Mike King's May 13, 2007 article "Good Science and Demolition Theories" purports to demonstrate that conflating these terms regarding the WTC buildings on September 11th 2001 is a tenuous exercise.King states:
There is... a crucial paper by Brent Blanchard on the Implosion World website at: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf. This paper alone should end any credulity towards the demolition theory, though its points need more elaboration for a non-technical audience. The reason that I highlight this paper is because it is the only one to date written by an authority on controlled demolition, based on access to data not available to either the official account or the counter-orthodoxy.Well Mr. King, on Thursday (6/25/10) Tom Sullivan, a former explosive-charge placement technician, went public on the other side of this issue. Sullivan left the industry in the wake of the 9/11 attacks after it found itself in a steep decline due to a public weary of explosions and falling buildings. But his former employer Controlled Demolition, Inc. has boasted to have imploded "more buildings, chimneys, towers, bridges, and other structures" than the sum total of its competitors.
Sullivan personally placed hundreds of explosive charges at the Kingdome in Seattle Washington, which set a world record for the largest structure implosion by volume.
In the article "Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee," it is written:
Before he became connected to CDI, was an independent photographer during his early years in Maryland. He would be sent to CD sites and take still pictures of the jobs...This type of demolition technology has long been cited by the 9/11 truth movement, and Blanchard's paper was previously debunked by Jim Hoffman of 911research.wtc7.net in his essay "Reply to Protec's - A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT."
When asked, what made CDI the best in the business, he commented, 'their family had all the experience because they 'invented' the art of CD. They spent years traveling around the world, showing and educating people how this art form works.'...
Brent Blanchard, the photographer from the controlled demolition company Protec, has said, in criticism of the CD theory, that there would have had to been detonation cords strung all over the place and casings left in the rubble pile from the cutter charges. So we asked for a response from Sullivan. He noted that:
Remote wireless detonators have been available for years. Look at any action movie --and of course the military has them. The reason most contractors don’t use them is that they are too expensive -- but in a project with a huge budget it would be no problem. As for the casings -- everyone in the industry, including Blanchard, would know that RDX explosive cutter charges are completely consumed when they go off -- nothing is left. And in the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case. Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.
But since no demolition experts echoed these points we were being "credulous." So, what do the "debunkers" have to say now that this is not the case?
Commenter "TV" at the Screw Loose Change blog notes that the device patented in 1984 had "low gas output," but since then thermite technology has vastly improved.
Commenter Dave Kyte states, "You would think they could find a real controlled demolition expert of some talent and expertise. What ever happened to Danny Jowenko? Wasn't he going to blow the lid off the case? Oh. Wait, he says the towers fell from fire. Never mind. So now Sullivan is not a "real controlled demolition expert," but Blanchard is, that's rich.
As I have stated on this blog before:
Jowenko does not think the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition due to their unconventional nature, but as the website 911review.com has pointed out, "A demolition that is planned as part of a covert operation to fit a narrative of events that attributes the total destruction of the building to a different cause (such as a jetliner crash and consequent fires) has a very different set of requirements than a demolition that is planned to legally remove a building in an urban setting."
Similarly, 911blogger.com user "stallion4" noted:
This is also akin to the fact we were told for years that we had to have peer-reviewed evidence to be taken seriously, but now that we have presented peer-reviewed evidence, it's still not good enough:The towers weren't conventional demolitions. They were "top down" demolitions, which are rare in the professional demolition industry.
This was achieved by strategically planting and detonating explosives beneath each tower's predetermined impact zone. This was done to create the illusion that airliner impacts caused the towers to fall.
Building 7 was a classic demolition job -- bottom up -- the type of demolition that Danny Jowenko is qualified to give his professional opinion on.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/04/nanothermite-debunking-rebuttal-deroy.html
Another commenter at Screw Loose Change states that even wireless detonation systems require det cord. Be this as it may, it does decrease the amount of overall cord needed. As Robert Erickson, producer of the last year's National Geographic hit piece on 9/11 truth stated in an email, "I asked demolition experts about setting off charges with radio signals. They said it was very feasible. Everyone seems to agree to the viability of radio signals setting off explosives. That would eliminate some of the primer cord."
This fact, in conjunction with the highly tailorable type of explosives that the evidence indicates were used would eliminate the need for any cord:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html
Sullivan states, "Fire cannot bring down steel-framed high rises -- period."
I know a demolition company that disagrees!
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-demolition-company-update.html
Sullivan's revelations come at the heels of, and add credence to, reports that respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart was personally told by the most prominent civil engineering company in the world that the collapse of the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition.
But it doesn't take an expert to see that the WTC buildings show every characteristic of controlled demolition.
But the statements of DEMOLITION EXPERT Tom Sullivan might help others to see through their cognitive dissonance to the obvious truth:
Related Info:
A Firefighter, A Demolition Expert, and an Architect Look at Ground-Zero
Interview with Tom Sullivan, Richard Gage an Eric Lawyer:
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/60621
"I retired from FDNY in 1998. I knew many of the guys who died in the WTC collapses. May they rest in peace. I've read tons of information re. the deaths of my brothers on 9/11. I've watched the videos, listened to the rantings on both sides. It wasn't until 2006 that I began questioning the "official story" and did my own research. There is bad info on both sides, but I've concluded that the 'official story' doesn't add up. It sounds like a whitewash. The 9/11 Commission didn't investigate anything--they just took statements. We need a real, independent investigation, with supeona powers. If the 'offical' version is correct, so be it. And if heads are going to roll at any level of the government or military, so be it. Let's do it, and let's not be afraid of the truth. The brothers deserve that much." - Bryan Hunt, FireFightersFor911Truth.org
GET INVOLVED! CHANNEL YOUR VOICE! http://nyccan.org/join.php
Oh, How Typical ! Arch Debunker Pat Curley Grossly Misrepresents Firefighter Testimony and then Wrongly Accuses 911 Truthers of the Same Thing Really?
Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee 24 June 2010 Written by Darcy Wearing and Richard Gage, AIA
No comments:
Post a Comment