• 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
Orphia Nay said:
The US population in 2017 was 325,700,000

68% of the US population use Facebook.
51% of the US population use Facebook daily.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/

Currently 494,607 people “Like” the AE911T Facebook page.

That’s 0.158% of just US Facebook users, or 0.298% of the US daily Facebook users.

Facebook has over 2.2 Billion users in the world.

I don’t have a calculator that will cope with the smallness of truther percentage of the world population.

Since 1 September 2018, AE911T’s best-performing post is their 9/11 post, and under 2,000 people around the world engaged with it.

AE911T posts every couple of days, and every other post since then has had less than 900 engagements, but the majority are under 200.
Click to expand...

A short while ago - perhaps late August, I'd have to search for it again - AE mentioned in a newsletter (iirc) that soon they'll buy ads from Facebook to boost traffic.

  • In normal months, like March through August of this year, they add, on average, something between 0 and 30 "Likes" per day. The base noise is actually slightly negative, punctuated by occasional blips of activity. This is equivalent to an annual growth rate of under 1% - far less than Facebook's growth rate.
  • In September, the anniversary always creates increased activity for a few days around the 11th, which was enough this year to pull the daily average to 150 Likes/day.
  • Then, suddenly, on October 1st (tellingly the beginning of a month), Likes/day rocketed to over 1000/day initially, then in the 800s and 900s, then settled to between 600 and 850 daily, for an average of around 750/day in October and November (ca. +75% annually). This is clearly the effect of Facebook placing a massive amount of ads around - probably on people already associated with suitable groups and pages and interests.
  • BUT this sudden massive influx does not noticably translate into actual interest, let alone participation.
I expect that, as suddenly as this rush of Likes set in, it will end. At the end of some month - Nov or Dec - Likes/day will suddenly drop back to barely above zero. This growth is not organic, nor sustained, is's just numbers paid for with money. I guess they try to boost the "Likes" to half a million, and that's it. Senseless numerology.
 
Last edited:
JSanderO said:
Why do intelligent people fall for the truther stuff? Clearly many people who call themselves supporters of the truther stuff are intelligent and educated... some with PhDs and so forth, college professors and professionals. Is it that they are not conversant with the actual facts? Or not facile with science and engineeing? Or maybe simply do not trust ANYTHING official or in the media?

Even if these people do accept the truther position as a default... why don't they look at any of the debunking?

If this a problem where the technical stuff is inaccessible to most and no one has made a easy to understand presentation for the average Joe? Much of the debunking requires a decent amount of science background.... so maybe people get lazy and trust without verifying????
Click to expand...

You’re equating education with intelligence, or perhaps more appropriately, emotional intelligence.

They are not the same thing.

The takeaway is that truthers are low on emotional intelligence and/or not mentally healthy.

Or a troll, or activist.
 
Seymour Butz said:
You’re equating education with intelligence, or perhaps more appropriately, emotional intelligence.

They are not the same thing.

The takeaway is that truthers are low on emotional intelligence and/or not mentally healthy.

Or a troll, or activist.
Click to expand...

I think emotional immaturity could explain some or even many but certainly not all people who are truthers. I came to know Paul Zarembka and he is an example of what I consider an intelligent person who is a professor in economics, not racist and a truther. At one time he would ask me to help him with technical stuff and I would write him somewhat lengthy explanations which he could understand and I referred him to 911freeforum for me detailed discussion. His "deal" was the insider trading on 911 which if I understand correctly he found to be not a coincidence. I think in his mind this was enough to convince him that "insiders" had fire knowledge of the date of the attack and that meant to him that there was in "insider" conspiracy. Once you accept that premise... all the rest will fall in place... regardless of whether one understand the technical issues or the facts... because to them it becomes a matter of... who do you believe?.... the gov which he believed lied about insider trading... with a cover up motive... or the truthers.... who claim a CD and coverup by the government.

I personally don't think it helps that many people on both sides take NIST as gospel truth and don't understand their studies... which simply showed that the buildings COULD collapse with the known "traumas".

I like to think of NIST as offering up an explanation for a car crash. There could have been MANY causes for the crash... driver inattention... brake failure... some other mechanical failure.... all resulting in the "same crash". Any of the causes COULD be the ONE. And it may have been impossible given the complexity to rule out all the wrong causes or find THE cause. NIST attempted to present a blow by blow description and to most people this is read as THE blow by blow. It's not.... and it contains assumptions, omissions and even some errors. But I believe there was no affirmative evidence of a CD... and so this line of investigation was not pursued. Note that evidence that truthers use is hardly evidence of even accurate... or rational.
 
JSanderO said:
I think emotional immaturity could explain some or even many but certainly not all people who are truthers. I came to know Paul Zarembka and he is an example of what I consider an intelligent person who is a professor in economics, not racist and a truther. At one time he would ask me to help him with technical stuff and I would write him somewhat lengthy explanations which he could understand and I referred him to 911freeforum for me detailed discussion. His "deal" was the insider trading on 911 which if I understand correctly he found to be not a coincidence. I think in his mind this was enough to convince him that "insiders" had fire knowledge of the date of the attack and that meant to him that there was in "insider" conspiracy. Once you accept that premise... all the rest will fall in place... regardless of whether one understand the technical issues or the facts... because to them it becomes a matter of... who do you believe?.... the gov which he believed lied about insider trading... with a cover up motive... or the truthers.... who claim a CD and coverup by the government.
Click to expand...
Did Zarembka do a statistical analysis to assess probabilities, or just "go with his gut"?
 
LSSBB said:
Did Zarembka do a statistical analysis to assess probabilities, or just "go with his gut"?
Click to expand...

Frankly I do not know his protocol. This was not an interest of mine... and something I have absolutely no expertise in. My interest has always been the collapse of the 3 buildings.

Too late to proof and remove typos etc. sorry
 
Last edited:
JSanderO said:
I think emotional immaturity could explain some or even many but certainly not all people who are truthers. I came to know Paul Zarembka and he is an example of what I consider an intelligent person who is a professor in economics, not racist and a truther. At one time he would ask me to help him with technical stuff and I would write him somewhat lengthy explanations which he could understand and I referred him to 911freeforum for me detailed discussion. His "deal" was the insider trading on 911 which if I understand correctly he found to be not a coincidence. I think in his mind this was enough to convince him that "insiders" had fire knowledge of the date of the attack and that meant to him that there was in "insider" conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Then this guy isn’t mentally well.

A well adjusted person would of read about the sec investigation and realized that he’s wrong.

A sicko decides beforehand what he believes , then looks for something to back it up.

This is this guy’s personal unassailable wall that he’s built for himself. No amount of reason can change his mind.

It’s the same for most truthers. We should all know this by now.
 
Oystein said:
A short while ago - perhaps late August, I'd have to search for it again - AE mentioned in a newsletter (iirc) that soon they'll buy ads from Facebook to boost traffic.

  • In normal months, like March through August of this year, they add, on average, something between 0 and 30 "Likes" per day. The base noise is actually slightly negative, punctuated by occasional blips of activity. This is equivalent to an annual growth rate of under 1% - far less than Facebook's growth rate.
  • In September, the anniversary always creates increased activity for a few days around the 11th, which was enough this year to pull the daily average to 150 Likes/day.
  • Then, suddenly, on October 1st (tellingly the beginning of a month), Likes/day rocketed to over 1000/day initially, then in the 800s and 900s, then settled to between 600 and 850 daily, for an average of around 750/day in October and November (ca. +75% annually). This is clearly the effect of Facebook placing a massive amount of ads around - probably on people already associated with suitable groups and pages and interests.
  • BUT this sudden massive influx does not noticably translate into actual interest, let alone participation.
I expect that, as suddenly as this rush of Likes set in, it will end. At the end of some month - Nov or Dec - Likes/day will suddenly drop back to barely above zero. This growth is not organic, nor sustained, is's just numbers paid for with money. I guess they try to boost the "Likes" to half a million, and that's it. Senseless numerology.
Click to expand...

And so, they surpassed 500,000 "Likes" on their Facebook page, and posted a note of jubilation:
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/photos/a.379243506268/10155849887621269/

Like I said: After averaging under 30 "Likes" per day for half a year earlier this year, they started paying for ads, and on October 1st, that count jumped suddenly to an average of about 750/Day since - an increase by a factor of more than 25!

This is not at all due to their own activities - it's plain old advertising, done by Facebook.

During the last two months, they got more than 45,000 Likes that way, an increase of almost 10%. Before that, it took then almost 2 years to get more than 45,000.

I expect that soon - perhaps with the beginning of the next year, the influx of Likes will as suddenly drop to zero as it had jumped up October 1st.

There is zero dynamics within the Truth Movement. Believers do not recruit new believers. On many ad-free days, their Likes are melting away (negative growth).
 
I am going through the recent months of AE Newsletter Archives and found this on Facebook advertising - for a movie clip, not their FB page:
http://action.ae911truth.org/o/50694/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1393331
AE911Truth said:
We’re asking you to do four things to ensure that this video goes viral:

1. TODAY: Donate to our September 11th Facebook Ads! In addition to releasing the regular Facebook video on 9/11, we’ll also run it as a paid ad. Our goal is to reach five million “organic” views and five million “paid” views. With just $10,000 in donations, we can achieve the latter goal. That means you yourself can reach a whopping 10,000 people with only a $20 donation! Or 100,000 people with $200! Please help us raise $10,000 by September 11th to bring this video to five million more viewers!
Click to expand...

Found no mention of a further Facebook ad campaign to promote the main page - but we know that they DO use Facebook ads (which is of course a legitimate thing to do).

Question still is: To get the boost of the last two months, did they use Facebook ads, or did they buy Likes from shady services? Here is an interesting article that compares the two ways of "paying" for Likes:

Buying Facebook Likes Sucks, Here’s The Data To Prove It!

The take-away is that legitimate Facebook ads can be precisely targeted if you understand by what interests to find your clientel. This is somewhat more expensive per gained "Like" than buying junk likes - but you get far more engagement and interaction on your content - posts shared, liked and commented.

Looking at
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/
an interesting news article like "U.S. Attorney Takes First Step toward Prosecuting Explosive Destruction of World Trade Center on 9/11" got, within a bit over 3 days...
  • 536 Likes or other reactions
  • 20 comments
  • 191 shares
for a total of 747 engagements. That's 0.15% of the half million likers, and 1.7% of the new likers of the last two months. There are less interesting posts that drew somewhat fewer engagements.

Not sure if such numbers are good or bad or mediocre.
 
I have ignored this thread for a while. I looked for it for a different reason (see next post), but noticed I had last posted this on December 3rd, 2018:

Oystein said:
And so, they surpassed 500,000 "Likes" on their Facebook page, and posted a note of jubilation:
https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/photos/a.379243506268/10155849887621269/

Like I said: After averaging under 30 "Likes" per day for half a year earlier this year, they started paying for ads, and on October 1st, that count jumped suddenly to an average of about 750/Day since - an increase by a factor of more than 25!

This is not at all due to their own activities - it's plain old advertising, done by Facebook.

During the last two months, they got more than 45,000 Likes that way, an increase of almost 10%. Before that, it took then almost 2 years to get more than 45,000.

I expect that soon - perhaps with the beginning of the next year, the influx of Likes will as suddenly drop to zero as it had jumped up October 1st.

There is zero dynamics within the Truth Movement. Believers do not recruit new believers. On many ad-free days, their Likes are melting away (negative growth).
Click to expand...

And so it came to pass - only 2 days later, on December 5th!

The week (7 days, Nov 28 to Dec 04) before that, the numbers of likes were, from day to day:
612
734
571
755
823
703
599
= A total of 4797 in 7 days
The week after that (Dec 05 to 11), they got
-12
31
30
24
84
50
57
= A total of 264 = 38 per day on average
Less by a factor of 18.

Since then, they added a net total of 4548 likes (less than in that one week above) over the course of 268 day, for an average of 17 likes/day.

So I was right - there was a campaign going on for exactly 65 days in Oct-Dec last year, while the organic growth amounts to just over 1% annually.
 
On September 3, just before the release of the Hulsey report, the AE911Truth Petition had
3164 signatures from "Architects and Engineers"
22963 signatures from "Members of the Public"
The day after, they had lost 33 and 69 signatures, respectively.
And the day after that, lost another 57 / 108.
And today, another 9 / 16
That's a total loss so far of -99 and -176, respectively.

In just three days, they lost more than 3% of their A&E.

This has never happened before. Not nearly!
I don't know what's going on there.
Could be database housekeeping, and the lost signatures will be back and improved in a few days.
Could be they worked on a back-log of people who had asked to be dropped.
I don't know.

In case you're curious how many signatures they have collected since I last reported anything:

On 27th May 2018, I reported that they reached 3,000 A&E
By 3rd September 2019, 464 days later, they stood at 3164.

Until they reached 3000, it never took them more than 965 days to add another 500 signatures. After that, the pace was 1415 days/500 signatures. So they have never seen slower growth before. And of the 164 signatures, of course they just lost 99.

The "Public" signatures had reached 20K (actually 19987) on 1st December 2014. Until then, it never took them more than 300 days to add another 1000 signatures.
But it took them
507 days to reach 21K
582 days to reach 22K
And by 3rd September, when they had 22,963, the pace was
667 days to reach 23K (which they haven't reached yet)

So the petitions, both of them, are slower than ever.
 
Signatures Day-to-day:

Date | A&E | Others
Jan 01|3,081|22,781
Sep 03|3,164 (+83)|22,963 (+182)
Sep 04|3,131 (-33)|22,894 (-69)
Sep 05|3,074 (-57)|22,787 (-107)
Sep 06|3,065 (-9)|22,771 (-16)
Sep 07|3,052 (-13)|22,759 (-12)

Mysterious.
 
Update:

Date | A&E | Others
Jan 01|3,081|22,781
Sep 03|3,164 (+83)|22,963 (+182)
Sep 04|3,131 (-33)|22,894 (-69)
Sep 05|3,074 (-57)|22,787 (-107)
Sep 06|3,065 (-9)|22,771 (-16)
Sep 07|3,052 (-13)|22,759 (-12)
Sep 08|3,049 (-3)|22,751 (-8)
Sep 09|3,060 (+11)|22,745 (-6)

It seems they are starting to return signatures to the list...
 
Oystein said:
Update:

Date | A&E | Others
Jan 01|3,081|22,781
Sep 03|3,164 (+83)|22,963 (+182)
Sep 04|3,131 (-33)|22,894 (-69)
Sep 05|3,074 (-57)|22,787 (-107)
Sep 06|3,065 (-9)|22,771 (-16)
Sep 07|3,052 (-13)|22,759 (-12)
Sep 08|3,049 (-3)|22,751 (-8)
Sep 09|3,060 (+11)|22,745 (-6)

It seems they are starting to return signatures to the list...
Click to expand...

One month is not a trend, but may be the start of one.
 
Forget my postings in recent days: It was merely some editing - they are back to full strength. Most of the deleted A&E signatures are back (only 3 missing from September 01), and they even grew by 34 A&E and 77 others since the beginning of the month. Seems someone really sat down and plugged in some undone work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom