• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kevin Ryan is famous!

chrismohr said:
Here's what I found, Frank: "Tom Sullivan worked for Controlled Demolition, Inc. for almost three years before and during 9/11 as a Site Photographer and Explosives Technician." It appears that he did both jobs, not just photographing demo sites.
Click to expand...

What is an "explosives technician"? Is this a person who handles the devices? wires them per plans? Or someone who engineers demolitions?

I am curious about the engineering of such things... I suppose there is some formal body of knowledge how to destroy a structure.. much there is formal knowledge in engineering to construct sound, sustainable ones. I suppose one could take the approach of killing a fly with a sledge hammer... but this seems rather dangerous and expensive and so I suspect the demo people have some engineering expertise on how to dismantle structures with explosives etc.

As an analogy to building... the fabricator who bolts, welds ... erects a frame may not have (probably doesn't have) the engineering background to design a structure... but some anecdotal knowledge from experience in erecting them. He would be a "construction technician".

I would think that the people who install devices etc., in a demolition may know very little about the engineering of them.
 
Tom never misrepresented his qualifications. As an intellectually curious employee, he learned a lot of general things from his bosses (it's a family firm, big tho it is). Yes, it takes a lot of skill and knowledge to do a successful demoliltion. It appears that much of the knowledge is passed along via a kind of apprentice system.

Tom's mistake is typical of the kind of relatively minor mistakes I make. Rather than go after him for his lack of qualifications or relatively minor errors describing an old patent, I'll just say that these are things I disagree with:

1) His bosses do not agree with his CD theories, nor do any of the owners of major demolition companies.
2) As a guy who has worked to prepare a building for demolition, he hasn't explained how anyone could have prepped the Twin Towers without gutting the building with holes in walls etc.
3) He focuses on the core, but the perimeter columns were a major part of the structural support and would have had to be prepped. He focuses on the elevator shafts/core, but doesn't explain how you prep a column by a corner office for demo!
4) He says that the core collapses first, but then why was so much of the core still standing after the perimeters had collapsed?
5) Where are the deafening sounds? Thermite would be quieter, OK, but where's the tons of thermite residue then?
 
I'm going to just focus on these two. He's not wrong when it comes to how the tower demolition could be accomplished. (in as far as these points)
chrismohr said:
3) He focuses on the core, but the perimeter columns were a major part of the structural support and would have had to be prepped. He focuses on the elevator shafts/core, but doesn't explain how you prep a column by a corner office for demo!
Click to expand...

It would not be needed. If you destabilize the core, the exterior columns would no longer be braced and any force exerted by the core would be enough to cause them to buckle. Not to mention the effect of the floors cascading down.(highly abbreviated explanation)

chrismohr said:
4) He says that the core collapses first, but then why was so much of the core still standing after the perimeters had collapsed?
Click to expand...

Moot point. The core collapsing first at the top has nothing to do with what happens at the bottom.

He's wrong but, these two points have nothing to do with why.

;)
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Tom never misrepresented his qualifications. As an intellectually curious employee, he learned a lot of general things from his bosses (it's a family firm, big tho it is). Yes, it takes a lot of skill and knowledge to do a successful demoliltion. It appears that much of the knowledge is passed along via a kind of apprentice system.

Tom's mistake is typical of the kind of relatively minor mistakes I make. Rather than go after him for his lack of qualifications or relatively minor errors describing an old patent,
Click to expand...

My understanding is that you can't CD a building without first removing the non-load bearing walls, something that would be impossible in an occupied building.

Perhaps Tom did not misrepresent his qualifications to you, but it is a bit disingenuous for Tom to underplay his expertise while appearing in YouTube videos in which he speaks of his demolition experience and suggests he knows that the WTC buildings were demolished based on that experience. By making statements and videos and referencing his time in that industry, he appears to be passing himself off as an expert.

I wonder what his resume says, and if Controlled Demolition would verify that he had a professional position working with explosives on demolition sites.
 
frank3373 said:
My understanding is that you can't CD a building without first removing the non-load bearing walls, something that would be impossible in an occupied building.
Click to expand...

This is wrong. Buildings are stripped clean more to control collateral damage and also to improve the chances the building behaves as planned. A non load bearing wall that decided to step up to the plate half way trough a demolition could cause all sorts of problems.

He's wrong but, the need for building prep (like you describe) would not be a good argument.

Just to add. The towers and WTC 7 would be completely different animals to demolish.
 
Last edited:
Maybe off topic but. For any "truthers" that think just rigging some explosives on "column 79" and you take the building down, wrong.


:D
 
DGM said:
I'm going to just focus on these two. He's not wrong when it comes to how the tower demolition could be accomplished. (in as far as these points)


It would not be needed. If you destabilize the core, the exterior columns would no longer be braced and any force exerted by the core would be enough to cause them to buckle. Not to mention the effect of the floors cascading down.(highly abbreviated explanation)



Moot point. The core collapsing first at the top has nothing to do with what happens at the bottom.

He's wrong but, these two points have nothing to do with why.

;)
Click to expand...
DGM, interestingly, we have to decide whether to accept Tom's suppositions or ours before correcting me on this one. I was going with Tom's assumptions that the building could NOT collapse without CD because it's too strong, it fell down almost symmetrically, etc. If those suppositions are understood, then the fact that the core ended up collapsing slower would contradict his claim that destruction of the core would be the first-order business of any CD. Similarly, if you assume that the perimeter walls are as strong as Tom and Gage etc say they are, then they too would need CD. We are coming from the perspective that no CD occurred at all, nor was it necessary. But Harrit, for example, says that there was about 160 tons of thermite per floor.

Also, my understanding is that the non-load-bearing walls have to be at least cut through to set the charges. And the stench of welding torches etc as columns are partially cut in preparation, and the noise, etc etc etc. That's what I'm talking about when I say, "As a guy who has worked to prepare a building for demolition, he hasn't explained how anyone could have prepped the Twin Towers without gutting the building with holes in walls etc." You just have to get to the core and perimeter columns to do all this, and that's noisy and smelly and involves tearing out walls etc.
 
chrismohr said:
DGM, interestingly, we have to decide whether to accept Tom's suppositions or ours before correcting me on this one. I was going with Tom's assumptions that the building could NOT collapse without CD because it's too strong, it fell down almost symmetrically, etc. If those suppositions are understood, then the fact that the core ended up collapsing slower would contradict his claim that destruction of the core would be the first-order business of any CD. Similarly, if you assume that the perimeter walls are as strong as Tom and Gage etc say they are, then they too would need CD. We are coming from the perspective that no CD occurred at all, nor was it necessary. But Harrit, for example, says that there was about 160 tons of thermite per floor.

Also, my understanding is that the non-load-bearing walls have to be at least cut through to set the charges. And the stench of welding torches etc as columns are partially cut in preparation, and the noise, etc etc etc. That's what I'm talking about when I say, "As a guy who has worked to prepare a building for demolition, he hasn't explained how anyone could have prepped the Twin Towers without gutting the building with holes in walls etc." You just have to get to the core and perimeter columns to do all this, and that's noisy and smelly and involves tearing out walls etc.
Click to expand...

Well.... some claim they got to the core columns from inside the vertical shafts (elevators)... But of course not all shafts for 1WTC continued up to the strike region where (for whatever reason) the collapse initiation occurred. So even if they used the "elevator repair" as cover... they could only work in the few shafts which extended through the impact zone. Regardless... there seems to be no steel which suffered explosive damage in the debris... so the excuse was "they" selected it out and spirited off to China to be melted. So yea steel was sent off as scrape...but where is the evidence that someone inspected the steel... pulled out the damning evidence and had is shipped off in a NY minute before anyone noticed?

There is no credible evidence of devices used on 9/11 to destroy the towers. Sullivan is not a credible person.
 
I would add that most people in 9/11 Truth believe CD would necessarily cover pretty much all the floors, because they believe the momentum of the collapsing building would not be enough to overcome the tremendous structural strength of the buildings. We would say that CD, if used at all, could just be set up around the floors where collapse initiation began (a very difficult thing to imagine amidst the raging fires!) and gravity would take care of the rest. That would, therefore, include the "necessity" of rigging the cores for collapse slightly ahead of the rest of the buildings. What is observed though, is that the core came down last.

Tom also said that CD is a very delicate, precise operation, or you get buioldings collapsing off to the side etc. He said all the variables must be very carefully controlled. How that could have happened amidst a raging uncontrolled fire is something he never explained to me.

I am defending Tom, not because I think his theory is credible, but because I am not willing to dismiss his theory based on his lack of credentials. I am also defending his honesty and I am expressing my appreciation that we had a respectful conversation about all this. Such conversations have become rarer and rarer.
 
chrismohr said:
"How that could have happened amidst a raging uncontrolled fire is something he never explained to me."
Click to expand...

Oh yes the "raging fire".

WomanatWTC1_zpsa6d24c47.png
 
chrismohr said:
I was going with Tom's assumptions that the building could NOT collapse without CD because it's too strong, it fell down almost symmetrically, etc.
Click to expand...

Why would you want to start by using his assumptions?

It's his burden to prove this right not yours to prove wrong.

Why play that stupid game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom