“I Knew From Day One This Was a Controlled Event” Controlled Demolition Expert Says

[Stanchetalarooni]

http://world911truth.org/i-knew-from-day-one-this-was-a-controlled-event-controlled-demolition-expert-says/


As we approach the 10 year mark of the the tragic 9/11 events, more and more experts in architecture, engineering, physics and many more are speaking out against the official Bush administration story. This time we have Tom Sullivan, a controlled demolition expert who worked for one of the largest U.S. company in the field, simply called Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) destroying the official NIST theory.


This interview with Tom Sullivan by Architect & Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder, Richard Gage, AIA, will be used in an upcoming DVD by the organization which now counts over 1,460 professionals in the architecture and engineering field who call upon congress to open a new and real investigation of the collapse of the 3 towers on 9/11.


http://world911truth.org/i-knew-from-day-one-this-was-a-controlled-event-controlled-demolition-expert-says/

[SDuderstadt]

1. Dude...

Did you notice something odd about the video?

Why are most of the questions Sullivan is responding to edited out of the video? Ever heard of James O'Keefe? Also, did you listen to Sullivan explain all of the work that has to be done just to weaken a building's strength by 20%?

[whatchamacallit]

3. Lol!

So... what exactly are you saying Duder? That Sullivan actually believes the OCT and is simply a victim of James O'Keefe style editing? Hmm... It must have been quite a trick to lure him onto the AE9/11 interview stage.

You're thrashing like a drowning man.

[SDuderstadt]

4. No, dude...

I'm asking why the questions were edited out.

Duh.

[whatchamacallit]

5. My take

is that the cut follows a common "in their own words" style. I'm pretty sure we'll hear from Sullivan if he was misrepresented. Nice try and fail.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Why can't we hear the questions, so...

we know what he's answering, dude?

No one cares if YOU get manipulated.

BTW, being an "explosives loader" doesn't make him any sort of expert in controlled demolition. Of course, actual experts like Mark Loiseaux and Brent Blanched have already explained why the "controlled demolition" theory is nonsense, yet you ignore them.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Sorry dude

I said we'd likely hear from Sullivan if his words were twisted. Barring your nefarious editing nonsense, his opinion is clear. Predictably, you've shifted gears and are now employing the OCT fail-safe of attacking his credentials and/or sanity. Good job!

[SDuderstadt]

8. Simple questions, dude...

1) why have the questions been edited out?

2) how does being an "explosives loader" make some Sullivan some sort of expert in the overall process of controlled demolition?

3) why does Sullivan describe it as a "controlled event", rather than a "controlled demolition"?

4) could you point to anywhere that I questioned his sanity?

[whatchamacallit]

9. If I must

1) I answered that already. There is a style of interview where the questions are implicit in the interviewee's narrative. Again if something is being manipulated, Sullivan would be the first person to have a problem with the presentation.

2) Really? If years of day to day, on the job experience with one of the world's largest demolition companies doesn't make you an expert, what the hell does? I imagine this guy has seen it all. In many areas it's common to trust the opinions of practitioners more than theoreticians. I've heard that in many typical medical situations you'll often get better information from nurses than doctors...

3) My guess is that there is some question about the exact modality, but there seems to be no question he believes they were brought down.

4) Am I wrong to assume you understand the meaning of "and/or"?

[SDuderstadt]

10. Dude...

1) How do you know Sullivan isn't a party to the manipulation? I'm not saying Sullivan is being manipulated, I'm suggesting the viewer is by having the questions edited out. Why not treat the viewers like adults?

2) If 2 1/2 years as an explosives loader qualifies Sullivan as an expert, then Loiseaux and Blanchard are even more so. Duh.

3) So, Sullivan isn't saying it was a "controlled demolition". Thanks for the clarification. That's probably also why the questions were edited out.

4) wouldn't it simply be easier to admit I never once questioned Sullivan's sanity?

[whatchamacallit]

11. ...

1) Huh? Are you insinuating that Sullivan could be a co-conspirator in the conspiracy to manipulate his words??? I have no idea what you're getting at, but unless Sullivan rejects the presentation, it is a valid document of his opinion.

2) "He says/she says..." whatever. Playing dueling experts proves nothing. Sullivan certainly has more right to have his opinion seriously considered than YOU do.

3) Whatever word he did or didn't use doesn't change the fact that an expert (yes, expert) in CD believes the buildings were purposely brought down.

4) Sure. Let it be known that Sdude only used one of the common OCT methods to kill the messenger. Happy now?

[SDuderstadt]

12. Jesus, you're a...

hoot, dude.

1) I don't know what you're talking about, but I have never talked about Sullivan being manipulated. What I have consistently talked about is manipulating the viewers by editing the questions out of the clip. Why you have a hard time understanding that is apparently known only to you. For example, when Sullivan starts hhis response out with, "Yes,...", what, specifically, is he saying "yes" to? What question is he answering? The viewer doesn't know, because the questions have been edited out. It's funny how you have one standard of evidence regarding anything you presume to be the "OCT", yet you totally abandon it when it comes to things you somehow believe support your cause.

Fucking unbelievable.

2) If you claim that 2 1/2 years experience as an "explosives loader" qualifies someone as a controlled demolition "expert", then there are a number of such experts, none of whom are coming forward other than Sullivan. Do you really expect us to believe Sullivan is an expert regarding the design and planning of a controlled demolition? If so, why would he not talk about the huge amount of explosives that would be required to bring down WTC 7 alone. Here's why...it would have taken a forklift to bring in that amount of RDX necessary, let alone avoid detection. Beyond that, why didn't a single person screening the debris at the Fresh Kills Landfill site report seeing so much as a blasting cap or det cord? Duh.

3) Do you really expect us to believe a so-called controlled demolition "expert" would refer to it as a "controlled event"?? Why the weasel words, dude?

4) Why do you get so rattled when I ask logical questions about a dubious claim or the maker of that claim?

Bonus question: If, as Sullivan claims, he knew this was a "controlled event" (whatever that means) from "Day One", why is he just bringing this information forward now? Why would you wait? Hint: because it's bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Bad news, dude...

here's a link to Sullivan's certification from NYC. Please note that his certification is as a "powder carrier". Hint: that is not an explosives loader. Too funny.

http://cms.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/315-explosive-evidence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html

[whatchamacallit]

14. Yawn... thanks for doing my homework, I knew you would :D

Brass tacks, why? Why would he participate in a dastardly scheme to intellectually defraud the poor unsuspecting public? Does he have a gambling problem and ae911 offered to pay his debts? Is ae911 holding his wife and kids hostage? Or... maybe it's simply his informed professional opinion! BTW, why do you assume his "lowly" certification auto-invalidates his observations and opinions? Oh wait I know, it's that appeal to authority mindset you're hobbled with! Dude, you're like the Charlie Sheen of the Dungeon: Winning!

[SDuderstadt]

15. Dude...

thanks for admitting that you dont know what a "powder carrier" even is. Thanks for admitting you didn't even check him out at all.

Maybe you could avoid this kind of embarrassment by not trying to present him as any kind of "expert".

[johnnie]

16. .

The Powder Carrier is essentially an apprentice Blaster, assisting the Blaster with loading:
( preparing primer cartridges and charges, wiring / hookup, setting off the shots ) and paperwork,
such as recording quantities of explosives used and shot times.


Actually a step up from a loader.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/cof_study_material/e_14_study_material.pdf

[SDuderstadt]

17. Dude....

does that sound like a "controlled demolition expert" to you?

[ryan_cats]

22. Isn't that Colonel Sander's son?

Isn't that Colonel Sander's son?

In the opening, when he talks about weakening the building, he says that all the elevators' cars must be removed, the staircases cut, 20% of the building needs to be weakened; when did this work take place?

When he's talking about one column, I assume he's talking about WTC7?

Is he talking extemporaneously or are the questions left out? Why?

He talks about wireless detonators and the reason they don't use them is that they're too expensive? Two way radios used to be shut off on normal explosions like building a freeway in the mountains. So, for a commercial building they're going to use a wireless explosive detonator? That seems to be kind of dangerous. Wasn't there an enormous transmitter on top of the South WTC, seems to me that would be a lot of electromagnetic radiation which would seem to be a risk. I'm sure the detonators are using some sort of encryption but when you have a massive amount of EM, it seems possible to trigger the detonators.

Why did they cut out the questions, how heavily has this been edited?

And to totally discredit himself, he mentions thermite. What did he do again, carry explosives?

He's not an expert, he didn't design the explosive's placement, he didn't determine what needed to be cut, he put the explosives where the experts told him to. He didn't run the det lines nor did he determine the delays. He was involved in demolitions but an expert, I don't think so. I'm sure he picked up a lot of information on the job but he himself mentions that it requires 'years' of experience. He worked for them for 2 1/2 years, he debunks himself.

As for mentioning the one column failure, is he an architect, a mechanical or structural engineer?

Finally, what does he do now?

He seems to be an alright guy, he's not frothing like most of AE911 folks, I wonder if he realizes he's being used?

[zappaman]

2. We have something in common

I knew from day one that 2 airliners flew into the towers and the damage and resulting fires caused both to collapse.
Cool!

[SDuderstadt]

18. Here's what an actual controlled demolition expert...

has to say about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6ZtXt6W90

[SDuderstadt]

19. Here's what another ACTUAL controlled demolition expert...

has to say about it. Brent Blanchard is the editor of ImplosionWorld and the Director of Field Operations for Protec:

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

[Ohio Joe]

20. He does not make sense to me

A few things.

1 - How was all this prep work done without anyone seeing? Did everyone just use the stairs for weeks/months and not one report of this?

2 - He talks about the collapse starting at the bottom... Every thing I've ever seen show collapse starting at the floors of impact... How is that reconciled?

3 - He talks about thermite cutting charges being in common use since '84, any cite for that?

There were a few other things but I've been drinking all day and now I forget them and don't feel like watching it again... So those will have to do for a start.

[zappaman]

21. I have to admit that even drunk

you make more sense than the CTers here who continue to post "evidence"(:rofl:) for their wacky "theories"(:rofl:).