NEW ZOGBY POLL REVEALS OVER 70 MILLION VOTING AGE AMERICANS DISTRUST OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY AND SUPPORT NEW INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE US GOVERNMENT ROLE IN THE ATTACKS.*

- 911Truth.org urges 2006 reform candidates to recognize a powerful new constituency.

(Utica, NY) - Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.

The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans' belief in a 9/11 cover up or the need to investigate possible US government complicity, and was commissioned to inform deliberations at the June 2-4 "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future" conference in Chicago. Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success" (with 8% unsure). The poll of American residents was conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, 2006. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.9. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.

According to Janice Matthews, executive director of 911truth.org, "To those who have followed the mounting evidence for US government involvement in 9/11, these results are both heartening and frankly quite amazing, given the mainstream media's ongoing refusal to cover the most critical questions of that day. Our August 2004 Zogby poll of New Yorkers showed nearly half believe certain US officials 'consciously' allowed the attacks to happen and 66% want a fresh investigation, but these were people closest to the tragedy and most familiar with facts refuting the official account. This revelation that so many millions nationwide now also recognize a 9/11 cover up and the need for a new inquiry should be a wake up call for all 2006 political candidates hoping to turn this country around. We think it also indicates Americans are awakening to the larger pattern of deceit that led us into Constitutional twilight and endless war, and that our independent media may have finally come of age."

Poll co-author, W. David Kubiak concurs, saying: "Despite years of relentless media promotion, whitewash and 9/11 Commission propaganda, the official 9/11 story still can't even muster 50% popular support. Since this myth has been the administration's primary source of political and war-making power, this level of distrust has revolutionary implications for everyone working for peace, justice and civil liberties. If we ever hope to reclaim this country, end aggression and restore international respect, we all must finally scrutinize that day when things started to go so terribly wrong. The media and movement leaders ignore this call at their peril, because tens of millions are clearly telling us here they are ready for 9/11 truth."

SCOPE: The poll covered five related areas: 1) Iraq - do Americans think the Bush administration exploited 9/11 to attack Iraq? (44% do, 44% don't); 2) Cover up - did the government and its 9/11 Commission conceal or refuse to investigate evidence that contradicts their official story? (only 48% said no); 3) The collapse of WTC 7, which was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission and has seldom been reported in the media---were respondents aware of this collapse and, if so, did they think it should be investigated (only 52% knew about it, but over 70% of this group believe it should have been investigated); 4) new investigation of official complicity - do respondents think we need one? (only 48% said no); and 5) mass media - how do people rate its performance, including its coverage of alternative 9/11 theories, unanswered questions and inquiry issues? (43% rate it positively, 55% negatively).

(The poll sponsors see knowledge of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 as a bellwether issue, because if people do not know this elementary fact, they have probably not been exposed to any independent 9/11 research at all. Since only 52% of respondents had ever heard of this collapse and 45% support a reinvestigation, it may be reasonably inferred that a public fully informed of all the unreported 9/11 facts might support a new investigation by a margin of 80% or more.)


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, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11 Commission. Initially welcomed by the commissioners as their "road map," these queries cut to the heart of 9/11 crimes and accountability, specifically raising the central issues of motive, means and cui bono (who profited?). The Commission ultimately ignored 80% of these issues, however, opting only to explore system failures, miscommunications and incompetence. The victim families' most incisive questions remain unaddressed to this day.

For more information on the Chicago "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming our Future" conference and other developments, see www.911truth.org and http://911revealingthetruth.org or contact our media coordinator, Michael Berger, at 314-308-4893 or [email protected].

*Numerical computations conservatively based on 2000 Census data citing 174 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 64. NOTE: Given US Census Bureau data projecting 184 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2005, the actual number of Americans who distrust the official 9/11 story is, then, over 80 million.





Survey Methodology: Zogby America, 5/12/06 through 5/16/06

This is a telephone survey of adults nationwide conducted by Zogby International. The target sample is 1,200 interviews with approximately 81 questions asked. Samples are randomly drawn from telephone cd’s of national listed sample. Zogby International surveys employ sampling strategies in which selection probabilities are proportional to population size within area codes and exchanges. As many as six calls are made to reach a sampled phone number. Cooperation rates are calculated using one of AAPOR’s approved methodologies and are comparable to other professional public-opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies. Weighting by region, party, age, race, religion, and gender is used to adjust for non-response. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

Zogby International’s sampling and weighting procedures also have been validated through its political polling: more than 95% of the firm’s polls have come within 1% of actual election-day outcomes.



link to site

Since this seem to have gotten out of hands lately I think that would be a great idea, despite fucking waste of tax money (but hey It's not like it's a significant amount compared to other things the US gov is wasting money on currentely...).

People apperentely need to get back to earth somehow, although they would probably not trust such an investigation either

did the poll ask them who they wanted to do another investigation?

maybe someone or some committee to tell them what they want to hear? dunno?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo did the poll ask them who they wanted to do another investigation? maybe someone or some committee to tell them what they want to hear? dunno?

Ohh..I like it!

We need an investigation into a possible investigation.

Or maybe an investigation into the past investigation.

Then we can have a committee investigate the investigation into the possbile investigation and the past investigation!

But then we'd probably need an investigation into the committe that investigated the investigation into the possible investigation and the past investigation.

We'll just keep investigating until we find something juicy!

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Ohh..I like it! We need an investigation into a possible investigation. Or maybe an investigation into the past investigation. Then we can have a committee investigate the investigation into the possbile investigation and the past investigation! But then we'd probably need an investigation into the committe that investigated the investigation into the possible investigation and the past investigation. We'll just keep investigating until we find something juicy!

Thats sounds like India. Democracy in action.

___________________
___________________

I'm not sure there'd be any point seeing as any investigation which reached the same conclusions as the previous commission would be completely dismissed by the conspiracy theorists anyway.

As for the questions they asked:

quote:

1) Iraq - do Americans think the Bush administration exploited 9/11 to attack Iraq?

This is almost unquestionable, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the establishment of another 9/11 investigation. The previous commission has already concluded that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks, so what further insights could possibly be reached on this topic?

quote:

2) Cover up - did the government and its 9/11 Commission conceal or refuse to investigate evidence that contradicts their official story?

This is certainly possible, but not for the reasons you may think. The Bush administration were certainly eager to deflect blame for the attacks occurring and for the lack of resources devoted to investigating terrorism before the attacks and so - to this extent - I think it's very possible that there exists a schism between the government's official account and what actually happened on 9/11. Dick Clark for instance, in his book "Against All Enemies", makes the allegations that the administration was in disarray immediately after the attacks and that - for a while at least - Dick Cheney was running the show. They were completely unprepared for the attacks and were, as a result, slow and inefficient in responding to them. He also asserts that key members of defence / security teams were completely indifferent to the threat of Al Qaeda when they came to power and refused him the opportunity to brief the president on the threat this organisation posed. So, in this regard, I'd say that there is very likely discongruities between the Bush administration's account of the events and the reality of what happened, but these are on comparitively minor (and very political) points of contention, rather than the key facts in question.

Besides, Dick Clark's testimony poses a problem for those who argue for government involvement. He - and others involved with intelligence and domestic security when the attacks happened - have been critical of the Bush administration on these fronts, but at no point does he intimate that there is the slightest possibility that the Bush administration had prior warning of - or actually orchestrated - the 9/11 attacks: why do you suppose this is? How would the administration be able keep everyone involved in the intelligence and security fields - even those explicitly critical of the administration - quiet for so long?

quote:

3) The collapse of WTC 7, which was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission and has seldom been reported in the media---were respondents aware of this collapse and, if so, did they think it should be investigated

Perhaps it should have been investigated if it wasn't, but given that no-one was injured or killed in the fall of that tower, it's not surprising that it should be low on the commission's list of priorities. Besides, what's the allegation here - that the government destroyed an unoccupied building immediately after the WTC collapsed? What exactly would they have been trying to acheive there?

quote:

4) new investigation of official complicity - do respondents think we need one?

I've got no in principle objection to this, other than the time and money expended that could be utilised anywhere. Why don't we start an investigation about what happened to the WMDs in Iraq - which may actually serve some useful purpose - with those resources instead?

quote:

5) mass media - how do people rate its performance, including its coverage of alternative 9/11 theories, unanswered questions and inquiry issues?

The media doesn't exist to serve as a mouthpiece for every extreme crackpot ideology out there - if it were to report every point of view on every issue, regardless of how obscure or unsubstantiated it may be, then there wouldn't be any space left for actual news. The media exists (or - rather - should exist) to report facts, not to give exposure to everyone out there with an agenda. Until credible evidence surfaces to link the administration to the 9/11 attacks, I'd argue that the media actually best serves the population by not reporting such theories.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Guess what, 104 Million Voting Age Americans DO NOT support a New 9/11 Investigation.

I love polls and statistics.

___________________

mmmm.. delicious...

heres another source

quote:

An earlier Zogby poll sponsored by the same group, 911truth.org, found in 2004 showed nearly half of New Yorkers believed certain U.S. officials "consciously" allowed the attacks to happen. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/artic...RTICLE_ID=50336

Making it, what, like the most popular "conspiracy theory" ever?

It would be nice to see a new independent investigation. The 9/11 commission just had too many things that werent adressed, including building 7. Its funny how the govt put alot more effort into Clinton getting a blowjob than the worst attact on our nations soil.

___________________
. . .. . .. . . . .. . .

I like how the question about using 9-11 as a cover to attack Iraq precedes question number two. Talk about a set-up.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 heres another source Making it, what, like the most popular "conspiracy theory" ever?

Well I certainly hope it wouldn't be an appeal to popularity.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The media doesn't exist to serve as a mouthpiece for every extreme crackpot ideology out there - if it were to report every point of view on every issue, regardless of how obscure or unsubstantiated it may be, then there wouldn't be any space left for actual news. The media exists (or - rather - should exist) to report facts, not to give exposure to everyone out there with an agenda. Until credible evidence surfaces to link the administration to the 9/11 attacks, I'd argue that the media actually best serves the population by not reporting such theories.

some media does. some main stream media does; serve as a mouthpiece for this crap. i don't know what it's like where you are, but here, it still permeates sometimes just to fuel contoversy or ratings or just filler.

when does modern main stream media just report what you say they should? journalism being so competative now, i don't see why they even should from their perspective.