Tom Sullivan, Explosives Loader, on 9/11 "Single Column"

[mynym]

Thought this Youtube video was interesting ... because they apparently interviewed an explosives expert and he says that ideas about a magical column are "nonsense." (Skip the beginning, it's about 3 minutes in.)

​

It's pretty easy to "debunk" the eye witness testimony simply by saying that it's notoriously unreliable. Although, I would note that if it didn't exist then people would probably imagine that it should exist and cite that as evidence. You can't have it both ways, yet most people usually try to.

 

[Mick West]

He's not an explosives expert. He (Tom Sullivan) is an explosives loader. He carries and places explosives. He does not determine where they go. Nor is he an expert on building physics. He's just going by what he's seen.

 

[BombDr]

He's not an explosives expert. He (Tom Sullivan) is an explosives loader. He carries and places explosives. He does not determine where they go. Nor is he an expert on building physics. He's just going by what he's seen.

Apart from Mr Sullivan's lack of expertise, people remember traumatic things emotively and fill in the blanks, when they have information overload.

In 2007 I was in Sangin, Afghanistan, when we came under AGS 17 attack. An AGS 17 is an automatic grenade launcher that fires 30mm grenades. While they were exploding around us, I thought I could actually see them flying through the air, which is ridiculous and impossible as they fly too fast. but in my head I still remember it that way. My explanation is that as I was watchng the explosions, I was imagining their flight-path and this image was mixed with reality.

Similarly in 2008 there was a shooting at Massereene Barracks in Northern Ireland, and two soldiers from my Regiment were murdered, but one of the wounded said in his statement that he crawled around a car and lay on top of a Polish immigrant worker who was also wounded. The fact is he got the car colour wrong and he got the wrong victim (he actually lay on top of a local lad), and even after viewing the CCTV, rather than clarifying events, it confused him further.

 

[Mick West]

Explosives loader in context:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny//pdf/cof_study_material/csm_e_97.pdf

There are several kinds of persons who work with explosives. It is important that each person
knows and understands what he/she is permitted to do. A person working with explosives should
never try to do something that he/she has not been trained do. Every person who works with
explosives must have a Certificate of Fitness. A person should not do anything with explosives
unless he/she has a Certificate of Fitness for what they are doing.

The blaster is the most qualified person at the blasting site. The blaster has total responsibility
for the use of explosives and record keeping. The blaster has responsibility for the safety of the
public. The blaster is responsible for all work with explosives. The blaster plans the blasting
work, supervises loading of the blast, and is responsible for setting off the blast. Only the blaster
may give permission to fire a blast.

The powder carrier is essentially an "apprentice" blaster. The powder carrier helps to load holes
with explosives. The powder carrier assists the blaster in preparing primer cartridges and in
wiring charges.

Explosives loaders help the blaster in tunnel and shaft work. The explosives loader helps load
the tunnel face to prepare for the blast.

Explosives handlers are the drivers of the trucks used to deliver explosives and blasting caps to
the blast site. Explosives handlers are not permitted to do any other work with explosives.

The magazine keeper accepts delivery of explosives at the work site. The magazine keeper
keeps records of explosives as they are received and used. The magazine keeper is responsible
for the safe keeping of explosives in the magazines.

 

[Oxymoron]

Thought this Youtube video was interesting ... because they apparently interviewed an explosives expert and he says that ideas about a magical column are "nonsense." (Skip the beginning, it's about 3 minutes in.)

​

It's pretty easy to "debunk" the eye witness testimony simply by saying that it's notoriously unreliable. Although, I would note that if it didn't exist then people would probably imagine that it should exist and cite that as evidence. You can't have it both ways, yet most people usually try to.

Lol, standard denials then.

First you get all the 'Where are all the whistleblowers/experts/scientists/politicians/etc and then when they are produced it is 'they are no good... they are too old, they have been challenged by the administration, they are under criminal investigation'; to 'What does he know... he is only a moronic loader... hardly an expert'. Expert enough to rig out buildings for demolitions is expert enough for me.

Reminds me of 'all these crazy people who are in charge of nuclear missiles'... If they are allegedly that crazy... why put them in charge of nukes?

Strange how at about 6 mins he nonchalantly states about the routine use of remote detonation... just shows how retarded he must be I guess. Defo shouldn't be allowed to choose whether or not to buy food with GMO in it, obviously too dumb for that.

 

[BombDr]

Lol, standard denials then.

First you get all the 'Where are all the whistleblowers/experts/scientists/politicians/etc and then when they are produced it is 'they are no good... they are too old, they have been challenged by the administration, they are under criminal investigation'; to 'What does he know... he is only a moronic loader... hardly an expert'. Expert enough to rig out buildings for demolitions is expert enough for me.

Reminds me of 'all these crazy people who are in charge of nuclear missiles'... If they are allegedly that crazy... why put them in charge of nukes?

Strange how at about 6 mins he nonchalantly states about the routine use of remote detonation... just shows how retarded he must be I guess. Defo shouldn't be allowed to choose whether or not to buy food with GMO in it, obviously too dumb for that.

Ok, Oxy, explain to me why I should listen to him? Is he a whistleblower, or simply someone with no inside knowledge, just an opinion? Why do you think his lack of qualifications is irrelevant?

 

[mynym]

Apart from Mr Sullivan's lack of expertise,

I doubt that an imaginary expert would actually change your mind. But as to the hypothetical level of expertise that Sullivan lacks... what would be the necessary qualifications for you to stop imagining that someone else is imagining things instead of observing them and so forth? In other words, in theory... how would that moment be reached when you stop telling stories about how deceptive perceptions are among those willing to challenge the official story but not the other? As far as that argument goes... it seems to me, that if anything, an official story and memes promulgated to the masses and so forth in the corporate/government/fascist media might actually be more prone to contain false perceptions and so forth than the more independently minded people challenging it. It might even be likely that those corrupt enough to promulgate the official story would be prone to citing their imaginations and simulations as the equivalent of evidence.

people remember traumatic things emotively and fill in the blanks, when they have information overload.

It would be interesting if people in the intelligence services had found ways to manipulate that fact. They would probably have to engage in rapid disinfo and provocations* to shape perceptions of events after the original trauma... then settle into an emergent official story and so forth later, I'd imagine.

Did you ever notice how Guiliani would stand back from the microphone and nod to someone else to speak sometimes? When does a conspiracy to create compartmentalized plausible deniability... actually become implausible deniability?

*And as simple minded as many people are, only a few would have to be co-conspirators and so forth.... as most minds in "the base" seem to run on the memes trickled down on them in relatively simple ways. Especially when they are provoked down various rabbit holes and dead ends within the compartmentalized structure of the scheme typical to conspiracies. E.g... a possible example of provocations:

The firemen, we must remember, were those who knew most about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and they were also the group most likely to tell what they knew. In this sense, the firemen posed perhaps the greatest immediate threat to the 9/11 myth upon which the oligarchy had staked so much. The obvious campaign of psychological warfare against the firemen, therefore, was of world-historical importance. Given the stakes, it would be impossible to exclude that the dungaree incident which Langewiesche found so delightful had been cynically staged as a means of keeping the angry and rebellious firemen off-balance, distracted and confused. The jeans could easily have been planted at a quiet moment during the graveyard shift. Langewiesche's reporting came out during the fall in the Atlantic Monthly, and rankled deeply among the angry firemen and the bereaved families. On October 31, Halloween, Giuliani decreed without any meaningful consultation that there would be an upper limit of 25 firefighters on each shift at the WTC pile, along with 25 New York City policemen and 25 Port Authority patrolmen. Soon "the rescue workers were up in arms. Stories went around that we had simply given up on finding bodies; that the mayor wanted to speed the cleanup so it would be finished before he left office; that we had recovered gold from the trade center and didn't care about anything else. . . . Union officials started telling the workers we were haphazardly trucking everything to Fresh Kills–a 'scoop and dump' operation." (Van Essen 265) Langewiesche defends the Mayor's justification of cutting the firemen's representation on the pile: "when Giuliani gave 'safety' as the reason for reducing their presence on the pile, he was completely sincere." (Langewiesche 161)
In his view, the big problem on the pile was "firemen running wild." (Langewiesche 162) In mid-October, an audience of firemen, policeman, widows, and orphans loudly booed several members of the Giuliani administration, but also Senator Hillary Clinton and a local Democratic politician. (Van Essen 258) On Friday, November 2, Giuliani was able to harvest the results of his provocations. In the morning, more than 1,000 firemen came together at the WTC. Their chants included: "Bring the brothers home! Bring the brothers home!," "Do the right thing!," "Rudy must go!," and "Tom must go!," a reference to Fire Commissioner Thomas Van Essen, a Giuliani appointee. Their signs read, "Mayor Giuliani, let us bring our brothers home." Speakers denounced Giuliani's hasty carting off of wreckage and remains to Fresh Kills as a "scoop and dump" operation. One well-respected former captain appealed to the crowd: "My son Tommy of Squad 1 is not home yet! Don't abandon him!" This was met with a cry of "Bring Tommy home!" from the assembled throng. This scene soon degenerated into an altercation between the firefighters and the police guarding the site, and then into a full-scale riot. Twelve firefighters were taken to jail, while five policemen were injured. Giuliani had gladly sacrificed the 9/11 myth of national solidarity to the needs of his campaign of psychological warfare and provocations against the firemen. It was All Souls Day, the day of the dead, November 2, 2001. At a press conference that same day, Giuliani hypocritically condemned the actions of the firemen as inexcusable. The police wanted to make more arrests, and were scanning videotapes of the riot to identify firefighters. The city was appalled by what had happened; many newspapers were anti-Giuliani this time. One firefighters' union leader, Peter Gorman, called Giuliani a "fascist," and referred to Police Commissioner Kerik [convicted felon?] and the Fire Commissioner as Giuliani's "goons."
On Monday, November 11, Giuliani and his officials were again confronted by 200 angry firefighters and bereaved families at a meeting. Giuliani was accused again and again of running a "scoop and dump" operation. One widow protested: "Last week my husband was memorialized as a hero, and this week he's thought of as landfill?" When Van Essen stammered that the department had been overwhelmed, a widow replied, "Stop saying you are overwhelmed! I am overwhelmed! I have three children and my husband is dead!" Dr. Hirsch of the "biological stain" theory discussed below tried to defend Giuliani by arguing that nothing resembling an intact body was being found any longer, but he was shouted down by firemen who knew from their experience on the pile that this was not so. Van Essen was forced to concede that, based on photographic evidence he personally examined, remains were indeed still being found that had to be "considered intact bodies." (Van Essen 270–271)
Giuliani's rush to eradicate the crime scene without regard to the preservation of human remains thus served two important goals. He was able to destroy much pertinent evidence, and he succeeded in throwing the firefighters on the defensive and playing them off against the police, the construction workers, and other groups. He was able to split the firefighters themselves. The firefighters were tied into knots emotionally, and were left with no time or energy to pursue the issue of justice for their heroic fallen comrades, which could only have been served by directly raising the issue of the indications of controlled demolition in numerous points of the World Trade Center complex. Nor was the cynical oligarchical strategy limited to Giuliani: at the 9/11 commission's last set of hearings in New York City, the FDNY, NYPD, and other line departments of the city were mercilessly baited by the likes of former Navy Secretary John Lehman, who told them that their operational coordination was inferior to that of a Boy Scout troop. So far the firefighters have not been able to mount a challenge to the 9/11 myth, which necessarily portrays them as incompetent, in spite of their heroism and huge losses. Only by demolishing the myth, only by unearthing the story of controlled demolition, can the immense historical merits of the firefighters be duly recognized.
(9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2012-04-12))

The base of the pyramid scheme, blockheads?

 

[Mick West]

I doubt that an imaginary expert would actually change your mind. But as to this hypothetical expert... what would be the necessary qualifications for you to stop imagining that they're imagining things instead of observing them and so forth? In other words, in theory... how would that moment be reached when you stop telling stories about how deceptive perceptions are among those willing to challenge the official story but not the other?

I'd like an actual explosives expert (one with experience in calculating explosive placement in high rise buildings) to explain the math, and then maybe a couple more to verify it.

That's all.

 

[mynym]

Have you listed the experts that would supposedly convince you? If they're not entirely imaginary then it would seem that they should have names, email addresses and so forth.

Hopefully they're not some of the people who may have been incorporated into profiting* from the event and so forth. Because sometimes it seems that's what people who believe in Official Reports Inc. really mean. Something along the lines of: "If the financiers and generals involved had Bush himself come out and read a different official report about how he was a scapegoat that they didn't even need, then I'd believe Bush. But in the meantime... give me another meme, no blood for oil! Bush lied, people died! Hundreds of thousands died! But... uh, he would never, ever lie about 911... because people would have died then... or somethin'."

*E.g.

Soon after the explosion, Controlled Demolition Inc. was called in to destroy those parts of the building which had remained standing, and to speedily dispose of all the rubble of the building. This, of course, prefigures the blatant tampering with a crime scene which became the hallmark of Mayor Giuliani's approach to the World Trade Center, again using CDI.
We need have no illusions about Gen. Partin, who belonged to a dubious organization called the Rushmore Foundation, which occupied itself with working with and studying the right-wing militias that proliferated during the 1990s. Partin made special reference to the problems posed by tampering with the crime scene in a July 30, 1995 letter to GOP Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. Here Partin wrote that "no government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash, and bury evidence of a counter-terrorism sting operation, sabotage, or terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency. If an aircraft crashed because of a bomb, or a counter-terrorism sting or an FAA controller error, the FAA would not be permitted to gather and bury the evidence. The National Transportation Safety Board would have been called in to conduct an investigation and where possibly every piece of debris would have been collected and arrayed to determine cause of failure."
But nobody in power was willing to protect the crime scene or force the FBI to disgorge the evidence it had sequestered. The suggestible public had been given a spectacular example of the supposed fragility of steel-reinforced concrete buildings in the delusional world of synthetic terrorism, and the precedent of bringing in Controlled Demolition to destroy the evidence had also been established for all to see. These advances on the part of the terrorist controllers would become components in the future synthetic terrorism of 9/11. Before leaving Oklahoma City, we should recall that the prevalent form of counter-gangs
(9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2012-04-12))

Also, if all experts would naturally agree on events like this.... why do proponents of official stories and their collaborators seem to keep destroying the evidence?

 

[mynym]

I'd like an actual explosives expert (one with experience in calculating explosive placement in high rise buildings) to explain the math...

Worth noting that most of the evidence was apparently destroyed before experts could investigate* it:

This contract was let surreptitiously just eleven days after 9/11, and empowered Controlled Demolition to recycle the steel of the World Trade Center. Giuliani has not a word to say about this in his memoirs. The city accepted rock-bottom prices for the steel; the priority was to make it disappear fast. Trucks hauling the steel away were equipped with $1,000 Global Positioning System locators to ensure that none of them went astray, and that no suspect steel ended up in the back yard of a maverick 9/11 researcher, although the steel was ostensibly being handled as scrap of little value. All investigators, in fact, were banned from Ground Zero. Now Controlled Demolition would eradicate any chance of using the abundant physical evidence present in "the pile," as the mass of twisted rubble of the WTC quickly came to be called. It was a scene out of Kafka–it was impossible to find out which officials were superintending the destruction of the evidence, to save a myth that was being used to set in motion a world war.
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Tarpley, Webster Griffin (2012-04-12))

*Whatever happened to safety first? So now, in theory... at least according to the official hypothesis... we're all at risk of steel frame buildings collapsing due to fires.

 

[Mick West]

I think you give Tarpley's writings vastly too much weight.

It does not even really need to be an demolitions expert. I'd take any three independent people with a masters degree in either math, physics, structural engineering, or similar. One to explain the math in a verifiable manner, and the other two to verify it.

There must be several million of those. I don't think you'll be able to disqualify all of them?

 

[mynym]

First you get all the 'Where are all the whistleblowers/experts/scientists/politicians/etc and then when they are produced it is 'they are no good... they are too old, they have been challenged by the administration, they are under criminal investigation'; to 'What does he know... he is only a moronic loader... hardly an expert'. Expert enough to rig out buildings for demolitions is expert enough for me.

Everyone has different standards "based" on their psychological dynamics.... that's my theory. But it's not really necessary to go off into that stuff, entertaining as it may be. Your goal is to change people's minds? How many minds have been changed here... about what? It'd probably take people a while to rewire their brains, even if you could see cracks in "the base" of their epistemic inertia. Plus you'd probably need to incorporate some entertainment...

In any event, I changed my mind about 911 enough to begin reading books about it and so forth due to this: ​

So I guess it is possible.

Although it would be ironic if NIST's simulations and Mick's equally imaginary attempts at simulating the magical columns and principles involved was actually correct. But the more I try to look at all the evidence and stop trying to imagine explosive donuts or "simulating" ways for the official story to be true in my mind, the less likely that seems. Maybe I'll give some imaginary piles of papers another go tomorrow in my own simulation of it all... surely they could be made and arranged into an imaginary fiery furnace right around the correct column?

 

[mynym]

I'd take any three independent people with a masters degree in either math, physics, structural engineering, or similar. One to explain the math in a verifiable manner, and the other two to verify it.

Why would these imaginary people be interested in doing that?

If I could create money out of nothing like the Zionist financiers and creators of debt/money that were probably incorporated in 911 and creating world wars, that could be arranged.

Yet... I doubt that it would actually change your mind, though.

There must be several million of those. I don't think you'll be able to disqualify all of them?

Names, email addresses? Why are you imagining that they would be interested in studying it unless money/debt was given to them?

In any event, I'd imagine that I might change my mind about Tarpley's writings if you actually dealt with the explanatory power of his theory and so forth. (From what I've read so far, some of your arguments may have been a straw man.)

You're not even a qualified expert and so forth, yet... I can imagine that I would change my mind just like you're imagining that you would. So there is that.

 

[Mick West]

Why would these imaginary people be interested in doing that?

So you suggest the reason nobody has demonstrated that 9/11 was controlled demolition is simply that nobody is interested in it?

The biggest event on US soil in over 100 years, thousands murdered, corruption striking deep into the heart of everything, and nobody is interested? Out of millions of people who could understand the math, nobody is interested?

 

[Mick West]

In any event, I changed my mind about 911 enough to begin reading books about it and so forth due to this: ​

A video that, as commonly happens, does not show the penthouse collapse several seconds before the exterior collapse, and was made before the actual NIST report.

I think you are being taken in by flimflam. Step away from the appeals to authority and appeals to emotion. Have a look at the actual underly science. Fire load, span length, thermal expansion, seated vs. moment connections, buckling.

 

[BombDr]

I doubt that an imaginary expert would actually change your mind. But as to the hypothetical level of expertise that Sullivan lacks... what would be the necessary qualifications for you to stop imagining that someone else is imagining things instead of observing them and so forth?

Someone with an explosive qualification, and one that is a member of a professional body, such as the Institute of Explosive Engineers, Institute of Makers of Explosives, International Society of Explosive Engineers, all bodies which scrupilously confirms people's qualifications and credentials. I would be more inclined to listed to someone with a resume and experience to match their claims.

As far as that argument goes... it seems to me, that if anything, an official story and memes promulgated to the masses and so forth in the corporate/government/fascist media might actually be more prone to contain false perceptions and so forth than the more independently minded people challenging it. It might even be likely that those corrupt enough to promulgate the official story would be prone to citing their imaginations and simulations as the equivalent of evidence.

If the 'indepedantly minded people' you are referring to are Mr Sullivan and A&E 911 truth, their conclusions are entirely false and they make their evidence fit their narritive.

It would be interesting if people in the intelligence services had found ways to manipulate that fact. They would probably have to engage in rapid disinfo and provocations* to shape perceptions of events after the original trauma... then settle into an emergent official story and so forth later, I'd imagine.

You imagine many things, in fact 'imagine' appears a lot in your postings.

Did you ever notice how Guiliani would stand back from the microphone and nod to someone else to speak sometimes? When does a conspiracy to create compartmentalized plausible deniability... actually become implausible deniability?

Which proves what exactly?

 

[Cairenn]

mynym, I am asking you here the question you seem to be dodging.

Do you believe in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Many of your sources come from sites that use a lot of 'zionist' comments.

 

[Oxymoron]

Someone with an explosive qualification, and one that is a member of a professional body, such as the Institute of Explosive Engineers, Institute of Makers of Explosives, International Society of Explosive Engineers, all bodies which scrupilously confirms people's qualifications and credentials. I would be more inclined to listed to someone with a resume and experience to match their claims.

Are you saying Sullivan has no explosive qualification? Has he got any qualifications do you think? Maybe he is a master baker or qualified accountant and they just let him mess around with explosives because he is cheap?

If the 'indepedantly minded people' you are referring to are Mr Sullivan and A&E 911 truth, their conclusions are entirely false and they make their evidence fit their narritive.

I think that applies far, far more to NIST 'false, liars, political science, and bunk, bunk, junk,'

Chechnya high rise burned for 29 hours

http://www.collective-evolution.com...ise-burns-for-29-hours-with-no-collapse-wtc7/

On April 3rd Chechnya's tallest building, a luxury hotel, caught fire and burned for 29 hours before finally being put out. The building is completely destroyed; however, it did not collapse. This raises many questions as to how World Trade Center 7 could have collapsed on 9/11 with only small fires on a couple of floors.

Oh it's bananas and custard, was it badly designed with spidery long weak beams like wtc 7... no of course not. Did it have stupid columns which just turned to spaghetti... no why would it have that. Did they forget to weld the beams onto the seats.... no this is Chechnya not NYC... why would that happen.

You imagine many things, in fact 'imagine' appears a lot in your postings.

As far as 'imaginings go', I think anyone would have to go a long way to beat NIST in that department as they didn't test a single bit of evidence and imagined a whole scenario which took these esteemed people six years to compute based on what? Nothing but junk. But before their final solution of 20 mins of fire moving around for a few hours on a few floors... it was 7's foundations were so weakened from the collapse of wtc' 1&2, that they collapsed. Well at least that is more believable than piddling fires.

Which proves what exactly?

Exactly what he said.

 

[Mick West]

Chechnya high rise burned for 29 hours

http://www.collective-evolution.com...ise-burns-for-29-hours-with-no-collapse-wtc7/

On April 3rd Chechnya's tallest building, a luxury hotel, caught fire and burned for 29 hours before finally being put out. The building is completely destroyed; however, it did not collapse. This raises many questions as to how World Trade Center 7 could have collapsed on 9/11 with only small fires on a couple of floors.

Oh it's bananas and custard, was it badly designed with spidery long weak beams like wtc 7... no of course not. Did it have stupid columns which just turned to spaghetti... no why would it have that. Did they forget to weld the beams onto the seats.... no this is Chechnya not NYC... why would that happen.

We could have an honest discussion about the differences between the two buildings, and their fires, if you'd like?

 

[Mick West]

Reason for non-collapse:

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10915046/fire-in-chechnyas-tallest-building-extinguished

According to the emergencies service, the blaze has damaged an area of more than 14,000 square meters. It has completely destroyed the plastic trimming used on the building's exterior, but the interior remained untouched.

 

[Cairenn]

From #2

"He's not an explosives expert. He (Tom Sullivan) is an explosives loader. He carries and places explosives. He does not determine where they go. Nor is he an expert on building physics. He's just going by what he's seen." that is Mick's

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. ...

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. ...


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.

The last is a comment for a poster there. At the best he was an explosives handler. That is a position that needs a 16 hr course that can be taken in 2 days for the license. If was allowed on site at demolition, that license could have been required by the insurance company.


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread569606/pg1

n 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.

He seems to be unaware that a demolition company was stationed both at ground zero and at the Freshkills to look for such evidence.

 

[BombDr]

Are you saying Sullivan has no explosive qualification? Has he got any qualifications do you think? Maybe he is a master baker or qualified accountant and they just let him mess around with explosives because he is cheap?

He would not qualify as the most junior member of my team. He drives a vehicle and he puts charges where he is told. I suppose by your standard of qualification, if you need cancer treatment, don't bother the doctor, just talk to the orderly - he knows how to push wheelchairs with sick people in them, so he is plenty qualified by truther standards.

Chechnya high rise burned for 29 hours

http://www.collective-evolution.com...ise-burns-for-29-hours-with-no-collapse-wtc7/

On April 3rd Chechnya's tallest building, a luxury hotel, caught fire and burned for 29 hours before finally being put out. The building is completely destroyed; however, it did not collapse. This raises many questions as to how World Trade Center 7 could have collapsed on 9/11 with only small fires on a couple of floors.

Oh it's bananas and custard, was it badly designed with spidery long weak beams like wtc 7... no of course not. Did it have stupid columns which just turned to spaghetti... no why would it have that. Did they forget to weld the beams onto the seats.... no this is Chechnya not NYC... why would that happen.

Good misdirection, but rather rhetorically, are you suggesting that all buildings must react the same as this one? Or are you suggesting this building was left to burn uncontrolled for 29 hours? You have a very scientific way of looking at things. Mr Sullivan once handled explosives - He's an expert! A building in Chechya burned for 29 hours - All buildings can burn for 29 hours!

Exactly what he said.

There you have it folks, Guliani nodded to someone - Is it obvious now that he is in league with the NWO/Bilderbergers/Da Joooz/Illuminati/CIA/Freemasons? Yes, he nodded, you have convinced me. Oh what I fool I have been expecting technical arguments and calculations from Mr Sullivan, or a paper for peer review from A&E, and all I needed to watch was the former Mayor of New York nodding... How have the FBI missed that? I think we should be told...

 

[Brainiachick]

Apart from Mr Sullivan's lack of expertise, people remember traumatic things emotively and fill in the blanks, when they have information overload.

In 2007 I was in Sangin, Afghanistan, when we came under AGS 17 attack. An AGS 17 is an automatic grenade launcher that fires 30mm grenades. While they were exploding around us, I thought I could actually see them flying through the air, which is ridiculous and impossible as they fly too fast. but in my head I still remember it that way. My explanation is that as I was watchng the explosions, I was imagining their flight-path and this image was mixed with reality.

Similarly in 2008 there was a shooting at Massereene Barracks in Northern Ireland, and two soldiers from my Regiment were murdered, but one of the wounded said in his statement that he crawled around a car and lay on top of a Polish immigrant worker who was also wounded. The fact is he got the car colour wrong and he got the wrong victim (he actually lay on top of a local lad), and even after viewing the CCTV, rather than clarifying events, it confused him further.

I have experience in dealing with trauma victims in the context of the law and I can confirm that victims' version of event is rarely ever accurate in the majority of trauma cases. Extreme trauma traumatizes and distorts victims' perception of the said event. In some cases, victims could dissociate during the trauma event. This has a drastic impact on accuracy as the victim would imagine all sorts of things believing them to be true - it is a psychological defence mechanism that attempts to protect the victim from the physical pain of the trauma. This is why in legal proceedings incontrovertible/verifiable/empirical/scientific evidence is highly sought after where these are available, to assist in the discharge of justice. These may collaborate or refute the victim's perceived version of the incident. Trauma victims, child victims, and vulnerable adults make the worst witnesses in my experience and in general; and they are a delight to defence lawyers in the absence of supporting evidence. So, I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the testimony of a man who is highly traumatised by this event.

He would not qualify as the most junior member of my team. He drives a vehicle and he puts charges where he is told. I suppose by your standard of qualification, if you need cancer treatment, don't bother the doctor, just talk to the orderly - he knows how to push wheelchairs with sick people in them, so he is plenty qualified by truther standards.

I think that sums it up.

 

[Brainiachick]

I doubt that an imaginary expert would actually change your mind. But as to the hypothetical level of expertise that Sullivan lacks... what would be the necessary qualifications for you to stop imagining that someone else is imagining things instead of observing them and so forth? In other words, in theory... how would that moment be reached when you stop telling stories about how deceptive perceptions are among those willing to challenge the official story but not the other? As far as that argument goes... it seems to me, that if anything, an official story and memes promulgated to the masses and so forth in the corporate/government/fascist media might actually be more prone to contain false perceptions and so forth than the more independently minded people challenging it. It might even be likely that those corrupt enough to promulgate the official story would be prone to citing their imaginations and simulations as the equivalent of evidence.

Someone with an explosive qualification, and one that is a member of a professional body, such as the Institute of Explosive Engineers, Institute of Makers of Explosives, International Society of Explosive Engineers, all bodies which scrupilously confirms people's qualifications and credentials. I would be more inclined to listed to someone with a resume and experience to match their claims.

I can assure you that even if Sullivan was such an expert of a high standing, which I doubt that he is as no evidence of his qualifications has been provided here, his perception could still be seriously distorted because he was traumatised by this event. The sort of evidence that would be credible, accurate, and incontrovertible would be such from an expert who was not enmeshed in the actual trauma event itself, but was given access to all the evidence for scientific examination.

Mynym, I can guarantee you that traumatised victims usually make very bad witnesses - why do you think criminals get away with crime all the time? EVIDENCE.

Did you ever notice how Guiliani would stand back from the microphone and nod to someone else to speak sometimes? When does a conspiracy to create compartmentalized plausible deniability... actually become implausible deniability?

I don't understand how or why this proves anything. If Guiliani is a conspirator, wouldn't he have met with his co-conspirators in secret beforehand and learn their lines so they can propagate a very smooth grand deception of the mere mortals without leaving clues in the form of open nodding cues? I'm sure since they control the world they must possess the basic level of intelligence not to require cues that can be publicly deciphered - or don't you think so? Leave no clues, leave no crumbs for no one to sniff should be more appropriate.

And to answer your question as to when a conspiracy to create compartmentalized plausible deniability... actually become implausible deniability, I would say, when you have provided concrete, credible evidence that is irrefutable and yet, we refuse to believe. Until you've done that, I'm afraid implausible deniability does not apply. What you have so far are conjectures....nothing more.

 

[mynym]

Do you believe in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

No.

Many of your sources come from sites that use a lot of 'zionist' comments.

I don't agree with your premise about "many sources" or whatever.

But... so what? What's wrong with criticizing Zionism? Why do you seem to have strong feelings about that which don't seem to apply to any other form of tribalism? Are "Jewish" people always and ever correct and right in whatever they do based on their collective identity but it's wrong* for anyone else to so much as hint at having a tribal or collective identity? If I criticize America because I want "Americans" to do better than they're doing... does that mean I'm anti-American and hate all Americans with an irrational hatred?

*E.g.:

Emma Lazarus… is an important forerunner of the Zionist movement. She argued for the creation of a Jewish homeland thirteen years before Theodor Herzl began to use the term Zionism. –Wikipedia

"Give me your tired, your poor Palestinians… yearning to breathe free!" Let me ask you a question that you seem to be dodging. Is it alright for some people to conspire with each other to have a religious or tribal identity while condemning others for the same thing? Or are you still waiting on a homeless Jewish man to begin wandering around Israel telling parables about Good Palestinians?

 

[mynym]

I would say, when you have provided concrete, credible evidence that is irrefutable and yet, we refuse to believe.

I wouldn't claim to have done that and so forth.

Yet I'm curious... what are you imagining concrete, credible and irrefutable evidence would look like?

If Guiliani is a conspirator, wouldn't he have met with his co-conspirators in secret beforehand...

No.

There's a reason that "conspiracy" is linked to the idea of breathing together subconsciously, naturally. It might be that all Guiliani would really need to do is agree with neocon ideologies about national security and geopolitics in general while being somewhat corrupt. And there you go, he'd tend to be a "conspirator" and to the extent that he wasn't, he could probably still be manipulated by the intelligence services of other oligarchs.

 

[Cairenn]

I do see a problem with it, when it used to 'tar' an entire group of folks. That is what your sources do. They seem to use the more 'acceptable' Zionist instead of Jew or Jewish.

I don't have 'dog in this fight'. I was raised Christian, but I am not Christian now. I see wrong on all sides of the Israeli -Palestine issue. We are discussing that. I see you seem to believe in some long standing Jewish conspiracy to 'rule the world'. I don't. The Holocaust happened. The creation of Israel was a response to that. Right or wrong, it now exists and everyone needs to accept that.

The American Indian had their land taken from them, but they have to accept that those lands are lost and figure out how to go forward NOW.

Now back to this thread's topic. The explosive handler, that seems to not have been any type of an expert.

 

[mynym]

There you have it folks, Guliani nodded to someone - Is it obvious now that he is in league with the NWO/Bilderbergers/Da Joooz/Illuminati/CIA/Freemasons? Yes, he nodded, you have convinced me. Oh what I fool I have been expecting technical arguments and calculations from Mr Sullivan, or a paper for peer review from A&E, and all I needed to watch was the former Mayor of New York nodding... How have the FBI missed that? I think we should be told...

Satire... I like it. It tends to keep people sharp. And that's all fair enough from your perspective, I'd imagine. With respect to the NWO/Bildbergers/Jooz and so forth perhaps this would be simpler. What type of conspiracies do you think exist and what is your evidence or reason for thinking that?

I would go look up the interviews and note wherever Guiliani steps back for Kerik to answer questions but it's certainly true that developing that hypothesis or trying to see if it has any sort of explanatory power would only make sense to "conspiracy theorists." (I.e... usually the only people interested in reality as far as geopolitics, world events and much of what goes on in politics goes these days.)

We need better and more refined conspiracy theories in order to understand how people are likely to be conspiring just as they always have. I'm not big on trying to assign conspiring to a specific group. Although, there certainly are and have been groups and "tribes" and factions* of conspirators that sometimes go way back. See Washington's criticism of the illuminati or other Masons trading on hopium and change and trying to cause revolutions among "the base" in different ways... etc.

If you want to at least try to understand what's going on in the world, you have to be a conspiracy theorist. I'm not saying that all imaginary hypotheses are of equal value or are the epistemic equivalent of a rigorously specified theory in science. Recognizing that you have to begin imagining things as a "conspiracy theorist" in order to have some sort of theoretical grasp with respect to what usually happens among groups of people is only the beginning. It could even be that the official conspiracy theory and what they asked people to imagine soon after a traumatizing event is true. Seems unlikely, though.

After all: "...people remember traumatic things emotively and fill in the blanks..." Etc.etc...

And connecting the dots or "filling in the blanks" with an official conspiracy theory** soon after a traumatic event might even be a way to wire the Right and the Left pillars of the brains between their temples in a way that people dissociate from coming to their own conclusions about things in the Center and so on an so forth. If you were going to do that, you'd have to do it quickly after the event. And you might even have to provoke or traumatize people with fear again to make sure that the veil never lifts and they never begin "connecting the dots" in a way that you don't approve of. Imagine that.

*The Founders' favorite word... and they would know.

**E.g.:​

 

[Brainiachick]

And to answer your question as to when a conspiracy to create compartmentalized plausible deniability... actually become implausible deniability, I would say, when you have provided concrete, credible evidence that is irrefutable and yet, we refuse to believe. Until you've done that, I'm afraid implausible deniability does not apply. What you have so far are conjectures....nothing more.

I wouldn't claim to have done that and so forth.

Yet I'm curious... what are you imagining concrete, credible and irrefutable evidence would look like?

I agree that you haven't......so the question of implausible deniability does not apply. As to your point as to what evidence would look like, I am sure you really don't want me going back to Evidence 101 but if I must, it would look like this: clear and convincing; credible and of high quality; consistent and collaborated. They can be in the form of empirical evidence; scientific evidence; expert witness reports; credible, consistent and collaborative sworn witness statements/affidavits etc. For this purpose, conjectures and hearsay evidence do not apply. I hope that clearly describes what concrete, credible and irrefutable evidence looks like. I know you know what evidence looks like, but since it appears you wanted me to humor you, I had to indulge you .

I'm afraid, the explosive handler's [Sullivan] testimony does not meet the least of these criteria in the least.

If Guiliani is a conspirator, wouldn't he have met with his co-conspirators in secret beforehand...

No.

There's a reason that "conspiracy" is linked to the idea of breathing together subconsciously, naturally. It might be that all Guiliani would really need to do is agree with neocon ideologies about national security and geopolitics in general while being somewhat corrupt. And there you go, he'd tend to be a "conspirator" and to the extent that he wasn't, he could probably still be manipulated by the intelligence services of other oligarchs.

Again, I am sure you know a nod is nothing! The essence of conspiracy is to be in unison, nothing broken, no chink in the chain - if there's a chink, the conspiracy fails. The nod does not even meet the barest minimum threshold as 'hearsay evidence' under 'the balance of probabilities' [which is the weakest form of test of a piece of evidence under Civil Law].

 

[lee h oswald]

I do see a problem with it, when it used to 'tar' an entire group of folks. That is what your sources do. They seem to use the more 'acceptable' Zionist instead of Jew or Jewish. The Holocaust happened. The creation of Israel was a response to that. Right or wrong, it now exists and everyone needs to accept that.

the more 'acceptable' Zionist instead of Jew or Jewish.

Obviously you don't understand the difference. These are not interchangeable terms - one can be a jew without being a zionist and vice versa. More acceptable? What?! What's 'unacceptable' about being a jew or jewish? I suggest you actually look it up - then you'll understand that you've got it all back to front on what some people consider 'acceptable'.

The Holocaust happened. The creation of Israel was a response to that

Where did you learn this? It's quite staggering. I'm almost speechless. I suggest you refrain from making comments on this subject until you've read up a bit. Try The Balfour Declaration 1917 - that was when Lord Balfour, a British minister, wrote to Lord Rothschild (heard of him? a jew and a zionist) to inform him that the British Cabinet had agreed with the Zionists that Palestine would be given to them as a 'jewish state'. Imagine that! One country decides to give away a second country (without telling the people who already live in it) to a third party without a country, but who want one of their own. You don't need to imagine it, though. It's a matter of historical record. Lord Rothschild was a busy bee about that time. Busy funding all sides in the mass slaughter known as 'WW1' (as well as arranging the theft of an entire country). 1917....hmmmm.... Lusitania anyone?

 

[Mick West]

Obviously you don't understand the difference. These are not interchangeable terms - one can be a jew without being a zionist and vice versa. More acceptable? What?! What's 'unacceptable' about being a jew or jewish? I suggest you actually look it up - then you'll understand that you've got it all back to front on what some people consider 'acceptable'.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Cairenn was saying it's more 'acceptable' to use the term "zionist" in a critical manner than it is to use the term "Jew". So anti-semitic people prefer to use that term to avoid conflict.

 

[mynym]

I do see a problem with it, when it used to 'tar' an entire group of folks. That is what your sources do. They seem to use the more 'acceptable' Zionist instead of Jew or Jewish.

Shrug. I'm not sure what you'd do with the Orthodox Jews who condemn Zionism based on their religion and so forth. I'm also not sure what sources you're referring to. But I suspect that if they're already independent and strong minded enough to criticize Zionism then they would probably be able to condemn Jews as a race or as a religion if they really wanted to.

In any event, what sources? ANd why are you trying to tar me or an entire group of folks with antisemitism? As I noted before, I'm all for people getting it on and essentially shredding their genomes and "races" with sex. I'd like to know if or how you'd like to try to frame that as racist.

I see you seem to believe in some long standing Jewish conspiracy to 'rule the world'.

I'd put that in the same category as any other tribe. Mainly because people usually do want to rule the world... but it's more likely among psychopaths because they have a ruling/measuring mentality. And psychopaths are usually evenly distributed among "races"... if you're into trying to imagine that races exist.

I don't. The Holocaust happened. The creation of Israel was a response to that. Right or wrong, it now exists and everyone needs to accept that.

Shrug. The same could be said of America's ethnic cleansing and so forth, it led to the existence of a nation and everyone needs to accept that instead of trying to go back through history to have people who had nothing to do with it pay reparations to people who also had nothing to do with anything and so forth. That's true. However, it doesn't mean that everyone has to play pretend that what happened... actually didn't happen, etc.

I'm also wondering how far you take you acceptance of the new mythology. Do you believe that a sacred six million died in a holocaust (sacrifice made by fire) that established a "right of return" to a land that was already occupied and owned by others? I wonder if the Japanese owned more printing presses if their internment in America during WWII would have established the right for them to bulldoze Hollywood later. Help me out, I'm curious about what the view from within a modern mythology looks like.

The American Indian had their land taken from them, but they have to accept that those lands are lost and figure out how to go forward NOW.

Yep.

Now back to this thread's topic. The explosive handler, that seems to not have been any type of an expert.

Shrug.

I'd count the falsification of the controlled demo of the buildings as a fairly strong falsification of alternative conspiracy theories. Yet it's not much of a verification of the official theory or the be all, end all of everything with respect to 911. It seems to me that there should be numerous falsifications and verifications... but that entails having a theory that's actually specified in some way in the first place.

 

[Mick West]

Bin Laden discussion moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1848-Evidence-that-Osama-Bin-Laden-was-involved-in-9-11

 

[Cairenn]

First, there is NO evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. The only 'falsifications' I see are on the side of those that refuse to accept facts. Y'all seem to cling to anyone that 'claims' they are an expert, like the 'explosives handler' that turns out to be a photographer or a Russian 'nuke expert' that knows nothing about how to demolish a building. Y'all ignore or claim that 'everyone else' has been 'bought off'.

Many countries refused to allow the immigration of large numbers of Jews from Germany. They sent them back to die in the gas chambers. I feel that guilt from that encouraged the creation of Israel. More should have been done for the folks that they moved from their lands. Was it right, nope, but the fact that the surrounding states have refused to allow the Palestinians to become citizens is a major problem also. There is both right and wrong on both sides. This is NOT what this thread is about.