9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero, Parts 1&2 CTV911 | November 25, 2010

9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero, Pt. 1


CTV911 | November 25, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/user/CTV911

What happened to the Twin Towers? Evidence for extreme ruin: http://911conspiracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/molten-steel-extreme-temperatures-at-wtc/

At Fresh Kills Landfill, debris sorting site, NYPD Deputy Inspector and lead investigator on-site (working with FBI), James Luongo, when asked if there were one particular artifact of interest, replied:
"I think the lack of artifacts stands out to me quite a bit. I think the fact that I haven't seen a door, I haven't seen a phone, I haven't seen a computer. I haven't seen a doorknob. I think that stands out."
- "Relics from the Rubble"

This misunderstood pulverization and melting was the consequence of something other than gravity and jet fuel, it would seem. Demolition.


"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36)."

John Gross of NIST and other molten metal clips:

Witness accounts and WTC "collapse" videos:


"Think of the thousands of file cabinets, computers, and telephones in those towers - I never saw one - everything was pulverized,' he said. 'Everything that was above grade - above the 6th and 7th floor - disintegrated...it was like an explosion."
- Peter Tully of Tully Construction, contractor responsible for the eastern quadrant of the pile-- the South Tower, WTC 4 and 5, and underground

9/11 Debris, Pt. 2:


Someone remind me again

why it is considered off limits here at the blogger to speculate or theorize about anything other than thermite or c-4, etc., having been employed ?

A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested

and requires some form of quantitative analysis of credible evidence.

If you have credible evidence for something other than chemical based explosives and/or incendiaries, then bring it on.

Following the scientific method is never off limits here.

I have yet to see anything that cannot be explained by the use of chemical based explosives and/or incendiaries, as I am fond of pointing out to the mini-nukes and DEW proponents (which are few and far between these days).

I trust this answers your question.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

The "pulverization" becomes very real to the viewer

This video can be a good "intro dissemination tool" for getting people to start to put their attention on 9/11 Truth.
Pretty amazing phenomena... ...the pulverization of these Towers.

If we accept the witnesses we hear in this

video - no door knobs, no file cabinets, no desks, fine powder, molton pools, etc - then i don´t really see how all that destruction could be caused by shape charges (plus of course the weight of the building at free fall).
Am I a scientist, no. Nor do I have a particular hypothesis even. I just object to what i percieve as closed mindedness, and sectarianism evident when anyone suggests hypotheses which attempt to explain the full extent of the damages observed.
I don´t have the answers - and therefore I wouldn´t want to be responsible for forcing a SPLIT in the Truth Movement over these issues !

There are formulations of nanothermite

which are extremely energetic (i.e. highly explosive).

I have had lengthy discussions with a Carnegie Mellon trained engineer and a MIT trained chemist/physicist who worked at Lawrence Livermore National Labs and we have yet to find anything in the observed phenomenon that requires more than chemical explosives and incendiaries.

We are all completely open minded, but have yet to see any reason to look beyond what has been found.

Chemical based high explosives can produce a lot of energy, and nano energetics are much more efficient.

There was more than just "shape charges" in those buildings. They had to make sure the towers were totally destroyed and they only had one shot at it, so they had to overload it load it to make sure. Let's not forget that they also wanted maximum psychological shock, as well.

Who is being close minded and about what?

What is it that you think can't be explained by chemical explosives and incendiaries?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Who is being close minded and about what?

I was referring to the way people like Jim Fetzer for instance have been treated here on this site because of his take on the towers destruction and other issues.

Chandler, AZ February 23, 2007

If you were there, as I was, then you would know quite clearly why Mr. Fetzer is no friend of the 9/11 truth movement.

Apparently, he has also been quite disruptive in JFK investigation circles, as well.

"Expanding the explanandum" was his mantra, a complete divorce from the scientific method is his practice.

His take on the towers destruction has zero merit, as he has nothing credible to support that take (I'm guessing some form of DEW, is what you are referring to?)

If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that you contact me directly through the contact feature on my profile. Thanks.


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Had A Long 'One On One' Conversation w/ Fetzer

About a year and a half ago I ran into Fetzer in a coffee/bagel shop. We talked for 30-45 minutes about JFK and 9/11. I found him to be highly intelligent but also that he had a monumental ego and enjoyed being seen as a contrarian and a mischief maker.

Just my two cents.


This is old news.

He may have missed it,

I know I wish I had...



There is something

amusingly paradoxical about saying "old news" ... or perhaps better described as an oxymoron ;-)

New olds! :-P

They're still looking

I was going through the recent video posts of Steven Jones, Mark Basille, etc. and they're unanimous that more research needs to be done, is being done, to look for other types of explosives. I read a paper a few years ago by a 911 researcher, an engineer, it might have been Legge, saying there was evidence of concussive explosions in some samples of the beams, which usually indicates a more common form of demolition charge. There's enough evidence to show that different types of explosives and incendiaries were used. The nano-thermite evidence is interesting on a number of levels as it can act as an explosive but so far I don't think any of the scientists researching nano-thermite have got enough of the material to test it on a steel beam/structure so we're still not able to see how this stuff in sufficient quantities can effect steel - in terms of explosiveness and ability to pulverize - other than the obvious cutting/melting.

It'sbeen said many times that there is more than enough evidence to show that exotic materials were used to bring down the towers and just like a murder investigation if you find a shell casing, soot marks and entrance/exit wounds no one needs to produce the gun to prove a firearm was involved. Its peoples minds that have to be opened though I'm always interested in seeing new research on this subject and the pieces of the puzzle coming together.

9/11 Debris: An Investigation of Ground Zero

I made the videos. Thanks for the positive feedback. I welcome questions and comments.

Most interesting, I think, is the 9/12 press conference (part 2 of the video) where Mayor Giuliani announced that 120 dump trucks carried debris out of the city overnight, and that barges would be working throughout the day. "So, some of the debris has already been removed." He said that because it was written on his paper, between announcements that: 1. electricity had been restored in the area; and 3. subways were operating -- both vital infrastructure, and important, related news. The debris comments were necessary, apparently, to account for the relatively flat debris pile and to explain the unbelievable (not only unprecedented) level of destruction that should have been apparent, if not for the tinted glasses of fear, grief, shock, and patriotic "unity" that had psychologically gripped the nation.

FYI, it is not my intention to lend credibility to theories involving nukes or DEW. That is an unfortunate consequence of raising the simple argument that the Ground Zero debris field was unbelievable as it related to 220 stories/acres of office building "collapsing." We can all agree on that, I think.