72,600,000 conspiracy nuts

[ribonucleic]

"More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html

There are 217.8 million people in the United States who are 18 or over.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001703.html

So that makes at least 72,600,000 "conspiracy nuts".

[ieffinhatecardio]

They came to this conclusion by polling 1,010 people. How can they extrapolate out to 72,600,000 from a poll that only included 1000 people? Polling can be a dangerous thing.

[240 is Back]

They came to this conclusion by polling 1,010 people. How can they extrapolate out to 72,600,000 from a poll that only included 1000 people? Polling can be a dangerous thing.

Actually they can scientifically measure it to 3-4% accuracy.

Basic statistics, probabilities, and bell curves.  You take the odds of 363 out of 1,010 people answering "inside job" then apply the standard deviation.  it's remarkably accurate for elections all the time.

When you step back and consider that they called a thousand people, and 363 of them believed 911 was an inside job... think about that.  Fucking incredible. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

Actually they can scientifically measure it to 3-4% accuracy.

Basic statistics, probabilities, and bell curves.  You take the odds of 363 out of 1,010 people answering "inside job" then apply the standard deviation.  it's remarkably accurate for elections all the time.

When you step back and consider that they called a thousand people, and 363 of them believed 911 was an inside job... think about that.  Fucking incredible. 

I'm dubious of those claims, a 3-4% measure of accuracy is just too much when polling 1,010 people and extrapolating out for the entire voting age country. I agree that more people think something is fishy about 9/11 but the 72,600,000 number I won't believe until everyone is polled.

The subject is too far fetched and the number is simply too high to be believable.

[youandme]

They came to this conclusion by polling 1,010 people. How can they extrapolate out to 72,600,000 from a poll that only included 1000 people? Polling can be a dangerous thing.

How can polling be dangerous? I work in psychological sciences and we use data from polls all day long and conduct our own. That's why it's called a poll and not a Census. Will you please stop arguing with every poll number because the pollster didn't favor your position.  

The world uses polls to support views and shows relevent information. Polls are credible and are accurate when representive samples are given. CDC, Pentagon, White House....all use polls and census data. No conspiracy here

The margin of inaccuracy in polls is very slim.

If polls were not a viable and reliable tool, they would no longer be used for social, political sciences.

[Brixtonbulldog]

The paper printing this and the university conducting the poll are more fishy than any 911 conspiracy.  Can anyone else smell the agenda?

[OzmO]

Something like this will really mean something when a serious call for a new investigation is made after 2008 in congress or the senate. 

I don;t think we will see anything significant happen until then save a few polls like this one.

[ieffinhatecardio]

How can polling be dangerous? I work in psychological sciences and we use data from polls all day long and conduct our own. That's why it's called a poll and not a Census. Will you please stop arguing with every poll number because the pollster didn't favor your position. 

The world uses polls to support views and shows relevent information. Polls are credible and are accurate when representive samples are given. CDC, Pentagon, White House....all use polls and census data. No conspiracy here

The margin of inaccuracy in polls is very slim.

If polls were not a viable and reliable tool, they would no longer be used for social, political sciences.

I've never argued about a poll before so I'm not too sure where you're coming from with that little ditty. 

Polls are dangerous because they can be skewered to fit a preconceived notion and because they can influence the way people think even though the polls themselves might not be totally accurate.

[Thin Lizzy]

The paper printing this and the university conducting the poll are more fishy than any 911 conspiracy.  Can anyone else smell the agenda?

"The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6-24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points."

What further invalidates this poll is the fact that the only people who would waste time responding to such a survey are unemployed losers who have nothing better to do than chase wacky conspiracy theories.

[240 is Back]

Scripps is a reputable polling firm.

A poll released last month by Zogby International found that 42 percent of all Americans believe the 9/11 Commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence" in the attacks. This is in addition to the Zogby poll two years ago that found that 49 percent of New York City residents agreed with the idea that some leaders "knew in advance" that the attacks were planned and failed to act.

Is Zogby also an unreliable polling firm now?

The fact we're now debating the validity of polls entirely, and the agendas of Scripps and Zogby, CNN, and others who have shown large % of Americans believe something it fishy - instead of the evidence - shows that some of you don't want to talk evidence.


For example - if your local police chief accused you of some crime - what would your defense be?  "I didn't do it.  Here is my alibi.  Here is why your evidence is flawed".  You wouldn't say "the police chief is biased!"

2008 is gonna open up a lot of doors.

[240 is Back]

"The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6-24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points."

What further invalidates this poll is the fact that the only people who would waste time responding to such a survey are unemployed losers who have nothing better to do than chase wacky conspiracy theories.

Right.  Cause only unemployed losers have telephones.

[Dos Equis]

"The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6-24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points."

What further invalidates this poll is the fact that the only people who would waste time responding to such a survey are unemployed losers who have nothing better to do than chase wacky conspiracy theories.

LOL.  I'm shocked.  Not.  I wish they would have called me.  

[youandme]

I've never argued about a poll before so I'm not too sure where you're coming from with that little ditty. 

Polls are dangerous because they can be skewered to fit a preconceived notion and because they can influence the way people think even though the polls themselves might not be totally accurate.

Oh thought you did.

There are usually and often sampling tests done that make assumptions according to the "Standard Normal" distribution. Sure possible innacuricies can take placea where they select their tested group from, and if they seleceted to heavily from a group. If we selected heavily from NYC, you could not take those results and say that they are applied to all Americans.

[youandme]

LOL.  I'm shocked.  Not.  I wish they would have called me.  

They only ask a few simple questions, they don't provide counseling.

[Dos Equis]

They only ask a few simple questions, they don't provide counseling.

I could definitely use free counseling.     Where do I sign up?

[240 is Back]

Remember that we're still in year 5 of the 911 aftermath.

In 2007 alone we've had rosie tell 10 million housewives to investigate WTC7, we've had EMT/NYPD/NYFD/military all come fwd and say WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  We've had the BBC film come out, where a reporter stands in front of WTC and tells us all it has collapsed, when it's standing plain as day.  She predicts it by 26 minutes.

Each year, more evidence comes out, and the number of 911 skeptics grows exponentially.  it will come out.  And people like BB, MM69, and others will just mock it (and the 3000 victims) like they always have.  What will change though, is that THEY will be the minority soon.  Soon, the 36% of skeptics (2004 - before that huge 2006 media coverage) will grow to 50,60,70,80 percent.  

Then what?

[Dos Equis]

Bwahahahaha!!!

[youandme]

I could definitely use free counseling.     Where do I sign up?

Depends on what can, plenty of resources available. Clinic, Community Mental Health Centers, try going to your county or parish website.

[Dos Equis]

Depends on what can, plenty of resources available. Clinic, Community Mental Health Centers, try going to your county or parish website.

I'll look for the one that treats parents who have to raise teenagers.  Has to be one nearby . . . .   

[240 is Back]

Bwahahahaha!!!

Probably less than 1% believed "inside job" right after 911.  it was 36% in 2004.  Imagine what it is today.  Or what it will be in 2008 when 911 legislation begins against the ousted white house admin.

beach bum, I'll mail you my "CT" t-shirt in a few months.  Soon, your point of view will be the outlier.

[Cavalier22]

Among educated people, the percentage is much lower.

[youandme]

Probably less than 1% believed "inside job" right after 911.  it was 36% in 2004.  Imagine what it is today.  Or what it will be in 2008 when 911 legislation begins against the ousted white house admin.

beach bum, I'll mail you my "CT" t-shirt in a few months.  Soon, your point of view will be the outlier.

If you thought conspiracy in 2001-02 you were labeled a nutcase, now it's the norm.

[240 is Back]

Among educated people, the percentage is much lower.

Can you show evidence of this, or just your guess?

My guess is that educated people have:

1) better understanding of oil motives in middle east and therefore understand what could be 911 motives
2) better understanding of physics, and the 3 basic laws violated when the towers fell.
3) access to internet which means they'll see the videos

i could go on, but you see my point.   Do you have anything which proves your theory?

[Dos Equis]

Among educated people, the percentage is much lower.

I agree.  Educated people don't generally talk about things as silly as missiles hitting the WTC, faked news coverage, holograms, etc. 

[240 is Back]

I agree.  Educated people don't generally talk about things as silly as missiles hitting the WTC, faked news coverage, holograms, etc. 

Show us the stats

Truth is, educated people have more to lose and don't bring it up in more constricted circles.


I challenge you, Bb and Cav, to provide some evidence to back up your opinion.