Lack of Initiative

[Myriad]

Lack of Initiative: Quantifying the Political Significance of the Truth Movement in the U.S. in 2008

It can be difficult to gauge the political weight of a particular issue in U.S. politics. Polls tell us what positions people take on specific questions, but they rarely attempt to measure how important the respondents regard the issue relative to other political concerns. Those polls that do, tend to focus on perennial concerns such as taxes, education, jobs, race issues, foreign policy, and street crime, giving more specific and controversial issues such as abortion policy, gay rights, scientific research, drug policy, civil liberties, and government corruption a secondary role. Some information can be learned from election results (especially local elections where a "one-issue" candidate is more likely to garner attention and possibly even succeed) but since most candidates come in with a mixed bag of positions on various issues, it's hard to sort out the most influential factors. The fact that voters aren't always honest about the reasons they voted in a particular way (for instance, few would admit to deliberately choosing the more physically fit candidate and yet there's little doubt that that influences voters) doesn't help any.

One thing that does demonstrate the weight of an issue, especially one that's not among the core "pocketbook" issues that politicians and candidates frequently talk about, is signatures on petitions. The petition has been a fundamental part of the political process in the USA since its inception. Though it's largely a formality for major national campaigns, every candidate must submit petitions to get on the ballot. It's far from a formality for local candidates, third-party candidates, and activists of every kind. It's their core business. Carrying petitions door to door or to street corners is more American than apple pie. And it's fair to say that for any issue not all-encompassing enough to sweep a single-issue candidate into office (which is most issues), the ability to get signatures on petitions is the best measure of how much weight the voters are giving that issue.

Here's an example: in the summer of 2004, anti-gay-marriage amendment petitions were organized in several states. This was in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in mid November of 2003. http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15700

Let's assume that those petition drives began the moment the Massachusetts ruling was made (which is unlikely). That left the organizers of these anti-gay-marriage mesaures approximately 7.5 months (7.0 months for Montana) to have collected the following numbers of petition signatures:

Arkansas: 200,693
Oregon: 244,000
Michigan: 475,000
Montana: 70,000

According to U.S. census figures (available for download from: http://www.sreb.org/DataLibrary/popanddemographics.asp), the 2004 populations of the states in question were:

Arkansas: 2,742,898
Oregon: 3,583,027
Michigan: 10,102,720
Montana: 926,721

From this, we can calculate a minimum figure for petition signatures per 1000 residents per month, for this issue:

Arkansas: 9.76
Oregon: 9.08
Michigan: 6.27
Montana: 10.79

Now, let's compare this with the 9/11 ballot initiative in New York City.

2008 NYC population: 8,275,000 (source: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/census-shows-citys-population-rising/73307/).

Length of petition drive so far: the information in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106611) shows that 9/11 NYC ballot initiative efforts were underway by mid February, so that's 5.5 months so far.

Signatures collected: pending further announcements from the organizers, I'm going to assume that their signature count has climbed well above the "near 20,000" they were reporting two weeks ago, but falls short of the 30,000 needed (assuming every single one is valid) by today's deadline. Lets be optimistic and say they got 29,999.

That gives us a signatures per 1000 residents per month figure of 0.66.

So, here is evidence that the American public, collectively, cares about 1/10th as much that Truthers want a new investigation than they care about the possibility that someone whose lifestyle they disapprove of might possibly in the future want the legal right to get married in their state.

Anticipating some possible objections to making this comparison:

Anti-gay-marriage amendments probably had the support of conservative churches and other existing organizations. True, but that does not make the comparison invalid. The ability to gain the support of existing organizations reflects the political significance of a movement.

Anti-gay-marriage amendment initiatives were probably well-funded. True, but that does not make the comparison invalid. The ability to collect funding reflects the political significance of a movement.

The attitudes of New Yorkers do not reflect the nation as a whole. Probably true, but I'd need some evidence that that works against the NYC 9/11 ballot initiative rather than in its favor. Hasn't there been more 9/11 truth activism in NYC than anywhere else? Wouldn't the people who saw the devastation first-hand and lived through the aftermath be more likely to have unanswered questions?

Gay marriage is an emotionally charged issue for many. And apparently the lack of new 9/11 investigations isn't. That underscores my point.

The real reason people (including some Truthers) didn't support the initiative was that it wasn't written exactly right. That claim will be a tough sell. The organizers did what they could to make the ballot measure as innocuous as possible for the average voter. Without it even allocating any taxpayer money, even idle curiosity about 9/11 would be sufficient reason to go ahead and sign the petition. There is no competing stronger measure, so those in favor of stronger measures have nothing to lose by supporting this one and hoping it leads to stronger steps in the future. The most likely reason for people not to have signed it (or volunteered for it, or donated to it), therefore, is outright opposition to its intents and aims.

This is further evidence, and very solid evidence, that despite what some vaguely worded polls might seem to show, 9/11 Truth has a very low level of public political support in the U.S. Where it matters, in signatures on paper, it doesn't measure up.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[johnny karate]

Nice work, Myriad.

[Alt+F4]

I wonder why those signature gatherers just don't go to every firehouse in the five boros and get thousands of signatures from the FDNY, after all, they are the government agency that had the greatest loss on 9/11.

How about Canter Fitzgerald? They lost 658 employess, why don't the signature gatherers contact the thousands of people who lost co-workers?

But instead these people (from their videos at least) always seem to be in Manhattan public parks where there are lots of tourists. Why don't they go to Brooklyn, which has a larger population than Manhattan?

Makes you think, doesn't it, what their real intentions are.

[johnny karate]

Many excellent points that will of course be filed under "Questions Truthers Are Afraid to Address".

[Brainster]

I think their real intentions are to get this proposal on the ballot. The problem (from their standpoint) is that they are complete dolts. Putting Les Jamieson in charge of this is like asking to fail, but they had to because nobody else would take on the task.

[Alt+F4]

I think their real intentions are to get this proposal on the ballot. The problem (from their standpoint) is that they are complete dolts. Putting Les Jamieson in charge of this is like asking to fail, but they had to because nobody else would take on the task.

I think it's just an attention (and mail list) getting exercise. They know what response they would get if they showed up with their petition at an FDNY firehouse or a Canter Fitzgerald fundraiser. If NYCer really want this, go to the NYCers to whom it matters the most, the victims themselves and the victim's families/friends.

You or Pat posted last week on SLC that the signatures collected by the visiting Boston nuts are most likely invalid due to the fact that they were collected by non-New Yorkers; you are most surely correct. So what's the point then, other than saying, "Pay attention to me, I'm important!"

[Brainster]

I think it's just an attention (and mail list) getting exercise. They know what response they would get if they showed up with their petition at an FDNY firehouse or a Canter Fitzgerald fundraiser. If NYCer really want this, go to the NYCers to whom it matters the most, the victims themselves and the victim's families/friends.

You or Pat posted last week on SLC that the signatures collected by the visiting Boston nuts are most likely invalid due to the fact that they were collected by non-New Yorkers; you are most surely correct. So what's the point then, other than saying, "Pay attention to me, I'm important!"

They are certainly attention whores, but don't forget, sitting around and gathering signatures won't get you on Alex Jones (although I'm sure it got Les on), whereas filming a videotape of you haranguing some member of the New World Order will.

We both know why they really don't go to the firemen or the victims' families; because they'd get their butts kicked. No, I think the problem is more that the activists are a bunch of undependable stoners and nutjobs. That and the factionalism in the movement has resulted in Les being on the outs with a LOT of people, and yet nobody else is willing to take on the job. Check out this amazing thread at Truth Action (http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3724&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) for more details; it's hilarious.

BTW, I am Pat. You can tell me and JamesB apart over here pretty easily; his screen name is JamesB. ;)

[Alt+F4]

Check out this amazing thread at Truth Action (http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3724&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) for more details; it's hilarious.

BTW, I am Pat. You can tell me and JamesB apart over here pretty easily; his screen name is JamesB. ;)

That thread was crazy, didn't realize the NYC truthers were that fractured.

Sorry about the confusion, of course you're Pat :clap:

I shouldn't type why trying to break up a fight between the hubby and the kid. :teacher:

[LashL]

Excellent work, Myriad!

[Myriad]

The recent update that as of the end of July (actually, projected one week into August, but I'll give them that week as a freebie) the 9/11 NYC Ballot Initiative signature count actually stands at 20,000 allows me to calculate a more precise political significance score for the Truth Movement, of 0.44 signatures per 1000 residents per month.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[deep]

POPULATION != REGISTERED VOTERS
__________________________________

For starters, you're calculating everything based on the population, not the number of registered voters. I believe there are around 2.4m unregistered voters in NYC (but don't take my word for it), and no, it's not safe to assume the same percentage in every other state.


PROBLEM #2: FLAWED CONCLUSION
________________________________

You conclude that the American public "cares 1/10th as much" about a new 9/11 investigation as they do anti-gay-marriage - but that's not supported by any of the data you provide. The problem is, you have no way of counting the number of people who do care about the issue, but were never given an opportunity to sign the petition (or didn't even know it existed).

You cannot assume that "total registered voters" - "signatures" = "people who don't care". That's inaccurate, because it assumes that every single registered voter knew about the petition, and had an opportunity to sign it at some point.

To get accurate totals, you would need to count opportunities vs. signatures. In other words, how many people had the opportunity to sign the petition, and how many chose to sign it.


PROBLEM #3: POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE?
_____________________________________

So, to work around that obvious flaw, you pretend that you're comparing the "political significance" of each movement, even going so far as to use that in your title; however, as I mentioned above, there's no mention of "political significance" in your conclusion - out of nowhere, you're suddenly measuring which issue people care about most.

In your list of probable objections, you write-off several major inequities as a "reflection of political significance", but it's never factored into your argument in any other way. It seems to exist only as an unsubstantiated excuse, and nothing more.


PROBLEM #4: ASSUMPTIONS.
__________________________

Also in your list of probable objections, you make some major assumptions without offering any supporting evidence. For example:The attitudes of New Yorkers do not reflect the nation as a whole. Probably true, but I'd need some evidence that that works against the NYC 9/11 ballot initiative rather than in its favor.
You need to see some evidence? Sorry, that's not the way it works - you're assuming that the opinion of a small % of registered NYC voters is representative of the entire US, so you need to justify your assumption.

Anti-gay-marriage amendments probably had the support of conservative churches and other existing organizations. True, but that does not make the comparison invalid. The ability to gain the support of existing organizations reflects the political significance of a movement.
There's "political significance" again, but there's a bigger problem: a large portion of the anti-gay-marriage target demographic gathers together in large groups, in predictable locations, every single week - at church. That represents an almost unfathomable opportunity for signature collectors, and it has nothing to do with "political significance". It's specific to this particular issue & its supporters - for that reason, it's unfair to compare this ballot issue with an entirely different issue that doesn't share the same major advantage.

Imagine the difference between handing out All-Star ballots on a street corner, and handing them out at a baseball game. Where are you going to get more submissions?


TRUTH MOVEMENT INEPTITUDE.
______________________________

If there's one thing that the NYC ballot initiative has shown us (non-comparatively), it's the apparent organizational ineptitude of the 9/11 truth movement in NYC.

There are three separate 9/11 truth organizations in NYC, and I believe they are all enemies of one another. The ballot initiative was handled by one of those organizations, and I know that at least one of the remaining two organizations refused to support the initiative (at least as of a month ago), because of a certain member listed on the initiative that they didn't like.

So they weren't firing on all cylinders (i.e., all three groups contributing), and they apparently couldn't put aside their differences for the greater good, unless something changed very recently. That does not paint a very pretty picture, and serves as yet another reason why you can't just compare signature totals if you're trying to figure out how many people really "care" about the issue.


SUMMARY.
_________

Professional polling companies go to great lengths to ensure that the polls they conduct are representative, reliable, and scientific. Under no circumstances will they find a single favorable data point, and then reverse-engineer it into a "scientific study" that exists only to forward their own personal agenda.

After reading through your study, I have a newfound appreciation for their professionalism and integrity.

[johnny karate]

deep44 has a point regarding the ineptitude of the 9/11 Truth Movement; I'll certainly not argue against that.

But what is being overlooked is Myriad's underlying thesis.

deep44 claims that perhaps people weren't given an opportunity to sign the petition, or that interpersonal politics between Truther factions came into play, etc. But in the end, they're all just lame excuses.

Truthers claim that the evidence for the greatest crime in history is staring us right in the face and yet in almost seven years since it occurred, they can't seem to muster a significant amount of public support. deep44 criticizes the abilities of the Truthers themselves for this (at least in regard to this petition).

But working backwards from there, we have to ask ourselves why are these Truthers so inept? Why do they lack the organizational skills and political savvy to advance their cause?

Because they are mainly comprised of discontented adolescents, crackpots, and socially maladjusted cranks.

And why is that?

Because no one else cares.

And that is Myriad's point.

[Myriad]

REGISTERED VOTERS

For starters, you're calculating everything based on the population, not the number of registered voters. I believe there are around 2.4m unregistered voters in NYC (but don't take my word for it), and no, it's not safe to assume the same percentage in every other state.


The difference is insignificant relative to the magnitude of the effect. Even if the percentage of the population registered to vote outside of NYC were 100%, the directly comparable rate of signatures per 1000 registered voters per month for the NYC ballot initiative increases only to 0.62. Still pathetic.

But of course, the registration rate is not 100% anywhere; for one thing, significant numbers of people such as minors are not legally entitled to vote. So the numbers for comparison, when converted into signatures per 1000 registered voters per month also increase.

FLAWED CONCLUSION

You conclude that the American public "cares 1/10th as much" about a new 9/11 investigation as they do anti-gay-marriage - but that's not supported by any of the data you provide. The problem is, you have no way of counting the number of people who do care about the issue, but were never given an opportunity to sign the petition (or didn't even know it existed).

You cannot assume that "total registered voters" - "signatures" = "people who don't care". That's inaccurate, because it assumes that every single registered voter knew about the petition, and had an opportunity to sign it at some point.

To get accurate totals, you would need to count opportunities vs. signatures. In other words, how many people had the opportunity to sign the petition, and how many chose to sign it.


Nope. Part of the political effectiveness of a cause is its ability to create those opportunities, for example by attracting volunteers willing to put in the time and effort to canvass. If NYC residents had fewer opportunities to sign the petition, that's a symptom of the movement's political fecklessness which is thereby directly reflected in the signatures rate.


PROBLEM #3: POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE

So, to work around that obvious flaw, you pretend that you're comparing the "political significance" of each movement, even going so far as to use that in your title; however, as I mentioned above, there's no mention of "political significance" in your conclusion - out of nowhere, you're suddenly measuring which issue people care about most.

In your list of probable objections, you write-off several major inequities as a "reflection of political significance", but it's never factored into your argument in any other way. It seems to exist only as an unsubstantiated excuse, and nothing more.

The measure of political significance I used is signatures on paper. I can't read minds and directly observe how much people care, but I can read how many times they signed their names.

If you have a different measure of political significance (such as, perhaps, the number of stickers stuck on road signs near bus stations) that you think provides a better measure, by all means enlighten us.

PROBLEM #4: ASSUMPTIONS

Also in your list of probable objections, you make some major assumptions without offering any supporting evidence. For example:The attitudes of New Yorkers do not reflect the nation as a whole. Probably true, but I'd need some evidence that that works against the NYC 9/11 ballot initiative rather than in its favor.
You need to see some evidence? Sorry, that's not the way it works - you're assuming that the opinion of a small % of registered NYC voters is representative of the entire US, so you need to justify your assumption.

I seem to recall justifying my assumption in the sentences immediately following the ones you just quoted. Such as that NYC residents would have more reason to investigate the events because they were most directly and most severely affected by them.

Anti-gay-marriage amendments probably had the support of conservative churches and other existing organizations. True, but that does not make the comparison invalid. The ability to gain the support of existing organizations reflects the political significance of a movement.
There's "political significance" again, but there's a bigger problem: a large portion of the anti-gay-marriage target demographic gathers together in large groups, in predictable locations, every single week - at church. That represents an almost unfathomable opportunity for signature collectors, and it has nothing to do with "political significance". It's specific to this particular issue & its supporters - for that reason, it's unfair to compare this ballot issue with an entirely different issue that doesn't share the same major advantage.

Imagine the difference between handing out All-Star ballots on a street corner, and handing them out at a baseball game. Where are you going to get more submissions?


In other words, the involvement of churches can boost the political significance of issues. Who knew? Besides everyone, I mean.

Your argument makes no sense. I agree that 9/11 truth has not obtained the support of churches. (And why not, do you think? Are Christians apathetic about murder?) So why should that be a point in favor of 9/11 truth having more political significance? You've just pointed out another reason it has less.


TRUTH MOVEMENT INEPTITUDE

If there's one thing that the NYC ballot initiative has shown us (non-comparatively), it's the apparent organizational ineptitude of the 9/11 truth movement in NYC.

There are three separate 9/11 truth organizations in NYC, and I believe they are all enemies of one another. The ballot initiative was handled by one of those organizations, and I know that at least one of the remaining two organizations refused to support the initiative (at least as of a month ago), because of a certain member listed on the initiative that they didn't like.

So they weren't firing on all cylinders (i.e., all three groups contributing), and they apparently couldn't put aside their differences for the greater good, unless something changed very recently. That does not paint a very pretty picture, and serves as yet another reason why you can't just compare signature totals if you're trying to figure out how many people really "care" about the issue.


Once again, this ineptness is a symptom of the truth movement's political insignificance, not an excuse for it. If people really cared about 9/11 truth, they would not permit three inept competing groups to get in the way of doing something about it. Political organizers with real experience and real will would have taken the movement away from them years ago. If people really cared about 9/11 truth, volunteers and support would rise to the opportunity at hand, and the fact that two out of three very tiny groups stood on the sidelines and complained on the Internet rather than helping out would not have mattered in the slightest.

SUMMARY

Professional polling companies go to great lengths to ensure that the polls they conduct are representative, reliable, and scientific. Under no circumstances will they find a single favorable data point, and then reverse-engineer it into a "scientific study" that exists only to forward their own personal agenda.

After reading through your study, I have a newfound appreciation for their professionalism and integrity.


I'm not sure what if anything your summary has summarized, given that I never claimed my post was scientific, a study, a poll, or a professional project.

What I did was argue a point for which I provided an example (which happened to have some numbers in it, and even a little arithmetic). If that looks like an attempt at a "scientific study" to you, that could perhaps begin to explain why so many truthers are decieved by the bogus "scientific studies" published by Jones and others.

My scientific studies, I publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals, as the product of at least several months of continuous work. (I'm hoping to get another paper into Science someday, though that's unlikely to happen because I've been putting more effort into artistic endeavors instead.) My arguments about silly conspiracy theories, I write in a few minutes and post on message boards. See the difference?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[deep]

Nope. Part of the political effectiveness of a cause is its ability to create those opportunities, for example by attracting volunteers willing to put in the time and effort to canvass. If NYC residents had fewer opportunities to sign the petition, that's a symptom of the movement's political fecklessness which is thereby directly reflected in the signatures rate.


Political effectiveness, as you're now calling it, is not indicative of how many people "care". At best, you can measure the efficacy of the organizers in charge of collecting signatures, but even then you still have to estimate public interest in the issue.

For example, looking at the 2006 Scripps poll, we know that 1/3 of US residents believe the US Government either helped plan the 9/11 attacks, or allowed them to happen. That means around two million registered voters in NYC should be interested in signing the 9/11 ballot initiative. Since they collected under 30,000 signatures, we can conclude that the organizers didn't do a very good job, but that has nothing to do with how many people "care".

In case you're still not understanding this, consider this example:

Let's say I live in NYC, and I create a ballot initiative for something related to global warming (doesn't matter what). I spend a few days here and there gathering signatures, and wind up with 600 by the deadline. Using your method, we could conclude that US residents care 1/50 (or whatever) as much about global warming as they do about a new investigation into 9/11.

That's ludicrous. There isn't enough data to conclude what people care about.

[deep]

Truthers claim that the evidence for the greatest crime in history is staring us right in the face and yet in almost seven years since it occurred, they can't seem to muster a significant amount of public support.


1/3 of US residents believe the US Government either helped plan the attacks or allowed them to happen. There have been other polls with similar results.

At least from my perspective, that's a significant amount of public support.

[A W Smith]

For example, looking at the 2006 Scripps poll, we know that 1/3 of US residents believe the US Government either helped plan the 9/11 attacks, or allowed them to happen.


No! we don't know. All we know is that out of 992 respondents of a Scripps poll

There are also accusations being made following the 9/11 terrorist attack. One of these is:
People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.*

Very likely 16%
Somewhat likely 20%
Not likely 59%
Don't know 5%


All that means is 159 people thought it was likely. and that 198 thought it was "somewhat likely" which is only as good as a maybe.
Thats not even 400 people, Not 1/3 of US residents. So stop your lying.

[deep]

Thats not even 400 people, Not 1/3 of US residents. So stop your lying.


Pretending that there's no such thing as statistical sampling - a sign of true desperation. Normally I would laugh about something like this, but it's actually quite sad.

[beachnut]

1/3 of US residents believe the US Government either helped plan the attacks or allowed them to happen. There have been other polls with similar results.

At least from my perspective, that's a significant amount of public support.
They must be real dumb on 9/11! It takes a special kind of stupidity to believe what you said on 9/11.Over 100 million idiots out there on 9/11? I hope not.

If it was true you have lots of company who believe in the lies of 9/11 truth. I have met people like that, but they are not likely to go out and spill the beans, they are like the Fortiers and not clean enough to go to the cops and report the evil NOW PNAC MIB!

With over 100 million people behind the truth movement they can make it happen, a pure fantasy world with false information the new truth. But alas, you made up the number out of thin air, or else a bunch of idiots out there and the initiative should pass!

[deep]

They must be real dumb on 9/11! It takes a special kind of stupidity to believe what you said on 9/11.Over 100 million idiots out there on 9/11? I hope not.

If it was true you have lots of company who believe in the lies of 9/11 truth. I have met people like that, but they are not likely to go out and spill the beans, they are like the Fortiers and not clean enough to go to the cops and report the evil NOW PNAC MIB!

With over 100 million people behind the truth movement they can make it happen, a pure fantasy world with false information the new truth. But alas, you made up the number out of thin air, or else a bunch of idiots out there and the initiative should pass!


Yes, right out of thin air..

"Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy"

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Just another example of debunker desperation and denial.

[beachnut]

Yes, right out of thin air..

"Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy"

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Just another example of debunker desperation and denial.

Oops, how can you mess up everything your read? 1010, adults? What a sham!

What you have is 336 idiots!

I don't care if you have the 99 percent of the country, you are still wrong. It just means there are only 1 percent rational people. I like being an underdog who is right, and not an idiot with a bunch of other idiots who are wrong. I have been the only right person in a large group, it is neat being right, and self critiquing when you are wrong.

So what is going to happen these 336 idiots are going to take over and do what? Spew stupid? Kill the smart people? Dumb down the rest of American faster?

The remarks from the dirt dumb truther is real funny! Looks like there are few Tim McVeighs in there!
people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11.

Pure stupid! Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.
And more dolts.The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

But an initiative?

[Comsat Angel]

1/3 of US residents believe the US Government either helped plan the attacks or allowed them to happen. There have been other polls with similar results.

At least from my perspective, that's a significant amount of public support.

Then how come the NYC ballot initiative is barely alive?

[deep]

Oops, how can you mess up everything your read? 1010, adults? What a sham!

What you have is 336 idiots!

I don't care if you have the 99 percent of the country, you are still wrong. It just means there are only 1 percent rational people. I like being an underdog who is right, and not an idiot with a bunch of other idiots who are wrong. I have been the only right person in a large group, it is neat being right, and self critiquing when you are wrong.


You're right, because the popular opinion is not necessarily the correct one, regardless of which side is which. I'm only citing that poll in response to the claims that barely anyone believes the US Government planned or assisted in the attacks.

[deep]

Then how come the NYC ballot initiative is barely alive?


Please see my previous messages in this thread.

[Myriad]

Political effectiveness, as you're now calling it, is not indicative of how many people "care". At best, you can measure the efficacy of the organizers in charge of collecting signatures, but even then you still have to estimate public interest in the issue.

For example, looking at the 2006 Scripps poll, we know that 1/3 of US residents believe the US Government either helped plan the 9/11 attacks, or allowed them to happen. That means around two million registered voters in NYC should be interested in signing the 9/11 ballot initiative. Since they collected under 30,000 signatures, we can conclude that the organizers didn't do a very good job, but that has nothing to do with how many people "care".


You can conclude that, but such conclusions lead to absurdity.

Accepting your poll figures at face value, we know that 1/3 of Americans, that's 100 million members of the whiniest citizenship on earth (don't get me wrong, that's one of the U.S.'s strengths), believe that it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that 9/11 was caused or allowed to happen by members of the U.S. government.

You want me to infer from this that those 100 million Americans also care about the issue, making the possibility of U.S. government involvement in 9/11 a politically significant issue.

But if 100 million Americans care about the issue, why doesn't the press report on their concerns, or the issue itself? Because the press is in on it?

And if 100 million Americans care about the issue, why aren't political candidates seeking their support by taking stands on the issue? Because they're in on it?

And if 100 million Americans care about the issue, why haven't they been able to generate political pressure through the social organizations that normally serve that purpose -- their professional societies, their labor unions, their churches, their PTAs, their businesses, their community colleges, their clubs? Because they're all in on it?

And when 100 million Americans who care about the issue noticed that the press is not addressing their concerns, why didn't they turn in massive numbers to alternative media sources that did? Because they're disinfo?

And when 100 million Americans who care about the issue noticed that existing social organizations were not addressing their concerns, why didn't they turn to new social organizations that did? Why didn't they join or at least support 9/11 truth organizations in massive numbers? Because those organizations are poorly organized? (In which case why didn't they, in their vast numbers, create other better-organized ones?)

The amount of special pleading needed to reconcile the notion that enormous numbers of Americans significantly about 9/11 with the reality we see around us every day is absurd. And in the process, that special pleading requires the conspiracy to be ridiculously vast (extending through the press, every organized political party, unions, universities, professional societies, interest groups from the ACLU to the NRA, and so on) and requires Americans to be, not complacent sheep as the Truth Movement enjoys portraying them as, but angry bulls who are too stupid to express their anger in any way whatsoever if it's not reported on Channel 7. In my experience, Americans on the whole are quite adept at making it known when they're angry about something.

In case you're still not understanding this, consider this example:

Let's say I live in NYC, and I create a ballot initiative for something related to global warming (doesn't matter what). I spend a few days here and there gathering signatures, and wind up with 600 by the deadline. Using your method, we could conclude that US residents care 1/50 (or whatever) as much about global warming as they do about a new investigation into 9/11.

That's ludicrous. There isn't enough data to conclude what people care about.


Not true. There is plenty of evidence showing that people care about global warming. There are numerous press reports and articles, massive ongoing scientific studies supported by governments and universities, ongoing activism within professional societies, major political figures and political candidates taking stands on the issue, international conferences and treaties, addition or rewriting of sections in environmental sciences textbooks, creation of new markets for trading carbon emission rights, protests on a scale that, while relatively small, dwarfs the truth movements' efforts (tell you what, get 600 truthers to strip naked on a glacier for truth and then maybe you can start making comparisons), and yes, numerous petition efforts on both sides of the issue including this one signed (real physical signatures, not Internet messages) by 31,000 American scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject/).

If, on the other hand, your few days of collecting signatures were the only evidence of public interest in the issue, then it would make perfect sense to conclude that as a whole, Americans cared less about global warming than about 9/11 truth. The truth movement, after all, did manage to muster more than one canvasser and collect 20,000 or so signatures.

If you want to argue for 9/11 truth having political significance in the U.S., then you'd be much better advised to show evidence of that political significance. Telling me that my unwillingness to equate

what people answer is "likely" on a poll =
what people actually believe =
what people actually care about =
what political significance their concern has

is a failing on my part won't do it. You're faulting me for making a connection one step removed (speculating that the political insignificance of the truth movement reflects a lack of concern about the issue), and then telling me I should instead be making a connection three steps removed (that people answering "likely" on a poll gives them political significance). That's silly.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[johnny karate]

1/3 of US residents believe the US Government either helped plan the attacks or allowed them to happen. There have been other polls with similar results.

At least from my perspective, that's a significant amount of public support.


sup·port
1. to bear or hold up (a load, mass, structure, part, etc.); serve as a foundation for.
2. to sustain or withstand (weight, pressure, strain, etc.) without giving way; serve as a prop for.
3. to undergo or endure, esp. with patience or submission; tolerate.
4. to sustain (a person, the mind, spirits, courage, etc.) under trial or affliction: They supported him throughout his ordeal.
5. to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for: to support a family.
6. to uphold (a person, cause, policy, etc.) by aid, countenance, one's vote, etc.; back; second.
7. to maintain or advocate (a theory, principle, etc.).
8. to corroborate (a statement, opinion, etc.): Leading doctors supported his testimony.
9. to act with or second (a lead performer); assist in performance: The star was supported by a talented newcomer.


I would argue that only entries 6, 7, and 8 for the definition of the word "support" apply to what we're talking about.

Please explain what activities that 1/3 of the American public has engaged in that meet those definitions.

[Brainster]

Latest update from Les Intelligent:

As of Aug. 7th we have 25,000 signatures. Go to the Instructions page and see how you can help get an additional 15-20,000 THIS WEEK!

The answer is to get 15-20 signatures yourself. And get a thousand other people to do it as well.

:D

[Comsat Angel]

Does that 25K include the non-eligible signatures that were collected by Boston residents? Does "THIS WEEK!" refer to the week ending 10/8/08 - and if so, what is the likelihood of collecting 60 - 80% of the ballot total over three days when the current total has taken 6 months to accumulate? When is the final final cut-off date, since Mr Les seems to move the goalposts every time he posts? Lastly, who or which entity would verify Mr Les's claims about totals? And has he been to see them lately?

[T.A.M.]

deep:

are you really bring up this same poll that has been broken down here numerous times?


Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

So here is the question from the actual poll, and the breakdown...

http://www.newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=716


Question/VAR 27:

There are also accusations being made following the 9/11 terrorist attack. One of these is:
People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.*

Very likely 16%
Somewhat likely 20%
Not likely 59%
Don't know 5%


*This question had 992 respondents; it was part of a survey posted on newsPolls.org on July 6, 2006.

Now here is the honest way to look at the above.

36% have some doubt about the official story. within that 36%, 16% think it very likely that the govt EITHER assisted in the 9/11 attacks, OR took no action to stop it. 20% feel the above is somewhat likely.

Now I know your GRAND statement of "1/3rd of americans suspect 9/11 conspiracy" sounds more dramatic, more impactful. I mean it isn't even yours really, but rather the scrippnews writer of the link you provided. However, he did it to capture readers...why are you exaggerating?

TAM:)

[dudalb]

I wonder why those signature gatherers just don't go to every firehouse in the five boros and get thousands of signatures from the FDNY, after all, they are the government agency that had the greatest loss on 9/11.

Because all the MIHOP 9/11 conspiracy theories require that the FDNY must have been "in on it" and the Truthers are probably not insured.

[Brainster]

Does that 25K include the non-eligible signatures that were collected by Boston residents? Does "THIS WEEK!" refer to the week ending 10/8/08 - and if so, what is the likelihood of collecting 60 - 80% of the ballot total over three days when the current total has taken 6 months to accumulate? When is the final final cut-off date, since Mr Les seems to move the goalposts every time he posts? Lastly, who or which entity would verify Mr Les's claims about totals? And has he been to see them lately?

:D

You are asking as if there were a chance in a million that they're going to succeed. There may or may not be a sad announcement that they had submitted enough signatures but a few were invalid and so the city council rejected the petition. There will be brave talk about how wonderful it was that they managed to get 30,000 signatures and that this is not a failure but an amazing success for the movement to build upon.

[A W Smith]

Pretending that there's no such thing as statistical sampling - a sign of true desperation. Normally I would laugh about something like this, but it's actually quite sad.

I live in the most densely populated state in the nation, Daily i commute to various sites for about an hour one way. In seven years I have yet to see one single 911 truth banner. Not a single client of mine has mentioned 911 truth. And I meet about two or three new families a week. Not one single 911 truth bumper sticker. Not one single 911 truth H frame sign, Not one single person wearing a 911 truth tee shirt, hoodie, hat, halter top or barbecue apron. Not a single instance of 911 graffiti anywhere including highway and interstate overpasses. Not one of my neighbors (are there are many i speak with on a weekly basis) has expressed any interest in 911 truth. From what I gather from my statistical sample. 911 truth does not exist at all in the state on NJ. And i spent 30 years of my life growing up in the same town as the witches from East Brunswick. Which is right across the street.