Poll: 36% believe US involved in 9/11

[volinbham]

Scipps-Howard Poll

Amazing how hate turns to irrationality. :disappointed:

 

[USAF_Vol]

And they are prolly the same people who protest at servicemembers funerals. Sickening :disappointed:

 

[utvolpj]

How come I never get polled? Oh yeah, they skip the whole cellphone market. Oh well, some Americans are idiots.

 

[therealUT]

How come I never get polled? Oh yeah, they skip the whole cellphone market. Oh well, some Americans are idiots.

You have just turned a light bulb on in my mind. I know many well to do people that now rely solely on their cell phones. They have canceled their land line service.

I would hypothesize that cell phones are not as widely used in less afluent households. Therefore, they are more likely to have land lines, hence, they are more likely to be polled. Just a theory...

 

[milohimself]

You have just turned a light bulb on in my mind. I know many well to do people that now rely solely on their cell phones. They have canceled their land line service.

I would hypothesize that cell phones are not as widely used in less afluent households. Therefore, they are more likely to have land lines, hence, they are more likely to be polled. Just a theory...

Could work the other way around. It could be too expensive to maintain regular phone service AND a cell phone plan, so you just dump the regular service. I know plenty of people who just have cells because regular phones are cost-prohibitive, cell phones are getting cheaper, and they are far more useful.

 

[therealUT]

Could work the other way around. It could be too expensive to maintain regular phone service AND a cell phone plan, so you just dump the regular service. I know plenty of people who just have cells because regular phones are cost-prohibitive, cell phones are getting cheaper, and they are far more useful.

Most gov't subsidized housing complexes have local phone service in the package.

 

[milohimself]

I'm not talking THAT poor.

 

[volinbham]

Random digit dialing techniques for sampling can get cellphones - most polling services are likely to use some type of random sampling technique including RDD. They typically would choose some area codes and prefixes then let the computer crank out the last 4 digits. I assume that if a sizable portion of the population has cell only set-ups, the polling firms would take that into account.

 

[utvolpj]

Random digit dialing techniques for sampling can get cellphones - most polling services are likely to use some type of random sampling technique including RDD. They typically would choose some area codes and prefixes then let the computer crank out the last 4 digits. I assume that if a sizable portion of the population has cell only set-ups, the polling firms would take that into account.

Actually I have read many reports to the contrary. I will see if I can dig them up. Basically it has been stated that the polls skip a large, younger, more mobile segment of the population and the polls are getting skewed because of it.

 

[volinbham]

Actually I have read many reports to the contrary. I will see if I can dig them up. Basically it has been stated that the polls skip a large, younger, more mobile segment of the population and the polls are getting skewed because of it.

I stand corrected. It's not that RDD won't work but it's illegal to do so. Cell phones must be called manually.

Federal law doesn't allow researchers to call cell phones with an autodialer, a popular method for quickly reaching random samples for polls and surveys.

But survey researchers plan to start calling cell phone users manually, making those calls on weekends. They want to develop a plan of reimbursement for respondents' time or lost cell phone minutes and come up with a code of ethics and safety so research calls don't endanger cell phone users involved in activities like driving.

from:

polling cell phones

Bottomline, as long as cell only users are no different than the general populatin on the issue of interest - or stated a better way as long as the general population contains members with the same views as the cell only crowd, then sampling can still be accurate. However, if cell only users have unique opinions on the issue of interest that are not otherwise represented (or are highly underrepresented) in the general population then the results can be skewed.

 

[VolinArizona]

Here's the thing: those 36% of people know as much as YOU do about 9/11, which means YOU don't know for sure if the government was involved or not.

 

[utvolpj]

Here's the thing: those 36% of people know as much as YOU do about 9/11, which means YOU don't know for sure if the government was involved or not.

If it is true that the US Govt (1) flew 2 planes into the WTC (2) killed thousands of US citizens and (3) had the ability to keep the thousands of people that would need to be involved to pull it off quiet, then 9/11 is the LEAST of our worries. We would be doomed. They need to take the tin foil off their heads because it won't help.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Here's the thing: those 36% of people know as much as YOU do about 9/11, which means YOU don't know for sure if the government was involved or not.

That's dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

 

[VolinArizona]

That's dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

No, it's not. I'm one of the 64% who believe the US wasn't involved. But you can never KNOW for a FACT on this.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

No, it's not. I'm one of the 64% who believe the US wasn't involved. But you can never KNOW for a FACT on this.

The fact is that with the absence of facts that people would believe the government is involved is just plain ignorant. There are no facts that the gov't was involved because the gov't wasn't involved.

 

[Orange-Neck]

I'm having a difficult time believing these numbers.

 

[utvolpj]

Here's what they said and it's a little more believable:

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

These are the people that we should be scared of:

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.

 

[volinbham]

Here's what they said and it's a little more believable:
These are the people that we should be scared of:

That 16% really concerns me - the ones that think the govt planted explosives - unreal.

 

[volinbham]

Here's the thing: those 36% of people know as much as YOU do about 9/11, which means YOU don't know for sure if the government was involved or not.

Okay then we don't know for sure that our govt wasn't involved in Pearl Harbor, didn't secretly support Hitler, etc. We don't know for sure that the moon landing was real...

 

[GAVol]

Here's the thing: those 36% of people know as much as YOU do about 9/11, which means YOU don't know for sure if the government was involved or not.

:drive2:

I see the point you're trying to make. I just think it's a really bad one.

 

[therealUT]

No, it's not. I'm one of the 64% who believe the US wasn't involved. But you can never KNOW for a FACT on this.

That statement is born of ignorance. No one can never know for a fact that which does not occur. And all this time I thought that the Platonists and Stoics had intellectually defeated the Skeptics thousands of years ago...

 

[OrangeEmpire]

 

[VolinArizona]

Let me explain myself better and with a little more eloquence so I can get away from the insults (nice job, guys).

What I am saying is this: Because us "normal joes and joans" will never KNOW the 100% truth on things like this, we should not bash those who disagree. It applies to religion, politics, and a lot of other things. I really appreciate being insulting on something that is neither ignorant or dumb. Essentially, it's a very simple thought that I try to remember in everyday life.

None of us can say "The government WAS involved" and none of us can say "The government WASN'T involved." Why? Because the above statements are stated as fact. There is no proof the government was or was not involved. There are theories. Do I believe those theories? Absolutely not. Are people DUMB who might buy into them? No. To say otherwise is kind of contradictory of our country's system anyway.

It's much like someone's belief in God. I firmly believe in God, but I do not KNOW that God exists. It's faith. I have faith the government was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. And until there is proof they were, I'll stay steadfast in my belief.

Does this shed a little better light into my original thought? It's not ignorant, and if anything, it's the opposite of ignorant. Is it naive and annoying? To some, I'm sure it is. However, I can never honestly say that *I PERSONALLY KNOW* we landed on the moon. I believe we did, and that's all we ALL truly have (unless your Buzz Aldren [sp?]).

 

[rwemyss]

There's a large number of things that can't be proven or disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt (factually). However, there is a certain point where corroborating evidence or lack there of would allow you to approximate it as a fact.

 

[VolinArizona]

There's a large number of things that can't be proven or disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt (factually). However, there is a certain point where corroborating evidence or lack there of would allow you to approximate it as a fact.

I agree 100%. There IS some sketchy evidence about 9/11 that makes you say to yourself "Hmmmm" but the evidence, for me at least, is nowhere near strong enough to say the government was involved.