Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has been downloaded over 400,000 times

Tony Szamboti

Illuminator
T
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
4,976
It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them.

Of course, this is not necessarily indicative of a maximum for the number of people who have read it, since it is likely it has also been forwarded as a pdf. However, it can be construed to provide a minimum.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them.

Of course, this is not necessarily indicative of a maximum for the number of people who have read it, since it is likely it has also been forwarded as a pdf. However, it can be construed to provide a minimum.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. We already know the world is full of gullible fools.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them.

Of course, this is not necessarily indicative of a maximum for the number of people who have read it, since it is likely it has also been forwarded as a pdf. However, it can be construed to provide a minimum.
Click to expand...

Any average cat video can be downloaded million of times.

Heck I am pretty sure "apollo moon hoax" main web site has been also looked at million of times.

That does not indicate veracity, it only indicate in all 3 cases that a lot of people like to look at funny stuff.

(and don't get me started on how often the timecube page was looked at)
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them.

Of course, this is not necessarily indicative of a maximum for the number of people who have read it, since it is likely it has also been forwarded as a pdf. However, it can be construed to provide a minimum.
Click to expand...

So the fraud continues this is only going to explode in your face Tony making you look less like an engineer or scientist.

Only people with less brains than slime mold believe the insane CD lies.
 
Meanwhile, the 9/11 related petitions garner around 200 votes.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233634

That's actually a way better measurement about how many people are convinced by the arguments vs. how many just listen to or read them.

ETA: Also, we know that AE911T buys Facebook "likes". I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they also bought or otherwise propped "downloads".
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them.
Click to expand...

So, if AE911T continues to fail to achieve anything, you'll no longer have the excuse that we on ISF, by disagreeing with you, are somehow preventing you from getting your message out. Fine by me.

Dave
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them.

Of course, this is not necessarily indicative of a maximum for the number of people who have read it, since it is likely it has also been forwarded as a pdf. However, it can be construed to provide a minimum.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but what exactly is the point here? Are you saying that number of downloads = agreement with conclusions?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them.

Of course, this is not necessarily indicative of a maximum for the number of people who have read it, since it is likely it has also been forwarded as a pdf. However, it can be construed to provide a minimum.
Click to expand...

8 years of waste Tony, that's all this amounts too.
 
I have not read, nor will I... but I imagine that the science/engineering in this article contains flaws. Getting published is no guaranty that the content is accurate, reliable or likely in this case good science or engineering.

Look at how many scams are out there which have a veneer of legitimacy and followers around the world in the tens of thousands... Scientology comes to mind.

People are distrustful, but want to find reliable sources of information... That could explain the number of downloads... but this has nothing to do with the content.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them.

Of course, this is not necessarily indicative of a maximum for the number of people who have read it, since it is likely it has also been forwarded as a pdf. However, it can be construed to provide a minimum.
Click to expand...

Well done then Tony.

Has it resulted in garnering that much ballyhooed 'new investigation' yet?
 
Mark F said:
I'm sorry but what exactly is the point here? Are you saying that number of downloads = agreement with conclusions?
Click to expand...

I would interpret such a rare record-breaking response to a physics publication as a strong show of professional interest from people who are not satisfied with the official story.

The contrary knee jerk response by yourself and the rest of the herd is just the usual 'gate-keeping' smoke-blowing.
 
Criteria said:
I would interpret such a rare record-breaking response to a physics publication as a strong show of professional interest from people who are not satisfied with the official story.

The contrary knee jerk response by yourself and the rest of the herd is just the usual 'gate-keeping' smoke-blowing.
Click to expand...

There is some evidence that this is a rare and record breaking response of professional interest?
 
Last edited:
Criteria said:
I would interpret such a rare record-breaking response to a physics publication as a strong show of professional interest from people who are not satisfied with the official story.

The contrary knee jerk response by yourself and the rest of the herd is just the usual 'gate-keeping' smoke-blowing.
Click to expand...

I would interpret it as having received a lot of free publicity from AE911T and it's sycophants. Certainly a lot more than this article.
 
*DRUDGE SIRENS* *DRUDGE SIRENS*

Prestigious author of highly-downloaded opinion article spends his free time demonstrating that he cannot be intellectually honest when it comes to criticisms of the clearly erroneous thinking that underpins his horribly biased opinion. Sources say the author has been spotted in the wild posting to internet message boards silly, open-ended questions (1, 2) that only belie his failure to grasp the issues on which he chooses to opine. All attempts to talk to the author have failed, however, as he seems keenly aware that his opinions aren't worth much when actually discussed.
 
Last edited:
Criteria said:
I would interpret such a rare record-breaking response to a physics publication as a strong show of professional interest from people who are not satisfied with the official story.

The contrary knee jerk response by yourself and the rest of the herd is just the usual 'gate-keeping' smoke-blowing.
Click to expand...

Don't mistake laughter for applause.
 
Criteria said:
I would interpret such a rare record-breaking response to a physics publication as a strong show of professional interest from people who are not satisfied with the official story.
Click to expand...

Based on what evidence? How do you know "professionals" (whatever you define that to mean) showed a strong interest in this article?

How do you know those professionals are not satisfied with the official story?

The contrary knee jerk response by yourself and the rest of the herd is just the usual 'gate-keeping' smoke-blowing.
Click to expand...

I could say the same of your response, full as it is of wishful thinking and baseless assumptions without evidence.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them.

Of course, this is not necessarily indicative of a maximum for the number of people who have read it, since it is likely it has also been forwarded as a pdf. However, it can be construed to provide a minimum.
Click to expand...
Yes, now more people know 9/11 truth is based on speculation, a polite term for lies based on delusions.

Dr Jones, fired for spewing lies and speculation born in fantasy. Wow, you celebrate ignorance in print. Good job

Don't forget, the artile is not science, it is speculation; aka woo
NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.
Click to expand...
BS made is exposed.
 
Last edited:
At most 400k downloads indicates interest in the topic. Attempting to draw conclusions about the psyche of the people accessing the file is an exercize in futility. I dont know who downloaded the article or what their state of minds are. Playing on the "popularity" without such context makes the argument a fallacy. Trying to determine the motivation or mindset of individuals downloading the article is an attempt at clairvoyance... a feature of humanity that doesnt exist
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. See

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

That is far beyond the number of downloads experienced by any other article ever published by them.

Of course, this is not necessarily indicative of a maximum for the number of people who have read it, since it is likely it has also been forwarded as a pdf. However, it can be construed to provide a minimum.
Click to expand...

I would say show me results. Not download popularity. Progress from A/E911truth has been stagnant and most of the visible "popularity" on this topic is confined to online discussion sites where pools of individuals continue discussions of the topic at large. I don't foresee 9/11 conspiracy topics ever going away, but for as long as the topic has existed efforts on the part of ae911 have largely run stale on tangible results and so long as the errors exist on their part support and results will remain limited accordingly
 
pgimeno said:
Meanwhile, the 9/11 related petitions garner around 200 votes.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233634

That's actually a way better measurement about how many people are convinced by the arguments vs. how many just listen to or read them.

ETA: Also, we know that AE911T buys Facebook "likes". I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they also bought or otherwise propped "downloads".
Click to expand...

Yes to the latter. Here is another Facebook page, this one called "The 9/11 Truth Movement". I have been monitoring how many "Likes" it picks up since early September 2015. This is the pattern - Likes per month:



As you can see, interest is slowly decaying, and there is an annual peak of interest in the month of September, when the 9/11 anniversaries generate traffic.

Another example for this pattern is the "ReThink911" petition. Remember "ReThink911"? The "record-breaking", "world-wide" campaign to really get da Twoof to the forefront of news? AE911Truth and Gage spent hundreds of thousands of $$$ on it in 2013, and promised: "When this petition reaches one million signers, it will be delivered to the Head of State of every nation that lost citizens in the attacks of September 11, 2001" (actual quote on the homepage still today!!) and yet, more than 3 years later, they only got 22,699 signers. 2% of the target! What a crashing defeat! Anyway, the same pattern of activity here:

[IMGw=600]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/Petitions/Rethink911_20170101_zpslvshoov8.gif[/IMGw]
Interest is decaying over the years, but sharp peaks in all Septembers.

Now contrast this with the pattern by which the AE911Truth Facebook site picks up new Likes (never mind the slightly different plot shape with flat lines instead of points for each month):

[IMGw=600]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/AE911T/FB_LikesPerDay_20170101_zpsqkmyvgcm.gif[/IMGw]

It's very much up and down. While 2015 indeed had a mild peak for September, 2016 had peaks in January and July, with September about matching the average for the year (290 vs. 300 Likes/Day). The months' averages varied between 21 and 546 last year - unreal!

I open their FB page once every few days and jot down the current number of likes. The time interval between two data points can be anything from 1 day to two weeks, with an average of 4 days. I have a spreadsheet that computes the Likes/Day for each time interval, each month, each year. I observe Phases with many and other Phases with few likes. Here is a chart that shows you such phases:

[IMGw=600]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/AE911T/FB_LikesPerDay_PHASES_20170101_zpsgdib39wm.gif[/IMGw]

Some observations:
  • In Jan and Feb 2016, there were short bursts of six and four days averaging more than 1000 Likes per Day
  • Phases with 200-400 Likes/Day alternate with much busier and much slower Phases
  • In the 165 days from May 9 to Oct 21, I never observed less than 150 Likes/Day (average: 408; max: 792)
  • Immediately following, in the 70 days between Oct 21 and Dec 30, I never observed more than 82 Likes/Day (average: 33; min: 4)
After that last date, rates are up to >100/Day.

It very much appeared as if a campaign was switched on on May 8th, which was then suddenly switched off on December 30. While the campaign was on, the harvest was ~15 times the base line.

[ETA]I never see any indication that times with increased "Like"ing correlate in any way with any media campaign. For example: On August 18, AE911Truth sent out a newsletter titled "Look Out: A tidal wave of 9/11 Truth is coming!", and on August 29, the Europhysics article was announced by another AE911Truth article. Did the tidal wave, or the record-breaking article, affect the number of people who found their way to their Facebook page? Hell no! See Figure 3 above: August was a decline from July, September declined further, November declined even further, December declined even further! [/ETA]


I am convinced that actual traffic - Likes arising from real people genuinly wanting to flag AE911Truth as something they like - is no more than 35 Likes/Day, and that all the rest - sometimes 350 Likes/Day and more - is bought for money. If there were no shenanigans, their FB page would be liked by less than 120,000 instead of the 412,000+ they show. After 9 years, that is a poor showing for so much money spent on propaganda.
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
^The appeal to popularity fallacy.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Truth established by click counts? And since when do people downloading a document mean that they agree with its conclusions? Wanting to see the arguments is broad-minded- agreeing with them is something completely different. Probably I've downloaded more documents that I up strongly disagreed with than the ones I fully agreed with after reading them.
 
ON YouTube:

Dr. Pimple Popper's "Best Punch Removals of 2016" has 2,067,291 views, and her "Blackhead Extraction Session #2 in 'Mr. Gold' - Addressing the Inflamed One has 14,678,123 views (all of her videos are inside jobs BTW).

Joe Weller's "Reacting to Ghosts Caught on Camera" has 5,006,595 views, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't prove ghosts are real.

Most fart related videos average 2 million views, which is initiative of click number relevance. :thumbsup:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is important to note that the Europhysics News article on the WTC collapses has now been downloaded over 400,000 times. ...
Click to expand...

Can you justify this judgement? To whom is it important, and why?
Are any lives made better by this?
Has anything new been learned by anyone?
Does somebody feel important now, and who would that be?
Would money or entitlements be lost if this notification had remained unwritten?
 
Giordano said:
Exactly! Truth established by click counts? And since when do people downloading a document mean that they agree with its conclusions?
Click to expand...

I think the truther mindset, and one most emphatically exhibited by Tony, is that nobody can honestly deny the validity of their arguments, so to hear them is to believe them. It's the underlying belief system that has them, and again most emphatically Tony, labeling most of the posters on this forum as paid shills of the conspiracy; once they cannot accept that anyone can honestly disagree with them, then anybody doing so must have a suspect agenda. In that mindset, 400,000 views translates directly to 400,000 agreements with everything they say [1]; or, alternatively, 400,000-X agreements, where X is the number of members of the conspiracy who've viewed the document.

Dave

[1] The idea that it would take less than 400,000 people to download a document 400,000 times is maybe a bit too subtle to introduce at this stage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom