Poll: 48% of New Yorkers Support Building 7 Investigation


New Poll: 48% of New Yorkers Support a New 9/11 Investigation into Building 7's Collapse.

As the 10 Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches quickly, a new Siena poll shows that half of New Yorkers today are in support of a new probe into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

The poll shows that 1 in 3 New Yorkers were unaware of Building 7's collapse, and despite the importance of the events of that day, only 25% have ever seen video footage of Building 7's collapse. Only 30% could identifty the name of the skyscraper. Moreover, the poll shows that only 40% of New Yorkers believe the official explanation that office fires were responsible for the collapse of this 47 story steel-framed structure.

The poll was conducted in May of 2011, and is sponsored by Remember Building 7 (a group including 9/11 family members), NYC CAN and by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). Four 9/11 family members and four AE911Truth representatives actually feature in a historic TV ad now being seen across New York City. The people appearing in the TV ad are asking people to learn about the collapse of Building 7 and are challenging US officials at NIST for their conclusions about the event.

To watch the TV ad and learn more about this poll, visit: http://www.RememberBuilding7.org

Direct Link To Siena Poll?

That would help. Always good to be able to see polls methodology, sample size etc.

here tis

The poll findings can be found at www.siena.edu/sri/research and the Remember Building 7 campaign site, www.RememberBuilding7.org.

New Building 7 Poll


New Building 7 Poll

Download Press Release http://rememberbuilding7.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Building-7-Poll-Results-Website-Release.pdf
Download Poll Results http://rememberbuilding7.org/poll-results/Building7_Poll.pdf


Siena Research Institute Poll Commissioned by “Remember Building 7” Campaign Shows Significant Skepticism of Official Account

June 8, 2011

NEW YORK CITY, NY — Amid its June 6th launch of 425 advertising spots on New York television, Remember Building 7 – an advocacy campaign calling for a new investigation into the collapse of a third skyscraper on 9/11 – has released findings from a new poll it commissioned on what New Yorkers believe about that day.

The May polling of 643 New Yorkers (including respondents in all of New York City’s five boroughs) by the independent Siena Research Institute shows meaningful levels of doubt and concern regarding the truth about what happened that day, with only 60 percent of New Yorkers ready to “move on”, and 48 percent in favor of the Manhattan District Attorney or New York City Council opening a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

The poll finds:

• 1 in 3 New Yorkers were unaware of Building 7’s collapse (the skyscraper was not hit by an airplane; it collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers), only 25 percent have ever seen video footage of the collapse, and 86 percent were unable to name the building;

• Of those aware of Building 7’s collapse, 24 percent believe it was a controlled demolition that brought the building down, 23 percent are unsure, and 49 percent believe it was caused by fires;

• 36 percent of all respondents are inclined to believe critics who argue against the government’s explanation that the collapse was caused by fires, including a group of 1,500 architects and engineers who say no steel-framed skyscraper has ever succumbed to fire. Forty percent are inclined to believe the government’s account, and 23 percent are unsure;

• 48 percent of those polled are in favor of a new investigation into Building 7’s collapse, compared to 44 percent opposed and 8 percent who don’t know or refused to answer.

• 28 percent — more than 1 in 4 — believe the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives or some other demolition devices in addition to being hit by airplanes.

• In sum, 36 percent say they are “not satisfied that we know the whole truth about that day, and it is time to get to the bottom of what happened,” versus 60 percent who ten years later say they are “satisfied that we understand well enough what happened and it’s time to move on.”

The poll findings can be found at www.siena.edu/sri/research and the Remember Building 7 campaign site, www.RememberBuilding7.org.

The 30-second advertising spots produced for Remember Building 7 feature 9/11 family members, architects and engineers who call for more information about how Building 7 collapsed. Video of the building’s free-fall is shown. (The spot, second in a series that began last September, may be viewed at www.RememberBuilding7.org) The spots are airing in the New York area through June 26 on fifteen different cable channels, including New York 1 News, MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central, HGTV, Logo, Bio, MSG, YES, VH1, CNBC and Bravo, among others.

$100,000 used to purchase the spots was raised from contributions made through the RememberBuilding7.org site.

“As we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, it is important to note that there are significant numbers of people who still don’t feel their questions have been fully answered,” says Manny Badillo, Director of Outreach for the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), a co-sponsor of the Remember Building 7 campaign. The other cosponsor, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), has gathered over 1,500 signatures from architects and engineers who say the government’s 2008 account by the National Institute of Standards and Technology of Building 7’s collapse is physically impossible, and that its fall was due to a controlled demolition.

Badillo, a former member of the U.S. Air Force, lost his uncle on 9/11 and appears in the TV ad. He says that the government has not answered 70 percent of 9/11 families’ questions about what happened that day.

“The story of 9/11 is not complete without the voices of patriotic Americans who question the official account of what happened on 9/11. Our world has never been the same since then – it’s time for more information,” states Badillo.

William Brinnier, a New York architect who also appears in the TV spot, notes, “It’s remarkable that 1 out of 3 people don’t know a third building collapsed on 9/11, but it’s encouraging to see that when they are informed of the 1,500 architects and engineers who question the government’s findings, more people support a new investigation than don’t.”

Brinnier lost a friend, WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini, who was responsible for rescuing people from the Twin Towers before his death there on 9/11.

# # #

For more information, contact: 516-564-3480

48% vs. 44%

The bottom line re: Building 7: More people support a new investigation than don't.

48% YES
44% NO
8% Unsure

Follow up with NYC Officials

We should use the results of this poll to follow up with Christine Quinn and Cyrus Vance, Jr. They cannot dismiss us as kooks when nearly HALF of New Yorkers agree with our demand to investigate Building 7.
(Quinn is the Speaker of the NY City Council and Cy Vance, Jr. is the Manhattan D.A.)

With the TV ads now blanketing the Big Apple, it is time to leverage these poll results with a telephone campaign. I urge AE's to personally meet with these officials.

SRI is a trusted polling institution which conducts surveys for politicians in NY. This is solid. And the results were obtained during the month of May after the alleged 'death' of OBL. This post-OBL period is a crucial time for us to show backbone.


Good point! Hope the results help get a reinvestigation going in New York.

Also, these stats can be used when talking about 911 in general. Many people are still blinded by the perceived "nuttiness" of the idea of WTC demolitions. A mention of this poll will disabuse some people of that limited perspective.


Unsurprisingly New Yorkers are way ahead of the curve. 911 Truth Activists may be shocked that roughly 30% of the populace are completely unaware of B7 but what's truly shocking (given the media blackout) is that the figure isn't more like 70%. That 40% disbelieves the official fairy tale regarding the implosion of the towers is a testament to the perseverance and diligence of 911 truth activists, especially in NY itself. Well done!

Even more surprising..

was how so few had even saw footage of building 7 coming down, only 1 in 4!. Good to see 48% agree about a new investigation. That number can only go up as more people see footage and understand freefall. I'd be curious what the numbers would be after this run of commercials. Does anyone have any stats on how much traffic the ads are bringing to the website? One read through the evidence tab and I am sure that would change their opinion. I see they have Larry Silverstein on this tab. I don't think I would choose to do that but that's just me. I'd like to see Jon Cole's videos on the site too.

Just a few thoughts..

peace all


Agree on all points

...Except that Silverstein should be exempted from the link list.

Aside from B7 -- the elephant in the room attached-by-the-tail-to-Larry-by-a-daisy-hanging-off-a-a-cliff -- Silverstein is relevant re 911 if for no other reason than he boasted that he chatted with Binny Netanyahu "weekly". Why is this relevant? Because Binny was one of the primary architects of the war on terror mythology (during the 80's, especially). States Diana Ralph of Jewish Voices for Peace --

The concept of a ‘‘war on terror’’ pre-dates 9-11 by 22 years. Its seeds were first planted in 1979 at the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT) organized by Benjamin Netanyahu (future Israeli Prime Minister). JCIT kicked off a campaign for a ‘‘war on terror’’ against ‘‘international terrorism’’. It featured: pre-emptive attacks on states that are alleged to support ‘‘terrorists;’’ an elaborate intelligence system apparatus; slashed civil liberties, particularly for Palestinians targeted as potential terrorists, including detention without charge, and torture; and propaganda to dehumanize ‘‘terrorists’’ in the eyes of the public. George H.W. Bush Sr. and (...) George Schultz, Reagan’s Secretary of State enthusiastically endorsed this concept. Bush Sr. gave a speech at JCIT advocating precisely the type of ‘‘war on terror’’ that his son implemented in 2001. But he acknowledged that such a policy would be highly unpopular:

(minus a "Pearl Harbor"-type-event, obviously)

Danse, you said it... "testament to ... 911 truth activists"

That is an important point which you brought up.
Despite the media blackout on Building 7, a large percentage of folks are aware of Building 7 and a large percentage disbelieve the official story.
"...is a testament to the perseverance and diligence of 911 truth activists."

Percentages for our side will always increase as more people become aware.
We are winning.

New Yorkers

That means 52% of New Yorkers are suffering from stupidity.


although I 100% agree, it is quite probable that some or many of the idiots will soon change their tune while the 52% never will

Polls are weird, I have difficulty trusting them...

...regardless of whether or not the results are encouraging or discouraging.
So, the common sentiment among people reading the results here is probably, "this is frustrating".
No. this isn't frustrating. What's frustrating is trying to relate this information to younger generations.
Most people aren't properly equipped with the education to decipher the importance of this issue, let alone take the time to re-direct their limited attention span away from their unreality t.v., rigged sporting event, or whatever pacifies them to any kind of critical thinking.

The classrooms, whether public or private are going to set a foundation and have a very rigid curriculum that couldn't possibly allow any alternative beliefs to shift that foundation, but it's still imperative for educators to find a way to pierce through that iron curtain curriculum and allow students to be aware of ALL the information to balance it out on their own and arrive to their own conclusions.

I'm of the opinion that if anyone wants their message to truly resonate, instill it in the youth.

I'm sure most of the people polled were adults, ranging anywhere between 20 and 60 years of age, many of whom will be set in their beliefs. Don't underestimate the preconceived cultural perceptions affecting this poll or the complex political ramifications that influence a person to say one thing when they mean another. I mean seriously, that's become the SOP for any person considering a political future, don't tell them how you really feel, tell them what the majority want to hear.

Now, while most of you believe 9/11 truth is more than just a "political message", it's still going to be perceived as a political message and needs to be refined in such a way that can not only get all the people's attention but also peak younger generations' interests and remain accessible to generations that follow before they've adhered to and become defined by party affiliation.

Be the Media.

Spread this to all your political contacts, media contacts, and lawmakers you can.

The results are encouraging but...

The number of respondents was 643. For some demographics, there are quite a few categories which would indicate quite small numbers. Any decent sample would need at least 2000.

Having said that, there are some good questions. Study the demographics in the "cross-tabs" pdf file. This kind of information can direct acitivism efforts towards certain target groups (like market research)

Males were more likely to have:

Named the building
Seen the video footage of the collapse
Said it was a controlled demolition

On the question of who they would rather believe (government or critics), females were more likely to have said "critics" but on the question of a new investigation, males are in favour, females are opposed (despite not believing the Government's explanation).

643 respondents

643 respondents is a good sample size - for percentages pertaining to the full sample it means a margin of error of 3.9 percentage points, which means there is a 95% chance the real number falls within 3.9 percentage points of the sample results. Yes, with smaller sub-groups the margin of error will be larger, so, for example, the margin of error for men believing one thing or another would probably be around 5 percentage points. But 650 is certainly common for polls because it gets you to the 4% margin of error.

Sampling Size

Seems like 8 one-thousandths of a percent of the population is small. Wish I understood sampling size better. Would 643 also be a good number for the population of China?


It has nothing to do with the relationship between the size of the sample and the size of the population (unless your population is very small, then you could just survey your whole population).

What is important is that the sample is randomly selected, and is representative of the population. The results of the poll cannot be translated to all of the US, only New York, because that is where the sample is from. So if you wanted to know about all of China, you'd have to take a sample from all over the country, and you'd have to be careful not to oversample people from one region. Obviously you'd only be sampling people who have phones, so right there your sample is biased because much of the China doesn't have phones. But supposing your sample is truly representative, 650 would be enough to tell you where the Chinese population stands with a margin of error of + or - 3.9 percentage points, which means there is a 95% chance the actual number falls within that range. There's a 5% chance you got your result by chance and that's not representative of the actual population, and a 95% the actual number falls within that range. If you sample say 5000, your margin of error will be smaller, say 2 percentage points.



Election polls have around a 1000 respondents

Any higher than that won't get a more accurate result, but it would have been ideal to get that many.

March on Washington.


October 2011 is the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan and the beginning of the 2012 federal austerity budget. It is time to light the spark that sets off a true democratic, nonviolent transition to a world in which people are freed to create just and sustainable solutions. Read more.
I will be there

"I pledge that if any U.S. troops, contractors, or mercenaries remain in Afghanistan on Thursday, October 6, 2011, as that occupation goes into its 11th year, I will commit to being in Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., with others on that day with the intention of making it our Tahrir Square, Cairo, our Madison, Wisconsin, where we will NONVIOLENTLY resist the corporate machine until our resources are invested in human needs and environmental protection instead of war and exploitation. We can do this together. We will be the beginning."