Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee


The above video was an interview I held with Tom  on May 8th, 2010.

by Darcy Wearing and Richard Gage     source: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth     June 25, 2010

Having had the privilege of speaking with Tom Sullivan, an actual explosive-charge placement technician, we have some new insights to pass along as to how controlled demolition works, where it started, and the effect that 9/11 had on the demolition industry. Sullivan gained his experience as an employee of the leading firm in this field, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI).  Sullivan stresses though “I do not in anyway represent CDI and what I have to say is based on my own experience and training,”

Sullivan attended high school with Doug Loizeaux of the Loizeaux family. The Loizeaux family, through the father Jack, independently started the whole controlled-demolition industry and turned it into a highly profitable business. Sullivan, 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.  He became infatuated with the CD industry. The time came when he would do both, being the placer of the “cutter charges” on the primary joints, and photographing the jobs for promoting the business. Soon he would switch to full-time employee status of CDI — as verified by AE911Truth’s verification team.

 

Sullivan attended high school with Doug Loizeaux of the Loizeaux family. The Loizeaux family, through the father Jack, independently started the whole controlled-demolition industry and turned it into a highly profitable business. Sullivan, 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.  He became infatuated with the CD industry. The time came when he would do both, being the placer of the “cutter charges” on the primary joints, and photographing the jobs for promoting the business. Soon he would switch to full-time employee status of CDI — as verified by AE911Truth’s verification team.

“It was very interesting, but also very hard work, long hours, especially in the cold weather,” Sullivan reflects. He stated that the days began early, around 6 a.m., and they would work until the sun was down. Sullivan had the experience of preparing a building by placing the cutter charges throughout the primary joints, and then, of course, watching it all come down.

Sullivan notes that many weeks are required to “prep,” or weaken the buildings before demolitions. Steel frame buildings don’t just fall into their footprints at free-fall without major work throughout the building – even some before the placement of explosives.  Sullivan emphasized as an aside, “Fire cannot bring down steel-framed high rises — period.”

One of Sullivan’s most exciting jobs was the colossal Kingdome in whose reinforced concrete structure he personally placed hundreds of deadly explosive charges. 

Working for CDI was, Sullivan stated, “a very unique experience.”  He also said, “they were a close-knit family — referring to the familial values of the Loizeauxs.” “I learned from watching,” said Sullivan. “There is no school that will teach you this, just hands on hard work.” Sullivan took hundreds of project photos, through which he developed a deep passion for the trade.

 

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.”

Unfortunately, the business came to a screeching halt after 9/11. “People were scared — if they were to hear a loud bang it was probably some kind of terrorist attack,” says Sullivan in frustration. “Fear took over and there was no more business.” Even Mark Loizeaux (CDI’s President) has been quoted as saying 9/11 ruined him. Sullivan had no choice but to leave CDI. Curiously, CDI had a role in the WTC cleanup through a subcontract under Tully Construction. On September 22, 2001, CDI submitted a 25-page “preliminary” document to New York City’s Department of Design and Construction, a plan related to the removal and recycling of the steel.[¹]

Sullivan stated that he knew from the first day that the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was a classic controlled implosion. Asked how he thought it might have been done he posited, “looking at the building it wouldn’t be a problem — once you gain access to the elevator shafts…then a team of expert loaders would have hidden access to the core columns and beams.  The rest can be accomplished with just the right kind of explosives for the job. Thermite can be used as well.”

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.

 

We asked Sullivan if all the floors in WTC  7 would have to be loaded with explosives in order for a successful controlled demolition.  He responded,

No, with steel framed buildings you really need only to load the bottom third to bring the building down. While at CDI we had a job in Hartford Conn, the CNG building, where we did just that.  And it worked out beautifully.

Recalling that Ron Craig, a Hollywood movie explosions expert claimed in a debate with us, that there would have been many blocks of broken windows if it were a controlled demolition.  Sullivan reflected,

The key word here is controlled demolition – in other words careful placement of charges — always focused and precise.  We are not talking about setting off a bomb here.  The amount and type of explosives is an art and collateral damage can often be completely avoided.

We asked about Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) who claimed publically in his infamous press conference at the “unveiling” of the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 that there would have been a loud boom coming from a massive explosion if this had been a controlled demolition, and asked him about that.  Sullivan said, “With any implosion there is never just one big explosion but rather waves of smaller explosions — not unlike the percussion section in a symphony — as each loaded floor is progressively set off.”

And as Sullivan watched the towers collapse that day, like so many did, he pondered at how fast it all took place, and how suddenly and symmetrically they were brought down. “I knew it was an explosive event as soon as I saw it, there was no question in my mind,” said Sullivan. Most of us agree — it’s not by chance that the first tower just happened to collapse — then the second in the same manner. What convinced him completely is when he watched Tower 7 fall that day, “I mean, come on, it was complete destruction. I’ve seen buildings fall like that for years — that was the end game for me.” Keep in mind that Sullivan did this for a living for several years — it is like second nature for him to see this type of demolition. If anybody would know, it should be him.  But we went ahead and asked him, “Is there any chance that normal office fires (the official cause of the ’collapse’) could have been responsible for the smooth, symmetrical, free-fall acceleration of building 7? “Not a chance,” he retorted. We just wanted to be sure.

When we asked him if he followed any of the 9/11 Commission hearings or that of the NIST reporting, he had the same answer for both “I have no tolerance for people who lie to me about what I know to be true. I threw my hands up in disgust and never watched another hearing after the first. As for NIST, I didn’t even watch because I knew what to expect.” He did however follow the final report on the collapse of Tower 7 and said it angered him that they could actually convince so many of their fraudulent claims.

Sullivan first came into contact with AE911Truth through a friend that sent him the 9/11: Blueprint for Truth DVD. He watched it and was very excited that there was actually an organization out there trying to inform people of what he was trying to say since that fateful day. “AE911Truth is the most focused and organized group there is today in the 9/11 truth movement.  There is no speculation,” he said. “Blueprint for Truth is factual and impressive information based on science and physics, and was clear and concise.” When asked if he agreed with the evidence the DVD brings forth, Sullivan responded, “It contains extremely compelling evidence.”

The final question we asked in this interview was, “How many architects and engineers does it take speaking in unison until people hear that there is a problem?” His response, “As the number grows it will be harder and harder to deny them — but deny them they will.”

Note: 1) Sullivan came out from the East Coast to deliver a short but electrifying presentation on Friday and Saturday night, May 7th & 8th at the joint presentation of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Firefighters for 9/11 Truth.  He joined Richard Gage, AIA, and Erik Lawyer on stage for 10 minutes and answered some key questions about the demolition industry, the CDI family of Loizeauxs, and the way the 3 WTC skyscrapers were destroyed.  Prior to these milestone events he appeared with Gage and Lawyer on KPFA radio Berkeley on the program “Guns & Butter” with host Bonnie Faulkner who had a number of great questions for him.

2) “DO NOT COPY” watermarks on images were added by Tom Sullivan. These images may not be copied other than in the context of this article, or with his specific approval.

13 Responses to Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee

  1. David Kyte says:

    “Remote wireless detonators have been available for years. Look at any action movie ”

    Well that proves it, he saw it in a action movie, And we all know stuff in the movies work in real life.

    Being just a photographer and laborer maybe he doesn’t know how sensitive detonators are to electrical signals found in a working office building full of cell phones, computers and wireless networks. That is why detcord is used.

  2. norcaltruth says:

    Do they issue powder carrier licenses to just photographers and laborers David?

    Do you have any data other than your type to prove wireless detonators can’t be used?

    I would love to see it.

  3. David Kyte says:

    “Stacey Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Inc took a look at Sullivan’s bio on Gage’s site and realized “Oh my God, we do INDEED know this guy.” the gist of it is that Tom and her uncle Doug went to high school together. Stacey knows Tom as a freelance still photographer. He worked on a new corporate brochure for the company and tagged along on a few jobs to get still images for it.

    HE IS A PHOTOGRAPHER, NOT A DEMOLTION EXPERT.

    He was never a full-time employee of the company, much less an explosives loader.

    So, the matter is settled. The liars will rave that Tom Sullivan really does know the Loizeaux family. The rationalists will, as usual, point out the obvious: this demolition “expert” does not work in the demolition industry.”

    Sorry but you guys fail again in finding a REAL controlled demolition expert.

    • norcaltruth says:

      David Kyte-
      You seem to be impervious to all the evidence out there that Building 7, along with 1 & 2, were Demolitions. You can defend the forever changing official story all you want, I don’t know why you would, but thats not for me to know.

      You have failed to address why TOM SULLIVAN would need powder-carrying licenses to be a photographer.

      Try again young padewon.

      • David Kyte says:

        I can be that way because I know more on the subject than you and I am a very smart guy, high IQ and all. Also not being gullible has it’s advantage.

        So why does Sullivan say wireless detonators were used because HE saw it in a movie? What? He saw Die Hard? If he is such a big time controlled demolition experts hasn’t he used them himself?

        FYI The NY manual to become a “powder carrier is only 10 pages long! A monkey could do that job. Carry explosives. Mind you NOT set detonators or set detonation cord. And it is probably easier to have him get this minor license so he can take pictures.

        Stacey Loizeaux
        QUOTE: “HE IS A PHOTOGRAPHER, NOT A DEMOLTION EXPERT”.

        By your reasoning a guy who screws on wheels at the Toyota factory is an expert on the unintended acceleration issue.

        You need to start thinking and study the issue.

  4. David Kyte says:

    FYI

    Want to become a controlled demolition expert like Tom?

    Read this, remember, take the test. Join Richard Gage’s group.
    http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/cof_study_material/e_14_study_material.pdf

    Simple, mostly record keeping and common sense stuff.

    • norcaltruth says:

      “The whole truth” doesn’t seem to fit in your mouth.

      While now you address the fact of how to obtain powder-carrying permits, you omit the fact that your claim that Tom was just “a photographer” was completely baseless and wrong.

      You now are also omitting that Tom worked with Controlled Demolition, Inc. for years. Not only that, he was employed before 9/11, so trying to imply that Tom just took the test to sign onto Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is flat out lame.

      Please consider the large picture in your statements and perspective, but I doubt you are a believer in the official story anyhow. You are here for other reasons, huh?

  5. David Kyte says:

    According to Controlled Demolition Inc He was nothing but a photographer. They admit they known him for years, and hired him to take pictures. Can you prove different? Are you saying they’re lying and can you prove that?

    I didn’t say he just took the simple NY test to joint A&E truth. He most likely took it to get a permit to work around explosive, and as you can see it is a very simple test, far from expert grade. According to controlled demolition themselves it was to take pictures. Not being a controlled demolition expert Tom most like joined the A&E in a mistaken idea he is a hero to truth.

    I am here to enlighten you to the truth, why are you here? I am a believer in reality and a very liberal person at that, And the official story does hold water if you are informed enough. but his 9/11 conspiracy stuff is far from real and far from progressive.

    • norcaltruth says:

      What is really funny to me is that 4 weeks ago “you guys” were saying that Controlled Demolition, Inc had not ever heard of Tom Sullivan.

      Now we post the proof, and “you guys” have a new story. The “he is only a photographer.”

      Why is that familiar…..oh yeah.

      Because the entire official version of 9/11 has changed so many times in different ways to suite the new evidence HUGE LIES.

      Similar to the “we had no warnings” comment made by many in the early days. That was until Able Danger, The July PDF “Bin Laden determined to strike U.S.”, Collen Rowley, and many others started coming out about the HUGE WARNINGS we had.

      “You guys” dont stop with the catch-up.

  6. David Kyte says:

    Well remember it was in fact a guy over at JREF who contacted controlled demolition to establish they did know Tom and that he was NOT an explosives expert but a photographer. First time I herd of him was two days ago and saw this license on a debunking site. They posted he was a powder carrier because it was know to be a nothing job.

    So the question become why can’t you guys come up with one qualified structural engineer who has actually designed and build a building over 10 stories. Or a real controlled demolition expert who says the towers were a controlled demolition.

    You guys haven’t even started to prove your case and it had been almost 10 years now. let alone for us to have to catch up with the nothing you have.

    As for warnings, lots of luck being taken seriously when you believe in the silly controlled demolition scam that got sold top you by Richard Gage and Steven Jones and Judy Woods and countless other kooks.

  7. RayZ says:

    Tom was a lot more then a powder carrier. A company isn’t going to fly someone all over the world, put him up in a hotel and feed him just to do the work that a local laborer could do. Regardless what CDI says (they tend to be very liberal with the truth. First they said they didn’t know him at all. Yeah, right) he designed and loaded explosives. He was required to get the NYFD license when he helped load explosives to take down the largest gas holders in the world in Brooklyn.

    FYI Explosives Demolition companies rarely use wireless detonators because of the cost involved. They are 3 times the price of a conventional detonator. It’s a commercial enterprise and you still have to be competitive/make a profit.

  8. Mircea says:

    At last! Someone who udnertnsads! Thanks for posting!

  9. He will show visibly the power of life is being continually given to him by contractor nail and
    tool the Living Substance, from which it is practically impossible to come out of this experiment.
    So, you contractor nail and tool can see, this year will be the right person to contact.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: