Hijexx wrote:
] People are waking up. They realize the 9/11 commission was a
] whitewash and want further probes.

It's good to do your own research. Keep at it. But don't always assume that everything's a conspiracy.

Also, it's well worth figuring out which news sources you trust, and which ones are just conspiracy-theorist rumormongers. This particular site that was memed, Zogby, doesn't have a lot of credibility for me.

For more info on Zogby, check here:

"ZOGBY CAUGHT IN INTERVIEW ADMITTING HIS LATEST POLL IS BUNK"
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i2zogby.htm

Of course, "moderateindependent.com" isn't a high-trust-value site either. ;)

If I were going to dig deeper, I'd keep looking until I found information from a source that I trusted. And then I'd keep looking until I found information from *other* sources I trusted, and then I'd cross-reference them all to try and filter out the truth. Which is usually going to be somewhere in the middle anyway. ;)

But fwiw, Zogby doesn't strike me as someone with a hold on the truth.

Just my $0.02,

Elonka :)

Elonka wrote:

] If I were going to dig deeper, I'd keep looking until I found
] information from a source that I trusted. And then I'd keep
] looking until I found information from *other* sources I
] trusted, and then I'd cross-reference them all to try and
] filter out the truth. Which is usually going to be somewhere
] in the middle anyway. ;)

The first thing I Googled were things like "zogby debunked" "zogby unreliable" etc. Strangely enough, the first hit I found was the one you memed to me. I think we have a similar mindset when it comes to verification of sources.

The big push of this debunking seems to be that Zogby is slanted to the right. If that is so, I would not see that there is an ulterior motive to the 9/11 poll. Results that show people believe the current administration was complicit with 9/11 would be the exact opposite of what I would want to project if I wanted Bush to be re-elected.

What are some specific reasons you do not like Zogby? The sample size seemed somewhat small to me. It had a good cross section, but it was still relatively small. I don't know much about polling and what is to be expected. But still, the fact that out of almost 1000 random people picked to be a cross section of race and political alignment, the fact that more than half of them think the government was complicit, that is an amazing fact.

Hijexx wrote:
] What are some specific reasons you do not like Zogby?

- I've never heard of him from any source I trust.

- A brief glance at his website seems (to me) to indicate a lot of self-promotion. For all I know, a good portion of it is made up. The stuff about him, the stuff about his organization, all of it.

- And if he's making up stuff about himself, chances are pretty good that the poll data may be fabricated as well.

- The "Want to know what REAL PEOPLE are thinking?" motto raises a red flag for me. It implies that other polls are fabricated data. It has a conspiracy-theorist ring to it.

- Other flags are phrases like, "This poll is the first of its kind that surveys American attitudes". It is?

- "49% of New Yorkers feel". Excuse me? They surveyed 49% of the entire population of New York City? No, it's 49% of the 1000 that took the survey.

- There's also lots of other emotional language in the so-called "press release" that doesn't sound like a legitimate polling organization to me. In my opinion, a valid polling company is going to bend over backwards to present the data without emotion. Also, the people that are quoted in the press release are also from organizations I don't have any experience or trust in, so their quotes don't have any weight with me either.

- I guess I've just run into enough crazies on the web, that my antennae are waving. I've seen some people who know how to make a really excellent website, that's completely filled with pseudo-raving. But just because it looks like an official news-magazine or a real organization, doesn't mean it's been fact-checked or has any credibility. And a poll of "1000 New Yorkers" doesn't necessarily mean a random sample. It could mean 1000 people that subscribe to his newsletter, or 1000 people who were visiting his site. Which is *definitely* not a random sampling. :) And if that's the case, then it would be even less worthy of a "press release" announcement.

Note, I'm not saying that he *did* do this. But the "poll is bunk" link reinforces my suspicion, and a lot of other stuff on the site just smells wrong to me.

Then again, it may well have been a real poll, with real random sampling, and the man who cried wolf really *did* see a wolf this time. But if that's the case, then other independent pollsters will find similar data.

For more info on Zogby, try searching on "Zogby and credibility". There's some interesting info there.

And keep up the good fight. You're asking the right questions. :)