power down at WTC 2 for 36 hours on 9/8 - 9/9 . . .

[OneBlueSky]

received this in an e-mail newsletter called the Progressive Review . . . so there's no link . . .

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:

"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 36 hrs 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 brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...

"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."

[sir_captain]

1. i don't see how this proves anything

big buildings have stuff like this all the time. the hospital i work at has "power off" for testing every week, and sometimes for extended periods when work has to be done.

my point is, this is not even really good enough to be called circumstantial evidence for LIHOP/MIHOP without any sort of a tie to malfeasance.

[ParanoidPat]

2. If it even happened! LOL!

:eyes: No link? Right!

[sir_captain]

3. good point

not that i'd even necessarily believe it just from a "link"

it's interesting how internet links seem to be some sort of defacto "truth" to a lot of people on DU, as if somehow it must be true if it's on someone's webpage. but that's a whole different issue.

[frylock]

31. the same could be said about the news on tv..

or the newspapers. Have you been keeping up with the USA Today story? People are being fired for making up stories. FOX has admitted they feel no obligation to report the truth.

The best policy is to absorb as much info as possible from a variety of sources, and use your best judgement to filter out the BS.

[OneBlueSky]

21. you're being a little too paranoid, pat . . .

I got the newsletter, found this blurb interesting, and thought I'd pass it on . . . believe it, doubt it, ignore it, stuff it, do whatever you want with it . . . it's a free country . . . for awhile, anyhow . . .

[Must_B_Free]

5. 36 hours? No way

No business has power off for 36 hours.

Of course, this doesn't explain why it wasn't turned off in the other tower for 36 hours. If something devious was going on, you would think it would have had to happen the same to both buildings.

[rooboy]

7. I find it curious because...

although I am not convinced that 9/11 was a covert op, I am extremely suspicious about the 'demolition-like' collapse of WTC's 1 & 2, and the suspicously neat collapse of WTC 7.

Even though people propose theories like jet fuel burning the supports or govt agents putting in explosives, nobody seems to have ever floated the idea that perhaps Al Qaeda themselves may have been able to put explosives in the buildings. After all, bin Laden was supposed to have a keen knowledge of engineering...

I think people despise the demolition theory not because the idea of a demolition itself is ludicrous, but because they automatically associate the suggestion with the accusation that it was a 'government job'...

[sir_captain]

11. i distinctly remember

watching interviews with the architects/engineers who built the WTC who talked about how the buildings were designed in such a way that in the case of catastrophe, they would collapse on themselves rather than topple over, which would have been unimaginably worse. imagine those buildings falling over amid downtown NYC--so many more people would have died...

i'm going to have to root around for these interviews now...

[MadHound]

26. Yes, and those same architects/engineers also said

The the Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which is aprox the same size, wingspan and weight as the Boeing 757 amd 767 that hit the towers. In fact the lead engineer was quite suprised that the Towers fell, given that they were overengineered above and beyond the capacity to withstand the impact of a 707.

[outinforce]

28. I Believe

I believe that what the architects and structural engineers said about the two WTC towers is that they were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. But I also beleive that they went on to say that in making that assessment, they assumed that any plane of that size would be flying at a low speed 9probably 200 mph), and would be lost -- probably in fog -- at the end of its trip into New York City.

What they did not assume would ever happen would be a plane of that size flying at top speed (500 mph) with fuel tanks fully loaded for a coast-to-coast flight.

The towers did, in fact, withstand the impact. Both towers stood for over an hour.

What caused the towers to collapse was a failure if the steel withih the buildings. The steel failed because of the temperatures casued by the fire which resulted when jet fuel igntied inside the buildings.

[Beam Me Up]

50. "What caused the towers to collapse was..."

The steel failed because of the temperatures casued by the fire which resulted when jet fuel igntied inside the buildings.

I just can't believe that. If you've ever worked with metal, you know how much CONCENTRATED HEAT it takes to soften it. The temperatures necessary to cause stress related failure in STEEL would have to be close to that of an acetylene torch--and SUSTAINED at that temperature around SEVERAL points for quite some time to cause massive failure. Yet what we see in the video is that, after the initial fireball (which, at its height doesn't come close to the necessary temperatures) the fire began to brun itself out.

I just do not buy this "failure due to jet fuel fire" THEORY. It is a THEORY, that is all, where EXPLOSIVES explains the observed events without stretching credulity.

BY THE WAY, "explosives" do not necessarily imply government involvement. I've often wondered if the buildings weren't "pre wired" for SCUTTLING in case of an emergency.

[pnb]

30. The impact wasn't what caused the collapses though

It was the structure being weakened by the heat. I was actually speaking to an ME relative before the collapses occurred and he was real worried about that happening.

[MadHound]

38. I'll answer both you and outinforce,

Since you both are buying into the "fire hot enough to weaken steel" meme. First of all, don't buy into it. Jet fuel, even in ideal circumstances(well mixed with air, but not in a jet engine)will only reach somewhere between 600-700 degrees F. Structural steel starts weakening between 1000-1100 degrees F, depending on the exact makeup of the steel. It doesn't melt until aprox 1500 F.

A few other interesting matters I would wish to point out. I'm a former firefighter, and watching the towers burn, both on 911 and since then, one thing strikes me. Other than the fireball we saw ignited when the second plane struck the South tower(which burned up aprox. half that planes fuel in a spectacular but relatively harmless display), there was very little, if any other visible flames. There is smoke, lots of thick, black, roiling smoke. Now as a firefighter, that kind of smoke tells me a few things. Mainly it indicates that the fire is being smothered, it isn't getting much air, which means that it isn't burning as hot as it would if conditions are optimal. The sprinkler system is activated and working(firefighters and other witnesses on the scene confirm this), the fire itself is having a hard time taking hold, trying to burn fire retardent carpets, drapes, furniture. It is the same principle as when your car is burning to rich and emitting black smoke. In both cases the combustion process is lacking in oxygen, and is burning both cooler and more inefficently. You can observe this for yourself the next time you're camping. When you go douse your fire, throw the water on gradually. Note the thick smoke that comes up? It is because you are depriving the fire of oxygen and smothering it.

A few other details to note. In the tapes and transcripts of the communications between the firefighters in both towers and base, both squads of firemen are calling for only three hoses each. Three hoses! I don't care if they're three two inch hoses, when you are only calling for three of them, that means that the fire IS controlable. And by all accounts, it was. Both firemen in the towers and witnesses who made it out alive all said that while there was some damage, the fires weren't major and were fulling expecting for them to be brought under control. As a fireman, part of your job, part of your ability to survive is to make quick accurate assements of how bad a fire is. If these guys were saying that it was completely controlable, then I believe them. This is born out by surviving witnesses, who also mentioned(as did the firemen) that the sprinkly system was working perfectly, and that the fire retardent furniture, carpet and other items were making it difficult for the fire to catch hold.

None of this sounds like a fire that is raging out of control, weakening or melting steel. Instead, it sounds like a couple of towers that have withstood a tremendous blow, but will keep on standing. Emergency measures were fully funtional and operating well. The fire was being suppressed from the moment it started. And remember, on the South Tower, which collapsed first, half of the planes fuel load was dispersed in a showy, but harmless fireball. And yet they still want us to suspend our own good judgement and believe that the structural steel weakened and collapsed:eyes: Don't fall for that line. One other little matter, and that is how the towers came down, straight down. For the moment, let us suspend disbelieve and say that the steel did weaken and give. By all rules of physics that I know, the top of the towers should have fallen over towards the source of the heat melting the steel, not straight down. To get a better idea of this, do this little experiment. Get yourself a lighter and a candle, the long skinny taper kind. Set the candle in a holder, and lighting up the lighter, direct the flame towards one spot on the candle, about a third of the way down from the top of the candle. Let it melt and burn, and note, as the wax gets soft, which direction the candle falls. And move the lighter when it does fall, for it will be right in the direction of where you have been directing the flame. Same physics applies to steel and fire, and yet the towers went straight down. Hmmm.

All in all, I think that the whole "fire weakened and collapsed the Towers" line is a bunch of BS. I think that what we saw that day on TV was the Big Lie, going down, straight down. What we are looking at is a controlled demolition, not a fiery collapse.

[outinforce]

39. I Respect Your Viewpoints

I have never worked as a fi refighter, and I have a great deal of respect for anyone who has ever been in that line of work. FOlks like you display tremendous courage and self-sacrifice in doing the work that you do.

So I respect your views and your viewpoint which is informed by your experiences as a fromer firefighter.

Nevertheless, I also respect the views of folks who are Materials Engineers when it comes to something like why the WTC Towers collapsed.

How would you respond to what these Materials Engineers from MIT have to say:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

[MadHound]

42. I would say that I wish we had the materials from WTC still around

In order to prove this puppy one way or the other. The jist of his arguement is that it wasn't the steel melting(he acknowledges the impossibility of that), nor the derformation of the steel, rather he is blaming the connecting clips of the steel. An interesting theory, and I would like to either get a full work up on one of these clips(what is it made of, what kind of stresses it was designed to take, etc.) before I could say anymore. Off the top of my head, I would tend to be a little skeptical. MIT has always been, along with Yale, CIA turf. It is also the university that supposedly backed up the impossible physics of "magic bullet" of Warren Commission fame. Also I think the author does a weak job of explaining why the towers came straight down. Like I said, I would like to get a full work up of these clips before I could fully answer. But I do find it interesting that his theory backs up mine, at least up until the clip failure part.

[outinforce]

49. TLC or Discovery Had

an entire propgram on this very subject. They showed an engineer, I think, in the field in New Jersey where the steel and other materials from the WTC had been taken.

He showed on the salvaged steel beams, how the conclusions reached by these two engineers from MIT (although I don't think he was aware of this particular paper) were supported by things like the way in which the steel had been deformed, and the way the brackets were mis-shapened.

[RC]

65. LIke the collapes had nothing to do

with any bending of these clips, brackets, supports, etc.

[LynzM]

67. I saw that show

I did find it quite informative, but it's been a year or more since I saw it, and don't really remember enough to add anything constructive. What they said did make sense, though, although as an admittedly non-materials engineer, and non-firefighter...

[sir_captain]

52. this is all interesting stuff

i'd point out that just because the steel couldn't actually melt does not mean that it would not lengthen and become somewhat malleable. just the lengthening alone must have played havoc on the structural integrity of the building

[HFishbine]

57. Straight down vs. toppling over

I'm not informed enough to dispute your opinion, however what I saw explained was that it wasn't the vertical columns that gave way first, but the floor beams. These where held to the columns by the clips mentioned above and gave support to the columns. As the clips failed, the floors began to fall down, one upon another building momentum in a vertical direction. This is why, so they say, the building fell down instead of over.

[RC]

66. So why then did not the columns stay standing?

They should have been sticking up 30, 40 plus stories in the air. all of the supports were in sections, buried in the rubble.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

64. Amen Madhound (nt)

[the Kelly Gang]

15. same here..although Harry Seidler, who you will know of ,said

he inspected it when it was being built he didn't think it was designed very cleverley.
Harry Seidler is a well known Australian architect whose buildings sometimes cause a lot of angst but there all still standing !!

[frankly_fedup2]

61. I agree.

Those towers coming down like a perfect demolition project. To clean, to neat. To coincidental???

[parasim]

14. Why does it have to *prove* something immediately...

I mean, it's another one of those "Huh? That's odd..." things that seem to crop up an awful lot when it comes to 9/11 and what was going on around that time.

So it doesn't prove that there was a huge conspiracy... it still is something that perhaps should be investigated.

Unless... of course, it's a left-wing conspiracy to make the government look bad...

or, perhaps, it's a right-wing conspiracy to make it *look* like a left-wing conspiracy to make the government look bad... kind of a double-conspiracy theory...

Sure, maybe it is nothing, but there seems to be so many things that are weird about 9/11 and nobody seems to want investigate those weird anomalies. Certainly not the 9/11 commission...

When will there be answers to the myriad of questions surrounding the day of attacks themselves? Not what happened months before or what happened after, but on that very morning, the night before, the week before...

[leftofthedial]

29. who said this one item was "proof" of MIHOP/LIHOP?

One more interesting fact, if true.

[whistle]

4. I had read about this, but you are the first witness to come forward...

...that I've heard about explaining these events. Are there others from your office or building who sensed something may have been wrong with the weekend maintenance story? I know it must be painful to remember back, but this story really needs to come out now. Have you also read the theories about the WTC towers coming down not from the fire but front demolition explosives? Could those have been planted on that weekend?:freak:

[Must_B_Free]

6. but why only one building?

if it were the planting of the explosives, it would have to have been both buildings, right?

[sir_captain]

9. you

and your silly logic

[whistle]

12. Well, we don't know...

...the story needs to be brought out into the light and examined. The other Tower may have been down also, but at a different time. People who suspect something fishy or who know need to come forward. I say investigate now.

[notadmblnd]

37. It would be interesting

to know just when maintenence was performed on both buildings. I worked in the GM buildings a few years ago and when they did maintenence, it would usually be different secetion of the building on different weeks. However, the power was never off for more than an 8 hour period.

[sir_captain]

8. the poster wasn't there

he is quoting an internet newsletter that is claiming to be paraphrasing a person who was there...

this is akin to "i heard it from my neighbor's mechanic's girlfriend's bowling buddy"

i'm not saying it's not true--i'm just taking it with a grain of salt

[sangh0]

53. I don't think the letter writer even exists

I used to work at that company, in the IT dept, and I don't know of anyone named Scott Forbes.

[Bushfire]

40. could also relate to bomb sniffing dogs being pulled just before

the weekend. There were threats of bombs obviously I've read pre 9 - 11, so bomb sniffing dogs were brought in. Having them pulled just before the attack sounds like *'s brother would do having an ownership in the security company at the WTC towers.

[HFishbine]

58. Please note

The original poster is NOT a "witness" who has come forward. He is citing an e-mail from an unnamed witness.

[Old and In the Way]

10. What about WTC1?

I'd assume both would have to have had the same power downs at roughly the same time to make it a point of interest.

Strange that this wouldn't have surfaced before know, don't you think?

[whistle]

13. Not so strange if we are talking cover-up...

...too many unanswered questions

[ngGale]

17. I don't really need to get into this but I read something too...

A firefighter made it up to a certain floor and it seemed to be heavy equipment on an empty floor. He thought that the 'terrorist' had equipment inside the building, turned it in to the Feds, but never heard back. So, there could be something to this theory and it needs to come out. It was happening during the rescue attempt. He said he could hear heavy equipment moving around before the collapse of one of the buildings. There are lots of unanswered questions.

[Minstrel Boy]

16. Marvin Bush, Sakher Hammad, Katherine Smith, and WTC surveillance logs

Marvin Bush

Electronic security for the World Trade Center was provided by Stratesec, which is backed by an investment firm linked for years to the Bushes and the Kuwaiti royal family. Marvin Bush became a director of Stratesec in 1993, when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, which became the company's major investor.

Stratesec has contracts with the Department of Defense, and was also handling security for Dulles Airport and United Airlines at the time of the attacks.

Marvin left Stratesec in 2000, which was his first year on the board of Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. He left in November 2002.

Sakher Hammad

Early in 2002, five Middle Eastern men are convicted of fraudulently obtaining Tennessee drivers' licenses from a Memphis woman, Katherine Smith. At least one of the men is said to have driven from New York City to Memphis on September 11, 2001. Another of the five, Sakher Hammad, is found at his arrest to have in his possession a photo ID pass to the World Trade Center for September 5, 2001. He says he was there to do maintanance work on the underground level sprinklers.

The death of Katherine Smith

On the day before she was to testify in the case, Katherine Smith dies under very mysterious circumstances. Her car supposedly hits a tree and catches fire, but the FBI determine that gasoline was poured on her clothing before the car hit the tree, and the car had been traveling too slowly to cause much damage. The gas tank was unruptured, yet the fire was so intense it cooked the passenger compartment down to the frame, burned off her limbs and left her charred beyond recognition. Witnesses saw flames erupt from the back seat and engulf the interior before the impact.

And on June 1, 2002, OC Smith, the Memphis medical examiner who identified Katherine Smith's body and probed the mysterious death of Harvard University microbiologist Don Wiley (who supposedly fell from a Memphis bridge in December 2001), is attacked with chemical spray, bound with barbed wire, and left lying in a nearby parking lot with a bomb tied to his body. He is rescued several hours later. This follows the bombing of his office on March 13.

Surveillance tapes and maintanance logs missing

AP Story: World Trade Center surveillance tapes and maintanance logs missing
"Surveillance tapes and maintenance logs are among the missing evidence as investigators try to figure out why the World Trade Center collapsed, federal officials said Monday.

"Many documents destroyed in the disaster 'are pretty key in carrying out the work,' lead investigator Shyam Sunder said."
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/local/4702997.htm

Also see:

"Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United"
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
"9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush"
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html
AP story: "Is mysterious state death tied to terrorism?"
http://www.oakridger.com/stories/021802/stt_0218020021.html

[sir_captain]

32. Don Wiley

had nothing to do with 9/11. The poor man was depressed and killed himself. I was at his memorial service. It's disrespectful to the family to drag him into this like that...

[sallydallas124]

34. Um,

Actually his death was ruled an accident and his family insisted that he would have never committed suicide. So who's being disrespectful to his family now?

[sir_captain]

36. it was pretty apparent

what happened. his car was still running at the side of the bridge, and there was a fence which was too high to just fall over. most people are fairly convinced that it was suicide.

but whether it was suicide or an accident is not the point. the point is that his death had nothing to do with 9/11 and to drag him and his family into it like this is wrong, plain and simple. Let the man rest in peace for godssake.

[berry]

18. I tried to track down the article at prorev.com

and it seems to be from an article from Sept 12, 2001 in New York Newsday.

http://prorev.com/

Below is the link from prorev.com (Progressive Review) to the article in New York Newsday (but the link didn't work--I just got a blank page at Newsday). Maybe someone else can make it work. Obviously the date in the prorev blurb for the article is wrong. Anyway, I searched for articles by the authors (who really are staff writers), but the article search brought up nothing. So I searched the archives for the name "Daria Coard" and one article did come up for Sept 12, 2001. But you need to pay to see the article. I've copied the short teaser they did show and her name didn't come up, but it must be in the article. It does seem odd of Progressive Review to link to an article that most people can't (or won't) access--but it is labelled "Recovered History" so maybe it's something they do, a regular feature.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/ny-nyaler122362178sep12%2C0%2C6794009.story

This is the blurb in Progressive Review:
<<RECOVERED HISTORY
THE WEEKEND BEFORE SEP 11

CURTIS L. TAYLOR AND SEAN GARDINER, NEWSDAY, SEP 11 20001 - The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats.>>

This is the result of my search:
<<1.TERRORIST ATTACKS / Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner. STAFF WRITERS; Newsday; Sep 12, 2001; Combined editions; pg. W.43>>

This is the article--but I didn't buy it, so it's just a bit.
<<TERRORIST ATTACKS / Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted:
Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner. STAFF WRITERS. Newsday. (Combined editions). Long Island, N.Y.: Sep 12, 2001. pg. W.43

Section: NEWS
Text Word Count 266

Abstract (Article Summary)
Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center."When the fire started, the room was sealed," said Jones, who was in the command center when explosions rocked the building. "Flames were shooting off the walls....We started putting wet towels under the doors. The ...

Click to purchase complete document:
Buy Full Text>>

It does appear that there is interesting stuff in the article, and MAYBE it's the same article that you posted. Anyway, the 36-hour shutdown was not the only oddity.

A lot of posters on this thread seem to want to discount the information, but eyewitness accounts published on the day after 9-11 are probably the least likely to be bogus. People were is shock, and very likely to be blurting the truth. (IMO) And Newsday should be reliable. The writers mostly do straight reporting, of crimes and trials, etc in NYC. I think it's unlikely they would have an agenda.

Maybe there's something about this in Paul Thompson's 9-11 timeline? I may try to check it later...

[ConcernedCanuk]

20. A little info on that link at newsday

.
.
.

A little chasing, I came up with this:

"Articles from the daily newspaper remain online for two weeks. After that, articles can be found in Newsday's paid archives at http://library.newsday.com."

http://www.nynewsday.com/error/error.html

So if someone has a paid subscription, it may still be available

[ConcernedCanuk]

19. You might want to post an inquiry in the 9/11, Military Affairs, Forum

.
.
.

Nope, not tryna scare you away, besides, that PROGRESSIVE REVIEW has a wealth of information, and links, as well as an e-mail update service.

I didn't find the specific information refered to in this post, but the WTC page is worth a peek.

THey also have a page dedicated to headlines, and sections dedicated to Bush, Kerry, whatever your "poison of the day" may be.

just these 3 headlines should create some interest!

FEEL A DRAFT?

KERRY WITH THE YOUNG

FOLLOW THE BOUNCING BALL

http://prorev.com/heads.htm#site

[OKNancy]

22. Let's see....

1. Don't know if the e-mail is true
2. If every detail is true, the writer is just stating an opinion that something hinky is going on.
3. If someone is trying to say that demolition experts came in and placed explosives in tower 2 but not tower one....why?
4. Tower one and two went down in exactly the same manner. The builders and architects of the towers have all given ( to the detriment of their own reputations) statements about how fire in the inner part would cause a collapse. In order for a conspiracy to be involved you would have to have the builders, architects, the salvage crew, and all the workers at the salvage site keep silent about evidence of a controlled explosion.
Also, you would have to believe that workers, and maintenance crew at WT 2 looked the other way while an expert crew put in explosives ( which btw takes days on most demolition operations and makes a mess) and /or that no one saw evidence of their placement on Monday, and if they did, every single one of them said nothing
5. There was no explosion heard by anyone.

[sangh0]

54. #6 - There is no Scott Forbes in FTCo's IT dept

I believe this email is a fraud

[scottforbes]

73. Scott Forbes

I am Scott Forbes. I do work for Fiduciary Trust (now owned by Franklin Templeton) and I can confirm the power down on the weekend of 9/8-9/9 in 2001. [e-mail]

[nomatrix]

74. Welcome to DU

what finally brought you here?

[demodewd]

75. others?

Do you know of other people to back up your statement?

[Minstrel Boy]

23. kick for another puzzle piece n/t

[SpiralHawk]

24. kiCk on account of another kUriOus kOinKeeDink

kiCk for KaRefuL kOnsiDeRatioN

[sangh0]

56. IMO, the letter is a fraud

AFAIK, there is no Scott Forbes working in IT for FTCo

[ShaneGR]

25. Well, I say the power was down for two weeks!

Of course, since there are no logs available (All destroyed) you can't prove me wrong, or right.

[outinforce]

27. This PROVES IT!!!!

This is all the proof I need.

I mean -- you do see what is happening here, right?

"They" knew that in order for their nasty little plan to succeed, "they" would have to plant explosives.

But "they" also knew that there would be surveillance cameras that might catch them planting the explosives.

So what do "they" do?

They power down the buidings.

Sneaky bastards.

Oh, ye who do not yet beleive -- how little is your faith!

Take the leap of faith, brothers and sisters!

[Gin]

33. I for one...think it "IS" possible....we get into trouble by dissmissing

ideas as being preposterous. I have an open mind about all the so-called conspiracy theories... and there are people who think these things up for the government...and then implement them.

We don't know the half of what is going on.

Color me open minded! .. or.. gullible if that makes you feel better.

[Minstrel Boy]

35. Some high crimes succeed simply because

they are too ridiculous to be believed. Nothing should be dismissed out of hand, especially with a band of spooks and proven gangsters in high office.

[HFishbine]

59. "They power down the buidings."

Um, building -- supposedly.

[sangh0]

41. FRAUD ALERT!!

I used to work in IT for Fiduciary Trust and I know the people who worked there on 9/11. None of them live in Jersey City

[seemslikeadream]

46. did you see this e-mail address? I just posted

From: "Scott Forbes" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Official Verison of 9/11 - new info
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:35:12 +0000

To John Kaminski,

I was pleased to read your article "The Official Version of 9/11 is a Hoax"
... Please note some other facts. My name is Scott Forbes and I still work
for Fiduciary Trust. In 2001 we occupied floors 90 and 94-97 of the South
Tower and lost 87 employees plus many contractors.

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 ... Of course without power there were no
security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers'
coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the
shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold
I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
weekend work ...

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.

Scott Forbes

[sangh0]

48. Yes, I did

and I'm not impressed by a Hotmail and Comcast email account. It oculd be anyone

[seemslikeadream]

51. I realize that I just wanted you to see it

n/t

[sangh0]

55. thanks

nt

[seemslikeadream]

43. I found this and I'm going back to look for more

'Power Down' Condition at the WTC
on the Weekend Preceding 9/11

The following message was sent by Scott Forbes to John Kaminski on 2004-04-19, and was forwarded to about forty 9/11 researchers. It has since be sent out on various mailing lists.

If the 'power down' condition on the weekend of September 8th-9th, 2001, as described below, actually occurred then it should be known to many who worked at the World Trade Center at that time (if they were not among the 3000 or so who were killed), and it should be fairly easy to confirm that it actually took place. If it did then this information is highly relevant to an investigation of the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2. (Was there also a 'power down' condition that weekend in WTC1?)

If Scott Forbes' claim can be confirmed then it will be interesting to see if the Kean 9/11 Commission takes any notice of this information. Since the Commission's real purpose apparently is to support the official story put out by the Bush administration, and to conceal the identities of the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity, it's a good bet that it will ignore it. If it does then the question should be asked out loud: Why is the Kean Commission ignoring this information?



From: "Scott Forbes" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Official Verison of 9/11 - new info
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:35:12 +0000

To John Kaminski,

I was pleased to read your article "The Official Version of 9/11 is a Hoax"
... Please note some other facts. My name is Scott Forbes and I still work
for Fiduciary Trust. In 2001 we occupied floors 90 and 94-97 of the South
Tower and lost 87 employees plus many contractors.

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 ... Of course without power there were no
security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers'
coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the
shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold
I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
weekend work ...

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.

Scott Forbes

[sangh0]

44. I don't know of any Scott Forbes in IT at Fiduciary Trust

Is that who supposedly witnessed this power-out at 2 WTC?

[seemslikeadream]

45. Sounds like it

I just found it by googling.


From: "Scott Forbes" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Official Verison of 9/11 - new info
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:35:12 +0000

[sangh0]

47. Then I think this letter is a fraud

I don't think there's any Scott Forbes working at FTCo in IT.

[nitetalker]

63. WING TV is running with it, FWIW

Haven't seen this site before. Definitely not in the mainstream.

http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

Anyone heard of WING TV? World Independent News Group? Victor Thorn?
No, not WINGnut TV :)

[sangh0]

60. I'm convinced this letter is a fraud

I just realized how easy it is to bring FTCo's computers down for the power shutoff, and how easy it is to bring them back up. It takes about 10 minutes. It doesn't take a team of IT workers. From the letter:

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 brought back up afterwards.

Also, this sounds fishy

"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower.

The security locks on the doors are somehow hooked into the fire alarm system, since all of those doors unlock in the event of a fire. You don't want someone to die because the fire prevented an electronic lock from opening, locking someone in a burning building. You especially don't want to do this while working on the electrical system, work that is known to sometimes cause a fire.

[Robb]

62. I've gotten letters like this on other issues

...that are just too good to believe.

If anyone wants to prove this is real, a real quick phone call or email to the appropriate power company would do the trick, this is not private information. I'm not sure it's worth the time, though. :(

[paulthompson]

68. I don't know if this guy exists or not

However, if he does, here's a clue:

Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office,

http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

So maybe someone can try to track him down there.

[Dancing_Dave]

69. He sent me an e-mail...

So he probably exists :)

Unfortuneately, I didn't think to add him to my contact list...and if I saved all my 9/11 related e-mail, I'd have no space left on my hard drive.

You should be able to find a way to contact him HERE:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm

You've just got to check out the reliable web sources instead of the "mainstream" corporate lies and propaganda and you'll find such info soon enough!

[dinyc]

70. powerdown

Hi DUers,
This is my first post. Don’t mean to ruffle any feathers, but there are plenty of things wrong with this email. Even if this guy exists, the scenario he alleges is just too silly.

Why would you need to have a "powerdown" to upgrade "computer bandwidth" cabling? What do the two have to do with each other? And why just the top 50+ floors?
If everything is off, how are the contractors doing the work? Batteries and candles?
How are the freight elevators transporting materials/men to the upper floors if there is no power?
Why would this guy need to be in the building at all? His work would've finished when he shut down his machines. Logically this would have to happen prior to the powerdown.
Is it really believable that the Port Authority would allow him and other tenants to be roaming around a building that has no lights, elevators, security or air conditioning? (Think accident and lawsuit)

That's only 1 problem. There are many others.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Thanks, dinyc

...and welcome to the Democratic Underground.

[DulceDecorum]

76. There must be something wrong

the DU counter says you have 48 posts,
but you say that this is your first one.

[AZCat]

77. It doesn't keep track of individual posts

I was confused about that when I first started posting at DU, but that number only represents the total number of posts by that member, not which one it is.

If a new poster posts twice, both posts will have a '2' there - one won't have a '1' and the other a '2'.

[DulceDecorum]

78. WOW

so if that was the first post,
he must have made 48 - 1 = 47 posts since posting that.
Now that is what I call prolific!
I think I will have a look and see what other threads he posted on today.
Thanks for the tip AZCat.
Sometimes I am just too suspicious of
those who intimate that others are lying
when they themselves appear not to be telling the truth.
Oh well.
search function, here I come.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. Dulce

Do you know the difference between 04 and 05?

[vincent_vega_lives]

80. Gosh

Did you look at the date of the post? Like BB is saying It's not the number of that particular post, but total posts up to the current date.

[nomatrix]

72. For the record, I verified it with WTC

security & was told power was shut down three times a year.

It pays to verify it with someone who worked there. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to ask someone else. There are quite a few people who found events leading up to Sept. 11 strange. Is that too much to digest?

Here's an even stranger event that never gets mentioned. Why was Bush at a school and Laura, the teacher, at the WH?

[Lithos]

81. Locking

Thread has gone way off base...

Lithos
9-11 Forum Moderator