9/11 Truth - By the Numbers

[Baylor]

This is a response to TAM’s request to see the regression study published in the J&MC Quarterly.

The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner but instead was hit by a cruise missile fired by the military.
Very likely 6.1
Somewhat likely 6.0
Not likely 80.4
Don’t know 7.4
Other 0.1

The collapse of the Twin Towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.
Very likely 5.8
Somewhat likely 10.2
Not likely 77.4
Don't know 6.5
Other 0.1

above numbers in Percent
N= 1,010

Education
Twin Towers bombed / Missile hit Pentagon

High school grad beta -.660 p=(.141) odds.517 / beta-.582 p=(.215) odds .559
Some college beta -.882 p=(.050) odds .414 / beta -.880 p=(.069) odds .415
College grad beta -.548 p=(.268) odds .578 / beta -1.211 p=(.027)* odds .298
Postgraduate beta -.964 p=(.097) odds .381 / beta -1.314 p=(.030)*odds .269

Race
Twin Towers bombed / Missile hit pentagon

African American beta .790 p=(.042)* odds 2.203 / beta .795 p=(.054) odds 2.214
Asian American beta .635 p=(.264) odds 1.887 / beta 1.382 p=(.015)* odds 3.983
Hispanic beta .618 p=(.164) odds 1.855 / beta 1.148 p=(.013)* odds 3.152


Marital Status
Twin Towers bombed / Missile Hit Pentagon

Not Married beta.602 p=(.022)* odds .546 / beta .315 p=(.265) odds .730

Sex
Twin Towers Bombed / Missile Hit Pentagon

Female beta.732 p=(.010)* odds 2.065 / beta .319 p=(.273) odds 1.385

Age
Twin Towers Bombed / Missile Hit Pentagon

Age 18-24 beta .686 p=(.192) odds 2.061 / beta .222 p=(.711) odds 1.207
Age 25-34 beta.902 p=(.047)* odds 2.542 / beta 1.332 p=(.005)* odds 3.691
Age 35-44 beta.272 p=(.543) odds 1.338 / beta -.050 p=(.925) odds .937
Age 45-54 beta.163 p=(.666) odds 1.192 / beta .604 p=(.131) odds 1.813
Age 55-64 beta -.737 p=(.128) odds .489 / beta -.352 p=(.487) odds .693


Reference Groups (respectively): Less than high school diploma, White, Married, Male, & Age 65 and over.

* means statistically significant difference; set at p <.05.

Education
There was a negative association with education and belief in the "Twin Towers" conspiracy, but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. There was, however, a statistically significant difference for the “Pentagon” conspiracy, confirming that the lowest educated people will be more likely to believe in at least one of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Race
There was a statistically significant difference between African American and the reference group (whites) for the "Twin Towers" conspiracy, but none between the other minority groups. There was a statistically significant difference between Hispanics and Asian American/other and the reference group for the "Pentagon" conspiracy, but none between the reference group and African Americans.

Marital status
There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups for the "Twin Towers" conspiracy, but not the “Pentagon conspiracy.” The findings show what was expected, unmarried people are more likely to believe in at least one 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Age
The regression showed that persons aged 24-34 are positively associated with both conspiracy theories.

All number from:
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
Vol. 84, No. 2
Summer 2007
Stempel, C., Hargrove, T., Stempel III, G.

 

[Baylor]

Wow, this came out sloppy.

 

[Dr Adequate]

How to make tables.

 

[Baylor]

How to make tables.

So now you tell me...

 

[Baylor]

If anyone has any questions about what the numbers mean, let me know. As of now, the one of most interest to us is probably the odds analysis.

For example, look at the education table, go the missile hits pentagon column, and find the postgraduate row. The odds give us a .269. Now the reference group was less than high school diploma. This means that for every 1.000 person with a high school diploma or less who believe a missile hit the pentagon, there are .269 persons with a postgraduate degree who believe a missile hit the pentagon.

For every 1.000 male who believes the twin towers were brought down by explosives, there are 2.065 females who believe the twin towers were brought down by explosives.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Do you have a link to the data? It would be helpful and save googling time.

Thanks

Woof!

 

[Alex Libman]

This is one of the worst cases of a straw-man argument I have ever seen!

(1) The nutty "no planes" / "bombs in buildings" speculation has as much to do with 9/11 Truth as Adolf Hitler has to do with vegetarianism!

(2) As a Truther, I would answer "somewhat likely", but I can imagine other Truthers answering any other way while still fitting the definition of a Truther. The non-Truthers (aka "government kool-aid drinkers") would answer "there is no doubt in my mind the government couldn't possibly lie", which isn't an option.

(3) In any society, the political dissidents are likely more likely to be young, male, single, and college drop-outs. This was the case in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and it is the case in modern-day America. Furthermore, you will probably find the same demographic probability patterns for anti-government beliefs that are accepted mainstream facts (ex Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, Operation Northwoods, etc).

So this is completely irrelevant to any discussion of 9/11 Truth!

 

[funk de fino]

You dont understand what a strawman is then? Nice of you let us know.

 

[Dr Adequate]

This is one of the worst cases of a straw-man argument I have ever seen!

Hmm, "strawman", let's look that up in the [swiki]9/11 Glossary[/swiki] ...

... ah yes. When used by a Truther, it denotes "any widespread piece of Truther nonsense that he personally doesn't believe in".

 

[PhantomWolf]

You dont understand what a strawman is then? Nice of you let us know.

Well he do claims too, but it doesn't stop him using them....

The non-Truthers (aka "government kool-aid drinkers") would answer "there is no doubt in my mind the government couldn't possibly lie", which isn't an option.

So I'm going to go with..... no.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Unusually, I find myself agreeing with Alex on a couple of points.

This is one of the worst cases of a straw-man argument I have ever seen!

Yes, as an illustration of the strawman fallacy it is indeed a spectacularly poor choice, since it is in no sense an example of attributing a false position to one's opponent and then attacking that false position. Well spotted.

(1) The nutty "no planes" / "bombs in buildings" speculation has as much to do with 9/11 Truth as Adolf Hitler has to do with vegetarianism!

Agreed. Bombs in buildings and related speculation, the central thesis of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a major component of Loose Change, the subject of the last remaining gasps of debate from the truth movement following the NIST WTC7 report, and quite possibly the commonest topic of discussion on this forum, indeed have nothing to do with the truth of what happened on 9/11. Even the bulk of the "9/11 truth movement" admits that this is also true of the ideas of the no-planes fraternity.

The non-Truthers (aka "government kool-aid drinkers") would answer "there is no doubt in my mind the government couldn't possibly lie", which isn't an option.

Now that is a much better example of the strawman fallacy. Well chosen.

Dave

 

[Baylor]

This is one of the worst cases of a straw-man argument I have ever seen!


So this is completely irrelevant to any discussion of 9/11 Truth!

Nonsense, the twin towers collapses are the lynchpen of the 9/11 TM. The 'no-plane at the pentagon' maybe the gutter of the TM, but this survey treats them separately. There was a LIHOP question, but I left it out for lack of space.

 

[DavidJames]

I find nothing remarkable about the numbers. It's pretty much exactly what has been speculated. 9/11 CTists are relatively young, white and unmarried. I would further speculate when we look at those who don't fit that demographic we would find higher incidences of mental disorders.

 

[MarkyX]

This is one of the worst cases of a straw-man argument I have ever seen!

(1) The nutty "no planes" / "bombs in buildings" speculation has as much to do with 9/11 Truth as Adolf Hitler has to do with vegetarianism!

 

[dudalb]

3) In any society, the political dissidents are likely more likely to be young, male, single, and college drop-outs. ).

They are also a group that tends to be very receptive to any nutty anti authority theory that comes along.
And most of them grow out of it...which should tell you something about it's validity.
Alex fails again.

 

[JamesB]

The Zogby poll commissioned by 911truth.org shows the same thing, believing in MIHOP/LIHOP is inversely correlated with both education and age.

 

[T.A.M.]

Rebel:

Excellent post. Top notch OP, and well worth its own thread. I find fascinating, the "devil in the details" of such analysis.

For instance, why are single people more likely to agree with CTs, as opposed to married? Why the 24-34 age demographic?

Some might speculate that married people tend to be more settled, and that believing in such disturbing, life changing things as the CTs is too much for them, so they fall back to a safer position.

Some might speculate that the 24-34 age group are still suffering from anger and rebellion wrt authority, and that many CTs fit in with their world view from that perspective.

Once again, thank you for the study/survey data. well done.

TAM

 

[1337m4n]

This is one of the worst cases of a straw-man argument I have ever seen!

As someone who was on the debate team for the four years of high school, I would like to point out how utterly disgusted I am with people who think that memorizing the names of all the logical fallacies makes them good debaters.

Especially when they get them wrong. How in [insert patron deity's name here]'s name could you POSSIBLY consider the OP a "straw-man"? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Maybe this explains it:

There was, however, a statistically significant difference for the “Pentagon” conspiracy, confirming that the lowest educated people will be more likely to believe in at least one of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

 

[Alex Libman]

(I stand by my statements, and I have nothing to add to them.)

 

[adversity1]

(I stand by my statements, and I have nothing to add to them.)

Except for parantheses apparently?