• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Oh, Shame on you Canadians!

alienentity

Illuminator
alienentity
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
4,325
It seems that the Canadian public has bought into some of the 'suspicions' of the 9/11 Truth movement. A FB friend posted a link to this a couple of days ago.
http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-a-majority-of-canadians-side-with-ads-questioning-911/

I have attempted to distance myself from the whole 9/11 Truth thing (nothing against you folks here) but after reading this dreck I decloaked for the second time this year and posed a few questions for him, then decided it was useless to entertain the nonsense. I apologized and removed my comments.
First time was in response to the posting of a link to another fact-free truther video and several dumb comments posted thereafter. Believe it or not, someone wrote that Bush's brother ran a company that controlled security at the towers and Dulles airport, no less! I just couldn't resist making a few corrections.
The only reason I would bother to interject on my friends conversations is when I sense an unsuspecting citizen is getting fed the guanophrenic tripe. But I don't bother engaging truthers, they're not going to listen anyway.

btw, were there hoards of Truthers and ordinary citizens marching this year on 9/11? I didn't catch a glimpse in the news.

cheers everyone

AE
 
Why blame the Canadians? This is just the usual manipulative AE911 poll. Just look at the questions and the video they showed before asking them, then at their conclusions. It's a joke.

The actual ground support in Canada was around a dozen people at Dundas Square this 9/11. In Times square they had around 100 people, even though Les Jamison has the nerve to claim it was "300 to 400" - he either thinks people are too stupid to just look at the pictures and videos of the event, or he counted all the Ninja truthers that hid in store entrances, manholes or on roofs and every single passerby that stopped for 5 seconds to see what all the fuss was about. As if 400 people wouldn't be just as pitiful a failure as 100 compared to their grandiose plans of rallying the masses with their pointless ads and getting "1 million people" to Times Square.

What they are doing with those polls is what they always do with everything: they act like the final breakthrough for 9/11 truth is just around the corner if their customers give them just a few more bucks - even after this campaign conclusively showed that this breakthrough is not going to happen. It's a business model.
 
I suppose in the interest of balance we should look at how their poll results stack up.

First of all, the poll is a result of asking 510 people signed up to Yougov's polling service, and then applying the results of that poll to the whole of the Canadian population.There is no indication as to how many people were actually asked.

Now, they are claiming that 51% of respondents "are sure or suspect" Building 7 was a CD. Well, which is it? 49% disagreed with them, however so this is hardly statistically significant. They couldn't even convince half of their own sample population. In fact when you look at that their data, only 16% were sure that was "Based on this footage and your previous knowledge" a CD. the other chunk of their 51% is people who think it was a CD but "don't know for sure" - hmm - that's a little less convincing.

Next, if 51% of their sample believing in CD is for them a majority, then the next statistic they quote suggests that a majority of people don't believe the people who claim that Building 7 was a CD. Furthermore why is there a difference between the answer to this question and the one before it? if 51% of people thought it could or might be a CD, why do only 49% think that other people (including alleged experts) are right to suggest it was a CD? It suggests to me that at least 2% of their respondents didn't understand the questions.

A second point to make about this particular stat is that the question is loaded, in that it cites the number of 'experts' that Rethink911 claim to have on their side without mentioning how many actual experts disagree with them - it is clearly intended to lead a neutral respondent down a path of "hmm, these critics must know what they're talking about".

And then there's this interesting interpretation of statistics: "By a margin of more than 3 to 1, 44% support a new investigation compared to just 13% who are opposed". Well, 44 is more than 3 times 13, but 56% either didn't want a new investigation or didn't care enough to have an opinion. 44% is not a majority. They also fail to point out that supporting a new investigation is not the same as disagreeing with the findings of the original one, nor does it prove that a new investigation would come to different conclusions.

Canadians are apparently evenly divided on whether Canada, or someone else, should launch a new investigation. Again, the numbers for this question are very different to the previous one - if 44% support a new investigation, how come only 36% think Canada or someone else should do it? 36% is not a majority.

As for their last statistic, the fact that 54% don't think that Ottowa should revise its advertising policy on public transport is absolutely not the same as "I think your arguments are correct".

What is disturbing, and something that I think would be confirmed by many other surveys, is that those repondents furthest removed in time from 9/11 (young adults would have been aged 12 at the most at the time) are the most likely to question the official reports and fall for 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. I would suggest this is either natural youthful distrust of authority or a symptom of a generation who did not actually experience that day in any meaningful sense and whose memories are not going to be as vivid or accurate - people more easily swayed by bogus arguments and faked evidence.

And finally, these people make exactly the same mistake as many statistically illiterate people when interpreting subjective data: opinion is not the same as fact. Even by asking loaded questions and presenting their own cherry picked and inaccurate claims they still couldn't convince a statistically significant majority that Building 7 was a CD.
 
Blame Canada....!

Must be the cold weather Affects thinking......

Grateful my grandparents braved the ice choked St Lawrence river to head
south where its warmer......
 
Oh of course I don't really think Canadians want a new investigation, but I just thought it was fun to take this twittery at face value. And let's face it, it's a good thread title. :)
 
The big question is, "How many are willing to do some serious research or analysis"? This answers itself.

For Gage, the big question is, "How many are willing to give me money?":rolleyes:
 
Somebody (maybe Janet Napolitano) should remind the Canadians that the 9-11 hijackers came into the US via Canada.
:D
 
jaydeehess said:
Nobody polled my opinion.
And,,,
I ,,,, AM ,,,, CANADIAN!

Fellow Canuckswill understand the font
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it irks me to be called that nickname as I associate it with Vancouver and its diving, no cup winning, hockey team and their arrogant, undeserving, rioting fans. They should be blamed for the subject of this thread too!

GO LEAFS GO!
 
Blaupunkt69 said:
Unfortunately it irks me to be called that nickname as I associate it with Vancouver and its diving, no cup winning, hockey team and their arrogant, undeserving, rioting fans. They should be blamed for the subject of this thread too!

GO LEAFS GO!
Click to expand...

A Leaf's fan complaining about an expansion team's non-winning ways. Hmmm, ironic!
Let me be blunt. It. Is. No. Longer. The. 1960s. :)


Go Jets!
 
fitzgibbon said:
I....AM....well-advertised, watery, horse-urine-in-a-bottle!!!! :)

Kudos to the advertising agency that came up with that. Shame the product doesn't measure-up, though

Fitz
Click to expand...

True. My favourite had the old Scot harrassing people in the bar.

I have to give props to Molson's for the ad, even though I canna stand the swill it promotes.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom