Former employee of Controlled Demolition, Inc. talks about the WTC collapses

This past weekend, 5/8/2010, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth held a conference in the San Francisco area to discuss their work. One of the guest speakers was a gentleman by the name of Tom Sullivan who had previously worked for Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI), owned and operated by the Loizeaux family.

Tom Sullivan worked for CDI about 10 years ago before and during 9/11, and he worked for CDI for almost 3 years. His roll with CDI was Site Photographer/Explosives Technician. He is also licensed by the FDNY to handle explosives. His explosives tech. duties included placing explosives in buildings to prepare them for demolition.

Sullivan worked on projects such as Seattle King Dome, Three Rivers Stadium, Philadelphia Naval Hospital, Key Span Gas Holders, among others. He also went to high-school with Doug Loizeaux of CDI as well. Sullivan has also published work in the book "Implosion" published by Black Dog Publishing.


In his talking points, Sullivan talks about some of the myths surrounding 9/11 on how certain things would have been discovered in the debris pile of the collapses if explosives were used at the WTC:

1.) One of the myths is that if explosives were used, there would be pieces of the casings or other physical evidence left behind from the use of explosives. Sullivan has stated that there is nothing left of the casings.

2.) Another myth is that miles of detcord would be found in the debris pile. On this point, Sullivan mentioned the remote-controlled detonators that have been in use for many years.

CDI has on their own website a section that talks about their own remote-controlled demolition capabilities called DREXS (Directional Remote Explosive Severance).


In my opinion, even if detcord was used, there were thousands of miles of wiring, cabling, etc. in that debris pile. Detcord looks like any other cable to the untrained eye. And even with the detcord covered in and discolored by all the gray dust, it would be virtually indistinguishable from any other wiring or cabling in those buildings even to the trained eye, especially if you're not specifically looking for it. And I don't know anyone that was specifically looking for signs of explosives during cleanup.


Sullivan has said there is no possible way those buildings could have collapsed the way they did from fire.

To watch the conference you can go here:

www.ustream.tv...

Sullivan is introduced at 1:34:15.



On a side note, CDI has denied any knowledge of Sullivan being employed by them. Thankfully, Sullivan has kept his credentials which were verified by AE911T. Sullivan's credentials were also verified by KPFA radio (Guns and Butter radio) for a segment that involved Sullivan.





(edit to correct date and punctuation)

[edit on 9-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]

The evidence keeps piling up & the powers that be just continue to bury their heads deeper in the sand & hum all the louder.

Been waiting for someone one from such a company as CDI, to make a statement as strong as this. Absolutely awesome, just another prominent cog in the gearbox of truth.

Who else needs to speak out before this circus will end? We've got huge amounts of people from all walks of life, expertise in multiple fields, leaders and other prominent figures, yet the gate remains closed. What will it take?

[edit on 9/5/10 by GhostR1der]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


So, lets forget det cord etc. and lean more towards remote controlled detonations.

Care to explain how remote controlled devices survived the plane impact and subsequent fires? Of course you wont. The collapses both initiated at the point of impact.

You admit that CDI denies this person as working there. But two fringe groups claim to have verified this? From this link you sent, A&E has him listed as a Other Supporters and A&E Students. Do you know how he was verified? Does he have any tax records? Check stubs?

Uhhhh 9/11 was a controlled Demolition.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Care to explain how remote controlled devices survived the plane impact and subsequent fires?

There are many explosives available that will not explode from just being exposed to fire, or even water for that matter. Some of them take specific detonators to make them detonate.

Secondly, some of the explosives could very well have gone off due to the fires. It would explain some of the explosions heard after the impacts.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Do you know how he was verified?

I do not know how he was verified. You are more than welcome to contact AE911T or KPFA radio and ask them how Sullivan was verified.


On a final note, you shouldn't discount what others say just because you don't understand the logistics of how something happened.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Care to explain how remote controlled devices survived the plane impact and subsequent fires? Of course you wont. The collapses both initiated at the point of impact.

The remote controlled devices survived the "plane" impact because there were no planes that impacted the towers on 9/11.

_BoneZ_

WoW!! Stars and Flags! Good thread there and thanks for the information. I didn't even know that someone of his ilk was coming forward and saying those things. Its interesting how they are trying to discredit him but he has kept the proof, almost as if he could see them doing that.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

There are many explosives available that will not explode from just being exposed to fire, or even water for that matter. Some of them take specific detonators to make them detonate.

I was asking about the detonators. They would have to have some sort of radio frequency device? How do you protect the equipment from a speeding 757, the damage, the explosions, etc.? Keep in mind where the collapses initiated.

I do not know how he was verified. You are more than welcome to contact AE911T or KPFA radio and ask them how Sullivan was verified.

CDI denied his employment. This is a FACT. Another FACT...if he indeed was employed by CDI he can sue CDI. When I receive inquiries about a former employee, I am required by law to state their dates of employment.

On a final note, you shouldn't discount what others say just because you don't understand the logistics of how something happened.

I suggest you practice what you preach. Being licensed to carry explosives does not make one an explosives expert. Think about the people that transport donated organs to the hospitals. Are they surgeons?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I do not know how he was verified. You are more than welcome to contact AE911T or KPFA radio and ask them how Sullivan was verified.

Stacey Loizeaux from CDI was contacted and has admitted that she KNOWS him. Tom went to high school with Doug Loizeaux. He is a freelance still photographer. He worked on a corporate brochure for the company and tagged along on a few jobs to get still images for it.

Mr. Sullivan's opinions on 9/11 are just that. He is not a qualified demolitions expert or a Structural Engineer. He is riding the coat tails of other frauds like Richard Gage and DRG.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Keep in mind where the collapses initiated.

The collapses were initiated somewhere near the impact zones. There's no way to 100% determine exactly which floor that collapse was initiated from.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
if he indeed was employed by CDI he can sue CDI. When I receive inquiries about a former employee, I am required by law to state their dates of employment.

Is that a state law or federal law? I'm pretty sure that's a state law and it would vary from state to state. However, if such a law exists in the state that CDI's headquarters resides, then it might be prudent to bring this fact up to them and see if they change their position on whether Sullivan was really employed by them or not.

I will be finding out the state laws regarding this and contacting CDI to confront them with this information if that is the case.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Being licensed to carry explosives does not make one an explosives expert.

Nowhere does it say he was licensed to "carry" explosives. It says he is licensed to handle explosives. And I'm pretty sure the FDNY doesn't had out those licenses to anyone off the street. I think it's safe to say that one has to have some sort of formal training to be able to get a license and then be employed by a controlled demolition company.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

The collapses were initiated somewhere near the impact zones. There's no way to 100% determine exactly which floor that collapse was initiated from.

Let's for argument sake agree to "near". What demolition equipment do you know exists that could withstand the impact, explosions, etc.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Is that a state law or federal law?

I work in two states (one being NY) and that is what is required of me.

I will be finding out the state laws regarding this and contacting CDI to confront them with this information if that is the case.

As my post above shows, they have been contacted and his roll with them has been verified.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Nowhere does it say he was licensed to "carry" explosives. It says he is licensed to handle explosives. And I'm pretty sure the FDNY doesn't had out those licenses to anyone off the street. I think it's safe to say that one has to have some sort of formal training to be able to get a license and then be employed by a controlled demolition company.

Semantics.. You have not seen any credentials that show he held any license from the FDNY pertaining to explosives.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

In my opinion, even if detcord was used, there were thousands of miles of wiring, cabling, etc. in that debris pile. Detcord looks like any other cable to the untrained eye. And even with the detcord covered in and discolored by all the gray dust, it would be virtually indistinguishable from any other wiring or cabling in those buildings even to the trained eye, especially if you're not specifically looking for it. And I don't know anyone that was specifically looking for signs of explosives during cleanup.

Members of the local bomb squad from Passaic County Sheriff Dept
spent 3 weeks searching the rubble of WTC in Sept/Oct 2001

I have spoke to many of them - they are qualified explosives experts

None of them indicated seeing anything remotely resenbling explosives

As for your So called expert - has been outed as a fraud and attention seeker

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Let's for argument sake agree to "near". What demolition equipment do you know exists that could withstand the impact, explosions, etc.

I can't answer that as I'm not an explosives expert, nor do I work for the demolition industry.

However, just because we can't answer every single question, and just because we don't understand the logistics, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Don't forget that the "official" version of what happened on 9/11 is just as much a theory, same as the theories that the 9/11 truth movement proposes.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I work in two states (one being NY) and that is what is required of me.

That didn't answer my question. If you know that you have to report that information by law, then you should know what the law states and whether it is a state law or a federal law.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Semantics.. You have not seen any credentials that show he held any license from the FDNY pertaining to explosives.

I personally have not, but AE911T has and KPFA radio has. Again, you are more than welcome to contact either or both to inquire about Sullivan's credentials.

Originally posted by thedman
Members of the local bomb squad from Passaic County Sheriff Dept
spent 3 weeks searching the rubble of WTC in Sept/Oct 2001

I have spoke to many of them - they are qualified explosives experts

Do you know who else is qualified explosives experts? Controlled demolition companies and there were several on-site at ground zero as well.

Originally posted by thedman
None of them indicated seeing anything remotely resenbling explosives

And as was already mentioned in the OP, there isn't anything left of the explosives after detonation anyway.

How would you think that any explosive device would survive itself being detonated? Nothing survived the collapses. Tiny fragments of human remains, tiny fragments of the items that were in the towers. Very little of anything that was in those towers survived.

Originally posted by thedman
As for your So called expert - has been outed as a fraud and attention seeker

Got a source for that claim?







[edit on 9-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

In my opinion, even if detcord was used, there were thousands of miles of wiring, cabling, etc. in that debris pile. Detcord looks like any other cable to the untrained eye. And even with the detcord covered in and discolored by all the gray dust, it would be virtually indistinguishable from any other wiring or cabling in those buildings even to the trained eye, especially if you're not specifically looking for it. And I don't know anyone that was specifically looking for signs of explosives during cleanup.

Members of the local bomb squad from Passaic County Sheriff Dept
spent 3 weeks searching the rubble of WTC in Sept/Oct 2001

I have spoke to many of them - they are qualified explosives experts

None of them indicated seeing anything remotely resenbling explosives

As for your So called expert - has been outed as a fraud and attention seeker

I love debunker logic. Experts detected cordite @ the pentagon. They ignore that. There was a bomb investigation at the WTC complex before the tower collapse. Coupled with the fact that there had been a basement bomb in the past that we had a confidential informant we have the MO. Ignore that. BUT: they agree that what experts didn't find concludes that 911 was not an inside job.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
However, just because we can't answer every single question, and just because we don't understand the logistics, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So, could it have been Space DEW's like Judy Wood claims it to have been? The extraordinary claims need evidence. Just like silent bombs and paint on nano thermite.

Don't forget that the "official" version of what happened on 9/11 is just as much a theory, same as the theories that the 9/11 truth movement proposes.

The theory from NIST is based on sound science. Gage and others have yet to offer anything accepted from the scientific community.

That didn't answer my question. If you know that you have to report that information by law, then you should know what the law states and whether it is a state law or a federal law.

I don't know. The human resources director said to me "by law" this is what we have to do.

I personally have not, but AE911T has and KPFA radio has. Again, you are more than welcome to contact either or both to inquire about Sullivan's credentials.

Mr. Gage has received several e-mails from me. He never responds.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Do you know who else is qualified explosives experts? Controlled demolition companies and there were several on-site at ground zero as well.

This is true. Not a single one of them think the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by thedman
And as was already mentioned in the OP, there isn't anything left of the explosives after detonation anyway.

I believe they were also looking at the condition of the steel to see anything suspect. They found nothing.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by Six Sigma]

Originally posted by jprophet420
I love debunker logic. Experts detected cordite @ the pentagon. They ignore that.

There was one person that said they smelled cordite. Who are the others and what were their expertise?

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by jprophet420
I love debunker logic. Experts detected cordite @ the pentagon. They ignore that.

There was one person that said they smelled cordite. Who are the others and what were their expertise?

Read the testimonies and watch the news archive like I did. I cant do your research for you.

*Edit* Let me expand on that. I read every pentagon testimony on record and many of them mentioned explosions/cordite smell/anomalies that were inconsistent with the OS. I also watched the news that day where there were "off the record" testimonies or observations that were ignored post 911.

If someone denies these, I cannot take their 911 research seriously. If they disagree I am willing to debate on which side of the story is the most likely to be true.

Also, using your logic, any crime with only one witness cannot be solved, as you state only one expert smelled cordite.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by jprophet420]

[edit on 9-5-2010 by jprophet420]