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

reply to post by impressme


Perhaps you can point out then where Scott Creighton is incorrect in his technical critique of the Sullivan/AE9/11t interview ?

What is particularly worrying is that the technical errors have clearly been pointed out to AE9/11t but they evidently just don't care about making sure they are telling the truth.

reply to post by Alfie1

Perhaps you can point out then where Scott Creighton is incorrect in his technical critique of the Sullivan/AE9/11t interview ?

I don’t have to, his evidence is his “opinion” and if you deny this, then you will be lying to yourself. Perhaps, you believe opinions are better than science?

What is particularly worrying is that the technical errors have clearly been pointed out to AE9/11t but they evidently just don't care about making sure they are telling the truth.

“Technical errors” proven by whom?

Originally posted by budaruskie
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.

Please point out the BS or opinion statements so that I may clarify them. The Jones statement is more than opinion as I have shown the many technical errors in his paper, using his own data, on several threads. There are very few statements from the truther crowd that are not BS or opinion so I may have slipped into that mode through propinquity.
I do not personally know any other member on ATS; at least that I know well enough to recognize style. No one in my circle of friends has ever told me that they are an ATS member. As to the schools, I am not certain but I would say that it is unlikely that after all of this time that my writing style can be traced to a specific undergraduate or graduate school. My guess is that similarities in vocabulary and writing style may be due more to profession than origin. I write mainly in science and engineering journals.

Originally posted by impressme
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.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps you can point out then where Scott Creighton is incorrect in his technical critique of the Sullivan/AE9/11t interview ?

What is particularly worrying is that the technical errors have clearly been pointed out to AE9/11t but they evidently just don't care about making sure they are telling the truth.

How about you admitting you either didn't watch the video, or ignored the part where he said he was an explosives loader?


Your response to impressme could have been as simple as, "Yeah, you're right, he did at least say he was an explosives loader in the video," but I guess that would leave a silence too awkward and dark for you to deal with. So you resort to the usual extending the argument via fallacies to arguing about other things instead.

When you just make stuff up ('he's just a photographer' ) and then start diverting to other topics before ever admitting you're full of crap, what point is there even to respond to you at all? None.

Originally posted by budaruskie

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.

Hi bud.
All images broadcast as 'live' on 9/11 were pre-prepared computer generated imagery.
A complicit, sold-out media sold the public the lie and we bought it hook line and sinker.
All subsequent analysis of the means and mechanisms of collapse are futile as we are
analysing computer generated demolition software which doesn't have to conform to the
accepted laws of physics. Hence the confusion, debating, dithering, dallying, to-ing and
fro-ing and general non-sense of the whole debate.
9/11 was a giant hoax with no terrorists, no planes and few if any deaths.
The vast majority of victims are computer generated, ficticious identities.

It may take a while to go through everything written at the link but for me,
it was definitely well worthwhile.
www.septemberclues.info...

This link shows clearly and irrefutably the extent to which our lives have been exposed
to media fakey. Examples include 9/11, madrid, bali and london bombings, mumbai and tucson
shootings amongst many others. Please invest the time.
www.cluesforum.info...

regards

reply to post by pshea38


Why bother posting? You realize, of course, that this forum does not exist, correct? That it is simply a computer program generated and broadcast from a facility near Ft. Wayne, Indiana. All contributors and respondents are computer generated dialogue (except you, of course) and meant only to comfort those that have percieved the reality of 9/11 and feel a need to speak out. Your objections and suspicions are nicely contained, recorded, and documented for future reference. Thank you for your cooperation.

Signed

010010010010001001100

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by pshea38

 

Why bother posting? You realize, of course, that this forum does not exist, correct? That it is simply a computer program generated and broadcast from a facility near Ft. Wayne, Indiana. All contributors and respondents are computer generated dialogue (except you, of course) and meant only to comfort those that have percieved the reality of 9/11 and feel a need to speak out. Your objections and suspicions are nicely contained, recorded, and documented for future reference. Thank you for your cooperation.

Signed

010010010010001001100

Hey, I recognise that signature.
That you Goodolddave. No, hang on, maybe it's Alfie. I get confused U see.
Damn It, it's you Weedywacker. No, No, i'm sure it's FDNY353....
Malfunction, Critical Malfunction...Abort, must Abort....BullSh!t Overload...
Please Try Again and Have A Dice Nay....

reply to post by _BoneZ_


He says it himself. If thermite was used there would be no residue left, as it is self-consuming. Yet you guys push red paint chips as unreacted thermitic material. I love how you truthers blindly contradict yourselves with the evidence you present.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by budaruskie
Dave, hooper, Alfie, WW, now is when you tell me this guy cheated on his wife, beat the dog, and has no credibility whatsoever. Drivel, damn fool conspiracy site, blah blah blah.
Oh yeah, nice find and gov't is lying about 9/11 because those buildings were CD's, period.

edit on 3/21/2011 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)

And? So what, where and how? Still need answers to those nagging questions - and don't give me the old "new investigation" crap. If you think it was a CD then tell me what explosives where planted, where they were planted and how they were initiated to cause what we all witnessed on 9/11.

Are you mentally instable or something? We already have the 911 deniers who make facts up. Finding out what happened starts with an indipendent investigation, at least as much as its possible, seen as how most of the rubble was moved to china. Testing for explosives and accelerants and such, something that has not been done. What good is it gonna do if some guy on the internet pulls something out by his hair? You dont start with a predetermined "fact" and try to make up evidence around it.

At this point the people who support the OS and the conspiracy theory of a Saudi attack against America are some guys on the internet. When was the last time a 911 denier was able to cite an expert with an related education? Only time 911 deniers have been citing experts for the last couple years was to find something totally unrelated to the subject to smear them and to remind us, that they all just really want to sell tshirts in the end.

Originally posted by SteveR
I love how you truthers blindly contradict yourselves with the evidence you present.

I love how you blindly except someones unqualified opinion of scientific testing as fact, because it fits what you want to believe.

"Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers.

911debunkers.blogspot.com...

You haven't read his paper, you just believe the BS because you want the BS to be true.

reply to post by ANOK


In your video, was the chip being heated by an oxy torch like Jones' experiment or just a plain old propane torch? It does look like paint.

reply to post by Cassius666

Are you mentally instable or something?

That's "unstable".

We already have the 911 deniers who make facts up.

Yeah, we surely do, don't we!

Finding out what happened starts with an indipendent investigation, at least as much as its possible, seen as how most of the rubble was moved to china.

"Moved to China", thats one of those made up facts. Finding out what happened starts with a theory. So start.

Testing for explosives and accelerants and such, something that has not been done.

Until you get that "theory" thing together, well there just is no reason to do that, understand?

What good is it gonna do if some guy on the internet pulls something out by his hair?

Huh?

You dont start with a predetermined "fact" and try to make up evidence around it.

What the hell is a predetermined fact? Actually what you do is collect those "predetermined facts", construct a theory and then submit those facts as they evidence the theory.

At this point the people who support the OS and the conspiracy theory of a Saudi attack against America are some guys on the internet.

By "some guys on the internet" you are refering, of course, to the rest of humanity.

When was the last time a 911 denier was able to cite an expert with an related education? Only time 911 deniers have been citing experts for the last couple years was to find something totally unrelated to the subject to smear them and to remind us, that they all just really want to sell tshirts in the end.

Ok, I'm confused - who do you think are the 9/11 deniers?

Well, you know, I watched my car mechanic work on my car many times. So does that make me a car expert? Will any of you trust me to rebuild your engine? Come now, I've watched them work on my car many times!

reply to post by ANOK


And that little video is suppose to prove what exactly??? Paint burns? Hell I've known that for years!

reply to post by ANOK


I don't see any thermitic reaction in the video.

reply to post by SteveR


Then just read his paper. I'm not vouching for the vid.

I'm not going to argue this nonsense that will turn into nothing bur the usual character assassination.

Read his paper and not the nonsense critiques of it. This was settled last year, catch up, quit spreading the same nonsense over and over. Your OPINIONS have been proven wrong...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ANOK


You're not vouching for the vid? Then why post it?

This was settled last year? Really? Why link me to a thread I have already posted on several times, including on the last page? What am I supposed to "catch up" on, exactly?

I don't expect answers. There is no sense behind anything you say.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Perhaps you can point out then where Scott Creighton is incorrect in his technical critique of the Sullivan/AE9/11t interview ?

I don’t have to, his evidence is his “opinion” and if you deny this, then you will be lying to yourself. Perhaps, you believe opinions are better than science?

What is particularly worrying is that the technical errors have clearly been pointed out to AE9/11t but they evidently just don't care about making sure they are telling the truth.

“Technical errors” proven by whom?

Whether a 1984 patent , as referred to in the interview and in this AE9/11t article :-

www.ae911truth.org...

is a thermite based cutter charge or an ignition system for another propellant is not a matter of " opinion " but is documented fact.

You are just adopting your traditional stance of hand-waving away anything you dont agree with as "opinion" while embracing everything you do like as reputable science regardless of the actual facts.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by impressme
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.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps you can point out then where Scott Creighton is incorrect in his technical critique of the Sullivan/AE9/11t interview ?

What is particularly worrying is that the technical errors have clearly been pointed out to AE9/11t but they evidently just don't care about making sure they are telling the truth.

How about you admitting you either didn't watch the video, or ignored the part where he said he was an explosives loader?


Your response to impressme could have been as simple as, "Yeah, you're right, he did at least say he was an explosives loader in the video," but I guess that would leave a silence too awkward and dark for you to deal with. So you resort to the usual extending the argument via fallacies to arguing about other things instead.

When you just make stuff up ('he's just a photographer'

) and then start diverting to other topics before ever admitting you're full of crap, what point is there even to respond to you at all? None.

So, because he

said to AE9/11t that he was an "explosives loader" then I must accept that without further enquiry, even though he makes technical errors and claims he knew WTC 7 was a cd from day one just by looking at it, hardly professional ?

According to two JREF members they contacted CDI and were told that the only work he did for them was as a photographer . The only documentation I have seen about his status with explosives is in this AE9/11t article:-

www.ae911truth.org...

which indicates he was at some point a " powder carrier ".

So, anybody got any evidence that he ever did any more than hump some explosives about ?

With regard to the Scott Creighton article, how was this a diversion ? It is directly relevant to the subject and proves Tom Sullivan doesn't know what he is talking about in relation to alleged 1984 thermite based cutter charges.