"Remember Building 7" poll backfires, despite the spin

[ConspiRaider]

Good catch. We can parse that sentence many ways, but it does like look they're emphasizing one particular answer. You just don't word poll questions like that, because it taints the results. Unless of course, you want the results tainted...

Yeahp. The first sentence is really all you need on Question 3:

Q3. How satisfied are you that the government of the United States has provided a full and honest account of what happened that day? Do you think the government has told the whole story, most of the story, only some of the story or that in reality the government has tried to hide the truth about what happened that day?

A. Completely satisfied
B. Mostly satisfied
C. Somewhat satisfied
D. Not at all satisfied

Something along those lines. But as you said, Trite: Tainted.

 

[ozeco41]

Yeahp. The first sentence is really all you need on Question 3:

Q3. How satisfied are you that the government of the United States has provided a full and honest account of what happened that day? Do you think the government has told the whole story, most of the story, only some of the story or that in reality the government has tried to hide the truth about what happened that day?

A. Completely satisfied
B. Mostly satisfied
C. Somewhat satisfied
D. Not at all satisfied

Something along those lines. But as you said, Trite: Tainted.

Even leaving that sentence intact goes too far.

Q3. How satisfied are you that the government of the United States has provided a sufficient account of what happened that day?

 

[Triterope]

Yup -- even a small wording change like "full and honest" versus "sufficient" can influence the answers.

 

[Brainster]

On the big question (support new investigation), I noted the following:

A total of 48%, having been pushed by the 1400 idiots, now support a new investigation of Building 7. Men (51%) support it more than women (45%), the young (62%) more than the old (36%), those with less than a college degree (55%) more than those with diplomas (39%), the unemployed (50%) more than the employed (48%).

Somebody over at Flogger suggested looking at the crosstabs to see how outreach should be targeted to those most receptive to the "Truth". Looking at that last result, I'd say that the Truth Movement has clearly attracted young, less-educated, men without jobs. Shocking, I know.

 

[switchpoint]

Stupid question, and I am not from New York, how many New Yorkers actually knew Building #7 as Building #7 of the World Trade Center complex? Didn't it have some other name?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Great post above, Triterope!

So 32% of New Yorkers still don't know about this "third skyscraper." And 61% of New Yorkers (91% of 67%) knew about it long before NYCCAN came along. Congratulations, you just spent $100,000 to tell New Yorkers something 93% of them already know, or still don't know. Nice job.

What's missing from that list of possible ways can learn about The Third Skyscraper? Oh, right, TELEVISION COMMERCIAL. You know, that thing you just paid $100,000 to broadcast, in hopes of getting more New Yorkers to be aware of TTS? Isn't NYCCAN the slightest bit curious how many people know about TTS because of that? The question says "from the following ways", which means the polltaker read them the list of choices. And "TV commercial" wasn't one of them. That is just pathologically stupid.

Yes!!!

In addition, I noticed something else.

Here's their ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHo5hNCvLb4



In question 8...

"(If aware of collapse of another skyscraper) Have you seen video footage of the collapse of this third skyscraper, known as World Trade Center Building 7?"

... they had the chance to ascertain whether the main aim of their campaign was achieved - to get people to see the "obvious" controlled demolition with their own eyes.

Did they ask whether people had not only seen their ad, but seen their broadcast of the "demolition", and not to mention, visited their website with all the "evidence"?

Did they squat. Total poll FAIL.

 

[R.Mackey]

This "poll" rather reminds me of the "Stress Test" that Scientologists use to bother people on the sidewalk.

 

[RedIbis]

If they're using this question to screen respondents, they're eliminating people who can vote (they live in NYC now but didn't in 2001) and including people who can't (lived in NYC on 2001 and since relocated elsewhere). Plus they don't specify whether "New York City" specifically means the city limits. Half the population of Weehawken would say "yes" if you asked them if they live in New York City. This leads to more erroneous screening. So if that's the purpose of question 1, it serves that purpose very badly.

I apologize for pissing in the party punch, but this point makes absolutely no sense. Since I've lived in NJ, my dad and grandmother lived in Jersey City and I spent a great deal of time in both Weehawken and Hoboken, I cannot imagine anyone saying that they live in NYC if they live in Weehawken. They would simply say, I live in Jersey, I live across the river, the other side of the Lincoln Tunnel, but in no way would someone say they live in NYC.

 

[Justin39640]

Okay so "Remember Building 7" is to be considered in the same category as "Remember the Alamo", "Remember the Maine", "Remember Pearl Harbor"...

Geez I don't think Americans are quite buying this...

I'm partial to one that came about on the afternoon of 9/11/01... "NEVER FORGET!". Sadly, people are forgetting and the moronic cries of "inside job" really distract from the reality and losses of the day.

 

[triforcharity]

Stupid question, and I am not from New York, how many New Yorkers actually knew Building #7 as Building #7 of the World Trade Center complex? Didn't it have some other name?

I won't venture a guess as to a number, but it would be very low. People that worked in the building, or in the WTC complex would certainly know, but outside, even lower.

It was known as the Solomon Brothers building by people in the know.

OUTSIDE of NYC, most people didn't even know there were 7 buildings IN the WTC complex. Most thought there was only 2.

 

[RedIbis]

I won't venture a guess as to a number, but it would be very low. People that worked in the building, or in the WTC complex would certainly know, but outside, even lower.

It was known as the Solomon Brothers building by people in the know.

OUTSIDE of NYC, most people didn't even know there were 7 buildings IN the WTC complex. Most thought there was only 2.

This is more or less true, so we might have Twoofies to thank for raising awareness of the most mysterious bldg collapse in architectural history.

 

[triforcharity]

What a useless post. Carry on though. I'll get the popcorn and beer ready.

 

[RedIbis]

What a useless post. Carry on though. I'll get the popcorn and beer ready.

It's kind of early here in Florida to start drinking, isn't it?

 

[Thunder]

It's kind of early here in Florida to start drinking, isn't it?

I think a long night of drinking is what inspired this poll in the first place. Isn't that how all Truther projects get started?

btw, I live in NYC. I have never seen anything about this poll on tv, in the newspapers, or on internet news.

as far as I am concerned, that makes this poll an utter failure.


...as it if wasn't a failure the day it was conceived.

 

[RedIbis]

I think a long night of drinking is what inspired this poll in the first place. Isn't that how all Truther projects get started?

If I were a debunker, I would not be throwing stones, not for drinking, not for not having a girlfriend, not for being overweight or any of the other stereotypes that are often associated with Twoofies.

A quick look at the community forum and nearly every dysfunction (and more) can be found in an illustrious debunker.

 

[ConspiRaider]

This is more or less true, so we might have Twoofies to thank for raising awareness of the most mysterious bldg collapse in architectural history.

Thank you, Twoofies

The real mystery? Is NOT that buildings collapse because to a brick, nearly all of them eventually will do just that. The Earth would love nothing better than to pull all buildings directly into its center and it never stops trying to bring that off. Not ever.

Therefore we can conclude that the life of any tall building is temporary, pitifully short-lived when you view the broad reach of time. I think if I ran a city? I'd put a rigid height limit on all buildings therein. I don't know how prudent it is for us humans to be constructing these artificial environments (which is what a tall building is), many spaces inside of which cannot be realistically reached by any human on foot. Constructing ridiculously tall buildings is not something I favor - but I don't run cities or architectural firms or whatnot.

Still, in tall structure design, we do the best we can based on our accumulated knowledge. Therefore, when Building 7 was constructed, I'd assume that the architects / builders never had a meeting that discussed the hypothesis: What if the nearby Twin Towers collapse suddenly? Could the shocks produced by each of those events, along with large amounts of debris from the collapses raining down and at Building 7, coupled with huge fires within Building 7 that perhaps couldn't be extinguished in a timely manner for lack of water and safe access - somehow compromise its integrity? Can we build safeguards in to circumvent those combined destructive forces and circumstances to ensure Building 7 remains standing?

Not only do you have to bring your A-game of unshakable proof that the Building 7 collapse could only be caused by deliberate CD - you also have to prove that Building 7 could not ever have collapsed based on the aforementioned points in the italicized hypothesis. You have to eliminate all doubt BEFORE you go public. That you cannot is the reason you're stuck with appealing to people's emotions in attempts to garner broad-based support for your cause.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is more or less true, so we might have Twoofies to thank for raising awareness of the most mysterious bldg collapse in architectural history.

This is more or less true, so we might have Terrorists to thank for raising awareness of the most tragic bldg collapses in architectural history.

We can thank the truthers for layering a thick gloss of idiocy over it, with their ridiculous pull it nonsense, and their utterly baseless claims that the leaseholder made out like a bandit because of it and recovered a windfall.

Two claims that have as little support as, lets say, Judy Woods hurricane nonsense.

 

[The Big Dog]

If I were a debunker, I would not be throwing stones, not for drinking, not for not having a girlfriend, not for being overweight or any of the other stereotypes that are often associated with Twoofies.

A quick look at the community forum and nearly every dysfunction (and more) can be found in an illustrious debunker.

Oh look the serial defamer and rabbit like runner from his own baseless claims taking shots at members of the forum.

This post is nearly as ridiculous as your other claims, Red.

Keep posting, and take a gander at my sig, Rabbit.

 

[Triterope]

I cannot imagine anyone saying that they live in NYC if they live in Weehawken.

Depends on context. If you're an American visiting Prague, and somebody asks you where you're from, your answer is more likely to boil down to "New York City" because the person asking isn't going to know what Weehawken is. If you're at a party in Brooklyn, then, yeah, you'll say Weehawken.

Someone receiving a call from a polling company does not know if the question is being asked in a national context or a local one. We know the poll was of New Yorkers, but the respondent doesn't know that. That was the larger point: that the question is poorly worded. If they want to limit respondents to those eligible to vote in a future NYCCAN ballot initiative, then they need to say "New York City proper" or words to that effect. The even larger point is that the question "where did you live in 2001?" seems to serve no purpose.

I'll grant you that I could have picked a better example. I was thinking more of other large American cities where people identify more with the metro area name than where they physically reside because (a) relatively few people live in the city proper; (b) there are myriad unremarkable suburbs; and (c) people aren't as neighborhood-conscious as New Yorkers tend to be. Atlanta comes to mind.

 

[beachnut]

This is more or less true, so we might have Twoofies to thank for raising awareness of the most mysterious bldg collapse in architectural history.

Building on fire all day collapses, called what happens when fire burns in a building. Not a mystery, except for those who are gullible and knowledge free.