New 9/11 Poll

[Cyphermage]

A front page story in my morning paper reports that a third of Americans now believe that 9/11 was an "inside job," whose purpose was to provide a pretext for going to war in the Middle East. 54% of Americans are now more angry at the Federal Government than ever before.

If I were Shrub, I'd worry.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...iracy02ww.html

[Almo]

I worry without being Shrub. If that many people think it's really an inside job then...

[realitybites]

I'd like to see the actual poll questions before getting too anxious that the Truthers are gaining ground.

[El Greco]

Originally Posted by Cyphermage

54% of Americans are now more angry at the Federal Government than ever before.

As my ancestors used to say, "ουδέν κακόν αμιγές καλού".

[defaultdotxbe]

this poll combines the responders who think its an "inside job" with those who merely think the govt didnt do everything they could have to prevent it, i suspect the "inside jobbers" make up a small fraction of the 1/3

[Cyphermage]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

this poll combines the responders who think its an "inside job" with those who merely think the govt didnt do everything they could have to prevent it, i suspect the "inside jobbers" make up a small fraction of the 1/3

Well, there are various degrees of "inside job." The government could have done it. They could have known about it and figured it fit in with their plans. They could have infiltrated the organization carrying it out and have been in a position to influence things like timing and choice of targets. Israel could have known about it and decided not to tell us. Etc...

In the first WTC bombing, an FBI informant was helping mix the explosives. Due to a miscommunication, the people weren't arrested until after the bomb exploded.

These things are often tangled webs, and ones enemies can be exploited as ones own assets in surprising ways.

I would not have a problem with using the term "inside job" to describe anything other than total genuine surprise by all levels of the government at the time the attack took place.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Originally Posted by Cyphermage

Well, there are various degrees of "inside job." The government could have done it. They could have known about it and figured it fit in with their plans. They could have infiltrated the organization carrying it out and have been in a position to influence things like timing and choice of targets. Israel could have known about it and decided not to tell us. Etc...

In the first WTC bombing, an FBI informant was helping mix the explosives. Due to a miscommunication, the people weren't arrested until after the bomb exploded.

These things are often tangled webs, and ones enemies can be exploited as ones own assets in surprising ways.

I would not have a problem with using the term "inside job" to describe anything other than total genuine surprise by all levels of the government at the time the attack took place.

It's well established that the current adminstration was told of the potential of terrorist attacks on U.S soil by al Qaeda; They don't even deny this. So I'd find it hard to believe that it was 'total genuine surprise' regardless. Does that qualify as an 'inside job' though? I'd hardly think so.

[Cyphermage]

Originally Posted by Ripley Twenty-Nine

It's well established that the current adminstration was told of the potential of terrorist attacks on U.S soil by al Qaeda; They don't even deny this. So I'd find it hard to believe that it was 'total genuine surprise' regardless. Does that qualify as an 'inside job' though? I'd hardly think so.

Total surprise as to the specifics of this particular operation. Obviously we know in a general sense that certain people are pissed off at us, and want to blow us up, perhaps not without some good reasons.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here's a more detailed article: http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Quote:

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...
Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

So when the truthers say "1 third", what they really mean is only half that number.

I wonder what percentage believe that the government is covering up aliens or believe that Elvis is still alive?

[defaultdotxbe]

but Elvis IS alive, i just saw him last week, he was in front of a used car dealership waving at peopel who drive by

[Pardalis]

A poll that says that stupidity affects a third of the population?...

No news to me.

[Ladewig]

And here's a poll that says that over 40% of Americans believe that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years.
( http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/cu.../evol-poll.htm )

I think the poll you cited and the poll I cited show nothing except that Americans appear to be very bad at evaluating evidence.

[XXX]

I actually made a post about this on another site.

I'd like to copy it here...

Interesting stuff. Interesting questions in their survey as well, which can be found here...

http://newspolls.org/survey.php?survey_id=23

Let's take a look, shall we? Everyone was asked to answer each statement with either very likely, somewhat likely, not likely, or don't know...

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 is the complaint I have over and over, you can not lump "the government did it" along with "the government did nothing to stop it" into the same question. These are 2 VERY different theories of events, and even I might buy some arguements that they might have known something ahead of time. This also leaves no room for those who think the government was warned and had some foreknowledge, but no malevolent intentions. Those people likely answered "somewhat likely".

And even then, only 16% say 'very likely" so they have to lump in the other "somewhat likely" group so they can claim 1/3rd "suspect a conspiracy".

To prove my point, take a look at the answers to some of the other, more direct questions...

The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner captured by terrorists but, instead was hit by a cruise missle fired by the U.S. military.*

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 6%
Not likely 80%
Don't kniow 7%
Other response 1%

The collapse if the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.*

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 10%
Unlikely 77%
Don't know 6%
Other response 1% (keep in mind the slightly higher "somewhat likely" number than the last question could very well be due to the question not specifying that it was the government who allegedly planted these explosives. Those who answered could have thought that maybe Al-Qaeda planting some beforehand to help get the job done was "somewhat likely")

Just as I have always mantained, once you drop the charade and ask people straight up if they believe in the whole inside job controlled demolition and missile hit the Pentagon and other such conspiracy garbage, the % drops like a freakin rock!

Also let me add that I could also take just the answers to those 2 questions and use only the people who answered "very likely" and make the claim that the poll shows that approx 1 in 17 people only believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories such as a controlled demo of the towers or that a missle hit the Pentagon. Same numbers, different interpritation!

[Cyphermage]

Originally Posted by XXX

I actually made a post about this on another site.

I'd like to copy it here...

Interesting stuff. Interesting questions in their survey as well, which can be found here...

http://newspolls.org/survey.php?survey_id=23

Let's take a look, shall we? Everyone was asked to answer each statement with either very likely, somewhat likely, not likely, or don't know...

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 is the complaint I have over and over, you can not lump "the government did it" along with "the government did nothing to stop it" into the same question. These are 2 VERY different theories of events, and even I might buy some arguements that they might have known something ahead of time. This also leaves no room for those who think the government was warned and had some foreknowledge, but no malevolent intentions. Those people likely answered "somewhat likely".

I think "did nothing to stop the attacks because they wanted the US to go to war in the Middle East" is the very definition of "malevolent intentions." The question, as it is phrased, doesn't allow for innocent foreknowlege.

[XXX]

And that's funny, because that's the response I know is coming and the same one the other guy came up with.

I see what you are saying, and you are correct in your statement about the exact wording of the question, but I do think that someone who was read this question over the phone who might have thought that some people in the government had some knowledge or even just suspicions ahead of time or should have done more but didn't would have probably been compelled to answer "somewhat likely".

Not to get political here, but especially when you think about the Bush haters who have heard over and over about how 9/11 served the interests of the administration to go to war in the Middle East, and even without a shread of evidence or ever even seeing something like "loose change" they'd probably be compelled to answer at least "somewhat likely".

But like I said, the main point is that when you start asking people point blank with no other wording or BS if you believe in the whole "controlled demolition" or "missle hit the Pentagon" stuff and suddenly the number drops huge. That's the real number for the 9/11 conspiracy folk (6%), they won't admit it, and you won't see them reporting it.

[XXX]

And as further proof, May I submit this...

Notice that in both the Pentagon question and the controlled demolition question, we get a whole new catagory of "other responses". That would have been very useful to have in their "...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..." question, very useful indeed as it would have eliminated what I was talking about, but they didn't. Why is that? With that catagory, I believe that people who are like the ones I described would have answers that way. But instead it has to be one of those 4 responses in this one.

Which all just proves what we all know to be true anyways. That polls are BS.

[steverino]

Two out of three Americans believe polls are BS.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

A poll that says that stupidity affects a third of the population?...

No news to me.

That poll must be old.

I heard a recent poll has raised those numbers to at least 1/2 of the population....

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by XXX

But like I said, the main point is that when you start asking people point blank with no other wording or BS if you believe in the whole "controlled demolition" or "missle hit the Pentagon" stuff and suddenly the number drops huge. That's the real number for the 9/11 conspiracy folk (6%), they won't admit it, and you won't see them reporting it.

I have heard from polster that generally about 6% of people will answer yes to a given question regardless of what that question is...

For example, were you to ask "Is the Queen of England actually an evil alien in disguise" at least 6% will answer "yes".

Look at the moon landing hoax. Only a minority are stupid enough to think the landing was faked, but in polls a significant percentage answered that they believed the landings were faked - and that was a straight up no BS question. I believe it was over 20%???

MarkyX's "9/11 Deniers Speak" has an excellent segment on polling, where a polster gets the same person to give two contradiction answers to the same question simply by changing the wording.

-Andrew

[Meffy]

Originally Posted by El Greco

As my ancestors used to say, "ουδέν κακόν αμιγές καλού".

Or, as my ancestors didn't say, "黑暗中總有一線光明."

[epepke]

Originally Posted by Cyphermage

Well, there are various degrees of "inside job." The government could have done it. They could have known about it and figured it fit in with their plans. They could have infiltrated the organization carrying it out and have been in a position to influence things like timing and choice of targets. Israel could have known about it and decided not to tell us. Etc...

It came out pretty soon afterward in the papers that Israel had told us. But Israel tells us a lot of things.

[Cyphermage]

Originally Posted by epepke

It came out pretty soon afterward in the papers that Israel had told us. But Israel tells us a lot of things.

Things like "Please send us more missiles and aviation fuel. We've used ours up bombing civilians in Lebanon."

[steverino]

Originally Posted by Cyphermage

Things like "Please send us more missiles and aviation fuel. We've used ours up bombing civilians in Lebanon."

What a hateful and disgusting comment. You should get a room with Mel Giibson's father.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by Cyphermage

Things like "Please send us more missiles and aviation fuel. We've used ours up bombing civilians in Lebanon."

Kinda have to agree with steverino here. Where were comments like this when Hezbollah was sending rockets into Isreal on a daily basis, intentionally targetting civillian centers?

The difference in casualty numbers is only a matter of training and technology, not a reflection of intent.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

Kinda have to agree with steverino here. Where were comments like this when Hezbollah was sending rockets into Isreal on a daily basis, intentionally targetting civillian centers?

The difference in casualty numbers is only a matter of training and technology, not a reflection of intent.

Huntsman and Steverino

To play Devil's advocate for a moment, hasn't it already been reported and established that Israel has gotten resupply from the US for various military materiel? More than one news story on that in the last week.

Cyphermage's attribution of IAF intent to bomb civilians is rather backward logic, in terms of cause and effect. But don't forget, that has been the effect of some of the air attacks. To add to the confusion, there are an unknown percentage of "civilians" who are active in Hezbollah in said events. I doubt any of us will really know what that percentage is.

Let's not play ostrich about what is going on over there. Israel has escalated the fight, and gets no points for any inherent virtue. For good reasons or ill, they are between a rock and a hard place, and have chosen "fight" over "flight" or "wait for everyone else to do something."

Bombs are falling on more than "combatants." That the Lebanese government is either complicit in, or helpless to stop, the Hezbollah attacks (I find the latter more likely) muddies moral/legal/legitimate waters significantly, as the attacks originating on Lebanese soil appear to be both indiscriminate and of little precision.

The attacks by Hezbollah aren't directly relevant to cyphermage's comment about US military resupply to Israel. Reprisals are hardly uncontroversial, nor are reprisals a "clean hands" action, if that is the excuse. The language in the UN articles pertaining to war, and Geneva cast a negatie pall over reprisals. The Hezbollah attacks are related in the general sense of "the war isn't over yet." I suspect that continuation of various attacks in and around Lebanon are linked to continued attacks in and around Israel.

Parking one's partisan views, and emotion, at the door makes for a more informed discussion. Put another way, Steverino and Huntsman, he gotcha.

Troll 2

you guys 0.

DR

[Hellbound]

Just to point out, I did not take a stand on Isreal's actions, nor offer my opinion on them. What I find distasteful is the people who are now immediately criticisizing Isreal for it's actions, demonizing them, essentially, while for years they have ignored the intentional targetting of civillians by numerous terrorist groups, Hezbollah primary among them.

Where were the comments about Hezbollah telling Iran and/or Syria "Please send us more rockets and suicide bombers, the ones you sent have been used up."

And I'm not talking about Hezbollah attacks since the aggression started, they've been doing this off and on for years while Isreal actually withdrew from the areas they had formorly occupied in Lebanon. Where was the outrage then?

I get tired of it being "par for the course", and uncommented when others do it, but suddenly it's one of the seven deadlys when the U.S. and/or it's allies are involved. The double standard makes me sick.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

The double standard makes me sick.

1. Politically, you have to stay on the moral high ground to win.

2. I understand how you feel, but I want you to understand that if you spoke Arabic, you'd feel the same way for a completely different reason, valid or not from your present point of view.

DR

[gumboot]

There's plenty of threads about this topic in the politics forum...

-Andrew

[Cyphermage]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

Just to point out, I did not take a stand on Isreal's actions, nor offer my opinion on them. What I find distasteful is the people who are now immediately criticisizing Isreal for it's actions, demonizing them, essentially, while for years they have ignored the intentional targetting of civillians by numerous terrorist groups, Hezbollah primary among them.

Where were the comments about Hezbollah telling Iran and/or Syria "Please send us more rockets and suicide bombers, the ones you sent have been used up."

And I'm not talking about Hezbollah attacks since the aggression started, they've been doing this off and on for years while Isreal actually withdrew from the areas they had formorly occupied in Lebanon. Where was the outrage then?

I get tired of it being "par for the course", and uncommented when others do it, but suddenly it's one of the seven deadlys when the U.S. and/or it's allies are involved. The double standard makes me sick.

The root cause of the problems in the Middle East is Israel's occupation of Syrian, Lebanese, and Palestinian land.

This war was clearly planned by Israel well in advance, and the absurd excuse that it was a response to two of their soldiers being captured, parroted endlessly by the pro-Israel western media, is laughable. Israel holds thousands of people, including woman and children, prisoner, without charges, indefinitely, without due process. Israel is a prolific torturer in the region. Yet, a minor border incident, of the type both sides have previously engaged in, allegedly justifies invading and destroying another entire country.

Bush and Blair are obviously in on this attempt to provoke Iran and Syria into the Neocon "War on Terror."

Lebanon has a right to defend itself. So far, most of the people Hezbollah has killed in this war have been Israeli soldiers. Most of the people Israel has killed have been civilians, in Israel's usual attempt to punish the uninvolved and blackmail the world into giving it what it wants.

The US resupplying Israel, while paying lip service to a cease fire, as Israel attacks the children of Lebanon with AMERICAN weapons, is the very definition of perfidy.

Israel, in the words of Noam Chomsky, is little more than an "Offshore US Military Base." It exists to destabilize the Arab world, foment war, and through its offensive and outrageous behavior, create an endless supply of anti-Semitic hostility which a certain tribe can bitch about from behind its shroud of victimhood.

Ultra Orthodox Judiasm considers Israel to be blasphemy

As far as Mel Gibson goes, here's a guy who probably watched the war on TV, saw some bombed children being pulled out of a pile of rubble, went to a party, had a few drinks, and in a moment when he was extremely pissed off, said something unkind about the Jews. Why is this even news? Now the massive career-destroying PR machine is attacking him, and keeping the story in the news for weeks, and he's having to eat sh|t with a spoon if he ever wants to work again.

Things like this never happen when people say F--- the Mexicans or F--- the gays or F--- the homeless, which are simply considered rude and uninformed comments, and not cause for a lynching.

I guess some people are just special.

[Brainster]

Something that I have pointed out elsewhere about the poll: It was part of a poll that asked respondents a lot of rather silly questions, including whom would they vote for in a Presidential election, Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton, or if they've ever dropped something on the floor and then eaten it without washing it off first. So they idea that this was "just for grins" may have been planted in the people's minds.