Gage's petition's signatures are nearly 4 years old - are they still valid?

Orphia Nay

Penguilicious Spodmaster
Tagger
Orphia Nay
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
54,593
Location
Australia
Gage's petition is nearly 4 years old.

The first mention of it on their site(s) is dated 22 May 2007.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/4...ng-upon-congress-for-a-new-investigation.html

What sort of organisation accepts 4 year old signatures?

I came here today to start a thread about this, and just read two posts saying things on similar lines:

Telltale Tom said:
Our whole organization is based on recording people views at one point in time. Particularly our petition is based on what people thought several years ago and we never update it.
Click to expand...

grandmastershek said:
This is a good point. Perhaps a forum project (split the names up) can be done where signers are contacted and their support clarified via questionnaire.
Click to expand...

Great idea, grandmastershek!

Do we have any volunteers?
 
Aww, subscriber envy.

I'm still waiting to see this bee dunkers petition.

"We, the anonymous undersigned bee-ople of highly intelligent internet 9/11 message boarding, petition the President of the United States of America to declare all inquiry into 9/11 official pseudoscience illegal!!!, punishable by stinging, very badly - so that it hurts - all offenders attempting to insert unnecessary and needlessly confusing principles of science into what was commonly accepted fantasy by what used to be a glorious majority in our great country..."
 
I was wondering about that as I wrote my article. There's been a huge transition in the make-up of Truthers, especially among the better educated portion. A significant number of Hollywood personalities spoke out about 911 up until Obama became the president. Truthers still talk about this, but none of these Hollywood Truthers are out on the streets asking Obama for a new investigation. In fact, most of them are also well-known for being Hollywood Democrates. I suspect most of the AE911T petitioners that signed before 2008 are Democrates and would not reaffirm their position.

I have written members of these other Truther groups about what's going on. I have been tempted to write AE911T petitioners about this.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Aww, subscriber envy.

I'm still waiting to see this bee dunkers petition.

"We, the anonymous undersigned bee-ople of highly intelligent internet 9/11 message boarding, petition the President of the United States of America to declare all inquiry into 9/11 official pseudoscience illegal!!!, punishable by stinging, very badly - so that it hurts - all offenders attempting to insert unnecessary and needlessly confusing principles of science into what was commonly accepted fantasy by what used to be a glorious majority in our great country..."
Click to expand...

Just like Major Tom, I'm keeping a record of this hoot-an-nanny!! See you in the funny pages!
 
ergo said:
Aww, subscriber envy.

I'm still waiting to see this bee dunkers petition.

"We, the anonymous undersigned bee-ople of highly intelligent internet 9/11 message boarding, petition the President of the United States of America to declare all inquiry into 9/11 official pseudoscience illegal!!!, punishable by stinging, very badly - so that it hurts - all offenders attempting to insert unnecessary and needlessly confusing principles of science into what was commonly accepted fantasy by what used to be a glorious majority in our great country..."
Click to expand...


Bee S
 
ergo said:
Aww, subscriber envy.

I'm still waiting to see this bee dunkers petition.

"We, the anonymous undersigned bee-ople of highly intelligent internet 9/11 message boarding, petition the President of the United States of America to declare all inquiry into 9/11 official pseudoscience illegal!!!, punishable by stinging, very badly - so that it hurts - all offenders attempting to insert unnecessary and needlessly confusing principles of science into what was commonly accepted fantasy by what used to be a glorious majority in our great country..."
Click to expand...
...what colour are the suns in your world?
 
Orphia,

Not sure this will be successful. People will have signed the petition for many reasons, such as not liking Bush, or being unhappy with the quality of the report or because they see the Architect of Destruction as the enlightened one.

A year or so ago I toyed with asking the structural PE's if they really believed in Controlled Demolition. Since there were so incredibly few names I collected their addresses and shall send to you as a private message.

If you check their licenses as well it gets even more complicated. There were only 3 PE's in the state of New York, from a couple of thousand, and two of them had let their licenses expire.

Its going to be much more difficult finding out the names and addresses of the landscape architect in India and the electrical engineer from Malaysia... but good luck with that.!
 
Orphia, I started looking for people to write, but then discovered that the list is useless. I have gone through more than 100 names and only one of them is an architect or engineer. I couldn't find him anywhere. in fact, some significant number of the people on that list were students. Some of them sign as 'guitar player' or 'construction — Other: still working' or this guy who states, "I am a 20 year old student at Stonybrook University, NY studying medicine. I have been looking into the attacks on 9/11 for a few years now and am ready to take action."
 
Scott Sommers said:
Orphia, I started looking for people to write, but then discovered that the list is useless. I have gone through more than 100 names and only one of them is an architect or engineer. I couldn't find him anywhere. in fact, some significant number of the people on that list were students. Some of them sign as 'guitar player' or 'construction — Other: still working' or this guy who states, "I am a 20 year old student at Stonybrook University, NY studying medicine. I have been looking into the attacks on 9/11 for a few years now and am ready to take action."
Click to expand...

Read to "take action".....ROFL

In this case "take action" means:

1. Posting on Internet forums.
2. Posting youtube videos.
3. Commenting on youtube videos.
4. Signing a useless petition.
5. Reading truther books.
6. Reading truther websites.
7. Possibly annoying your friends and relatives with truther nonsense.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Gage's petition is nearly 4 years old.

The first mention of it on their site(s) is dated 22 May 2007.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/4...ng-upon-congress-for-a-new-investigation.html

What sort of organisation accepts 4 year old signatures?

I came here today to start a thread about this, and just read two posts saying things on similar lines:
Click to expand...


About a year or so ago I chose a group of the names at random and googled to see if they existed. I managed to find a lot of them but they were usually retired.

I did not contact them.
Click to expand...
 
I am in. Here is a suggested questionnaire:

1. Do you still support the AE911Truth petition for an independent investigation? Y or N

2. Which of the following best describes your understanding of the "official explanation" of the WTC 1 & 2 collapses:
a. The jet fuel melted the steel leading to structural collapse.
b. The heating of floor trusses caused sagging leading to the perimeter columns pulling in and resulting in structural failure.
c. The plane crashes caused structural damage which resulted in collapse.

3. Have you yourself read the final NIST reports related to the collapses to of WTC 1, 2, & 7 in their entirety? Y or N

4. Which sources best describes where you gained most of your understanding of the technical aspects of the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7?
a. Traditional technical journals like the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
b. Open access journals like Bentham Science Publishers & the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
c. The final NIST reports.
d. Materials, videos, & presentations by AE911Truth, and their members.
e. Various online websites &/or Youtube videos.

5. Which do you believe is the cause of the collapses of the 3 WTC buildings 1, 2, & 7?
a. Fires ultimately caused by the plane impacts.
b. Traditional explosives planted in a clandestine manner.
c. A form of thermite planted in a clandestine manner.
d. A combination of b. & c.
e. A nuclear device.
f. An energy based weapon.
 
I am in.

I would suggest that we take a good look at the personal statements of those we contact, spot those items that are incorrect, and ask them about each incorrect item (for example, the assertion that "jet fuel can't melt steel", which implies that they believe that steel would have to melt before a building could collapse):
- How did you arrive at this opinion?
- Do you still have that opinion?
- Are you aware of the following facts (attach facts and links, for example about the nature of the fires, the temperatures needed for steel members to buckle...)

I too checked a few signers at random and found that you could track down some contact information (email, work address, phone) of a reasonable (maybe 30%) percentage.

We should first focus on the core groups of architects and structural engineers, and expand outward from there.

Or maybe run a few sample groups - say, 20 architects, 20 structural engineers, 20 other engineers, 20 students.
 
grandmastershek said:
I am in. Here is a suggested questionnaire:

1. Do you still support the AE911Truth petition for an independent investigation? Y or N

2. Which of the following best describes your understanding of the "official explanation" of the WTC 1 & 2 collapses:
a. The jet fuel melted the steel leading to structural collapse.
b. The heating of floor trusses caused sagging leading to the perimeter columns pulling in and resulting in structural failure.
c. The plane crashes caused structural damage which resulted in collapse.

3. Have you yourself read the final NIST reports related to the collapses to of WTC 1, 2, & 7 in their entirety? Y or N

4. Which sources best describes where you gained most of your understanding of the technical aspects of the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7?
a. Traditional technical journals like the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
b. Open access journals like Bentham Science Publishers & the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
c. The final NIST reports.
d. Materials, videos, & presentations by AE911Truth, and their members.
e. Various online websites &/or Youtube videos.

5. Which do you believe is the cause of the collapses of the 3 WTC buildings 1, 2, & 7?
a. Fires ultimately caused by the plane impacts.
b. Traditional explosives planted in a clandestine manner.
c. A form of thermite planted in a clandestine manner.
d. A combination of b. & c.
e. A nuclear device.
f. An energy based weapon.
Click to expand...


I am not a fan of multiple choice tests - a good mct is very hard to design. It reflects too much on the state of mind of the test designer.

Also, I would ask them a few things about what they know about trutherdom - for example, if they know if AE911T currently has a theory of what happened, and what they think that theory is.
 
Oystein said:
I am not a fan of multiple choice tests - a good mct is very hard to design. It reflects too much on the state of mind of the test designer.

Also, I would ask them a few things about what they know about trutherdom - for example, if they know if AE911T currently has a theory of what happened, and what they think that theory is.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you just focus on the registered architects and engineers, whose names and addresses can easily be found in state registries. There is only about 200 US architects and 240 PE's when I last looked. If you limit the search to Structural Engineers then there is only about 70 PE's. The rest of the signatories are almost impossible to verify.

I also think you should not insult them. These engineers will have suffered much joking, criticism and teasing from their fellow professionals. So I think you need to play it straight.

1.Did you sign the ae911truth petition?

2. Are you currently holding a state license to be a Professional Engineer or Registered Architect.

3. Do you still support ae911truth petition for a new investigation ?
If no would you like your name removed from the petition?

4. Do you believe that Towers 1 and 2 were demolished by Controlled Demolition ?

5. Do you believe that Tower 7 was demolished by Controlled Demolition
 
Telltale Tom said:
1.Did you sign the ae911truth petition?

2. Are you currently holding a state license to be a Professional Engineer or Registered Architect.

3. Do you still support ae911truth petition for a new investigation ?
If no would you like your name removed from the petition?

4. Do you believe that Towers 1 and 2 were demolished by Controlled Demolition ?

5. Do you believe that Tower 7 was demolished by Controlled Demolition
Click to expand...


A more honest survey for your purposes would be simply the first three questions. Questions 4 and 5 don't necessarily follow from question 3. If you want information relating to whether they believe in CD or not, ask:

4. Do you believe the controlled demolition hypothesis for the WTC collapses has any merit? Why or why not?

5. Do you believe the officially endorsed explanation for the WTC collapses has any merit? Why or why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom