Has the 9/11 Truth Movement Stagnated?

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
They are remarkable!

No you're absolutely right, if I was trying to destroy evidence, I would start some fires, pull the fire crews, let it burn for a good few hours, then detonate nanothermite charges to pulverize the contents. Afterwards, I'd rapidly dispose of the debris and set up an official study to take the heat of public curiosity... ;)

I'm making light of it so as not to go off topic too far!
Truther Meme--Scumbag Government: Has sufficient access to the building to rig it with super secret silent explosives to destroy the building and maybe the documents inside/Doesn't just use such access to simply definitely destroy the documents inside

On more a on-topic note, I'm actually kind of surprised at what a dud the Hulsey report has seemed to be in trutherlandia. There is very little discussion or dissemination happening aside from as from the 5-10 truthers whom we have seen remain highly active over the last three years (Tony, Gerrycan, and some other reddit or ISF posters). Even expecting (correctly) that the report would ultimately be a relatively transparent sham, I had thought that there would be larger resurgence of interest than we've seen within the general conspiracy theory community. I wonder if Trump's rise and divisiveness within the general conspiracy theory community (to right wing conspiracy theorists, he seems to be heralded as a champion, while left wing conspiracy theorists see him as their worst fears personified) has sapped a lot of its collective energy.
 

John85

Member
On more a on-topic note, I'm actually kind of surprised at what a dud the Hulsey report has seemed to be in trutherlandia. There is very little discussion or dissemination happening aside from as from the 5-10 truthers whom we have seen remain highly active over the last three years (Tony, Gerrycan, and some other reddit or ISF posters). Even expecting (correctly) that the report would ultimately be a relatively transparent sham, I had thought that there would be larger resurgence of interest than we've seen within the general conspiracy theory community. I wonder if Trump's rise and divisiveness within the general conspiracy theory community (to right wing conspiracy theorists, he seems to be heralded as a champion, while left wing conspiracy theorists see him as their worst fears personified) has sapped a lot of its collective energy.
Very interesting to see the effect of Trump. His advisers have spoken about the 'deep state', which is the kind of group who many truthers would claim have the oversight and military expertise to perpetrate false flag attacks on US citizens. Has there been an increase in related search terms since his ascendancy?

As to Hulsey, the media impact will probably be greater when the final report is released. But it's intriguing that 'building 7' has continued to grow over the years, as seen in the OP chart.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Whatever interest there is among conspiracy believers in 7wtc it is largely driven by 3 things... the fact that it was not hit by a plane, and the proximate cause is given as garden variety office fires...and finally the AE911T marketing showing the similarity between 7wtc and a building which was CDed collapsing.
 

John85

Member
Whatever interest there is among conspiracy believers in 7wtc it is largely driven by 3 things... the fact that it was not hit by a plane, and the proximate cause is given as garden variety office fires...and finally the AE911T marketing showing the similarity between 7wtc and a building which was CDed collapsing.
Yes, that seems pretty much it. That's the same interpretation I give to the continued interest shown in building 7 as per the search data
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Very interesting to see the effect of Trump. His advisers have spoken about the 'deep state', which is the kind of group who many truthers would claim have the oversight and military expertise to perpetrate false flag attacks on US citizens. Has there been an increase in related search terms since his ascendancy?

As to Hulsey, the media impact will probably be greater when the final report is released. But it's intriguing that 'building 7' has continued to grow over the years, as seen in the OP chart.
I would suspect that the effect of the Hulsey report's final publication depends largely on (1) whether he actually has it published in a proper journal that actual experts in the relevant areas will respect and pay attention to, and (2) how much the public digests his interim report and all of its obvious flaws. I'm also skeptical that the "final report" will receive much more press than the interim report has given that Hulsey has already announced the conclusion of the final report in no uncertain terms (just as he did one year prior--before he has even completed modeling the area around column 79--at AE911Truth's conspiracy convention in NYC). My understanding from corresponding with some people in the Alaskan press (and I've talked to several people at different Alaskan news outlets, actually) about this is that they are just writing him off as a kooky old codger and don't want to make UAF look bad by writing about it. If that's how his local media reacts, I doubt he'll manage to convince national media to give him the time of day.

Re the trend for WTC7 searches, if anything, it seems like a negative for truther types to me. More people are searching, but truther group activity (discussions, public events, petition signatories) is way decreasing. Seems like an increasingly smaller percentage of people who search the topic are being convinced by truther arguments, if anything.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The interest in AE911Truth for the month of September is curiously low.

Their Facebook page got roughly 1,500 new, probably genuine "Likes" in the week Sep 10-17. The rest of the month, both before and after that week, they are actually losing "Likes", between 20 and 50 per day (total loss of 500 so far this month). This constant loss of Likes started in the second half of August, folllowing a downward trend ever since they stopped pimping the page with bought Likes late in 2016.

It is difficult to assess how many genuine "Likes" they got in the anniversary week in previous years, due to the number of Likes being cluttered with bought and pimped bot-Likes. In 2016 it may have been 1,200 to 1,500 also, and in 2015 my best estimate is roughly 2,500 extra "Likes" due to the anniversary.

I am also monitoring the page hit counter on the bottom of their legacy homepage: http://www1.ae911truth.org/
This page is no longer upadated (old, pre-2015 web design), but the page counter is still alive.
When looking at the numbers for full months, September 2011 had the all-time high, at about 14,000 hits/day. 2012 and 2014 also had big peaks, 2013, 2015 and 2016 had relatively minor peaks, but these Septembers were at least local maxima. 2017 will NOT have a peak for September. In 5 busier days around 9/11/2017, they picked up roughly 21,000 page hits total on top of averages before and after. this is down from 60,000ish and 40,000 in 2016 and 2015.

As for picking up new signatures to their infamous Petition: They used to have local maxima in Septembers. This September, they are on course to hitting a new 2-year low. But this may be due to staff not doing the work of confirming new signatures.

Checking their YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth/videos
The Hulsey presentation, uploaded 3 weeks ago, has just made it to 7,000 views. Not exactly a blockbuster! Most of their other videos have view numbers in the 3 digits or low 4 digits.


In conclusion: All that Hulsey hoopla has not made any waves. Interest in AE911Truth is decaying.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I would suspect that the effect of the Hulsey report's final publication depends largely on (1) whether he actually has it published in a proper journal that actual experts in the relevant areas will respect and pay attention to, and (2) how much the public digests his interim report and all of its obvious flaws. I'm also skeptical that the "final report" will receive much more press than the interim report has given that Hulsey has already announced the conclusion of the final report in no uncertain terms (just as he did one year prior--before he has even completed modeling the area around column 79--at AE911Truth's conspiracy convention in NYC). My understanding from corresponding with some people in the Alaskan press (and I've talked to several people at different Alaskan news outlets, actually) about this is that they are just writing him off as a kooky old codger and don't want to make UAF look bad by writing about it. If that's how his local media reacts, I doubt he'll manage to convince national media to give him the time of day.

Re the trend for WTC7 searches, if anything, it seems like a negative for truther types to me. More people are searching, but truther group activity (discussions, public events, petition signatories) is way decreasing. Seems like an increasingly smaller percentage of people who search the topic are being convinced by truther arguments, if anything.
From what I can determine of what Hulsey and Tony and Gerry are about... the best they could possibly hope to show is that NIST made an error. He cannot and will not show or prove CD... He can't even prove that fire/heat cannot lead to the collapse of that building and by extension any steel framed high rise.

What an amazing bunch of rubbish... all sizzle and no steak as they say.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
the best they could possibly hope to show is that NIST made an error.
which Tony is now trying to do with his new unsourced Gish gallop thread. but I figured having his points addressed by number would make life easier for me, re: gathering all relevant data quickly. We'll see how it goes.
 

John85

Member
I would suspect that the effect of the Hulsey report's final publication depends largely on (1) whether he actually has it published in a proper journal that actual experts in the relevant areas will respect and pay attention to, and (2) how much the public digests his interim report and all of its obvious flaws. I'm also skeptical that the "final report" will receive much more press than the interim report has given that Hulsey has already announced the conclusion of the final report in no uncertain terms (just as he did one year prior--before he has even completed modeling the area around column 79--at AE911Truth's conspiracy convention in NYC). My understanding from corresponding with some people in the Alaskan press (and I've talked to several people at different Alaskan news outlets, actually) about this is that they are just writing him off as a kooky old codger and don't want to make UAF look bad by writing about it. If that's how his local media reacts, I doubt he'll manage to convince national media to give him the time of day.
The 'most visited English-language newspaper website in the world' has already written an article featuring the study. It includes a direct quote from Hulsey as well as David Ray Griffin. The hook to the article is a personal story.

The conspiracies that won't go away: Brother of 9/11 victim claim the US orchestrated the atrocity as new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...iracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Online
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
The 'most visited English-language newspaper website in the world' has already written an article featuring the study. It includes a direct quote from Hulsey as well as David Ray Griffin. The hook to the article is a personal story.

The conspiracies that won't go away: Brother of 9/11 victim claim the US orchestrated the atrocity as new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...iracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Online
And even with the Daily Mail article (and, by the way, it's likely so highly visited because it is half-tabloid, half newspaper, in my opinion), overall truther activity--including the number of signatories joining AE911Truth's petition--is very low. Not a great sign when the "most visited English-language newspaper website in the world" repeats your claims uncritically and you still can't make headway with either general public opinion or, more importantly, applicable expert opinion.
 

John85

Member
And even with the Daily Mail article (and, by the way, it's likely so highly visited because it is half-tabloid, half newspaper, in my opinion), overall truther activity--including the number of signatories joining AE911Truth's petition--is very low. Not a great sign when the "most visited English-language newspaper website in the world" repeats your claims uncritically and you still can't make headway with either general public opinion or, more importantly, applicable expert opinion.
It doesn't matter why the Mail Online is popular; it matters that it is. They've produced a mainstream article suggesting 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government and cited the unfinished UAF study as evidence. That is an indication of the continued influence of alternative theories. As the article says, they haven't died away. It is not evidence of the irrelevance of WTC 7
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
It doesn't matter why the Mail Online is popular; it matters that it is. They've produced a mainstream article suggesting 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government and cited the unfinished UAF study as evidence. That is an indication of the continued influence of alternative theories. As the article says, they haven't died away. It is not evidence of the irrelevance of WTC 7
I think it's an indication of the powerful incentive tabloids have to generate clickbait headlines. And my user name may have be a clue about this, but I tend to care mostly about results. To me, the very fact of such a publication is without importance; only the effect of such a publication matters. If there was a pro-Truther effect, the most generous thing we can say is that it hasn't yet manifested itself in the data we have.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
It doesn't matter why the Mail Online is popular; it matters that it is. They've produced a mainstream article suggesting 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government and cited the unfinished UAF study as evidence. That is an indication of the continued influence of alternative theories. As the article says, they haven't died away. It is not evidence of the irrelevance of WTC 7
These days calling The Mail, especially Mail On Line a credible news source is stretching the term 'news source' a bit. As already pointed out the publication is very tabloid in out look, albeit catering for the Torey voting middle England demographic, rather than 'the great unwashed'. It specializes in foreigner bashing, 'product X will give you cancer' medical scare stories and every other kind of click bait you care to mention. Wikipedia no longer accepts The Mail as a reliable source.
Rationalwiki article on The Daily Mail
Alex Jones is popular, doesn't make him a reliable info source either.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
It would be foolish to think the Daily Mail article is a piece of "journalism" in the sense that a journalist reaches out, investigates several sides of an issue and composes a condensed write-up of her findings.

The content of this article is 100% taken from AE911Truth's September 10 press conference/press release, at most reworded slighly. This is how lobbies do propaganda: feed their slant in easy to copy bites to lazy, enabling media. And I am not blaming them: I do the same when my choir needs good press before a concert, I write the article for the newspapers in a way that they can easily adapt, because they are lazy and happy when someone else does their work to fill pages.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The truth movement has some epistemological hurdles in it's path. The entire basis for the truth movement is the disbelief and denial of the so called official story in part of in whole.

To reject something put forth as "true" one would have to assert something in it's place which presumably is DEMONSTRABLY true... a fact. Much of this can be settled with accurate observations... which come before UNDERSTANDING etiology of the observed phenomena. An example would be the speed or rate or duration of the collapse of the towers. First this would require a precise observation and a reliable method which can be cross checked. When does a collapse actually start? How can we see the conclusion if it is obscured by buildings and or dust? How does one measure acceleration accurately? This requires fixed point references. What about "smoothing" or irregularities of the descent? What are the meanings associated with this? But in the end ... what does the rate of descent mean? What is the science / engineering which comes into play? Is the building descending as a solid block? If not what does this mean? How can one tell if the entire building is moving as a single block?

The truth movement has used the descent to form the basis of their claim that the collapse was not fire caused but the result of a controlled demolition. It should be noted that in most CDs only the lowest structure is destroyed... some other connections weakened... but the actually descent is driven by gravity and the descent rate is influenced by the strength and integrity of the structure and the frame's connections. What has the truth movement done here? They have taken some crude measurements and then asserted that the descents have the tell tale signs of a CD. But do they?

One can go through various "observations" and the truth movement will usually claim that the conventional wisdom is false. It is impossible for the plane to make the descent and hit the Pentagon... It is impossible for the hijackers to hit their targets... It is impossible for the US defense department to not be able to intercept the planes. It is impossible for an engine to be found on the street... or a passport. It is impossible for a building to collapse from a fire cause. It is impossible for anyone to make a prediction that 7wtc would likely collapse.

Their conclusion to the collection of impossibilities is that the official story is a huge collection of lies. If it is a lie... the liars are concealing a truth that they refused to reveal because it would incriminate someone other than the hijackers. It's a cover up! And who is the person(s) who could possibly benefit from 9/11? And this leads the truth movement folks to make their accusations... The inside job, the false flag, the shadow government, the new world order, the zionists, the mossad acted on their behalf... and so on. It all seems to have some sort of coherent logic... much like a fictional novel.... but it's all based on facts pulled out of the thin air.... and avoiding all manner of inconvenience truths. But it hardly matters because everyone knows that the media, supports the powers that be (are part of the PTB)... that the government ALWAYS lies and engages in spin, and PR.... PR is the way of the world... a slight of hand... a smooth sell... when politicians lips are moving.... they are lying. People are silenced, blackmailed and so on. Just read between the lines to get the truth.

Then of course you get the people who use technical smoke and mirrors to make what sound like valid arguments to something. A missing Jolt... a missing end plate dimension... missing shear studs... But these impressive sounding technical arguments are built on false premises and do not prove what they claim.... which is that NIST lied, committed fraud... and concealed the CD, false flag inside job conspiracy.

Critical thinking is out the window... and the truth movement can make no progress in the quicksand they find themselves in.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
The content of this article is 100% taken from AE911Truth's September 10 press conference/press release, at most reworded slighly. This is how lobbies do propaganda: feed their slant in easy to copy bites to lazy, enabling media. And I am not blaming them: I do the same when my choir needs good press before a concert, I write the article for the newspapers in a way that they can easily adapt, because they are lazy and happy when someone else does their work to fill pages.
Exactly how a good press release should be. But running said press release verbatim, with no follow up investigation, especially with an incendiary slant, in a national news provider is sloppy journalism. And sloppy journalism is par for the course with the Daily Fail.
 

John85

Member
The truth movement has some epistemological hurdles in it's path. The entire basis for the truth movement is the disbelief and denial of the so called official story in part of in whole.
We see a trend in the US and Europe towards populism marked by increased distrust of politicians and a desire for straight-shooting authenticity.

https://www.edelman.com/news/2017-edelman-trust-barometer-reveals-global-implosion/

Politicians need to get to grips with why the general population trusts them less. PR, spin, lies, foreign wars, increasing inequality, a sense of helplessness in the face of globalized forces - these seem likely contributors to distrust. In this climate, it is easier for your man or woman in the street to look again at 9/11 with a more cynical eye.
 
Last edited:

John85

Member
It would be foolish to think the Daily Mail article is a piece of "journalism" in the sense that a journalist reaches out, investigates several sides of an issue and composes a condensed write-up of her findings.

The content of this article is 100% taken from AE911Truth's September 10 press conference/press release, at most reworded slighly. This is how lobbies do propaganda
Two things - I doubt anyone here disagrees with you regarding the poor quality of the Daily Mail. I never referred to it as 'journalism'. It is however widely read and de facto mainstream.

Secondly, I also agree that we can see the telltale signs of effective lobbying here on the part of AE911 Truth. It is a good achievement to get this coverage and a reference to their upcoming UAF study. While the DM is best known to people like us for its sensational, clickbaity and xenophobic content, its success in terms of readership depends on consistently engaging people, and being relevant.

As such, that AE911 Truth can position themselves as relevant in the eyes of the most widely read 'newspaper' does indicate the ongoing strength of the truth movement, and is actually a measurable output of the movement and a success in itself - a result if you will @benthamitemetric
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Two things - I doubt anyone here disagrees with you regarding the poor quality of the Daily Mail. I never referred to it as 'journalism'. It is however widely read and de facto mainstream.

Secondly, I also agree that we can see the telltale signs of effective lobbying here on the part of AE911 Truth. It is a good achievement to get this coverage and a reference to their upcoming UAF study. While the DM is best known to people like us for its sensational, clickbaity and xenophobic content, its success in terms of readership depends on consistently engaging people, and being relevant.

As such, that AE911 Truth can position themselves as relevant in the eyes of the most widely read 'newspaper' does indicate the ongoing strength of the truth movement, and is actually a measurable output of the movement and a success in itself - a result if you will @benthamitemetric
AR911Truth has a credibility problem. Click baity articles in the Daily Mail are going to the opposite of helping it overcome that problem. If the daily mail article resulted in more views for Hulsey's video and a resurgence of activity at AE911Truth, that'd be one thing. But all data points to the opposite. Based on that, I'd say you are misinterpreting the significance of being Daily Mail-level "mainstream". It's the opposite of what any serious person would want.
 
Last edited:

John85

Member
AR911Truth has a credibility problem. Click baity articles in the Daily Mail are going to the opposite of helping it overcome that problem. If the daily mail article resulted in Loren of views for Hilary's video and a resurgence of activity at AE911Truth, that'd be one thing. But all data points to the opposite. Based on that, I'd say you are misinterpreting the significance of being Daily Mail-level "mainstream". It's the opposite of what any serious person would want.
Elections are fought, won and lost in the tabloid press.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Two things - I doubt anyone here disagrees with you regarding the poor quality of the Daily Mail. I never referred to it as 'journalism'. It is however widely read and de facto mainstream.

Secondly, I also agree that we can see the telltale signs of effective lobbying here on the part of AE911 Truth. It is a good achievement to get this coverage and a reference to their upcoming UAF study. While the DM is best known to people like us for its sensational, clickbaity and xenophobic content, its success in terms of readership depends on consistently engaging people, and being relevant.

As such, that AE911 Truth can position themselves as relevant in the eyes of the most widely read 'newspaper' does indicate the ongoing strength of the truth movement, and is actually a measurable output of the movement and a success in itself - a result if you will @benthamitemetric
What you fail to grasp here is the Daily Mail has a reputation not much better than the US 'newspaper' The National Enquirer', yes they may print 'real news' from time to time, but they have a fast growing reputation as being nothing more than a xenophobic scandal and crap sheet.

A rehash of a AE911 press release in The Mail is seen in the UK in a similar light as a rehashed press release in The National Enquirer would be in the US. SOME would see it as news, the majority would see it as BS.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
I think you are both losing sight of the topic, which is whether the TM has stagnated, or is still dynamic (growing, making progress). The question re the DM article is not whether the content or the outlet are any good. In light of the topic, such an article can be discussed in two directions:
1. Does the existence of such an article constitute circumstantial evidence that the TM is alive and dynamic? Or...
2. Does the publication of such an article invigorate and enlarge the TM?

My remark that the DM merely copied a press release meant to argue against 1. It is not evidence of the DM showing a genuine interest, or reflecting popular interest, it merely reflects that a lobbyist successfully dropped a press release at their doorstep.

My earlier post, crunching numbers of AE's homepage, facebook and petition around the anniversary (and, coincidentally, the DM article) suggests that the 2. interpretation would yield an answer of no, the DM failed to spark significant additional interest at least in AE.
In contrast: There was an incident in France some years ago when a (deranged?) woman scribbled "AE911" on a famous painting and national treasure. Several media reported speculation that she may have referred to AE911truth, and as a consequence, page hits to the homepage experienced an unusual and pronounced peak - which did not translate into signatures.
What I am saying is: The DM article did not envigorate the TM. Quite independent from the questions of whether it was seen by many, whether the DM is taken serious or whether the article has merit. Just an empirical observation.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Elections are fought, won and lost in the tabloid press.
If that is the case, it is because people are actually reacting to the tabloid press in a meaningful way. In this case, there is no evidence of any such reaction to the tabloid press. And that's actually the expected outcome, right? For every tabloid trash article that actually influences peoples' lives in a meaningful way, there are thousands that are published and quickly forgotten. When I google searched for mentions of bigfoot in the dailymail, for example, I found dozens of stories just this year. I think I actually greatly over estimated the credibility of this publication in my earlier posts. As Oystein says, we don't even have to speculate about the effect of this article because we can already see it in the online activity data: there is no resulting activity.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Elections are fought, won and lost in the tabloid press.
the problem with your thinking here is that the general uniformed public has the right to vote. If 80% of the uninformed public complain that vaccines are toxic, it won't make the real scientists change vaccines. You need people educated in that particular science to get behind your cause. And experienced engineers in the field of fire engineering or tall building engeineering, are probably unlikely to be swayed by something in the Daily Mail.. it's more likely they will see it in the Daily Mail and think "yea and that new Nessie spotting was real too right?"
 

John85

Member
I think you are both losing sight of the topic, which is whether the TM has stagnated, or is still dynamic (growing, making progress). The question re the DM article is not whether the content or the outlet are any good. In light of the topic, such an article can be discussed in two directions:
1. Does the existence of such an article constitute circumstantial evidence that the TM is alive and dynamic? Or...
2. Does the publication of such an article invigorate and enlarge the TM?

My remark that the DM merely copied a press release meant to argue against 1. It is not evidence of the DM showing a genuine interest, or reflecting popular interest, it merely reflects that a lobbyist successfully dropped a press release at their doorstep.
Largely agree with you, but I don't maintain that AE911 has swayed the DM to take a genuine interest. I am suggesting that the DM's publishing of anything shows that they believe it is relevant, engaging and traffic-enhancing. We know the DM is poor quality, but it is commercially successful, so they must have signed off on the 9/11 article because it furthered that aim. I'm saying that this means it indicates a level of public interest in alternative 9/11 theories. And is it entirely clickbait? I would say it's not, because clickbait in my mind is an exaggerated headline which, when you click on it, takes you to a page that fails to substantiate the appetite it whetted. Their article does offer content that expands on and supports the headline.

My earlier post, crunching numbers of AE's homepage, facebook and petition around the anniversary (and, coincidentally, the DM article) suggests that the 2. interpretation would yield an answer of no, the DM failed to spark significant additional interest at least in AE.
Indeed, maybe there is little extra traffic to AE911. Where are we on the OP question though if there is sustained public interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories and building 7? Truth movement membership is the intermediate goal, but raising public awareness is the ultimate goal.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Largely agree with you, but I don't maintain that AE911 has swayed the DM to take a genuine interest. I am suggesting that the DM's publishing of anything shows that they believe it is relevant, engaging and traffic-enhancing. We know the DM is poor quality, but it is commercially successful, so they must have signed off on the 9/11 article because it furthered that aim. I'm saying that this means it indicates a level of public interest in alternative 9/11 theories. And is it entirely clickbait? I would say it's not, because clickbait in my mind is an exaggerated headline which, when you click on it, takes you to a page that fails to substantiate the appetite it whetted. Their article does offer content that expands on and supports the headline.
I don't have a handle yet on how to estimate the number of artices the DM ("MailOnline") publishes daily, but it must run in the thousands. They appear to copy almost everything that the AP produces, and then some.

The article we are currently discussing has a byline "Sue Reid for the Daily Mail", and it appears that Sue Reid has only placed 21 article in the MailOnline this year so far:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Sue+Reid+for+the+Daily+Mail

The article (link) has been commented 3440 times so far. You will notice that Truth-leaning comments have more positive than negative ratings, and Truth-critical comments the other way round. On interesting comment that I just spotted - interesting because the author, Mark Roberts, has a familiar name. I know a New York City tour guide by that name who used to be a leading Debunker at JREF until 2010ish, when he retired from that circus. He went by the user name "Gravy". I can't of course be sure it's the self person; but anyway, this Mark Roberts writes:

Indeed, maybe there is little extra traffic to AE911. Where are we on the OP question though if there is sustained public interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories and building 7? Truth movement membership is the intermediate goal, but raising public awareness is the ultimate goal.
No, public awareness can only be an intermediate goal. I thought a new investigation, and prosecution of the guilty, and restoration of America, are the ultimate goals? The Truth Movement is obviously as far away from these as ever.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The article (link) has been commented 3440 times so far. You will notice that Truth-leaning comments have more positive than negative ratings, and Truth-critical comments the other way round. On interesting comment that I just spotted - interesting because the author, Mark Roberts, has a familiar name. I know a New York City tour guide by that name who used to be a leading Debunker at JREF until 2010ish, when he retired from that circus. He went by the user name "Gravy". I can't of course be sure it's the self person; but anyway, this Mark Roberts writes:
Content from external source MarkRoberts, New York, United States, 2 weeks ago

9/11 "truth" protestors at Ground Zero: 2006: 1000 2007: 300 2008: 30ish Today: about 10. In a metropolitan area of 22 million.
I think that decline is reflected elsewhere, most 9/11 activism is only happening on Facebook groups, and that's largely just sharing the same things over and over again. I was talking to @Steve about the decline of the Los Angeles We Are Change group that went through a schism after some glory days of well attended matches, and is now an inactive meetup group and a trafficless web site that promotes Sandy Hook hoax theories.
 

John85

Member
the problem with your thinking here is that the general uniformed public has the right to vote. If 80% of the uninformed public complain that vaccines are toxic, it won't make the real scientists change vaccines. You need people educated in that particular science to get behind your cause. And experienced engineers in the field of fire engineering or tall building engeineering, are probably unlikely to be swayed by something in the Daily Mail.. it's more likely they will see it in the Daily Mail and think "yea and that new Nessie spotting was real too right?"
The more experts onside the better, they are important opinion shapers. But to take an example from this side of the pond, with Brexit, there has been a common perception that 'people have had enough of experts'. They disregarded the consensus among economists, business leaders, and even the supposedly neutral Bank of England that leaving the EU would have damaging consequences for jobs and the cost of living. In politics, which is what 9/11 Truth ultimately is, what counts is voting intention.
 

John85

Member
well then you might as well move on to another conspiracy, because you'll never get that amount of votes.
Make no mistake, the scale of the mountain to climb is immense, and 9/11 Truth has to move into the mainstream before we have a chance of changing politics. But the distance from 9/11, the changing of the guard since then, and the number of people googling building 7 are encouraging. The term 9/11 is being searched annually in Sept almost as much recently as its 10 year anniversary spike
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But the distance from 9/11, the changing of the guard since then, and the number of people googling building 7 are encouraging.
just to point out, 'google trends' does not give you numbers. They base their numbers relative to a highest point. the highest point could be 500 people. or 30 people. or 5 million people.

The only actual numbers you have are the ones Oystein has provided. 7,200 hits in 3 weeks (for ae911's Hulsey presentation link) is not really all that encouraging- i clicked on it about 6x myself.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
just to point out, 'google trends' does not give you numbers. They base their numbers relative to a highest point. the highest point could be 500 people. or 30 people. or 5 million people.
Yes, you really need to compare it against some other term to get a sense of how popular it is. I did something similar with "chemtrails" ten years ago, using "grouting" as a term with comparable interest.

http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/
20170930-085900-7mcjg.jpg
Seems like since then interest in grouting has declined a little, but still comparable.
upload_2017-9-30_9-2-6.png

With 9/11 I suspect the vast majority of people are not looking for conspiracy material, it's just a huge and interesting historical topic. So it's hard to find a search term that reflects conspiracy interest (even with chemtrails the results are corrupted by "look at those crazy people" type interest, and Beck and Prince). "Building 7" might work, but then "Building 9" returns half as many results, and WTC7 is pretty much nothing.
upload_2017-9-30_9-8-15.png
 

John85

Member
just to point out, 'google trends' does not give you numbers. They base their numbers relative to a highest point. the highest point could be 500 people. or 30 people. or 5 million people.

The only actual numbers you have are the ones Oystein has provided. 7,200 hits in 3 weeks (for ae911's Hulsey presentation link) is not really all that encouraging- i clicked on it about 6x myself.
I said the number of people googling Building 7 was encouraging, but should have said the increase in number of people googling Building 7, as that is what is indicated by the rising line.
 

John85

Member
Yes, you really need to compare it against some other term to get a sense of how popular it is. I did something similar with "chemtrails" ten years ago, using "grouting" as a term with comparable interest.

http://contrailscience.com/how-many-people-believe-in-chemtrails/
View attachment 29262
Seems like since then interest in grouting has declined a little, but still comparable.
View attachment 29263

With 9/11 I suspect the vast majority of people are not looking for conspiracy material, it's just a huge and interesting historical topic. So it's hard to find a search term that reflects conspiracy interest (even with chemtrails the results are corrupted by "look at those crazy people" type interest, and Beck and Prince). "Building 7" might work, but then "Building 9" returns half as many results, and WTC7 is pretty much nothing.
View attachment 29266
Building 7 did not feature as part of the casus belli for the Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. People are scarcely aware it existed. But it is central to the truth movement. More people are googling it now than 5 years ago, which is not evidence that the truth movement is stagnating, but that it is gaining traction.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Building 7 did not feature as part of the casus belli for the Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. People are scarcely aware it existed. But it is central to the truth movement. More people are googling it now than 5 years ago, which is not evidence that the truth movement is stagnating, but that it is gaining traction.
Most of the focus of discussion of WTC 7 is on technical details. Which happens to be where T Szamboti has consistently taken debate of all WTC discusion since 2007 in my experience. Check for yourself.

But there is another strategic objective that gets overlooked by those of us who prefer to focus on technical discussion. The current de-facto aim of AE911 and many truthers is to drag out debate - to keep the pot simmering even if not boiling.

Look at the process of debate in the big picture since - say 2005-6 until the wTC 7 report was released - the big WTC topic had been CD at the WTC Twin Towers. The truth movement had essentially lost the battle for CD at the Twin Towers but - for several reasons - had established the tradition that those we now tend to call "debunkers" were prepared to accept the "Burden of DISproof". "We" still do.

Along came the WTC 7 report with most of the evidence hidden inside the building. Much harder to disprove CD. Much harder to prove what actually did happen. Much harder to to prove "CD not needed" << which is essentially provable for the twins despite the appearance of "prove a negative".

The de-facto aim of many truthers and the continuing sure goal of AE911 is to keep dragging out the debate going no where. The ongoing WTC 7 discussion including the Hulsey scam is serving that purpose. Yet we still see many people assuming that somehow reasoned explanation and the "due processes" of professional practice such as "peer reviews" will win the day. It won't happen.

The truth movement may well have stagnated BUT AE911 et al are determined to keep the action continuing but going nowhere.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The truth movement may well have stagnated BUT AE911 et al are determined to keep the action continuing but going nowhere.
They will never make a statement that in any way is counter to their raison d'etre. They may go out of biz at some point.. or someone else will drive the stage coach... but they simply can't make an affirmative case for CD... and they never will.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
They will never make a statement that in any way is counter to their raison d'etre. They may go out of biz at some point.. or someone else will drive the stage coach... but they simply can't make an affirmative case for CD... and they never will.
What does their last tax return state is their income?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Adam Taylor's Withdrawal from the 9/11 Truth Movement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
Mick West TFTRH #35 - Mike Santangelo: 9/11 Truth vs. B.S. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #16: Adam Taylor – Retired 9/11 Truth Activist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
M ISO of Former Engineers and Architects Signatories of the A&E for 9/11 Truth Statement Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Nada Truther How Big is the Audience at 9/11 Truth Events? 9/11 4
Mick West Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 990 Tax Returns, Employee Compensation 9/11 32
Mick West How to Prove Satellite Images are Real - Ground Truth Flat Earth 16
Mick West Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
Mick West AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
SR1419 NYT article: How the Internet Is Loosening Our Grip on the Truth Practical Debunking 23
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 Truth New York Times Billboard Quote 9/11 53
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
TWCobra Pilots for 9/11 Truth-"Simulations" video debunked. 9/11 26
Joe Kerr Debunked: Pilots Doctors and Scientists tell Truth about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 66
C 9/11 P4T FDR analysis of flight 77 9/11 26
M 9/11 flight Simulations: United 175 9/11 8
SpaceCowboy Pilots For 9/11 Truth Weigh in on Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 132
TWCobra EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video 9/11 325
TWCobra Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds 9/11 94
Tony Szamboti Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds 9/11 242
Mick West Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
Mick West Debunked: Snowden uncovers shocking truth behind Chemtrails [Satire] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
FreiZeitGeist Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
David Fraser The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group Contrails and Chemtrails 12
T Understanding Truth Above All Else Conspiracy Theories 14
Joe Newman MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West buffdaddy3144: Recovering from 9/11 Truth and how it relates to Religion Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rroval Debunk: imgur: "Boston Truth Revealed" Boston Marathon Bombings 84
N Hi, I am a "truth-seeker" from Indonesia, and I really respect site like this! General Discussion 1
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
HappyMonday Attribution of Schopenhauer's Three Stages of Truth Quotes Debunked 8
Mick West Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology General Discussion 3
A Explained: astronaut's movement causes lunar flag to wave in Apollo 15 footage Conspiracy Theories 0
mudr0 Need Debunking: Video claiming zigzaggin objects and movement prove EVA filmed in pool General Discussion 33
Mick West WTC7 Smoke Movement Before and After Penthouse Collapse 9/11 7
gerrycan Movement of Column 79 as Expressed in WTC7 UAF Presentation 9/11 13
FlightMuj ISS and Soyuz Antennas. Rotation Speed and Earth Movement Flat Earth 9
Mick West Chemtrails and the Anti-Vaccine Movement Contrails and Chemtrails 34
Mick West Explained: Ghost Balloons Move By Themselves [Air Movement] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mackdog My story of how I came into the CT movement and how I got out. Escaping The Rabbit Hole 20
J Zeitgeist (the film, Peter Joseph), Zeitgeist Movement, Venus Project Conspiracy Theories 37
Related Articles









































Related Articles

Top