"* 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 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."
If you have an issue with the sampling, Zogby will be able to answer your questions better than I. Perhaps you can make some suggestions to assist them.
And on your sidenote -- I said not that there was a conspiracy but that there is a mistrust of the "official 9-11 story."
My impression of people under 30 (I just turned 30, I guess I don't count anymore) is the same as with the majority of Americans: that we will believe anything we see or hear without critical inquiry and wont ask serious questions as long as there's something more fun to do.
[QUOTE]Fair enough
My impression of people under 30 (I just turned 30, I guess I don't count anymore) is the same as with the majority of Americans: that we will believe anything we see or hear and wont ask serious questions as long as there's something more fun to do.
You think? I think this generation is far more inclined to disagree with whatever is told to us. Just an opinion though.
nobody said it did buckauroooos, since you obviously dont believe a "conspiracy", just give us your story on how and why building 7 went down
Just curious....what do you think brought Buildings 1 and 2 down?
Gravity?
planes, gravity, super thermites
Popular Mechanics:
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undo ented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
-the streamers on either side were from its faulty construction?, are they dust or smoke?, or do they not exist...
Refresh my memory NBAdan....
I don't recall WTC #7 being hit by a fully loaded plane... Or for that matter, any moment where its central steel-reinforced concrete column endured severe impact trauma of any kind. Impacts that would.... say.... knock off fire-protective insulation from the rest of the building's steel columns... Do you recall such events?
Sure, debris from the plane impacts combined with debris from the subsequent collapses of WTC #1 and #2 set off the fires that ravaged the building and created an unstable foundation for the entire WTC complex. That alone should outright explain the more gradual dynamics involved in the building's collapse. Why do people search for a more extreme explanation? I guess those people also fail to realize that the fire itself was never contained and burned until the eventual demise of the building. Some conspiracy argument.
I don't know, but I have looked at many of the WTC 7 conspiracy sites; and they all talk about "Never before has fire brought down a modern skyscaper."
Great.
That's not what anybody is claiming, is it. Why don't those sights mention the fact that the official explanation is that building compromise, design AND fire, fueled by, apparently, quite a bit of diesel fuel brought down the building. I'll tell you why: because it doesn't sell books, or increase web traffic to actually respond to the ACTUAL facts. Strawmen, ultimately, are much easier to conspire around.
And, again, if THIS White House couldn't successfully leak a CIA operatives name, or plant any WMD's in a massive desert country; how, again, did they pull, and continue to pull THIS off?
Generation X-Files.
Because, it just has to be Shrub's/NeoCon's/GOP's/Vast Right Wing Conspiracy's fault.
There is no other explanation acceptable.
Old Bush is the smartest dummy in the world. As poffered here
on this thread. He is so damn dumb, he fooled the whole
congress into thinking Saddam has WMD, he brought down the
towers, caused global warming, boosted oil companies and oil
prices. Damn this man is so dumb, it hurts. Oh, and don't
forget Haliburton.
From Wiki...(What's feeding the conspiracy theories)
Until the NIST reports comes out, I'll reserve further judgement...Conspiracy theorists frequently emphasise the collapse of Seven World Trade Center in discussing the controlled demolition theory. They cite several reasons for this. First, they believe the collapse displayed especially clear features of a controlled demolition. Second, they say that since no plane hit the building, its collapse is even more difficult to explain than that of the two towers. Flaming debris did fall onto the building as a result of the collapse of the twin towers, but World Trade Center buildings 4, 5 and 6 remained standing despite also being severely damaged.[55] Third, researchers emphasise the style in which WTC7 collapsed: according to conspiracy theorists the collapse took 7 seconds, with constant acceleration close to gravitational.[56] (FEMA described the collapse sequence as lasting 37 seconds, basing this on seismic evidence and videos of the roof of the building;[57] 9/11 researchers analyse video footages that show only the sudden collapse of the outer walls and refer to similarity with typical controlled demolitions[58]) Fourth, in a PBS do entary on the collapse, Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building, said the fire department had decided to "pull it".[59] Although his spokesperson later said Silverstein meant that firefighters had decided to withdraw from the building and the surrounding area for their own safety,[60] many conspiracy theorists insist that "pull it" is technical slang in the demolition industry for demolish a building. (Whether or not this is what the phrase means has become a point of dispute.)[61] The official investigation into the collapse is still ongoing (a draft of the NIST report will be released in early 2007). NIST said they had to prioritize their investigations and chose to investigate the collapse of WTC buildings 1 and 2 first, and then building 7.[51] The fact that the building housed the offices of government agencies like the CIA,[62] the FBI, and the SEC, along with the City of New York's emergency command bunker has also fueled conspiracy theories.
if by pull it off you mean Millions of people think their story is bull , firemen, physicists, engineers, architects, high ranking government officials from around the world see right through it. The masses have lost their trust in bush and the administration
all i can say is watch the video 10 times- watch it a 100-not the little one dan had on page 1, google video, multiple angles and sources. believe what you want
Are there credible links to back up these claims?
Jesus ing Christ..........I can't believe how many people that I once thought of as intelligent on this site actually believe it was a conspiracy.
Fixed it for ya.
I'd post them if I had the time and links from the internets would change your mind about anything
the truth movement is large now, these arent the majority of americans who think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, theyre not the majority who have no ing idea what building 7 is, its people who have done the research and IT DOESNT ADD UP IN ANY WAY. and it scares people
What about the people that have done the research and IT DOES ADD UP IN EVERY WAY?
THis is absolutely amazing to me. Seriously, you seriously think the same government that has managed to screw up damn near everything for the past fourty years is responsible for this.
C'mon Mookie, I'm open to anything.
, I was trained in the military to blow up and both WTC 1 and 2 "look" like they were shot.
But I also build things (heavy industrial construction) for a living, so I understand the relationship of dynamic and static loads within a structure that makes hypothesis like this http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf entirely rational and plausible.
And there's the problem and the source of all conspiracy theories. Armchair "scientists" pretending that they know what they are talking about. No one here knows what happened, all they can do is regurgitate what they have heard from a friend who heard from a friend who heard from a friends' friend and sounds good.
I'm not sold on any conspiracy. But there are a lot of unanswered questions and the whitehouse and corp. media are absolutely unreliable and unwilling to fully and impartially investigate. The 9-11 Commission and report were jokes. Also from Wiki --
the White House was often cited as having attempted to block the release of information to the commission [8] and for refusing to give interviews without tight conditions attached (leading to threats to subpoena [9]). The Bush Administration has further been accused of attempting to derail the commission by giving it one of the smallest independent commission funding levels in recent history ($3 million [10]), and by giving the commission a very short deadline. The White House insists that they have given the commission "unprecedented cooperation".
While President Bush and Vice President Cheney did ultimately agree to testify, they did so only under several conditions:
They would be allowed to testify jointly;
They would not be required to take an oath before testifying;
The testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers;
These notes would not be made public.
The commission agreed to these conditions, and the President and Vice President gave their testimony on April 29.
ALSO -- Terror committed or planned by govt/ against is own populous has a strong precedent. Operations AJAX, Northwoods, and Gladio being some.
The Gulf of Tonkin = a govt perpetrated attack on us military in order to fast-track US involvement in Vietnam.
In light of that stuff -- all I'm saying is that "conspiracy" might not be so easy to dismiss as absurd.
Plus -- GDubya is a complete ball of horse . That fact is indisputable.
Oh Yeah -- Robert Gates (then CIA now Sec. D) installed Al-Qaeda in the 1980's as an "intelligence asset."
I'm not sticking up for Bush on this one, so if it sounds that way, get over it. But personally, I think 9/11 occurs under any President in office at the time. Gore, Bush, Clinton, wouldn't have mattered, 9/11 would have happened.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
