• 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.

Ed Beyond misinformation

Dave Rogers said:
You're missing the rather important point that the relationship between a professional organisation and its members is fundamentally different to that between a company and its employees.
Click to expand...

I think I must be. :) Can you clarify what those differences are and how they relate to this?
 
Georgio said:
I'm talking about individuals rather than statements made on behalf of professional groups. You don't have to like eating KFC in order to work for KFC, or think that PCs are better than Macs in order to work for Microsoft, but statements on behalf of both companies wouldn't include anything about KFC or Microsoft stuff not being the very best option. I'd like to hear what relevantly qualified individuals think, and to know that they have been made aware of the information. This would really make the number of AE911Truth signatories meaningful, and nobody could say, 'They're not aware of the information'.
Click to expand...

And I asked you to delimit the circle of "relevant" individuals!
 
Oystein said:
And I asked you to delimit the circle of "relevant" individuals!
Click to expand...
I can't really do that as I don't properly understand the subject. Your list looks sensible to me, but you seemed to be suggesting that to approach individuals in these organizations was pointless as the organizations have already made statements opposing AE911Truth's claims. I outlined why I disagreed with that.

Dave Rogers said:
A professional organisation serves the interests of its members. Employees serve the interests of a company. They're more or less opposites.
Click to expand...
OK, but I still don't get why that means we can assume every member of a professional organization will agree with statements made by that organization's spokespeople. Is that what you're saying?
 
Oystein said:
I just have to share the following: AE911Truth has now shifted to full gear - the day is approaching fast where the entire world will be waking up to the truth, because - get this:

- Someone put up am ReThink911 banner at a bridge in Oregon, waived a US flag and pointed at the sign!!!
- Gage personally handed out brochures in Sandpoint, Idaho (pop. 7,000)

How adorable! :D
Click to expand...
On Independence Day 2015, AE911Truth's Richard Gage and several other local 9/11 Truth activists stepped up their efforts to educate and enlighten the citizenry of 7,000-strong Sandpoint about what really caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001
Click to expand...

Does this mean they don't need a "new investigation" and are actually presenting a coherent theory? I wonder where this can be found? Let me guess, you have to buy the book......:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Georgio said:
OK, but I still don't get why that means we can assume every member of a professional organization will agree with statements made by that organization's spokespeople. Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

As you can see, I'm making no such statement. However, the organisation exists to serve the members and is funded by their contributions, so its position on any issue will normally be dictated by that of the members, rather than the other way round. The power and obligations are in the opposite direction to those of paid employees of a company. Therefore, the comparison is completely invalid.

Dave

ETA: Of course, the way a professional association would determine its members' views would be a vote, like the recent AIA vote that went against AE911T 3800 to 160. So I think we can assume that most architects know what Richard Gage is full of.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Of course, the way a professional association would determine its members' views would be a vote, like the recent AIA vote that went against AE911T 3800 to 160. So I think we can assume that most architects know what Richard Gage is full of.
Click to expand...

What would be interesting would be a vote of all AE petition signers to see if they still support the cause. I'd bet they couldn't muster half to actually participate.

The biggest piece of misinformation is calling AE an organisation.
 
Last edited:
Georgio said:
I can't really do that as I don't properly understand the subject. Your list looks sensible to me, but you seemed to be suggesting that to approach individuals in these organizations was pointless as the organizations have already made statements opposing AE911Truth's claims. I outlined why I disagreed with that. ...
Click to expand...

I should not pretend to have thought this trough, but I guess my point is that those individuals who decide (or work towards decisions through research...) what these organizations say publicly are among the "relevant" individuals, while the bulk of the mere members are not.
 
Dave Rogers said:
...

ETA: Of course, the way a professional association would determine its members' views would be a vote, like the recent AIA vote that went against AE911T 3800 to 160. So I think we can assume that most architects know what Richard Gage is full of.
Click to expand...

I think that's rather naive. Organizations decide mostly by committee. While committees are, in principle, open to all members, only a (mostly self-selected) few actually man them.

I read that all the member- and chapter-submitted resolutions at the AIA Convention were voted down, not just AE911T's (though their defeat was the worst).
 
Georgio said:
I think this is what AE911Truth should concentrate on from now on. That is to say getting their message to qualified professionals rather than the lay public. I know a lot of people disagree with me but I think we can't really say how many qualified professionals think a new investigation is justified because we don't know how many of them are actually aware of the objections to the so-called 'official explanation'.

If AE911Truth concentrate on getting this information to the relevant professionals then we will know that they are aware of the objections to the 'official' account and the numbers of signatories of the AE911Truth petition will become more meaningful.

I've said in the past that there should be an opposing petition against a new investigation where people would sign something like, 'I have read and understood all the points put forward by AE911Truth and do not agree that they lead to the conclusion that the WTC buildings were destroyed by a controlled demolition. I therefore do not believe a new investigation is justified.'

At the moment all we have is a 'default position' argument where we infer the above by the fact that person A hasn't signed the AE911Truth position, but this inference is not justified despite many people's insistence that scientists and particularly professional engineers are immune to intellectual lazyness and so couldn't possibly have failed to think about the details of the collapses.
Click to expand...

You seem just not to get that from a scientific/engineering viewpoint, 9/11 Truth has been proven time and time again to not have a leg to stand upon. For a legit professional group to give serious attention to an Truther petition would be like a professional Geographers organization paying serious attention to the Flat Earth Society.
 
dudalb said:
You seem just not to get that from a scientific/engineering viewpoint, 9/11 Truth has been proven time and time again to not have a leg to stand upon.
Click to expand...
Indeed I don't get that - partly because I have no real understanding of engineering. This is why I'd like to know how many qualified people think there may be something in the claims. It's the only way I know to shade the probabilities of who is correct in an argument I don't understand.

For a legit professional group to give serious attention to an Truther petition would be like a professional Geographers organization paying serious attention to the Flat Earth Society.
Click to expand...

I disagree - can you find, let's say, 100 qualified geographers who think the question of whether the earth is flat is still open?
 
DGM said:
That's a lot of money for a pretty new bow..........

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You're telling me!

Gage the dishonest scumbag is once again duping the dumb and gullible.


A quick Google search led me here:


https://www.psprint.com/resources/brochure-flyer-marketing-budget/



But let’s take a look at a direct-mail brochure campaign, assuming you’ll be printing and distributing 2,000 full-color 100-pound gloss letter-fold brochures with PsPrint:

Printing 386.63Mailing list 69.00 (Assuming 2,000 Los Angeles area 40- to 41-year-old men who make more than $40,000/year)
Mailing service/postage 844.00Total………………………………………….. $1,299.63
Click to expand...



So let's take that figure and multiply it by 10 (keep in mind the unit cost will go down considerably as the quantity rises), making the cost 13K max.

A/E 9/11 truth scamming people once again, no surprise really.
 
Georgio said:
Indeed I don't get that - partly because I have no real understanding of engineering. This is why I'd like to know how many qualified people think there may be something in the claims. It's the only way I know to shade the probabilities of who is correct in an argument I don't understand.
Click to expand...

A real good indicator would also be how poor the AEs at AE911 are at convincing their peers.
 
Georgio said:
Indeed I don't get that - partly because I have no real understanding of engineering. This is why I'd like to know how many qualified people think there may be something in the claims. It's the only way I know to shade the probabilities of who is correct in an argument I don't understand.

I disagree - can you find, let's say, 100 qualified geographers who think the question of whether the earth is flat is still open?
Click to expand...

Your no real understanding of engineering is matched by your understanding of probabilities.
AIA Convention voting architects =96%, Gage is nuts.
Does this shade the probabilities of who is correct and convinces you how many qualified people think there is nothing in the claims.
Will you now admit to yourself who is correct in an argument you don't understand? The conventional story?



Of Course Not !
You didn't mean what you typed, you were just kidding yourself and us !
Conspiracists will continue to believe wrong claims because they can't help it, they like it.
 
Last edited:
Georgio said:
snip
I've said in the past that there should be an opposing petition against a new investigation where people would sign something like, 'I have read and understood all the points put forward by AE911Truth and do not agree that they lead to the conclusion that the WTC buildings were destroyed by a controlled demolition. I therefore do not believe a new investigation is justified.'
snip
Click to expand...

Yes but you see that gives credibility to ae911truth and most professionals will not admit to readiing their nonsense.

A better petition might be. I am informed about the collapse of the twin towers and see no evidence of controlled demolition.
 
jaydeehess said:
On the radar of people who will receive, unsolicted, this flier?
Click to expand...

What would they do with junk mail like that? If they're like most other people it'd wind up in the thrash/shredder/incinerator unread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom