End of Moussaoui trial may destroy Bush administration

[oedo]

Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation Mon May 22, 8:00 AM ET

Utica, NY (PRWEB) May 22, 2006 -- 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.

911Truth.org Urges 2006 Reform Candidates to Recognize a Powerful New Constituency


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, 2004. 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---had respondents been aware of this collapse and, if so, did they think it should be investigated (only 52% had known 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. Because the number of respondents who support a new investigation of 9/11 (45%)) is roughly the same as the number who knew about the collapse of Building 7 (52%), it can reasonably be extrapolated that if the entire public were exposed to independent 9/11 research, about 90 percent would support a new investigation of the events of that fateful day.)

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 http://www.911truth.org and http://911revealingthetruth.org or contact our media coordinator, Michael Berger, at 314-308-4893.

* Numerical computations conservatively based on 2000 Census data citing 174 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 64.

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 methodologies1 and are comparable to other professional public-opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies.2 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/200605.../prweb388743_4

Oh, my, I haven't had a belly laugh that good in a while! Americans are so gaga!

[NeOmega]

Building 7 is just unbelievable. There is no reason the whole building would have collapsed like that unless it was rigged.


It was not hit by a jumbo jet full of fuel, so it did not have the widespread fire, nor did it have the impact that was blamed for knocking off the fireproofing, which was what was blamed for the weakening of the steel in towers 1 & 2

furthermore, many skyscrapers have burned much more for a longer period of time and did not collapse.

Only a corner on building 7 was on fire. Any level headed, sane person could see it was demolished. You are looney to try and believe it was some kind of natural collapse.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Any level headed, sane person could see it was demolished. You are looney to try and believe it was some kind of natural collapse.

[Ted Striker]

The Madrid fire was much worse but the skyscraper in question never fell

[Ted Striker]

.

[Kuciwalker]

That building looks like it's burning from the top, Ted. Duh.

[Ted Striker]

The whole building is on fire, duh

[Jaguar]

You're a tool. The World Trade Center got hit by a large metal object weighing roughly 200,000 pounds going at several hundred miles per hour. The Madrid building didn't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wiki is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower

It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing.

Though the outsides of it did partially collapse.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Jaguar
You're a tool. The World Trade Center got hit by a large metal object weighing roughly 200,000 pounds going at several hundred miles per hour. The Madrid building didn't.

Which the designer said could withstand several airplane crashes



And has never been verified in a simulation to collapse

Next?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Wiki is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower

It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing.

Though the outsides of it did partially collapse.

Well yeah thanks for repeating what I've already read and?

[Jaguar]

Who says the designer, or anyone else, could make an accurate estimate on the damage of a plane crash? There are at least a few thousand significant variables involved.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wiki is again your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

However, intense heat from the burning jet fuel and combustibles near the cores of the towers was weakening the central steel columns, the longspan floor trusses and cross trusses, and the joints connecting the floorplates to the external columns. The strength of the steel dropped markedly with exposure to fire, losing half its strength at a temperature of 1,202F (650C).[5]

Stuctural Engineer Charles Clifton says that a combination of factors including the impact from aircraft flying at high speed caused internal structural damage.[6] The lightness and hollowness of the towers allowed the jet fuel (and resulting fires) to penetrate far inside the Towers. This lightness and hollowness were functions, primarily, of the absence of building-wide rows of columns (and attendant walls), the absence of masonry elements or heavy steel in the facades, and the use of gypsum cladding rather than reinforced concrete to encase stairways and elevator shafts. The collapse certainly would not have occurred without the fires, but the fires may not have been as centrally positioned nor as intense had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft— debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings and/or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which themselves would not have been unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers might have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely.[7][8] Fires resulting from the aviation fuel spread widely through the impact zone and ultimately led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. As the Towers collapsed, the destabilization, debris, and associated fires damaged many of the buildings in the immediate vicinity.

Now... compare and contrast, and educate yourself.

[Ted Striker]

Well you know that whole planning and designing tall buildings to withstand airplane crashes has been around for a while.

Such as the time a B-25 hit the Empire State Building, you know they take those things into design of skyscrapers MAYBE


Next ?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Wiki is again your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

However, intense heat from the burning jet fuel and combustibles near the cores of the towers was weakening the central steel columns, the longspan floor trusses and cross trusses, and the joints connecting the floorplates to the external columns. The strength of the steel dropped markedly with exposure to fire, losing half its strength at a temperature of 1,202F (650C).[5]

Stuctural Engineer Charles Clifton says that a combination of factors including the impact from aircraft flying at high speed caused internal structural damage.[6] The lightness and hollowness of the towers allowed the jet fuel (and resulting fires) to penetrate far inside the Towers. This lightness and hollowness were functions, primarily, of the absence of building-wide rows of columns (and attendant walls), the absence of masonry elements or heavy steel in the facades, and the use of gypsum cladding rather than reinforced concrete to encase stairways and elevator shafts. The collapse certainly would not have occurred without the fires, but the fires may not have been as centrally positioned nor as intense had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft— debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings and/or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which themselves would not have been unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers might have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely.[7][8] Fires resulting from the aviation fuel spread widely through the impact zone and ultimately led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. As the Towers collapsed, the destabilization, debris, and associated fires damaged many of the buildings in the immediate vicinity.

Now... compare and contrast, and educate yourself.

Again, you are already posting information I have read a long, long time ago

That's the official line and reasoning for the collapse yes