Youtuber "TheSkepticalIdealist" recently commented on my video "Demolition Expert Debunks the Debunkers" and tried to misrepresent the expertise of Tom Sullivan.
I pointed out to him that Sullivan's position at CDI was not just a photographer, but also a Powder Carrier. However, this wasn't good enough for this "skeptical idealist."
He linked me to the nyc.gov "study material for the certificate of fitness examination for powder carrier." Apparently, he either missed this part of the document or didn't understand what he was reading:
______________________________________________________
Storage
All explosives must be stored in magazines specially made for that purpose. A magazine must be approved and have a permit to store explosives. Magazines must be under the direct supervision of a magazine keeper holding a Certificate of Fitness. Magazines must be kept locked when explosives or blasting caps are inside. Only the Blaster, Powder Carrier and Magazine Keeper may have keys to the Magazines and accept delivery of explosives at the work site.
______________________________________________________
So, Tom Sullivan was in charge of the exact aspect of handling explosives that this "idealist" said he wasn't in charge of.
It astounds me that several debunkers seem to have trouble with simple reading these days. First Joseph Nobles misunderstood what David Griscom said about the Active Thermitic Material paper. Then Pat Curley of ScrewLooseChange couldn't be bothered to read a post from 2008 before accusing someone of lying. Is reading getting too difficult for debunkers?
Now, am I implying that all debunkers can't read just because they're debunkers? Absolutely not. I would never make that sort of judgment of debunkers as a whole, because I am not a debunker, just a "rebunker." :)
