AE911Truth’s EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW! Tom Sullivan – Former Explosives Loader for Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) Tom discusses the complex process of preparin…
(Visited 64 times, 1 visits today)
Tom Sullivan – Explosives Technician – Loader – AE911Truth.org
Logging you in...
Loading IntenseDebate Comments...
You got the wrong end of the stick. First of all focus on the fact that, whether you like it or not, many intelligent people do believe that two planes full of passengers and hijackers did fly into the twin towers. For them everything which happened after these alleged impacts is a forgone conclusion. Unless you can win these people over and prove to them that all the plane impact videos were manufactured, they will refuse to even consider that they might have been led up the garden path.
ugh. Why dont you focus on FACTS. There are a whole mountain of them that show these buildings were blown up. Why focus on some obscure anomalous feature? while referring to video fakery? Dont you know that the notion that '911 planes were a Hoax' is pure disinformation that harms the Truth through misdirection and confusion?
The problem is the science. It makes the official story impossible. We dont know what came out the other side (Ive seen the video) focus on what we can know for sure
Love how all you FUCKTARDS want to discuss something you have no clue about. WHY DO FUCKTARDS NEVER ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE THESE? 1-Why did Bush REFUSE an investigation for 411 days? 2-Why did BUSH REFUSE to be questioned UNDER OATH? 3-Why did Bush REFUSE to testify without Cheney?Without any notes?Behind closed doors?? 4-Why did Bush&Cheney BEG Sen.Daschle NOT to investigate 911? 5-Why did Bush LIE ABOUT WMD'S. ALL POINTS TO GUILT and a manufactured WAR IN IRAQ. lol fucktard traitors.
Imagine a stationary plane suspended on a pole at the height where impact took place.Next, imagine the identical building slam into the plane at the same speed and angle as in the televised impact. Liars and fools who use kinetic energy laws to debunk the nose through fake video can't debunk a single analogy which applies their alleged physical laws. If one were to swat a fly with velocity equivalent to the speed of a plane, could a fly emerge clean and unharmed on the other side of a fly swat?
It's good that the title of this video refers to Sullivan as an explosives technician-loader because he's certainly not a demolition expert. Richard Gage used Sullivan because he was unable to find any demo expert anywhere in the world who agrees with him that the towers were brought down by CD.
June of 1981 Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear power plan at Osirak. Israel felt that the nuclear power plant presented a threat to national security. Because they have always kept a close eye on Iraq it was known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq- in 2003.Furthermore, there was no connection between Iraq and Al-quida nor was there any connection with Iraq 9/11 and bin Laden. Our government knew that the towers were over built and could potentially stand up to a jet impact.
Oh, the government's very corrupt. They just didn't do 9/11. But honestly, the bottom line is that we are probably on the same page about the stuff that really matters. Peace!
True, the towers were a special design, however, the Center Core was constructed of massive steel components just like any other High-Rise. Starting out with box columns with 5" thick sides for the first 20 floors. Furthermore, because of the special design and the fact that the buildings would be presented as American "Know How", they were overbuilt. Anyway you slice it 9/11 was an inside/outside job by a cabal of corrupt fuck nuts. Look around to fully grasp the degree of corruption!
Correction: to me, they {{{don't}}} look any beefier than the ones holding up the roof of my local Home Depot.
(cont'd) look any beefier than the ones holding up the roof of my local Home Depot.
My personal conclusion is that the Twin Towers were **NOT** built "like the old brick shithouse" as the saying goes. Frankly, I found it surprising, but personally, I've never since then come across anything that compels me to revert to my original assumptions about how solid/strong they were.
They were, in fact, built just like a low-rise, only taller. A low-rise design stacked 110 times, if you will.
My $0.02
(cont'd), one of the things drilled into your head from Kindergarten onwards with regards to tornado warnings is, DO NOT take shelter in a structure like that.
The object lesson for me (as a layperson) is that for optimal structure strength and resistance to destructive forces both mechanical and thermal, trusses are suboptimal for that.
There are close-up photos of the WTC trusses available on the web, with other objects nearby so you get a sense of the scale. To me, they (cont'd)
(cont'd) or warehouse going up in a massive 5-alarm fire, and several of those have ended up with partial or complete collapse. News photos/vids of the wreckage often show warped roof trusses.
Now, I agree with you: In my observation, seeing numerous high- and mid-rise buildings under construction I've always seen I-beams used. ONLY I-beams. Where I *have* seen widely-spaced columns + trusses used is in big-box retail stores and gymnasiums. And growing up here in Tornado Alley, (cont'd)
(cont'd) rows of columns between core and wall. They had quotes from firemen who said that in the firefighting profession, there's an old adage, "don't trust the truss." [I subsequently researched these things ay my local library and on the Web – yes, even some of us retarded non-truther shills can be skeptical! For *myself* I'm satisfied, but I can't pretend to speak as an expert to another.] I live in Metro Chicago, and I've seen the occasional news story about an old factory (cont'd)
>>Not the case with High-Rise components.
On 9/11, I felt exactly the same way. BUT the Twin Towers were not constructed with the same "robustness" as you and I would assume [and hope] most high-rises are. They were built with long-span trusses connecting the core and the outer walls. On the NOVA special "Why the Towers Fell" it was mentioned that this was a deliberate design to reduce overall weight and cost as well as increase rentable floor space by eliminating at least two (cont'd)
Why are you taking the debate to Low-Rise structures, when 9/11 is all about High-Rise structures? Steel structures less than 7 stories have structural components with less mass and thus resistance to fire. For example, with a forest fire the smaller trees are more severely damaged than the larger trees. In some cases the smaller trees even fall over. Smaller steel building components expand and twist due to the fact that their mass is relatively small. Not the case with High-Rise components.
(cont'd) before all of the truthers jump on me as a non-expert, yes, that's my point: most of us are probably not structural engineers or architects here, but I'm asking, AS ORDINARY PEOPLE, why should it seem "so incredible" that a high-rise skyscraper can collapse due to fire?
If I live in a one-story ranch house, and my neighbor has a four-story 4,000 square foot mansion, is his house somehow less susceptible to fire-induced collapse JUST BECAUSE it's bigger?
Just my own $0.02.
(cont'd), then why NOT a high-rise structure? From what I've seen and read of the WTC construction, the structural system doesn't seem RADICALLY different from, say, your average warehouse (I-beam columns and trusses overhead.) It's basically just repeated 110 times. If a warehouse can burn down, why can't the same thing happen to one or more floors of the Twin Towers, and why would they stay standing if you took a floor out of the middle? NOTE: (cont'd):
Why does everyone keep pointing that out? Just hear me out for a minute: Ok, pre-9/11, no steel-framed high-rise structure had collapsed due to fire. But I think (hope?) we can all agree that steel-framed structures can, and have, collapsed in severe fires. I've seen instances of factories/warehouses/etc. that were fully-involved by fire and collapsed (and, look, ma… trusses supporting the roofs! Hmmm….)
If we can agree that a low-rise structure can fall due to fire, (cont'd)
No I mean a real expert someone who does it for his job. But I was reading something way more interesting Dimitri Khalezov. read his book or watch his video.
(cont'd) NO corroborating physical evidence of CD's, no matter how many experts say that "CD could have been done."
(cont'd) as long as it was built with materials and techniques that they were familiar with? (In other words, I'm acknowledging that an "old-school", 2×4-and-joist guy who'd never done anything else, wouldn't be able to speak to the technicalities of a home made of high-tech composites.)
So, I'm willing to grant that Tom Sullivan can indulge in some reasonable speculation about how he'd take down a steel-beam building.
NOTE: That doesn't change anything, because there's (cont'd)…
(cont'd) Is that carpenter qualified to design a house entirely on his own? Highly unlikely. [I suspect that in most jurisdictions he'd be legally prohibited from even trying.] But if on a PRACTICAL level, could a group of experienced residential carpenters get together and build a house that would last (as long as they didn't try anything that exceeded their experience)? They're not engineers, but could they speak with *some* level of authority on the soundness of a house (cont'd)…
To be honest, I'm willing to yield *somewhat* to the truthers on the "intrinsic plausibility" of this guy's story (LET ME FINISH before you bring out the rubber hoses! I find the conspiracy theories,taken as a whole, just as retarded as the rest of you do!)…
The only thing I'd point out is that he's not the equivalent of a janitor at JPL, he'd be more like one of the rocket assemblers or launch techs or something.
I think of it in terms of a carpenter building a house. (cont'd)
The government wants you to watch the propaganda they have provided to you via mainstream media. How dare you look for truth. Buy our lies and support our fake wars. keep watching reality tv and eating twinkies we got it all under control. And we are going to start charging carbon taxes but our wars are good for the environment. Be warned if you dont obey us we know where you live and are watching at all times. FREEDOM my ASS!!!
You mean Jowenko, the guy who was shown a video with the sound turned off so he couldn't hear that there were no detonation charges? The guy who wasn't told that firefighters on the scene said the building was unstable and likely to collapse? The guy who said WTC 1 & 2 were definitely not CDs? That guy?
would a dutch demo expert do? I can arrange that for them. But what is you definition of an expert?
The 9/11 Truth Movement has nothing of substance to back its wild claims and NEVER NEVER will because you and people of your ilk are unable to fully comprehend the evidence thus dismissing it completely. For example, I say WTC 7 came down in 7 seconds, and you say it was more like 14 seconds, overlooking the stark reality that it should have never collapsed in the first place. Furthermore, you are unable realize that it is impossible for fire to bring down a high-rise structure.
Most structural engineers have given little or no thought on 9/11 being an inside job. Wacky half baked conspiracy is not something that people educated a pertinent field tend to do. Best leave that to the angry young white boy crowd with too much time on their hands. The 9/11 truth movement has nothing of substance to back its wild claims and NEVER EVER will, it will always be a fringe internet based cult.
Dude, are you sure about Israel? There are powerful Israel Lobby influences over U.S. foreign policy. See page 246 of "The Israel Lobby and U.S Foreign Policy" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Also, On June 7th 1981 Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear power plant, under construction, at Osirak. The reason for the bombing is that Israel felt that the plant could make the material for a nuclear bomb and therefore threatened security. "But then did nothing up to 2003 when we went to war!"
Dude, your assuming that you know all the ways to bring down a building by demolition.
You are assuming that a "fully loaded commercial plane" has more destructive power vs a High-Rise structure than is warranted. You are assuming that you know how fire destroys a High-Rise structure. How many Structural Engineers have you talked to that have seriously given 9/11 some thought beyond accepting the official conspiracy theory as the gospel?
Careful what you assume. The twisting motion proves the initial move down of the building (after the penthouses collapsed) was due to folding or buckling of lower support. Nothing else can be garnered from it. It does not account for the penthouse collapses or the remainder of the shell collapse.
The question remains; why would a group of architects and engineers miss this and claim it came straight down? You can see the whole building shift to the east as a first move.
You must be a genius! In the seven years that I have looked into this matter, you are the only one that argues that WTC 7 twisted before it came down. Shit your right! It was the twisting motion that proves it was not controlled demolition. Go apply for a job at NIST, they will hire you in an instant!
what kind of person would want to risk their life by backing such a thing?
Google the heck out of ''asbestos-laden wtc needs major renovation''. If you look through enough articles another piece of the puzzle will emerge, the insurance payoff aspect.
Please source how you learned the towers were dilapidated. I think this is a most overlooked aspect, and want to learn more about it. Thanks.
AE911Truth never mentions Building 7 twisted counter clockwise as it started down. That can only mean the lower supports folded, or buckled. If they were taken out with charges, the first move at the top would be straight down with no twisting motion. Subsequent collapse, with the west portions of the building falling south and eastern section falling north, as well as the debris pile, confirm this twisting motion. Why has AE ignored this most important clue?
Joe Hill, 911Truther De-Tox on fb
When I learned the towers were dilapidated and needed Billions in restoration to be sound, it peaked my interest to learn more. What I discovered is, the towers were fully insured and even had an extra ''Terrorism'' clause in the agreement. After the towers fell the owners were paid FULL RETAIL in insurance and didn't have to repair or demolish them. If 3,000+ people die on a spot in America it becomes a landmark and can not be built on. 2,753 REPORTEDLY died 9/11, Joe Bidens Patriot Act Passed.
Are you really believe the official report?…
You are incredibly naive. A senior demolition engineer telling the truth would be out of work for the rest of his life in the US. One lying with the official story would make himself look like the south end of a north bound horse.
lol his explanation makes a lot more sense than the 9/11 commission reports, or perhaps you can enlighten us on how a building hit by a plane can collapes.Since we have so many examples of planes hitting buildings and then they collapsing (sarcasm). go ahead and please enlighten us with your "experience" and "expertise" on CD and engineering and architecture instead demeaning and harassing someone for there point of view.
just by looking at building 7 hitting the floor… you know it was an inside job. period.
The second one (Why did you call them 1 and B?) is the most sensible. They were not commercial planes and contained no passengers, and they did a poor job of making the military jet look like a passenger plane. Do some research and look at how the buildings were put together, look at their structure. BOTH towers were primarily supported by 32, 4.5ft thick core columns which were NOT hollow and contained only 2 or 3 hollow slits each. Why do you assume they would be installed INSIDE the offices?
If they just set off the perimeter column cutter charges in sequence EVERYONE would see over 5000 flashes going off and its just too risky. They needed to be set off at pretty much random times to pre-weaken. For collapse initiation the outer core columns on the 96th and 81st floors need to be sliced, the internal thermate charges do not need to be set off randomly that would be a disaster. The core columns take 80% of the weight of the towers.
Dr. James Millette of MVA Scientific Consultants
WTC Dust Study
2/29/2012
"The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments."
"There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite."
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
Exactly. Also people who believe in the controlled demolition crap seem to forget the key word in that phrase, namely CONTROLLED, a precisely timed sequence of hundreds (or in this case thousands) of rapid fire explosions. NOT some randomly spaced explosions that have no sequence or CONTROL what so ever.
What's more nonsensical? 1. The buildings were brought down by the structural damage caused by large fully loaded commercial planes and un-contained fires, and as agreed upon by almost all the worlds civil engineers or B. Sullivan's Tall Tale Of BS – buildings were brought down by controlled demolition requiring large scale (and precise) cutting and drilling inside 100 story office buildings, and planting of explosives over many months, ALL without ANYONE hearing or noticing a damn thing?
This guy is an explosives loader. Why can't ae911Kooks get an actual demo expert?
What Israelis cheered? you are mistaking us for the Palestinians in Gaza who cheered.
Get THAT fact right, at least, if not the others.
No Israeli ever cheered when that happened, not even those who think the USA sucks ass.
What's hilarious here is that you attempted to fault me for using ad hominem, when in fact it is you that are guilty of using it. You attempted to negate my relevant comment by saying it was moronic and I have stupid friends… LMFAO! Obviously you have been guilty of ad hominem several times in the past, and now you think this is your chance to call someone else out on it instead… fail. Get an education and then come back and post something relevant.
LMFAO! You should learn the definition of ad hominem before trying to use it. Ad hominem is an irrelevant attack that does nothing more than belittle someone in an attempt to invalidate their argument. Defining a person's position in a company is not ad hominem and is completely relevant to an argument in that it defines their qualifications. Now if I said, "Don't listen to this guy, he's a shit eating, whore jumper." then that is ad hominem.