di Brain_Use e Hammer
Nel luglio del 2010 il sito del gruppo "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" ha pubblicato un articolo che riporta il parere di un sedicente professionista delle demolizioni controllate, il quale sostiene che le Torri Gemelle e l'edificio 7 del World Trade Center furono demoliti con cariche da taglio esplosive RDX innescate da detonatori wireless. Il nome del professionista in questione è Tom Sullivan, ex dipendente della Controlled Demolition Inc. La prima considerazione che viene spontanea è che il mondo del complottismo ha cambiato tesi per l'ennesima volta. Infatti le versioni alternative più Recent proposals from the plots (eg Steven Jones and Niels Harrit ) were nanothermite applied to the columns of the World Trade Center with a brush, but this time they are able to do office buildings collapse without a trace. It is natural to ask how
the so-called "truthers" hope to be taken seriously by anyone if they change every few months and theory if every time their theories are not supported by evidence, but do it anyway effort going into the Tom Sullivan says that to see if there is something worthwhile.
surprising, first, that Sullivan only draw their own conclusions based on the video of the collapses, cioè senza avere operato alcuna analisi sulla macerie, e che citi come argomento a proprio favore l'effetto degli esplosivi nei film d'azione ( "Guardate in qualsiasi film d'azione" , dice testualmente, come vedremo). Ma i siti complottisti italiani, come MegaChip e Antimafia Duemila , sembrano non aver fatto nemmeno queste semplici considerazioni, dal momento che hanno pubblicato una traduzione dell'articolo di AE911Truth in modo del tutto acritico.
Chi è Tom Sullivan
Chiariamo innanzitutto che nell'intervista concessa ad AE911Truth, Sullivan precisa immediatamente che "In nessun caso mi presento come portavoce per il CDI, e quello che ho da dire lo dico per esperienza e formazione personale" . La Controlled Demolition Inc. infatti ha espresso tutt'altra posizione, come vedremo in seguito. È interessante dunque qualificare la sua esperienza e formazione personale. Sappiamo già dall'intervista che Sullivan ha lavorato per la Controlled Demolition Inc. Ma in che ruolo? L'articolo di AE911Truth ce lo presenta come fotografo prima e come impiegato nella collocazione delle "cariche da taglio" poi.
Come referenza ci viene presentato il suo biglietto da visita per la Controlled Demolition Inc. dal quale risulta appunto la sua funzione aziendale: "Staff Photographer" . Ad integrazione di tale ruolo, evidentemente insufficient to qualify as a "demolitions expert" , Sullivan presents its certificate of competency to the role of "Powder Carrier issued by the FDNY, the New York City Fire Department, the Fire Department of New York.
But what does a "Powder Carrier in controlled demolition? Comes to help us just the FDNY, which explains in the document study material for the examination for the Certificate of Fitness for POWDER CARRIER: The Powder
Carrier is Essentially an apprentice Blaster, Blaster Assisting with the loading: (Preparing primer cartridges and charges, wiring / hookup, setting off the shots) and paperwork, Such as recording Quantities of explosives used and shot times
The Powder Carrier is essentially a Apprentice breaker, breaker that helps in the preparation of the charge (cartridge preparation and initiation of charges, cable connection, activation of 'explosion) and office work, recording the quantities of explosives used and the times of blasting.
We note in passing that his apprentice license issued by the NYC Fire Department is July 9, 2001 - just two months before Sept. 11 - but that does not stop to say that "from day one he knew destruction 7 World Trade Center during Sept. 11 was a classic controlled implosion ". One wonders, among other things, why he kept silent for nine years.
Despite the examination of the documents reported by Sullivan makes clear the level of actual competence of yet "demolition expert" sites presented by conspiracy theorists, it is not our intention to introduce an ad hominem argument , as the fallacies contained in statements reported by Sullivan AE911Truth are of such magnitude that they are his own statements put the lie to the thesis of the alleged departure of controlled demolition, as we shall see now.
Come stanno in realtà le cose
Una delle prime affermazioni di Sullivan (per l'italiano abbiamo impiegato direttamente la traduzione di Megachip) è cheonce 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.
una volta ottenuto l’accesso alle condutture degli ascensori ... allora un team di esperti di esplosivi avrebbe potuto accedere di soppiatto alle colonne e travi all’interno. Il resto verrebbe compiuto semplicemente con il giusto tipo di esplosivi per l’opera. Si può usare bene la termite.
Note: Megachip the translation of the last sentence is incorrect: "Thermite can be used as well" does not mean "you can make good use of the termite" but "you can also use termite ".
is not clear how this supposed simplicity of placing explosive charges can be reconciled with what he had just said about the work of much smaller entities that had had the opportunity to follow working with Controlled Demolition Inc.:
Began
the early days, around 6 am, and Would They work until the sun Was down
many weeks are required to "prep," or weaken the buildings before Demolitions
the working day starts early, around 6 am and worked until sunset
preparation requires several weeks to "weaken" the buildings before demolition
latter claim but is perfectly consistent with the claim by the true experts in demolition, even Danny Jowenko was compelled to assume at least a year of intensive work to suggest a controlled demolition at the WTC.
addition, if the hypothetical explosive charges were placed on the very core columns as Sullivan says, these columns would be the first to surrender, dragging with them the rest of the building. But the photographic documentation of the collapse shows exactly the opposite: the central columns were the last part to collapse, so that briefly remained standing after the rest of the Twin Towers had crashed to the ground.
A second issue addressed by Article AE911Truth is the absence of finds in the debris of the Twin Towers of the remains of cables for the explosions (like the yellow ones in the image, the demolition of the Philadelphia Civic Center) and casings for the position of cutting. Sullivan, when asked about it, note:
Remote wireless detonators Have Been available for years. Look At Any action movie - and of course the military has Them. The Reason Most contractors do not use Them Is That They Are Too Expensive - But in a project with a huge budget, It Would be no problem.
wireless remote-controlled detonators have been around for years. see any action movie . And, of course, the military have them. The reason that most service providers do not uses them is because they are very expensive, but in a project with a huge budget there would be no problem.
We do not need to comment to the first statement that shows, if nothing else, that Sullivan knows the movie series of Die Hard .
In fact there are two types of detonators used wireless: the military and those civilians in quarrying of gravel and stone. It is in both cases of very different types of jobs compared to a controlled demolition and that require a small number of explosive charges simultaneously, no problem of synchronization and a preliminary check of the absence of interfering signals. Also do not exclude the need for use of cables for detonators, they simply allow one to eliminate the physical connection between the initiating device and the remote control.
So if Sullivan was right and a wireless device was used for the triggering signal of the alleged charges, should have been found among the rubble of the remains not only the usual cables detonators, but in addition to them, but many remain wireless receivers.
The article then shows a picture of these limited "detonation modern wireless systems such as that produced by Hiex" (cited above), which would corroborate the claims of Sullivan, but that actually ends up confirming As we have just pointed out. It is in fact the Hiex Teleblaster II, of which you can find on the manufacturer's specifications. It turns out that this is just a system used for blasting in the quarries of the charges and not in the demolition. Nowhere in the manufacturer's site also argues that it can in any way to replace cables for detonators. There is a further problem on which Sullivan ignores the use of wireless devices: that of electrical interference. The detonators are very sensitive to radio interference from cell phones, wireless networks, computers, not to mention the huge antenna on the North Tower: definitely an area unsuitable the use of wireless detonators. Finally
Sullivan's theory does not consider what the problems are radio broadcasts in steel structures. Just on 11 September this difficulty was found by firefighters and police, whose radio was not working properly on the stairs of the Twin Towers. According to Sullivan, the explosive was placed on the columns of core, where the difficulty of communication is even greater than it is on the stairs because the columns can be found further inland.
Sullivan then continued:
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.
Same goes for wraps: everyone in this area, including Blanchard, should well know that the RDX explosive cutting charges, once exploded, are completely destroyed, nothing remains.
is important to note that it is not true that the casings are cut for posts to be completely destroyed by the explosions, as we recall the actual demolition (see, for example, the charge remains cutting after the demolition of Philadelphia Civic Center in the picture at right). 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.
And in the case of posts to be cut with thermite, the same thing. The casings for the thermite cutting charges which are self-consumed in the square since their first patent in 1984.
In support of this contention is shown an image of an alleged patent of 1984 a wrap for cutting the thermite charges that are self-consumed and which would leave no other trace of "molten iron" (sic), ie "cast iron" .
pity that the patent in question is actually related to a "ignition system using a small core of thermite to ignite the main charge of a rocket engine or other kind of ", as stated in ' original patent. The device description also specifies the size (" 1 / 4 "x 3 / 8" with an opening of about 1 / 32 ""), apparently incompatible with the description given by AE911Truth (and practically all the sites to follow our own conspiracy).
At the end of the article, Sullivan's claims become the usual've heard many times and which can be summarized in these points: the collapse of WTC 7 just like a controlled demolition (and who ever said otherwise? resembles, as the same Jowenko in the first part of this interview , before they will be revealed the actual condition of the building), the same could WTC7 have been scrapped only undermining the lower floors, the controlled demolition generate low collateral damage and the bang of the explosion was not one but a series of smaller explosions, culminating in the classic conspiracy trial:
I Knew It Was an explosive event as soon as I saw it, there was no question
in my mind I knew it was an event related to the use of explosives as soon as I saw it, I had not the slightest doubt
In other words, he did not think you should have heard the explosions of the barrels (those that do not feel here, for example ...) and the conclusions of NIST and numerous demolition experts who have found no trace of demolitions in the WTC buildings did not count because he has seen . Typical.
There is a final statement that Sullivan is worth to emphasize:
Fire can not bring down steel-framed High Rises - period.
fires can not raze high-rise buildings with steel structure. Point.
Really? Here are some examples of building with steel shot by fire. Later we will see what they think about structural engineers and demolition.
vs Truthers. truthers
All these mistakes, omissions and outright manipulation, such as those of the patent and wireless devices, were not so difficult to detect. So much so that, unlike many homegrown bass drums (from Megachip to Pino Cabras ) that they simply translate uncritical article AE911Truth, overseas conspiracy between them there are those who noted the 'inconsistency of the arguments of Sullivan.fact, a blog belonging to the category of U.S. Truthers, that of Scott Creighton, sostenitore acceso della tesi delle demolizioni controllate, dedica due articoli a quello che secondo lui si dimostra:
part of a willful and deliberate act to undermine the credibility of AE911Truth
parte di un atto volontario e deliberato di screditare AE911Truth
Creighton si riferisce specificamente all'articolo contenente l'intervista a Sullivan. In " The Poorly Scripted Cognitive Infiltration of AE911Truth and Tom Sullivan’s Lies of Omission ", Creighton prende per buone le affermazioni di Sullivan a proposito della sua qualifica ma smonta gran parte delle tesi presentate, mentre in " Major Problems with Tom Sullivan’s AE911Truth “Interview "Even goes to say that:
There are major problems with this story That can only be Explained by deliberate deceit.
There are important issues in this matter that can be explained only by a trick to volunteer.
For example, Creighton is the same to prove that the patent of 1984 as shown by AE911Truth on a "housing charges for cutting the thermite that is self-consuming" is actually far from it. Creighton rightly notes that the patent was clearly read and used by AE911Truth to play with copying and pasting of two different parts, but the description of the device has been completely remodeled and ignored its size until you get to a
deliberate manipulation of the source material to support the claim of Tom Sullivan That "thermite cutter charges" Existed as early as 1984 and That They had "self-consuming casings "Which Would Explain Why They Were not discovered in the debris at Ground Zero.
deliberate manipulation of the original material to support claims that Tom Sullivan "to thermite cutting charges" had existed since 1984 and that there were "envelopes that are self-consumed," which would explain why none were found in the debris of Ground Zero
Actually Creighton Sullivan seeks to justify the assumption that the manipulations have been made by AE911Truth later, but in fact it does not matter who has manipulated images and information: the end result is that the umpteenth revelations from the world of conspiracy theories have proved, as usual, completely inconsistent.
His conclusion:
This kind of behavior is unprofessional and Completely AE911Truth must produce a retraction as Quickly As Possible. Not only is the article reposted Being on Almost Every Single Truth site, But The admins Have emailed it out to Thousands of AE Certainly members who will pick up on this ... as I am sure will Our debunkers.
This type of behavior è del tutto privo di professionalità e AE911Truth deve produrre una ritrattazione il più in fretta possibile. Non solo l'articolo è stato ripubblicato praticamente in ogni singolo sito complottista, ma gli amministratori l'hanno inviato per email a migliaia di membri di AE che certamente lo criticheranno... così come faranno i nostri debunker, ne sono certo.
In effetti, innumerevoli debunker oltreoceano hanno già notato l'inconsistenza delle tesi di Sullivan, così come stiamo facendo noi ora. Sul fronte cospirazionista però, pare che ai sostenitori del complotto interessi più copia incollare qualsiasi castroneria supporti anche solo apparentemente le loro tesi che investigare davvero la verità.
Dopo questa ennesima figura barbina di AE911Truth, a noi sembra non sia rimasto poi granché da "screditare", visto che in 9 anni di ricerca questo è il massimo che AE911Truth sia riuscito a produrre.
Ed è quasi un peccato che Creighton, che si dimostra buon debunker, non abbia tratto quest'ultima conclusione, che cioè dietro al cospirazionismo undicisettembrino non ci sia altro che il tentativo di vendere libercoli e vuote conferenze per un pubblico poco attento, come quelle che attendono ora Tom Sullivan.
Cosa dicono i veri esperti di demolizioni
Contrariamente a quanto sostenuto da Tom Sullivan, i veri professionisti delle demolizioni controllate hanno sempre escluso la possibilità that the Twin Towers were demolished with explosives.
As reported in the book "Debunking 9 / 11 Myths" published by the magazine Popular Mechanics (of which there is an Italian translation edited by Undicisettembre entitled "September 11: to dismantle the myths" ) Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., argued that there is no way to demolish buildings with explosives so great. The positions required would weigh hundreds of pounds each, and then it would not be able to do a hand inside the buildings. Moreover, the larger explosive charges that are currently available are able to cut steel up to a thickness of 3 inches (7.6 cm). The thickness of the columns of the Twin Towers was instead of 14 inches (35 cm). However, according Loizeaux, even if there were explosive charges suitable, a team of 75 men would take two months, having free access to all three buildings, fire protection and to remove the charges and place of ignition wires. The final comment Loizeaux is unequivocal: "There's just no way to do it" .
Even the greatest of Italian demolitions expert with explosives, Danilo Cups, excluding the possibility of a controlled demolition. In an interview with Adnkronos-IGN Cups declared that: La tesi è stata costruita in modo interessante e accattivante. Devo dire che guardando questi documentari pro-complotto, io stesso li ho reputati costruiti bene e queste teorie convincenti. In realtà non sono suffragate da nessun elemento tecnico, ma al contrario ne esistono tanti a dimostrazione esattamente del contrario.
La struttura architettonica delle Twin Towers era a travi reticolari, quindi delle strutture particolari molto agili, molto snelle, che però purtroppo, se compromesse in modo radicale, determinano quello che si chiama poi "collasso progressivo", che è quello che ha determinato un crollo simile, assimilabile a quella di una demolizione controllata.
In effetti non è tanto il crollo delle Twin Towers che assomiglia a una demolizione controllata, ma la demolizione controllata ricrea le condizioni uguali a quelle che hanno determinato il crollo delle Twin Towers.
L'esperto olandese Danny Jowenko, intervistato dal programma televisivo "Zembla" , ha escluso la possibilità di una demolizione con esplosivi dichiarando: Non possono essere stati esplosivi, perché c'era un incendio enorme. Se ci fossero stati esplosivi, sarebbero già bruciati. Oltretutto, prima di bruciarsi, i loro detonatori si sarebbero attivati a 320 °C, per cui sarebbero esplosi prima.
Jowenko ha aggiunto che ci sarebbe voluto un anno a predisporre le Torri Gemelle per la demolizione. L'intera trascrizione della sua dichiarazione si trova qui .
Brent Blanchard, specialista in demolizioni della Protec Documentation Services, Inc. e senior editor di Implosionworld.com, ha redatto un documento in cui analizza il crollo dei tre edifici del World Trade Center ed esclude categoricamente che si tratti di una demolizione controllata. In sintesi, Blanchard sostiene che il crollo delle Twin Towers non fu per nulla simile a una demolizione controllata, in quanto non cominciò alla base dei due edifici ma dal punto di impatto dei due aeromobili. Pertanto sarebbe stato necessario piazzare l'esplosivo esattamente nel punto dove l'aereo avrebbe impattato, or should have been placed after the impact in less than two hours. Both scenarios are, according to Blanchard, impossible.
Conclusion The release of Tom Sullivan, to which many conspiracy theorists have given credit without asking any question, is not that just another lie that the world of conspiracy to try to trim its readers.
- A Sullivan were attributed powers that really did not: not a demolitions expert, but a photographer who had handled explosives as an apprentice for a few months at the time of the September 11 attacks.
- His argument contradicts the claims of supporters of the previous plot.
- Secondo la sua tesi, sarebbero state minate le colonne centrali, ma le fotografie dimostrano che queste colonne furono invece le ultime a crollare.
- Lui stesso dichiara che le demolizioni vanno preparate indebolendo la struttura, ma di questo lavoro preliminare di indebolimento non c'è alcuna traccia.
- Il brevetto che viene presentato a supporto delle sue tesi parla di piccoli accenditori per motori a razzo, non di detonatori per esplosivi.
- Sullivan sostiene che non furono trovate tracce dei detonatori perché furono usati sistemi radiocomandati, ma un sistema radiocomandato ha bisogno di ricevitori che sarebbero rimasti fra le macerie, ed è oltretutto sensibilissimo to radio interference.
- The example of radio quoted by Sullivan is a model for use in quarries, where it is possible to eliminate the radio interference, not for demolition in the cities, where radio interference could cause premature detonation or prevent the proper sequence of burst
- The real controlled demolition experts agree that the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 do not have the basic features of a controlled demolition, even though the eyes of a layman can recall.
The lie is, once again, if a fee (as shown in the video interview with Sullivan) really come out a DVD that will support this new theory. As we know for years, the plots are good at financial support for unscrupulous people to tarnish the memory of almost 3000 victims with lies hired.
0 comments:
Post a Comment