Support 911Blogger


Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee 24 June 2010 Written by Darcy Wearing and Richard Gage, AIA

http://www.ae911truth.org/newsletter/2010/06/index.php#cdi

Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee
News - News Releases By AE911Truth
Written by Darcy Wearing and Richard Gage, AIA
Thursday, 24 June 2010 18:55

Having had the privilege of speaking with Tom Sullivan, an actual explosive-charge placement technician, we have some new insights to pass along as to how controlled demolition works, where it started, and the effect that 9/11 had on the demolition industry. Sullivan gained his experience as an employee of the leading firm in this field, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI). Sullivan stresses though “I do not in anyway represent CDI and what I have to say is based on my own experience and training,”

Sullivan attended high school with Doug Loizeaux of the Loizeaux family. The Loizeaux family, through the father Jack, independently started the whole controlled-demolition industry and turned it into a highly profitable business. Sullivan, before he became connected to CDI, was an independent photographer during his early years in Maryland. He would be sent to CD sites and take still pictures of the jobs. He became infatuated with the CD industry. The time came when he would do both, being the placer of the “cutter charges” on the primary joints, and photographing the jobs for promoting the business. Soon he would switch to full-time employee status of CDI -- as verified by AE911Truth’s verification team.

"It was very interesting, but also very hard work, long hours, especially in the cold weather," Sullivan reflects. He stated that the days began early, around 6 a.m., and they would work until the sun was down. Sullivan had the experience of preparing a building by placing the cutter charges throughout the primary joints, and then, of course, watching it all come down.

Read the rest with photos:
http://www.ae911truth.org/newsletter/2010/06/index.php#cdi

Sullivan notes that many weeks are required to “prep,” or weaken the buildings before demolitions. Steel frame buildings don’t just fall into their footprints at free-fall without major work throughout the building – even some before the placement of explosives. Sullivan emphasized as an aside, “Fire cannot bring down steel-framed high rises -- period.”

One of Sullivan’s most exciting jobs was the colossal Kingdome in whose reinforced concrete structure he personally placed hundreds of deadly explosive charges.

Working for CDI was, Sullivan stated, “a very unique experience.” He also said, "they were a close-knit family -- referring to the familial values of the Loizeauxs." “I learned from watching," said Sullivan. "There is no school that will teach you this, just hands on hard work." Sullivan took hundreds of project photos, through which he developed a deep passion for the trade.

When asked, what made CDI the best in the business, he commented, “their family had all the experience because they ’invented’ the art of CD. They spent years traveling around the world, showing and educating people how this art form works.”

Unfortunately, the business came to a screeching halt after 9/11. "People were scared -- if they were to hear a loud bang it was probably some kind of terrorist attack," says Sullivan in frustration. "Fear took over and there was no more business." Even Mark Loizeaux (CDI’s President) has been quoted as saying 9/11 ruined him. Sullivan had no choice but to leave CDI. Curiously, CDI had a role in the WTC cleanup through a subcontract under Tully Construction. On September 22, 2001, CDI submitted a 25-page "preliminary" document to New York City's Department of Design and Construction, a plan related to the removal and recycling of the steel.[¹]

Sullivan stated that he knew from the first day that the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was a classic controlled implosion. Asked how he thought it might have been done he posited, “looking at the building it wouldn’t be a problem -- once you gain access to the elevator shafts…then a team of expert loaders would have hidden access to the core columns and beams. The rest can be accomplished with just the right kind of explosives for the job. Thermite can be used as well.”

Brent Blanchard, the photographer from the controlled demolition company Protec, has said, in criticism of the CD theory, that there would have had to been detonation cords strung all over the place and casings left in the rubble pile from the cutter charges. So we asked for a response from Sullivan. He noted that:

Remote wireless detonators have been available for years. Look at any action movie -- and of course the military has them. The reason most contractors don’t use them is that they are too expensive -- but in a project with a huge budget it would be no problem. As for the casings -- everyone in the industry, including Blanchard, would know that RDX explosive cutter charges are completely consumed when they go off -- nothing is left. And in the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case. Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.

We asked Sullivan if all the floors in WTC 7 would have to be loaded with explosives in order for a successful controlled demolition. He responded,

No, with steel framed buildings you really need only to load the bottom third to bring the building down. While at CDI we had a job in Hartford Conn, the CNG building, where we did just that. And it worked out beautifully.

Recalling that Ron Craig, a Hollywood movie explosions expert claimed in a debate with us, that there would have been many blocks of broken windows if it were a controlled demolition. Sullivan reflected,

The key word here is controlled demolition – in other words careful placement of charges -- always focused and precise. We are not talking about setting off a bomb here. The amount and type of explosives is an art and collateral damage can often be completely avoided.

We asked about Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) who claimed publically in his infamous press conference at the “unveiling” of the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 that there would have been a loud boom coming from a massive explosion if this had been a controlled demolition, and asked him about that. Sullivan said, “With any implosion there is never just one big explosion but rather waves of smaller explosions -- not unlike the percussion section in a symphony -- as each loaded floor is progressively set off.”

And as Sullivan watched the towers collapse that day, like so many did, he pondered at how fast it all took place, and how suddenly and symmetrically they were brought down. "I knew it was an explosive event as soon as I saw it, there was no question in my mind," said Sullivan. Most of us agree -- it's not by chance that the first tower just happened to collapse -- then the second in the same manner. What convinced him completely is when he watched Tower 7 fall that day, "I mean, come on, it was complete destruction. I've seen buildings fall like that for years -- that was the end game for me." Keep in mind that Sullivan did this for a living for several years -- it is like second nature for him to see this type of demolition. If anybody would know, it should be him. But we went ahead and asked him, “Is there any chance that normal office fires (the official cause of the ’collapse’) could have been responsible for the smooth, symmetrical, free-fall acceleration of building 7? “Not a chance,” he retorted. We just wanted to be sure.

When we asked him if he followed any of the 9/11 Commission hearings or that of the NIST reporting, he had the same answer for both "I have no tolerance for people who lie to me about what I know to be true. I threw my hands up in disgust and never watched another hearing after the first. As for NIST, I didn't even watch because I knew what to expect." He did however follow the final report on the collapse of Tower 7 and said it angered him that they could actually convince so many of their fraudulent claims.

Sullivan first came into contact with AE911Truth through a friend that sent him the 9/11: Blueprint for Truth DVD. He watched it and was very excited that there was actually an organization out there trying to inform people of what he was trying to say since that fateful day. “AE911Truth is the most focused and organized group there is today in the 9/11 truth movement. There is no speculation," he said. "Blueprint for Truth is factual and impressive information based on science and physics, and was clear and concise." When asked if he agreed with the evidence the DVD brings forth, Sullivan responded, "It contains extremely compelling evidence."

The final question we asked in this interview was, "How many architects and engineers does it take speaking in unison until people hear that there is a problem?" His response, "As the number grows it will be harder and harder to deny them -- but deny them they will."

Note: 1) Sullivan came out from the East Coast to deliver a short but electrifying presentation on Friday and Saturday night, May 7th & 8th at the joint presentation of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. He joined Richard Gage, AIA, and Erik Lawyer on stage for 10 minutes and answered some key questions about the demolition industry, the CDI family of Loizeauxs, and the way the 3 WTC skyscrapers were destroyed. Prior to these milestone events he appeared with Gage and Lawyer on KPFA radio Berkeley on the program “Guns & Butter” with host Bonnie Faulkner who had a number of great questions for him.

2) "DO NOT COPY" watermarks on images were added by Tom Sullivan. These images may not be copied other than in the context of this article, or with his specific approval.

It is fun to watch the AE911Truth team...

Tom Sullivan is at around the 1:34 mark of this video. It is fun to watch.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/6786531

Military Demolitions too

Glad to finally see someone from the controlled demolition industry speak up about the World Trade Towers.

Does this guy know about nano-thermite? Has he ever seen it being employed in building demolitions?

I would recommend that AE employ its significant resources in acquiring a similar boon from someone within the defense contracting industry since in all likelihood, military demolitions hold much promise for further analysis.

The military routinely demolishes building, bridges and other structures to test new exotic explosive formulations.
The nano-thermitic destruction of the World Trade towers had to be tested on some structure somewhere within the federal lands used for such purposes by the military and their defense contractor friends.

It just occured to me

that thermite, could go off without sounding like BOOM, BOOM, BOOM. Although there were many BOOMS reported in the lead up to the complete destruction of each of the twin towers, which as we all know, exploded from the top down, all the way to the ground (and through the path of maximal resistence) to within three seconds of absolute free fall, an utter absurdity, absent the use of explosives in a very precise and well timed controlled demolition.

Tom Sullivan, Richard Gage, Eric Lawyer interview

There is an excellent radio interview from KPFA "Guns an Butter" with an interview with Tom Sullivan, Richard Gage an Eric Lawyer here: http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/60621

Guns and Butter - April 28, 2010 at 1:00pm

Click to listen (or download)

Tom Sullivan stated that he personally hadn't used thermite for his CD work. RDX and dynamite were normally used due to the expense of using thermite. But he was familiar with it being used for cutter charges.

I still say

...... This is good news , however you only need common sense to see the obvious. I guess it's not that common.

Amen

Aaaaaaaaaaa-men
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-men
A - A - men A - men A-men

Another pathetic Scott Creighton attack

Predictably, attacker/debunker "willyloman" (Scott Creighton) has responded to this interview with another attack (who'd have guessed?) :

Tom Sullivan’s Lies of Omission and the Poorly Scripted Cognitive Infiltration of AE911Truth
Posted on June 26, 2010 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/11222/

It's fascinating that this person claims to support 9/11 truth, but with every new paper, interview or article, he claims every single person is lying, infiltrating, deliberately misrepresenting, etc. Anything he can possibly dig up, no matter how meaningless, he works non-stop to take people down with false accusations.

Pathetic.

It's fascinating that this

It's fascinating that this person claims to support 9/11 truth, but with every new paper, interview or article, he claims every single person is lying, infiltrating, deliberately misrepresenting, etc. Anything he can possibly dig up, no matter how meaningless, he works non-stop to take people down with false accusations.

LOL. You're funny. He's not calling 'every single person a liar'.

Scott's material is pretty much what I would expect from someone who was right about their claims to have noticed cognitive infiltration of the 911 Truth movement via Dr. Stephen Jones and thermite research. Of course he would seem to be 'attacking' these people. But on the other hand he would also be considered 'protecting' the 911 truth movement by making them aware of this information if he's correct about his claims.

You seem to know a lot. Have you debunked this guy WillyLoman already? Could you share your findings with more detail because I'm interested.

From website you posted, Scott claims that he communicated with Greg Roberts and Stephen Jones about testing for conventional high explosives in their WTC dust samples and that Jones put him in contact with Greg Roberts. Scott claims Greg Roberts said in an email that he (Greg Roberts) "didn't want to check for explosives residues because a negative result would be bad PR for the movement." Here's the excerpt of the e-mail he shares which he attributes to Roberts:

"However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered."

This should be debunked or confirmed as soon as possible. Not running tests for conventional explosives because the result would mean bad PR for the movement is 'non-scientific' and would like-wise be a disastrous PR blunder that would be like the golden egg for debunkers. On the other hand, if Scott is lying about this then that's pretty damn important to know also.

testing for explosive residue would be inconclusive

JPass, I believe the reason Jones et al did not test for explosive residue is that the result would be inconclusive, for several reasons. First, the military does not use taggants. Second, any residue would have degraded by the time Jones obtained these samples.

As an aside, knowing Gregg Roberts and Dwain Deets personally, I can assure you and Scott Creighton that Creighton is way off the mark about both of these individuals. LOL, if Gregg was guilty of all the ridiculous claims made by Creighton, he sure as hell isn't getting paid to do it. He did not 'bring Deets into AE'. And Dwain does not talk about remote control under the auspices of AE because AE ONLY focuses on the demolitions at the WTC. Not the Pentagon, not the planes, not the hijackers. Just the physical impossibility of the WTC buildings 'collapsing due to fire'.

Why is Creighton hell-bent on discrediting Steven Jones? Is he another nanothermite denier? Perhaps he should do some research on weather modification and HAARP before he dismisses the possibility that the Haitian earthquake was man-made.

If anyone is a disinfo agent, it's Scott Creighton. Next thing you know he'll be talking about how the towers had concrete cores.

Thanks Lips

Scott Creighton and Roberts / Deets aside...not a single entity has tested for high explosives correct? Not testing for explosives residue because 'the military doesn't use taggants is not a scientific reason not to test.

Let's see what taggants are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taggant

Taggants

A taggant is also a chemical or physical marker added to materials to allow various forms of testing. It is believed that they generally consist of microscopic particles built up in many layers, which are made of different materials. It is a somewhat secretive process, but products that may be affected include ink, paper, perfume, and medication. Taggants allow testing marked items for qualities such as lot number and concentration (to test for dilution, for example). In particular, taggants are known to be widely used in plastic, sheet and flexible explosives.

Explosive Taggants

There are two types of taggant which can be added, one to help detect the presence of a bomb in, for example, airport screening of luggage; and the other to assist the police in finding the culprits after the detonation of such a bomb.

Identification (or post detonation) taggants

These are added to the explosive so that the manufacturer and batch number can be determined if it is used illegally. The taggant must survive the explosion and not be contaminated by the environment afterwards. Several different technologies have been tried, but probably the most common are microscopic polymer particles.

Whilst detection taggants are universally used, this is not the case with identification taggants; in particular there are arguments that there may be minimal benefit in practice to law enforcement agencies compared to the cost to industry of the taggant. One reason cited is that most terrorist attacks use homemade explosives, for instance in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and in the Oklahoma City and Omagh bombings. Contamination of the site is also cited as a problem, since countless different taggants might be present at a crime scene from, for example, explosives used to obtain the building materials.

Switzerland passed a law in 1980 requiring taggants in explosives manufactured there, and that the code must be changed every six months. So far it is the only country which requires identification taggants. Imported explosives must be tagged only if competing products are also manufactured in Switzerland.

So identification taggants are not universally used. I would think the military does use them but that's besides the point. Science should test for explosives in WTC samples to rule out possibilities.

But of course

jpass:
"Scott's material is pretty much what I would expect from someone who was right about their claims to have noticed cognitive infiltration of the 911 Truth movement via Dr. Stephen Jones and thermite research."

Thank you for the comic relief. This place has been getting a little to serious lately. ;-)

Earthshaking

What is amazing is how many truth scholars have gotten it so right, even though they have been badly hamstrung with a lack of actual knowledge of CD. Now there is someone on board who has that knowledge. His comments on building seven remind us of the 20 or so stories of freefall during the collapse of building seven that was uncovered by a high school teacher, and finally admitted to by NIST. Now we see first hand that buildings are taken down by removing the lower third. Mind boggling. This must be spread far and wide, even though, as Sullivan admits, people will still deny. But after this, I cannot see how they can still deny.

Article on Op Ed News

A quick link to this article has been accepted and posted at Op Ed News today. Here's the link: http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Explosive-evidence-at-WTC-in-Life_Arts.... I do hope this very interesting and pertinent article gets a lot of play on the internet.