Difference between revisions of "Tom Sullivan"
Latest revision as of 14:05, 3 March 2011
One of the often cited criticisms of 9/11 conspiracies is their lack of falsifiability. One will regularly encounter excuses why evidence isn’t readily available to substantiate a claim; eg- it’s a cover up, they destroyed it, etc. Such is the case of the “self-consuming thermite cutter charge”.
In this case we have an alleged demolitions device which also destroys itself leaving nothing but a pool of molten iron. Hence, why there is no evidence of demolition devices at Ground Zero; quite convenient. The idea of thermite cutter charges was awash across 9/11 conspiracy sites, but had its greatest peak with a specific article at Architects&Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Luckily, the authors found just the man to confirm what they were looking for in Tom Sullivan, former CDI, Inc. employee and alleged controlled demolitions expert.
Sounds impressive, right?
A small problem is that the job title “explosive-charge placement technician” exists nowhere except on AE9111Truth.org & other sites parroting their words. The evidence they present is Sullivan’s “powder carrier” license & Sullivan refers to himself as a “loader” in the article & in his AE911Truth profile; while after the publishing of the online article referring to himself as an “explosives technician”.
In fact, the City of New York outlines the responsibilities of those who work with explosives in building demolitions. According to those standards a powder carrier & explosive loader are nothing close to experts.
So based on the evidence AE911Truth presents (the printed statements of Sullivan, & his ID) he was nothing more than an assistant; nothing close to an expert. But what does Tom Sullivan, the assistant, say about thermite based technologies in controlled demolitions?
AE911Truth doesn’t want to seem like we are just taking the word of Tom Sullivan. They provide us with a patent specifically from 1984. They even go further by placing a caption: “This particular cutter charge designed for use with thermite” (Source).
The issue here is it’s not a cutter charge. If one were to follow the patent number, it’s used as an ignition source.
It didn’t take AE911Truth long to recognize this problem, so they quickly attempted to clarify their mistakes (though not noting it in their original article - this can only be found by digging through their news archive).
They intended to show these cutter charges existed in 1984. That’s what Tom Sullivan stated. They do the next best thing though, and provide another patent of a thermite cutter charge (note: it’s only a cutter charge and not self consuming) from 1999. What happened to Sullivan’s 1984 self consuming thermite cutter charge? They never tell us. All they leave us with is:
So after all the “expert” testimony and two patents the only evidence that is left for a self-consuming cutter charge is, well it might exist but we need to find out more; aside from the fact that their expert claims a patent, publicly available if it did exist, has been around for over 25 years. Also of note, they backpeddled on using remote detonators. Who could guess that we “need a new investigation” to find out? What AE911Truth wants a new investigation for is to find out if their speculation based on non-authorities and shoddy research is valid.