Wouldn't that be nice? Making this viral is no big deal. Please spend a few minutes to grow this to huge proportions.

UPDATE: The original petition was taken down so this version was recently submitted.

PLEASE spread this around to resurrect the enthusiasm that was driving the first one.


pray tell, is Avaaz?

Avaaz - questionable

Avaaz runs some good campaigns on some relevant issues. No doubt does lots of good.

But Avaaz came out in support of the NATO bombing of Libya. Bombing in the name of peace... hmmm

They have also supported Hillary Clinton in her Friends of Syria mission - which betrays a partisan leaning.

Avaaz was started by establishment Soros/Ford Foundation type NGOs...

So while this initiative seems great - I wonder if it's not a river running into the sand. Another NYCAN non-starter non-initiative. Or perhaps I'm being too cynical?

Deserves our support

... I notice that Avaaz has blind spots. Maybe this is a sign of new courage at Avaaz.


This site is a truly FREE SPEECH ZONE where anyone can put up an idea for consideration.

Just because there are some issues you don't agree with doesn't mean all are bad.

Just because you sign one petition doesn't mean you support all others.

At the end of the day, everyone retains their voluntary choice.

The question is: Do you support the WTC7 petition? If so, why NOT sign it?

It sounds like you don't like the size, shape or color of the bulletin board that these petitions are posted upon. Or the proximity of the WTC7 petition to others of a perhaps questionable nature. I really doubt if anyone's going to see my name on one and try to paint me as a supporter of another.

clarification about Avaaz


Avaaz does not run any campaigns. All of the campaigns are created by Avaaz members, supported by members and the whole process is member driven.

There couldn't be a more vague statement (the type of "I heard that" statement that can be passed along with magnification or details removed or changed along the way) than "Avaaz was started by establishment Soros/Ford Foundation type NGOs..."

And anyway who cares? It doesn't matter a bit who started it; what matters is who controls it (members) and what work it does.

If there's a petition that leads to saving the whales, so to speak, or any example that's genuinely a good idea then it's good grassroots activism. The whales wouldn't mind if that petition were started by a Republican or a Democrat etc.


By their fruits ye shall know them

Mark Graham "... doesn't matter a bit who started it; what matters is who controls it (members) and what work it does"

The work it has done is interesting. Lots of excellent work on good, peaceful campaigns. And then it comes up with support for NATO bombing of Libya and the murky Friends of Syria - who could more accurately be called Friends of undemocratic dicatorships Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

So Avaaz supports campaigns that might result in the deaths of civilians.

But somehow it doesn't support a peaceful campaign to elicit information from the US Dept of Commerce entity NIST?

Avaaz - - - By their fruits ye shall know them.

Two wtc 7 petitions pulled by Avaaz - free speech?

Mark Graham = Hats off to you for starting two petitions at Avaaz.

Avaaaz sells itself as open, transparent, democratic, 'for the people, by the people' .. 'good grassroots activism" etc.

So what happened to those two petitions?

The first one got close to 100 signatures in 30 hours, the second was over 800 and going viral before it disappeared?

As you said in your post: "what matters is who controls [Avaaz] (members) and what work it does".

So who has the kind of power of Avaaz to see two petitions removed?

We need to start a petition at Avaaz asking Avaaz to be open and transparent and allow this grassroots petition to stay up!

A genuine grassroots company should be able to handle this kind of honest self criticism and self-reflection.

Avaaz opportunity

The following comment was received today from one of my most trusted sources of information:

Avaaz empowers millions of people from all walks of life to take action on pressing global, regional and national issues, from corruption and poverty to conflict and climate change. Their model of internet organizing allows thousands of individual efforts, however small, to be rapidly combined into a powerful collective force. An example is the Internet censorship bill, which was heavily supported and was considered a “done deal.” Avaaz circulated an Internet petition and presented it to White House officials, showing that in just three weeks, over three million people worldwide indicated their opposition to a bill that would have given the US government the right to shut down any website. The bill was subsequently abandoned by adherents in both parties. Other global success stories can be found at

Thank you David!

Take a look at and see their "Happening Right Now" column on the right. Every few seconds an Avaaz member somewhere signs a petition. The members are all over the world.

From their "About" page:

"Avaaz's priorities and power come from members

Each year, Avaaz sets overall priorities through all-member polls (See 2010 poll results here), and campaign ideas are polled and tested weekly to 10,000-member random samples—and only initiatives that find a strong response are taken to scale. Campaigns that do reach the full membership are then super-charged by, often, hundreds of thousands of Avaaz members taking part within days or even hours."

It doesn't say what "full membership" means but whatever number that means, it is clear that the top level petitions really get a ton of exposure and support.

Thank you everybody for adding your voice!

Mark Graham

The power of Two

If two people signed the petition, and then talked to two others who signed, and so on, this would only have to repeat 20 times to get over a million signatures.

I got more than four people to sign this afternoon.

This should be a cake walk!

Can you get TWO people to sign and urge them to do likewise? Sure you can!

Petition shut down/censored by AVAAZ

Tells you everything you need to know about AVAAZ - founded by insider NGO grants. (NGO"s as 'soft power' missionaries for established powers)

Avaaz keeps clicktavists happy campaigning for dolphins and womens' uteruses. Great distraction from bigger issues.

Some speech more free than other speech at 'free speech' AVAAZ.

AVAAZ was happy to run petitions calling for 'humanitarian' intervention in Libya - a country which was then bombed to hell and gone - but is not happy to run a petition calling peacefully for information clarity? What's up with that?

I suggest people email Avaaz and ask them why they withdrew this petition.

message from Avaaz about shutting down my petition on Building 7

Hello 9/11 Truth fans,

Early yesterday morning Avaaz removed my petition and sent me a message which included an email address to which I could write to respond to the removal.

I will copy and paste that message from Avaaz below.

I replied to them with a long email explaining that my petition complied in every way with each of their Terms of Use, why it was perfectly consistent with Avaaz and other petitions on the Avaaz website, and why I believe it was flagged. I provided links to David Chandler's videos and a few others so that they can actually study the issue. I provided a link to NIST NCSTAR 1A and said they can find the quotation from that report which I included in my petition on page 48 (p. 90 in your pdf browser). In other words I appealed the removal and asked them to put the petition back up on the website. I am SURE it would have reached 100 signatures by this morning considering we were at 89 last night and it grew to that point from 50 at about 1:45 PT. It was growing fast!

There is something that is supposed to happen once a petition reaches 100 signatures but the Avaaz website does not explain what that is. I believe that is when they make it more widely available, more visible on their website.

It's funny the way their communication is set up. After I wrote to them they sent me an automated email saying that because most of the email sent to that email address is spam I should communicate with them through their contact us page (in other words once I logged into my account). I copied and pasted the message I had just sent them via email into their contact us page (similar to the page on which you wrote to them Wico).

Probably the only reason the petition was taken down is that some idiots, somebody / bodies who disagree with 9/11 Truth, who cannot handle the Truth, who are emotionally invested in the official government story which blames Arab hijackers solely and entirely for the 9/11 attacks, flagged the petition as inappropriate. Thus they (Avaaz) removed it automatically, that is their computer removed it, without studying the issue. I read their terms of use completely and of course my petition complied with each and every term of us in every way. There was nothing wrong with it.

Hopefully they will put it up again.

I'll let you know.

What I propose is that if Avaaz either fails to respond to my appeal or if they respond by saying, "Your petition violated our Terms of Use" then we can write to them through their contact us page (once you are logged into your Avaaz account) and politely state the my petition fully complied with all of their terms of use and ask them to put it up on their website again.

That's all I can report at this point.


Mark Graham

Message from Avaaz to me at 12:16 PT Thursday morning:

Hi -

We're writing to let you know that this petition of yours has been taken offline: Come clean about free fall of the World Trade Center Building 7

Every petition on the Avaaz Petition Site must adhere to the Community Agreement.

Only content that meets these terms of use will be hosted on the platform built, funded and fueled by the Avaaz community. Those deemed to be in violation of the Agreement are removed.

To respond to the removal of your petition, forward this email to along with your explanation.

Thanks for using the site.

The Avaaz Petition Site team


Below is the text of my petition which was, until Wednesday night / Thursday morning, on the website at:

Come clean about free fall of the World Trade Center Building 7

Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent. After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.5 seconds. However NIST still claimed that fires were the cause.

Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . .”

NIST, a U.S. government agency, has already admitted the scientific fact of free fall in Building 7. Now it should admit what that means; that the entire building structure was removed before Building 7 began to fall. This means explosive controlled demolition.

This gives a very different understanding of what really happened on 9/11. It implies a very different story about who caused it.

Bringing peace to the U.S. and the Middle East, saving American and foreign lives, begins with an honest evaluation of the free fall descent of WTC Building 7.

What if..

what if it was reworded to petition the release of all their remaining photos that NIST claims proves their conclusions? They still have over 3000 photos/videos that have not been released. The data inputs for their computer model also remain secret. What specific public safety issue are they referring to they claim is the reason for withholding? (other than fear of riots once they're exposed as frauds). food for thought.


Avaaz is under attack

I got an email from Avaaz yesterday (May 2) about an attack on Avaaz that leaves me wondering ... Could just be an unrelated coincidence, but it might explain some of their silence as well. I also wrote a few letters to them about the WTC 7 petition and I'm still hoping they will respond. At least they should be a little more sensitive to the issue of censorship after this attack.

Right now, the Avaaz website is under massive attack. An expert is telling us that likely only a government or major corporation could launch an attack this large, with massive, simultaneous and sophisticated assaults from across the world to take down our site.

We were expecting this. Our people-powered campaigning has been fearless, and we've taken the world's worst actors head-on and in ways that genuinely hurt them - from the Syrian and Chinese regimes to Rupert Murdoch, Big Oil and organized crime. The Syrian dictatorship called our campaigner 'the most dangerous man in the world', and a UK investigation recently revealed emails between Murdoch's news corporation and top levels of government saying the Avaaz campaign against Murdoch was their biggest concern. Sometimes I lie awake at night wondering when these people are going to come for us.


Millions of us have campaigned to keep corporations and governments from censoring and controlling the web. Now one of them is trying to censor us.


Avaaz can stand up fearlessly to governments and corporations only because all of our strength, legitimacy, and funding comes from people, and people alone. We don't accept money - any money - from governments, corporations, foundations, or even large individual donors. It's extremely rare among large civil society organizations today, but 100% of our money comes from small online donations, and we don't accept gifts over 5000 Euros from anyone. That's why we're independent, and that's why we're a threat to those who put power before people. Let's keep being a threat.


It has to be more

Before their attack I tried to re-establish the petition under my name, slightly different wording. It was not accepted.

Repeated emails to them produced silence.