Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken stands by his 9/11 conspiracy

[immune]

Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken stands by his 9/11 conspiracy Shannon Deery, Stephen McMahon From: Herald Sun October 21, 2010 12:30PM

Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken says terrorists had nothing to do with the 9/11 tragedy. Instead, it was all a conspiracy.

VICTORIAN Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken remains unrepentant after his controversial comments about the 9/11 attacks made news around the world. Mr Bracken sparked outrage yesterday when he told Jon Faine's ABC talk-back program the attacks were not the result of terrorist activity.

He said the story was a conspiracy that "didn't stand up" to scientific scrutiny.

This morning Mr Bracken phoned into Faine's program again for a right of reply.

He said he wasn't phoning as the president of the Trades Hall council or as secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia.

Mr Bracken stood by his comments and said he had the support of 50 per cent of the community.

He also attacked Faine, claiming he was ridiculed on yesterday's program.

"Unfortunately cowards like yourself have set the political agenda in this country for too long," said Kevin Bracken

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/trades-hall-president-kevin-bracken-calls-911-conspiracy/story-e6frf7kx-1225941158523?from=public_rss



Daring to speak out. Its a career blower. And then they ask why no one speaks out.

[zappaman]

1. "He said the story was a conspiracy that "didn't stand up" to scientific scrutiny."

What a joke.

[immune]

2. Well, he sure stirred up some folks.

And they aren't laughing.

[LARED]

3. Saying stupid divisive stuff often stirs up people.

Few are willing to be associated with folks like Mr. Bracken so they correctly condemn his words.

[immune]

5. I suppose some would say

that sixty five percent is only a few.

[LARED]

6. 65% LOL -- nt

[whatchamacallit]

13. So you, sdude, zappaman (lol) are all smarter than this Bracken guy?

Funny, I can't tell from your posts.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Yes...n/t

[zappaman]

16. yep n/t

[whatchamacallit]

18. Well I guess these stellar rebuttals

set that straight. Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Your goofy CT bullshit doesn't....

require much in the way of rebuttal, dude.

[immune]

4. Herald Sun poll

22 October 2010

As of 10:00AM this morning a Herald Sun poll is showing that over 65% of respondents agree with Union leader Kevin Bracken's view that the official explanation of 9/11 does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Radio host John Faine previously attacked Bracken's views on air over two days, describing him as a nutter and an extremist, and stating that his views were "offensive".

In Parliament on Wednesday Australian PM Julia Gillard stated that Bracken's views were "stupid and wrong".

Poll Screen Shot: 5:30pm 22nd of October 2010

[LARED]

7. The poll is up to 75 % now

You have obviously started revolution of sorts. Keep up the good work.

You do realize an Internet poll of this sort is meaningless. Yes?

[immune]

8. I do realize

that you'd like to think so.

And isn't it interesting that its mainly corporate MSM hacks and officialdumb types that're having a hissy fit over such statements in Australia .. just like here.

[LARED]

10. So if I understand correctly you believe this poll reflects

the beliefs of the population at large? Yes?

[immune]

11. And if I understand you correctly, you believe

"Few are willing to be associated with folks like Mr. Bracken so they correctly condemn his words."

But the many aren't condemning his words.

And however accurate this poll may or may not be, even if you cut the number of people who stand with Bracken in this poll in half, the results still wouldn't reflect your assertion that only a "few" agree with him.

Perception is eveything when no actual proof exists, so maintaining the meme that "only a few" and "only nutjobs" and "only conspiracy whackos" deny the OCT is the only thing the OCT has going for it. That and the lockdown by MSM. But it isn't working real well anymore thanks to the internet. Actually its beginning to look like the true OCT believers are becoming the "few".

[SDuderstadt]

9. It's pretty clear that...

like most topics, "immune" doesn't understand what valid polling is and why internet polls are not reliable.

[zappaman]

12. It's pretty clear that...

he doesn't understand much of anything!

[immune]

15. So tell me

what's reliable? Does it have to be corporate? Does it have to be official? Does it have to be controlled? Does someone in a position of authority have to get paid for doing it? Wow, if you ask me, that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

[zappaman]

17. simple answer:

it has to be logical, reasoned and make sense.
you may want to look those words up...

[immune]

20. And to be reasoned, logical and make sense,

who is qualified to conduct a poll? In your opinion.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Someone who understands the concept of...

statistical sampling, for starters. That would leave you out, dude.

[immune]

22. Statistical sampling ...

"Sampling is that part of statistical practice concerned with the selection of an unbiased or random subset of individual observations within a population of individuals"

Well, you may be right after all, the readers of the Herald Sun surely cannot be considered "unbiased" or "random". They probably all have an agenda to piss off Murdoch. Right?

[SDuderstadt]

23. No, dude...

the keyword is random. An inbound internet poll means the respondents are self-selected. Duh.

[zappaman]

24. 5 bucks says he answers with something

demonstrating he hasn't a clue what you just posted.

[immune]

25. I'll ask you this time,

who is qualified to conduct a "reliable" "random" "logical" "non-self-selected" poll? In your mind. Name somebody you'd trust to get it right.

[zappaman]

26. Me...n/t

[SDuderstadt]

27. Jesus, dude...

where are you going with this? Are you trying to say a self-selected poll is the same thing as a poll with a valid statistical sample?

[immune]

28. No,

give me a name of an organization you would trust to do the kind of poll you/I described. Somebody has to do the selecting, after all, so how would you know they didn't skew their selections and word the questions in clever ways to get the results they wanted?

Clue: you wouldn't.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Dude...

don't tell me...let me guess...you've never been polled, so you don't think polling is valid.

Serious question: do you understand the fundamental difference between an internet "poll" in which anyone can respomd and one in which the respondents have been selected randomly?

[immune]

30. Yeah, I think I get the difference.

One is taken when you're trying to eat dinner, and the other is by choice, at your convenience, on a topic that you may be interested in and have knowledge of.

You still haven't told me who you'd trust to conduct a poll.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Peter Hart...

dude.

I worked for a political polling firm while I was in undergraduate school.

[immune]

32. Well isn't your good friend just full of sweetness and light?

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/NBC_WSJ_poll__GOP_poised_for_big_midterm_gains-105425183.html

Election Day is coming, the hurricane force has not diminished and it is going to hit the Democrats head on," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.

"It's hard to say that the Democrats are facing anything less than a Category 4 hurricane," Hart added.

But the poll also provides some silver linings for Democrats — including a slight uptick in economic confidence and in President Obama's standing — that could give the party some hope it can limit Republican gains in next month's elections.

The GOP's 'likely' advantage
In the survey, 50 percent of likely voters say they prefer a Republican-controlled

And among Tea Party supporters — who make up 35 percent of all likely voters in the poll — Republicans have a whopping 84 percent to 10 percent edge.

"Republicans are enthusiastically ready, willing and able to vote," Hart said.

[zappaman]

33. are you implying something?

Do you have a problem with his results?

[SDuderstadt]

34. Dude...

you asked for an example of a pollster I'd trust to do a valid poll. Do you think I'd choose one who polls dishonestly and just tells the client what they want to hear?

Simple question: other than "push polling" and campaigns skewing internal polling, how would a polling firm survive longterm if they consistently provided unreliable results?

[immune]

35. Header from the same link.

NBC/WSJ poll: GOP Poised for Big Midterm Gains

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/NBC_WSJ_poll__GOP_poised_for_big_midterm_gains-105425183.html#ixzz13KaLE6H2

The Wall Street Journal? That's who he conducted his poll for? Nah, they don't have any "agendas".

[zappaman]

36. so?

when are you going to make a point?
about anything?
how many posts will it take?

[immune]

39. I'm just going where you guys are

leading me. So far all I've seen in passing is one guy who wrote the RNC calendar and another guy who conducts polls for the Wall St. Journal.

I had to stop for a minute and look at the home page to check where I am, thought I got lost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

51. Talking to yourself again?

It must be lonely down in the basement, with nothing but a stuffed bear, a popped blow-up doll and cheeto stained underwear, huh?

Are you ever going to contribute anything worthwhile to this site? I didn't think so...

[zappaman]

52. Hey good point!

Thanks for contributing!

[SDuderstadt]

37. So. let me make sure I get this straight...

are you accusing Hart (one of the pre-eminent Democratic pollsters) of skewing results for his client?

[immune]

40. I never said any such thing.

And you know it. Just pointing out a few facts.

[SDuderstadt]

41. That's why I asked a clarifying question...

dude. Your first clue was the question mark.

And, your "just pointing out a few facts" is truly hysterical in light of you citing Curt Weldon earlier.

[LARED]

38. That is hardly news. I think just about every legitimate pollster is

predicting significant wins for the GOP.

What does that have to do with the validity of the polling organization?

[ryan_cats]

61. You win +1 internets

You win +1 internets for the line,

"One is taken when you're trying to eat dinner..."

Please collect your winnings at the kiosk.

[KDLarsen]

42. I've posted this elsewhere, but it bears repeating

So here it is again:
An open, anonymous poll on a controversial subject will inevitably be skewed towards the controversial side, since the poll will usually be flaunted at websites and forums dedicated to the cause.

Not to mention, it's possible to vote repeatedly in this particular poll, so the result really is useless.

[immune]

43. Websites and forums dedicated to the "cause"?

The Herald Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch, I hardly think his paper or website is dedicated to 911 truth. You wouldn't even think his readers would be dedicated to 911 truth, since they're buying his paper and reading him online?

I will agree that polls that allow more than one vote per person are close to useless, although I wasn't aware that this is one of those. But voting double goes both ways and there's no proof that anyone actually did that ... either way. So as I suggested above, cut the numbers in favor of Bracken in half and you've still got huge numbers of people who doubt the official story.

And that's what's got some folk's knickers in a bunch.

Oh, and of course there are now the ubiquitous calls for destroying Bracken's career and positions, and as I pointed out in the OP, speaking out is a career deal breaker. You're history if you do it and that's something for all first amendment types to think on since what's popular and accepted today can change overnight.

[LARED]

44. I took a poll last week

and the results were that 9 out of 10 DU's believed "immune" had no clue how valid polling is done. So even if I took half of them you are still clueless.

[zappaman]

45. 9 out of 10?

that's it?
I guess you must have asked D & P in that poll...

[KDLarsen]

47. *Swoosh*

The link to the poll has been posted repeatedly on ATS, Prison Planet, 9/11 Blogger, 9/11 Oz, and goodness knows where else, all with the same message that mr. Bracken "needs our help" in winning that poll.

To the contrary, I can't remember seeing it posted anywhere else, with the message that Bracken "needs our help" in losing the poll. Except maybe JREF, and even then it was only linked to for the news value.

If you can't see how that would affect the poll result, I can't help you any further.

[immune]

48. That's called "going viral".

What started out as one pissed off local guy calling a local talk show, apparently has quickly grown into a global cause celebre' and Bracken is now being hailed as a stand up guy and a hero by the worldwide truth movement. Did you think they'd stay silent on this attack against an individual's right to hold an unpopular opinion for long?

So at this point in time, the results of this single poll are the very least of officialdum's problems.

The big worry for OCT storytellers everywhere now has to be the possibility/probability that others in various positions of authority and notoriety around the world will catch the fever and take "coming out" to ever higher levels. And human nature being what it is, its almost guaranteed that's bound to happen, sooner or later. And it looks like there are growing numbers of people out there who will have their backs.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

:applause:

[KDLarsen]

49. If anything, it's astroturfing

Going viral would imply that it is random people, sending links to their friends, saying the guy is onto something and that they should vote in their poll.

In this, case it is merely 9/11 Truthers who, in a brilliant display of slacktivism, sends the link to their fellow 9/11 Truthers, so they can vote up that yes-vote.

Similar examples happen all over the internet, just look at the 2008 Time 100 poll for an extreme example.

[immune]

50. Going viral has to be "random"? Is that according to Hoyle?

Or is it from your own personal rule book?

You guys seem to be mighty obsessed with "randomness" ... well, at least when you're losing.

I hope you're not claiming the truth movement is "playing dirty" with this poll but if so, you might consider getting in touch with Rupert Murdoch. I'm sure he can take care of it for you.

[defendandprotect]

46. Wow -- !!!

Back later to read the link -- !!

[immune]

53. UPDATE on Kevin ...

Kevin has received literally thousands of thank you's from around the world for his brave stance for 9/11 Truth! Standing his ground even after being directly verbally bashed by the Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard saying he was "stupid and wrong" and having his own leadership comrades buckle at the knees if the face of unfounded ridicule. Rather than running for cover Kevin with his chin in the air has reiterated his position defying any to debate him on the issue! As usual all media presstitutes have refused, as there is obviously "no debate to have". It seems that the vast majority of the public disagree and would like to see such a debate but none of the so called "journalists" dare to tread such a path.

Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swamped by 9/11 activists and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received. Many of these I know to be formal as I have received many courtesy copies of the complaints to the ABC accusing them of breeching their charter and broadcast policy.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-24/visibility-9-11-welcomes-australian-union-president-kevin-bracken-%E2%80%93-true-working-class-hero

[zappaman]

54. UPDATE on Kevin...

Kevin has received literally tens of thank you's from around the world for his wacky stance for 9/11 Truth! Standing his ground even after being directly verbally bashed by the Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard saying he was "stupid and wrong" and having his own leadership comrades fall to their knees in laughter in the face of well-deserved ridicule. Rather than running for cover Kevin with his chin in the air and a brain full of stupid, has reiterated his position defying any to debate him on the issue! As usual the media laughed, as there is obviously "no debate to have". It seems that the very few of the public disagree and would like to see such a debate but none of the real journalists bother since it is impossible to convince a crazy person that they are crazy.

Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swamped by 9/11 nutters and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received.

wow....that sure is a credible site! I fixed some of the editorial errors, but left the incredible bad grammar intact...

[immune]

55. You're wasting your talents here, zap

You should be down under helping the ABC deal with the massive complaints they're received.

Actually, your abilities are so varied that I can't decide who needs your help more, the ABC or the man in the moon.

[zappaman]

56. Your belief in the man in the moon

shows your "childlike" beliefs.
Actually, I take that back...even a child knows we went to the moon.
:rofl:

[immune]

57. even a child knows we went to the moon

Yeah, and they know Santa Claus is real. And the easter bunny lays eggs. Children are such marvelous little scientists, God love 'em.

[zappaman]

58. seriously?

now you say you believe in the easter bunny and santa claus?
:rofl:
When a pigeon flies east, the sharks look down.

[immune]

59. I suppose if you were teaching

a class of five year olds and repeated that little ditty enough times, you might pull that one off, too.

*edit to add: well, with some of them, anyway.

[zappaman]

60. With you, I DO feel like I'm teaching a 5 year old

:rofl: