100 comments on “Tom Sullivan – Explosives Technician – Loader – AE911Truth.org”

  1. Outdoors with Fitz says:

    ae911truth is opening of the door.
    critical thinking is the solution

    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds"
    "If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin"
    direct quotes from one of our very own founding fathers during time of constitution
    -Samuel Adams

  2. Will Tutuska says:

    That's my cousin!

  3. chillinator says:

    Ah, yes, the traditional, moronic, Ad Hominem attack of the weak minded zombie. LameStream Media has trained you well – you attack the man because you can't refute the information. Your argument is as weak as your grammar. Just because someone is a "janitor" (or a Loader) does NOT preclude them from having intimate technical knowledge of how a process takes place. The fact that you have any "thumbs up" speaks to the fact that you must have a lot of *very* stupid friends.

  4. taiddan says:

    LMFAO! You should learn the definition of ad hominem before trying to use it. Ad hominem is an irrelevant attack that does nothing more than belittle someone in an attempt to invalidate their argument. Defining a person’s position in a company is not ad hominem and is completely relevant to an argument in that it defines their qualifications. Now if I said, “Don’t listen to this guy, he’s a shit eating, whore jumper.” then that is ad hominem.

  5. taiddan says:

    What’s hilarious here is that you attempted to fault me for using ad hominem, when in fact it is you that are guilty of using it. You attempted to negate my relevant comment by saying it was moronic and I have stupid friends… LMFAO! Obviously you have been guilty of ad hominem several times in the past, and now you think this is your chance to call someone else out on it instead… fail. Get an education and then come back and post something relevant.

  6. rikufanboy says:

    What Israelis cheered? you are mistaking us for the Palestinians in Gaza who cheered.
    Get THAT fact right, at least, if not the others.
    No Israeli ever cheered when that happened, not even those who think the USA sucks ass.

  7. thx1138aa says:

    This guy is an explosives loader. Why can't ae911Kooks get an actual demo expert?

  8. CCRider100 says:

    What's more nonsensical? 1. The buildings were brought down by the structural damage caused by large fully loaded commercial planes and un-contained fires, and as agreed upon by almost all the worlds civil engineers or B. Sullivan's Tall Tale Of BS – buildings were brought down by controlled demolition requiring large scale (and precise) cutting and drilling inside 100 story office buildings, and planting of explosives over many months, ALL without ANYONE hearing or noticing a damn thing?

  9. CCRider100 says:

    Exactly. Also people who believe in the controlled demolition crap seem to forget the key word in that phrase, namely CONTROLLED, a precisely timed sequence of hundreds (or in this case thousands) of rapid fire explosions. NOT some randomly spaced explosions that have no sequence or CONTROL what so ever.

  10. cheleryuken says:

    just by looking at building 7 hitting the floor… you know it was an inside job. period.

  11. Mike Hunt says:

    lol his explanation makes a lot more sense than the 9/11 commission reports, or perhaps you can enlighten us on how a building hit by a plane can collapes.Since we have so many examples of planes hitting buildings and then they collapsing (sarcasm). go ahead and please enlighten us with your "experience" and "expertise" on CD and engineering and architecture instead demeaning and harassing someone for there point of view.

  12. toysandme says:

    You are incredibly naive. A senior demolition engineer telling the truth would be out of work for the rest of his life in the US. One lying with the official story would make himself look like the south end of a north bound horse.

  13. Peter Punk says:

    Are you really believe the official report?…

  14. lemmyliquor says:

    When I learned the towers were dilapidated and needed Billions in restoration to be sound, it peaked my interest to learn more. What I discovered is, the towers were fully insured and even had an extra ''Terrorism'' clause in the agreement. After the towers fell the owners were paid FULL RETAIL in insurance and didn't have to repair or demolish them. If 3,000+ people die on a spot in America it becomes a landmark and can not be built on. 2,753 REPORTEDLY died 9/11, Joe Bidens Patriot Act Passed.

  15. whetedge says:

    AE911Truth never mentions Building 7 twisted counter clockwise as it started down. That can only mean the lower supports folded, or buckled. If they were taken out with charges, the first move at the top would be straight down with no twisting motion. Subsequent collapse, with the west portions of the building falling south and eastern section falling north, as well as the debris pile, confirm this twisting motion. Why has AE ignored this most important clue?
    Joe Hill, 911Truther De-Tox on fb

  16. whetedge says:

    Please source how you learned the towers were dilapidated. I think this is a most overlooked aspect, and want to learn more about it. Thanks.

  17. lemmyliquor says:

    Google the heck out of ''asbestos-laden wtc needs major renovation''. If you look through enough articles another piece of the puzzle will emerge, the insurance payoff aspect.

  18. whetedge says:

    Careful what you assume. The twisting motion proves the initial move down of the building (after the penthouses collapsed) was due to folding or buckling of lower support. Nothing else can be garnered from it. It does not account for the penthouse collapses or the remainder of the shell collapse.
    The question remains; why would a group of architects and engineers miss this and claim it came straight down? You can see the whole building shift to the east as a first move.

  19. CCRider100 says:

    Most structural engineers have given little or no thought on 9/11 being an inside job. Wacky half baked conspiracy is not something that people educated a pertinent field tend to do. Best leave that to the angry young white boy crowd with too much time on their hands. The 9/11 truth movement has nothing of substance to back its wild claims and NEVER EVER will, it will always be a fringe internet based cult.

  20. ItCanBeDoneAMIGO! says:

    would a dutch demo expert do? I can arrange that for them. But what is you definition of an expert?

  21. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    To be honest, I'm willing to yield *somewhat* to the truthers on the "intrinsic plausibility" of this guy's story (LET ME FINISH before you bring out the rubber hoses! I find the conspiracy theories,taken as a whole, just as retarded as the rest of you do!)…
    The only thing I'd point out is that he's not the equivalent of a janitor at JPL, he'd be more like one of the rocket assemblers or launch techs or something.
    I think of it in terms of a carpenter building a house. (cont'd)

  22. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    (cont'd) Is that carpenter qualified to design a house entirely on his own? Highly unlikely. [I suspect that in most jurisdictions he'd be legally prohibited from even trying.] But if on a PRACTICAL level, could a group of experienced residential carpenters get together and build a house that would last (as long as they didn't try anything that exceeded their experience)? They're not engineers, but could they speak with *some* level of authority on the soundness of a house (cont'd)…

  23. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    (cont'd) as long as it was built with materials and techniques that they were familiar with? (In other words, I'm acknowledging that an "old-school", 2×4-and-joist guy who'd never done anything else, wouldn't be able to speak to the technicalities of a home made of high-tech composites.)
    So, I'm willing to grant that Tom Sullivan can indulge in some reasonable speculation about how he'd take down a steel-beam building.
    NOTE: That doesn't change anything, because there's (cont'd)…

  24. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    (cont'd) NO corroborating physical evidence of CD's, no matter how many experts say that "CD could have been done."

  25. ItCanBeDoneAMIGO! says:

    No I mean a real expert someone who does it for his job. But I was reading something way more interesting Dimitri Khalezov. read his book or watch his video.

  26. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    Why does everyone keep pointing that out? Just hear me out for a minute: Ok, pre-9/11, no steel-framed high-rise structure had collapsed due to fire. But I think (hope?) we can all agree that steel-framed structures can, and have, collapsed in severe fires. I've seen instances of factories/warehouses/etc. that were fully-involved by fire and collapsed (and, look, ma… trusses supporting the roofs! Hmmm….)
    If we can agree that a low-rise structure can fall due to fire, (cont'd)

  27. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    (cont'd), then why NOT a high-rise structure? From what I've seen and read of the WTC construction, the structural system doesn't seem RADICALLY different from, say, your average warehouse (I-beam columns and trusses overhead.) It's basically just repeated 110 times. If a warehouse can burn down, why can't the same thing happen to one or more floors of the Twin Towers, and why would they stay standing if you took a floor out of the middle? NOTE: (cont'd):

  28. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    (cont'd) before all of the truthers jump on me as a non-expert, yes, that's my point: most of us are probably not structural engineers or architects here, but I'm asking, AS ORDINARY PEOPLE, why should it seem "so incredible" that a high-rise skyscraper can collapse due to fire?
    If I live in a one-story ranch house, and my neighbor has a four-story 4,000 square foot mansion, is his house somehow less susceptible to fire-induced collapse JUST BECAUSE it's bigger?
    Just my own $0.02.

  29. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    >>Not the case with High-Rise components.
    On 9/11, I felt exactly the same way. BUT the Twin Towers were not constructed with the same "robustness" as you and I would assume [and hope] most high-rises are. They were built with long-span trusses connecting the core and the outer walls. On the NOVA special "Why the Towers Fell" it was mentioned that this was a deliberate design to reduce overall weight and cost as well as increase rentable floor space by eliminating at least two (cont'd)

  30. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    (cont'd) rows of columns between core and wall. They had quotes from firemen who said that in the firefighting profession, there's an old adage, "don't trust the truss." [I subsequently researched these things ay my local library and on the Web – yes, even some of us retarded non-truther shills can be skeptical! For *myself* I'm satisfied, but I can't pretend to speak as an expert to another.] I live in Metro Chicago, and I've seen the occasional news story about an old factory (cont'd)

  31. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    (cont'd) or warehouse going up in a massive 5-alarm fire, and several of those have ended up with partial or complete collapse. News photos/vids of the wreckage often show warped roof trusses.
    Now, I agree with you: In my observation, seeing numerous high- and mid-rise buildings under construction I've always seen I-beams used. ONLY I-beams. Where I *have* seen widely-spaced columns + trusses used is in big-box retail stores and gymnasiums. And growing up here in Tornado Alley, (cont'd)

  32. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    (cont'd), one of the things drilled into your head from Kindergarten onwards with regards to tornado warnings is, DO NOT take shelter in a structure like that.
    The object lesson for me (as a layperson) is that for optimal structure strength and resistance to destructive forces both mechanical and thermal, trusses are suboptimal for that.
    There are close-up photos of the WTC trusses available on the web, with other objects nearby so you get a sense of the scale. To me, they (cont'd)

  33. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    (cont'd) look any beefier than the ones holding up the roof of my local Home Depot.
    My personal conclusion is that the Twin Towers were **NOT** built "like the old brick shithouse" as the saying goes. Frankly, I found it surprising, but personally, I've never since then come across anything that compels me to revert to my original assumptions about how solid/strong they were.
    They were, in fact, built just like a low-rise, only taller. A low-rise design stacked 110 times, if you will.
    My $0.02

  34. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    Correction: to me, they {{{don't}}} look any beefier than the ones holding up the roof of my local Home Depot.

  35. Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ says:

    Oh, the government's very corrupt. They just didn't do 9/11. But honestly, the bottom line is that we are probably on the same page about the stuff that really matters. Peace!

  36. timmy dick says:

    That stache

  37. ISamuelII says:

    And the out side aluminium cladding was getting ready to fall off from the galvanic corrosion on the bolts holding them up. That would have been nearly a billion in scaffolding alone.

  38. ISamuelII says:

    Yes there were cheering israelis, we know them as the "dancing israelis" as they flicked their bics in joyful celebrations. So why are you in here lying your fingers off.

  39. ISamuelII says:

    "Do the math"??? On incomplete data, which seems to be the point you have missed and the legal need for a real lawful investigation into WHO did it, and not some wild conspiracy theory proposed from habitual finger pointers.

  40. ISamuelII says:

    That is some X-Ray infrared vision you have to see all of that. How can I gets me some of that. Tell us how you saw all of that through that thick cloud of dust.

  41. ISamuelII says:

    And those demolitions you were near, had all of the city office storm windows removed from the sills. WTC, no windows were removed.

  42. ISamuelII says:

    And Fire Fighter Jimmy Grillo says you are full of it. He was inside the tower sputnik.

    watch?v=uh2B0QEtHrk

  43. ISamuelII says:

    They didn't fight any fire in WTC7 because they had no water pressure.

  44. ISamuelII says:

    I know it has been over a year, but thank you for your effort that others should appreciate. I think only three or four no longer work due to the user termination or other reason.

  45. Stacey Animacie says:

    So they use this clown — an explosives loader — in the video because they couldn't find an actual demolition expert who says it was a demolition. Nice going, kooks. LOL!

  46. super Mario says:

    It does if it has 40 giant steel support beams going through it holding it up. The World Trade Center wasn't a house but buildings that were made to be tough enough to survive multiple explosions and fires. Somene had to destroy those support beams in order for the buildings to collapse as they did, whish is where the thermite comes it, it burns through steel easily, and it coincides with the firefighter reports about there being rivers of molten steel in the basement of the WTC. Just my 2¢.

  47. yoy twanf says:

    why does it keep cutting from one part to the next?

  48. 1956warden says:

    What a Kook! he never even mentioned the heat , the uninsulated steel , the outside supports, he is fundamentally dishonest. He did admit his whole model , theories require evidence , was based on his experiance, an explosives loader is a flunkie. All he does is strap explosives where he is told to, he is not qualified to decide which explosives to use, the amount needed , or where to put them. The fact he is being used to try and sell this fairy tale is proof the experts know he's full of it.

  49. undeadpresident says:

    You are a piece of shit. Shut up.

  50. Son of Ferg says:

    1956warden; You say he never even mentioned the heat. I presume your talking about the heat of the fires in the towers? That is completely irrelevant to the points that he is bringing up. He is a demolition expert. I understand that NIST hypothesis of the collapse and the people who bought into that, base their entire claim that heat weakened the steal causing an inward bow that initiated the collapse. Please explain to me how the remaining columns underneath the impact zone also weakened enough to have a progressive and consecutive collapse without any resistance? physics 101 when matter and energy in motion move through the path of greatest resistance, they will encounter great resistance.   

  51. Grenge g says:

    so this guy who was involved in blowing up the towers comes on to brag about it. Too bad about the thousands of people who died that day. That's ok Tom!

  52. John Doe says:

    i can see republicans wanting this guy dead.

  53. roberto sittaro says:

    when two great buildings like twin towers collapsed exactly in same way,with external not distortions,but fall just down right is clearly a controlled explosion.

  54. Cory Beatbox says:

    Again. Who are these nutbars hitting the "dislike" button? Are these human terds allergic to facts, truth and science? I bet you it's one asshole with 33 ID's who just goes to every one of these video's and hits the dislike button. Until this truth becomes the excepted truth, we are doomed to more crazy shit!

  55. Derek Williamson says:

    Can someone please ask one of these experts what is required to bring a building down like this given that it was on fire? This is very different than the static conditions demolition experts generally work under.

  56. Blade Runner says:

    So when do we hear from a demolitions engineer, a technician, or a loader who actually participated in rigging the WTC towers for controlled demolition? There ain't one 'cuz that never happened. The entire 911Truth movement is one humongous fantasy.

  57. Lese Majeste says:

    If the Twins simply collapsed in a 'pancake' fall, then where did the energy to violently eject a 20 ton beam from WTC 2 and send it over 300 feet and lodge the beam into the Deutsche Bank building come from?
    And who looted gold and silver bullion from WTC 4 the night BEFORE 9/11? And why were so many human bones blown to bits, many found smaller than a fingernail?I'm a retired career FF and have experience in fighting structure fires and building collapses from fire damage and water load, so don't try and blow smoke up my arse.

  58. Blade Runner says:

    You 9/11 truther loons should pool your resources. You could make a lot of money publishing the best Science Fiction series ever. Hell you would put Asimov, Heinlein, and Bradbury to shame.

    Or, if that doesn't work for you, try for a line of comic books or jokes for idiots.

  59. Sarah Carter says:

    Tom Sullivan is my nigga

  60. Blade Runner says:

    The seeds of the 9/11 truth movement were planted in the days AFTER the attacks. Everything the movement has created is Post Facto. In stark contrast to the massive documentation of the history of Islamic terrorism and its continuing efforts in the real world, the 9/11 truth movement has nothing pre-9/11 upon which to base their protests. Never has this movement presented any verifiable historical documentation or information on the "inside job" conspiracy leading up to the attacks. They have not uncovered a single individual or group who planned, organized, financed, and actually participated in carrying out the attacks. Everything the 9/11 truth movement has generated is based entirely on speculation, fabrications, altered data, pseudo-science, junk science, all of which is driven by a political ideology, antisemitism, racism, BHS, or just plain ignorance. There is not a whit of honest objectivity inherent in the movement's so-called investigations, in its flawed applications of physics and chemistry, and, consequently, in its arguments.

    Moreover, the 9/11 movement is fractured. There are so many conflicting theories about what happened, how it happened, what methods, tactics, and weapons were used, and, most importantly, who was responsible (none of whom were actually engaged it carrying out the attacks) and why, that it is virtually impossible to make any sense of any of it.

    Occam's razor states that in the event of two conflicting explanations, the simplest explanation is the correct one. In the case of 9/11, the real world explanation that the attacks were planned, organized, financed, and carried out by a group of Islamic extremists known as al Qaeda is infinitely more plausible, well-documented, and by far the simplest explanation. This, of course, is backed up by mountains of verifiable history, extensive intelligence and investigation, and objective scientific analyses. The 9/11 truth movement, OTH, is a never ending series of disjointed arguments, faulty logic, circular argument, and a host of contradictory and even totally ludicrous theories and speculations. Even so-called professionals have fallen prey to this.

    It is a shame that so many people are so easily duped..

  61. Mr Yuk says:

    If you think those buildings came down because of airplanes rather than controlled demolition, you are as dumb as dogshit.
    The official report, which would be a dubious proposition at best, is a false narrative of accusations and is completely unsupported by the laws of physics.

  62. SHOTGUN PARACETAMOL says:

    the demolition expert who is talking is more credible than people who argue about the shit in the comments section of a YouTube video so just shut the fuck up a listen and learn.

  63. bipola telly says:

    39 ridiculous, moronic scumbags gave this the thumbs down…. absolute pathetic…

  64. Usama Morgan says:

    Oil people, it was all done for oil. When America invaded Iraq, they had their oil harvesting equipment ready to go.That is why Saddam Husein ordered the oil wells to be set on fire as soon as the Americans arrived.

  65. Kyle Ernst says:

    Does Tom Sullivan know any of the experts that had to be used to take these buildings down? Does Tom know anything about the up grades to the floor girder insulation performed by CDI at the WTC? These buildings did not just have a controlled demolition. These buildings were pulverized…thousands of filing cabinets and only one was found? No computers, no telephones….I mean this was more than just bringing the buildings down, they were turned to dust. I think the upgrades to the floor insulation was a sprayed on explosive mixture which would explain the lack of furnishings.

  66. Vlad Ratzen says:

    it looks like tony has fallen into a trap. these two guys dont wanted to discuss anything.

    there is a demolition EXPERT who worked for controlled demolition inc. he said the collapse of building 7 looked like a controlled demolition. his name is Tom Sullivan he worked as a explosives loader.

    just look here, and listen:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg

    Mr Sullivan talks about how steel frame buildings can be imploded successfully, by loading only the first 3 floors of such building with explosives. therefore it is a complete myth that you need to have massive amounts of explosives. you dont have to wire it up to the top of the buliding to bring it down.

  67. Stevie Ross says:

    All this, and yet ……..they came down from the top it appears, not the bottom 30% as he states is the way it's done…….just sayin'…….peace, love n' tranquillity.✌

  68. still here on planet earth still here for the food says:

    Where can I email you fine gentleman? I have something for you 😎👍✊️

  69. Kev says:

    real life demolition man

  70. J Law says:

    Thank you for your video.

    No evidence of explosives or controlled demolition were found by the FBI, CIA, NTSB, ATF, Fire Departments. They are all trained in this type of situation, they would immediately recognize explosives having been used
    None of the buildings fell at "free fall"
    The penthouse began the collapse of building 7. There was a full 7 seconds between the penthouse collapse and the rest of building 7 coming down
    I've not seen where the term "pull" is used in controlled demolition except when "pulling" a building with cables, as they did with building 6

  71. reviewloop says:

    Why didn't they ask him better questions? Bottom third is fine, but the towers came down from the top down. 7 came down from the bottom (though you see internal collapse before with the penthouse). So ask him to address the differences between the supposed detonation and implosions of the towers versus WTC7. Or ask him if you could implode a skyscraper from the top down.

  72. Gina Judd says:

    I was in Las Vegas in 94 when they imploded one of the hotels. I was in the Aladdin which would later be imploded also. We had a room on the top floor and it wasn't noise that woke me up but the buidling shook like small to medium quake. The building being imploded was across the street from where we were. Would this have happened in New York that day?

  73. jimmi hotdog says:

    What people don't seem to understand is that western leaders aren't just bought, they're afraid to reject Israeli's Talmudic bidding in fear of Samson Option. The moment western world betrays Israel is the moment hidden nuclear warheads are going to be remotely detonated in biggest of our cities.

    The Talmud is the compilation of the historic rabbis "discussing" or "debating" what the Torah means. Some of the tractates come to conclusions, but many leave the debate open ended. This is part of why Jews can continue to study Torah and Talmud, and continue to debate its meanings, in all times and cultural changes so the Talmud is whatever suits em at the time.

  74. Ben Williams says:

    Why are there so many clumsy edits throughout what he says?

  75. Desert Wanderer says:

    911 was a Jewish operation to convince the west to attack Muslim lands. Watch 911 missing links. Best 911 vid out there also search Christopher bollyn. Don’t believe the vids that say bush et al did it. These are most likely Jewish producers not interested in truth but just in deflecting blame from their tribe.

  76. a3iuuu says:

    Please, search: "Judy Wood Evidences"

  77. PUMPtown Fitness says:

    Love this guy and all these architects

  78. JIMMY JUKEBOX420 says:

    Do Your Research,
    Google Skyscrapers are pre-wired to implode with explosives when built

    The Articles Explain Everything.

  79. Mike Colby says:

    https://youtu.be/g-ZyHIhPmw0

  80. SuperQdaddy says:

    So many suspects…so little investigation…

  81. Petr Gabriel says:

    https://youtu.be/WO4REzttORk2 x  Mt TNT termonuke + 2 x 60 Micronuke + HAARP-aerosol

  82. Scott Stevenz says:

    WAKE UP
    UPDATE: GRAND JURY PETITION! Here is the Evidence! Sign it!
    Shttps://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/exhibits-index-grand-jury-petition/

  83. Douglas Fox says:

    I'm Surprised this Demolition Expert is still Alive !! Bush killed many Talkers along with the Clintons who killed hundreds

  84. James Lemon says:

    Was Tom Sullivan involved in 9/11. ???

  85. KEYSER SOZE says:

    We all know it wasn't the planes that brought down the wtc, what I ask myself is how evil are these people who done this, how do they look in the mirror knowing they caused people to jump for there lives and burned to death. How horrible can you be.

  86. simon thorneycroft says:

    Tom, I know that you are talking here about WT7, but may I ask about the twin towers. I have not seen any evidence from the videos of the collapse, or from the collapse site, or the inspection at Freshkills of any exterior wall panels having been cut. The wall panels were designed to take 40% of the load, so I would expect that a large percentage would have had to be cut to facilitate a collapse. Can you provide an explanation for this? Simon

  87. Rocky Rush Rivera says:

    Yep 911 was an inside job just to many witnesses talking about explosions oh yeah but the media and government never reported to u…

  88. Mark says:

    Basically the big 911 event was prepared long in advance by people who knew about demolition…Not Alquaida!!!…Arranged by Larry Silvertein after he was refused demolition!!…THE BIGGEST INSIDE JOB EVER!!

  89. Mark says:

    Mr Sunder was a PAID LIAR

  90. Joseph Dale says:

    What’s funny is the “debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy” videos often mention the company this guy worked for. They compare videos from his company and building 7 and say that they aren’t the same.

    Comments on those videos are always disabled to prevent links to videos like this.

  91. Peter Lukaszyk says:

    8 years nothing happened

  92. Todd Bradley says:

    it was told by a Chief Architect on those buildings that 5 years before they fell down they were that they were junk

  93. Todd Bradley says:

    the chief engineer like I said five years before said that it would cost more to rehab the buildings then it would be to just tear down and rebuild them and that's why they came down is an insurance job

  94. Todd Bradley says:

    I never saw Building 7 until years later and I'm not really an expert but when I seen that I thought there's no way and it was just yeah like the one guy said it's it was an implosion without the sound because that's all I got from the TV set I never seen it until years later I think it was just something that they didn't want to show people

  95. Aaron Buckmaster says:

    My father, who was a commercial architect and a darn good engineer, told me that day those buildings were dropped by a controlled demolition. He gave me this exact explanation of what really happened.

  96. TheLance3185 says:

    Impossible to believe that it was anything but a controlled demolition. So that's murder.

  97. STL Fila says:

    Seems like dude is wearing a disguise. That chin hair n mustache looks fake, as well as the hair piece..

  98. tobias steurer says:

    But no seismic data clearly show that controlled demolition cannot be the truth. Why did the fire man stairway B survive. It is impossible that they say survived . With Molten steal they wouldn’t survive either. it is clear evidence that no seismic event was measured. So now what happened?
    We don’t know we only know how it couldn’t happen.
    It excludes controlled demolition, nuclear explosions, planes with the official Version is ridiculous.
    The facts show more Judy Woods ideas of dustification

  99. Bruce Radford sorry wrong house says:

    No problem that liquid thermite can't handle!

  100. Lewie McNeely says:

    This guy might be just a 'loader' BUT he'd dead right wherein he speaks. Right down the line. Even 'loaders' know what it takes to drop a building or blast rock or cut steel. You don't live long or work for someone if you don't.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *