Top Expert comes forth: 9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives

Originally posted by thedmanSo who do I believe? FDNY Chief officers with years of experience or
some conspiracy loons on the internet....

Seriously, this crap should be banned. This is a conspiracy website, if you don't like it then the hell are doing here?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Stop the presses! Some guy said it looks like a demolition! Ergo it MUST BE A DEMOLITION!

Some guy lol. More like an expert on demolition. Here's another expert out of many many experts that say based on their many years of experience that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition www.youtube.com...

There are even videos that show a physics program proving that WTC 7 fell in free fall speed and the videos prove that the commission report lied about their physics conclusions on WTC 7. I'll gladly link to a video proving that if you want.

reply to post by GenRadek


lol, you guys don't even try. i know you think you're being a critical thinker, but let me do that for you.

until the people are allowed an independent investigation, we can only discuss the appearance and superficial aspects of what we have seen and have documented of the event. the case was closed before it was open.
there is more than enough dissenting physical evidence however to warrant a true investigation (abundance of thermite particles found in the debris, molten steel at the base of the the TT for a very brief example).

the reason we still talk about this subject and look over it again and again is to maintain awareness about the preposterous coincidental anomalies of the event, and to stimulate that discussion into a true, objective, and all reaching investigation.

or you can try to be a troll and make really weak points like you did. somethin looks like soemthin but uh oh were all experts at lookin at stuff i guess but that don't matter cuz case clozed OS rulez keep lookin!

So when the tv inteview was shot DR said " so we decided to pull it ", meaning controlled demolition, however we all know the amount of days it would take to pull building 7. So would he have us believe that crews went into a building which was doomed and do all the work in a few minutes. I believe him that it was pulled, I also believe that the towers were also pulled by blowing out the central supports from underneath the car parks pehaps by trucks packed with explosives. When the centres fell downwards, they peeled the towers like banannas. A day later and the insurance would not have paid up, missing money and the documents to incriminate people in building 7, pull that too, everyone gets what they want out of it, apart from the poor human beings in the towers and their families.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Wow, and what evidence does he produce to back it up? Oh, he worked on demolitions, and just by looking, he "knows" it was a demolition.

So, I'm guessing you've never been to the Dr. in your entire life. Right? Cause, being trained Physicians, and spending YEARS learning to become expert diagnosticians so that when people come in with sniffles, aches, pains, etc they can figure out what's wrong and prescribe the right medications.

By your "Logic", (and believe me I do use that term very loosely in your case), then the only way anyone can truly diagnose a problem, (explosive or otherwise), is to physically be AT the explosion, or physically have the symptoms themselves???? Wow, just WOW......

Really?
Wow.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

According to Stacy Loizeaux at Controlled Demolition, Inc, the only work mr. Sullivan ever did for them, was as a photographer.

Funny... CDI was never called that name... the CDI came from Comprehensive Designers Inc which the company gave up in 1973.
(source)

*blinks*
Did you even READ the website you just linked to?

www.controlled-demolition.com...

That's the website of CDI / Controlled Demolition, Inc, the demolition firm run by the Loizeaux family.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by roboe]

Originally posted by Qwenn
So when the tv inteview was shot DR said " so we decided to pull it ", meaning controlled demolition, however we all know the amount of days it would take to pull building 7.

The only instance of 'Pull it' ever appearing in controlled demolition matters, is when a building is physically pulled down with cables (as happened to WTC6).

It has NEVER meant a controlled demolition, that's something conspiracy theorists have made up.

I've seen plenty of evidence, many threads on ATS. And to me best evidence are these civilians coming out stating their professional opinions even though it only does damage to their reputation with no gain whatsoever.

So, I always chose to believe these "nobodys" rather than certified professional liars and profoundly corrupt criminals in the government and their so called independent investigators.

When I saw how people are held silent through British Petroleum checks I realized just HOW low will government officials, MSM and even locals go as long as they get monthly bags of money....

Originally posted by shagreen heart
reply to post by GenRadek

 

lol, you guys don't even try. i know you think you're being a critical thinker, but let me do that for you.

until the people are allowed an independent investigation, we can only discuss the appearance and superficial aspects of what we have seen and have documented of the event. the case was closed before it was open.
there is more than enough dissenting physical evidence however to warrant a true investigation (abundance of thermite particles found in the debris, molten steel at the base of the the TT for a very brief example).

the reason we still talk about this subject and look over it again and again is to maintain awareness about the preposterous coincidental anomalies of the event, and to stimulate that discussion into a true, objective, and all reaching investigation.

or you can try to be a troll and make really weak points like you did. somethin looks like soemthin but uh oh were all experts at lookin at stuff i guess but that don't matter cuz case clozed OS rulez keep lookin!

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Without access to the debris from the sites, etc, then all that anyone can do is speculate, and try to analyse the minutae to death from observations, photos, etc - which clearly will never get anyone anywhere.

Unfortunately you then get the people coming out with whacky theories (eg there were no planes they were holograms, etc), which makes the whole idea of a conspiracy seems laughable.

I think it would be far more beneficial to take a step back and look at the general picture, the mad coincidences, and ask if they are reasonable or viable.

For example, if you wanted to fly some planes into some buildings to justify invading other countries (or for whatever reason), then you don't need holograms, remote controlled jumbos, or missile pods under the planes.

All that you need to do is find some people who hate the West, are prepared to die, and make it possible for them to be on the planes at the right time, with weapons, etc.

All you'd need to do is make sure that they could take over the plane (eg, have an exercise on that day where some people hijack some planes and fly them into buildings), make sure that there is no way to stop them (eg, make sure the fighters are all miles away), and let them go.

One thing that's always had me wondering, is that if you had an exercise where some hijacked planes are flown into buildings, then wouldn't you, as part of that exercise, make sure that you had fighters available so that you could create any given scenario?

The whole "hijack exercise" is just too much of a coincidence to me, and how they could possibly be confused between reality and the exercise - that suggests that they were expecting real planes to act as though they were hijacked - otherwise it would be immediately obvious.

Then for the exact same thing to happen in the London Underground bombings - an exercise where the same targets are actually bombed at the same time on the same day that the exercise pretends it happens.

If this was storyline in a film it'd get slated for being too far fetched to be possible.

And yet here we are...

If TPTB were innocent of all charges, what on earth could they fear by 1) Making all documents available to the public 2) Having a full and independent and transparent investigation?

The 'transparency' Obadma so fanacitally promised is about as transparent as the oil he is currently allowing to flood the Gulf and the world's oceans.

At what point does one cease to believe someone who lies and lies again? First time someone lies and we believe them, shame on them. Second time someone lies and we believe them shame on us.

As I write this I am being poisoned by toxins being sprayed 24/7 from the sky - airplanes spraying us at this very moment - another Obamination. These people are spraying the world with deadly toxins...do I believe the same gang was capable of intentionally causing the 9/11 disasters - as far as I am concerned it's a no brainer.

I just can't understand how people don't join up the dots. It's beyond me.

They lie. They always say the opposite of what is true...with the exception of the odd time they slip in a bit of truth just to fudge the issue a bit further.

Originally posted by wcitizen
If TPTB were innocent of all charges, what on earth could they fear by 1) Making all documents available to the public 2) Having a full and independent and transparent investigation?

1) What documents specifically? Intelligence stuff is always going to be classified, due to them giving hints to their foreign sources and the methodolgy by which the US intelligence apparatus works.

2) The question remains, who would be fit to conduct such an investigation? And what would the scope of it be?

First of all, this has already been discussed here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Mr. Sullivan has been confirmed to be an employee for one year. This was VIA W-2 form obtained from AE 911 Truth. It shows that he made 11K for that year.

The title of this thread is misleading at best; a lie at worse. He is not a top expert. From all information gathered he was a photographer for them.

What is interesting is that he claims WTC7 was demolished via CD.... what has he said about WTC 1 &2 ?? All i have read is that he ignored the NIST report and is not interested in reading it.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Six Sigma]

reply to post by Thermo Klein


There are major problems with this story that can only be explained by deliberate deceit.

This image appears on the AE911Truth website in the story about the interview with Tom Sullivan and it is claimed that it is of a thermite cutter charge patent from 1984. It is not.

This is a “thermite igniter/heat source for igniting larger charges (like) propellant charges” in say a booster of some kind.

In answer to a question about the use of det cord and cutter charge casings, Tom Sullivan answered, in part, as follows…

“Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.

As you can see, AE911Truth presents this image as a “thermite cutter charge” patent from 1984 and that is false. (Notice that there is no reference given in the AE911Truth article linking to this 1984 document.)

It is actually an ignition system that used a small thermite core to lite a larger charge for a booster or some other kind of propellant. Here is the patent

This invention relates to a new low-energy integral thermite igniter/heat source, e.g., for use in igniting larger charges, e.g., propellant charges. The device of this invention is highly efficient especially in terms of energy output versus the amount of material utilized and also has advantageously low gas output… Accordingly, the devices are applicable to all conventional systems utilizing such thermite igniter/heat sources, e.g., in place of conventional propellant igniters. 1984 patent for thermite igniter/heat source.

Who fact checked this slide? Who included it with the article without any links to the original source? Who put that caption on it that claims this information relates to a “cutter charge designed for use with thermite” when it clearly is NOT? Who selectively edited the abstract taking out the mention of the fact that this is a “thermite igniter” for a propellant charge? Who chose an image of a MINING demolition controller which is incapable of being used for building demolitions when CDI has their own software driven system that is? These are serious questions that require immediate retractions for the good of the credibility of Richard Gage, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, and the entire Truth movement.

willyloman.wordpress.com...-11246


Just saw the above post. He said that the other buildings were NOT controlled demolitions. Only building 7. Either way it's still a hoax.


People just fish around and try to find anything to create a conspiracy.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by DrJay1975]

Most probably this building IS the MAIN reason of 9-11.

They distracted the world killing hundreds in the twin towers (and making Silverstein mega rich in the process), and they demolished a perfect building with a lot of incriminating evidence and inteligence data, very important to a LOT of people and governments.

If people DO NOT believe this building WAS demolished on purpose, they have never seen a good magician.

Distraction is the main and only WORD here.

but hey, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and flies like a duck it must be a Chicken Right?

Originally posted by GenRadek
By the way, I watch cars drive by my house. So that makes me a top expert car mechanic!

No of course not, but if you watch them enough and pay close attention it makes you an expert on how they move. Even if you do not know anything else about the car. Even if you did not know what engines, steering, brakes and axles are. You could still write a perfect account of how cars normally move.

You would also know when a car is driving by in a none normal manner.


So how did the very small fires of building 7 make the entire building fall down on top of it's self?

I still not sure that anyone has answered that question without saying it was a controlled demo. It is still the only logical answer.


The Truth The truth please.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Sullivan makes statements about careful placement of cutter charges not breaking any windows. His experience as a technician [not an engineer] does not account for this, because CD of buildings occurs after windows have been removed. Had there been cutter charges used sufficient to cut supports of #7, window glass would have been blown all over the place.
He also doesn't bother to state where the charges were placed, how many there were, or what they were made of. He does not say how many people rigged the building, how long it took, what the triggering devices were, or who pressed the button. He does not state what other preparations were made because to drop WTC7 in its footprint, as claimed by many CTer's, there is a significant amount of work to be done with cabling, precuts, structure removal, etc. In the article, he states that the work was hard and the days were long. Then he casually says that access to the elevator shafts and remote detonators would have done it. After how many long days of hard work, Sullivan? What about the cantilevered beams holding everything up? Wouldn't they be a great place to put super-secret quiet demolition charges?

Sullivan doesn't know how to do anything but place charges where he is told to place charges and only speculates, like many others. He is a low level demolition man who just wants a little attention, much like many who make speeches about secret groups behind the destruction of WTC#7.

The entire CD concept is based on people thinking that the structural collapse shouldn't look it did and that there should be a slow collapse or toppling over a much longer period of time, like Hollywood disaster movies.

My open question to the truthers is "If the collapse had happened according to NIST, what would it have looked like?" "How would you tell the difference between a NIST collapse and CD?"

So far, none of the "experts" have provided any answers.

reply to post by pteridine


I will agree with you there, NONE of the "experts" from any side have given any evidence of how this came down.

The relevant issue is that they came down at all, and in such dramatic, complete annihilation of the entire structures.

As far as I'm concerned building 7 was Rigged for Demolition before September 11th. It's not even up for debate. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either ignorant or attempting to spread misinformation.

Prove otherwise. Show me an example of a steel frame building that collapsed like building 7 without explosive Demolition.

www.metacafe.com...

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

According to Stacy Loizeaux at Controlled Demolition, Inc, the only work mr. Sullivan ever did for them, was as a photographer.

Funny... CDI was never called that name... the CDI came from Comprehensive Designers Inc which the company gave up in 1973.
(source)

*blinks*
Did you even READ the website you just linked to?

www.controlled-demolition.com...

That's the website of CDI / Controlled Demolition, Inc, the demolition firm run by the Loizeaux family.

Not sure who you were refering to but I didn't link to controlled-demolition.com, I refered to cdicorp.com.... And.... I was wrong! Oops. my original link was to the wrong company - my bad.


[edit on 27-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]

Oh dear, oh dear.

Can anyone point out the obvious error with mr. Sullivans ID?


If the ID is not faked, then mr. Sullivan himself must clearly have been part of any potential controlled demolitions on 9/11, right?