• 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.

"Remember Building 7" poll backfires, despite the spin

This reminds me of BuildingWhat.org's "7 Facts about WTC7", where one of them was that 40% of the public was not aware that WTC7 collapsed on 9/11. This means that 60% (a majority) of the public WAS aware about WTC7!

Even if a majority was not aware of WTC7, so what? A majority of the public probably has never even heard of the Windsor Madrid. That doesn't mean the collapse of its upper floors therefore must have been a demolition.
 
I know I wouldn't like the idea of an independent group that can arrest me and convict me based on their own personal "feelings" about things (which might be based on nothing more than a dream they had) that has no oversight from anyone. That's just asking for abuses of powers and wrongful convictions.
 
RedIbis said:
I could have been clearer. I was speaking more to the financing.
Click to expand...

But the problem is, NYCCAN is asking for much more than just that. Yes, the financing would come from somewhere else, but everything else.........

Yeah, the whole thing is flawed.

/OT
 
I think many of the people that really consider WTC7 important are acting on an emotion. They just find it disturbing that a huge building like that can be destroyed simply by an un-faught fire.
 
Travis said:
I think many of the people that really consider WTC7 important are acting on an emotion. They just find it disturbing that a huge building like that can be destroyed simply by an un-faught fire.
Click to expand...

It also gave truthers the opportunity to claim demolition in a setting that was easier than the Twin Towers.

With the towers they mechanism of the global collapse was relatively open to observation and therefore quite easy to rebut demolition claims. The truth movement claims for demolition had been torn to shreds over several years then...

...along comes WTC7 where the mechanism was both different and hidden.

So it offered a golden opportunity to re-run the same old tired arguments abut demolition in a new setting.
 
The sample size was pretty small (643 people) and they state that the margin of error is +/- 3,9%.

Now, keep in mind, that the building 7 questions concerned only those, who were aware of the collapse of "another building". Of those 643 respondents 67% were aware. That is a total of 430 people (0.67*643).

When interpreting the results of the WTC7 questions, one has to keep in mind what the margin of error is for a sample size of 430 people, not 643 people. The margin of error for a sample size of 430 is close to 5% (assuming a 95% confidence level).

Which means, that they can't state 24% believe that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition (as they state in their conclusions). In reality (forgetting for now the bias of the questions), with 95% confidence the controlled demolition is the opinion of 19%-29% of people. Who cares, if 24% of 430 people think something, it's more important to know the generalization.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suggest you think what you would say if someone described WTC7 as the largest office fire in history, and consider it said to you.

Dave
 
Travis said:
I think many of the people that really consider WTC7 important are acting on an emotion. They just find it disturbing that a huge building like that can be destroyed simply by an un-faught fire.
Click to expand...

True, it is disturbing, especially when you read NIST's explanation.
 
Triterope said:
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.
Click to expand...

Quite true. I was born in San Francisco and currently reside about 5 minutes (on a good day) from the city border (this is about the same distance as Weewalken (or however you spell it) and NYC). For locals I say where I live but for anyone else I just say "San Francisco" (or occasionally "The San Francisco Bay Area").

My cell phone and Google Voice phone numbers are both 415 numbers so anyone calling me will think that they are calling San Francisco even though the odds are that I'm not within the City and County of San Francisco when they call (or return their calls).
 
RedIbis said:
True, it is disturbing, especially when you read NIST's explanation.
Click to expand...

Fires and not a lot of water to fight them can lead to failure in almost any imaginable way. It makes a lot more sense than anything else.
 
RKOwens4 said:
This reminds me of BuildingWhat.org's "7 Facts about WTC7", where one of them was that 40% of the public was not aware that WTC7 collapsed on 9/11. This means that 60% (a majority) of the public WAS aware about WTC7!

Even if a majority was not aware of WTC7, so what? A majority of the public probably has never even heard of the Windsor Madrid. That doesn't mean the collapse of its upper floors therefore must have been a demolition.
Click to expand...

Haha.

"The collapse of its upper floors." Talk about clutching at straws, not to mention apples and oranges. The collapse of WTC 7 is and was completely unprecedented. For 2.25 seconds it was in free fall. Did you measure the collapse speed of the upper floors of the Windsor? Let's also keep in mind that WTC 7's virtually-unscathed side was used for this measurement. What part of this don't you understand? What isn't clear about these data?
 
The collapse of WTC 7 is and was completely unprecedented.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Not even close. Remember, it looked "exactly like a controlled demolition".

If it was unprecedented, it wouldn't look exactly like anything now, would it?
 
tempesta29 said:
Haha.

"The collapse of its upper floors." Talk about clutching at straws, not to mention apples and oranges. The collapse of WTC 7 is and was completely unprecedented. For 2.25 seconds it was in free fall. Did you measure the collapse speed of the upper floors of the Windsor? Let's also keep in mind that WTC 7's virtually-unscathed side was used for this measurement. What part of this don't you understand? What isn't clear about these data?
Click to expand...

The bolded is irrelevant even if true. And do we need to go over what's wrong with the highlighted bit again?
 
Travis said:
The bolded is irrelevant even if true. And do we need to go over what's wrong with the highlighted bit again?
Click to expand...
Probably not, Trav, but in a weird way I was kind of hoping? Because possibly the word "squibs" might be used and that is a funny word. You don't hear it in normal conversation often enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom