[Merged]Scott Forbes powerdown revisited

[Dog Town]

Ct'ers throw this around, way to much, for me to buy it. I noticed Human brought it up again, on another thread here. I have found no real evidence to support it. Scott Forbes, seems to be the only source of this claim. No proof of his existence, other than a K Clown interview. I think we all know what color flag that raises. Just seems like there would be plenty of people, affected by such an inconvenience. Would love to find out for sure, so we can check one more off the ever growing list. Anyone?

Thanx for any input.

DT

[defaultdotxbe]

what i know about forbes and the power-down he mentions:

hes a DCO (datacenter operations) technician for some company that was based at the WTC

his company had a server cluster at the WTC

the powerdowns lasted 36 hours

they were for the top 50 floors of tower 2



now, i have a similar job to forbes (DCO specialist) and my company has server clusters in illinois and in texas, knowing that, i can assure you that someone was in their offices monitoring the servers throughout the entire 36 hour operation, im sure other companies would have similar interests they would want to keep track of during any power down, so this was not an opportunity to plant explosives

[Oliver]

Is he really the only one who remembers the powerdown? I thought there were more people who confirmed the story...

[Gravy]

Is he really the only one who remembers the powerdown? I thought there were more people who confirmed the story...
I don't know of others who have confirmed it on video like Forbes has, but then again I have no idea what the fuss is about. The powerdown, however extensive it was or however long it lasted, was for one half of one building. The work was completed successfully: the computers worked that Monday. The CTs have not shown a single piece of evidence that anything suspicious happened. Have they spoken to the Port Authority? Do they know the company or companies involved in the project? If so, have the CTs investigated? No, of course not. Just more B.S.

[Oliver]

Mhmm, maybe a point we have to debunk since they use this argument over and over. Even in most CT-movies i´ve seen so far.

Added:


Scott Forbes is the only source of the powerdown information; thousands of people would've been ticked off by this inconvenience and known and talked about it. This is a really silly story; security wouldn't have been turned off. There were definitely no such powerdowns at WTC 7 and WTC 1. 36 hours is inadequate for a controlled demolition; it took 24 days for a 33-level building, and it took at least 4 months for another 30-story office building to be set up with charges. It is also very doubtful that such a power-down would be necessary for a mere cable upgrade.

SOURCE:
http://nyctohylophobia.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-powerdown-story.html

[Dog Town]

Don't get me wrong! I in no way believe it would provide a cover. I don't buy it at all, in their fantasy. I was just curious, if it even really occurred at all. Not sure if I buy, this Scott Forbes. Seems like the "troofers" would come up with alot more"witnesses", if they were avail. Just strikes me as odd.

[Oliver]

Nope - can´t find any valid source for further information beside the Scott Forbes story... :boggled:

[LashL]

There are no corroborating accounts. The Scott Forbes story is what it is - which isn't much.

In a subsequent "interview", he didn't substantiate the original CT story, he admitted that he didn't know anything about floors other than the few floors that were occupied by the company he worked for (there goes the "50 stories" claim); he had absolutely no basis except for his own (misinformed) speculation about what it actually meant to have a "power down" - i.e. the nonsense about security cameras and locks being inoperable is BS; he had no way of knowing anything about most of the things the CTers think his story "proved"; the timing changed from all weekend to 26 hours; he could not provide any details whatsoever about the alleged email he read about the alleged "power down", not a name of who it was from or even the department or group that it allegedly came from; he couldn't provide any description of the people he purportedly saw in the building that were somehow "suspicious"; he didn't provide a single name as a potential corroborating source even though he says "lots of people" knew about it and could/would corroborate his story.

Basically, his subsequent "interview", assuming it's legitimate although I'm not convinced yet that it is, is far less damning than the initial report attributed to him by CTers, but it is still far from satisfactory and it is still far from proof of anything since he gives no details that matter, offers no descriptions, wasn't in a position to know most of the things CTers claim his statement proves, wasn't in a position to observe most of the things CTers claim his statement proves, doesn't say where he was located in comparison to the mystery workers, (and come on, if they were planting explosives, they weren't doing it in the occupied office space - duh - so how and where did he see these mystery people while he was, supposedly, working away in his office? Etc.

The whole thing smacks of conspiranoid nonsense.

And there are zero, zilch, zip, nada, reports of any such "powerdown" in the other tower, by the way. Not a one. Same for WTC7.

Moreover, had the World Trade Center actually been effectively shut down for the weekend, or even for a day, it would have been big news, because the towers never shut down entirely. Never. Yet nary a peep about such an unprecedented and unheard of event was ever noted or reported upon? Sure.

[jujigatami]

BTW, the top 50 floors of tower 2 would include the observation deck, which wouldn't be closed on a weekend (assuming the 36 hours in question was over a weekend, like every other power down I've ever taken part in has been) for any reason.


They didn't even close it for bad weather. You just couldn't go outside and see anything.

[Shrinker]

By coincidence I was just reading a little about the 36/26 hour powerdown. I was wondering if any of our New York posters noticed something unusual that Saturday night? Something subtle, like...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/361745320bdf23e96.jpg

[Bell]

When was this supposed to have happened btw?

[Shrinker]

When was this supposed to have happened btw?

Between 12 noon on Saturday and 2pm on Sunday, the weekend before the 11th.

[Bell]

Between 12 noon on Saturday and 2pm on Sunday, the weekend before the 11th.

I have no time to check right now (gotta go to work) but when was that shot in the Naudet's film made, where Tony and the other firefighter are ontop of that fireengine platform, with the towers in the background?

[Shrinker]

I have no time to check right now (gotta go to work) but when was that shot in the Naudet's film made, where Tony and the other firefighter are ontop of that fireengine platform, with the towers in the background?

Ooh, is that a clue you're getting?

[60hzxtl]

Between 12 noon on Saturday and 2pm on Sunday, the weekend before the 11th.


Well, since my brother in law took his 2 kids to the observation deck that Sunsay morning, I'll ask him if they walked the last 50 flights of stairs. I don't remember them mentioning that; it would have gotten my attention.

[Shrinker]

I have no time to check right now (gotta go to work) but when was that shot in the Naudet's film made, where Tony and the other firefighter are ontop of that fireengine platform, with the towers in the background?

Turns out that was Sept 3rd. Good idea though.

[LashL]

Well, since my brother in law took his 2 kids to the observation deck that Sunsay morning, I'll ask him if they walked the last 50 flights of stairs. I don't remember them mentioning that; it would have gotten my attention.

Yeah, you'd think he would remember a little detail like that, wouldn't you?

:D

[Dog Town]

Well, since my brother in law took his 2 kids to the observation deck that Sunsay morning, I'll ask him if they walked the last 50 flights of stairs. I don't remember them mentioning that; it would have gotten my attention.

This is exactly what I am talking about. I don't think it happened at all! I would love to tell them to shove it about this nonsense.They always bring it up , like it is some stupid smoking gun! While we all know, even if it happened, it would not provide the cover they think. Interesting about your Bro/inlaw!
The plot thickens.

[LashL]

This is exactly what I am talking about. I don't think it happened at all! I would love to tell them to shove it about this nonsense.They always bring it up , like it is some stupid smoking gun! While we all know, even if it happened, it would not provide the cover they think. Interesting about your Bro/inlaw!
The plot thickens.

I don't think it happened at all either. Certainly not the way Forbes describes it. There were 26,000 visitors daily to the observation deck. You'd think that if all those people were walking up 50 stories that Saturday and Sunday, someone would have mentioned it over the past five years.

[Bell]

Turns out that was Sept 3rd. Good idea though.

Thanks Shrinker. And yes, I had a raging clue.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Hi!

A couple of years ago, I stumbled upon a page on Killtowns blog with an interview with Scott Forbes:

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

In short, Forbes worked in the South Tower and speaks of a powerdown on the top part of the building prior to 911.

At that time I emailed Forbes, just to make sure Killtown hadn't quotemined or taken Forbes out of context. In the reply Forbes made clear that he stood by what he had expressed in that interview, but he refrained from drawing any conlusions based on the background of this powerdown.

Forbes wrote in his reply:


We were told by the PANYNJ that the power down was necessary for recabling. I have no more information other than that.


At the time I sent an email to the PANYNJ, but I never got a reply (which isn't surprising, I couldn't find any obvious email-address so I basically mailed those on top of the list on the homepage).

So my question is, has anyone heard anything more about this event? Im thinking like we did with the airphones-issue...

And to be perfectly clear, no I don't think the powerdown was made as a part of a conspiracy to plant bombs all over the WTC1, 2 and 7.
(And please, don't derail the thread with random comments on Killtown)

[jhunter1163]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65969

[Panoply_Prefect]

Oh, I got merged!

Anywhoo - since the last post of that thread in -06 - has anything new surfaced? If I knew what address to send it I might file a FOIA for the information regarding this particular power-down, if only to lay this fork of the conspiracy-tree to rest.

[Brainache]

Oh, I got merged!

Anywhoo - since the last post of that thread in -06 - has anything new surfaced? If I knew what address to send it I might file a FOIA for the information regarding this particular power-down, if only to lay this fork of the conspiracy-tree to rest.

There was a poster here a few months ago who said he saw Scott Forbes at a Truther meeting in London. I don't know if it was true, but the poster (mjd1982 ?) said Forbes didn't want to talk about the power down any more because he was worried about loosing his job.

It was in a thread which had way too many occurrences of the word "propitious". Something to do with PNAC as well.


ETA Found it! "The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts" was the name of the thread from nearly a year ago. Scott Forbes shows up in London somewhere around page 50: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2763121#post2763121

[LastChild]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_June_18/ai_75610255

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 18, 2001

"Once the cable installation is complete later this summer, we will be able to deliver network and communications services within days - an amazing capability through the use of this air-blown fiber process."

And look they claim it would only take days to wire the building...

- "They can get connected in days. With traditional copper cable, it can take
weeks for vendors to install a new connection."

[Mr.Herbert]

Last Child, the cable installation they are speaking of is network and communication cables. You do not need to shut down electricity for this type of an upgrade.

[jhunter1163]

Do demolition companies use fiber-optic cable?

(Hint: No.)

[Panoply_Prefect]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_June_18/ai_75610255

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 18, 2001

"Once the cable installation is complete later this summer, we will be able to deliver network and communications services within days - an amazing capability through the use of this air-blown fiber process."

And look they claim it would only take days to wire the building...

- "They can get connected in days. With traditional copper cable, it can take
weeks for vendors to install a new connection."

Umm... but weren't Forbes talking about power cables?

[BillyRayValentine]

Oh, I got merged!

Anywhoo - since the last post of that thread in -06 - has anything new surfaced? If I knew what address to send it I might file a FOIA for the information regarding this particular power-down, if only to lay this fork of the conspiracy-tree to rest.

Many people work weekends in the city. A power-down of the sort (initially) described by Forbes would have impacted thousands of tenant employees. You'd think that he'd provide, oh, maybe ONE other person to corroborate his story.

Which is but one of the many, many reasons his story is clearly fiction. See this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96894&highlight=scott+forbes&page=6) thread, for starters.

Towards the end, someone actually reaches Forbes, who in turn provides the email address of an individual he says will corroborate his tale. Oops. The person never responded to an inquiry and Forbes wasn't heard from again.

Just compare what Forbes said in his Killtown interview with his intial claims (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm) on the matter. Not so consistent.

His early statement that "watching (9/11) events unfold
I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
weekend work" makes his agenda pretty clear. And yet he still looks foir cover under the familiar "just asking questions" umbrella.

This loser has zero credibility

[Panoply_Prefect]

Does anyone know how and where to file for a FOIA with the PA? NIST and NTSB have a dedicated FOIA-page, but so far I haven't found any similary on the PA site.

[OldTigerCub]

I started a thread back in October about Forbes' power-down nonsense. IIRC there was some pretty compelling evidence presented to the contrary.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96894

[CurtC]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_June_18/ai_75610255

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 18, 2001

"Once the cable installation is complete later this summer, we will be able to deliver network and communications services within days - an amazing capability through the use of this air-blown fiber process."

And look they claim it would only take days to wire the building...

- "They can get connected in days. With traditional copper cable, it can take
weeks for vendors to install a new connection."

Are you just posting random news articles, or did you somehow think that this was related to the subject being discussed?

[LastChild]

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-14436351.html

September, 1993

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the World Trade Center's (WTC) owner, is expected to spend $81 million in improving the center's electrical system over a period of 10 years. The project will require extensive use of copper cabling. Copper cables can handle the higher capacity required by the highly-sophisticated electronic equipment of WTC's tenants. Moreover, such type of cables can deliver much more power reliably.

2001 wouldn’t have been ten years yet would it?

[KoihimeNakamura]

See above point.

[T.A.M.]

meh- why bother

[T.A.M.]

So now the new theory is that the evil NWOers used fibreoptic cable instead of traditional copper cable to rig the building, because according to the article it would take WEEKS to wire the towers with TRADITIONAL COPPER CABLE....

Am I missing something, or is this simply retarded?

Where have all the laughing dogs gone....

TAM:)

[LastChild]

So now the new theory is that the evil NWOers used fibreoptic cable instead of traditional copper cable to rig the building, because according to the article it would take WEEKS to wire the towers with TRADITIONAL COPPER CABLE....

Am I missing something, or is this simply retarded?

Where have all the laughing dogs gone....

TAM:)

Well yeah you would have to be retarded not to get it. You know what else is retarded? Claiming no power-down debunks something.

Explain the retarded logic in that. Because I always thought it was the retarded debunkers who claimed no one would have the time or access to the building to wire it when they were wiring it for years.

But you should just never mind unless you can find someone to try and explain it to you. Don't hurt yourself.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[gumboot]

meh- why bother


More and more often lately I have begun writing responses to CTers only to pause before posting it, ask myself "What is the point" and simply close the window.

I'm inclined to believe (I think) MarkyX - there is simply no excuse for anyone being so utterly ignorant of 9/11 who professes interest in it. Those that continue to argue the alternative theories do so from a position of blatant dishonesty. There is nothing, at all, to be gained from trying to establish a dialogue with them (Which is not going to happen any way since they're apparently incapable of actually partaking in reason debate).

[nicepants]

Well yeah you would have to be retarded not to get it. You know what else is retarded? Claiming no power-down debunks something.

It debunks the claim truthers make about "mysterious power downs".

Explain the retarded logic in that. Because I always thought it was the retarded debunkers who claimed no one would have the time or access to the building to wire it when they were wiring it for years.



Don't confuse the running of electrical wiring with the placement of shaped charges and the running of det cord. Two COMPLETELY different things.

Also, you should really try using a thesaurus if your vocabulary is that limited.

[The Doc]

Well yeah you would have to be retarded not to get it. You know what else is retarded? Claiming no power-down debunks something.

Explain the retarded logic in that. Because I always thought it was the retarded debunkers who claimed no one would have the time or access to the building to wire it when they were wiring it for years.

But you should just never mind unless you can find someone to try and explain it to you. Don't hurt yourself.

Before I address your points, you should know that your post has been reported. You can be argumentative and stand by a position without being immature.

First of all, pointing out that there was no power-down debunks the claim that there was a power-down. Even you should be able to process that simple equation.

Conspiracists use the power-down claim in an attempt to counter the logical point that no one could have placed explosives in the tower while it was occupied and security cameras were on.

No one is claiming that the time wasn't there to install wires in a building. What we're saying is that no one could have placed explosives or det cord in the tower. That would involve getting the ordinance past bomb sniffing dogs, removing large wall sections off offices, placing HUGE shaped charges on columns (demolition experts have stated these charges that big would need to be carried in by fork lift), pre-weakening, replacing walls, leaving det cord running over the floors of the office... you get the picture.

Please keep it civil. Your post was offensive to a lot of people here.

[Dog Town]

Wow, an oldie, revived. I still wonder, if Scott F. even exists?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Wow, an oldie, revived. I still wonder, if Scott F. even exists?

I've at least had an email exchange with someone claiming to be him...

[BenBurch]

I have Scott's Phone number, but I didn't really have anything I needed to talk with him about as the email answered my questions.

[LastChild]

Before I address your points, you should know that your post has been reported. You can be argumentative and stand by a position without being immature.

Did you report it the first offense of it because now your friend is reported. You're full of it just like your version of 9/11.

First of all, pointing out that there was no power-down debunks the claim that there was a power-down. Even you should be able to process that simple equation.

What is relevant about the power-down itself? Is it only relevant when you want to pretend to debunk something? More garbage from the so-called debunkers.

Conspiracists use the power-down claim in an attempt to counter the logical point that no one could have placed explosives in the tower while it was occupied and security cameras were on.

Point me to some wtc security footage either way. Power-down or not. Woops. What's the point again?

No one is claiming that the time wasn't there to install wires in a building. What we're saying is that no one could have placed explosives or det cord in the tower.

Bull. Right here in this forum people talk about how it would have taken a year. Well... now it looks like they had YEARS.

That would involve getting the ordinance past bomb sniffing dogs, removing large wall sections off offices, placing HUGE shaped charges on columns (demolition experts have stated these charges that big would need to be carried in by fork lift), pre-weakening, replacing walls, leaving det cord running over the floors of the office... you get the picture.

Really? Did they need to do this while they were wiring the building like I sourced? Looks like you got debunked on your straw-man debunker. Congratulations.


Please keep it civil. Your post was offensive to a lot of people here.

Please report everyone if you're going to play hall monitor. If something is so offensive to you then report it from everyone. Unless of course you are dishonest. Woops called out again. How embarrassing.

For you.

[BillyRayValentine]

What is relevant about the power-down itself? Is it only relevant when you want to pretend to debunk something? More garbage from the so-called debunkers.

The only relevance is that a good percentage of truthers present the "power-down" as evidence pointing to CD. If you aren't among them, kudos to you. But don't be so obtuse as to pretend they don't exist.

I must say, this is the weakest, most incompetent counter-argument I've seen on these threads. Congratulations - a new low.

[Panoply_Prefect]

What is relevant about the power-down itself? Is it only relevant when you want to pretend to debunk something? More garbage from the so-called debunkers.

I brought it up again because a truther on another forum claimed that the power-down is proof, or indication, of CD's being planted.

Now, if anyone knows how to properly file a FOIA with the PA, please post here or send me a PM.

Cheers,
P

[Brainache]

...

Bull. Right here in this forum people talk about how it would have taken a year. Well... now it looks like they had YEARS.

...

To place optic fibre computer networks yes. Not explosives and det cord. You can't be that stupid, can you?

[BenBurch]

... You can't be that stupid, can you?

I can't believe you even ASKED that question!

[LastChild]

So none of you scary debunkers can think of any reasons they might need to turn off some power when installing fiber-optic cables?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003717300_webwaterparkdeath22m.html
Worker killed by high-voltage line at Wild Waves
By Jennifer Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporter
On Monday, Kessler, 28, of Marysville, was killed at Wild Waves water park in Federal Way. And Kessler's co-worker, Steve Uplinger, 19, of Snohomish, was seriously burned after they struck a 7,200-volt power line.
Kessler and Uplinger had been working at the water park the past three weeks, retrofitting fiber-optic lines before the park's June 9 opening. They were in a cherry-picker-type lift when it struck a live Puget Sound Energy line. Kessler died almost immediately.

http://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/face/stateface/ne/98ne025.html
Three Fiber Optic Cable Installers Killed by Contact with Power Line
A 41-year-old journeyman lineman, a 38-year-old journeyman lineman and a 24-year-old, all working as cable installers in aerial line construction, were killed when a guy wire contacted an 8,000 volt above ground power line. The 41-year-old and the 38-year-old were electrocuted and the 24-year-old died the following day as a result of electrical burns. There were no witnesses to the incident, but it appears a guy wire was disconnected by the victims and it contacted an 8,000 volt overhead power line that grounded to earth.

http://www.herzogcrebs.com/CM/Articles/Articles7.asp
John Logan, an apprentice lineman, was fatally electrocuted while working for Irby Construction Company. Irby was under contract with Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative to install 63 miles of fiber-optic cable near existing power lines and to perform structure reinforcement on existing energized lines owned by Sho-Me Power. At the time of his death, Logan was working near one of the energized lines.


Besides that was fiber optic cable the only thing E-J Electric were upgrading?


http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_towering_security_2/index.htm
CEE News, Jan 1, 2001
"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."
To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants. "We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.

E-J Electric Installation Co., the country's oldest independent electrical contractor, won a $28 million contract in 1996 to tighten security at the World Trade Center. The Long Island City, N.Y.-based contractor installed 2 million feet of fiber-optic cable, hundreds of security cameras, access control and 110 turnstiles, including systems integration.

[Alferd_Packer]

So none of you scary debunkers can think of any reasons they might need to turn off some power when installing fiber-optic cables?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003717300_webwaterparkdeath22m.html
Worker killed by high-voltage line at Wild Waves
By Jennifer Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporter
On Monday, Kessler, 28, of Marysville, was killed at Wild Waves water park in Federal Way. And Kessler's co-worker, Steve Uplinger, 19, of Snohomish, was seriously burned after they struck a 7,200-volt power line.
Kessler and Uplinger had been working at the water park the past three weeks, retrofitting fiber-optic lines before the park's June 9 opening. They were in a CHERRY-PICKER-TYPE LIFT when it struck a live Puget Sound Energy line. Kessler died almost immediately.

http://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/face/stateface/ne/98ne025.html
Three Fiber Optic Cable Installers Killed by Contact with Power Line
A 41-year-old journeyman lineman, a 38-year-old journeyman lineman and a 24-year-old, all working as cable installers in AERIAL line construction, were killed when a guy wire contacted an 8,000 volt above ground power line. The 41-year-old and the 38-year-old were electrocuted and the 24-year-old died the following day as a result of electrical burns. There were no witnesses to the incident, but it appears a guy wire was disconnected by the victims and it contacted an 8,000 volt overhead power line that grounded to earth.

http://www.herzogcrebs.com/CM/Articles/Articles7.asp
John Logan, an apprentice lineman, was fatally electrocuted while working for Irby Construction Company. Irby was under contract with Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative to install 63 miles of fiber-optic cable near existing power lines and to perform STRUCTURE REINFORCEMENT ON EXISTING ENERGIZED LINES owned by Sho-Me Power. At the time of his death, Logan was working near one of the energized lines.


Besides that was fiber optic cable the only thing E-J Electric were upgrading?


http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_towering_security_2/index.htm
CEE News, Jan 1, 2001
"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."
To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants. "We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.

E-J Electric Installation Co., the country's oldest independent electrical contractor, won a $28 million contract in 1996 to tighten security at the World Trade Center. The Long Island City, N.Y.-based contractor installed 2 million feet of fiber-optic cable, hundreds of security cameras, access control and 110 turnstiles, including systems integration.


Last Child, you are truly a child with no experience in the way the world works.

Can't you see the difference between the examples that you cite of outdoor power line strikes and the indoor environment of the WTC?


Just admit it, you've never been inside of a building higher than three stories and you have no idea how building electrical systems work.

[LastChild]

Last Child, you are truly a child with no experience in the way the world works.

Can't you see the difference between the examples that you cite of outdoor power line strikes and the indoor environment of the WTC?


Just admit it, you've never been inside of a building higher than three stories and you have no idea how building electrical systems work.

Here we go more pretend debunking. Now where would the installers have more room to stay away from power lines? Outside or inside a building?

And did this fiber optic upgrade not reach the outside world at some point?

And lastly...

WAS IT JUST A FIBER-OPTIC UPGRADE EJ ELECTRIC WAS CONTRACTED TO DO?

CAN YOU READ DEBUNKER?

[LastChild]

http://www.thefoa.org/tech/safety.htm

Safety in Fiber Optic Installations

Electrical Safety
You might be wondering what electrical safety has to do with fiber optics. Well fiber cables are often installed around electrical cables. Electricians are well-trained in electrical safety, but some fiber optic installers are not. We've heard rumors of fiber installers being shocked when working around electrical cables, but know that two fiber installers were killed when working on aerial cables because we heard about it from OSHA.
These two installers were installing all-dielectric self-supporting aerial cables on poles. The hangers, however, were metal and over six feet long. Both had attached the hangers to the poles, then when installing the fiber cables had rotated the hangers enough to contact high-voltage lines.
So even if the fiber is not conductive, fiber hardware can conduct electricity or the installer can come in contact with live electrical wires when working in proximity to AC power.

[DGM]

Here we go more pretend debunking. Now where would the installers have more room to stay away from power lines? Outside or inside a building?

And did this fiber optic upgrade not reach the outside world at some point?

And lastly...

WAS IT JUST A FIBER-OPTIC UPGRADE EJ ELECTRIC WAS CONTRACTED TO DO?

CAN YOU READ DEBUNKER?

Inside of a building where the feeds are in a conduit that they would have no need to be near. Like he said, you have no clue how a building is wired.

[LastChild]

Inside of a building where the feeds are in a conduit that they would have no need to be near. Like he said, you have no clue how a building is wired.

bull, bluff, pretend

besides...

WAS IT JUST A FIBER-OPTIC UPGRADE EJ ELECTRIC WAS CONTRACTED TO DO?

CAN YOU READ DEBUNKER?

[DGM]

bull, bluff, pretend

besides...

WAS IT JUST A FIBER-OPTIC UPGRADE EJ ELECTRIC WAS CONTRACTED TO DO?

CAN YOU READ DEBUNKER?


I read just fine. You on the other hand, not so much. What was I answering? (don't bother responding your worthless dribble is back to ignore)

Here we go more pretend debunking. Now where would the installers have more room to stay away from power lines? Outside or inside a building?

[LastChild]

I read just fine. You on the other hand, not so much. What was I answering? (don't bother responding your worthless dribble is back to ignore)

Were the fiber-optics not going between buildings? Were they not connected outside the entire WTC complex? Were they even only contracted to do a fiber-optic upgrade?

Never mind keep your hands over your ears it's much easier to pretend that way. Because that’s all this 9/11 debunking is.

Pretend.

[BenBurch]

DGM,

Don't argue with idiots, it only makes them think we want to hear from them.

-Ben

[DGM]

DGM,

Don't argue with idiots, it only makes them think we want to hear from them.

-Ben
:D

ETA Have you ever played "bop a mole"? Same thing only not in person.

[SpitfireIX]

Were the fiber-optics not going between buildings? Were they not connected outside the entire WTC complex? Were they even only contracted to do a fiber-optic upgrade?

Never mind keep your hands over your ears it's much easier to pretend that way. Because that’s all this 9/11 debunking is.

Pretend.


The power conduits leading to the World Trade Center were buried. From a New York Times article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E2D71339F937A25750C0A9649C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) about repairing the damage to utility systems near the World Trade Center:

New York is a vertical city, filled with lofty skyscrapers. This leaves little room for electrical and phone wires to run above ground. They must go below the surface . . .

When the trade center buildings were hit and later collapsed, heavy debris that was hidden by the smoke clouds went hurtling all over Lower Manhattan. Some of it pierced the ground, damaging utility systems. . . .

The city's two largest private utilities, Verizon and Con Edison, at first bypassed their underground systems and ran telephone and electric conduits -- the casings for wires -- along the sides of streets.


Further, from the National Fire Protection Association's report (http://www.fireox-international.com/fire/NFPA1993WTCIncidentReport.pdf) on the buildings' performance during the 1993 bombing (pp. 15-16):

Service conductors entering the complex are routed through a concrete encased duct bank which is located below an entrance/exit ramp for the B1 level. Still enclosed in concrete, the ceiling-level duct bank enters the service equipment vault, called the primary distribution center (PDC). . . .

The PDC-supplied electrical systems are designed so that electrical power to each building served is provided through more than one feeder. The substations for buildings in the complex are designed such that full electrical service will not be interrupted in any building even with the loss of two 13.8-volt electrical service conductors. . . . the feeders are encased in concrete over the distance to their respective substations throughout the complex.


Now who's pretending, LastChild?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17060474efd47d7e6b.jpg

[Jonnyclueless]

So now the electric company was in on it too? Is there anyone who WASN'T in on this inside job that people like LC still have no evidence of other than speculation?

[Alferd_Packer]

Here we go more pretend debunking. Now where would the installers have more room to stay away from power lines? Outside or inside a building?



Thank you for proving my point. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Alferd_Packer]

bull, bluff, pretend

besides...

WAS IT JUST A FIBER-OPTIC UPGRADE EJ ELECTRIC WAS CONTRACTED TO DO?

CAN YOU READ DEBUNKER?

Hand waving won't change the fact that you are clueless.

[Alferd_Packer]

Were the fiber-optics not going between buildings? Were they not connected outside the entire WTC complex? Were they even only contracted to do a fiber-optic upgrade?

Never mind keep your hands over your ears it's much easier to pretend that way. Because that’s all this 9/11 debunking is.

Pretend.


You do realize that the complex was interconnected n the lower levels, don't you?

You have no idea how buildings are built, do you?

[LastChild]

You do realize that the complex was interconnected n the lower levels, don't you?

You have no idea how buildings are built, do you?

You really have no desire to address these issues do you?


IS THERE A DANGER TO BEING ELECTROCUTED WHEN INSTALLING FIBER-OPTIC CABLE? YES OR NO

WAS IT EVEN JUST A FIBER-OPTIC UPGRADE EJ ELECTRIC WAS CONTRACTED TO DO? YES OR NO

CAN YOU READ DEBUNKER? YES OR NO

[stateofgrace]

You really have no desire to address these issues do you?


IS THERE A DANGER TO BEING ELECTROCUTED WHEN INSTALLING FIBER-OPTIC CABLE? YES OR NO



Yes, why ?

[LastChild]

The power conduits leading to the World Trade Center were buried. From a New York Times article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E2D71339F937A25750C0A9649C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) about repairing the damage to utility systems near the World Trade Center:




Further, from the National Fire Protection Association's report (http://www.fireox-international.com/fire/NFPA1993WTCIncidentReport.pdf) on the buildings' performance during the 1993 bombing (pp. 15-16):




Now who's pretending, LastChild?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17060474efd47d7e6b.jpg

Are you the one pretending? Pretending to not be able to read?

And what did they do after 93?

http://www.allbusiness.com/business-planning-structures/starting-a-business/394583-1.html

Copper cabling helps multiply power capacity at WTC.
Publication: Buildings
Date: Wednesday, September 1 1993

To address the situation, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, the WTC's owner, has decided to revamp the system with an electrical upgrade that will take an estimated 10 years and $81 million to complete. The project will involve extensive use of copper cabling.


Was 2001 ten years yet?

[defaultdotxbe]

Was 2001 ten years yet?
did it take the full 10 years? i recall conservative estimates of how long cleanup would take that ended up being way off

[LastChild]

did it take the full 10 years? i recall conservative estimates of how long cleanup would take that ended up being way off

Oh brother. Did it not? Did it even start in 93 or are you just JAQing off??

Was EJ Electric still working in the WTC on Sept 11th or not?

[BenBurch]

Stop lying to us Last Child. It's tiresome and pointless.

[LastChild]

Stop lying to us Last Child. It's tiresome and pointless.


That's not even a sad excuse for debunking. How lame.

[twinstead]

That's not even a sad excuse for debunking. How lame.

Unless of course you are indeed lying, then it is a pretty effective debunking, don't you think? 'Cause it would indeed be tiresome and pointless.

[stateofgrace]

LC you asked.


IS THERE A DANGER TO BEING ELECTROCUTED WHEN INSTALLING FIBER-OPTIC CABLE? YES OR NO



I have answered yes, there is a danger.

Do you accept my answer? Or would you like to debate this with me? I have worked on fibre optic systems, both single and multi mode for the last ten years offshore.I would like to think I am fully conversant with safety procedures when working on fibre optic cables and the associated dangers with such work.

So,do you accept my answer? Yes or no?

I am more than willing to learn from your vast expertise.

[defaultdotxbe]

Oh brother. Did it not? Did it even start in 93 or are you just JAQing off??

Was EJ Electric still working in the WTC on Sept 11th or not?
youre the one that finds the question relevant (but not relevant enough for you to make any effort to find out the answer apparently)

[contra]

Bull. Right here in this forum people talk about how it would have taken a year. Well... now it looks like they had YEARS.

O_o From your own links (http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_towering_security_2/index.htm), they had up to 60 engineers on site...
So of these at least 60 electrical engineers; none of them noticed (or care about) a lot of waste cabling, or they were in on the conspiracy.
Hell I know if I was employed to totally rewire a building i'd make sure I knew on every floor I knew where each one went. Or at least at the time I knew where it went and what it did.

But hey. This could be the closest the Truth movement are to having an actual person involved in the conspiracy.
E-J Electric Installation Co. employ about 800 people (according to yahoo finance)... at least 60 engineers worked on the WTC, and one of them may have been in the conspiracy.
1 in 800 for a blind test isn't bad odds. And within minutes of being at hte first you can probably reduce that to 1 in 200. Then its just research.

[A W Smith]

You really have no desire to address these issues do you?


IS THERE A DANGER TO BEING ELECTROCUTED WHEN INSTALLING FIBER-OPTIC CABLE? YES OR NO

Not when the power cable was in its own conduit or armored sheathing. Which it was throughout the entire building complex. It is isolated from human contact.

WAS IT EVEN JUST A FIBER-OPTIC UPGRADE EJ ELECTRIC WAS CONTRACTED TO DO? YES OR NO
They are separate trade specialties. Fiber technicians do not run power and electricians do not run fiber.

CAN YOU READ DEBUNKER? YES OR NO

We can read but apparently you cannot.

[The Doc]

Did you report it the first offense of it because now your friend is reported. You're full of it just like your version of 9/11.

Your whole attitude in general absolutely sucks dude. You're bringing down the quality and civility of discussion on these forums. I'm disappointed that the mods haven't gotten their act together and banned you yet.

What is relevant about the power-down itself? Is it only relevant when you want to pretend to debunk something? More garbage from the so-called debunkers.

There was no power down. As I said before though, conspiracists use it to somehow claim that a demolition job could have been prepared in a small window of a power-down the weekend before the attack.

Your side of this debate were the first to bring it up, your side is putting it in your literature, your side is the one that uses the power-down argument.

Point me to some wtc security footage either way. Power-down or not. Woops. What's the point again?

You are posting in a thread regarding the alleged power-down at the WTC complex. It is YOUR SIDE that claims the power-down (which didn't exist) has some kind of significance.

Bull. Right here in this forum people talk about how it would have taken a year. Well... now it looks like they had YEARS.

Right, so explosives and det cord can just lie around for years? Without being detected by sniffer dogs? Without anyone noticing them? Without decaying and being rendered useless?

You seem to lack any knowledge of how controlled demolitions are prepared. More over, you seem to follow this whole thing like it's some kind of movie.

Really? Did they need to do this while they were wiring the building like I sourced? Looks like you got debunked on your straw-man debunker. Congratulations.

Yes, they did. What is the det cord (no, not wires) attached to in the end, LastChild? Explosives.

Please report everyone if you're going to play hall monitor. If something is so offensive to you then report it from everyone. Unless of course you are dishonest. Woops called out again. How embarrassing.

For you.

I haven't seen anyone else call anyone "retarded". If I do though, I will report it. I prefer to post on civil message boards with civil people. I know exactly who you are at it shocks me that you're still allowed to post here.

[BenBurch]

Doc;

Nail. Hammer. Bang.

-Ben

[LashL]

Point me to some wtc security footage either way. Power-down or not.




Okay, this has to be one of the most stupid posts I have ever seen. You expect others to provide you with "security footage" of a power down that never happened, in the ruins of a 110 storey building that collapsed, crushing and obliterating most of its contents, to support your ludicrous claims of this non-existent power down?

That is simply delusional.

[SpitfireIX]

Are you the one pretending? Pretending to not be able to read?

And what did they do after 93?

http://www.allbusiness.com/business-planning-structures/starting-a-business/394583-1.html

Copper cabling helps multiply power capacity at WTC.
Publication: Buildings
Date: Wednesday, September 1 1993

To address the situation, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, the WTC's owner, has decided to revamp the system with an electrical upgrade that will take an estimated 10 years and $81 million to complete. The project will involve extensive use of copper cabling.


Was 2001 ten years yet?


From another article (http://www.allbusiness.com/operations/facilities-commercial-real-estate/411062-1.html) on the same web site:

From: Real Estate Weekly | Date: 12/1/1993

The Port Authority Board of Commissioners on November 18 authorized a $61.7 million project to increase the World Trade Center's electrical capacity . . .

This $61.7 million project will increase the amount of electrical power available to tenants in the World Trade Center to ten watts per square-foot from the current average of four watts per square-foot. The project entails the design, purchase and installation of six new substations and related power distribution equipment. . . .

Planning for the project began in April 1992. The project will progress in phases, with the final phase scheduled for completion in March 1999. [emphasis added]


City in the Sky states that the upgrades were all completed before Silverstein leased the property (p. 232), and several PANYNJ press releases, including the following, suggest that this is the case.

February 11, 2000 (http://panynj.gov/pr/22-00.html):

The Trade Center . . . has undergone several recent improvements. They are. . .

An electrical upgrade program to satisfy the projected power requirements of its tenants.


February 4, 1999 (http://www.panynj.gov/pr/9-99.html):

Among the recent improvements to the World Trade Center are modernized elevators and escalators, increased electrical, heating and air-conditioning capacity, and a new operations control center.


This is all beside the point, however, because I was specifically responding to your attempt to suggest via handwaving that installing fiber-optic cable outside the buildings would have carried a significant risk of electrocution.

From the same article you originally quoted:

Copper was selected for the mammoth project because it can handle the higher capacity required, and can be installed easily into existing conduits.


So please explain, if you would, LastChild, how workers installing fiber-optic cable outside the buildings would have been at any risk of being electrocuted.

Yet again,

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17060474b29a7a87f1.jpg

[LastChild]

Your whole attitude in general absolutely sucks dude. You're bringing down the quality and civility of discussion on these forums. I'm disappointed that the mods haven't gotten their act together and banned you yet.

Does that mean I have detention? Dude?

There was no power down. As I said before though, conspiracists use it to somehow claim that a demolition job could have been prepared in a small window of a power-down the weekend before the attack.

Not that they needed it and I proved it but 10 years is a small window?

Your side of this debate were the first to bring it up, your side is putting it in your literature, your side is the one that uses the power-down argument.

And your side was the first to dismiss it as nothing by presenting absolutely nothing.

You are posting in a thread regarding the alleged power-down at the WTC complex. It is YOUR SIDE that claims the power-down (which didn't exist) has some kind of significance.

You are posting from the position no one had time or access to the building to do whatever the hell they wanted. That would be wrong.

Right, so explosives and det cord can just lie around for years? Without being detected by sniffer dogs? Without anyone noticing them? Without decaying and being rendered useless?

det cord? lol Is this your debunking? Ok I'll pretend like that means something...

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story

Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
September 12, 2001
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. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

And this…

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...18/ai_75610255

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 18, 2001
"Once the cable installation is complete later this summer, we will be able to deliver network and communications services within days - an amazing capability through the use of this air-blown fiber process."

Wow you can’t even knock down a strawman. How pathetic.

You seem to lack any knowledge of how controlled demolitions are prepared. More over, you seem to follow this whole thing like it's some kind of movie.

You really do have nothing. Why do you bother?

Yes, they did. What is the det cord (no, not wires) attached to in the end, LastChild? Explosives.

If that’s even what they had to do they could have. This is not a debunking of anything.

I haven't seen anyone else call anyone "retarded". If I do though, I will report it. I prefer to post on civil message boards with civil people. I know exactly who you are at it shocks me that you're still allowed to post here.

Try the post before the one you reported genius. You know who I am? OH NO! Are they coming to get me? Lol

[chillzero]

Does that mean I have detention? Dude?
<snip>
Try the post before the one you reported genius. You know who I am? OH NO! Are they coming to get me? Lol

I want this to be the end of this line of discussion.
Issues of moderation should be discussed in Forum Mgt, not in threads.

[BigAl]

So none of you scary debunkers can think of any reasons they might need to turn off some power when installing fiber-optic cables?

I can't imagine where there would be any need in any building built to National Electric Code standards, which is EVERY building in the US.

A special case may be where the installers have to drill into a floor or wall known to have conduit where the blueprints are unavailable. In this case, a breaker would be turned off for one part of one floor for the few minutes. This is more likely for ad-hoc installations, not for major projects.

I don't think I've ever seen anything but very rare, momentary power downs for ANY data wiring, be it fibre (optical) or copper, and I've seen lots wiring installed in 17 years and several construction and renovation projects in two bank datacenter buildings in Manhattan. The data cable installation people work a normal day shift unless there is a crash deadline.

Fibre and low-voltage copper cable are all the same for safety issues around high voltage cable. If you are installing LV/Fibre and find yourself working near exposed HV (even if it is OFF), you are doing something very wrong.

In my experience of managing 24x7 computer facilities in three big Manhattan buildings, I say that the power-down claim is bullsh*t and I'd love to ask Forbes a few questions about his claims.

[LastChild]

From another article (http://www.allbusiness.com/operations/facilities-commercial-real-estate/411062-1.html) on the same web site:


City in the Sky states that the upgrades were all completed before Silverstein leased the property (p. 232), and several PANYNJ press releases, including the following, suggest that this is the case.

February 11, 2000 (http://panynj.gov/pr/22-00.html):

February 4, 1999 (http://www.panynj.gov/pr/9-99.html):


This is all beside the point, however, because I was specifically responding to your attempt to suggest via handwaving that installing fiber-optic cable outside the buildings would have carried a significant risk of electrocution.

From the same article you originally quoted:


So please explain, if you would, LastChild, how workers installing fiber-optic cable outside the buildings would have been at any risk of being electrocuted.

Yet again,


No you fail miserably and that's why you post pictures instead of facts. It is claimed by debunkers fiber-optics have nothing to do with power so there was no need for a power-down. This isn't even true never mind a debunking of anything. I sourced were fiber-optic workers have been electrocuted when they as professionals thought it was safe. This is all besides the point in the fact that they weren't just upgrading fiber optics but doing a complete upgrade to power as well. Did they never power-down anything when they did the power upgrade? All the same company who also BTW upgraded and maintained the security cameras that is supposedly the issue. And these people were still there on Sept 11th 2001 doing just that.

So if you want to claim no one had access or time to do whatever the hell they wanted to the towers that would be wrong debunker. YOU FAIL

If you want to claim on the other hand that it would take years to wire the building you would also be wrong. YOU FAIL AGAIN DEBUNKER

And if it’s an issue to you and you want to claim they have security footage of everything that went on before and during 9/11 at the WTC then produce some.

Scott Forbes claimed they were working in the towers the weekend before. I sourced where a project was slated to be going on around that very time to do exactly what he claimed they were doing. You want to focus on the power-down why? Because you think that if you can insinuate that there was no power-down it debunks something. It does not. But if you are going to setup this straw man at least have the metal muscle to knock it down.

[BenBurch]

BigAl,

Indeed, I have worked in wiring spaces at particle accelerators with just some massive live conductors right over my shoulder and I was in no danger whatsoever from them.

If I had an axe and wanted to get into those, it would have taken me several minutes to get through the armor. The only places where there was danger was in junction boxes, and if you were in those, you had to kill the circuit, and lock the breaker with a lock you had the key to so as to prevent it being re-energized. (I never did this but saw contractors do it.) But the guys who pulled detector wiring never worried about killing the circuit; it was safe.

-Ben

[stateofgrace]

BigAl,

Indeed, I have worked in wiring spaces at particle accelerators with just some massive live conductors right over my shoulder and I was in no danger whatsoever from them.

If I had an axe and wanted to get into those, it would have taken me several minutes to get through the armor. The only places where there was danger was in junction boxes, and if you were in those, you had to kill the circuit, and lock the breaker with a lock you had the key to so as to prevent it being re-energized. (I never did this but saw contractors do it.) But the guys who pulled detector wiring never worried about killing the circuit; it was safe.

-Ben

This is the point that is completely lost on LC. He as asked repeatedly is there any danger of being electrocuted while installing fibre optic cables, the answer is yes of course there is, if the cables go anywhere near life high voltage. Any engineer would know exactly where these danger areas are and simply avoid them; hence the risk is completely gone. There is absolutely no risk of getting a belt from the FO cable itself.

I have worked on multicore cables which have fibres in them along with HV conductors but again the risk is simply eliminated by making sure everything is simply isolated. It’s a simple concept really. The way to avoid getting a belt when installing a new FO cable is to avoid or isolate any HV stuff that is close to your working area.If the FO cable as to go through junction boxes,then they are isolated.

I guess in troofy land the best way to install any cable in any part of a building is to simply throw the main breaker to the entire building and plunge it into total darkness.

[LastChild]

This is the point that is completely lost on LC. He as asked repeatedly is there any danger of being electrocuted while installing fibre optic cables, the answer is yes of course there is, if the cables go anywhere near life high voltage. Any engineer would know exactly where these danger areas are and simply avoid them; hence the risk is completely gone. There is absolutely no risk of getting a belt from the FO cable itself.

I have worked on multicore cables which have fibres in them along with HV conductors but again the risk is simply eliminated by making sure everything is simply isolated. It’s a simple concept really. The way to avoid getting a belt when installing a new FO cable is to avoid or isolate any HV stuff that is close to your working area.If the FO cable as to go through junction boxes,then they are isolated.

I guess in troofy land the best way to install any cable in any part of a building is to simply throw the main breaker to the entire building and plunge it into total darkness.

And I guess in duh duh duh bunka land fiber-optic techs never get electrocuted. Even though I sourced and rubbed the pretend debunker nose in this very reality happening multiple times. Still they attempt in vain to try and wander away from the main issue that there was plenty of time and access to the building to do whatever certain people may have wanted to do. In other words the debunker lives in fantasy land with his official 9/11 version fantasy. It's the only place it will fly.

You debunk nothing. You pretend.

[defaultdotxbe]

And I guess in duh duh duh bunka land fiber-optic techs never get electrocuted.
so if they power down the buildings before installing fiber how are they getting electrocuted?

unless of course they install the fiber WITHOUT powering down the building...

[stateofgrace]

And I guess in duh duh duh bunka land fiber-optic techs never get electrocuted. Even though I sourced and rubbed the pretend debunker nose in this very reality happening multiple times.

You debunk nothing. You pretend.

Edit , nevermind, why bother.

[Zorglub]

And I guess in duh duh duh bunka land fiber-optic techs never get electrocuted. Even though I sourced and rubbed the pretend debunker nose in this very reality happening multiple times. Still they attempt in vain to try and wander away from the main issue that there was plenty of time and access to the building to do whatever certain people may have wanted to do. In other words the debunker lives in fantasy land with his official 9/11 version fantasy. It's the only place it will fly.

You debunk nothing. You pretend.

So, if "they" had years given to them to silently accomplish the wiring and set-up of explosives. Why then start a short cut the week before one of historys more noticable events? Did "they" suddenly ran out of time?

[SpitfireIX]

No you fail miserably and that's why you post pictures instead of facts. It is claimed by debunkers fiber-optics have nothing to do with power so there was no need for a power-down. This isn't even true never mind a debunking of anything. I sourced were fiber-optic workers have been electrocuted when they as professionals thought it was safe.


Frankly, you appear to be acting deliberately obtuse. Please answer the following four questions:

1. Were all three of the electrocutions you cited as examples due to contact with overhead power lines?

2. Do you understand that overhead power lines are generally insulated only where they are connected to utility poles, and that other sorts of power lines must be insulated all along their entire lengths?

3. Were there any overhead power lines at the World Trade Center?

4. If there were no overhead power lines at the World Trade Center, then how are your examples applicable?

This is all besides the point in the fact that they weren't just upgrading fiber optics but doing a complete upgrade to power as well. Did they never power-down anything when they did the power upgrade? All the same company who also BTW upgraded and maintained the security cameras that is supposedly the issue. And these people were still there on Sept 11th 2001 doing just that.


Again, quite frankly, you seem to be acting deliberately obtuse. The power upgrade was finished 2 1/2 years before the attacks. Are you seriously suggesting that the towers were rigged with explosives 2 1/2 years ahead of time??



<snip of various straw-man arguments>

Scott Forbes claimed they were working in the towers the weekend before. I sourced where a project was slated to be going on around that very time to do exactly what he claimed they were doing.


Your source, an article written before the upgrade received final approval, gave a vague estimate of 10 years from 1993 for completion. I cited a source that gave details of the final approval by the PANYNJ, including a planned completion date of March 1999. I cited two primary sources that indicate the project was completed by, or even slightly before, then. So why do you continue to parrot the 10-year figure, which was clearly just a preliminary estimate (or perhaps even a misunderstanding by the writer)?

You want to focus on the power-down why? Because you think that if you can insinuate that there was no power-down it debunks something. It does not. But if you are going to setup this straw man at least have the metal muscle to knock it down.


In other words, you're saying that no matter what, we can't prove that there wasn't a US government conspiracy. This is true, but it's also irrelevant, because proving such is impossible. Therefore, we must assume that there is no US government conspiracy, and require proof that one exists. Being in support of a clearly extraordinary claim, such proof must itself be extraordinary. Vague suspicions, unsubstantiated rumors, and innuendo do not come anywhere close to meeting that standard.

[LastChild]

Frankly, you appear to be acting deliberately obtuse. Please answer the following four questions:

1. Were all three of the electrocutions you cited as examples due to contact with overhead power lines?

2. Do you understand that overhead power lines are generally insulated only where they are connected to utility poles, and that other sorts of power lines must be insulated all along their entire lengths?

3. Were there any overhead power lines at the World Trade Center?

4. If there were no overhead power lines at the World Trade Center, then how are your examples applicable?

Oh brother this is a debunking or a JAQing off? Were they laying fiber-optics near power sources when they got electrocuted? Yes or no? Like you obviously assume things did they also assume things right before they were zapped dead? Edited to remove inappropriate remark. And when you source how power was core in-cased or underground source the power upgrade not the system that they upgraded from that you claim was in place when they did the fiber-optic upgrade genius.

Do not threaten or imply in any way violence upon another forum member.

Again, quite frankly, you seem to be acting deliberately obtuse. The power upgrade was finished 2 1/2 years before the attacks. Are you seriously suggesting that the towers were rigged with explosives 2 1/2 years ahead of time??
Your source, an article written before the upgrade received final approval, gave a vague estimate of 10 years from 1993 for completion. I cited a source that gave details of the final approval by the PANYNJ, including a planned completion date of March 1999. I cited two primary sources that indicate the project was completed by, or even slightly before, then. So why do you continue to parrot the 10-year figure, which was clearly just a preliminary estimate (or perhaps even a misunderstanding by the writer)?


One more time.

LEARN TO READ DEBUNKER AND READ EVERYTHING BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...18/ai_75610255

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)—June 18, 2001

"Once the cable installation is complete later this summer, we will be able to deliver network and communications services within days - an amazing capability through the use of this air-blown fiber process."

In other words, you're saying that no matter what, we can't prove that there wasn't a US government conspiracy.

Don’t use other words use my words or use nothing.

This is true, but it's also irrelevant, because proving such is impossible.

We are talking about you and the other duh duh duh bunkas not being able to debunk Scott Forbes. Not some imaginary thing you claim I said in your attempt to move the goal posts.

Therefore, we must assume that there is no US government conspiracy, and require proof that one exists. Being in support of a clearly extraordinary claim, such proof must itself be extraordinary. Vague suspicions, unsubstantiated rumors, and innuendo do not come anywhere close to meeting that standard.

You do all the assuming you like to support your fantasy of a complete and adequate version of events regarding 9/11. After all what else do you have? Picking on Scott Forbes and one thing he claimed out of all the unanswered questions and convenient coincidences needed to hold together this lame official version of 9/11 is debunking nothing. You keep trying to micromanage all of these inconsistencies surrounding 9/11 and separate them from making a whole but still that doesn’t even work for you anymore.

You continue to fail.

[LastChild]

So, if "they" had years given to them to silently accomplish the wiring and set-up of explosives. Why then start a short cut the week before one of historys more noticable events? Did "they" suddenly ran out of time?

It depends on what your claim is. If as debunker one wants to claim they needed years to set-up the building I proved years of access was available. If you claimed they couldn't have done it in a few days I also proved that wrong and sourced it.

Go back and read. I got you covered.

[Mr.Herbert]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are claiming the perps had access to critical areas to plant explosives? Det chord? Thermite?

So, am I to understand that while the electricians are upgrading the electrical systems at the WTC, they are acting as CD experts? Please help me understand.
I am a licensed electrician in the state of Massachusetts and heck, I would know if someone planted come TNT on my raceway's. I would think that the electrical inspectors may notice it a bit odd.

Explain how this is done without anyone noticing.

[A W Smith]

And I guess in duh duh duh bunka land fiber-optic techs never get electrocuted. Even though I sourced and rubbed the pretend debunker nose in this very reality happening multiple times. Still they attempt in vain to try and wander away from the main issue that there was plenty of time and access to the building to do whatever certain people may have wanted to do. In other words the debunker lives in fantasy land with his official 9/11 version fantasy. It's the only place it will fly.

You debunk nothing. You pretend.
All your examples of electrocution were outdoors on uninsulated power lines. NONE were indoors where power transmission lines are insulated and isolated from contact within conduit.

[VespaGuy]

So none of you scary debunkers can think of any reasons they might need to turn off some power when installing fiber-optic cables?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003717300_webwaterparkdeath22m.html
Worker killed by high-voltage line at Wild Waves
By Jennifer Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporter
On Monday, Kessler, 28, of Marysville, was killed at Wild Waves water park in Federal Way. And Kessler's co-worker, Steve Uplinger, 19, of Snohomish, was seriously burned after they struck a 7,200-volt power line.
Kessler and Uplinger had been working at the water park the past three weeks, retrofitting fiber-optic lines before the park's June 9 opening. They were in a cherry-picker-type lift when it struck a live Puget Sound Energy line. Kessler died almost immediately.

http://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/face/stateface/ne/98ne025.html
Three Fiber Optic Cable Installers Killed by Contact with Power Line
A 41-year-old journeyman lineman, a 38-year-old journeyman lineman and a 24-year-old, all working as cable installers in aerial line construction, were killed when a guy wire contacted an 8,000 volt above ground power line. The 41-year-old and the 38-year-old were electrocuted and the 24-year-old died the following day as a result of electrical burns. There were no witnesses to the incident, but it appears a guy wire was disconnected by the victims and it contacted an 8,000 volt overhead power line that grounded to earth.

http://www.herzogcrebs.com/CM/Articles/Articles7.asp
John Logan, an apprentice lineman, was fatally electrocuted while working for Irby Construction Company. Irby was under contract with Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative to install 63 miles of fiber-optic cable near existing power lines and to perform structure reinforcement on existing energized lines owned by Sho-Me Power. At the time of his death, Logan was working near one of the energized lines.
[/I]


So, your evidence of a power-down to install fiber optics is three instances where there wasn't a power-down to install fiber optics?

The Child is self-debunking.

[Brainache]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are claiming the perps had access to critical areas to plant explosives? Det chord? Thermite?

So, am I to understand that while the electricians are upgrading the electrical systems at the WTC, they are acting as CD experts? Please help me understand.
I am a licensed electrician in the state of Massachusetts and heck, I would know if someone planted come TNT on my raceway's. I would think that the electrical inspectors may notice it a bit odd.

Explain how this is done without anyone noticing.

There it is LC, the elephant in your basement that we have been trying to point out to you.

See it yet?

[Alferd_Packer]

I am a licensed electrician in the state of Massachusetts and heck, I would know if someone planted come TNT on my raceway's. I would think that the electrical inspectors may notice it a bit odd.

Explain how this is done without anyone noticing.

Because they didn't plant the explosives on the raceways, they ripped open the column enclosures to plant the explosives directly on the columns.

Then of course the patched it all back up, repainted, and replaced the walpaper, ceiling tiles, etc. without anyone noticing. You didn't notice when the NWO wired the pru building in Boston, did you? ah, oops, Ah, just forget I said that. . . ;)

[Alferd_Packer]

All your examples of electrocution were outdoors on uninsulated power lines. NONE were indoors where power transmission lines are insulated and isolated from contact within conduit.


Ha, and next I suppose you are going to claim that the NWO was not flying kites in the towers the week before as well!!!

How could they fly the kites near the WTC power chases without getting electrocuted?

Silly debunker

;)

[Zorglub]

It depends on what your claim is. If as debunker one wants to claim they needed years to set-up the building I proved years of access was available. If you claimed they couldn't have done it in a few days I also proved that wrong and sourced it.

Go back and read. I got you covered.

That must've been an answer to another question.
If " they" had several years of access to the towers to plant the explosives. Why a power down the weekend before 9/11? What took "them" several years to accomplish if they had to turn of the power just ahead of 9/11? Bad logistics?
There you go.

[SpitfireIX]

And I guess in duh duh duh bunka land fiber-optic techs never get electrocuted. Even though I sourced and rubbed the pretend debunker nose in this very reality happening multiple times.


You haven't rubbed anyone's nose in anything, except in your imagination. Just to reiterate, all three of those men were electrocuted due to contact with overhead power lines, of which there were none at the World Trade Center.

Still they attempt in vain to try and wander away from the main issue that there was plenty of time and access to the building to do whatever certain people may have wanted to do. In other words the debunker lives in fantasy land with his official 9/11 version fantasy. It's the only place it will fly.

You debunk nothing. You pretend.


Yet again, you're trying to shift the burden of proof. Further, you simply handwave away the issue of how the people planting explosives could have been certain that they and their work would have gone unnoticed.

[Alferd_Packer]

It depends on what your claim is. If as debunker one wants to claim they needed years to set-up the building I proved years of access was available. If you claimed they couldn't have done it in a few days I also proved that wrong and sourced it.

Go back and read. I got you covered.

What you have not proven is that your scenario would be valid without having the people who worked in and maintained the building for a living being "In on it."

please do so.

Do you have any idea how many people are involved in a renaovation project like the ones you describe?

Do you have any idea just how many people are involved in the maintance and management of a building like just one of the towers?

Any whatsoever?

Do you have any idea what sort of access restricitons and controlls that the various financial institutions that occupied the buildings had built into their leases?

Grow up and get a real job.

[defaultdotxbe]

One more time.

LEARN TO READ DEBUNKER AND READ EVERYTHING BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...18/ai_75610255

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)—June 18, 2001

"Once the cable installation is complete later this summer, we will be able to deliver network and communications services within days - an amazing capability through the use of this air-blown fiber process."

perhaps you should try reading, that quote clearly refers to communication cable, not power, and as several have pointed out to you there would be no need to cut power to do that (as someone who has installed fiber, cat3, cat5 and cat6 i can confirm that they wouldnt cut power to install it)

[Mr.Herbert]

Because they didn't plant the explosives on the raceways, they ripped open the column enclosures to plant the explosives directly on the columns.

Then of course the patched it all back up, repainted, and replaced the walpaper, ceiling tiles, etc. without anyone noticing. You didn't notice when the NWO wired the pru building in Boston, did you? ah, oops, Ah, just forget I said that. . . ;)

Too young for the Pru.... but I was the electrician at one of the hotels that was involved during 911. I did notice some thermite harnesses on several columns in the upper floors that made them burn at angles. Big stickers on them .... "ACME THERMITE DETONATOR"

[gumboot]

I'm curious... when these companies came in to upgrade facilities in the buildings, but instead laid explosive charges and det cord, why is it that none of the high powered tenants in the WTC complained that the upgrades didn't improve their services at all, but that the guys doing the upgrade had laid cables all over the show, around the core and perimeter of the floors, disrupting their business and leaving these odd bulges on the columns?

I mean, c'mon. The June upgrade was for network and communication services. Do you really think the tenants in the WTC didn't notice that their network performance didn't improve at all?

[LastChild]

Back and forth back and forth with nothing but nonsense.

Let me know what time the debunking starts will ya?

I can't believe so many of you spend so much time coming up with absolutely nothing.

What a waste. I mean this Forbes guy has been around with this claim for years and this is the best you can come up with?

Don't make me laugh. You debunk nothing.

[twinstead]

LC you prove nothing. This is a forum with pretty smart people. Your infantile claim of victory in a situation that warrants NO such confidence is simply funny. Nothing more.

[defaultdotxbe]

What a waste. I mean this Forbes guy has been around with this claim for years and this is the best you can come up with?
youd think in all that time the truthers would be able to find at least one other person who can confirm a building of 10,000 employees was powered down, i mean you dont even have a mike the emt to back up forbes's story

[MIKILLINI]

Back and forth back and forth with nothing but nonsense.



When you put forth no evidence LC, this is what you really accomplish.

[ElMondoHummus]

Why in God's name is this thread still alive? It seems as though the argument has descended below the trees in arguing the nature of the forest. Regardless of whether the conspiracy fantasy posits a multihour window during a powerdown, or a multiyear one during an ongoing project, the fact remains that no evidence of either explosives or incendiaries in the post-collapse rubble exists, nor is there any evidence showing that any suspicious activity occured during the decade-plus project. So it's pushing an irrelevancy to claim the explosives/incendiaries emplacement window was on the order of years rather than hours. And it's seriously descending beyond irrelevancy to quibble over whether power or networking cables are involved, or whether powerdowns occur in given situations in general. No matter what the results of such minute arguments are, the basic facts still stand.

Can this thread please die? I say this with profuse apologies to Panoply Prefect, who was merely trying to discuss FOIAs to determine the nature of the power-down discussion. The thread got infected and lost its way.

[The Doc]

Not that they needed it and I proved it but 10 years is a small window?

You are severely misunderstanding what I am saying to you. YOUR SIDE OF THE DEBATE uses this point. The reason they do so is to convince people that a power down in the WTC before the attacks was the time that explosives were placed. According to conspiracists no power = no surveillance and no workers.

The conspiracist argument is:
1. Scott Forbes Claims Power down.
2. Therefore no power.
3. Therefore no workers.
4. Therefore no security.
5. Therefore explosives could be placed in secrecy.

The ten years that you speak of is irrelevant. Sure, 10 years is plenty of time to wire a building for demolition. However, demolition doesn't just involve putting some cable in a wall and attaching it to explosives.

The walls of the building need to be pulled down. Charges need to be fork lifted into the offices and placed on exposed columns. Det cord (not fiber optic cables) is then attached to the explosives. You can't just pack det cord in a wall and expect it to last 10 years.

And your side was the first to dismiss it as nothing by presenting absolutely nothing.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3089122
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/10/power-down-debunked.html
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/19.php
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

I'd call that far more than "absolutely nothing". So instead of claiming that no counter-points have been made, how about addressing them?

You are posting from the position no one had time or access to the building to do whatever the hell they wanted. That would be wrong.

No, I'm not saying that at all, captain Straw Man. I'm saying that the tasks that need to be completed to prepare a controlled demolition are much more extensive, laborious, and noticeable than those that involve installing some fiber optic cables.

I'm of the position that a controlled demolition being prepared in a busy office building is something that cannot be completed in a building that is 99.7% occupied (Real Estate figures in 2001) around the clock.

det cord? lol Is this your debunking? Ok I'll pretend like that means something...

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story

Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
September 12, 2001
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. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

Typical of a conspiracy theorist. Repeat an argument that has been debunked on several occasions in the past six years. Try reading some of the counter-points that you claim don't exist and you may learn something.

There were bomb sniffing dogs in the WTC up until, and during the events of 9/11. Of of them was named Sirius. Google him.

And this…

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...18/ai_75610255

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 18, 2001
"Once the cable installation is complete later this summer, we will be able to deliver network and communications services within days - an amazing capability through the use of this air-blown fiber process."

Wow you can’t even knock down a strawman. How pathetic.

Let me guess. Your vision of a controlled demolition involves a Navy SEAL team going into the building under darkness through air conditioning shafts and placing a few sticky-explosive packs on the walls and parachuting off the room to safety?

I fail to see why you have put that text in bold? What is significant about it? Are you trying to say that because communications can be delivered in days, a controlled demolition can be prepared in the same time frame? How about instead of random quotes, you explain their significance to your argument for once.

You really do have nothing. Why do you bother?

Ignore the whole post, extract one random comment, claim it as my argument. Nice method, although it won't hold up to third party scrutiny of this conversation.

If that’s even what they had to do they could have. This is not a debunking of anything.

"Nuh-uh!" has never been a valid counter argument, LastChild.

Try the post before the one you reported genius. You know who I am? OH NO! Are they coming to get me? Lol

At moderator request, I'm going to let this go. You should read the forum management forum if you wish to talk more about this.

[The Doc]

It depends on what your claim is. If as debunker one wants to claim they needed years to set-up the building I proved years of access was available.

Ok, which years, between 1973 and 2001, were the offices of World Trade Center 1,2 and 7 free of occupants, bomb detection systems, security, police etc? Sure, you may be able to do them floor by floor, but at the end of the day the det cord is still going to be lying around and going from floor to floor until it's destroyed.

I'm tempted to say any time after 1993, seeing as that bomb blast presumably would have yielded a complete search of the buildings involving bomb sniffer dogs. Seeing as I have no proof of that though, you can find me a block of years before then.

Years of access to lay down fiber optic cables may have been there, but I suggest you read some literature on controlled demolition if you think the preparation is the same.

You're also making the assumption that cable workers aren't inspected along with their equipment by security before they start work. What happens when they go to use their new fiber optics system and discover that it doesn't work because all the tubing was replaced with detonation equipment?

[BenBurch]

Doc,

For Lost Child to be correct, about 30,000 people would have to have been "in" on this thing, including many who died that day.

I think we can see that this is something only a fool would consider for even a moment.

-Ben

[LastChild]

Doc,

For Lost Child to be correct, about 30,000 people would have to have been "in" on this thing, including many who died that day.

I think we can see that this is something only a fool would consider for even a moment.

-Ben

I thought it was debunkers who claimed the towers fell from structural damage and building content fire to a few floors near the top.

Not that they couldn't if they wanted to I sourced how they could do it in a couple days or had years if needed, but why would they need to wire the whole entire building given your version of how the towers collapsed? Couldn't they have just done some floors near the top?

[Jonnyclueless]

I thought it was debunkers who claimed the towers fell from structural damage and building content fire to a few floors near the top.

Not that they couldn't if they wanted to I sourced how they could do it in a couple days or had years if needed, but why would they need to wire the whole entire building given your version of how the towers collapsed? Couldn't they have just done some floors near the top?

Because the nonsense argument made by twoofers is that the speed of the collapse was too fast. This would mean that every other floor had to have explosives at least in order to move the building out of the way in time. According to CTer logic. Thus the entire building would indeed have to be wired up.

And are you telling me that your evidence is that half of an entire building was powered down and only 1 person noticed? Wow....

[LastChild]

Because the nonsense argument made by twoofers is that the speed of the collapse was too fast. This would mean that every other floor had to have explosives at least in order to move the building out of the way in time. According to CTer logic. Thus the entire building would indeed have to be wired up.

I'm not asking you to answer someone else's question I'm asking you to answer mine. Can you? Could the towers have collapsed from explosives damaging the same amount of floors as the plane?

What about any amount of explosives at all in addition to the planes? Would that have helped the collapse or slowed it down?

And are you telling me that your evidence is that half of an entire building was powered down and only 1 person noticed? Wow....

Are you telling me you have proof he's lying? Well post it debunker. What's taking you so long?

[CHF]

Could the towers have collapsed from explosives damaging the same amount of floors as the plane?

Perhaps....if you can think of some explosive devices that can survive having a 757 slammed into them.

This suggestion of yours is pretty desperate, LC.

We know that a plane slammed into the WTC...we know that there was heavy damage and severe fires....we know that the collapse started on the exact floors where the plane impacted...

And you contend that this could mean that CD charges were planted on those same floors, that a plane slammed into them, triggering a massive inferno, all of which the charges withstood...and then the charges were set off after an hour to take the building down?

[defaultdotxbe]

Are you telling me you have proof he's lying? Well post it debunker. What's taking you so long?
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, youve provided the former but are sorely lacking in the latter

[LastChild]

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, youve provided the former but are sorely lacking in the latter

What's extraordinary to me is calling Forbes a liar based on absolutely nothing.

[defaultdotxbe]

What's extraordinary to me is calling Forbes a liar based on absolutely nothing.
whats extraordinary to everyone else is one fo the busiest buildings on the planet being powered down for 36 hours and only 1 man noticing

[Par]

What's extraordinary to me is calling Forbes a liar based on absolutely nothing.


Well, if you believe that his story is so compelling and our responses have been so inadequate, then publicise both sides of the discussion and have your new investigation. I don’t think it’ll work, personally. I think that practically any rational person who you showed it to would agree with us. But you obviously think differently.

[LastChild]

whats extraordinary to everyone else is one fo the busiest buildings on the planet being powered down for 36 hours and only 1 man noticing

Do you have proof he was lying?

[defaultdotxbe]

Do you have proof he was lying?
have i said he was lying? i can think of a few scenarios in which his story is wring without him knowingly spreading false information

but rather than asking me to prove a negative do you have any evidence at all (not even going so far as "proof") that he isnt mistaken?

[Par]

Do you have proof he was lying?


We don’t need to “prove” that he was lying. We only need to show that it’s more rational to believe that he was reflecting the matter inaccurately (whether intentionally or not) than to believe that he was reflecting the matter accurately.

[CHF]

LC, I'd love to hear your theory as to why Forbes' powerdown isn't corroborated by anyone else.

[Par]

Oh, two thousand. I didn't notice. There should have been a firework or something. I'd have been off my tits on happiness.

[BenBurch]

whats extraordinary to everyone else is one fo the busiest buildings on the planet being powered down for 36 hours and only 1 man noticing

In my correspondence with him;

1. He never saw the building at night with the floors blacked out.

2. He was not in the building at all during that time.

3. He gave me two email addresses for a co-worker of his who supposedly is still in NYC and who can verify his story, and neither address was answered. I had marked the messages for return receipt and never got the return (yes I know that does not always work.)

4. He could provide NOTHING whatsoever to corroborate his story.

Charitably, I think he might believe what he is saying, but is mistaken for one reason or another.

[BenBurch]

OK, here is the deal, I will give the name and email of this supposed corroborating contact privately to anybody in NYC (anybody I decide I trust) who wants to run down that lead further than email. The emails went to http://www.fiduciarytrust.com/ and to http://www.franklintempleton.com/ - On neither site can I find a employee directory, not surprising in that industry. The name is fairly common, 13 in NYC phone book alone and who knows if he lives in Jersey or Rochelle or Long Island?

I don't have time to run this down further, I have a radio network to keep running now, but I'd be happy to see it run down.

-Ben

[LastChild]

We don’t need to “prove” that he was lying. We only need to show that it’s more rational to believe that he was reflecting the matter inaccurately (whether intentionally or not) than to believe that he was reflecting the matter accurately.

More rational does not mean true. And it's not a debunking of anything.

[LastChild]

have i said he was lying? i can think of a few scenarios in which his story is wring without him knowingly spreading false information

but rather than asking me to prove a negative do you have any evidence at all (not even going so far as "proof") that he isnt mistaken?

So you don't know if he is wrong, lying, or telling the truth. You can only guess and pretend your guess is better then the next.

[defaultdotxbe]

So you don't know if he is wrong, lying, or telling the truth. You can only guess and pretend your guess is better then the next.
yeah thats pretty much what ockham's razor does

any lucking finding anyone else? or was forbes the only one in the building that weekend?

[Par]

More rational does not mean true.


It’s more rational to believe that the Earth orbits the Sun than to believe the opposite. More rational doesn’t mean true. But it would be strange to adopt a belief that is less rational that its alternative.

[Par]

More rational does not mean true. And it's not a debunking of anything.


Well, essentially that’s exactly what debunking is – showing that the non-conspiratorial explanation is more rational than the conspiratorial one.

[The Doc]

I thought it was debunkers who claimed the towers fell from structural damage and building content fire to a few floors near the top.

Not that they couldn't if they wanted to I sourced how they could do it in a couple days or had years if needed, but why would they need to wire the whole entire building given your version of how the towers collapsed? Couldn't they have just done some floors near the top?

You can't place any explosives near the site of an airliner exploding and expect them to survive the blast.

It is impossible for explosives to have initiated the collapse of the World Trade Center. They simply wouldn't have survived the impact and ensuing fireball.

Watch videos of the collapse up close if you don't believe me. The collapse began right on the impact zone, and you can see the walls get pulled inwards (see the NIST report for more).

[The Doc]

Do you have proof he was lying?

He made the claim, he provides the evidence.

There are mountains of facts that indicate that there was no power down, as I have shown you in this thread. Given these facts working against him, I think it's highly irrational to believe Forbes until he presents some evidence or corroborating witnesses to support his case.

[BillyRayValentine]

More rational does not mean true. And it's not a debunking of anything.

Looks like it's heads-you-win, tails-we-lose. What stupidity. Stop embarrassing yourself.

So you don't know if he is wrong, lying, or telling the truth. You can only guess and pretend your guess is better then the next.

No, I can apply my relevant knowledge and experience, and not argue from a point of complete and utter ignorance like a petulant child. To wit, the power-down alleged by Forbes has been corroborated by no one, yet thousands would have been aware if it had taken place. Many companies in NYC essentially operate 24-7. Not all, but enough so that building managers MUST notify all tenants and their employees regarding any planned interruption in building services. No exceptions. Period. If half a WTC tower was shut down for a day+, it would be easy to get corroboration. Forbes can't, since Forbes is a liar.

Some consider he might just be "mistaken". In a sense I think this is true - there was probably some sort of upgrade at his firm that required temporarliy shutting down their systems or some such. Unfortunately, that can't possibly be used as cover to justify the obviously false claims in his initial letter, as well as his claim that (paraphrasing) "as soon as I saw 9/11 unfold, I knew it was related to the weekend work".

He didn't make a mistake, honestly misinterpreting events. He had an agenda, and was willing to prove himself a lying pinhead to support it.

That's dedication.

[Alferd_Packer]

Did anyone else notice that after LC failed to get anywhere with his contention that there was an electrical safety issue in the pulling fiber optic cable in the building he dropped that issue and started on a new tack that is also going nowhere fast?

[funk de fino]

So you don't know if he is wrong, lying, or telling the truth. You can only guess and pretend your guess is better then the next.

He is completely wrong about the powerdown for the top 50 floors as claimed.

He goes to truthers meetings in the UK and repeats those claims therefore he is lying.

We already had this discussion where you claimed to have been to the top of the towers but could not remember what electrical apparatus was needed in the sky lobby. If there was no power above floor 50 then the lobby was not open. If the lobby was not open then my friends were hallucinating it when they were up there during the supposed power down. The ticket supplied on this site for the same timing was proof the lobby was open therefore must have had power.

If the power down was in effect it still would not have affected the cameras or security locks, that Scott insinuated, at the ground lobby level. If there were cameras and security locks below floor 50 then how the the "strange boiler suited guys" get up to his floor past security.

It is Scott who claims that the powerdown was something to do with the events of the day, not debunkers, so the claims need to be verified and so far he has failed spectacularly. Much like you LC

He is a liar

[twinstead]

So what have we learned? I for one have learned that just because something is more rational doesn't mean it is true. Interesting.

Well, I have no problem with that, but I think I'll keep the 'rational' explanation of events as my number one position until I have some pretty compelling evidence to believe the 'irrational' explanation is the one that's true.

I suspect, however, that LCs brilliant stance on rationality vs irrationally is simply a circuit breaker to allow him to deal with the fact that his position is irrational. I don't blame him; my 8 year old does the same thing.

[Panoply_Prefect]

I filed a FOIA with the PANYNJ, incl links to this thread:


I've come across a claim made by an employee of Fiduciary
Trust, a tenant of WTC2, Scott Forbes, where he states that the top half
of WTC2 had a complete electrical "power down" the weekend prior to
9/11 2001.

This power down, mr Forbes claims, was ordered by the Port Authority and
thus I would like to request under the FOIA any information pertaining
this alleged power down, in an effort to validate mr Forbes claim.


I recieved this reply:


Re: Freedom of Information Reference No. ****

Dear Mr. ***************

This is a response to your April 22, 2008 request, which has been processed under the Port Authority’s policy on Freedom of Information, (the “Policy,” copy enclosed) for records generally related to a scheduled power down at Two World Trade Center the weekend prior to September 11, 2001.

Please be advised that there are no documents in Port Authority files responsive to your request.

Sincerely,



Kathleen P. Bincoletto
FOI Administrator


I would imagine that had PA ordered a power down as mr Forbes claim, there would have been a paper-trail.

[lapman]

I filed a FOIA with the PANYNJ, incl links to this thread:



I recieved this reply:



I would imagine that had PA ordered a power down as mr Forbes claim, there would have been a paper-trail.
Maybe you should rephrase that to all written and e-mailed communication with Fiduciary Trust from 9/01/2001 - 9/10/2001. There may not be any documents that specifically state "power down."

[ElMondoHummus]

I filed a FOIA with the PANYNJ, incl links to this thread:



I recieved this reply:



I would imagine that had PA ordered a power down as mr Forbes claim, there would have been a paper-trail.

Well, we can state with moderate certainty that there was no building-wide powerdown, since PANYNY has no such record. But then again, we haven't been considering building-wide powerdowns for some time now anyway, so it's sort of a moot point. This leaves us with (gack!) speculation.

It could be that individual floors or businesses within the tower powered down internally for some reason, and that's what Forbes discovered. At the university I work at, buildings or sections of buildings have powerdowns for various maintenance or installation activities, and when the affected area is local, many of us who are part of "central" support organizations are almost never told about such activities. Or if we are, it's as a "courtesy", or a "heads up, in case someone bugs you about it instead of us". Now of course, that is complete speculation, but I'm trying to reconcile Panoply's FOIA result with Forbes's statement. I'm not ready to out-and-out say he's a "liar", because to me, his claim sounds like it's simply being "misinterpreted" by conspiracy peddlers:


SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

To me, all this does is add to the ledger saying that there's nothing suspicious to be found in running down the "powerdown" at the WTC. Which, given that it was merely one of many big reach claims by the "Truth" movement back in the day, is really not that surprising.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Bloody hell, that post went into the wrong thread...

I blame "tabbed browsing".

:blush:

[ElMondoHummus]

Bloody hell, that post went into the wrong thread...

I blame "tabbed browsing".

:blush:

BLAAAAAAAAH! So did I!!! :eek:

Mods: If you wanna move his and my screwups, please feel free to do so. :o

[ElMondoHummus]

Thank you, Mods! :D

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm not asking you to answer someone else's question I'm asking you to answer mine. Can you? Could the towers have collapsed from explosives damaging the same amount of floors as the plane?

What about any amount of explosives at all in addition to the planes? Would that have helped the collapse or slowed it down?



Are you telling me you have proof he's lying? Well post it debunker. What's taking you so long?

Oh so now you want to change the subject? So then what you are saying is that you now have NO evidence of a controlled demolition. And I agree with you that there is no proof of a controlled demolition. Because after all, what is your reason for thinking it was a controlled demolition? The speed of the collapse. So if explosives were used just where the plane was, which is impossible since they would be destroyed by the planes, then the collapse would have been too slow based on the reason for claiming its a demolition in the first place.

So you see kid, I am not avoiding your question, i am showing you WHY it's wrong.

And as for Scott, are you telling me that everyone who was there that day and saw the lights on and all the people who were up in the towers during that time are all liars? Because what I am saying is that scott is proven to be wrong. For what reasons I don't know or care. All that matters are the facts kid. You should try them sometime.

[Jonnyclueless]

Since we know Scott Forbes in indeed wrong about his claims, maybe our little LC can tell us why he is wrong? You tell us, is he lying or was he just mistaken? Since you are the one interested in speculation, then you tell us.

[BenBurch]

I filed a FOIA with the PANYNJ...

Case closed.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Case closed.

Not for the truthers Im arguing with - they just claim that the FOI-policy (http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/ContactInformation/foi_policy.html)gives PANYNJ the right to withold anything and thus the lack of document is just more proof of a cover-up.

[The Doc]

I would imagine that had PA ordered a power down as mr Forbes claim, there would have been a paper-trail.

Most definitely.

I'm sure there would have been dozens of complaints from the tenants that would all have been on paper if there was a power-down.

[LastChild]

Most definitely.

I'm sure there would have been dozens of complaints from the tenants that would all have been on paper if there was a power-down.

What paper? What security footage? What's your point?

[funk de fino]

What paper? What security footage? What's your point?

How old were you when you were up the Tower LC?

[The Doc]

What paper? What security footage? What's your point?

You seem to have a very difficult time ever understanding the point. Please read the posts multiple times until you understand them before you post irrelevant posts or requests for people to make it easier for you to understand.

I'm saying that a power-down of multiple floors of any of the World Trade Center buildings surely would have drawn some complaints to the Port Authority by the tenants.

The tenants of the floors that Forbes claims were affected by the alleged power-down include the First Commercial Bank (Floor 78), Fuji Bank (Floors 78 – 92), Fiduciary Trust and the Atlantic Bank of New York.

I don't know about you, but if I was a bank, and I found out my power (and therefore security) was going to be shut off for 24-36 hours (as Forbes claimed), I'd be contacting people to complain and make plans to keep my assets secured. This would leave a paper trail.

As the FOIA request has shown, there isn't any record of any power-down, or anyone contacting the Port Authority regarding a power-down. Based on this, and mountains of other evidence that I posed links to earlier in this thread, taking Scott Forbes word for it is simply illogical and irrational.

[Alferd_Packer]

The tenants of the floors that Forbes claims were affected by the alleged power-down include the First Commercial Bank (Floor 78), Fuji Bank (Floors 78 – 92), Fiduciary Trust and the Atlantic Bank of New York.

I don't know about you, but if I was a bank, and I found out my power (and therefore security) was going to be shut off for 24-36 hours (as Forbes claimed), I'd be contacting people to complain and make plans to keep my assets secured. This would leave a paper trail.


More than likely, such a powerdown would have been expressly prohibited by the lease agreement unless pre-approved by the affected tenants.

[LastChild]

Wow that's some debunking thus far. So a powerdown would have been unusual huh?

Let me ask all you scary debunkers something.

Isn't that the same thing Forbes is claiming?

[Par]

Wow that's some debunking thus far. So a powerdown would have been unusual huh?


Yes. Such a power down going unrecorded and practically unnoticed is far less likely that the possibility that Forbes is reflecting the matter inaccurately. I’m glad to see that you’re following this.

[Zorglub]

Wow that's some debunking thus far. So a powerdown would have been unusual huh?

Let me ask all you scary debunkers something.

Isn't that the same thing Forbes is claiming?

Let me try to put it this way:
How would possibly a 24-36 hrs powerdown in approxemately half of WTC2 go unnoticed by thousands of people, save one?

Unless every other person in WTC2 but Scott Forbes and the occasional passer by on Manhattan, on a weekend, was blind as a mice or had the short term memory of the common mosquito of course. I cannot grasp how this event would go totally unnoticed.
I sincerely and honestly ask you for some sort of theory on this subject.

[Alferd_Packer]

Wow that's some debunking thus far. So a powerdown would have been unusual huh?

Let me ask all you scary debunkers something.

Isn't that the same thing Forbes is claiming?

You seem to be living up to your screen name here.

If the top of one of the towers was dark all weekend, don't you think someone would have taken a picture of it? Wouldn't that picture have come out by now?

[nicepants]

What's extraordinary to me is calling Forbes a liar based on absolutely nothing.

It's based on the fact that there is NOTHING that backs up his claims. No paper trail, no other workers who remember a severe power-down, etc.

The burden of proof is on Mr. Forbes if he wants us to believe what he's saying.

[LastChild]

You seem to be living up to your screen name here.

If the top of one of the towers was dark all weekend, don't you think someone would have taken a picture of it? Wouldn't that picture have come out by now?


SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

GW: When did it end?

SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.

Saturday night isn't all weekend and he just claimed it's what he was told...

GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

Now one more time debunkers. Scott Forbes thought this was significant because a power-down never happened before so he thought it was unusual.

So let me get this straight. Your debunking of Scott Forbes claiming a power-down at the WTC was unusual is that a power-down at the WTC would have been unusual?

BRAVO

[Par]

Scott Forbes thought this was significant because a power-down never happened before so he thought it was unusual.


Such a power-down going unrecorded and practically unnoticed would have been so unusual that it is far less likely than the possibility that Forbes is reflecting the matter inaccurately.

[defaultdotxbe]

SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

GW: When did it end?

SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.

Saturday night isn't all weekend and he just claimed it's what he was told...
your right, i have it on good authority that manhattan is pretty deserted on saturday nights


GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

Now one more time debunkers. Scott Forbes thought this was significant because a power-down never happened before so he thought it was unusual.

So let me get this straight. Your debunking of Scott Forbes claiming a power-down at the WTC was unusual is that a power-down at the WTC would have been unusual?

BRAVO

whats unusual is such an unusual event happening and only 1 PERSON taking notice


does that not seem the slightest bit odd to you?

[LastChild]

your right, i have it on good authority that manhattan is pretty deserted on saturday nights


whats unusual is such an unusual event happening and only 1 PERSON taking notice


does that not seem the slightest bit odd to you?

I think the whole thing is odd and obviously so did Scott Forbes and that's why he wrote the 9/11 commission to bring it to their attention.

So? Your debunking of Forbes is that you agree with him?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Another odd thing is that within the same interview, Forbes goes from 36hrs blackout to 26:


SF: Because of a "power down" notified by the Port Authority. Power was being switched off for a 36hr period in the top half of tower



Off on Saturday afternoon - around 12 noon I think - and back on at about 2 pm on the Sunday


Or do I misunderstand something here?

[Panoply_Prefect]

I think the whole thing is odd and obviously so did Scott Forbes and that's why he wrote the 9/11 commission to bring it to their attention.

So? Your debunking of Forbes is that you agree with him?

You mean that Forbes went to the 9/11 Commission saying "Hey, the odd thing about this power down is that I'm the only one ever to notice it"?

[CHF]

LC,

what's your theory on why only Scott Forbes noticed this powerdown?

Was the rest of New York just too stupid to notice that only half the WTC was lit up?

[defaultdotxbe]

I think the whole thing is odd and obviously so did Scott Forbes and that's why he wrote the 9/11 commission to bring it to their attention.

So? Your debunking of Forbes is that you agree with him?
so you honestly think the powerdown was unusual, but its perfectly reasonable only 1 person noticed?

[LastChild]

LC,

what's your theory on why only Scott Forbes noticed this powerdown?

Was the rest of New York just too stupid to notice that only half the WTC was lit up?

How do you know they didn't notice? Should they have taken out an ad somewhere? Or maybe they should have called you personally?

Are you debunking yet? Cause I might have missed it. Let me know when it starts.

[LastChild]

Another odd thing is that within the same interview, Forbes goes from 36hrs blackout to 26:





Or do I misunderstand something here?

Are you debunking his math? Ok I'll give you that. lol

[LastChild]

LC,

what's your theory on why only Scott Forbes noticed this powerdown?

Was the rest of New York just too stupid to notice that only half the WTC was lit up?

That I don't know he was the only one who noticed?

[Par]

I think the whole thing is odd and obviously so did Scott Forbes and that's why he wrote the 9/11 commission to bring it to their attention. So? Your debunking of Forbes is that you agree with him?


Such a power-down going unrecorded and practically unnoticed would have been so unusual that it is far less likely than the possibility that Forbes is reflecting the matter inaccurately.

[defaultdotxbe]

That I don't know he was the only one who noticed?
but he was the only one who thought it was unsual enough to say something in the past 7 and a half years?

[Drs_Res]

He said he was notified.
He said he was not there.

How does he know it actually happened?

He can't be sure of the amount of floors affected, or if it was just his company.

Maybe it was not a power down, might it have been an IT related system thing only related to his company?

Just Asking Questions here.

There are too many problems with his story.
It just does not add up.
Why the change in the time frame?

We need an investigation into his official story.
(/truthy mode)

[Par]

That I don't know he was the only one who noticed?


Well, if there are more witnesses, then by all means cite them.

[nicepants]

Are you debunking yet? Cause I might have missed it. Let me know when it starts.

Not really anything here to debunk. This guy claims there was a power down despite the fact that there is no evidence of such an event occurring.

[dudalb]

your right, i have it on good authority that manhattan is pretty deserted on saturday nights


whats unusual is such an unusual event happening and only 1 PERSON taking notice


does that not seem the slightest bit odd to you?

That is the first logical and effective use of oversize letters I have seen in this forum. You used them to make an actual point, unlike 99% of the users who do it just because they think it is "cool".

[CHF]

That I don't know he was the only one who noticed?

Looks that way.

Unless you know of some more such people. Do you?

[Par]

lol


I’d advise you not to get upset. The last time you did so, you became so frustrated that you started telling lies and got yourself suspended in the process. We don’t want a repeat of that performance.

[LastChild]

Well, if there are more witnesses, then by all means cite them.

Well, if there is some proof he's lying then look you have had five pages now to show it.

What's taking so long debunker? What is this debunking NIST style? I should maybe check back next week? Next year?

Let me know will ya?

[twinstead]

Yup. As usual, despite absolutely NO corroborating evidence, a single dissenting voice is held up as the ultimate truth, that is as long as the voice supports ones position of course.

Truthers ROCK!

[Par]

Well, if there is some proof he's lying...


We don’t need to “prove” that he was lying. We only need to show that it’s more rational to believe that he was reflecting the matter inaccurately (whether intentionally or not) than to believe that he was reflecting the matter accurately.

[CHF]

Yup, out of 50,000 WTC workers ONE guy says there was a powerdown.

That's all the proof LC needs.

Lest anyone wonder what that "new investigation" would be like.

[Par]

What is this debunking NIST style? I should maybe check back next week? Next year?


I don’t have any intention of debunking NIST, let alone their style. Further, you’ve threatened to leave me before. You don’t have the grapes.

[Par]

Well, if there is some proof he's lying then look you have had five pages now to show it.


So, are you able to cite any further witnesses?

[Drs_Res]

Well, if there is some proof he's lying then look you have had five pages now to show it.

What's taking so long debunker? What is this debunking NIST style? I should maybe check back next week? Next year?

Let me know will ya?

I want his proof that he was notified.

Where is the email(s) that surely he must have received about this?

Why did the person that he (Scott Frobes) said could back up his claim, not get back to the poster here (sorry, forgot who it was) that tried to contact him/her?

[The Doc]

What LastChild is expecting is something along the lines of a letter from the Port Authority in written form saying "Attention employees, there will not be a power-down this weekend". He fails to even grasp the most basic concepts of the burden of proof.

There is absolutely no evidence to back up what Forbes is claiming. The only evidence that exists for a power-down in the WTC on the weekend before 9/11 is his statement. There is a mountain of evidence that indicates that a power-down was highly unlikely, and it has essentially even been proven that one did not occur. Even if that mountain of counter-evidence didn't exist, it's still highly irrational to believe Forbes until he presents some evidence to back up his claims. Given that he's had nearly 7 years to do this, and has thus far failed, I can only say that the man's a liar.

If he ever comes out with some evidence that corroborates his claims, I will happily apologize to him and withdraw my comment.

[BillyRayValentine]

What LastChild is expecting is something along the lines of a letter from the Port Authority in written form saying "Attention employees, there will not be a power-down this weekend". He fails to even grasp the most basic concepts of the burden of proof.

There is absolutely no evidence to back up what Forbes is claiming. The only evidence that exists for a power-down in the WTC on the weekend before 9/11 is his statement. There is a mountain of evidence that indicates that a power-down was highly unlikely, and it has essentially even been proven that one did not occur. Even if that mountain of counter-evidence didn't exist, it's still highly irrational to believe Forbes until he presents some evidence to back up his claims. Given that he's had nearly 7 years to do this, and has thus far failed, I can only say that the man's a liar.

If he ever comes out with some evidence that corroborates his claims, I will happily apologize to him and withdraw my comment.

LC is obviously a youngster, going through that intolerable stage where (some) unhappy kids seem to live to piss other people off. It's sad, really.

Nothing he says makes a lick of sense, so I'm not sure why anyone responds to his drivel anymore. A lesson I obviously just learned myself, btw.:D

[nicepants]

Well, if there is some proof he's lying then look you have had five pages now to show it.

In fairness, he may not be lying, he could just be completely wrong.

At any rate, it's his claim, he's the one who needs to provide proof.

Example:
I was in the tower during the time he reported this "power down" and there wasn't one...prove I'm lying. (See how that works?)

[lapman]

Well, if there is some proof he's lying then look you have had five pages now to show it.I would say the link to the thread that contains this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3089122&postcount=20) pretty much did that very thing.

What's taking so long, LC, to show your evidence that the powerdown did occur? What is this exposing da twoof Loose Change style? We should maybe check back next week? Next year? In do-over #47?

Let us know will ya?

[Edmund Standing]

I saw Scott Forbes giving his alleged account of a power down at a UK troof group meeting in London last year. At that time, he was on the fence about woo. He was asked outright if he was MIHOP, and stated that such ideas "are just too much to deal with" or something to that effect. I don't know anything more than that, though.

[BillyRayValentine]

In fairness, he may not be lying, he could just be completely wrong.

My assessment of Forbes might be more charitable were it not for his initial letter bringing up the power-down. He began to back off his his claims later on, but that first letter was unequivocal. About obvious lies. Told by a liar.

[BenBurch]

I gave Scott the opportunity to corroborate his story.

He gave email addresses for a phantom.

It never happened.

He might believe it happened, in which case he is deluded.

Otherwise he's a *********** liar.

[Jonnyclueless]

So again, only 1 person noticed a power outage that supposedly effected half of one of the WTC towers which housed many many majority companies? Despite other people remembering the power was on and having hard physical evidence to prove it? 1 person?

[funk de fino]

I saw Scott Forbes giving his alleged account of a power down at a UK troof group meeting in London last year. At that time, he was on the fence about woo. He was asked outright if he was MIHOP, and stated that such ideas "are just too much to deal with" or something to that effect. I don't know anything more than that, though.

Edmuind

A UK truther on here claims that Scott said he was being prevented from speaking out because his employers had "pressurised" him. This truther pretty much insinuated that Scott was adamant the power down had something to do with the attacks. Does this ring true from what you saw and heard?

[Edmund Standing]

Edmuind

A UK truther on here claims that Scott said he was being prevented from speaking out because his employers had "pressurised" him. This truther pretty much insinuated that Scott was adamant the power down had something to do with the attacks. Does this ring true from what you saw and heard?

I wish I could remember. It was a very boring talk and I only recall parts of it. I remember him talking about being 'debriefed' by the FBI or CIA, so maybe he thinks they put pressure on him. I do remember he was fairly vague and a very unengaging speaker. I'm also sure that he was very noncommittal about what conclusions he actually drew from what he claims to have witnessed. He came across as a 'just asking questions' type, although that could be a smokescreen and he may actually be a troofer.

[Confuseling]

You seem to be living up to your screen name here.

If the top of one of the towers was dark all weekend, don't you think someone would have taken a picture of it? Wouldn't that picture have come out by now?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23663481273301737c.jpg

[Dog Town]

If the top of one of the towers was dark all weekend, don't you think someone would have taken a picture of it? Wouldn't that picture have come out by now?

For G-man, in the proper thread.


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

Hint for G, this is not a real pic!

[Galileo]

your right, i have it on good authority that manhattan is pretty deserted on saturday nights


whats unusual is such an unusual event happening and only 1 PERSON taking notice


does that not seem the slightest bit odd to you?

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.

[Disbelief]

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.

Yeah, sure. We believe you. really, we do.:boggled:

[twinstead]

Galileo put up or shut up.

[Galileo]

Yeah, sure. We believe you. really, we do.:boggled:

I don't care if you believe me.

[Galileo]

Galileo put up or shut up.

Tell the federal governent to put up or shut up.

[lapman]

Tell the federal governent to put up or shut up.
You first.

[A W Smith]

Why would Scott Forbes have to "work with" a group of 30 fellow WTC employees? To get their story straight? Where was everybody 2 years ago back when he was making an ass of himself?

[defaultdotxbe]

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.
do these 30 people have names? do they think the other 249,970 people are sills or just stupid?

[Galileo]

You first.

The 9/11 Commission went first, so they should go first.

[Galileo]

Why would Scott Forbes have to "work with" a group of 30 fellow WTC employees? To get their story straight? Where was everybody 2 years ago back when he was making an ass of himself?

I'm sorry, but that information is national security.

[Galileo]

do these 30 people have names? do they think the other 249,970 people are sills or just stupid?

Why are you calling the suvivors of the WTC disaster stupid?

[WildCat]

I'm working with a group of 20,000 WTC employees who say there was no powerdown.

I'd give you their names, but it's sooper-sekrit.

[defaultdotxbe]

Why are you calling the suvivors of the WTC disaster stupid?
im asking what forbes thinks of them, since hes apparently the only person to remember the powerdowns

[lapman]

The 9/11 Commission went first, so they should go first.
Then they already went first. So it's your turn. Also, many of their closed documents are now being released. There is a whole thread on the subject. You are the one making the claim about Forbes. The onus is on you to back it up. What are you afraid of?

[nicepants]

Why would Scott Forbes have to "work with" a group of 30 fellow WTC employees? To get their story straight? Where was everybody 2 years ago back when he was making an ass of himself?

Exactly.

ONE of the major problems with Mr. Forbes' story is that he's the ONLY ONE who remembers this power down. How convenient if, 8 years later, another 30 people suddenly remember it after Mr. Forbes "works" with them.

Galileo - If you do know Mr. Forbes, tell him (as I have before) that this would be much easier for him if he actually provided some evidence to back up his claims. The e-mail/memo he received notifying him of the upcoming power down would be an excellent start.

[Galileo]

im asking what forbes thinks of them, since hes apparently the only person to remember the powerdowns

No, you said the employees of the WTC were stupid.

[Galileo]

Then they already went first. So it's your turn. Also, many of their closed documents are now being released. There is a whole thread on the subject. You are the one making the claim about Forbes. The onus is on you to back it up. What are you afraid of?

No, they, along with NIST and the Pentagon have not released the videos at the Pnetagon, or the computer program NIST used, or the transcripts of the Gitmo interrogations.

[Galileo]

Exactly.

ONE of the major problems with Mr. Forbes' story is that he's the ONLY ONE who remembers this power down. How convenient if, 8 years later, another 30 people suddenly remember it after Mr. Forbes "works" with them.

Galileo - If you do know Mr. Forbes, tell him (as I have before) that this would be much easier for him if he actually provided some evidence to back up his claims. The e-mail/memo he received notifying him of the upcoming power down would be an excellent start.

He's not the only one. There are over 30 witnesses who have come forward.

[lapman]

Exactly.

ONE of the major problems with Mr. Forbes' story is that he's the ONLY ONE who remembers this power down. How convenient if, 8 years later, another 30 people suddenly remember it after Mr. Forbes "works" with them.

Galileo - If you do know Mr. Forbes, tell him (as I have before) that this would be much easier for him if he actually provided some evidence to back up his claims. The e-mail/memo he received notifying him of the upcoming power down would be an excellent start.
Very true. The company would have offsite backups of all data, including emails. SOX compliance would require them to keep them this long. Scott and the others could file a lawsuit to release the specific emails pertaining to the power down. Yes, Galileo, according to Scott, it was just one.

[Galileo]

I'm working with a group of 20,000 WTC employees who say there was no powerdown.

I'd give you their names, but it's sooper-sekrit.

Wow! That's real knee-slapper. Way to make fun of 9/11 survivors. Personally, I find you attitude to be disgusting and I will let Scott Forbes know about the JREf forum.

According to Forbes, there is no such group that you imagine, so you are lying to us.

[nicepants]

He's not the only one. There are over 30 witnesses who have come forward.

Source? Names?

[Galileo]

Very true. The company would have offsite backups of all data, including emails. SOX compliance would require them to keep them this long. Scott and the others could file a lawsuit to release the specific emails pertaining to the power down. Yes, Galileo, according to Scott, it was just one.

Wrong, there are over 30 witnesses who have come forward as of about two weeks ago.

[lapman]

Wrong, there are over 30 witnesses who have come forward as of about two weeks ago.
Prove it.

[Galileo]

Source? Names?

I'm sorry, that information is confidential to protect the provacy of 9/11 survivors.

These people and their families survived a traumatic event.

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. Important witnesses from 9/11 need to be protected.

[Galileo]

Prove it.

I don't have anything to prove to you. You do not issue orders to me. Show me by what authority you have to give orders. You prove it. Scott Forbes has gone public and he is taking the brunt of the personal attacks by unsophisticated goons in order to protect the security of the other three dozen witnesses.

[nicepants]

I'm sorry, that information is confidential to protect the provacy of 9/11 survivors.

These people and their families survived a traumatic event.

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

Then who did these people "come foward" to?

[lapman]

I'm sorry, that information is confidential to protect the provacy of 9/11 survivors.

These people and their families survived a traumatic event.

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. Important witnesses from 9/11 need to be protected.
In other words, you're lying. If these supposed people are working with Scott, they waive that protection. If it has been 2 weeks, like you claim, they would already have a statement. Since your credibility here is nil, you have to do better than making an unsupported claim.

[JamesB]

Oh give me a break, every debunker and skeptic in the world combined has less of a criminal record than the New York chapter of We Are Change.

[Galileo]

Then who did these people "come foward" to?

That's confidential for security reasons. You will just have to wait like everyone else.

[lapman]

I don't have anything to prove to you. You do not issue orders to me. Show me by what authority you have to give orders. You prove it. Scott Forbes has gone public and he is taking the brunt of the personal attacks by unsophisticated goons in order to protect the security of the other three dozen witnesses.
You would make this requirement of us. Therefore you should follow your own standard.

[Galileo]

In other words, you're lying. If these supposed people are working with Scott, they waive that protection. If it has been 2 weeks, like you claim, they would already have a statement. Since your credibility here is nil, you have to do better than making an unsupported claim.

What's your proof that I am lying? If you don't have any proof, then please withdraw the accusation against your fellow JREFer.

[lapman]

That's confidential for security reasons. You will just have to wait like everyone else.
I love the hypocrisy. If the government withholds info for security reasons, then it's a conspiracy, yet twoofer can do it whenever they want.

[Galileo]

Oh give me a break, every debunker and skeptic in the world combined has less of a criminal record than the New York chapter of We Are Change.

You run a website that promotes gigantic, multi-continent 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[lapman]

What's your proof that I am lying? If you don't have any proof, then please withdraw the accusation against your fellow JREFer.
The proof is your own standard. If information is withheld by the government, they're lying. Therefore, since you refuse to give any details, you're lying.

[Galileo]

I love the hypocrisy. If the government withholds info for security reasons, then it's a conspiracy, yet twoofer can do it whenever they want.

What's a "twoofer"? It is not in my Webster's dictionary. What's your evidence that Forbes is a "twoofer"?

You again make reckless claims, unsupported by evidence.

The government is under suspicion for mass murder, not Scott Forbes.

[Galileo]

The proof is your own standard. If information is withheld by the government, they're lying. Therefore, since you refuse to give any details, you're lying.

logic

[defaultdotxbe]

No, you said the employees of the WTC were stupid.
wrong, i asked if the 30 people who remember the power downs think the 249,970 people (50,000 employees, 200,000 daily visitors) who dont remember them are shills, or stupid

besides, surviving a disaster doesnt really effect ones intelligence, and not remembering several powerdowns of a building that NEVER gets powered down only days before said building is destroyed, well, thats pretty stupid (but they could also be shills, CTers like calling people shills)

unless of course there were no powerdowns, then everyone is fine


I'm sorry, that information is confidential to protect the provacy of 9/11 survivors.
then they havent "come forward" now have they?

[nicepants]

Then who did these people "come foward" to? That's confidential for security reasons. You will just have to wait like everyone else.

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

[lapman]

What's a "twoofer"? It is not in my Webster's dictionary. What's your evidence that Forbes is a "twoofer"?

You again make reckless claims, unsupported by evidence.

The government is under suspicion for mass murder, not Scott Forbes.
I was talking about you. The government is under suspicion by twoofers alone. Twoofers, such as yourself, are completely unable to drum up one iota of real evidence to support the claim. So, what's the ETA of this new "smoking gun?"

[Galileo]

wrong, i asked if the 30 people who remember the power downs think the 249,970 people (50,000 employees, 200,000 daily visitors) who dont remember them are shills, or stupid

besides, surviving a disaster doesnt really effect ones intelligence, and not remembering several powerdowns of a building that NEVER gets powered down only days before said building is destroyed, well, thats pretty stupid (but they could also be shills, CTers like calling people shills)

unless of course there were no powerdowns, then everyone is fine



then they havent "come forward" now have they?

No, you said the employees of the WTC were stupid.

[defaultdotxbe]

No, you said the employees of the WTC were stupid.
im pretty sure i know what i said

do these 30 people have names? do they think the other 249,970 people are sills[sic] or just stupid?
sills = shills

[Galileo]

I was talking about you. The government is under suspicion by twoofers alone. Twoofers, such as yourself, are completely unable to drum up one iota of real evidence to support the claim. So, what's the ETA of this new "smoking gun?"

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.

[Galileo]

im pretty sure i know what i said


sills = shills

I am sure what you said. You said the employees of the WTC were stupid.

[lapman]

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.
Scott is not a survivor. He wasn't working that day. He has only stated an unconfirmed event that he isn't even sure of the details.

[defaultdotxbe]

I am sure what you said. You said the employees of the WTC were stupid.
no wonder you believe in 9/11 conspiracies

[JamesB]

I have 3 dozen witnesses that will swear that Alex Jones is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's lover, but they won't make their names public because they are afraid of troofer retribution.

[Galileo]

Scott is not a survivor. He wasn't working that day. He has only stated an unconfirmed event that he isn't even sure of the details.

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.

[FineWine]

What's a "twoofer"? It is not in my Webster's dictionary. What's your evidence that Forbes is a "twoofer"?

You again make reckless claims, unsupported by evidence.

The government is under suspicion for mass murder, not Scott Forbes.


The American government is not suspected of murders committed by Islamic terrorists.

[Galileo]

no wonder you believe in 9/11 conspiracies

Wrong. I don't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. You believe it was a conspiracy.

[Galileo]

I have 3 dozen witnesses that will swear that Alex Jones is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's lover, but they won't make their names public because they are afraid of troofer retribution.

You run a conspiracy theory website and can't be trusted. You are lying.

[Galileo]

The American government is not suspected of murders committed by Islamic terrorists.

The American government is suspected of mass murder. Please keep your religious bigotry out of this.

[lapman]

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.
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.

[nicepants]

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.

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"?

[JamesB]

You run a conspiracy theory website and can't be trusted. You are lying.

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