Going to bed. Congratulations to everybody... it's not over yet.

Better than nothing but I think the time should have been used to hammer at the controlled demolition point because thats all you need. That woman just babbeling about the demolition theory was hilarious. I would have taken her down rite there. They also still refuse to play that WTC7 clip. Im sure it will get more people curious tho. Good timeing with the rawstory ad for sure.

Oh yea. Thanks dz. I was wrong all along.

What was her deal? She says we should ask questions but then acts like everyone should just accept her version of the story. Maybe her experts and our experts need a showdown on facts. People: continue asking questions! I think she hasn't done her homework.

ask kevin spacey about the documentary that failed to metion wtc-7 put out by national geographic,didnt he narrate it?

My CNN comment for tonight broadcast:
Showbiz Tonight* Excellent job with the topic of 9/11 and the conspiracy brought to your viewers attention by Charlie Sheen. I have been researching 9/11 for nearly four years and aggree with Sheen We deserve a REAL investigation. Sadly this is the closest to a fair and accurate report seen in the media to date almost 5 years later. Hopefully those of you that have the ability will continue to push the 9-11 Truth Movement completely into public arena. You really have a powerful role to play and I thank you for tonights broadcast but realize this must be only the beginning. Thank you!!

My comments to CNN:

On Showbiz Tonight, Nicole Rittenmeyer of National Geographic, tries to counter Mike Berger's assertions, and says that "some of those issues are easily answered."

She goes on to say that: "The fireproofing was blown off the buildings. There has been tons of research..... it looked to untrained people to be controlled demolition, but experts have evaluated this again and again and again and it's pretty self explanatory."

Self explanatory, Nicole? The three World Trade Centers towers that fell on Sept. 11th were the first and only steel framed buildings that have ever collapsed due to fire. These buildings all fell at near free-fall speed - which, by itself - defies any rational explanation except controlled demolition. Some will say that these were the first buildings that were hit by a plane and THAT is difference. Well, the Empire State building was hit by a large plane many years ago and it did not fall. And Building 7 was hit by no plane, had two small fires, yet collapsed in fashion exactly like controlled demolition.

Perhaps Nicole is referring to the "experts" of the FEMA report on the collapse of the towers. That report, like the animations that were repeated during your segment totally IGNORES the existence of the 47 truss reinforced steel columns making up the core of the World Trade Center towers 1 and 2. The editors of Fire Engineering Magazine called it a "half baked farce."

The official followup report by the "experts" at NIST, in fact, changes the FEMA theory and postulates that the bolts connecting the floor trusses to the central columns failed. Yet, NIST refuses to show the calculations or the models that explain this thesis. Their theory goes up to the moment of INITIATION of collapse and does not in any way explain the actual collapse. To this day, NIST has not given any real explanation as to how Building 7 collapsed. We await their contractors report, due in May, with bated breath!

Steven Jones of BYU and a member of Scholars for 911 truth (st911.org) and Jim Hoffman at wtc7.net have both thoroughly debunked the FEMA and NIST reports. I suggest you get them together with some NIST officials to discuss their theories. Now THAT would be interesting television.

Ask Jay Leno to book Charlie Sheen. email: tonightshow@nbc.com

Randy,

I think Jay Leno is a shill, I doubt he would give Sheen the time of day..

just my 2 cents though, do what you can!

The problem cannot be the part of the solution.

SS,

st911.org setup their sitemeter 2 days ago, you can find there stats here:
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s24st911org&r=35

you can find this site's stats here:
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s21911blogger&r=35

I think better than The Daily Show would be The Colbert Report. Steven is so subtle with a sneaky left hook and I bet he would love to hate a Hollywood liberal conspiracy nutcase like Sheen. And he would do an excellent job for the truthyness movement.

jay leno works for a defense contractor

Nicole Rittenmeyer knowingly lied in stating that WTC-1 & WTC-2 collapsed because the planes blew away their fireproofing.

As supervising producer of National Geographic’s 9/11 “documentaries”, Ms. Rittenmeyer damn well knows that a plane did not strike WTC-7, and that it also collapsed that day. Since WTC-7 collapsed without having “its fireproofing blown away” why must the cause of collapse of WTC-1 & WTC-2 be that their fireproofing was blown away. Ms. Rittenmeyer is deceitful in purposely ignoring that WTC-7 collapsed without having its fireproofing affected whatsoever, when according to her, this was certainly the cause of WTC-1 & WTC-2 collapsing.

The three buildings did collapse similarly due to a similar reason: controlled demolition with explosives!

Jay Leno is a freakin idiot.

Jon Stewart & Colbert all the way! Jon with the "oh no you did´nt!", and colbert with his super patriotic irony.

That would be fuuuureeeeeakiin´ awesome.

Of course, it did happen from the fire, the fire proof was blown off the building, there are tons of research, thereÂ’s a lot of evidence out there that suggests, itÂ’s been examined and reexamined, it looked like a controlled demolition for untrained people, but experts have evaluated that again and again and again.

Nicole Whitmeyer?, National Geographic

Debunking talking points;

• Not all experts agree with this, aka http://www.st911.org
• Steven Jones debunks NIST and other paper-theories already. (In this paper ‘Why indeed did the WTC Building collapse?’)
• The experts who agree with this thesis were paid for by government or government agencies. Who orders the band determines what kind of music to play.
• In fact, there is no evidence that they evaluated a controlled demolition, besides a short mention in the NIST report.
• All steel beams evidence that wasn’t shipped over to China show only minor heat damage.
• The fire wasn’t that hot as they claimed
• Fire proof blown off- everywhere, in the same way? Don’t forget you have a symetrical, fast forward and straight down implosion in less then 10 sec.
• There are some hints that they omitted hard facts, like the 47 interior columns in the WTC or the exterior wall at the Pentagon to reach their conclusions.
• They even admit that they adjusted facts to reach their conclusions, but without saying details. Why not release them? Scientific examination means repeatable modelling, too.
• Why does the modelling stops at first crumbling? What about the rest of the demolition?
• To this day, no conclusion why WTC 7 fell was presented. Instead they offer a challenge for scientist to come up with the best fitting theory.
• Don’t forget the firing of Kevin Ryan, Underwriter Lab, after critizizing NIST report. What exactly was the reason for his firing?
• What exactly is the difference between untrained people and trained people? Was Van Romero trained enough?

It's best to direct debunkers like this NG lady to two lucidly written and abundantly documented articles, both thoroughly undermining the NIST report.

Jim Hoffman: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Steven Jones: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I'm spreading this clip far and wide

Hey guys, damage control is hard at work here, have your say:

http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=891029&boardna...

more links:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds30779.html

http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack/view.bg?articleid=131750

send this guy a few comments:

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/tittletattle/article_212...

CNN´s slogan:

“CNN, The Most Trusted Name In News”

- I say, youre beginning to show that, but theres still a long way to go. Its been almost 5 years, so they have a lot of catching up to do.

dz is very modest re: site statistics, linking to a chart showing visits over the past month. Check out the trend in visits to this site over the past year, available at

http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s21911blogger&r=36