People Locked Out of WTC for 3 Days?

[slugmancs]

I don't know if anyone had heard this or if this is another twoofer lie but at 1:20 on the video, this person claims that noone but engineers were allowed to come in and out of the buildings for 3 days. I doubt this is true but how can he make such an outrageous claim?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4260823951534797708&q=power+down+9%2F11

[~enigma~]

how can he make such an outrageous claim?

It's called opening his mouth :)

[HawksFan]

One would think that would have been rather newsworthy at the time. Can I assume everyone who worked there was paid off not to say anything?

[negativ]

I see variations on this claim from time to time, but never anything to back it up.

This is just speculation, but I strongly suspect that completely shutting down operations of the businesses housed in both buildings for three whole days would certainly have significant, newsworthy economic consequences that would have certainly been widely reported in the NYT, WSJ, et al.

[JamesB]

That was based of off the Scott Forbes tale. He said that the power was off for part of one tower, even though he was there for much of the time they were working on it, for part of the weekend.

This has magically morphed to, "They shut off power to all three towers, turned off all the security, and wouldn't let anybody in for the entire weekend."

ETA: Heh, they even cite Forbes in the video, while neglecting to mention that DRG's lies go way beyond anything that Forbes said.

[~enigma~]

Isn't the claim harmless unless it is believed?

[JamesB]

Damn David Ray Griffin lies a lot. He completely makes up the Marvin Bush-Wirt Walker thing. And this guy is the high priest of the movement?

[~enigma~]

Damn David Ray Griffin lies a lot. He completely makes up the Marvin Bush-Wirt Walker thing. And this guy is the high priest of the movement?
As an aside...can you name me a priest or theologian that doesn't lie?

[JamesB]

As an aside...can you name me a priest or theologian that doesn't lie?

Oh you can start an entire flame war with that comment. :jaw-dropp

Although I am not particularly religious myself (I am a lazy Lutheran) I have nothing against people's religious beliefs. What I object to is when they display religious-like beliefs and zealotry, to what are entirely scientific questions outside the scope of theology or philosophy.

If you want to believe that God is the meaning of life, or that he created the universe, go ahead, that is a matter for your faith. But whether Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker were cousins and controlled security at the World Trade Center is a matter of historical fact (they aren't and they weren't) not subject to theological interpretation.

There, that is my rant for the day.

[MikeW]

Damn David Ray Griffin lies a lot. He completely makes up the Marvin Bush-Wirt Walker thing. And this guy is the high priest of the movement?
To be fair (fairer than he deserves, I admit), he didn't make that up, it came from the Margie Burns article.

[JamesB]

To be fair (fairer than he deserves, I admit), he didn't make that up, it came from the Margie Burns article.


Yeah, I didn't say that right. He did not originate that myth, but it is a myth regardless.

[parmanides]

Its funny how those who doubt the OCT get shot down if they question the integrity of a couple of firefighter's accounts on the day

But when people (including those who lost friends and colleagues on the day, and have a vested and highly pertinent interest in the truth) come forward with reports of power downs and evacuations, they are called liars, and face ad hominem attacks.

pure double standards

It is very difficult in our media frenzied age for anyone to ask even the most innocuous questions of the OCT without being branded a full on 'conspiracy theorists'. By their very nature, a human being is more likely to keep the status quo, particularly if they are (like any truly intelligent researcher in this debate) less than 100% convinced of their position. Given that, I think it surprising that even a few have come forward.

[MikeW]

Yeah, I didn't say that right. He did not originate that myth, but it is a myth regardless.
No question about that, and I'm not saying it lets Griffin off the hook, either: peddling deceptive stuff like this isn't somehow acceptable just because Griffin's such a feeble researcher he may not know he's doing it.

[JamesB]

Its funny how those who doubt the OCT get shot down if they question the integrity of firefighters accounts on the day

But when people (including those who lost friends and colleagues on the day, and have a vested and highly pertinent interest in the truth) come forward with reports of power downs and evacuations, they are called liars, and face ad hominem attacks.

pure double standards

It is very difficult in our media frenzied age for anyone to ask even the most innocuous questions of the OCT without being branded a full on 'conspiracy theorists'. By their very nature, a human being is more likely to keep the status quo. Given that, I think it surprising that even a few have come forward.


Where did I call Scott Forbes a liar? I was supporting his account. It was David Ray Griffin who was lying about what he said.

And what is with the use of the plural "reports", to the best of my knowledge, he is the only person who has ever said this. That is how I knew he was talking about him before I even watched the video. Please list all of the other "reports" for us.

[twinstead]

Its funny how those who doubt the OCT get shot down if they question the integrity of firefighters accounts on the day

But when people (including those who lost friends and colleagues on the day, and have a vested and highly pertinent interest in the truth) come forward with reports of power downs and evacuations, they are called liars, and face ad hominem attacks.

pure double standards

It is very difficult in our media frenzied age for anyone to ask even the most innocuous questions of the OCT without being branded a full on 'conspiracy theorists'. By their very nature, a human being is more likely to keep the status quo. Given that, I think it surprising that even a few have come forward.

It would help if full on conspiracy theorists didn't quite often accuse people of mass murder in the guise of these 'innocuous' questions.

And yes, anybody (David Ray Griffin) who uses false claims, rumors, and long-debunked 'evidence' to accuse innocent people of mass murder deserve to be called liars.

[uk_dave]

Its funny how those who doubt the OCT get shot down if they question the integrity of firefighters accounts on the day

But when people (including those who lost friends and colleagues on the day, and have a vested and highly pertinent interest in the truth) come forward with reports of power downs and evacuations, they are called liars, and face ad hominem attacks.

pure double standards

It is very difficult in our media frenzied age for anyone to ask even the most innocuous questions of the OCT without being branded a full on 'conspiracy theorists'. By their very nature, a human being is more likely to keep the status quo. Given that, I think it surprising that even a few have come forward.

Huh?

It's funny how those who doubt the official account of events will happily dispute the testimony of firefighters and first responders when it comes to the condition of wtc7, but then will happily accept the uncorroborated testimony of a 'witness' with no provenance which might fuel the conspiracy fantasy.

Double standards or just cherry picking (badly)?

You decide

[Gravy]

Its funny how those who doubt the OCT get shot down if they question the integrity of a couple of firefighter's accounts on the dayFalse. They get shot down when they deny all the firefighters' accounts, or claim that the firefighters were in on it, without producing a shred of evidence. Please explain why that CT behavior should be accepted.

But when people (including those who lost friends and colleagues on the day, and have a vested and highly pertinent interest in the truth) come forward with reports of power downs and evacuations, they are called liars, and face ad hominem attacks. False. Name these events for which the reason is unknown.

pure double standardsFalse. Pure strawman arguments by you.

It is very difficult in our media frenzied age for anyone to ask even the most innocuous questions of the OCT without being branded a full on 'conspiracy theorists'.False. People get "branded" conspiracy theorists when they posit conspiracy theories that are not supported by fact.

By their very nature, a human being is more likely to keep the status quo, particularly if they are (like any truly intelligent researcher in this debate) less than 100% convinced of their position. Unsupported assertion; "no true Scotsman" fallacy; unsupported assertion.

Given that, I think it surprising that even a few have come forward.Given the lack of evidence to support their claims, and the volume of readily-available information that proves them wrong, I think it is surprising that so many have come forward. Why don't they care about the truth?

[Aggs]

It's standard CT analysis:

Scott Forbes says there was a power down of floors 50 and above in WTC2 on Sep 8 and 9 and maintenance workers were coming in and out of the building and were not suspicious looking at the time.

which equals

"you know we had a shutdown so for 3 days we couldn't go into the WTC....there were engineers coming in and out"

Throw in some "Bush family controls security" and you got your proof....

It's like those word games you played as a kid. How can make a CAT turn into a DOG?

CAT
COT
DOT
DOG