_20161101_zpsfzad4zrq.gif[/qimg]
annually| [qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/AE911T/th_AE_YearJanDec_PerDayExp_20161101_zpsda0tk8rq.gif[/qimg] | [qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/AE911T/th_OS_YearJanDec_PerDayExp_20161101_zpszwlj35o8.gif[/qimg]

And here my favorite graph, which shows how much better or worse each quarter-year did compared to the quarter one year earlier:

[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/AE911T/AEOS_Quarter_CompareExp_20161101_zpsnoszc5no.gif[/qimg]

This demonstrates alternating long phases of effort and long phases of decline. The current phase, which began a year ago, is mostly their continued effort to verify and add to the online DB signatures they collected on paper at various professional conventions since May 2015, after they had almost stopped verifying any signatures for a year previous to that. Since they hardly collected any paper signatures from non-professional fools, the development of the "Other signers" has mostly decoupled from the A&E: The latter seem to be doing relatively well, the former continue to decline into obscurity.

Is this all your own work or does it come from some fan site?