[Merged]Scott Forbes powerdown revisited

[Galileo]

Yes, I know, we promote the preposterous theory that Arabs are smart enough to figure out how to crash planes.

Oh, so the AAAA-rabs did it? Nice to bring racism into the picture.

[Galileo]

So how is it that you are aware that these >30 people have "come forward"?

In your quote above...what is the difference between "coming forward" and "going public"?

Let's see if you are smart enough to figure that out.

[A W Smith]

He is a survivor. Most of his co-workers were killed, but Scott survivied. Don't play word games with me.

There would be more than 30 witnesses, but most people above floor 95 were murdered on 9/11.

Only the JREFers ger upset when murdered people don't go public as witnesses.

Not a survivor, sorry. Scott Forbes is not on the list

http://www.elbnet.com/wtc/wtclist.html

You lose

[Galileo]

Scott was at home that day. So he didn't survive anything. Just because he worked there does not qualify him as a survivor. Remeber, on here, if you're going to make a claim, be prepared to back it up. So far, you, just like the rest of your claims, have provided nothing. Unsupported claims only make you look bad.

He did survive because his apartment faced the WTC and he worked there. I again ask you to stop playing word games. His friends at work were murdered. He got out of the building on Monday.

[lapman]

Oh, so the AAAA-rabs did it? Nice to bring racism into the picture.
Nice deflection. You are forgetting that they admitted to doing it.

[Galileo]

Not a survivor, sorry. Scott Forbes is not on the list

http://www.elbnet.com/wtc/wtclist.html

You lose

That list of survivors doesn't include all the people who worked in the WTC, but survived because they were away from the building at the time of the attacks.

Larry Silverstein is another such person because he had a sudden dermatology appointment.

You fail.

[lapman]

He did survive because his apartment faced the WTC and he worked there. I again ask you to stop playing word games. His friends at work were murdered. He got out of the building on Monday.
It's not a play on words. You are trying to elevate Scott to something he's not. So either come up with proof or drop it until your are "allowed" to present your evidence. Like I said, you are the one coming out looking like a fool.

[Galileo]

Nice deflection. You are forgetting that they admitted to doing it.

No, six alleged hijackers did interviews after 9/11 and said they didn't do it.

[lapman]

That list of survivors doesn't include all the people who worked in the WTC, but survived because they were away from the building at the time of the attacks.

Larry Silverstein is another such person because he had a sudden dermatology appointment.

You fail.
Wrong again. Nobody but you considers these people survivors.

[lapman]

No, six alleged hijackers did interviews after 9/11 and said they didn't do it.
That's a lie (http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html).

[A W Smith]

He did survive because his apartment faced the WTC and he worked there. I again ask you to stop playing word games. His friends at work were murdered. He got out of the building on Monday.



The attack was on Tuesday. Therefore he is not a survivor. By your logic Im a wtc survivor because I was in the buildings in the fall of 2000. And my ex father in law worked there as a port authority engineer but retired in the late seventies. So by extension. HE'S a survivor. Are you a moron?

[Galileo]

It's not a play on words. You are trying to elevate Scott to something he's not. So either come up with proof or drop it until your are "allowed" to present your evidence. Like I said, you are the one coming out looking like a fool.

You are still playing word games. Scott has come forward with valuable information that tends to show that 9/11 was an inside job. over 30 other witnesses of the same thing have come forward with the same information, but have not gone public because they fear attacks from scum.

There were powerdowns in the WTC in the few days before 9/11. At this time, nano-thermite was sprayed onto the core columns of the WTC, and more thermite was placed in the corner perimeter columns.

These explosives and incendiaries were then set off on 9/11 by purveyors of mass murder.

Most of the people on the upper floors who witnesses the powere downs were murdered. But not Scott Forbes and 30 other brvae witnesses.

[Galileo]

That's a lie (http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html).

You're right. Nine have done interviews, not just six.

[nicepants]

So how is it that you are aware that these >30 people have "come forward"?

In your quote above...what is the difference between "coming forward" and "going public"? Let's see if you are smart enough to figure that out.

I'm smart enough not to believe your un-supported claims. I assume that you're unable to support these claims because you're making them up. If you are being truthful you will have an answer to this question:

How do you know that these people have "come foward"?

[Galileo]

The attack was on Tuesday. Therefore he is not a survivor. By your logic Im a wtc survivor because I was in the buildings in the fall of 2000. And my ex father in law worked there as a port authority engineer but retired in the late seventies. So by extension. HE'S a survivor. Are you a moron?

By my logic, you are not a survivor.

[Galileo]

Wrong again. Nobody but you considers these people survivors.

That's a lie.

[lapman]

You're right. Nine have done interviews, not just six.
Still a lie. So this also proves that you have no problem lying. Therefore your "30 witness" claim should only be considered as just another one of your lies, unless you can present some sort of evidence to back it.

[Galileo]

I'm smart enough not to believe your un-supported claims. I assume that you're unable to support these claims because you're making them up. If you are being truthful you will have an answer to this question:

How do you know that these people have "come foward"?

Do you have some sort of fixation with invading other people's privacy? The witnesses do not want to hear about your wacky conspiracy theories. They had their friends murdered on 9/11, do you get it? Butt out.

[lapman]

That's a lie.
Care to back that statement?

[nicepants]

By my logic, you are not a survivor.

At the risk of getting OT: Please post your detailed logic that shows how you determine whether someone is or is not a 9/11 "survivor".

What we know so far:
- They can't have died in the 9/11 attacks
- They need not have been at the WTC on 9/11

What are the other qualifications?

[Galileo]

Still a lie. So this also proves that you have no problem lying. Therefore your "30 witness" claim should only be considered as just another one of your lies, unless you can present some sort of evidence to back it.

I testified to the fact on this forum. Testimony is evidence.

[defaultdotxbe]

Do you have some sort of fixation with invading other people's privacy? The witnesses do not want to hear about your wacky conspiracy theories. They had their friends murdered on 9/11, do you get it? Butt out.
and the murder of their friends isnt enough for them go to public apparently

isnt that a crime in the US? to withhold evidence pertaining to a homicide?

[lapman]

Do you have some sort of fixation with invading other people's privacy? The witnesses do not want to hear about your wacky conspiracy theories. They had their friends murdered on 9/11, do you get it? Butt out.
Nice diversion. He didn't ask for private info.

[nicepants]

How do you know that these people have "come foward"? Do you have some sort of fixation with invading other people's privacy? The witnesses do not want to hear about your wacky conspiracy theories. They had their friends murdered on 9/11, do you get it? Butt out.

How do you know that these people have 'come foward'?

Answering that question doesn't invade their privacy.

[defaultdotxbe]

I testified to the fact on this forum. Testimony is evidence.
only firsthand testimony, heres what you said:

A friend of mine has been in contact with Scott Forbes. He is actually working with a group of over 30 fellow WTC employees who witnessed the power downs, to have this evidence officially acknowledged.

so what we have here is an anonymous internet poster, who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who knows 30 people who say there is a power down

[Galileo]

At the risk of getting OT: Please post your detailed logic that shows how you determine whether someone is or is not a 9/11 "survivor".

What we know so far:
- They can't have died in the 9/11 attacks
- They need not have been at the WTC on 9/11

What are the other qualifications?

People who were in the WTC on 9/11 and got out or survived the collapse, and people normally worked in the towers at the time the attacks happened, but for one reason or another, were not in that day.

[lapman]

I testified to the fact on this forum. Testimony is evidence.
False. You only made a claim. You're not in a court of law, so "testimony" means nothing here. Remember, you are the one who make this public. Therefore you are the one that violated their privacy. So you cannot backpeddle and use the privacy excuse and expect us to abide by it.

[Galileo]

and the murder of their friends isnt enough for them go to public apparently

isnt that a crime in the US? to withhold evidence pertaining to a homicide?

It could be. They have come forward, though. They just have not talked to the media or had their names released.

[A W Smith]

By my logic, you are not a survivor.

You HAVE NO logic. You are a simple troll who's fantasy was destroyed years ago. So you are reduced to this. Keep posting your lies troll. :) You are doing us a favor by contributing to the continued destruction of the stationary truth "movement". Forbes cannot even produce the alleged "power down" e-mail. Cannot document any power down, Out of a workforce totaling 50,000 people. He is the only one who claims a powerdown.

[defaultdotxbe]

It could be. They have come forward, though. They just have not talked to the media or had their names released.
have they spoken to anyone in law enforcement, or just scott forbes?

[Galileo]

have they spoken to anyone in law enforcement, or just scott forbes?

noyb

[defaultdotxbe]

noyb
in other words "no"

[Galileo]

You HAVE NO logic. You are a simple troll who's fantasy was destroyed years ago.

That's true. I used to believe the 9/11 fantasy until 2006. As recently as May of 2006, I will still a debunker.

[Galileo]

in other words "no"

none of your business

noyb

[lapman]

none of your business

noyb
You've already made it everyones business by giving your "testimony." So, answer the question.

[DGM]

That's true. I used to believe the 9/11 fantasy until 2006. As recently as May of 2006, I will still a debunker.
And now you just seek attention by claiming things you can't support? Is that what happens to "debunkers" after there is no more to "debunk"?

[defaultdotxbe]

none of your business

noyb
i know what noyb means, im taking it to mean they have not given sworn statements to any law enforcement agency with their testimony regarding this federal case

if nothing else it would allow independent confirmation that these people exist, rather than "a friend of a friend said..."

[A W Smith]

Heres Scott Forbes caught lying on April 11 2009 with whack job Kevin Barret.
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_09.html

Second half of the "show"

At 9 mins into the interview (68:55) Barrett gets it wrong, "the 97th floor of the south tower of course was above the impact zone and that's, no one really got out, from the south tower"

[A W Smith]

He did survive because his apartment faced the WTC and he worked there. I again ask you to stop playing word games. His friends at work were murdered. He got out of the building on Monday.

What a liar. Scott Forbes apartment was in another state.

[Dog Town]

They do not want nosey conspiracy theorists and apologists for mass murder snooping around into thir business.

Some of the people who post here are, to be blunt, scary people.

Dude...that is YOU!
You still can't explain why MILLIONS don't recall, this ever happening! Nor why it is that not any of the million+ "photographers" ,on the Island, or its environs took a pic.
Hmmm....doesn't that seem strange, even to YOU?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1092349efc38f5efc5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16112)

YOU LIE!

[Galileo]

What a liar. Scott Forbes apartment was in another state.

NJ faces the WTC.

You have told another lie.

[Galileo]

Dude...that is YOU!
You still can't explain why MILLIONS don't recall, this ever happening! Nor why it is that not any of the million+ "photographers" ,on the Island, or its environs took a pic.
Hmmm....doesn't that seem strange, even to YOU?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1092349efc38f5efc5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16112)

YOU LIE!

I think this guy is of the unhinged ilk.

[nicepants]

What a liar. Scott Forbes apartment was in another state. NJ faces the WTC.

You have told another lie.

You stated "his apartment faced the WTC"

ETA: Not that the direction his apartment faces is of any significance.

[A W Smith]

Scott Forbes cannot remember the lies he told in an email 4/19/04
http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html
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 ...But in 4/11/09 at 69:40 in this interview
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-041109.mp3
he says

after 9/11 occurred, A lot of people didn't put A and B together. For a lot of people the power down meant nothing, And actually at the time to me, I didn't think it was anything unusual , it was unusual in that we have never had a power down. But it wasn't unusual to work a weekend, we did that regularly. Um and, I didn't think at the time that anything suspicious was happening. It was only in retrospect that you wondered, what was all that about. And particularly, when, um, the information wasn't being taken on board by the 911 commission, And more particularly when the port authority would not acknowledge that it occurred, And they now deny that it occurred. so, now that is very suspicious to meWhat a difference 5 years makes. huh?

Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive.

[Galileo]

Scott Forbes cannot remember the lies he told in an email 4/19/04
http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html
But in 4/11/09 at 69:40 in this interview
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-041109.mp3
he says

What a difference 5 years makes. huh?

Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive.

Did you get to the part where he mentions all the other witnesses to the powerdowns?

Its natural for people to have changing opinions as to what is suspicious or not. People who nitpick Scott Forbes, a brave 9/11 witness and survivior are scum.

[lapman]

That interview was less than 2 weeks ago. Was there an announcement of the 30 witnesses?

[Galileo]

That interview was less than 2 weeks ago. Was there an announcement of the 30 witnesses?

noyb

[lapman]

Did you get to the part where he mentions all the other witnesses to the powerdowns?

Its natural for people to have changing opinions as to what is suspicious or not. People who nitpick Scott Forbes, a brave 9/11 witness and survivior are scum.
Wow, you're now trying to deify Scott. Besides, the powerdown is meaningless. It happened in a portion of only one building and didn't involve entire floors since one of them is open to the public and was not closed at any time beyond normal business hours.

[A W Smith]

Did you get to the part where he mentions all the other witnesses to the powerdowns?

Its natural for people to have changing opinions as to what is suspicious or not. People who nitpick Scott Forbes, a brave 9/11 witness and survivior are scum.


he mentions that there were about 30 co-workers that were in and out of the building that weekend, Calling them "witnesses" when they haven't even come forward is a reach. They are as imaginary as Concrete Core Christopher's Indian ironworker. Until they come forward. You have nothing but Scott Forbes Lies.

[lapman]

noyb
you made it our business by bringing it up in the first place

[Galileo]

you made it our business by bringing it up in the first place

No, you said Forbes was the only witness, a bold faced lie.

[A W Smith]

@ 75:50 Jack Blood has a commercial spot. Want to know Jacks "secret weapon for fighting the new world order"?? I kid you not. its an energy bar.

"A new product called Enerfood. Enerfood is bar none the best supplement I tried, and ive tried them all."

[Galileo]

@ 75:50 Jack Blood has a commercial spot. Want to know Jacks "secret weapon for fighting the new world order"?? I kid you not. its an energy bar.

"A new product called Enerfood. Enerfood is bar none the best supplement I tried, and ive tried them all."

Just think if they ran ads on JREF?

Don't like AAA-rabs? Hate semitic people? Are you a neocon lab-dog? Then drink the [ fill in JREFer ] kool-aid.

[BigAl]

You are still playing word games. Scott has come forward with valuable information that tends to show that 9/11 was an inside job. over 30 other witnesses of the same thing have come forward with the same information, but have not gone public because they fear attacks from scum.



Forbes makes claims that sound silly to people like me, people that have years of experience managing large 24x7 computer facilities for financial institutions in large Manhattan buildings.

This could all be cleared up with a few minutes polite chat with Forbes to allow him to elaborate and clarify his claims.

Somehow he doesn't chose to do that.

Why should I believe anything he says?

[Galileo]

Forbes makes claims that sound silly to people like me, people that have years of experience managing large 24x7 computer facilities for financial institutions in large Manhattan buildings.

This could all be cleared up with a few minutes polite chat with Forbes to allow him to elaborate and clarify his claims.

Somehow he doesn't chose to do that.

Why should I believe anything he says?

It has already been cleared up for eveeyone but the 9/11 deniers.

[Bananaman]

Galileo:
It has already been cleared up for eveeyone but the 9/11 deniers.

I should think it's been cleared up, swept away and put in a dust pan and brush by anyone not stupid.

Which brings us right back to Galileo.

Oh dear.

Bananaman.

[A W Smith]

Did you listen to that Audio Galileo? Forbes is painting his co-workers as Cowards. Oh its economy. THATS why they wont come forward. :jaw-dropp They will have to be subpoenaed before they testify? even after losing 87 co-workers?

[Galileo]

Did you listen to that Audio Galileo? Forbes is painting his co-workers as Cowards. Oh its economy. THATS why they wont come forward. :jaw-dropp They will have to be subpoenaed before they testify? even after losing 87 co-workers?

his co-workers are afraid of the JREF forum. They don't want to end up like Barry Jennings.

[A W Smith]

his co-workers are afraid of the JREF forum. They don't want to end up like Barry Jennings.


Are you accusing the JREF of murdering Jennings?

[Galileo]

Are you accusing the JREF of murdering Jennings?

Do you think Jennings was murdered?

Do you think Jennings has been smeared on the JREF forum?

[lapman]

Do you think Jennings was murdered?

Do you think Jennings has been smeared on the JREF forum?
No and no.

[lapman]

No, you said Forbes was the only witness, a bold faced lie.
Until you provide real evidence that these people actually exist, it's the truth. Once you provide real evidence to the contrary, I will retract my statement.

[Bananaman]

Galileo:
Do you think Jennings was murdered?

Do you think Jennings has been smeared on the JREF forum?

Are you actually capable of thinking, Galileo? Good Lord. Wonders never cease.

Oh, actually, they do.

Bananaman.

[Galileo]

No and no.

if Jennings wasn't murdered as AWSmith suggested, then he wasn't murdered by JREF.

Jennings has been smeared, which is one reason why witnesses are afraid to speak up

[A W Smith]

Do you think Jennings was murdered?

Do you think Jennings has been smeared on the JREF forum?


No and No
The truthers smeared Jennings. Specifically Avery.

Truthers insist he was murdered. So you admit he was not murdered then? You're making progress.

[Bananaman]

Galileo:
Jennings has been smeared, which is one reason why witnesses are afraid to speak up

They must be quaking in their boots with fear. What do you reckon will happen to them if they spill the beans, Gal?

Bananaman.

[BigAl]

It has already been cleared up for eveeyone but the 9/11 deniers.

Cite?

[Galileo]

Cite?

Thank you for making my point. You are a 9/1 denier and it is not cleared up for you.

That's what I said.

[T.A.M.]

Alternative Radio about 9/11 is so 2006.

Do they really still rant on about it anywhere besides Blood and Jones?

TAM:)

[lapman]

if Jennings wasn't murdered as AWSmith suggested, then he wasn't murdered by JREF.

Jennings has been smeared, which is one reason why witnesses are afraid to speak up
That's a bunch of crap. He has not been smeared here. We've said that he was mistaken, but not smeared.

[Bananaman]

A 9/1 denier. Crikey, Al, you beast.

Bananaman.

[BigAl]

Thank you for making my point. You are a 9/1 denier and it is not cleared up for you.

That's what I said.

But you said that Forbes' statements had been "cleared up", whatever that means.

So you were making sh*t up. Again.

[Galileo]

That's a bunch of crap. He has not been smeared here. We've said that he was mistaken, but not smeared.

ya right, he was so upset with what he read here that I heard he went and hurt himself.

[Bananaman]

Derail, anyone? I won't give the obvious answer to Gal here, so I'll just say 'derail', which is a teensy bit hypocritical of me, but, hey-ho.

Bananaman.

[A W Smith]

Back on topic. Are you going to address Scott Forbes 5 year inconsistency?
Because this wont fly Galileo.
Its natural for people to have changing opinions Opinions? Five years ago he states he was "convinced immediately" but now he recalls "I didn't think at the time that anything suspicious was happening". Thats not a change in opinion. Thats caught in a lie!


Scott Forbes cannot remember the lies he told in an email 4/19/04
http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

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 ...But in 4/11/09 at 69:40 in this interview
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/...32k-041109.mp3 (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-041109.mp3)
he says


after 9/11 occurred, A lot of people didn't put A and B together. For a lot of people the power down meant nothing, And actually at the time to me, I didn't think it was anything unusual , it was unusual in that we have never had a power down. But it wasn't unusual to work a weekend, we did that regularly. Um and, I didn't think at the time that anything suspicious was happening. It was only in retrospect that you wondered, what was all that about. And particularly, when, um, the information wasn't being taken on board by the 911 commission, And more particularly when the port authority would not acknowledge that it occurred, And they now deny that it occurred. so, now that is very suspicious to meWhat a difference 5 years makes. huh?

Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive.

[Galileo]

Back on topic. Are you going to address Scott Forbes 5 year inconsistency?
Because this wont fly Galileo.
Opinions? Five years ago he states he was "convinced immediately" but now he recalls "I didn't think at the time that anything suspicious was happening". Thats not a change in opinion. Thats caught in a lie!


Scott Forbes cannot remember the lies he told in an email 4/19/04
http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html
But in 4/11/09 at 69:40 in this interview
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/...32k-041109.mp3 (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-041109.mp3)
he says

What a difference 5 years makes. huh?

Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive.

Its natural for people to have changing opinions.

[A W Smith]

Its natural for people to have changing opinions.


So on 9/11 he "knew immediately" but last week ""I didn't think at the time that anything suspicious was happening".???? He is talking about what his opinion and suspicions were on the day of the event. Thats not something that changes. You have an unresolvable conflict.

[Arus808]

The attack was on Tuesday. Therefore he is not a survivor. By your logic Im a wtc survivor because I was in the buildings in the fall of 2000. And my ex father in law worked there as a port authority engineer but retired in the late seventies. So by extension. HE'S a survivor. Are you a moron?


and my uncle and aunt, who were near the Towers when the first plane hit were survivors, because they were on the property that day.


gee, and I dont see their names on the list; or received benefits....

[A W Smith]

More Scott Forbes inconsistencies

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 But towards the end of the 4/11/2009 Barratt interview @ 82:20 , He claims the IT team anticipated a 48-36 hour power down, But that it was actually closer to 26-27 hours from noon Saturday to approximatly 3 pm Sunday.

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-041109.mp3


Just occurred to me. He said he was "called in early" Sunday. So he wasn't even there to see the comings and goings and bustle of activity. And why would the IT team be there anyway if there was no power to shut down or bring up the computers as he alleges? Were they twiddling their thumbs waiting in the dark?

[BigAl]

More Scott Forbes inconsistencies



But towards the end of the 4/11/2009 Barratt interview @ 82:20 , He claims the IT team anticipated a 48-36 hour power down, But that it was actually closer to 26-27 hours from noon Saturday to approximatly 3 pm Sunday.

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-041109.mp3

Your point?

A power-down in a financial computer facility involves so many people, so many memos at so many locations and several companies. For Forbes to not be able to get people or find paperwork do help his case says be is making sh*t up.

Forbes and all the other frauds of the "Truth Movement" are terrified of having to address polite, relevant questions from people with relevant expertise.

The idea that a crew used the power-down to place demolition explosives in a way that is consistent with the evidence and eyewitness accounts is also stupid.

[A W Smith]

Your point?



My point is he is making **** up and changing his story. When confronted with the facts that people were there and witnessed no power down that weekend. ( observation deck ticket stubs etc. ) he shortens his power down time line. in an attempt to fit it in between the cracks of his story.

[WildCat]

his co-workers are afraid of the JREF forum. They don't want to end up like Barry Jennings.
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[lapman]

ya right, he was so upset with what he read here that I heard he went and hurt himself.
Yeah right. More lies, as usual. Let us know when you decide to stop.

[Dog Town]

More Scott Forbes inconsistencies

...

Just occurred to me. He said he was "called in early" Sunday. So he wasn't even there to see the comings and goings and bustle of activity. And why would the IT team be there anyway if there was no power to shut down or bring up the computers as he alleges? Were they twiddling their thumbs waiting in the dark?

None of this Scott Forbes story makes a lick of sense.

[nicepants]

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-041109.mp3

Couple of things from that interview that caught my attention:

- None of the other people supposedly involved in this massive power down have come forward according to Mr. Forbes (despite what Galileo says)

- Scott claims that the Port Authority notified them via memo AND e-mail and strangely both of those are missing.

- Scott claims that his team formed an action or project plan to deal with this. I don't know how things work in his company, but most companies where I've worked, an outage like this has a SIGNIFICANT paper trail. Everyone who relied on the computer systems in that office should have been aware of the upcoming outage.

- Scott made a few comments about people "buying the official story", which would indicate to me that he's a truther. (instant reduction in his credibility)


If anyone can get in touch with Mr. Forbes, I've got a few questions for him..namely the following:

- Was his company the only one affected by this "power down"?
- How many people in his company were notified of the power down or of any servers/systems being offline?
- Does he or his HR department have any timesheets for the employees who worked that weekend to verify his claims?
- Why is it that all of the communications about this supposed power down are missing? Were the e-mail servers not backed up? Was no one in any of the other offices (London?) notified via e-mail about this power down?
- Why does he believe the other people who worked with him are refusing to corroborate him? (Especially the ones who no longer work there)
- Who, specifically, at the Port Authority, notified Scott and/or his team/company of the power down?


Even if this power down did take place, it doesn't prove that explosives were planted, etc. I *suspect* that there may have been some maintenance done that may have involved Scott's company and required some server admins to shut down and restart some servers that weekend. Such a thing would not be unusual. Given Scott's propensity to follow the truthers, it's entirely possible that he believed the situation to be something other than it was, and is trying to make something fit with his truther theories. I'm not claiming that he's deliberately lying, it's just that his story doesn't add up.

[BigAl]

Couple of things from that interview that caught my attention:

- None of the other people supposedly involved in this massive power down have come forward according to Mr. Forbes (despite what Galileo says)

- Scott claims that the Port Authority notified them via memo AND e-mail and strangely both of those are missing.

- Scott claims that his team formed an action or project plan to deal with this. I don't know how things work in his company, but most companies where I've worked, an outage like this has a SIGNIFICANT paper trail. Everyone who relied on the computer systems in that office should have been aware of the upcoming outage.


Advance notice would go to ALL employees so that nobody wouldn't plan on coming into the office on that weekend to catch up on any work.

On the Friday prior to the shut-down, a memo would be placed on every desk reminding people of the shutdown.

There would be paperwork at the contractor's office and the union for the actual electrical work plan and manpower. There would be pay records, etc, etc.

[Panoply_Prefect]

A friend of mine has been in contact with Scott Forbes. He is actually working with a group of over 30 fellow WTC employees who witnessed the power downs, to have this evidence officially acknowledged.

I contacted Scott and asked him (as you can see from earlier in this thread I have been emailing with him before). He replied today:


No, I have'nt founded any group, nor do I have any new information. Sorry!

Scott

[twinstead]

Well, this CAN'T be good

[defaultdotxbe]

I contacted Scott and asked him (as you can see from earlier in this thread I have been emailing with him before). He replied today:
well of course he wouldnt tell you about it, youre a debunker :D

[lapman]

well of course he wouldnt tell you about it, youre a debunker :D
He's protecting their privacy copout coming in 3...2...1...

[Dog Town]

I contacted Scott and asked him (as you can see from earlier in this thread I have been emailing with him before). He replied today:

Well, that explains alot!
Gal's A Lier!
Who knew?:rolleyes:

[defaultdotxbe]

Well, that explains alot!
Gal's A Lier!
Who knew?:rolleyes:
its an interesting conundrum, do you believe Galileo's anonymous third hand statement about forbes, or Panoply_Prefect's anonymous second hand statement

of course if you choose to believe neither the default conclusion is there is no group of 30 people lol

[Galileo]

I contacted Scott and asked him (as you can see from earlier in this thread I have been emailing with him before). He replied today:

I never said Scott founded a group. You are a liar. Scott is a truth-teller.

[defaultdotxbe]

I never said Scott founded a group. You are a liar. Scott is a truth-teller.
so Scott is truth-telling when he says he has no new information? that would imply no 30 people to corroborate his story

[nicepants]

its an interesting conundrum, do you believe Galileo's anonymous third hand statement about forbes, or Panoply_Prefect's anonymous second hand statement

of course if you choose to believe neither the default conclusion is there is no group of 30 people lol

I think Gal must have mis-understood Scott in that radio interview. He made a statement during that interview specifically mentioning "30 or so" people who worked with him during this supposed powerdown, however there was no indication that any of them had "come forward". Supposedly the ones who still work there were afraid, and those who didn't work there anymore didn't want to talk about it. (How convenient)

[Galileo]

so Scott is truth-telling when he says he has no new information? that would imply no 30 people to corroborate his story

Wrong. That is old information.

[Panoply_Prefect]

I never said Scott founded a group. You are a liar. Scott is a truth-teller.

Ah, sigh. Yes, I should have expected we'd get into semantics. Soon you'll be claiming it wasn't THAT Scott Forbes you meant, but another one, who was working together with 30 people.

I quoted your post to Scott with a link to this forum.

(Oh, and no, I haven't presented myself as a "debunker", since I'm not claiming to be one. Now Scott might identify me as such if he by reading my posts here thinks so, but previously there has been no connection between my nym here and my real identity. EDIT, a well, at least not an obvious one. He COULD have read this thread and made the connection, but is not bloody likely).

[A W Smith]

edit, doesn't matter

[Galileo]

Ah, sigh. Yes, I should have expected we'd get into semantics. Soon you'll be claiming it wasn't THAT Scott Forbes you meant, but another one, who was working together with 30 people.

I quoted your post to Scott with a link to this forum.

(Oh, and no, I haven't presented myself as a "debunker", since I'm not claiming to be one. Now Scott might identify me as such if he by reading my posts here thinks so, but previously there has been no connection between my nym here and my real identity. EDIT, a well, at least not an obvious one. He COULD have read this thread and made the connection, but is not bloody likely).

You are the one playing word games. You are dishonest and can't be trusted. I never said Forbes founded a group. You just made that up. You are a liar.

[lapman]

You are the one playing word games. You are dishonest and can't be trusted. I never said Forbes founded a group. You just made that up. You are a liar.
False. Scott deduced that you were claiming that from the post that was emailed to him. Again, no evidence on your part. So it's obvious you heard the number on the interview and decided to make it into a phony claim. That's dishonest.

[Dog Town]

You are the one playing word games. You are dishonest and can't be trusted. I never said Forbes founded a group. You just made that up. You are a liar.

In the below quote, are you claiming your friend is working with the "group"?
If so, I think you can see how it was misunderstood.
If so I apologise, however I think you did this purposely!

A friend of mine has been in contact with Scott Forbes. He is actually working with a group of over 30 fellow WTC employees who witnessed the power downs, to have this evidence officially acknowledged.

[A W Smith]

A friend of mine has been in contact with Scott Forbes. He is actually working with a group of over 30 fellow WTC employees who witnessed the power downs, to have this evidence officially acknowledged.

I never said Scott founded a group. You are a liar. Scott is a truth-teller.

Its so fun and easy to prove you are a liar with facts your own words

Damn Dog chased me down, bit me on the ankle, and beat me to the punch.

[Panoply_Prefect]

You are the one playing word games. You are dishonest and can't be trusted. I never said Forbes founded a group. You just made that up. You are a liar.

No I'm not. Now, if Scott was working, as you claimed in your post, with a group of 30 people, don't you think he would say he had new information? I asked him that as a direct question see.

Or, if you like, formulate a question I can ask Scott. I will forward it to him and if and when he replies, I'll post it here. Agreed?

[twinstead]

Ah, could this be a simple case of a misunderstood pronoun?

[lapman]

No I'm not. Now, if Scott was working, as you claimed in your post, with a group of 30 people, don't you think he would say he had new information? I asked him that as a direct question see.

Or, if you like, formulate a question I can ask Scott. I will forward it to him and if and when he replies, I'll post it here. Agreed?
You may want to rephrase the question to ask him if any of his co-workers that he mentioned in his latest interview contacted him about the power down.

[Galileo]

In the below quote, are you claiming your friend is working with the "group"?
If so, I think you can see how it was misunderstood.
If so I apologise, however I think you did this purposely!

He said on the radio he was working with a group.

[Galileo]

No I'm not. Now, if Scott was working, as you claimed in your post, with a group of 30 people, don't you think he would say he had new information? I asked him that as a direct question see.

Or, if you like, formulate a question I can ask Scott. I will forward it to him and if and when he replies, I'll post it here. Agreed?

All these people knew about the powerdowns since before 9/11. It is not new information.

[WildCat]

He said on the radio he was working with a group.
And it takes over 7 years to get their story straight?

[Panoply_Prefect]

You may want to rephrase the question to ask him if any of his co-workers that he mentioned in his latest interview contacted him about the power down.

Is there a quote I could use? If so I'd be more than happy to write him again. For the record, Scott haven't been anything but nice and open in our brief correspondence.

[lapman]

All these people knew about the powerdowns since before 9/11. It is not new information.
Oh, so you've meet these people and know thier stories? Oh wait, a friend that knows a guy the may or may not have talked to these people. Gotya. :rolleyes:

[Panoply_Prefect]

All these people knew about the powerdowns since before 9/11. It is not new information.

Actually my question was in relation to our previous correspondence, from 2006, when I asked him for any other information than mentioned in the Killtown interview he had given then. Eg, anything not mentioned there, including 30 coworkers coming forward, would be new information.

[defaultdotxbe]

He said on the radio he was working with a group.
i thought your friend said he was working with a group, now its just something you heard on the radio?

[nicepants]

He said on the radio he was working with a group.

He is actually working with a group of over 30 fellow WTC employees who witnessed the power downs, to have this evidence officially acknowledged.

Scott mentioned no such thing in this interview:
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_09.html (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_09.html)
Perhaps you could direct us to the radio show in which you heard him make the statement you're referring to?


Panoply: If possible, please pass along my questions from post #335 to Mr. Forbes. I'd be very interested to know his answers.

It would also be worth asking if he is currently "working with a group of over 30 fellow WTC employees who witnessed the power downs, to have this evidence officially acknowledged". (And if so, acknowledged by whom?)

[ElMondoHummus]

Guys, not to beat a dead horse, but does anyone remember this argument against a tower-wide powerdown on the weekend such was charged?

Okay, here is what I found.

There are at least two witnesses who recall the Observation Deck being open (with power) during the same time-frame that Scott Forbes claims the upper half of WTC2 was powered down.

One website (http://www.classbrain.com/artfree/publish/article_70.shtml) has a personal account by Melissa Papke who relates her visit to the Observation Deck on that "power-down" weekend (9/8/01). She visited the WTC with her friends late in the day, after the last ferry to the Statue of Liberty had departed (i.e. squarely within the period Scott Forbes placed the power downs). She related this: "Brian held my hands in his and stared into my eyes trying to keep me calm as the express elevator climbed and climbed to the observation deck on the 107th floor. We walked around, looked through the telescopes, watched a movie on the history of the buildings, and even pressed a couple of commemorative pennies in one of those little machines". Clearly, there was power on the 107th Floor at that time.

Another blog (http://www.roundededge.com/cip/Sep11_2001.html) presents this photo of a ticket to the Observation Deck during the very time that Forbes claims there was no power to that part of the building:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9884/ticketfd7.jpg

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4324/ticket2mi0.jpg

Also, there was a public free outdoor festival at 7:00 pm on 9/8/2001 in the World Trade Center Plaza between the two buildings (New York Times, September 7, 2001, E-3), featuring the Twyla Tharp dance troupe. So if there was a power down and massive preparation for building demolition, it would've been in the midst of this public event.

I still would love to see a photo of the buildings at night on 9/8/01 as that would clearly show if any floors, and which floors, experienced a shut-down of power.

I mean... I realize this doesn't account for the whole building. But still... the point is that any argument about that weekend being used to "install demolitions" is absurd because there were plenty of people around to notice. A good deal of them within the building itself. And again, the "power down" excuse can only be used for the South Tower.

[leftysergeant]

Easy way to solve this. Ask the janitors who clean the buildings on the weekends. They would have noticed something.

I'm sure some of them had friends who lost their lives or their jobs, and would really be pissed off and a bit suspicious by this time, had they seen something really out of place going on.

There is no way you are going to prevent that sort of operation from producing horrendous piles of dust that somebody with a vaccuum cleaner and a feather duster is going to have to remove even if the blasting crew cleans up after themselves. It takes a while for drywall dust to settle out onto surfaces.

[Newtons Bit]

Easy way to solve this. Ask the janitors who clean the buildings on the weekends. They would have noticed something.

I'm sure some of them had friends who lost their lives or their jobs, and would really be pissed off and a bit suspicious by this time, had they seen something really out of place going on.

There is no way you are going to prevent that sort of operation from producing horrendous piles of dust that somebody with a vaccuum cleaner and a feather duster is going to have to remove even if the blasting crew cleans up after themselves. It takes a while for drywall dust to settle out onto surfaces.

I've noticed that there's no "Janitors for 9/11 Truth" club.

[WildCat]

I've noticed that there's no "Janitors for 9/11 Truth" club.
Wouldn't that be Willie Rodriquez?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Yeah well why not just ask all the people who Willie or Scott worked with what they think and then just because you find out that a lot of them are dead you can proclaim them all to be on your side?

I mean it's not like you vamp... I mean debunkers are above that or anything.

Just think. Those people were the closest ones to the collapse. If you can get them on your side there would be no debate.

Too bad Willie and Scott lived huh? They could be on your side too.

[WildCat]

Yeah well why not just ask all the people who Willie or Scott worked with what they think and then just because you find out that a lot of them are dead you can proclaim them all to be on your side?
Isn't it you guys who claim dead people support you? How many of the "Patriots for truth" are dead?

Just think. Those people were the closest ones to the collapse. If you can get them on your side there would be no debate.

Too bad Willie and Scott lived huh? They could be on your side too.
Wasn't Forbes at home on 9/11?

[leftysergeant]

Willie hasn't said "boo" about a power down. The janitors work at night. Day porters like Willie are a very small part of the housekeeping staff. A lot of large firms have in-house staff or contract out. I really doubt that a lot of janbitors got killed in the attack. They are usually not in the building during business hours, but would have been when the alledged demolition prep was going on.

The lack of janitors supporting da twoof on this issue says a lot more, and has better evidentiary value than does Miller's lame attempt to claim Orio Palmer as a Patriot for Da Twoof.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Ok, I wrote Scott again. I asked the following questions:


Could I rephrase my question?

Are you working with a group of over 30 fellow WTC employees who witnessed the power downs, to have this evidence officially acknowledged?
And got this reply:


I'm not part of any group like that. Has someone used this phrase or suggestion online somewhere?

[nicepants]

Galileo -

A friend of mine has been in contact with Scott Forbes. He is actually working with a group of over 30 fellow WTC employees who witnessed the power downs, to have this evidence officially acknowledged.


I'm not part of any group like that.

Please explain.

[leftysergeant]

Galileo -





Please explain.

Sounds as though either Galileo or his friend are palying word games. Forbes has squat to do with his friend, if we are to take him at his word.

[nicepants]

Panolpy - since you're in touch with scott...I've got a few questions that I'd like to know his answers to, if you wouldn't mind passing them along:

- Was his company the only one affected by this "power down"?
- How many people in his company were notified of the power down or of any servers/systems being offline?
- Does he or his HR department have any timesheets for the employees who worked that weekend to verify his claims?
- Why is it that all of the communications about this supposed power down are missing? Were the e-mail servers not backed up? Was no one in any of the other offices (London?) notified via e-mail about this power down?
- Why does he believe the other people who worked with him are refusing to corroborate him? (Especially the ones who no longer work there)
- Who, specifically, at the Port Authority, notified Scott and/or his team/company of the power down?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Panolpy - since you're in touch with scott...I've got a few questions that I'd like to know his answers to, if you wouldn't mind passing them along:

- Was his company the only one affected by this "power down"?
- How many people in his company were notified of the power down or of any servers/systems being offline?
- Does he or his HR department have any timesheets for the employees who worked that weekend to verify his claims?
- Why is it that all of the communications about this supposed power down are missing? Were the e-mail servers not backed up? Was no one in any of the other offices (London?) notified via e-mail about this power down?
- Why does he believe the other people who worked with him are refusing to corroborate him? (Especially the ones who no longer work there)
- Who, specifically, at the Port Authority, notified Scott and/or his team/company of the power down?

I've given him the link to this thread, perhaps he'll answer it himself. If not, PM me and I'll give you his email address.

[lapman]

I find it funny how Galileo has abandoned this thread after it was proven conclusively that he lied.

[nicepants]

I find it funny how Galileo has abandoned this thread after it was proven conclusively that he lied.

Funny & pathetic, but not surprising.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418949b81915c4976.jpg

[Panoply_Prefect]

Oh darnit. I just killed the thread.

[BenBurch]

I communicated about a year ago with Scott Forbes, who now resides in the UK.

Scott Forbes gave me the name and email of a person he says could corroborate his story.

Despite diligent and repeated attempts to contact said person, I was never able to get a reply from him at all.

[lapman]

I communicated about a year ago with Scott Forbes, who now resides in the UK.

Scott Forbes gave me the name and email of a person he says could corroborate his story.

Despite diligent and repeated attempts to contact said person, I was never able to get a reply from him at all.
The fact is that even if there was any type of powerdown that weekend, it's irrelevant. Since it did not happen that day and there is no evidence that there is any link to 9/11, the commission didn't need to even mention it. Only twoofers manipulate it into something it's not.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Just for the record: I believe that Scott Forbes is telling the truth about the events as he percieved it and remembered it. I don't think he is a new William Rodriguez, nor that his intentions are to take his experience and boost a truther-kind of loosely founded conspiracy theory.

That doesn't mean I think that there was a blackout to plant nanothermite, or anything in that direction.

[BillyRayValentine]

You are not a witness to the events on the upper floors of WTC 1. About 1400 people were killed who worked on those upper floors. About three-dozen of these surviviors, including Scott Forbes have come forward with evidence. Only Forbes has gone public.

Since YOU are not an eyewitness to the upper floors of WTC 1, I suggest you butt out of the brave 9/11 surviviors business.

Uh, Scott worked in WTC 2.

You correspond with him, he shares super duper secret info regarding other "witnesses" with you, and you don't even know in which tower he worked? Where the supposed power-down took place?

Good grief, man, your nonsense is just pitiful.

Sorry to bump, though...