Alleged WTC Power Down on Sept. 8-9

[RedSock]

On April 21, 2004, "k-robjoe" posted something regarding Scott Forbes, an employee with Fiduciary Trust. Forbes was quoted as writing:

On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ... without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors ...

I have also heard Forbes say basically the same thing in a radio interview.

Does "no electrical supply" mean every one of the top 50 (or so) floors in the South Tower was dark? Does that mean the workers had only the available light coming through windows -- and flashlights, etc. (battery-operated generators?)? This would be odd, since many rooms in the WTC (and especially rooms with cables have no windows.) (I worked on the 59th floor of the North Tower for 3 years.) How did these workers work with no electricity?

No electricty = no elevators. If they worked in the tower for two days (?), did they walk down the stairs (perhaps as many as 100 floors) when they went home at night? And then did they walk UP all those floors to work the next day? Or did they sleep in the building to avoid that?

If the power down happened and if it lasted 36 hours, are there any pictures of downtown Manhattan showing the half-dark South Tower? Forbes said the shutdown was unprecedented -- seems like it would be newsworthy. I know the Empire State Building was sometimes completely dark (often after 2am or so), but I can't recall if the WTC was ever 100% dark.

I did a search for all Times stories with "world trade center" in them from July 1, 2001 to September 11, 2001 and found nothing.

[earth mom]

1. Wow-36 hours?! Plenty of time to set up for a controlled demolition...

:wow:

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. It is if you don't have to empty the contents of the building

and then strip it down of all the recyclables.

[earth mom]

3. Exactly! And why aren't there more posts on this thread?!

This is incredible information!

:wtf:

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. It's Saturday evening in the Dungeon?

Things move slower down here.

[RedSock]

5. i didn't think this was news

I didn't think this was news, but I have to remember that there are always new people getting involved in finding out the truth.

I have no idea if this power down is legit. I have questions about how it worked, though, if it did happen.

Forbes said in a radio interview they received three weeks notice of the upcoming shutdown -- about August 21, 2001. I would think the cutting off of electricity to half of one of the tallest buildings in the world would be news. (I would also think that "upgrading cables" would be done gradually over time, months and months and months, as the building and its occupants functioned as usual.)

It would be great if someone could look at microfilmed copies of the Post, Daily News, and Times (even though nothing showed up in a ProQuest search for me) to see if this was mentioned in the weeks before.

When I imagine the towers at night -- and if one of them was lit only half way up (if that is what happened) -- I can't help but think that this eye-catching photo would have been in the papers.

[RedSock]

6. Islamic Man Worked On WTC Sprinklers on 9/5/01?

I also wanted to post this, from Paul Thompson's Timeline:

February 10, 2002: Driver's License Examiner Dies in Suspicious Circumstances

Katherine Smith is killed one day before her scheduled appearance in court on charges she helped five Islamic men get illegal drivers licenses. According to witnesses, she veered into a utility pole when a fire erupted in her car. She was burned beyond recognition. The FBI later determines that gasoline was poured on her clothing before she died in the fire and find that arson was the cause of death. (Associated Press, 2/15/2002) A suicide note was found, but prosecutors say they are looking for murder suspects. One of the five men, Sakhera Hammad, was found with a pass in his wallet giving access to the restricted areas of the WTC, dated September 5, 2001. Hammad claims he was a plumber and worked on the WTC's sprinkler system that day, but the company with exclusive rights to all WTC plumbing work has never heard of him. Smith was being investigated by the FBI; the five later plead guilty to charges of fraud. (Associated Press, 2/13/2002; Reuters, 2/15/2002; Go Memphis, 2/12/2002; Commercial Appeal (Memphis), 2/21/2002) One of the five, Khaled Odtllah, drove from New York City to Memphis on 9/11. Tennessee is one of only four US states that doesn't require a Social Security card to get a driver's license. A prosecutor accuses each of the five men of attempting to acquire a "completely false and untraceable identity." (Associated Press, 2/15/2002; Associated Press, 2/12/2002) One month later, the coroner who examines her body is targeted by a bomb, which is defused. Then in June the coroner is attacked, bound with barbed wire, and left with a bomb tied to his body, but he survives. (Commercial Appeal (Memphis), 3/14/2002)

Plenty of weirdness in that paragarph, but I wanted to point out the bolded part.

[mrgerbik]

77. very odd - fishy..... n/t

[earth mom]

9. I'm not new to LIHOP/MIHOP, but had not read this before..

so perhaps it's common knowlege, but I'm busy enough trying to keep up with what's happening right now, that it might have been reported before and I hadn't see it.

Interesting too, that you could not find any reports or any photos...looks like they covered their bases.... :tinfoilhat:

[JackRiddler]

7. that is so willfully dumb

Quite aside from the debate over demolition yes or no, this is just about the stupidest possible argument. Why should anyone who was going to blow up a building full of people, not in a "controlled demolition" but in an act of terror employing bombs, presumably using far many more explosives than necessary in a CD, give a shit about following the rules of CD? Since when do you have to empty the contents of a building in order to blow it up, if you don't really care that you're killing a few thousand people in the process? Is this also standard procedure for carpet bombing enemy cities?

Like the other side, you are best served by sticking to relevant and strong arguments.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. When you post a response

by starting off with insulting a person's intelligence, I have to assume that you don't have the facts on your side and you need to resort to other tactics.

[JackRiddler]

10. That is an even dumber answer...

I didn't call you stupid, I called what you said stupid. Which it is.

When your answer is to resort to some sixth-grade rule of thumb about etiquette, you definitely have nothing to say. Teach.

So. Why would anyone intending to blow up a building full of people (presumably using more explosives than strictly necessary) care about stripping it - recycling the materials?! - or any other procedure involved in a standard controlled demolition, which no one claims was the case with the WTC towers?

[JackRiddler]

13. OOPS. I must apologize.

I'm the stupid one. I completely misunderstood what you had posted - as though you were one of those who argues against the idea of explosives because they didn't strip the building. What you said was the opposite, and I flew off because I can't stand that argument (the one you were mocking, but that I thought you were making).

Mea culpa and please excuse the nastiness, too.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. I was wondering where you were coming from?

Apology accepted.

[earth mom]

11. WTF? I didn't see anything wrong in her reply to me!

She was just pointing out that it could have easily been done since they didn't need as much time to pull it off like most controlled demolitions would require!

Geez, what was the purpose of your post?!

[JackRiddler]

16. as I said...

I misunderstood. You're right, I'm sorry.

[earth mom]

26. It's all good!

:hi:

[rman]

78. Much of the tower's office space was unoccupied,

and in the weeks before 9/11 tenents were moved around to facilitate heavy construction work. All this started after Silverstein became the new leaser of the WTC complex 6 weeks before 9/11.

see 9/11 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+Mysteries

[OldSiouxWarrior]

15. Nowhere near enough time.

To set up for a controlled demo, the walls and insulation have to knocked out so the charges can be set next to the beams. Then your conspiritors will have to put everything back exactly the way it was so that people won't notice anything.

On a building that size, it would take months to properly prep for a controlled demo, and that is without having to hide the work.

[quickesst]

20. The nextt time...

you're in a high rise, or any building more than one story, jump up on a desk, remove a cieling tile, then report back. Columns are wrapped with sheetrock, but unless designated a fire-wall, will not be wrapped above cieling height, leaving the top of the column exposed at the jucture of the floor above. You can read and speculate all you want, but if you have no practical experience with commercial construction, you can't make a difinitive statement on ease of access. If I needed access to a column that is fire-wrapped, or behind a wall, it would take me about 15 minutes to expose the column with any size opening needed. It would take me about an hour to patch the hole, and refinish it. When I work on a building that is not powered up yet, tapping into an outside source is standard for temporary power and lighting. On occasion, generators are used. Much of the WTC was unoccupied, and it's my belief, based on experience in the commercial construction field, that with proper ID and work orders, the CD rigging could have been accomplished without any evacuation. The power-down was a plus. Thanks.
quickesst

[wildbilln864]

25. Absolutely quickesst...

I've toped out and firetaped quite a few firewalls myself! Steel columns are exposed in hidden places easily accessible through acoustic ceilings. And if you have a team of twenty or more working a shutdown(24/7)? Just fifty floors? You wouldn't need to do every floor either! JMO of course!

[Grateful for Hope]

22. It there were a demolition

it need not have been a "controlled demolition", and, in fact, I doubt it would have been.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. Right on Hope. I call it it a "planned demolition." The idea is to bring

down the building all at once, not to bring it down in it's footprint.

[Grateful for Hope]

53. Exactly! n/t

[mhatrw]

74. But, according to YOUR theory, it took the collapse of exactly one

floor due to fire to start the "chain reaction" that brought the whole building down.

So it would take months for a unknown number of people to set the explosives to blow out a single floor?

[Ezlivin]

80. Precisely!

The OCTers would have us believe that fires on a few floors near the top of the building that burned for approximately one hour caused the entire building to fail.

And then they claim that it would take an extraordinary amount of time and effort to rig the building to do just what it did.

If you believe the first argument, then you can say that the demo team only had to put explosives on a few floors to do the job; there was no need to be "thorough". Just knock out a few of those faulty floor trusses on a couple of floors and presto! you have your instant pancake collapse.

[canetoad]

12. More on Scott Forbes

Scott Forbes also says in his email to Kaminski,

"I have mailed this information to many people and bodies, including the 9/11
Commission but no-one seems to be taking and registering these facts. Whats
to hide? Can you help publicise them?

Please feel free to mail me."



A number of sites cast doubt on the very existence of Scott Forbes, 911 Review being one of them. I know we have all read the interview on GeorgeWashington Blog and other sites that must remain nameless here, but this is the first time I have seen a pic of Scott or heard his voice. He certainly seems real enough.

http://www.alciada.net/dload.php?action=file&id=339

Download broadcast 10.9 mb.


Now this would be the easiest thing in the world to check. If the Port Authority contracted workers to upgrade cabling in the towers, there is somewhere in existence a work order and an invoice for services. Why are these questions not being asked and these documents produced?

[Jazz2006]

17. Can you give me the Cliffs Notes version and pass on his

telephone number via PM?

I'm using Firefox and can't download the video without switching to IE, apparently.

But I'd just as soon talk to him on the telephone and cut to the chase.

Failing that, please send me his email address (which I assume you have since your post quotes him as saying "please feel free to mail me" in the context of email correspondence, and I'll ask him for his phone number myself.

Thanks.

[canetoad]

19. You are just being silly

But I will patiently explain: within the quotation marks was pasted a section of Scott Forbes' email to John Kaminski, in which he invites Kaminski to email him.

It is not a video but an mp3 and I suggest you check your computer options, as Firefox downloaded it efficiently for me. You are more than welcome to pm me your email address and I will send the file.

And, if you require Scott Forbes contact details, get off your arse and find them for yourself. Time to put the cork back in the bottle.

[Jazz2006]

21. No, not at all.

Maybe you don't know what the "cliffs notes" version means? We call it the "coles notes version" here but I was using the U.S. vernacular thinking that maybe you'd be more familiar with that. Sorry but I don't know the Aus version of the phrase.

The point is that I was asking you for a summary of the salient facts. I guess you don't want to provide that.

The second point is that I don't want to switch to IE for no reason, and I don't want to download a 10 meg file for the sole purpose of getting the guy's contact information if you already have that information available to pass along. ***** edit Okay, I now see that you do NOT have his contact info and that this video will not provide it either. Even more reason for me not to switch browsers and download it. If and when you obtain any contact information for this person, please PM me and then I'll look at the video. ***** end edit


Based on my prior research, I have no reason to believe this guy even exists except in the minds of CTers.

If you have no contact info for him and if the 10 meg file doesn't provide any contact info, there is no point in me wasting my time listening to it since, as I said, I have no reason to believe that the guy even exists except in the minds of tinhatters. It appears that he is the figment of a conspiracy theorist's imagination and nothing more.

If you have anything at all in the way of contact information to support the proposition that this guy exists, please provide it. If not, just say so. But don't ask me to switch browsers, download a pile of crap and listen to it for an hour if it does not include any contact information via which any of the data provided therein can be questioned, let alone verified from the source.

[canetoad]

23. Fine by me

If you say he does not exist, so be it.

[Jazz2006]

41. I asked you for a summary of your post, you chose not to provide it.

I asked if you have any contact information for the guy, and you didn't provide that either.

It's not a matter of me saying he doesn't exist. I don't know if he does or does not. But why you would refuse to provide a summary of the 10 meg link you posted that I cannot access, and why you would refuse to provide any contact information on the guy is beyond me.

[seatnineb]

24. You are desperate and wrong.

In the Words of William Rodriguez(speaking to Alex Jones) with regards to the WTC:

"Well in fact the whole complex was shut down several days before (9/11)"



So what are you gonna do now Jazz?

Say that Rodriguez does not exist!

I'll take Rodriguez over you anytime............

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Rodriguez risked his own life to save other people, didn't he?

Wasn't he the last person to exit the tower before it fell?

That's pretty good indications that he's a pretty good person, if you ask me.

I'm sure he's not perfect, but a caring person, none the less.

I'm sure a lot of other civilians also tried to help others too. And a lot probably just tried to get the hell out as fast as they could. I can't say I blame them either.

But my bet is this guy Rodriguez is one of the good guys.

[mirandapriestly]

37. I find him to be very credible because he

does not jump to any conclusions, he just reports what he saw and heard and wants answers (which he doesn't get ).

[Jazz2006]

39. What are you talking about, seat9b? I'm neither desperate nor wrong.

I never said that William Rodriguez doesn't exist.

We were talking about Scott Forbes, in case you hadn't noticed.

But if you mean to say that Rodriguez is right about saying that "whole complex was shut down several days before 9/11", yeah, I doubt that too.

Tens of thousands of people worked there. I think they'd have noticed, don't you?

Sheesh.

[seatnineb]

42. Oh yes you are...........

Now whilst you may be right to aurgue that a powerdown has nothin' to do with a controlled demolition.......but that does not mean that there was no powerdown.....

I'll let William Rodriguez elaborate:

In the words of William Rodriguez(to Alex Jones):

"They were having electrical shut down in the building prior to 9/11 ...supposedly to test there machinery on the basement...again we are talking about the generators....These I got it..from the actual mechanical people"

Get used to it Jazz....there was a powerdown.

There ain't shit you can do to refute it.

[Jazz2006]

43. So you're backing off your prior post that said

that "well in fact the whole complex was shut down several days before (9/11)" I see.

And you think I'm the one who is "desperate and wrong" here?
:rofl:

Here's a hint: A powerdown doesn't equate to days of shutdown in the buildings, by the way. You should probably look into what it actually means and what effect it actually has. It's obvious that you have not done so to date, and you've had almost five years to do so.

edit to change "the" to "that" in the first word of my post.

[seatnineb]

44. Wrong.

Jazz.....you are out of your depth......

Why not marry those straws instead of clutching at them!

In the words of William Rodriguez(to Alex Jones):

Rodriguez:
"They were having electrical shut down in the building prior to 9/11 ...supposedly to test there machinery on the basement...again we are talking about the generators....These I got it..from the actual mechanical people...so it is true"

Jones:
"So they shut down some of the floors too?"

Rodriguez:
Yes...well in fact the whole complex was shut down several days before 9/11"

Next.

[Jazz2006]

45. Hardly.

You're out of your element. You know, the element known as reality.

If you honestly believe that the complex was shut down for days, you're hallucinating.

If you honestly believe that the words of Rodriguez and Jones are some kind of proof of anything, you're delusional.

I feel sorry for you, pal.

Ask some of the 50,000 people who worked there whether the site was shut down for days. Take a peek at reality along the way. Look at the business section of a reputatable newspaper during that time. YOu should not have to even do that if you were paying attention in real life at the time. So, go ahead, what do the rest of the 50,000 people working there say about it? They were all off work due to the complex being totally shut down, according to Rodriguez, and none of them noticed that they were off work?

Surrrrrrrre. Got it.


*sigh*

[seatnineb]

46. You gotta prove that Rodriguez is lyin'.......which you can't.

Otherwise you would have provenit by now.

So find me testimony of anyone who worked or visited the WTC prior to 9/11 who says that there was not a shut down/powerdown.....

Do not expect to here from you in a long time.........

[Jazz2006]

47. It's obvious. And you're the one putting forward unfounded assertions

so it's up to you to prove them.

You haven't and you can't, because it's bullshit.

Pretty simple, really.

50,000 people have never said a word about the entire complex being shut down for days.

And you believe the one guy out of the 50,000 who says it was even though there is zero evidence of it?


It would have been big news if the WTC complex was shut down for days, you realize, don't you?

By the way, have you forgotten that this was about Scott Forbes and not Willie Rodriguez?
Why do you keep avoiding the actual point?

[seatnineb]

48. That is nothing more than your supposition:

In the words of Jazz:

50,000 people have never said a word about the entire complex being shut down for days.

Is that the best you got?

Try harder.

[Jazz2006]

49. Ahem

You're the one who intruded upon the thread about Scott Forbes, trying to derail it with discussion about William Rodriguez. Why is that?

And yeah, go and look it up, approximately 50,000 people worked in the towers. Not a single one of them has ever said that the power was out for days. It would have been big news had it actually happened. Just look at the news from Sept. 10, Sept. 9, Sept. 8, Sept. 7, Sept. 6, for instance.

It is simply untrue that the complex was shut down for days.

It exists only in Willie Rodriguez' law suit. Gee, go figure.

You're the one who made the allegation, so it's up to you to provide proof of it. Gee, you haven't done that either. Big surprise.


Now, back to the topic at hand... about Scott Forbes, what do you have to say about that?

[seatnineb]

50. Rubbish.

There is a difference between 50000 people never having mentioned that there was a powerdown.........and 50000 people saying that there was no powerdown.

Find me just one individual whose identity can be verified and who worked /visited the WTC before 9/11 ...who explicitly says that there was no powerdown/shutdown.........and I will believe you.

BTW....

Scott Forbes alledges that there was a power down.......

You insinuated that Scott Forbes does not even exist.Something that an anonymouse internet poster like you cannot even prove........

Of course ....I am also an anonymouse internet poster..... but I introduced testimony in the form of William Rodriguez who most certainly does exist.......testimony which consolidates Scott Forbes assertion that the WTC was shut down before 9/11.

Just give it up Jazz.....you are wrong.

[Jazz2006]

51. You finally got something right. All that you've posted so far is rubbish

You allege a power down that lasted for days. It's up to you to provide evidence of your allegation, and you have not.

50,000 people who actually worked there make no mention of it.

Have you tried to contact even, say, a dozen out of those 50,000 to back up your unsubstantiated claim? Apparently not.

Have you tried to contact even, say, a single one of the 50,000 people working there to ask them about this alleged powerdown that you claim as fact?

Apparently not.

Have you researched the point to find out?

Apparently not.

Do you not think that such a major event would have been news?

Apparently not.

Do you not think that such a major event would have been news after September 11?

Apparently not.

Have you lifted a finger to try to find any evidence in support of your allegations?

Apparently not.


So don't blame me if you have no concept whatsoever about facts, proof and evidence. If you want to pretend to be a truthiness seeker, get off your butt and do some actual research instead of just posting stupid unsubstantiated links on anonymous internet forums and spouting off nonsensical crap when you can't substantiate your posts.

Edit to add: why are you still trying so hard to derail the conversation from the actual subject that it was intended to address?

Do you have contact information for "Scott Forbes"? If so, please provide it and I'll be happy to call him myself and report back here. You don't have to post it publicly, of course, you can PM me if you actually have any information about him. I won't hold my breath.

[seatnineb]

52. As a matter of fact I have not contacted anyone who worked in the WTC

But even if I had and I had told you that they mentioned that there was a powerdown....you would rightly not believe me.....I am an anonymouse internet poster afterall!.......just like you.

But William Rodriguez and Scott Forbes are not anonymouse.

As I said..... find me one ....just one other worker who explicitly says that there was no powerdown at the WTC and I will believe you.

But you can't.

If Rodriguez and Forbes are lying.....prove it.

[Jazz2006]

54. That is obvious.

It is obvious that you have not contacted anyone, that you have no evidence to support your assertions, and that you continue to post crap without any substantiating evidence whatsoever. That has been obvious for a long time.

You still haven't responded meaningfully to the posts above, and you are now pretending that it is up to me to refute your unsubstantiated assertions. That's not how it works. You made assertions and it's up to you to substantiate them. You haven't.

Instead, you've tried to make this be about something other than it was. Gee, big surprise, that.

As I said from the outset, produce some proof that Scott Forbes exists and that he worked at the World Trade Center. Heck, you don't even have to do that. Just send me his contact information and I will do the groundwork that you are obviously unwilling or incapable of doing yourself, and I'll post the results here.

Rodriques isn't the issue, as much as you keep wanting to make him so, and in any event, nothing he says is usable as evidence of anything since he's changed his story so many times and since he's in the midst of a lawsuit that reads like a comic book. But again, he isn't the issue.

Just send me the info you have on Scott Forbes and I'll be happy to do the leg work that you haven't done.

[seatnineb]

55. Wrong.

Scott Forbes and William Rodriguez assert that there was a shut down/ powerdown prior to 9/11.

Both have given radio interviews(allbeit in alternative media)that accentuate this.

You say that 50,000 people would have mentioned this powerdown had it existed.....well 2 of them already have!...William Rodriguez and Scott Forbes.

The 48,998 have so far neither confimed or denied that there was a powerdown/shutdown.

So I am still waiting for the 48,997th WTC worker to come forward and deny that there was no powerdown.

You say that a powerdown would have been a newsworthy event both before and after 9/11.......but that is not a fact...just your supposition.....a supposition I also would be inclined to agree with....but still a supposition.

I do not have Scott Forbes email address.

So stop askin' useless questions.

[Jazz2006]

66. Yes, you ARE wrong.

About just about everything that you have ever posted here, frankly.

But that wasn't the point.

The point is that you interjected with something that was unrelated to the discussion, for no apparent reason, and pretended that you had knowledge of it. But when asked for details and contact information, you couldn't come up with any.

Gee, big surprise.

You were trying to derail the conversation and you are still trying to do so. So, I'll repeat, with some minor modification, as follows:

It is obvious that you have not contacted anyone, that you have no evidence to support your assertions, and that you continue to post crap without any substantiating evidence whatsoever.

You still haven't responded meaningfully to the posts above, and you are now pretending that it is up to me to refute your unsubstantiated assertions. That's not how it works. You made assertions and it's up to you to substantiate them. You haven't.

Instead, you've tried to make this be about something other than it was. As I said from the outset, produce some proof that Scott Forbes exists and that he worked at the World Trade Center. Heck, you don't even have to do that. Just send me his contact information and I will do the groundwork that you are obviously unwilling or incapable of doing yourself, and I'll post the results here.

Rodriques isn't the issue, as much as you keep wanting to make him so, and in any event, nothing he says is usable as evidence of anything since he's changed his story so many times and since he's in the midst of a lawsuit that reads like a comic book. But again, he isn't the issue.

Just send me the info you have on Scott Forbes and I'll be happy to do the leg work that you haven't done.

You can't, you say?

Oh, gee, then why on earth did you interject and pretend that you could when you had absolutely nothing of substance to add to the discussion at hand?

You want to interject William Rodriguez in his place? He's no more credible than you are, having given numerous versions of his story which changed markedly once he got into the tinhat realm and a multi million dollar lawsuit, of course, as noted upthread.

So stick to the subject matter for a minute, if you can, which is Scott Forbes. Send the evidence along and let's evaluate it objectively.

Surely, since CTers rely upon his unsubstantiated words so often and so repeatedly in furtherance of one or another of the conspiracy theoriest put forward, you must be able to offer some means of contacting the guy so that his words, and his very existence, can be tested, no? If not, that seems a pretty lame basis for the assertion repeated over and over again among CTers that Scott Forbes said "x, y, z".

Pretty simple, really. Sheesh.

Edit: thought I had to move the post but it was really just the right hand side of the screen scroll that doesn't look like it's scrolling.

[seatnineb]

70. No.You are wrong.

Your slandering of William Rodriguez is useless.

In the words of William Rodriguez(to Killtown):

"It was customary couple of times a year to have power down in both buildings to test the power levels, the pumps and the generators. Sadly the person in charge of that was Mechanical Supervisor Mr. Delleo. He died that day."
http://www.911blogger.com/v2/node/2011

Also this thread is about the powerdown.

Scott Forbes is one source for that information.....the other is William Rodriguez.Hence my use of his testimony....testimony that is too hot for you to handle.

You wanna contest William Rodriguez about his testimony.....

Go here where you can actually challenge Rodriguez ....if you got the courage.....something I doubt you do have.:

http://www.911blogger.com/v2/node/2011

As I said ...I'll take William Rodriguez over you....any fuckin' time!

[mirandapriestly]

18. yo canetoad, yeah, I saw 911 Review doubt his

existence and I've seen people doubt the importance of a power down because they say it doesn't make sense that there would be a "power down" -no power - when they wanted to set up a demolition. But it could have something to do with making sure the security cameras are off to plant "bombs" or something else.
I was going to post an interview on Break for News, then saw it was the same as yours..I'll keep looking, seems like I saw more on this...

[canetoad]

32. I hope there is more around

I could only find items referring to GW blog and Killtown (apart from this radio interview). You may be right about the cameras.

You know, I've always had a nagging feeling about the service floors - 44 & 76 were they? If you count the basement, that divides each tower into 3 convenient portions right up to the approximate level of the crashed planes. I've never thought for a moment that crews moved in and methodically rigged the buildings in the manner of a controlled demolition. Now a small thermobaric weapon on each service floor? lol, if I was an evil genius that would work for me.

[mirandapriestly]

36. right. there's this ridiculous idea that professional

demolition crews would come in and wrap all the columns carefully and methodically doing everything like the cds you see on those videos, and the truth is they just had to stick the explosives or whatever in place and get out. The more powerful the substance, the less they would need. Not to mention the basement. That guy Louiseaux, from Controlled Demolition Inc., said if he was going to bring them down he would start in the basement. This is where Rodriguez & others heard many explosions and I bet there was pretty easy unlimited access to that.

[medienanalyse]

27. Fiduciary

There is much more interesting about that company.
Have a read:
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/fiduciary.html

Be aware that Kean was Fiduciary. Yes, Thomas Kean, head of the ommission.
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/kean.html

be aware of Tatlock (Fiduciary) meting Bush in Offutt that day.

And BTW: "power down" must not mean necessarily that the elevators did not work anymore. The power circles will normally be separated between lifeensuring and other ones. More important than cideo down was for sure the necessity to make a final all comprising saving round for all computers.

[mirandapriestly]

38. Oh interesting medienanalyse

tidbits:
(Just on that very morning of September 11th, the CIA simulated planecrashes into buildings : "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building." )


"9:59 a.m., a spurt of calls reached the 911 operators. One of these was from Shimmy Biegeleisen, who worked for Fiduciary Trust in the south tower on computer systems. He was on the 97th floor where, by chance, an emergency drill had been scheduled for that day."
Der Zufall will es, daß bei der Fiducia noch ein weiteres bekanntes Opfer, Mr. Breitweiser, arbeitete, aber auch zwei bekannte Nicht-Opfer. Frau Tatlock und Herr Kean. Frau Tatlock traf wahrscheinlich am 11.9. noch mit Bush in Offutt zusammen, wo derjenige per Zufall am 11.9. vorbeischaute, als dort gerade zufällig Warren Buffett weilte, der zweitreichste Mann der Welt .

let's see:

by coincidence another famous victim worked at Fiduciary, Mr Breitweiser (I didn't know that, hmmm)but also two well known non victims Ann Tatlock & Kean (Of Kean Ommission)
then something about Ms Tatlock was together with bush & buffett in Offutt.

[medienanalyse]

61. yes you got it. Jersey girls husband, Bush in Offutt, Kean of 9/11 commiss

It is a small world.

But I feel unable to translate fine research, do the research, fight bach the red herrings, show up with the real things all in the same time.

Yes fiduciary is a key company . Like Raytheon.

[wildbilln864]

29. good post!

I'd wondered when the'd have had the opportunity.

I heard about explosives detecting dogs being removed sometime before also. Not sure how true it is.

[gbwarming]

30. Re: "without power there were"..."no security locks on doors"

Does anyone know of a door lock type that requires power to stay locked? If so, is it likely that they wuld be installed widely in an office building? My own doorknob turning and cardkey waving experience makes me theink that there is usually a spring that holds the latch closed and a solenoid is energized to unlatch the door. Hotel doors sound like they have motors which I'd guess are battery powered to save on wiring or retrofit costs.

Is there a locksmith or alarm/security system expert in the house?

[RedSock]

31. when I worked in the north tower

Before we entered the elevators in the lobby, we held our electronic photo cards under a special light so security to see if they were authentic. At our floor, we swiped them through a little holder (like using a debit card) and the door unlocked.

This was in 1998. I think they started using the light thing approximately at the end of 1997 or beginning of 1998. When I first started working there (late 1995), you just walked on the elevator, but still needed a card to get out of the elevator area on your floor.

[Ferry Fey]

33. Were ID systems uniform there?

Were the ID systems uniform between the buildings, with everyone no matter what their job or station having to use the same kind of readable card?

Or where there differences of any sort?

[RedSock]

34. not sure, but i would guess yes

And I would assume that the Port Authority had central control over the whole thing.

But again, I do not know.

Also, some aspects of it could have changed from November 1998 (when I took another job) until 9/11.

[mirandapriestly]

40. I'll mention here - over ride system

in the book 102 minutes there is a part on the locked door to the roof. There was a maintenance worker who had a key or card to get on to the roof and he had some people with him. They were going to head up there to get hopefully rescued by helicopter. They were talking to security or police down below by cell phone I think and they could not get through the doors which lead to the door to the roof. He did not have keys for those doors, but there was a over ride system which could unlock them by computer. The operator had access to this. She tried but could not get the computer override system to unlock those doors. It was not working for some reason, and there was no explanation for this.
So there was a computer system that would lock/unlock some of the doors. This is interesting because of the reports of locked doors that day (not just to the roof). I also think it sounds like someone made the system that would override locked doors not work (my opinion).

[John Q. Citizen]

56. For some reason the cameras on the roof weren't operating on that day

either.

Although they generally had a live feed to local news stations.

Strange coincidence, that.

Makes one wonder if Osama somehow was able to get those turned off from his cave in Afghanistan....:-)

[gbwarming]

57. Could the fact that a plane slammed into each building

and the ensuing fires have something to do with the failure of both the cameras and the remote security access override? Both systems likely depend on building wiring and power that could have been damaged either by the impact or fire. Were the cameras operating before the impacts?

Are there any records of callers using land lines from the upper floors after the impacts? I think I've only heard about cell calls.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. The cameras weren't working before the impacts. If they were, there

would have been media footage of the approaching planes taken from the top of the towers.

But there wasn't, because for some reason, the cameras weren't functional on 9/11. I bet Osama turned them off.

Or maybe it was just another coinkydink? Both towers cameras just happened to malfuction on the same day.

Sort of reminds me of the computer gliches that awarded bush more votes than voters. Those were interesting because instead of awarding millions or billions of votes or some other non-sense number, in one case in Ohio he was awarded something like 5000+ votes that wasn't caught until election integrity activist discovered it. The glitch awarded more votes than voters in that case, but it didn't award 50 billion extra votes.

Just more coinkydink. Or Osama might have been behind that one also.

[The Straight Story]

65. Ummm, during the collapse

Wouldn't those things have been toasted?

I work around several very secure facilities, and we use a variety of methods to record things. But of the whole building collapsed I doubt anyone would be able to recover the tapes of it, or anything else that day.

Even if we feed offsite, the servers holding the data are usually on-site (ie, we record data on-site due to speed considerations and network congestion, but those tapes can be viewed off site by corporate security. If the onsites go down, they cannot see them).

[mirandapriestly]

69. I think the concern would be before the "collapse"....eom

[John Q. Citizen]

72. Live feeds to local news channels. They should have caught

at least the first plane incoming, even if it was from the second tower hit.

But there's nothing. The cameras, for some reason, weren't functional on 9/11 before the first or second hit on the towers.

[gbwarming]

73. Do they record the live feeds from every camera in nyc at the stations?

Do you know? Were the cameras pointed in a direction that would have caught the plane? Are they fixed at a wide angle or mostly used zoomed in to show some specific area?

It's a pretty big leap to say that if there is no video the cameras were not functioning.

[mirandapriestly]

68. Those crafty Al Qaeda's ops, they are almost superhuman!

[Old and In the Way]

59. Typically, door locks are tied in to security and fire alarm systems.

If the doors are controlled by magnetic locks, they are usually de-energized automatically when the FA system is activated to allow egress from the building.

[gbwarming]

60. Whoa. I've never seen that. Aren't push bars etc required by fire codes?

O&ITW, I've never seen a building that required action security system to allow emergency egress, and I think it's a very bad design which would be prohibited by fire codes. Can you describe where you've seen this sort of thing?

Edit: I do understand that the door latches and switches will be tied to the security and perhaps fire alarm system.

[Old and In the Way]

62. Perhaps I'm oversimplifing...I'm not code expert.

I did work for many years at a FA manufacturer who also happened to make magnetic locks.

I know mag locks can be wired in to be de-energized in a time of fire alarms. Probably can be opened from the inside (and triggering a security alarm), but the locks are typically to keep people out.

Having the doors at the WTC hard locked might be the case to keep people off the roof? Actually, the WTC might be a case where no egress is allowed unless there's a FA condition? I can't think that there would be a concern with people trying to get in, but there'd be a lot of concern about unauthorized people getting access to the roof?

[gbwarming]

63. Ok, I see that electric strikes can be either fail safe or fail secure

and magnetic locks would always be fail safe (unlocked with power failure) and would require an approved egress device (like a button) to interrupt power in an emergency. I've only encountered fail secure types with crash bars or handles in office buildings (which would remain locked if power was removed). Regarding the roof I agree that they usually remain locked to prevent unauthorized access.

Given Redsock's description of the elevator based system in the wtc I supppose this subthread is moot, but I'm still suprised to learn that an entire office building could be left totally unlocked if a power outage lasted longer than the backup battery, or the wiring failed. I'm not going to try that on my house anytime soon.

[Jazz2006]

67. Source? Links?

Please and thank you.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

64. ...

[Generator]

71. Scott Forbes interview

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html


Here's another interview:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html

GW: Finally, you've stated that you gave your information to the 9/11 Commission, but it took no interest. How did you get the info to the Commission (phone, email, letter?)

SF: I contacted the commission through their website and by mail. But I was never acknowledged nor contacted.

GW: Did the Commission ever follow up with you?

SF: No

GW: Anything else you wish to tell us?

SF: I have another piece of interesting information ... after 9/11 my company, along with others, was in disaster recovery mode at a location in New Jersey. At that site were literally hundreds and hundreds of eye witnesses to the events of 9/11. As a British National I was contacted by Scotland Yard in London to interview me on the events ... but I've often wondered why us authorities, like the New York police or FBI, did not interview all those witnesses available altogether in New Jersey. It seems like incompetence to me at best ... negligence at worst.

[nomatrix]

75. Red Sock and Jazz2006 Scott Forbes is a DU member

See Lithos: Sept 11 Moderator thread: at the top Post #7 is mine. Here is my question, because Scott Forbes did post here to verify he existed.
"Scott Forbes thread?
After 1 year, a person posting as Scott Forbes said he does exist and does work for the company stated and knew of a power-down. I thought it was insulting that so many people claimed the email and the author were a fraud.
I simply contacted those who worked security in WTC and they stated it happened about 3 times a year. The way some carried on.......

Why, are there so many arguments about what happened?

What is on the record continually presents evidence of the most unspeakable betrayal.

Threads like this, have a pattern. The thread creator will add to the nightmare scenerio. Three or four posters will follow up with what they consider "expert" logic. "I work in this field, etc."
This one, got demeaning, called a fraud.

The person who was called a fraud, posted with email verification, 1 year later.

The difference of that year got too confusing for some, and the thread got locked and, eventually, it will fade out.

There are many liberties given in this forum to the "experts". I believe they have a place. I do believe, when someone does come forward, to clear up their reputation the forum moderators should let that person have a fighting chance."

The constant updating of computers, phone lines, in a building built in the 60's requires new wiring and fibre optics. What is the
problem that you "experts" see? Just ask someone who actually worked maintanance or security there and was aware of what went on to keep the building functioning.
Haven't you ever worked for a company that said it's server would be down over the weekend for updating? In this case the building is the server getting updated.
Going back to the 1993 WTC garage explosives, the FBI said, at that time, had the explosives been detonated at the right location, it would have brought the building down. Not thousands of hours, or people, involved in the execution of it.
Just a conspiracy theory to destroy the WTC and kill thousands of people. Fortunately, it didn't go as planned. This is what a conspiracy theory is. People form a plan, and theorize how a plan should evolve.
When you make a claim that some fact is debunked, prove it.

[Norrin Radd]

76. Jazz2006 is no longer a DU member...I think. n/t

[RedSock]

79. misunderstand

I don't think you understand what I was initially posting about.

I don't doubt the existence of Mr. Forbes. I don't doubt that he worked in the WTC.

But I do have some simple questions about the powerdown that have not been answered in any of the many Forbes discussions. Please see the original post.

[rman]

81. "No electricty = no elevators"

Only in parts of the building where there was no power, so if they didn't sleep in the building, they wouldn't have to walk 100 floors of stairs.

I'd think that battery powered lighting would enable them to do whatever it is they were doing.

I think that only leaves the question about there being pictures showing the tower half dark.