"Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand"

[Bushwacker]

All right, marky, just perhaps you really are so dim and really think 911truth.org might sponsor a web page on 911truth.org's website.

Look at:

1) The these two paragraphs together from the original page:

(The poll sponsors see knowledge of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 as a bellwether issue,..................)

SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and answer the hundreds of still unresolved questions concerning 9/11..........

2) This web page which says at the top: "Click here for poll sponsor 911Truth.org's official press release."

[marky 54]

ok that is more intresting and i can now see at least why someone might think it. but it is still down to how you read it.

(Click here for poll) sponsor(of website) 911Truth.org's official press release.

Click here for (poll sponsor 911Truth.org's) official press release.

(Click here for poll sponsor) 911Truth.org's official press release.

it depends how you read it.

in which way was it meant? also the group 9/11truth is a group of people who fund themselves as opposed to recieveing funding from companys or other parties, therefore they are their own sponsers, and the funders/sponsers of the webpage. sponsers may be refering to and speaking for those who help to keep 9/11 truth up and running, sponsers are those who help to fund, so the question is what is being sponsered the poll or the website or the group?.

the point is they do sponser themselves. and they will have funders within the group as opposed to outside the group.

so something more concrete is needed.

if 9/11 truth org, sponsered the poll then it does raise questions but it does not mean the poll results are not geniune and that foul play had taken place, so i still think you were wrong and misleading to state the following, back on page 1 of this thread.

"This was a carefully crafted poll designed to maximise the answers the people who paid for it wanted".

if 9/11 truth org sponsered the poll also then there should be examples of advertisment of 9/11 org's logo when the poll was taken, if you can find anything like that and the source that would settle it, they must exsist if they sponsered it, i see them all the time when companys/groups sponser things.

[marky 54]

here are the questions raised, are all the polls done by this group not to be trusted? http://www.zogby.com/

are all polls funded or created by people who can influence the results?

what proof do you have 9/11 truth.org manipulated the results?

the worse case scenerio i can see going by the evidence is simply this.

9/11 truth org. paid zogby to do a poll asking questions put forward by 9/11 truth.org. zogby then did the poll and published the results.

the same way they do any poll really.

http://www.zogby.com/about/index.cfm

so to sum up 9/11 truth paid for a service to do a poll through a respected outlet of experts who pride themselves on accuracy.

[Bushwacker]

You are being utterly ridiculous in your attempts to weasel out of the obvious truth.

But then we should expect no better from a troofer.

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

http://www.zogby.com/about/article.cfm

heres an article explaining how zogby do their polls(although im not sure if this is how the 9/11 one was conducted, but so far see no reason to assume not).

all at random, and representing all states.

qoute from artilce:
"Contrary to any rumors that have been widely circulated, we pollsters do not focus most or many of our national calls in New York and California. Actually, we use sampling that is "random" and "stratified" which means that every household in the US must have the same chance of being called as every other and that we take special pains to ensure that every state and region are represented equitably". END

also......

qoute:
"Myth 1 -- Polls predict the winners and losers. Actually, a poll is only a snapshot of a moment in time. It can point to trends, but things can change on election day, when a lot of undecided voters make up their minds. We do try to ask "projective questions" – i.e. to see how people will react to situations and messages, but a poll can only measure a fixed moment in time". END

the article is written by john zogby(link at the top of the page), who is very experianced in doing polls so i have to assume he knows what he is doing and knows his stuff on this subject.

he explains how they conduct the polls and what can be told from them.
he explains the poll's are only a representation of a snapshot in time.

this raises questions like i wonder if more or less people question 9/11 today.

[pepik]

Marky you are hilarious! Not admitting you are wrong is almost the same thing as being right. Troof for life!

Anyway, since you guys have 84% support, maybe you should rent out Ashton Gate for your next Bristol meeting - how else can you fit in all those believers? I'm sure they'll let you have it for free since 84% of the management will support you.

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

just to point out the part where i changed my stance

"the worse case scenerio i can see going by the evidence is simply this.

9/11 truth org. paid zogby to do a poll asking questions put forward by 9/11 truth.org. zogby then did the poll and published the results.

the same way they do any poll really".

this was written before your reply or do you only see what you want to see?.

[pepik]

[marky 54]

[pepik]

No Marky the entertaining part was how hard you tried not to admit the obvious. It was the journey, not the destination that was so much fun.

So have you now figured out how 911 truth manipulates polls just like everyone else does? Did you enjoy being manipulated by 911Truth?

[marky 54]

[pepik]

[marky 54]

oh so know you know what people think?

you're amazing!

the fact is i have tried to see bushwackers evidence for what he claimed, and paid attention to him throughout the discussion, would you rather i had ignored it instead?, i am still here and willing to listen to his claims 9/11 truth.org manipulated the results, if he can back them up.

im also willing to listen to any evidence or proof you have on matters, but i never see any of that coming from you because your just here to put people down, something lots of people have been banned for.

now if im the type of person who just believes what i want to believe why the **** would i even talk or reply to the likes of you or bushwacker?

did it ever occure to you that it is to debate so i get both sides of the view and evidence to the contray of what is said in the other section?

there have been a few instances where critics have pointed things out WITH PROOF that i was not aware of. mostly though i just hear speculation about what things could be so it dos'nt get anywhere on those occassions.

just like your speculating to me about what i think.

also anyone can be a sceptic if they have something to be sceptical about.

[pepik]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

mmmmmm.....

[marky 54]

ok here are the results
http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231

here is the original source of bushwackers claim 9/11 truth.org sponsered the poll.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

here is zogbys code of conduct or what they would pride themselves on.
http://www.zogby.com/about/index.cfm

and here is an article of how zogby conduct the polls, elections being an example.
http://www.zogby.com/about/article.cfm

unless their is evidence to the contray, the poll results were not tampered with in anyway.

however i have come to realise bushwacker may of been talking about how the questions were asked was misleading and i misunderstood him, or he was claiming both?

so lets look at the questions.

Bush exploited Sept. 11th attacks 44%
Bush justified an attack on Iraq 44
Neither/Not sure 11

US government and 9/11 Commission are NOT covering up 48%
US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up 42
Not sure 10

I am not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse 43%
I am aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it 38
I am aware of it and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse 14
Neither/Not sure 5

The attacks were thoroughly investigated 47%
Reinvestigate the attacks 45
Not sure 8

27. How would you rate the US media's performance regarding 9/11, including their coverage of victim families' unanswered questions, theories that challenged the official account, and how the attacks were investigated? Excellent 10%
Good 33 Positive 43%
Fair 36
Poor 19
Not sure 3 Negative 55

the link for the results is the first link on this post.

can somebody please tell me what is misleading about those question?
they seem pretty straight forward to me, or can someone provide the questions that should of been asked to make them not misleading?

[marky 54]

US government and 9/11 Commission are NOT covering up 48%
US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up 42
Not sure 10

lets look at this one more closely as i think this is the one bushwacker points out as misleading regarding the questions.

those who think the 9/11 commission was covering up but not the goverment, may of answered in the 42%

the same as those who think the goverment was covering up but not the 9/11 commission would of answered in the 42%

those that think both were covering up also would answer in the 42%

ok i see what is being said by it not being entirely accurate, however i believe people are clutching at straws because that 42% still believe there is a cover up by either goverment or the commission but the 42% is not reflective of which they believe or if they believe both are covering up.

so the question needs to be changed to:

US government or 9/11 Commission are covering up 42 , to be accurate.

i cannot see people saying one or the other covered up if they actually believed there was no cover-up. the questions are just not that confusing.

but it is not reflective of how many think the goverment are covering up.

The attacks were thoroughly investigated 47%
Reinvestigate the attacks 45
Not sure 8

this poll is reflective of how many think it should be reinvestigated however, there is certainly no confusion possible with that one.

so i agree to point with bushwacker but would not go as far as he seems to believe, unless more evidence is provided.

[TonyGosling]

What offensive Murdoch claptrap!!

[Bushwacker]

[Bushwacker]

[pepik]

[marky 54]

[Cruise4]

"No, WTC7 was badly damaged when one of the world's tallest buildings fell on top of it and then burnt unattended for seven hours with diesel circulating inside, did no one tell you? Why should anyone bother to blow up a building the world had never heard of, if two of the most famous landmarks of NY had already come down? That's the unanswered question about WTC7, and the best any troofer has come up with is to get rid of embarassing papers, as if shredders did not exist! Second best an insurance scam, apparently involving the FDNY who lost 350 men, from a man who had such inadequate insurance that he has been in the courts ever since!
Of course a plane hit the Pentagon, many people saw it nad that is why parts from it were found there, and of course it was flight 77, the passengers' DNA was identified. Or perhaps the accident investigators and a 100 pathologists were also in on the plot?
They did scramble interceptors, but the air traffic contollers were late notifying NORAD, and NORAD were set up to look for external threats, not planes within the USA, it had taken them 70 minutes to find Payne Stewart's Learjet when they had planes already in the air!"

This is so ridiculous, and your agenda so transparent I can't personally be bothered with you. Believe whatever you want !

[KP50]

[Bushwacker]

[marky 54]

[Bushwacker]