Exclusive Interview: Tom Sullivan formerly of Controlled Demolition, Inc. interviewed by AE911Truth

Originally posted by pteridine
He's in the food industry. You claimed Sullivan was in the explosives industry and should know all about explosives even if he was just manual labor.

So wait... This guy's no more qualified than you?


I still give him more credibility to you. For one thing he actually worked for CDI. For another, I know for a fact that this guy is too old to be in high school, AND he gets extra credit for finding better ways to spend his time than endlessly bickering on the internet. See how that works?

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by DIDtm

Ask a kid who works at McDonald's cleaning up about a recipe for Pesto. He works in the restaurant field so he should know, right?

No, but ask the same kid what mixture to use of cleaning products for cleaning the floors and he would probably have a real good idea. Wouldn't this be a better comparison?

He's in the food industry. You claimed Sullivan was in the explosives industry and should know all about explosives even if he was just manual labor.

Wrong..You implied that he doesn't or wouldn't know because of his job title.
I claimed there is a good chance he WOULD know since he worked in the field.

As for the analogy...YOU claimed he works in McDonalds cleaning up. I would take that as having a janitorial job. Hence, my correction on the proper analogy.

So, pter, hooper, alfie, dave (I know you're lurking) and the rest, I guess Danny Jowenko isn't an expert either. Hmmm, go figure. This should get you going.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
He's in the food industry. You claimed Sullivan was in the explosives industry and should know all about explosives even if he was just manual labor.

So wait... This guy's no more qualified than you?


I still give him more credibility to you. For one thing he actually worked for CDI. For another, I know for a fact that this guy is too old to be in high school, AND he gets extra credit for finding better ways to spend his time than endlessly bickering on the internet. See how that works?

The CDI office manager also "actually worked for CDI." That interview ought to be interesting. "Yes, the building didn't fall like my filing cabinet so I think it was definitely CD. I have looked at all the plans for the last two years as I filed them, so I know all about this CD stuff."
Your opinion of my credibility is inconsequential. Your technical experience is about zero and you don't know what you don't know, yet. Come back when you've been around the block a few times, junior.
See how that works?

reply to post by budaruskie


And? Guy kind of describes the enormous amount of time, manpower and equipment it would require to rig the building. Been saying that all along. Any building can be rigged with explosives. That's not the problem. Explain how it was done, when it was done, who did it and why no one reported seeing miles of det cord in the wreckage.

reply to post by budaruskie


Danny Jowenko isn't a low level photographer and powder carrier. There is a thread or two about Danny. This thread is a about Sullivan, the guy being exploited by AE911 so that they can use him to make themselves some money. They still haven't addressed the errors he made during the interview and are now doing what many of these groups do; keep telling the big lie and hope no one notices.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by budaruskie

 

And? Guy kind of describes the enormous amount of time, manpower and equipment it would require to rig the building. Been saying that all along. Any building can be rigged with explosives. That's not the problem. Explain how it was done, when it was done, who did it and why no one reported seeing miles of det cord in the wreckage.

I knew you'd make that argument, so predictable. But, I must agree that it is a valid question and yes he did talk about it. He also talks about how it was absolutely obvious to him that WTC7 was a CD, does he not?

However, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that because you cannot explain HOW someone did something, that it didn't happen. It ONLY means that you don't know whom, or exactly HOW it was done, but it in no way means that it didn't happen.

Here is an analogy, although you will only ignore it.
You come home and see your mother dead on the floor with a small hole in the front of her chest and a larger hole in her back. (this represents the towers)
The police say she died, but not from a gunshot wound. They explain that she is the 1st person in history to die in the manner in which they describe. (9/11 Commish & NIST reports)
You ask, "did you look for a bullet?" (9/11 truth movement)
The police say "no, why should we...we know she wasn't shot by any bullet?" (NIST)
So, you say, "numerous people in the area all say they heard a loud bang, some even say they heard a gunshot." (actual witnesses left out of OS)
The police decline to speak about that but a bunch of imbeciles on the internet who weren't there and have no expertise related to the event all say "those witnesses have no credibility!" yet they never prove that to be so. (YOU hooper & your OS buddies)

Save me the trouble of creating individual threads in this forum citing every single engineer, architect, demo expert, physicist, pilot, etc. that has signed the various petitions related to 9/11 truth, and just destroy their credibility ahead of time. Each one, individually.

reply to post by budaruskie


How many have said that they think that the WTC collapses were due to CD? Did some say that they thought the reinvestigation should investigate incompetence and cover-up amongst the intelligence agencies? Did some just say that they supported a new investigation without saying why?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by budaruskie

 

Danny Jowenko isn't a low level photographer and powder carrier. There is a thread or two about Danny. This thread is a about Sullivan, the guy being exploited by AE911 so that they can use him to make themselves some money. They still haven't addressed the errors he made during the interview and are now doing what many of these groups do; keep telling the big lie and hope no one notices.

Yes, I am aware of the other threads. That doesn't exclude me from mentioning him in this one. So, are you saying that he (Jowenko) is credible? Because, he does say without any hesitation that WTC 7 was an obvious CD.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by budaruskie

 

How many have said that they think that the WTC collapses were due to CD? Did some say that they thought the reinvestigation should investigate incompetence and cover-up amongst the intelligence agencies? Did some just say that they supported a new investigation without saying why?

I dunno, you tell me. I'm sure you know every little detail about every single one of them, so just tell me now...or if you'd like I can start a thread titled "debunking every single person who questions the OS about 9/11" and I'll just put a name and link to their bio. Would you prefer that?

By the way, are you saying that you yourself agree with some aspect of that quote of yours above? Personally, I think there was a lot of incompetence in various agencies, but the most obvious is the incompetence exhibited by NIST and 9/11 Commission. Hell, maybe they didn't find explosives or as some say "miles and miles of cords" because they didn't look.

reply to post by budaruskie

I knew you'd make that argument, so predictable. But, I must agree that it is a valid question and yes he did talk about it. He also talks about how it was absolutely obvious to him that WTC7 was a CD, does he not?

So? That just confims the weak logic that dictates that any two things that have some similar qualities are the same thing. Turkeys and buzzards both have feathers - what are you having for Thanksgiving?

However, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that because you cannot explain HOW someone did something, that it didn't happen.

No, if your "how" can't be explained then your "how" can't be included in the list of possible "how's".

It ONLY means that you don't know whom, or exactly HOW it was done, but it in no way means that it didn't happen.

Until you can, it means didn't happen.

Here is an analogy, although you will only ignore it.
You come home and see your mother dead on the floor with a small hole in the front of her chest and a larger hole in her back. (this represents the towers)

First, why my mother? Thats just mean and ugly. Secondly, your analogy falls apart right there. People are all built basically the same, skeletal systems, nervous systems, circulatory systems, etc. The towers were not built like any other structure.

The police say she died, but not from a gunshot wound. They explain that she is the 1st person in history to die in the manner in which they describe. (9/11 Commish & NIST reports)

Unfortunately, the "first time in history" crap falls on deaf ears. Its not like we have weekly occurences of large buildings, constructed in the same manner of the WTC towers. being hit by large jetliners at top speed.

You ask, "did you look for a bullet?" (9/11 truth movement)

"Or a space beam? Or a poison arrow? Or a mad tiger"?

The police say "no, why should we...we know she wasn't shot by any bullet?" (NIST)

Or more to the point, they would say, "no you moron, thats a knife wound"!

So, you say, "numerous people in the area all say they heard a loud bang, some even say they heard a gunshot." (actual witnesses left out of OS)

"Yeah, execpt they heard them a week before she was dead".

The police decline to speak about that but a bunch of imbeciles on the internet who weren't there and have no expertise related to the event all say "those witnesses have no credibility!" yet they never prove that to be so. (YOU hooper & your OS buddies)

Uh, you fail to mention how they explained the person's cause of death. Now that's analogous to the truth movement, ignoring everything but the sounds of their own voices.

Save me the trouble of creating individual threads in this forum citing every single engineer, architect, demo expert, physicist, pilot, etc. that has signed the various petitions related to 9/11 truth, and just destroy their credibility ahead of time. Each one, individually.

Huh? They first have to establish their credibility.

reply to post by budaruskie


He is certainly more credible than "Flash" Sullivan, the photographer. I think Jowenko is wrong, given that there is no evidence for CD, but this thread is about Sullivan and not Jowenko. Bump an old Jowenko thread if you'd like to discuss Jowenko.

Originally posted by budaruskie
I dunno, you tell me. I'm sure you know every little detail about every single one of them, so just tell me now...or if you'd like I can start a thread titled "debunking every single person who questions the OS about 9/11" and I'll just put a name and link to their bio. Would you prefer that?

By the way, are you saying that you yourself agree with some aspect of that quote of yours above? Personally, I think there was a lot of incompetence in various agencies, but the most obvious is the incompetence exhibited by NIST and 9/11 Commission. Hell, maybe they didn't find explosives or as some say "miles and miles of cords" because they didn't look.

I have seen some of the lists in the past and know that some people give reasons and some don't. AE has an agenda and tends to take advantage of people by misrepresenting themselves at technical meetings. I don't bother to debunk "every single person who questions the OS about 9/11." The OS isn't even well defined and people question many aspects of the reports.
I ask for evidence when claims of CD are made along with super secret plots and insid jobs. So far, none has been provided even though the concept of CD is gospel to some who will hear no skepticism about ther pet theories.
Note that they didn't look for hacksaw blades or sockets and ratchets and this may be fertile ground for stealth disassembly theories. CD by silenced wrenches.

reply to post by hooper

I'll follow your favorite pattern of response. I must say that your response was actually weaker than expected, if that's even possible. It was funny though, maybe that was your goal all along.

So? That just confims the weak logic that dictates that any two things that have some similar qualities are the same thing. Turkeys and buzzards both have feathers - what are you having for Thanksgiving?

How does him stating that WTC 7 was an obvious CD confirm the weak logic...Isn't he an EXPERT in the field? That's not to say he can't be wrong but he lays out some reasons why he thinks so immediately and appears to think the interviewer is either being facetious or is insulting him in some way by not agreeing.

No, if your "how" can't be explained then your "how" can't be included in the list of possible "how's"... Until you can, it means didn't happen.

So, how do homicide detectives ever get a case without knowing for a fact that what they are investigating is indeed a homicide? Answer: They rely on their experience to initially decide if something "looks like" a homicide, then they set out to find evidence. Very different than what happened with 9/11 where the OS was broadcast verbatim by "Mark Walsh", and evidence for explosives was admittedly never pursued by NIST.

First, why my mother? Thats just mean and ugly. Secondly, your analogy falls apart right there. People are all built basically the same, skeletal systems, nervous systems, circulatory systems, etc. The towers were not built like any other structure.

Why not? I wanted you to take it personally and have that emotional attachment that would allow someone to call BS when an authority serves it to them. As for the rest of the analogy, I knew you wouldn't get it...so whatever. Fingers in ears, eyes closed...this is your natural response to everthing.

Unfortunately, the "first time in history" crap falls on deaf ears. Its not like we have weekly occurences of large buildings, constructed in the same manner of the WTC towers. being hit by large jetliners at top speed.

Well, unfortunately for you the "first time in history crap" is something the OS relies on, so you can't really ignore it if you're going to support it. I'm sorry though, I didn't know you were deaf so I take back the fingers in ears statement.

"Or a space beam? Or a poison arrow? Or a mad tiger"?

Riigghhtt. Or...the most obvious and logical conclusion that virtually everyone including Peter Jennings thought happened.

Or more to the point, they would say, "no you moron, thats a knife wound"!

Or, if you understood the idea that it was the first time in history anyone had ever died in this manner, you'd understand that people die every day from stab wounds and that wasn't the explanation given by police...moron.

"Yeah, execpt they heard them a week before she was dead".

How this relates to the analogy is a complete mystery. Numerous people claimed to see and hear explosions and the video evidence shows them on 9/11 not before. Getting weaker by the sentence at this point.

Uh, you fail to mention how they explained the person's cause of death. Now that's analogous to the truth movement, ignoring everything but the sounds of their own voices.

Well, at least you got part of it. I did fail to mention the police's explanation but your understanding as always ends prematurely. That is analagous with the OS, because they themselves fail to actually explain how the buildings collapsed...they only tried to explain how a collapse could have initiated...

Huh? They first have to establish their credibility.

Huh...isn't that what a degree and years of technical experience working in a given field does...ESTABLISH SOME CREDIBILITY. I swear, its hard to imagine that someone could be as hopelessly inconsistent with logic as you always are.

Originally posted by pteridine

I have seen some of the lists in the past and know that some people give reasons and some don't. AE has an agenda and tends to take advantage of people by misrepresenting themselves at technical meetings. I don't bother to debunk "every single person who questions the OS about 9/11." The OS isn't even well defined and people question many aspects of the reports.
I ask for evidence when claims of CD are made along with super secret plots and insid jobs. So far, none has been provided even though the concept of CD is gospel to some who will hear no skepticism about ther pet theories.
Note that they didn't look for hacksaw blades or sockets and ratchets and this may be fertile ground for stealth disassembly theories. CD by silenced wrenches.

Silenced wrenches....that's pretty good! I agree that some explanations aren't at all conceivable, but, how you can rule out CD makes no sense to me. Having evidence to back up your claims is absolutely vital to proving something, I agree with that also. But, you refuse to acknowledge the video evidence, Dr. Jones evidence, eyewitness testimony, and historical presedence...not me. I just don't accept that you can rule something out without looking for it first, you don't have a problem with that. So, why can you accept the OS when there is no evidence to support it, only the opinions of some other scientists on the gov't dole with a super-duper secret computer model?

Originally posted by budaruskie

Silenced wrenches..

..that's pretty good! I agree that some explanations aren't at all conceivable, but, how you can rule out CD makes no sense to me. Having evidence to back up your claims is absolutely vital to proving something, I agree with that also. But, you refuse to acknowledge the video evidence, Dr. Jones evidence, eyewitness testimony, and historical presedence...not me. I just don't accept that you can rule something out without looking for it first, you don't have a problem with that. So, why can you accept the OS when there is no evidence to support it, only the opinions of some other scientists on the gov't dole with a super-duper secret computer model?

The video evidence is based on what? There were not any visual explosions similar to all the youtube CD videos and no sharp cracks of high-brisant cutter charges.
Jones has no evidence. His paper is a joke and he knows it. Note that his promised follow-on paper that would correct his acknowledged shortcomings of the Bentham paper never arrived. Henryco couldn't get the reaction to occur. The super explosive highly engineered chips didn't even burn completely. Only true believers would discount all of this and still fervently cite his paper.
Eyewitness testimony that you wish to consider should have a physical basis in corroboration. The eyewitnesses to the Pentagon impact saw the plane hit and plane pieces were on the lawn and in the building.
People heard noises that sounded like explosions at the WTC but the buildings didn't immediately collapse and there was nothing found of explosives or residue.
Historical precedence is not evidence, if you can find some historical precedent. Given the purportedly perfect planning and total secrecy with no evidence, the precedent would not be known by anyone but the plotters.

The OS remains undefined as a vague assemblage of reports from various dates that are not consistent among themselves. As to the NIST report, it explains the events better and more consistently than any of the various theories. The theories tend to break down when the details are questioned. How much explosive and where? Who did it and how long did it take to set up? Why did no one notice people drilling holes and planting charges? Why is there no physical evidence, not even copper traces on cut beams?

All of these questions are dismissed and when things get tough for the theorists, they resort to super secret silent explosives that no one knows about that can be painted on and detonated at will. The people that espouse these theories are generally technically challenged and want what they want; an inside job, despite the complete lack of evidence for it.

reply to post by pteridine


You know, for someone who presents themselves as well informed and detail oriented you certainly keep me guessing. Half of the statements in your last post are total BS or merely YOUR opinion. Then you have the audacity to elude to myself being in denial and ignoring some overwhelmingly obvious answer...when you are actually describing yourself to a T. Ironic, it is.

By the way, its hard not to notice that you're writing style is very similar to some other members. Is that because you know one another and speak often or went to the same schools? Its a serious question and not an accusation.

Once again, a computer generated, virtual cartoon of the collapse does not have to
stand up to the known laws of physics.
This is what we were treated to on 9/11 and it was passed off by a
complicit media as live, to us cattle.
They want you to talk about everything else, except that.
Looks like they continue to get what they want.

Originally posted by pshea38
Once again, a computer generated, virtual cartoon of the collapse does not have to
stand up to the known laws of physics.
This is what we were treated to on 9/11 and it was passed off by a
complicit media as live, to us cattle.
They want you to talk about everything else, except that.
Looks like they continue to get what they want.

Uh...sorry but I have no idea what you are referring to. Could you please elaborate a little bit.

reply to post by Alfie1

I did know he worked for CDI as a photographer. Anybody got any proof he has qualifications relevant to explosives and controlled demolition ?

Photographer?

He clearly says he work as an explosive loader for over years. Apparently you didn’t watch the video.

Scott Creighton presentation is of his “opinions” and NOT of the Truth movement and he does not speak for the Truth movement.
willyloman.wordpress.com...
Nice try.