Support 911Blogger


Polls show broad skepticism among Americans of official 9/11 narrative

Below is a summary of opinion polls querying the American public on the viability of the official government narrative for 9/11. Polls have been conducted by such pollsters as Zogby, Scripps Howard, Reuters and Angus Reid and cable news channels such as CNN and MSNBC. Apparently, the official conspiracy theory isn't doing very well. In fact, the numbers are scaring the bejesus out of some of the pollsters, who are left looking for ways to trivialize such large numbers of their fellow citizens as "fringe elements". Tactics include suggesting the respondents are misguided because of ethnocentric bias, inability to cope with events of large magnitude, lack of intelligence, factual ignorance, one-sidedness, the internet or deeply embedded distrust of government. The last suggestion appears to have a chicken-or-egg problem.

Sometimes the guilt by association card is played and the respondent is also asked if he or she believes that "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets". Of course, it would be interesting to see the pollsters apply their tortured excuses to the 9/11 survivors and family members, or indeed, the 9/11 commission itself.

This summary is a repost of a comment by Jon Gold with some links modified to point directly to the original source. Thank you Jon, all credit and kudos go out to you.
 


Polls...

In August 2004, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded "half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."

In May 2006, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded 45% of voting Americans think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success."

In August 2006, Scripps Howard/Ohio University conducted a poll that concluded, "more than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East."

In October 2006, a poll was conducted by CBSNews/New York Times that said, "only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks."

In September 2007, 911Truth.org commissioned Zogby International for a poll that concluded "51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 Attacks."

In November 2007, Scripps Howard/Ohio University conducted another poll that concluded, "nearly two-thirds of Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings."

In December 2007, a poll was conducted in Hudson County that showed residents, "are more likely than not to believe that U.S. government officials chose to ignore warnings about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

In September 2008, a poll was conducted that showed, "there is no consensus outside the United States that Islamist militants from al Qaeda were responsible."

Then there's the first CNN poll, the second CNN poll, the MSNBC poll, and the Showbiz Tonight poll, all of which were very much in our favor.

The only time polls weren't in our favor is when an "anti-truther/debunker" would set them up deliberately to fail. By asking ridiculous questions... I don't have any of those collected.
 

[A recent collection of polling data can also be found here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/23199 - Site Editor]

I'm a Sociology student

and I'm fascinated by the polls on 9/11

the NYT/CBS question was also asked in 2004- as I noted on the Matthews post, it was conducted in 3 periods over a month, and showed swings in opinion of up to 10%, but all the answers were still in the same general proportion/range:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20040429_poll/20040429_pol...
77. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling Truth Hiding something Mostly lying DK/NA
3/30-4/1/04 CBS 24 58 14 4
4/8/04 CBS 21 66 10 4
4/23-27/04 24 56 16 4

The NYT/CBS published the 2004 poll results; the 2006 results I seem to recall may be able to be found by digging thru their websites- I've never come across the 2002 results anywhere other than angus-reid. Given that it was done in 2002, 2004 and 2006- who wants to bet it was also done in 2008, and they're sitting on the results cuz skepticism is even higher? The 2004 results showed slightly greater faith in the OCT than 2002- perhaps the powers that be that control the 'liberal' NYT and CBS were thinking the myth was starting to capture the public's imagination, so they released the results. If i could afford it, I'd pay Zogby to ask just that one question, although there's others I'd like to see the answers to.

There have been at least 8 published national polls of Americans, and they all show large percentages, even super-majorities, are skeptical of the OCT. People are much less sure about what happened; more people simply support further disclosure, full investigation, etc.

Wikipedia has a page for 9/11 polls, but the links are mostly broken for some reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls

I've collected many of them here:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/911-truth-part-1-of-11-911-pu...

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Thanks for posting this. ...appreciate the many references.

SnowCrash, Thank you for the many comments and posts which have had some excellent references or summations attached. 9/11 has become a huge textbook-encyclopedia. It is nice to have aspects earmarked.

The polls generally show

that the closer the question approximates broad skepticism concerning the Bush Administration, the more likely people are to agree; but the more specific the questions get about 9/11, the skepticism begins to drop off a bit. Alex Jones always cites the NYT poll because it sounds like 84% of Americans agree with 9/11 Truth, but that's not what the poll actually says. I think support for the "inside job" theory is maybe in the 20% range. The 84% figure is mostly people who think the Bushies lied about prior intelligence to cover up their own incompetence; that opinion is basically support for the official narrative. As far as I'm concerned, a cover up is a cover up. 9/11 should be re-investigated, whatever the reasons for the omissions and distortions. Too many people get bogged down in pet theories, which makes support for a new investigation harder to achieve.

Certainly, the amount of skepticism out there is much greater than the media will allow. But I don't think the skepticism is as unified in its reasons as some people would like.

Hey guess what?

"The 9/11 truthers have ALWAYS been a tiny band."


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Hey Jon,

What do you make of the Aug. 6 memo in light of the recent Sibel bombshell that bin Laden was a US operative up until Sept. 11? This calls into question BOTH the Aug. 6 memo and the Osama confession, does it not??

Instead of being evidence for negligence, it could be seen, more rightly in my view, as evidence for complicity.

This could be an excellent way to attract many of the "Bush skeptics who draw the line at 9/11 truth" people simuvac was pointing out. And a strong way to breach the alternative media who might run the Sibel Edmonds story. Just a thought.

The August 6th, PDB...

Is interesting in that Bush told the briefer that "you've covered your ass." Almost as if to say, "ok, you've informed me of the impending attack that we're going to get, so now you're covered..."

The Osama confession video has always been in doubt. And no, not because it isn't Osama.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

But because of WHO Osama is..

Yes. Which is why the Sibel story is so important. And speaking of CYA..... A well-conceived false flag would want to generate warnings and confessions. The perpetrators would want to cover their asses before and after the fact.

If Sibel Edmonds is telling the truth, this is very important. The most prominent warning, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the US," is called into doubt--- for at the time he was a US operative! And the primary confession, the OBL video which was already dubious, is now cast even more in doubt. (And is not considered hard evidence by the FBI apparently).

The KSM 'confession' was derived through torture from a man who made numerous false confessions while being waterboarded. (He falsely confessed to the murder of Daniel Pearl). Can he be trusted without corroborating evidence when he claims to be the 'mastermind of 9/11?' I think not. Was he the mastermind of war games and demolitions? Is he the mastermind of Cheney's orders in the bunker? Is he the mastermind of mailing military anthrax? Is he the mastermind of the Commission's cover-up?

FBI Quotes:

"We have not uncovered... either here in the US or in Afghanistan... any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot." ---FBI Director Robert Mueller

"The FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11." ---Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, Rex Tomb

"Osama bin Laden was a US Operative up until Sept. 11." ---FBI translator Sibel Edmonds

Valid points...

But I think we need more information before we can discount things.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I hate the term Bush Derangement Syndrome

especially the way the Mother Jones author uses it.

What more would Bush have to do to deserve our complete and metaphysical disgust? Of course it's not Bush alone who did these things, but as a symbol for all the mass murderers and thieves in the American oligarchy Bush deservedly drew the amount of hate he received. I don't think there is such a thing as too much hate for someone like Bush.

A Tiny Band

Man alive, I read the article. Jon this is a joke, right?

This is some "tiny band." this guy libels. 80% of Americans do not trust the government. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_go_ot/us_government_distrust

This author reminds me of a time when I went for a drive with an old codger. He ran three stop lights in a row. After the third red light he blew through I asked him if he realized he just red three red lights in a row?

He responded, "Oh, am I driving?"

Like the driver, this author is unhinged.

SnowCrash

Picking up on the hijackers, who I agree with you were pawns or dupes of some kind, I have a couple of questions for you.

Do you accept the validity of the 19 hijacker list or are you skeptical?
Do you accept that these guys were competent pilots or are you skeptical?
Do you accept that a false flag operation would have relied upon them to successfully hit pre-determined targets-- from which hinged the entire operation, or are you skeptical?

Or do you consider 9/11 to be the result of mere criminal negligence rather than an inside job? Thanks.

It has been my experience...

That no one knows with absolute certainty what happened on 9/11. I'm not ashamed to say it. In fact, I think it makes for a good argument. The fact that we DON'T KNOW "what happened on 9/11."


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

A Damn good argument

The fact that we don't know what happened on 9/11..... and we SHOULD. I'm with you.

: What really pisses me off is that intelligent 'alternative media' types won't cross over to demanding truth...because they think they DO KNOW this was a terrorist attack by Osama. Their minds are made up, so even if they suspect a cover-up by Bush officials and believe they let down our guard-- or benefited from the attacks--there isn't the level of outrage there should be. They can excuse unanswered questions since they believe we really were attacked by these foreign terrorists. In other words they can live with idea of a cover-up. And this is 8 years on. They must be rattled with a bombshell.

"Nanothermite in the dust" and " Bin Laden being a US operative all the way up until 9/11" are game changers.

Questions

Warning: speculation below.

Do you accept the validity of the 19 hijacker list or are you skeptical?
I haven't done enough homework on the subject in my opinion, but it's funny that Moussaoui got prevented from participating. Set up to be a patsy, maybe? They had somebody to put on trial. This is a very complex question. What matters to me also is the people who checked in Atta & cohorts at the airport. The answer to this question could potentially be very long, if you want to take into account all the contradictions and conflicts. I know this though: flight aa 77 seems to have "Operation Northwoods" written all over.

Do you accept that these guys were competent pilots or are you skeptical?
Do you accept that a false flag operation would have relied upon them to successfully hit pre-determined targets-- from which hinged the entire operation, or are you skeptical? Or do you consider 9/11 to be the result of mere criminal negligence rather than an inside job?
Hani Hanjour could not have flown flight 77 the way he supposedly did, in my opinion. He was a horrific pilot, almost all his instructors agree.

Ziad Jarrah? Well, flight 93 is somewhat of a mystery. I believe it was shot out of the sky, and I believe this was covered up. Don't know much about his piloting skills, but I do know a little about the person. He seems to have been a tormented weakling, who was mentally unprepared for the job. This fascinates me, but I don't know what to make of it yet. I find it strange that flight 93's crew was unable to prevent hijack even though they were notified.

Marwan Al-Shehhi's impact into WTC 2 is one of the most studied events of 9/11. From looking at it: one has to wonder: how much of it was manual, how much of it was flight director, or was it remote control?

Atta's impact seems pretty straightforward, but nevertheless I have Rudi Dekkers on tape (in Dutch) saying he tried it in a simulator himself and failed. I should post that video, but I need to subtitle it.

Some of these guys reportedly had military training, and Atta is alleged to have possibly been involved in drug smuggling. I don't know what to make of that.

The fact that the areas that were stuck had fireproofing upgrades going on prior to 9/11 makes me very suspicious. In my opinion, 9/11 is an excuse for the military to try out new weapons. These include weaponized anthrax, nano-thermite and Global Hawk, cynical as it sounds. The only way to try out this stuff without risk is on your own soil, where you control any possible investigation into the matter.

The presence of nano-thermite in WTC dust suggests they would have built-in some sort of insurance in order to make sure the planes struck. My curiosity is further aroused by that pre 9/11 episode of The Lone Gunmen, where the script writers were supposedly tapping "government officials" for ideas.

I've come to understand that ego is a strong motivator, and it will leave perpetrators wanting for some sort of recognition for their sick operation. Nothing strokes the ego more than a little Hollywood attention, and I don't find that unlikely at all. Ironically, the Wikipedia entry for the Lone Gunmen describes the protagonists as "ardent conspiracy theorists". Either it's disinfotainment, or there is a kernel of truth to this. Either way, in my opinion, it's no coincidence. Notice the explicit reference to a "war game scenario". Another strategy consideration may be the use of a preemptive guilt by association tactic.

So, I'll say this. I give Webster Tarpley credit for one specific thing: his comprehensive coverage of the 9/11 exercises and the phenomenon: double agent. The similarity to what happened in London is striking. An exercise as cover, uncertainty about the extent of planning on the part of the alleged perpetrators. Again, one of the planners is likely a double agent (Haroon Rashid Aswat) as was Ali Mohamed for 9/11. This phenomenon is very interesting and probably the key to unraveling the real behind-the-scenes modus operandi of the hijackers.

However much of the above is speculation. Stick to the science for real answers is what I'd say at this point. The science tells us nano-thermite was present in WTC dust, and I find this to be much more straightforward lead to follow than speculating about the hijackers. In the end, studying the anthrax led right back to Fort Detrick's doorstep.

The MSNBC poll that you cited

That poll is still ongoing and although your figure of 60% may have been accurate at one time, it's now 67% who checked the "Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/
Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? * 96887 responses
=======================
Also, although it may appear that you can vote over and over again, you can't. Well, you can but the number of votes won't go up. I tried it in the wee hours of the morning when no one would be taking the poll. After taking note of the current number of voters, I cleared my cookies and tried again but the vote wouldn't register as a new one.