A new debunk of the WTC "power down"

[OldTigerCub]

RKOwens4 has posted a new video on Youtube debunking the power down claim made by Scott Forbes. This is just the latest ( that I have seen) in a series of very well done videos explaining away the falacies of the trooth movement.

IergOYj63oE

[JAStewart]

I PM'ed him asking him to come join us be he hasn't replied yet.

[CHF]

The "power-down" is one of the dumbest claims I've seen.

Never mind the fact that it doesn't address the other 1 1/2 towers or WTC7...the mere notion that you can rig up even 50 floors of a 110 story building in 36 hours is bloody absurd.

[OldTigerCub]

The "power-down" is one of the dumbest claims I've seen.

Never mind the fact that it doesn't address the other 1 1/2 towers or WTC7...the mere notion that you can rig up even 50 floors of a 110 story building in 36 hours is bloody absurd.

I've noticed that the "power down" isn't mentioned much, probably because it is so easily debunked, though I still see it brought up (usually to change the subject when a troother is losing a debate on a more popular subject):p

[OldTigerCub]

I PM'ed him asking him to come join us be he hasn't replied yet.

RKOwens4 really does a nice job on his videos, and he seems to know his subject matter and information sources quite well. I think he would feel right at home here at the jref forums.

[Unfit4Command]

I've always wondered how Scott Forbes even came to his conclusion of half of the tower being powered down. Did he just make it up?

[qarnos]

I PM'ed him asking him to come join us be he hasn't replied yet.

Did you mention the cookies?

[MarkyX]

I never really understood this argument or why bring it up. It's one of the most easiest ones to counter.

All you need is point to the J. Hudson building, say it's the largest steel frame building to be bought down by demos and it took 7 months to rig the empty building. After mentioning this, tell them the Twin Towers are 3 times that height.

The number of times I've seen this dumb argument bought up can be counted on one hand with a missing thumb.

[steve s]

Did you mention the cookies?

And the fat NWO paychecks?

Steve S.

[Mangoose]

I have proof that whole upper 50 floors of the South Tower were NOT powered down during the timeframe specified by Scott Forbes. Maybe the floors he was on (giving him the benefit of the doubt), but certainly not all of them, much less the other two towers.

I'll post the evidence here when I have time.

[BenBurch]

How could you down the upper half of South Tower without downing the TV transmitters?

[CurtC]

I have proof that whole upper 50 floors of the South Tower were NOT powered down during the timeframe specified by Scott Forbes...
I'll post the evidence here when I have time.

Don't leave us hanging like that Fermat guy did...

[njslim]

Having been involved in several power downs can tell you that it is major operation
Multiple emails are sent out warning everybody what is going on, equipment which
has to be powered must be isolated. That only one person, Scott Forbes, was aware
of this is totally amazing. What about the electricians? Considering that many of
the tenants were financial or securities which had 24 hour operations someone had to
know .

[Gravy]

How could you down the upper half of South Tower without downing the TV transmitters?They were on the north tower.

[BenBurch]

They were on the north tower.

So they were in the same tower as Windows To The World? Hard to keep straight which tower was which sometimes. Sorry!

[Gravy]

So they were in the same tower as Windows To The World? Hard to keep straight which tower was which sometimes. Sorry!Yes, Windows On the World was in the north tower, the observation deck on the south.

[OldTigerCub]

I have proof that whole upper 50 floors of the South Tower were NOT powered down during the timeframe specified by Scott Forbes. Maybe the floors he was on (giving him the benefit of the doubt), but certainly not all of them, much less the other two towers.

I'll post the evidence here when I have time.

Part of the evidence he presents (briefly) in the video shows the towers well illuminated during the time in question.
I have to admit that I was(shamelessly :confused:) putting in a plug for RKOwens4, though. My impression is that he puts a lot of research into finding those obscure and forgotten shots that put the subject at hand to rest.:)

[Mangoose]

Old Tiger Club: I don't think RKOwens is necessarily claiming that the shot of the lit WTC was taken that weekend. I have tried to find photos of the period in question and haven't found any confirmed examples yet.

[TriskettheKid]

I think the point he was making was that if, for some reason, half of a tower was dark, there would be pictures, as it would have been unusual.

[Mangoose]

Okay, here is what I found.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[leftysergeant]

You might look again at the Naudet film. They kept referring to the towers as a back ground, with time stamps.

[funk de fino]

To concur with Mangoose

My friends were up the towers during this time, Scott Forbes has been given the oppurtunity to modify his claim to only the floors he was on but he fails. He is a woo and is lying. He goes to truther meetings in the UK and has done another interview for AJ recently even though it is claimed he is keeping his head down because he is being harrassed at work.

[BenBurch]

Okay, here is what I found.

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

NOMINATED!

What great physical evidence.

You rock!

[MarkyX]

Even though the powerdown isn't a good argument to begin with, it's rather interesting that we now have evidence proving that once again, the 9/11 deniers are using fraudulent sources.

[BenBurch]

Even though the powerdown isn't a good argument to begin with, it's rather interesting that we now have evidence proving that once again, the 9/11 deniers are using fraudulent sources.

If one of them told me it was a sunny day, I'd have to look outside first.

[Mangoose]

Thanks Benburch! :cool:

You might look again at the Naudet film. They kept referring to the towers as a back ground, with time stamps.


I don't recall seeing time stamps on the film themselves, and I just checked the 9/11 DVD and again I don't see any video the towers on the evening of 9/8/01. The wonderful shot of them lit at night at 20:27 was dated to 9/3/01. Then there is a shot across the water that appears at 22:08, but it is undated though it appears immediately before 9/11/01, and I suspect it might be stock footage.

[nicepants]

Having been involved in several power downs can tell you that it is major operation
Multiple emails are sent out warning everybody what is going on, equipment which
has to be powered must be isolated. That only one person, Scott Forbes, was aware
of this is totally amazing. What about the electricians? Considering that many of
the tenants were financial or securities which had 24 hour operations someone had to
know .



Njslim is right on the money here. I work in an office building much smaller than the towers, but any power downs (even for just a single floor) require multiple notifications & sign offs by anyone that may be affected. We even have extra people on call during those times just in case there are problems. The paper trail for a multi-floor power down would be enormous. The fact that Mr. Forbes has been unable to produce any documentation of such speaks volumes more than his claims.

[BigAl]

Having been involved in several power downs can tell you that it is major operation
Multiple emails are sent out warning everybody what is going on, equipment which
has to be powered must be isolated. That only one person, Scott Forbes, was aware
of this is totally amazing. What about the electricians? Considering that many of
the tenants were financial or securities which had 24 hour operations someone had to
know .

What he said. I managed 24x7 IT ops in 4 big buildings in Manhattan over the years. Just doing paperwork to get to the loading docks any time or for freight elevator access off hours gets lots of people involved. There are always other trades around and everyone notices strangers, if only to protect union turf. Even powered-down, nobody gets into IT areas without a tenant's IT person on hand. tenants have their own alarm services that don't depend on the building security system

[BenBurch]

Any any power outage of a major Bank's IT infrastructure would require the bank to transfer operations to its emergency site. No way you can shut down a bank even on a weekend.

[Unfit4Command]

I seem to remember hearing and seeing a video that was filmed that weekend, clearly showing lights on the top floors of the South Tower. I think it was a music video, but I can't remember for sure.

[deep]

This is absurd - nothing has been "debunked" in that video.

For starters, there are only a handful of workers who are especially sensitive to a power-down over the weekend, some of which are server administrators (or DBAs). On top of that, it's rather convenient to say "nobody else reported it" when 3,000 people died that day, a good portion of which worked in the twin towers.

Unless you have an eyewitness offering eyewitness testimony that directly contradicts the claims of Scott Forbes, you've debunked precisely nothing.

[deep]

Njslim is right on the money here. I work in an office building much smaller than the towers, but any power downs (even for just a single floor) require multiple notifications & sign offs by anyone that may be affected. We even have extra people on call during those times just in case there are problems. The paper trail for a multi-floor power down would be enormous. The fact that Mr. Forbes has been unable to produce any documentation of such speaks volumes more than his claims.


That's a convenient point of view, considering the man's office was reduced to dust & small debris. Do you think people carry paperwork like that in their wallets?

[CHF]

Unless you have an eyewitness offering eyewitness testimony that directly contradicts the claims of Scott Forbes, you've debunked precisely nothing.

We've got people who saw the power being ON when Forbes said it was OFF.

Does that count?

[e^n]

That's a convenient point of view, considering the man's office was reduced to dust & small debris. Do you think people carry paperwork like that in their wallets?

I'm sure they back up their emails, disaster recovery is important at this level of IT infrastructure.

While I agree that this has hardly been 'debunked' it has at least been shown to be barely credible and in need of some corroboration.

[deep]

I'm sure they back up their emails, disaster recovery is important at this level of IT infrastructure.

While I agree that this has hardly been 'debunked' it has at least been shown to be barely credible and in need of some corroboration.


Seriously, an email proves nothing. Even if he did produce one, not even I would acknowledge that it proves anything one way or the other. Give me about 10 minutes and I could paste an email (with full headers) into this thread that shows GWB inviting me to go golfing with him & Saddam in Antarctica next Tuesday.

[deep]

We've got people who saw the power being ON when Forbes said it was OFF.

Does that count?


Who are these people? I don't see any names... plus, keep in mind, backup power is usually used for a subset of lights (which are relatively low power), so I'd be interested in hearing exactly how they came to the conclusion that the power was on.

[e^n]

Seriously, an email proves nothing. Even if he did produce one, not even I would acknowledge that it proves anything one way or the other. Give me about 10 minutes and I could paste an email (with full headers) into this thread that shows GWB inviting me to go golfing with him & Saddam in Antarctica next Tuesday.

Indeed you could, and not only would that email contain the source email address and therefore a name to investigate, it would also reveal IP addresses and server software. Do you happen to know what internal version of which MTA people in the towers used?

Faking an email is one thing, reliably faking an email is another.

[Bell]

Unless you have an eyewitness offering eyewitness testimony that directly contradicts the claims of Scott Forbes, you've debunked precisely nothing.

Only one man claiming a power down doesn't prove anything either. Would have been kind of obvious, no? Half of the South Tower left in dark. And yet, noone of the millions of people in Manhattan or the other 4 burroughs that weekend talk about it.

[DGM]

This is absurd - nothing has been "debunked" in that video.

For starters, there are only a handful of workers who are especially sensitive to a power-down over the weekend, some of which are server administrators (or DBAs). On top of that, it's rather convenient to say "nobody else reported it" when 3,000 people died that day, a good portion of which worked in the twin towers.

Unless you have an eyewitness offering eyewitness testimony that directly contradicts the claims of Scott Forbes, you've debunked precisely nothing.
Tell me again? What was the purpose of this "power down" of half (or less) of one tower?

[funk de fino]

Who are these people? I don't see any names... plus, keep in mind, backup power is usually used for a subset of lights (which are relatively low power), so I'd be interested in hearing exactly how they came to the conclusion that the power was on.

My friends were up the observation deck that sunday, you need more than lights for that, I have been up there also and I know what they had up there. Strange not one person has come along and said the observation deck was closed that weekend?

It was a very popular attraction when i was there, must have been thousands a day.

Unless you are calling me and my friends liars then there is your proof he is lying about a total power down above the 50th floor (his actual claim).

[Bell]

<snip>

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

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

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

<snip>

I'm wondering if those tickets are real. First, they are not torn (it seems illogical to buy a $13.50 ticket and then not go up to the observatory. Second, the design is different from the tickets my dad and I got three months earlier (but it is possible the design changed in the mean time). Third, the barcode is different (for as far as it shows the barcode in the attached picture). I'm not saying it IS fake, but as said, it makes me wonder.

(My father framed that ticket over a picture of the WTC. I used my webcame to capture it, since my camera ran out of batteries.)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1169647210fd561b77.jpg

[MikeW]

Okay, here is what I found.

There are at least two witnesses who recall the Observation Deck being open (with power) during the same time-frame that Scott Forbes claims the upper half of WTC2 was powered down.
Papke, unfortunately, is talking about visiting the observation deck on Friday, the day before Forbes "power down".

The tickets are fine, though. Forbes says his power down started at noon, these were from an hour & 40 minutes later. He's already said he can only confirm the power-down on his floors, however, which gives the true believers a little wiggle room if they really want to hold on to this.

[OldTigerCub]

Only one man claiming a power down doesn't prove anything either. Would have been kind of obvious, no? Half of the South Tower left in dark. And yet, noone of the millions of people in Manhattan or the other 4 burroughs that weekend talk about it.

This seems to be one of the most obvious points. If half of one the towers had gone dark for any amount of time, it would have looked very strange to anyone viewing the New York skyline that night, the very fodder of water cooler conversations and radio talk shows, yet not a peep...except from one individual.

[BenBurch]

That's a convenient point of view, considering the man's office was reduced to dust & small debris. Do you think people carry paperwork like that in their wallets?

What makes you think all the paperwork would be in his office? There would be about a ton (literally) of paperwork generated from something like this and it would be sent out to contractors, computer vendors (machines have a habit of not coming back on after an outage,) emergency backup site managers, consultants, electricians (they would want to get as much of THEIR OWN work done as possible since the power was going to be out,) and even the janitorial company would have to be notified.

You don't have a leg to stand on here.

[njslim]

What makes you think all the paperwork would be in his office? There would be about a ton (literally) of paperwork generated from something like this and it would be sent out to contractors, computer vendors (machines have a habit of not coming back on after an outage,) emergency backup site managers, consultants, electricians (they would want to get as much of THEIR OWN work done as possible since the power was going to be out,) and even the janitorial company would have to be notified.


Work in IT - whenever something like was announced Help Desk would get swamped with
calls asking what to do and by people afraid computer would get trashed and lose all
the data. Had to stay late and walk through areas shutting down all equipment to
prevent damage from surges. Just this summer power failed for few seconds then came
back - had to replace 4 monitors which blew from power surge.

[deep]

Tell me again? What was the purpose of this "power down" of half (or less) of one tower?


How should I know? It may have been completely unrelated.. or maybe it wasn't. That's the point - it needs to be investigated.

[Disbelief]

How should I know? It may have been completely unrelated.. or maybe it wasn't. That's the point - it needs to be investigated.

Do you know it wasn't? If the investigation looked into it and found no corroboration, why would anyone mention it?

[Bell]

How should I know? It may have been completely unrelated.. or maybe it wasn't. That's the point - it needs to be investigated.

Why? With only ONE person claiming it happened?

[deep]

What makes you think all the paperwork would be in his office? There would be about a ton (literally) of paperwork generated from something like this and it would be sent out to contractors, computer vendors (machines have a habit of not coming back on after an outage,) emergency backup site managers, consultants, electricians (they would want to get as much of THEIR OWN work done as possible since the power was going to be out,) and even the janitorial company would have to be notified.

You don't have a leg to stand on here.


You've obviously never worked in IT, or if you did, not very recently. Nobody notifies computer vendors in situations like this (they don't do proactive support, it's all reactive with time-based SLAs).

Plus, even if they did notify all those people, how do you think those notifications work nowadays? It's all done via email - even the janitorial-service managers.

As for "not having a leg to stand on", there's a credible eyewitness account of this happening. To say that the eyewitness is lying when he has nothing to gain from doing so would be an "extraordinary claim" - and as I read here all the time, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

[LashL]

As for "not having a leg to stand on", there's a credible eyewitness account of this happening.


Forbes' claims are not credible. Thousands of people would know in advance of a scheduled power down of the magnitude he describes. Moreover, such a power down would not, contrary to Forbes' claims, disable all security, locks, etc. Even if the latter point was true - although it is not - that would mean that the building would be chock full of additional security personnel in order to protect the tenants' belongings and confidential files, etc.

Think about that for a moment. If what Forbes said was true, the building would be at a much higher level of security than its usual high level of security, and not the other way around.

Further, hundreds of thousands of people would have noticed if ~50 floors of a tower were in darkness.

His claims are silly on their face.

[BenBurch]

You've obviously never worked in IT, or if you did, not very recently. Nobody notifies computer vendors in situations like this (they don't do proactive support, it's all reactive with time-based SLAs).

Plus, even if they did notify all those people, how do you think those notifications work nowadays? It's all done via email - even the janitorial-service managers.

As for "not having a leg to stand on", there's a credible eyewitness account of this happening. To say that the eyewitness is lying when he has nothing to gain from doing so would be an "extraordinary claim" - and as I read here all the time, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I make my living in IT, thank you very much, and have coordinated more than one site power outage, site chilled water outage, and site network outage...

And no, that guy is a [edit] liar, and you can tell him I said so. Not at all credible - he pulled that out of his ass to get attention. I don't know what kind of sad, pathetic creature you have to be to get your validation over the bodies of 3000 innocents, but that is what he is.

Please do not try to circumvent the autocensor.

[deep]

Why? With only ONE person claiming it happened?


All they would need to do is privately question Scott Forbes' coworkers about it - he's already said they could confirm his story. As it stands, the only way for them to backup his story is to come out and do it publicly - and there's no way they're going to do that. Certain people (like the ones in this forum) will stop at nothing to attack & discredit anybody whose story threatens their world-view - just look at what's being said about Scott Forbes (all without a shred of actual evidence).

[BenBurch]

All they would need to do is privately question Scott Forbes' coworkers about it - he's already said they could confirm his story. As it stands, the only way for them to backup his story is to come out and do it publicly - and there's no way they're going to do that. Certain people (like the ones in this forum) will stop at nothing to attack & discredit anybody whose story threatens their world-view - just look at what's being said about Scott Forbes (all without a shred of actual evidence).

I have all the evidence I need (that ticket) that he is a feckless and evil man. If you want to follow up with his coworkers, have at it, son. You'll find what others already did; he wasn't even giving you a "reach around."

[T.A.M.]

yes because as we know, most human beings would sit on evidence that would convict the REAL perps of 9/11, just to save them the verbal attacks of the media and internet forums...or their jobs...right?

JHC

TAM

[Mangoose]

MikeW: Oh crum, thanks for the correction. :blush: I guess I'll have to keep my eye out for any other accounts. There are bound to be more.

Bell: The ticket is real because there are many other examples of this design around. For example:

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/5412/wtcdj5.jpg

http://blog.ivanpope.com/photos/uncategorized/wtc.jpg

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/364/wtc3oc0.jpg

http://www.overyourhead.co.uk/archives/2001_09_01_overyourhead_archive.html

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/4014/fitzgeraldwtctixdo0.jpg

http://www.jeanalan.com/wtc/jad_wtcimages.htm

Notice the stub on the last ticket. The photo I posted on the previous page does not include this stub, so it is reasonable to conclude that this was a ticket that was used, as confirmed in the original blog: "A friend of a friend was up there just 3 days earlier."




Your ticket seems to be an earlier design:

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/5241/ticketvw1.jpg

http://kev.needham.ca/gallery2/v/nyc/

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2944/626f1nv1.jpg

http://cgi.ebay.com/WORLD-TRADE-CENTER-OBSERVATORIES-TICKET-STUB-04-19-01 (http://cgi.ebay.com/WORLD-TRADE-CENTER-OBSERVATORIES-TICKET-STUB-04-19-01_W0QQitemZ280165492017QQihZ018QQcategoryZ50777QQ ssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosti ng)

[Jonnyclueless]

And scott's co-workers (and thousands and thousands of others who were affected) are not speaking out because?

[ktesibios]

I noticed that the entry on the Colour International Productions blog entry with the ticket images is dated Sept. 22, 2001. The Forbes claims first surfaced in 2004:

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

source (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm)

While this doesn't prove the images are authentic, it certainly rules out any possibility of a fabrication for the purpose of disproving Forbes' claims.

This claim really doesn't need to be proven false. It fails because one can confidently make predictions about what such a power-down entails, such as the need to close the observation decks, at least one corporate IT department dealing with some memorable tsuris, the eye-catching darkness of half of one tower at night- and the fact that no evidence of any of these things having occurred has surfaced. The TM has now had three and a half years to come up with some small scrap of corroboration for this; unless and until such evidence is produced, the claim should be rejected for lack of corroboration.

Anyway, here's (http://just.in/2006/09/) another blogger reminiscing about having been on the observation deck on the morning of Sept. 8, who also appears to be completely unaware of the claims being made about that date.

[deep]

Forbes' claims are not credible. Thousands of people would know in advance of a scheduled power down of the magnitude he describes. Moreover, such a power down would not, contrary to Forbes' claims, disable all security, locks, etc. Even if the latter point was true - although it is not - that would mean that the building would be chock full of additional security personnel in order to protect the tenants' belongings and confidential files, etc.

Think about that for a moment. If what Forbes said was true, the building would be at a much higher level of security than its usual high level of security, and not the other way around.

Further, hundreds of thousands of people would have noticed if ~50 floors of a tower were in darkness.

His claims are silly on their face.


Where did he claim that it would disable all of the locks? When he was interviewed, he said he received a notice about the power-down a week or two in advance, and he shutdown all of his DB servers before it was scheduled to begin. Nothing about the locks, unless he quoted it from the notice (I don't recall it, though).

I have no idea if the lights were included in that power outage, and I don't recall Scott mentioning it, either, in his interview. Maybe the notice claimed the outage would cover the entire top-half of the building, but in reality only covered a smaller subsection? Listen to the Scott Forbes interview(s), and you'll hear all of the information as it was presented to him, and observed by him.

The man has no motive to lie (gains nothing, personally or financially), and his story sounds perfectly reasonable. That's a credible witness. Stop dragging his name through the mud because you don't like the possible implications of what he witnessed.

[BenBurch]

What he gains is acclaim from the Twoofers which probably is all the acclaim he will ever have in his wretched, pitiful life.

[Mangoose]

ktesibios: Yeah I noticed the just.in site before, though notice that he says that he was on the Observation Deck during the morning, a few hours before Forbes' powerdowns were supposed to start.

[deep]

yes because as we know, most human beings would sit on evidence that would convict the REAL perps of 9/11, just to save them the verbal attacks of the media and internet forums...or their jobs...right?

JHC

TAM


Don't kid yourself.

a power-down proves absolutely nothing by itself - not even sure why it's such a point of contention.
you would just find a reason to ignore them anyway.

[BenBurch]

Don't kid yourself.

a power-down proves absolutely nothing by itself - not even sure why it's such a point of contention.
you would just find a reason to ignore them anyway.

Its a point of contention because it is yet another damnable lie.

And this whole allegation is a tissue of lies.

This is a cynical attempt to make money off of stupid and credulous people combined with an attempt to use stupid and credulous people to discredit an Administration that is doing a damned fine job of discrediting themselves every day.

All Twoofers are divided into a few groups;

The stupid
The credulous
The politically amoral
The hucksters looking for a Mark
The mentally ill


All of them fall into one (or more) of these categories.

[deep]

What he gains is acclaim from the Twoofers which probably is all the acclaim he will ever have in his wretched, pitiful life.


Wow, do you radiate this much sunshine everywhere you go?

Seriously, have you considered how odd it is that your evaluation of 9/11-eyewitness credibility is based entirely on how their observations affect your established beliefs? In other words, if I gave you everything you needed to know about Scott Forbes before telling you what he said, you wouldn't feel the same way about him.

You hate this man, yet you know nothing about him other than where he worked and, most importantly, what he observed. That is far from "healthy" behavior.

[ElMondoHummus]

You've obviously never worked in IT, or if you did, not very recently. Nobody notifies computer vendors in situations like this (they don't do proactive support, it's all reactive with time-based SLAs).

Plus, even if they did notify all those people, how do you think those notifications work nowadays? It's all done via email - even the janitorial-service managers."


Nitpick: That's not true in many properly supported mission critical environments. For example, at the university I work at, we in the IT departments are required to follow Change Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_management) procedures. The very idea is to proactively prepare for interruptions of service, and for all affected and concerned to be warned about and participate in the timeframe decision making process. And this is an actual in-person, faces-to-faces meeting, not some "virtualized" process.

And if that requires contacting vendors, that happens, and they're invited. Although most times, it's actually the vendors initiating the change, say for example for an upgrade.

Given the number of financial companies and handful of government agencies housed in the WTC (source (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html)), I'd be in shock if there was no building-wide change management process, for generalized issues such as electric maintenance, HVAC maintenance, etc.

Anyway, sorry for the digression, but it's not universally true that nobody notifies vendors or that all support is reactive.

[/derail]

[leftysergeant]

Certain people (like the ones in this forum) will stop at nothing to attack & discredit anybody whose story threatens their world-view - just look at what's being said about Scott Forbes (all without a shred of actual evidence).

Had Forbes brought any evidence to the table that his blather is true, there would be no problem.

Little hint for you. Janitorial services usually schedule certain tasks for the wekends to avoid getting in the way of office workers, like stripping loors, cleaning carpets.

Seems to me that there should be someone in that line of work who could use the publicity that bringing out the truth would bring.

Crickets!

[BenBurch]

Wow, do you radiate this much sunshine everywhere you go?

Seriously, have you considered how odd it is that your evaluation of 9/11-eyewitness credibility is based entirely on how their observations affect your established beliefs? In other words, if I gave you everything you needed to know about Scott Forbes before telling you what he said, you wouldn't feel the same way about him.

You hate this man, yet you know nothing about him other than where he worked and, most importantly, what he observed. That is far from "healthy" behavior.

I'm just a ray of [expletive] Sunshine everywhere and to everybody!

And no, my evaluation of this pondscum is because I know for fact that what he tried to use to get acclaim and praise is a damned lie.

You know what, Chuckles? I would love this to have been an inside job.

I would love to be able to prove that it was Bush and Cheney and Rice and Rove and Rummy and their whole assemblage of cold-war retreads did 911.

And I would love it because that is TREASON and they would be convicted of treason and sentenced legally to death and I would get to see them all hanging from a federal gallows. On the mall. In front of the Lincoln-freaking Memorial.

But, Chuckles, I will not try to LIE that into happening.

Capice?

[ktesibios]

ktesibios: Yeah I noticed the just.in site before, though notice that he says that he was on the Observation Deck during the morning, a few hours before Forbes' powerdowns were supposed to start.

I did see that.

However, when a business or public facility is going to be closed during what would normally be open hours and this is known in advance, it's pretty customary to put up a notice of some sort, usually at least a day in advance.

The author of the just.in blog doesn't mention noticing anything at all out of the ordinary on his visit to the observation decks, which implies that the plan was to cut off power to the top half of the building while leaving the tourist facilities at the top open, or to close them in the middle of the day without any prior notice.

The more people who record visiting Top of the World during or immediately around the time of the purported power cut without having noticed anything that wasn't routine, the more unlikely the whole power cut story becomes.

[Arus808]

Having been involved in several power downs can tell you that it is major operation
Multiple emails are sent out warning everybody what is going on, equipment which
has to be powered must be isolated. That only one person, Scott Forbes, was aware
of this is totally amazing. What about the electricians? Considering that many of
the tenants were financial or securities which had 24 hour operations someone had to
know .


I can only agree with this, as we just went through a power down (air conditioning maitnenance) this past weekend. A PHYSICAL typed up notice was sent to our office, and it was copied to every employee. An email also went out on our work network notifying us of the power down, and that any work that is left on our computers, must be saved and our computers shut-down . Then our IT department had to stay on site for the weekend to make sure the company handling our building didn't turn off the electricity to our server rooms. Projects had to be planned around this power down (some computers are used to compile data over the weekend, or FTP transfers happen over the weekend since Japan is a day ahead)

We have over 80 employees; 10 server racks and have to maintain an open connection with Japan 24/7.

If our building management didn't notify us of the power down, all the trouble and maintenance that OUR company would have gone through would have been enormous. Data could have been loss, costing our company huge amounts of money.


Anyone who thinks that a power down happens on a whim without notification to those businesses that would be affected, have never worked in a office building in their lives.

[Arus808]

You've obviously never worked in IT, or if you did, not very recently. Nobody notifies computer vendors in situations like this (they don't do proactive support, it's all reactive with time-based SLAs).

bullhockey. Power downs, even if done on one floor , the building management WILL always notify their tenants if one should occur for whatever reasons.

Do you know what kind of liability the building would be under if they provided no notification?


Again, we just went through a power down from the building my company is in. The building management sent out notices to EVERY single company in the bulding, and even posted the notification at the security desk for the building.



Plus, even if they did notify all those people, how do you think those notifications work nowadays? It's all done via email - even the janitorial-service managers.


NO it isn't. These kinds of things happen with the SECURITY guards or even the building management visiting eveyr office to hand them a typed up piece of paper stating when the power down will happen and usually for how long. You obviously do not undestand the liablity a building management has to notify their tenants of these kinds of things.

You are talking out of where the sun doesn't shine

As for "not having a leg to stand on", there's a credible eyewitness account of this happening. To say that the eyewitness is lying when he has nothing to gain from doing so would be an "extraordinary claim" - and as I read here all the time, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Forbes is the only one claiming htere was a power down. the 20,000 other people who worked in the Tower didn't mention it.

[OldTigerCub]

bullhockey. Power downs, even if done on one floor , the building management WILL always notify their tenants if one should occur for whatever reasons.

Do you know what kind of liability the building would be under if they provided no notification?


Again, we just went through a power down from the building my company is in. The building management sent out notices to EVERY single company in the bulding, and even posted the notification at the security desk for the building.





NO it isn't. These kinds of things happen with the SECURITY guards or even the building management visiting eveyr office to hand them a typed up piece of paper stating when the power down will happen and usually for how long. You obviously do not undestand the liablity a building management has to notify their tenants of these kinds of things.

You are talking out of where the sun doesn't shine



Forbes is the only one claiming htere was a power down. the 20,000 other people who worked in the Tower didn't mention it.

Not to mention a few million residents of NYC and tourists used to seeing the lights in the WTC and other tall buildings of the NY skyline.
(bolding mine)

[David Wong]

Just for amusement, can somebody please calculate the size of the crew you'd need to wire up a building that size for demolition in 36 hours?

[BenBurch]

Just for amusement, can somebody please calculate the size of the crew you'd need to wire up a building that size for demolition in 36 hours?

I'm not sure any sized crew could do it in that time.

[LashL]

Where did he claim that it would disable all of the locks? When he was interviewed, he said he received a notice about the power-down a week or two in advance, and he shutdown all of his DB servers before it was scheduled to begin. Nothing about the locks, unless he quoted it from the notice (I don't recall it, though).

I have no idea if the lights were included in that power outage, and I don't recall Scott mentioning it, either, in his interview. Maybe the notice claimed the outage would cover the entire top-half of the building, but in reality only covered a smaller subsection? Listen to the Scott Forbes interview(s), and you'll hear all of the information as it was presented to him, and observed by him.

The man has no motive to lie (gains nothing, personally or financially), and his story sounds perfectly reasonable. That's a credible witness. Stop dragging his name through the mud because you don't like the possible implications of what he witnessed.


It sounds as though you aren't aware of his previous versions of events. You should look at them. It is from the earlier versions of Forbes' claims that your fellow tinhatters have come up with the ridiculous stories about no security, no locks, no power, no elevators, etc.

In any event, even his latest story is nonsensical from start to finish. It is ludicrous, and I notice that you haven't addressed any of the specific silly claims that he has made even in that watered down version of his story.

Care to address reality for a moment and explain how it is that nobody but Mr. Forbes would notice this massive power down, how nobody but Mr. Forbes would mention it, how nobody but Mr. Forbes would note the presence of heavy dust accumulations for a week prior to the terrorist attacks? Forbes' story is bs from start to finish.

Thus, my point, which is that Forbes' claims are not credible. There is no credible evidence whatsoever of this alleged "power down".

And to repeat and somewhat paraphrase my prior post:

As I said previously, thousands of people would know in advance of a scheduled power down of the magnitude he describes. Moreover, such a power down would not, contrary to Forbes' claims, disable all security, locks, etc. And even it it was true, which it isn't, such a power down would mean that that the building would be chock full of additional security personnel in order to protect the tenants' belongings and confidential files, etc.

As I said previously, if what Forbes said was true, the building would be at a much higher level of security than its usual high level of security, and not the other way around.

Further, hundreds of thousands of people would have noticed if ~50 floors of a tower were in darkness.

His claims are silly on their face.

[Skibum]

Plus, even if they did notify all those people, how do you think those notifications work nowadays? It's all done via email - even the janitorial-service managers.




Every lease I've seen has a clause requiring the landlord to notify tenants in writing well ahead of any scheduled power downs.

[Pardalis]

I'm not sure any sized crew could do it in that time.

Let alone three buildings, simultaneously.

My guess is that they only could have done it with the help of trans-dimensional leprechauns.

[BillyRayValentine]

Where did he claim that it would disable all of the locks? When he was interviewed, he said he received a notice about the power-down a week or two in advance, and he shutdown all of his DB servers before it was scheduled to begin. Nothing about the locks, unless he quoted it from the notice (I don't recall it, though).

Read much?

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

- Scott Forbes (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm)

For starters, there are only a handful of workers who are especially sensitive to a power-down over the weekend, some of which are server administrators (or DBAs).

Positively idiotic. Nearly every single tenant in a typical NYC office tower, not just the back-office techies, would be highly sensitive to a power interruption AT ANY TIME, let alone for an extended period. Every employee in the affected area would have been notified, at a minimum, and it would have been a major, major event for most firms, particularly financial service and law firms. In fact, I can guarantee you that they would never agree to a "power down" like that described by Forbes, were it not an emergency.

Forbes' story is preposterous. The moron can't produce a single person to corroborate his story, and yet you believe it. Does that sound rational to you? Or is it that you think tens of thousands of New Yorkers are covering for Bush etal., since they're so popular here?

[LashL]

Seriously, have you considered how odd it is that your evaluation of 9/11-eyewitness credibility is based entirely on how their observations affect your established beliefs?

Scott Forbes is not an eyewitness to anything related to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and his credibility vis a vis his silly little "power down" story would be laughable if the subject matter were not so deadly serious.

In other words, if I gave you everything you needed to know about Scott Forbes before telling you what he said, you wouldn't feel the same way about him.

Given that it appears that you do not even know his prior versions of events, I seriously doubt that you are in any position to provide anyone with "everything [they] needed to know about Scott Forbes..."

You hate this man, yet you know nothing about him other than where he worked and, most importantly, what he observed. That is far from "healthy" behavior.

I don't see anything that BenBurch has written here that comes even remotely close to demonstrating hatred toward Scott Forbes, despite Forbes' obvious tinhat delusional tendencies. Please provide evidence in support of your accusation.

Your own behaviour, on the other hand, does seem far from healthy since it appears that you simply accept nonsensical and unsupported allegations made by delusional conspiracy fantasists without any thought given to actual facts or evidence. I'd call that unhealthy.

[leftysergeant]

ktesibios: Yeah I noticed the just.in site before, though notice that he says that he was on the Observation Deck during the morning, a few hours before Forbes' powerdowns were supposed to start.

Why even bother to open the observation deck if you are not even going to have it open for half a day?

I have worked for businesses that use part days for maintainence to give hourly employees a few hours without customers under foot to do some in-depth cleaning or tie up little details or do merchandise resets without having to go overtime on a full day.

[Mangoose]

leftysergeant: I agree....it would've been a rather short workday.

Another ticket, this one from 9/10/01, same design:

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/3170/wtcticketdg5.jpg

[Arus808]

haha, just use ebay to find your evidence. seems like many people are willing to sell their souvenirs. bound to collect a whole slew of them with the dates and times that wouldn't allow an inch of leeway in Forbes' story.

[Bell]

Bell: The ticket is real because there are many other examples of this design around. For example:

Notice the stub on the last ticket. The photo I posted on the previous page does not include this stub, so it is reasonable to conclude that this was a ticket that was used, as confirmed in the original blog: "A friend of a friend was up there just 3 days earlier."

Your ticket seems to be an earlier design:

Thanks for clearing this up, Mangoose.

[Bell]

All they would need to do is privately question Scott Forbes' coworkers about it - he's already said they could confirm his story. As it stands, the only way for them to backup his story is to come out and do it publicly - and there's no way they're going to do that. Certain people (like the ones in this forum) will stop at nothing to attack & discredit anybody whose story threatens their world-view - just look at what's being said about Scott Forbes (all without a shred of actual evidence).

I did not ask HOW it should be investigated, but WHY it should be investigated.

It's a claim by ONE man, without any further backup by evidence whatsoever, beside the claim that his co-workers can confirm it. There is no reason to pursue that, since the credibility of the claim is zero to begin with.

[chillzero]

I can only agree with this, as we just went through a power down (air conditioning maitnenance) this past weekend. A PHYSICAL typed up notice was sent to our office, and it was copied to every employee. An email also went out on our work network notifying us of the power down, and that any work that is left on our computers, must be saved and our computers shut-down . Then our IT department had to stay on site for the weekend to make sure the company handling our building didn't turn off the electricity to our server rooms. Projects had to be planned around this power down (some computers are used to compile data over the weekend, or FTP transfers happen over the weekend since Japan is a day ahead)

We have over 80 employees; 10 server racks and have to maintain an open connection with Japan 24/7.

If our building management didn't notify us of the power down, all the trouble and maintenance that OUR company would have gone through would have been enormous. Data could have been loss, costing our company huge amounts of money.


Anyone who thinks that a power down happens on a whim without notification to those businesses that would be affected, have never worked in a office building in their lives.

As an IT Change Manager myself, I can confirm this approach to power-downs. Many people would be involved. Yes, many people died that day, but notification regarding power downs go out in advance. Many people would have mentioned the inconvenience being caused them to their families and friends. External communications would have been made that would still exist in contracted company servers and mail rooms.

There would have been communications throughout the building to ensure that business continuity plans had been developed by each company, and hopefully tested, in case things did not go as planned. There would have been information issued to all companies, to inform people who was in charge of what aspect of the power-out, and contact numbers for support or further information. These things don't happen in secret.

[funk de fino]

Scott Forbes has changed his story about the length of the power down and about the locks, cameras and shady people entering the building. He has specifically claimed it was a total power down on all floors above the 50th. He also stated that as sson as he seen the tower collapse he knew it was an inside job and related to the power down.

He is a liar and my friends prove it as well as the ticket stubs from the observation deck. Deep 44 ran away when I asked him if the fact that my friends were in the tower made me and them liars because it is inconvenient to Scotts claims.

Forbes is a truther and craves the attention these claims give him.

[BigAl]

What makes you think all the paperwork would be in his office? There would be about a ton (literally) of paperwork generated from something like this and it would be sent out to contractors, computer vendors (machines have a habit of not coming back on after an outage,) emergency backup site managers, consultants, electricians (they would want to get as much of THEIR OWN work done as possible since the power was going to be out,) and even the janitorial company would have to be notified.


I always had one of my guys or gals in on Sunday to start the power up of the datacenter and get an early start on any problems. A full power down is very rare and notable and a cold start of an IT operation is a real pain. Many IT operations have backup sites. IT operations would have been switched over for the weekend. There would be paperwork associated with the scheduling of that activity and people that worked at the backup site would remember, as of 9/12 that a hot-site activation had happened a week earlier. Just because there is a power down it doesn't mean that people unknown to me get into my office space. Tenant alarm systems continue to work during power failure. I'll have my people working that day, with flashlights if necessary.

In my experience, in any anticipated power down lots of advance notice (months) is given so that any tenant that needs to do work can get his contractor involved.

When I hear someone make this claim, I envision a kid that's never worked in a big building.

[BigAl]

Nitpick: That's not true in many properly supported mission critical environments. ....
And if that requires contacting vendors, that happens, and they're invited. Although most times, it's actually the vendors initiating the change, say for example for an upgrade. ....

Anyway, sorry for the digression, but it's not universally true that nobody notifies vendors or that all support is reactive.

[/derail]

Sorry to just be an echo, but my vendors (DEC and IBM) would either have someone on-site or very close on Monday morning if we asked them, and we did. As of 2001, critical IT operations had hot sites and getting service engineers in is less critical, but the hot site would be on on notice for that day if not actually been activated. That would involve people and paperwork and possibly activation charges being incurred which has it's own paper trail.

[BigAl]

Further, hundreds of thousands of people would have noticed if ~50 floors of a tower were in darkness.

His claims are silly on their face.

Does anyone know what company Forbes worked for as of 9/11/2001?

[Bell]

Does anyone know what company Forbes worked for as of 9/11/2001?

He says to have been working for Fiduciary Trust at 9/11 and his office was at the 97th floor.

[A W Smith]

Does anyone know what company Forbes worked for as of 9/11/2001?


Fiduciary trust covered floors 90 through 97,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/south-tower.htm
Thats eight acres of floor space. Imagine how many of his colleagues would have had to know about this power down fantasy and would have worked with him? Yet no one. Not a single colleague, Supports his story.

Conclusion? Scott Forbes is a compulsive liar. I have nothing but contempt for people that lie and those who support liars. There is a special place in hell for people like him.

[BenBurch]

leftysergeant: I agree....it would've been a rather short workday.

Another ticket, this one from 9/10/01, same design:

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/3170/wtcticketdg5.jpg

AND NOTE - The serial numbers on this ticket and all the others are in perfect time sequence.

[BenBurch]

Sorry to just be an echo, but my vendors (DEC and IBM) would either have someone on-site or very close on Monday morning if we asked them, and we did. As of 2001, critical IT operations had hot sites and getting service engineers in is less critical, but the hot site would be on on notice for that day if not actually been activated. That would involve people and paperwork and possibly activation charges being incurred which has it's own paper trail.

That was my experience too. WOW, do I miss working on PDP-11s and VAXen! That was a fun time.

[Mr.Herbert]

Being the Director of Engineering at a good size property in Boston ( over 1million Sq ft) I have been involved in many power downs. Either for elevator inspections, electrical service upgrades, transformer oil changes, etc. We hold SEVERAL face to face meetings with all department heads and managers of the entire building WEEKS in advance. (in addition to countless e-mails and memos)

In most IT systems, there are typically UPS systems,[battery back up] or other redundancies that will assure the continuous flow of electricity. If we anticipate a power down that will last longer than the time rated on the UPS equipment, arrangments are made to run emergency power from our emergency generators.

What I don't understand is, what was beign upgraded? Was it IT equipment? Cables? Electrical cables?

What ever it was, it would NOT have an effect on security cameras and would not require 50 odd floors of a building to be left in the dark.

The man is a liar. Period

[leftysergeant]

Best way to cure a twoofer is to get him a job.

[BenBurch]

Yeah, I would love to find a trunk wiring diagram for the towers... Anybody know of one? I'm betting that there were a number of zones served by different feeders. Having just a single buss up the building sounds like asking for trouble,

[gumboot]

The power-down is somewhat irrelevant as nothing could have occurred in half a building, in 36 hours, which could have in any way resulted in three buildings completely collapsing several days later.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

MikeW: Oh crum, thanks for the correction. :blush: I guess I'll have to keep my eye out for any other accounts. There are bound to be more.

Bell: The ticket is real because there are many other examples of this design around. For example:

Notice the stub on the last ticket. The photo I posted on the previous page does not include this stub, so it is reasonable to conclude that this was a ticket that was used, as confirmed in the original blog: "A friend of a friend was up there just 3 days earlier."

Here's the stub from my last trip up. When I returned from Europe in November, this was sitting on top of a stack of papers, by a window that had afforded a stunning view of the towers, where smoke was now rising.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904724d8c2e9f98.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8971)

[Gravy]

Yeah, I would love to find a trunk wiring diagram for the towers... Anybody know of one? I'm betting that there were a number of zones served by different feeders. Having just a single buss up the building sounds like asking for trouble,No diagram, but here's a description of the system:

WTC Primary and Emergency Electrical Power (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtcprimaryandemergencyelectricalpower)

[BenBurch]

No diagram, but here's a description of the system:

WTC Primary and Emergency Electrical Power (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtcprimaryandemergencyelectricalpower)

And indeed it would appear to preclude the power down story... There is no imaginable work that would need to power down the upper half of the building at all! In fact, all you should ever need to power down is half of each floor in about a 35 floor section.

[deep]

Nitpick: That's not true in many properly supported mission critical environments. For example, at the university I work at, we in the IT departments are required to follow Change Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_management) procedures. The very idea is to proactively prepare for interruptions of service, and for all affected and concerned to be warned about and participate in the timeframe decision making process. And this is an actual in-person, faces-to-faces meeting, not some "virtualized" process.

And if that requires contacting vendors, that happens, and they're invited. Although most times, it's actually the vendors initiating the change, say for example for an upgrade.

Given the number of financial companies and handful of government agencies housed in the WTC (source (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html)), I'd be in shock if there was no building-wide change management process, for generalized issues such as electric maintenance, HVAC maintenance, etc.

Anyway, sorry for the digression, but it's not universally true that nobody notifies vendors or that all support is reactive.

[/derail]


While I do agree with you for the most part, there are a couple problems:

no upgrade was planned, and no changes were being made (it was essentially a reboot) - so it would be a break-fix situation for any vendor involved. Sure, you can pay a vendor to come on-site to watch you use the bathroom if you want, but it's certainly not "standard operating procedure", and there's no reason to believe there would be a paper (i.e., the stuff made from trees) trail for it.
Scott Forbes would not be involved in any building-wide change management activities; however, he would obviously receive notification that was required as part of that procedure.

[deep]

And no, my evaluation of this pondscum is because I know for fact that what he tried to use to get acclaim and praise is a damned lie.


Right, but don't you find it a little bit weird how the only people who do that are people who disagree with your point of view? Why aren't any of the eyewitnesses who support your argument suspected of "just randomly deciding one day to make up elaborate stories with no clear motive for doing so"?

[deep]

Further, hundreds of thousands of people would have noticed if ~50 floors of a tower were in darkness.


The posters on this site take great pride in their critical thinking ability, yet still come up with arguments like this -- puzzling, to say the least.

Consider all of this from Scott Forbes' perspective: he receives a notice explaining that a power-down is going to happen. He won't be involved directly in the actual power-down, but there is some action he needs to take before it happens (to avoid local database/server operational problems). He takes said action and goes home.
If the power-down was canceled at the last minute, would that make Scott Forbes a liar (re: the notification he received)? No.
If the power-down didn't really cover the same number of floors contained in the notice, would that make Scott Forbes a liar? No.
If there was no power-down, and it was just a ploy to keep people out of the office for the weekend, would that make Scott Forbes a liar? No.You've repeatedly failed to realize that Scott Forbes is only sharing his perception of what happened. So despite the repeated claims that Scott Forbes is a lying scumbag, not one single shred of evidence has been presented to prove that Scott Forbes lied or acted maliciously in any way, or done anything except share his perception of what happened. He clearly stated that he couldn't confirm whether the power was actually turned off -- he was only going by the notice he and his co-workers received.

Remember, Scott Forbes tried to handle this quietly. He wrote letters to the 9/11 Commission and attempted to contact them through their website. He received no response, no acknowledgment, etc. He only went public with his story after making those attempts.

The fact that so many of you have condemned Scott Forbes is abhorrent.

[deep]

Fiduciary trust covered floors 90 through 97,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/south-tower.htm
Thats eight acres of floor space. Imagine how many of his colleagues would have had to know about this power down fantasy and would have worked with him? Yet no one. Not a single colleague, Supports his story.


Source please? Where can I find one of his co-workers claiming that Scott is a liar?

[Jonnyclueless]

Source please? Where can I find one of his co-workers claiming that Scott is a liar?

As soon as you provide the testimony of his co-workers showing they agree with him, I am sure someone would be happy to provide the made up claim of yours that his co-workers are accusing him of lying.

My co-workers can back me up in my claim that the moon is made up of cheese. Until you can provide proof of my co-workers calling me a liar, it must therefore be true. See how fun this is?

[deep]

As soon as you provide the testimony of his co-workers showing they agree with him, I am sure someone would be happy to provide the made up claim of yours that his co-workers are accusing him of lying.

My co-workers can back me up in my claim that the moon is made up of cheese. Until you can provide proof of my co-workers calling me a liar, it must therefore be true. See how fun this is?


No, he said "not one of his co-workers supports his story", as opposed to "not one of his co-workers supports his story publicly". Not the same thing.

As Scott Forbes mentioned in one of his interviews, the power-down required almost his entire IT department, plus other people from the business to validate the systems as they were brought back online. That's why I'm curious how that person knows for a fact that Scott's co-workers do not support his story (unless, of course, he's making an argument from silence).

[LashL]

<snip> The posters on this site take great pride in their critical thinking ability, yet still come up with arguments like this -- puzzling, to say the least.

Most of us here have excellent critical thinking skills. You, on the other hand, have not demonstrated any. Also, your cherry-picking one line out of one of my posts while ignoring the rest of that post and my other posts that relate to it does not change that. Moreover, the bit that you purport to find "puzzling" is not puzzling at all. I do not know why are you so confused about something so straightforward, but perhaps you can explain your inability to comprehend it.

<snip>The fact that so many of you have condemned Scott Forbes is abhorrent.

The fact that you ignored my posts #73 and #77, picked one single innocuous sentence to address, and then did so very, very badly is abhorrent.

Frankly, it appears that you realize that you are unable to address coherently the reality that you are avoiding. It appears that you cannot address the reality that you are deliberately avoiding, and it appears that you know Forbes is lying (at worst) or mistaken (at best), and that you are deliberately avoiding facts in order to maintain your fantasy.

That's pretty common among tinhatters, but it's still wrong.

Here are my posts again, the ones that you have avoided making any coherent or rational response to. Please, either address them in a meaningful fashion or admit that you cannot.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3092311&postcount=73

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3092333&postcount=77

[deep]

The fact that you ignored my posts #73 and #77, picked one single innocuous sentence to address, and then did so very, very badly is abhorrent.

It appears that you realize that you cannot address the reality that you keep avoiding, and it seems apparent that you know Forbes is lying, so you're simply avoiding facts in order to maintain your fantasy.

That's pretty common among tinhatters, but it's still wrong.


Only someone who believes Scott Forbes is lying about all of this could come to that conclusion after reading my message. It's pointless to argue with someone whose interpretation is based only on what they want to see (as opposed to what has been said).

Here are a couple clues for you:

don't act surprised when someone doesn't respond to messages in which you refer to them by silly made-up names.
had you actually read the interviews with Scott Forbes, you would see that he's not making any of the claims you reference. His story makes sense, and you've provided nothing in either of your posts to discredit him.I don't care how many people should have noticed this power-down - Scott Forbes clearly states that he's not sure if it even happened. He's providing his perspective based on the notice he and his co-workers received. If you have evidence to support your claim that he is lying about that notification, please present it.

[LashL]

<snipped for brevity because I hate wasting bandwidth on idiots>
Only someone who believes Scott Forbes is lying about all of this could come to that conclusion after reading my message.



Translation: "I will not address your posts in a meaningful fashion because I can't. I don't even know about Forbes' previous versions of events so I will pretend that they don't exist. And I don't believe Forbes' BS either but I don't want to admit it."

Got it.

[funk de fino]

Only someone who believes Scott Forbes is lying about all of this could come to that conclusion after reading my message. It's pointless to argue with someone whose interpretation is based only on what they want to see (as opposed to what has been said).

Here are a couple clues for you:

don't act surprised when someone doesn't respond to messages in which you refer to them by silly made-up names.
had you actually read the interviews with Scott Forbes, you would see that he's not making any of the claims you reference. His story makes sense, and you've provided nothing in either of your posts to discredit him.I don't care how many people should have noticed this power-down - Scott Forbes clearly states that he's not sure if it even happened. He's providing his perspective based on the notice he and his co-workers received. If you have evidence to support your claim that he is lying about that notification, please present it.

We know exactly what his claims are because they are all over the net. he has also recently done a interview which is online where he reiterates most of his claims

I suggest you go and look at his claims before saying he did not claim a power down for the top 50 floors. He also calimed that he knew as soon as he seen the towers collapse that it was an inside job due to what he had seen on the weekend. He also claims (through a friend) that he is being pressured to stay quiet by FT for fear of being sacked. His claims about the length of time of the power down have also changed. He attends truther meetings in the UK. He made claims about the security locks and cameras being disbaled by the power down. He made claims about strange workmen being around that weekend.

I have seen his claims, heard his claims, I have seen the changes to his stories and what other people who claim to know him well say, and he is a liar.

[BenBurch]

Right, but don't you find it a little bit weird how the only people who do that are people who disagree with your point of view? Why aren't any of the eyewitnesses who support your argument suspected of "just randomly deciding one day to make up elaborate stories with no clear motive for doing so"?

Insanity is by definition not rational, so it is pointless to analyze the actions of insane people as though they were sane. But as for motive, VALIDATION seems to be the big one in the weak minds who come up with nonsense like this.

Any witnesses who report what actually did occur don't NEED to make anything up to bolster their stories; What really happened was beyond most people's imaginings.

So, no, I don't find it weird; Trutherism is essentially irrational and dishonest; In order to have any facts to talk about you need to have made them up or accepted made up crap from somebody else.

[Jonnyclueless]

As Scott Forbes mentioned in one of his interviews, the power-down required almost his entire IT department, plus other people from the business to validate the systems as they were brought back online. That's why I'm curious how that person knows for a fact that Scott's co-workers do not support his story (unless, of course, he's making an argument from silence).


So let's hear his co-workers. Why aren't they joining in with him and sharing how they know that half of the entire building was shut down? Don't you imagine there were other IT departments in that building too?

Kinda funny how a single person's word despite many others contradicting him/her is golden to you. But I guess so long as it supports a conspiracy, that's the only requirement needed.

So again, show us this evidence of his co-workers.

[BillyRayValentine]

You've repeatedly failed to realize that Scott Forbes is only sharing his perception of what happened. So despite the repeated claims that Scott Forbes is a lying scumbag, not one single shred of evidence has been presented to prove that Scott Forbes lied or acted maliciously in any way, or done anything except share his perception of what happened. He clearly stated that he couldn't confirm whether the power was actually turned off -- he was only going by the notice he and his co-workers received.

Remember, Scott Forbes tried to handle this quietly. He wrote letters to the 9/11 Commission and attempted to contact them through their website. He received no response, no acknowledgment, etc. He only went public with his story after making those attempts.

The fact that so many of you have condemned Scott Forbes is abhorrent.

Nice...you blatantly lie in defense of this insect, yet have the temerity to get sanctimonious. Pathetic, but not unexpected.

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

The above quote directly refutes you. He didn't report his "perception" of what might have happened; he made a number of unequivocal, absurd, demonstrably false claims. Period. Followed by the malicious implication that on 9/11 he "was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work".

Straightforward stuff. Nothing ambiguous here.

Scott is a fraud, as is anyone who defends his fairy tale.

[BenBurch]

So let's hear his co-workers. Why aren't they joining in with him and sharing how they know that half of the entire building was shut down? Don't you imagine there were other IT departments in that building too?

Kinda funny how a single person's word despite many others contradicting him/her is golden to you. But I guess so long as it supports a conspiracy, that's the only requirement needed.

So again, show us this evidence of his co-workers.

If they could have gotten this, there would be a YouTube video already. They cannot support this claim with any corroboration or paperwork or we wouldn't be discussing this issue any more.

[Jonnyclueless]

OI don't care how many people should have noticed this power-down - Scott Forbes clearly states that he's not sure if it even happened. He's providing his perspective based on the notice he and his co-workers received. If you have evidence to support your claim that he is lying about that notification, please present it.

Exactly. You ONLY care about anything that supports your pre-determined conclusion. Any investigation that could possibly interfere with that pre-determined conclusion is not worth investigating because of the possibility it may hamper that conclusion.

Hence your quick dismissal of al contradicting evidence, your own witnesses contradictions and deceptions, as well as his lack of credibility and inability to back up his claims. So long as someone says something that helps your pre-determined conclusion, that's all that matters.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That was my experience too. WOW, do I miss working on PDP-11s and VAXen! That was a fun time.
You are a sad, sick individual; you have my sympathy.



:D

[BenBurch]

You are a sad, sick individual; you have my sympathy.



:D

One day I was sitting in my living room poking some FORTRAN into my acoustically-coupled Silent-700 terminal when the PDP-11/70 that I managed on the other end stopped responding... So I called the operator and he went up to that floor (Fermilab's computer center occupied two floors then) and found that the 11/70 had crashed alright; A chilled water pipe had cracked and apparently had been leaking water onto it for hours by that time. We had the highest level DECsupport for that one and our CE, a grumpy fellow at the best of times was not a happy man. :D

[BillyRayValentine]

...Scott Forbes clearly states that he's not sure if it even happened. He's providing his perspective based on the notice he and his co-workers received.

Just to reiterate, he "clearly stated" no such thing. Quite the opposite, actually. You are lying.

Here is an excerpt from his first public comment regarding this nonsense. He directly contradicts you. Salient portions are bolded.

On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work ...

Now shoo, and stop lying to defend this cretin.

[leftysergeant]

Having, myself, worked in both fire fighting, private security and janitorial services, this precise scenario quote above would have at least fifty additional personnel in the building during the power-down. The fire marshall has to inspect new electrical work. There are areas of any office complex of this size to which even a security guard is allowed access only under the most dire circumstances. If it has a secure electronic lock, the rent-a-cops don't often have a card. That menas that there would be a company functionary with the right clearances to ensure that everything got locked back up properly. And there is no way that any sappers could have gone in un der guise of contractors and not left some wierd stuff for janitorial to clean up.

I smell a big pile of fetid falsehoods here.

[tacodaemon]

leftysergeant: I agree....it would've been a rather short workday.

Another ticket, this one from 9/10/01, same design:

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/3170/wtcticketdg5.jpg


Roof closed, what a shame; nobody got a chance to try again the next day. Well, there was a hurricane (Erin) sitting off the coast and it got pretty rainy in New York on September 10, 2001 (a Yankees home game against the Red Sox was rained out and some of the U.S. Open tennis matches were delayed). I guess the following day was the clear day after the lousy September 10 weather.

[dudalb]

Twoofers get their ideas of what is involved with the demolition of a building from the crap you see on TV shows where one or two guys place a few charges in a huge building in about four minutes ,leave and a minute later the bulding goes up. It does not work that way in real life,folks.

[LashL]

Only someone who believes Scott Forbes is lying about all of this could come to that conclusion after reading my message. It's pointless to argue with someone whose interpretation is based only on what they want to see (as opposed to what has been said).

You mean, it's pointless to argue with someone who is better informed than you. I can see why you refuse to discuss the matter.

And yes, I do believe that Forbes is lying because he has changed his story several times and because his story is ludicrous on its face.

Here are a couple clues for you: don't act surprised when someone doesn't respond to messages in which you refer to them by silly made-up names.

Yet, you responded and I am not at all surprised.

had you actually read the interviews with Scott Forbes, you would see that he's not making any of the claims you reference. His story makes sense, and you've provided nothing in either of your posts to discredit him.

I have read his interviews, and it is obvious that you have not.

He did make the claims that I referenced. Either you are completing lacking in research skills; you are deliberately making things up; or you actively choose to close your eyes and cover your ears to reality.

Whichever one of the above is the case, don't blame me or others for your own shortcomings.

I don't care how many people should have noticed this power-down - Scott Forbes clearly states that he's not sure if it even happened. He's providing his perspective based on the notice he and his co-workers received. If you have evidence to support your claim that he is lying about that notification, please present it.

You are wrong.

Had 50 storeys of one of the towers been in darkness, hundreds of thousands of people would have (not should have) noticed and it would have been newsworthy. It is not possible in the space and time that the rational among us call "reality" that such an unprecedented event would go unnoticed and uncommented upon; or that it would not have been the subject of numerous photographs; or that it would not have been the subject of news reports at the time that it occurred - which was prior to September 11.

It is even less possible in the space and time that the rational among us call "reality" that, had it actually happened, it would not have been shouted from the rooftops that such an unusual and unprecedented event had occurred mere days before the terrorist attacks of September 11.

You are also wrong about Forbes' statements. He has changed his story repeatedly and he did make the claims that I referred to. I see that others who were online after I left yesterday have already provided you with evidence of same.

So, what do you have to say about Forbes and his stories now?

[Arus808]

okay ,so this issue is now debunked. deep44 demonstrates that he has never worked in an office building; let alone a 110 story office building with many busiensses that are finance related, that would rely on advanced notice if a power down was to happen, so businesses could prepare of this "power down".

now, let s put this thread to rest. deep44 is playing the "semantic" game, and its not fun. he's putting a proven liar up on a pedestal and we shouldn't encourage that kind of behaviour

[Malamule]

A list of tenants in the south tower.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/towers/south.stm

NOTE:
NY State Department of Taxation & Finance; Corporation Service Company
86 NY State Department of Taxation & Finance

State agencies there. Any intentional power outage would require approval and negotiation and records for the time period certainly exist in an archive offsite. Bureaucratic agencies require lots and lots of CYA signatures. Find the person responsible for this agency during the time period and ask him. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if it would require Pataki approval. Furthermore, the dept of taxation would be required to notify any business it deals with of an outage or switch to offsite/backup sites...likely just about every corporation in Manhattan.

[LashL]

okay ,so this issue is now debunked. deep44 demonstrates that he has never worked in an office building; let alone a 110 story office building with many busiensses that are finance related, that would rely on advanced notice if a power down was to happen, so businesses could prepare of this "power down".

now, let s put this thread to rest. deep44 is playing the "semantic" game, and its not fun. he's putting a proven liar up on a pedestal and we shouldn't encourage that kind of behaviour

The "power down" allegation was debunked a long time ago. deep44 is, and always has been, several years behind the times. That said, I doubt that deep44 will be back to try to defend his silly theory any further in light of the smackdown he's received in this thread, assuming that he has finally got around to catching up with old news.

[Swing Dangler]

Having, myself, worked in both fire fighting, private security and janitorial services, this precise scenario quote above would have at least fifty additional personnel in the building during the power-down. The fire marshall has to inspect new electrical work.

Out of those 50 people, where would they work, what would they do, and are they still alive to confirm or deny the story? After all the burden of proof is to prove Scott Forbes wrong through facts and evidence, not speculation.

As far as his story, is a person not allowed to error? Is human nature that distinct to allow an error free story after such a traumatizing event?
Thats eight acres of floor space. Imagine how many of his colleagues would have had to know about this power down fantasy and would have worked with him? Yet no one. Not a single colleague, Supports his story.
Isn't upon your shoulders to bring to light those who can contradict Scott's story? Or can you list a single colleague that will refute his story?

[Mangoose]

After all the burden of proof is to prove Scott Forbes wrong through facts and evidence, not speculation.



You have a funny concept of burden of proof. Usually the burden is on the person to substantiate the claim, not for the claim to be disproved. Let me illustrate. I claim that creatures from Mars live inside my liver. Now prove me wrong! There is no burden on me to submit any evidence of this.... I could make any claim I like, and you must in each case submit proof that it is not true, otherwise the claim stands.

"Outside a legal context, 'burden of proof' means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say 'you can't disprove this.' Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

[funk de fino]

After all the burden of proof is to prove Scott Forbes wrong through facts and evidence, not speculation.

The evidence is in this thread, it is the tickets for the observation deck from that day during the supposed power down. The fact is my friends were up the towers that weekend during the supposed power down.

What more would you like? Scott has provided nothing, no evidence, no facts just claims, which is less than this thread has provided.

As far as his story, is a person not allowed to error? Is human nature that distinct to allow an error free story after such a traumatizing event?

Only if when he is shown the error he then retracts the error and admits his mistake, not continues to make false claims

Isn't upon your shoulders to bring to light those who can contradict Scott's story? Or can you list a single colleague that will refute his story?

My friends refute his story, i have mentioned this already in the thread.

[Alferd_Packer]

Doesn’t anyone here have an inkling of the type of internal security that all of the financial institutions in the building were required to maintain?

Security policies that are above and beyond what is provided by the building.

Do the truthers actually think that the security guards have master keys to the whole building that allows them to waltz in and out of offices at will?

[PhantomWolf]

After all the burden of proof is to prove Scott Forbes wrong through facts and evidence, not speculation.

--snip--

Isn't upon your shoulders to bring to light those who can contradict Scott's story? Or can you list a single colleague that will refute his story?

Buuuuuuzt! Wrong. Scott Forbes made the claim, it's up to Scott Forbes to prove that he is telling the truth by providing the evidence for it, otherwise I have have an invisible dragon in my backyard, prove me wrong.

[MarkyX]

Swing, the only thing for the "power down" evidence is Scott's word. No paperwork or anyone to collaborate with his story.

We have tickets of the observation deck on the day of these "power downs". Simply put, our evidence is concrete then yours. We have physical evidence, you have someone's word.

[BenBurch]

Some work I did on the serial numbers of known tickets from; http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?p=197960

The tickets appear to have come from four different printing machines, each one of which had its ID number and its own serialization. Since the power-down ticket is machine 001 I have examined all tickets from machine 001 and come up with this sequence;

06/07/01 - SN 158343 Sales machine 001

7 days, about 474 tickets per day

06/14/01 - SN 161666 Sales machine 001

43 days, about 490 tickets per day

07/27/01 - SN 182757 Sales machine 001

43 days, about 534 tickets per day

09/08/01 - SN 205745 Sales machine 001<--- Disputed ticket

So the serialization is consistent with this being a real and valid ticket sold at a time when the truthie idiots suppose there was no power anywhere above floor 50...

[nicepants]

I work in an office building much smaller than the towers, but any power downs (even for just a single floor) require multiple notifications & sign offs by anyone that may be affected. We even have extra people on call during those times just in case there are problems. The paper trail for a multi-floor power down would be enormous. The fact that Mr. Forbes has been unable to produce any documentation of such speaks volumes more than his claims. That's a convenient point of view, considering the man's office was reduced to dust & small debris. Do you think people carry paperwork like that in their wallets?

No, it's usually in their e-mail...which, for financial & security reasons is archived for usually a year or more both onsite AND offsite. So it shouldn't be much of a problem for Scott to provide this.....unless it doesn't exist. Any good server admin knows you keep extra copies of notices like this for CYA purposes. There should be (at minimum) dozens of people who would corroborate his account, not just from his company but the others which were affected.

[BenBurch]

Since "Direct action gets results" I decided to take this one step further;

My letter to Fiduciary Trust;


Message-Id: <5F9E2A74-A9CA-43AC-89B4-18FB165DD044@pobox.com>
From: Ben Burch <XXXXXX>
To: XXXXXXXXX
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Smtp-Server: mail.speakeasy.net
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Subject: A question regarding your firm and the events of 9/11/01
X-Priority: 1
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:38:47 -0600

Dear Mr. Loizeaux,

I am a historical researcher who is trying to lay to rest some really
NASTY rumors surrounding the tragedy of 9/11 and your firm.

A person, one "Scott Forbes" claims to have been working for your firm
in an IT capacity, and to have overseen a complete power-down of the
top 50 floors of the towers on the weekend before 9/11/01. He is
trying to use that to imply that the US Government itself planted
explosives in the towers to murder its own citizens.

My questions for you or whomever you route this inquiry to;

1. Was this person, "Scott Forbes" ever an employee of your firm.

2. If so, did he work in the capacity he indicates in World Trade
Center tower 2?

3. If so, did he actually oversee the power-down operations of all of
your IT resources on the weekend of September 8th, 2001?

Thank you so much for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

-Ben Burch
XXXXXXX

[OldTigerCub]

Wow! I thought this was a dead thread...pardon the rhyme...:p
Nice piece of investigative work, BenBurch!:D

[BenBurch]

Why, thanks so much!

[MikeW]

Since "Direct action gets results" I decided to take this one step further;

My letter to Fiduciary Trust;
Nice try and I hope it works!

But in my experience people almost never reply to these things. My guess is they get far more of them than we realise, and by this stage they'll automatically delete just about anything 9/11-related. I'd be extremely happy to be wrong, though...

[nicepants]

Nice try and I hope it works!

But in my experience people almost never reply to these things. My guess is they get far more of them than we realise, and by this stage they'll automatically delete just about anything 9/11-related. I'd be extremely happy to be wrong, though...

Twoofers accuse BenBurch of harassment in 3....2...

[Dave Rogers]

Since "Direct action gets results" I decided to take this one step further;

My letter to Fiduciary Trust;


Dear Mr. Loizeaux,



Truth movement suggesting a family connection between Fiduciary Trust and Controlled Demolition Inc. in 3... 2...

Dave

[LastChild]

Even according to Forbes the building could have been open for a few hours on each day no?

Observation deck, South Tower, WTC 2, floor 107 (summer hours 9:30am to 11:30pm)
The post-Labor Day hours for the WTC observation deck were 9:30 a.m.-9:30 p.m.


KT: Back to the weekend of the "power down," when did they turn the power off and when did they turn it back on?

SF: Off on Saturday afternoon - around 12 noon I think - and back on at about 2 pm on the Sunday (my timings on this are hazy).

He say's he thinks on 12 noon Sat and back on Sun afternoon but he's hazy on it.

And he doesn't claim the entire building does he?

[SDC]

Oh no. LastChild is on the case... BenBurch, I hope you know what you have done. (And good work, by the way.)

[funk de fino]

Even according to Forbes the building could have been open for a few hours on each day no?

Observation deck, South Tower, WTC 2, floor 107 (summer hours 9:30am to 11:30pm)
The post-Labor Day hours for the WTC observation deck were 9:30 a.m.-9:30 p.m.


KT: Back to the weekend of the "power down," when did they turn the power off and when did they turn it back on?

SF: Off on Saturday afternoon - around 12 noon I think - and back on at about 2 pm on the Sunday (my timings on this are hazy).

He say's he thinks on 12 noon Sat and back on Sun afternoon but he's hazy on it.

And he doesn't claim the entire building does he?

He initially claimed more hours than what you have posted and he initially claimed a complete power down above floor 50. Observatory closed? I dont think so. Read the thread I know someone who was up there that morning (sunday). I also know someone who was up the day before the attack.

He has made more recent claims and is a truther thru and thru. He attends truther meeetings in the UK. He lies about intimidation at work. He says as soon as he seen the towers come down it was connected to the power down. He also makes false claims about security doors and strange workmen coming and going.

[nicepants]

I simply find Scott Forbes' story sickeningly suspicious for the fact that he has refused to provide ANYTHING to verify his claims. No e-mail, no paper trail, no names, no witnesses, nothing. Just stories, excuses, and suspicion.

[Max Photon]

The "power-down" is one of the dumbest claims I've seen.

Never mind the fact that it doesn't address the other 1 1/2 towers or WTC7...the mere notion that you can rig up even 50 floors of a 110 story building in 36 hours is bloody absurd.


Why do you assume 50 floors?

It may have only been 5 floors.


Max
Max
Max
Max
Max

[nicepants]

Why do you assume 50 floors?

It may have only been 5 floors.


Max
Max
Max
Max
Max

Wouldn't that invalidate the CT claims of "squibs" [sic] on multiple floors?

[uk_dave]

Why do you assume 50 floors?

It may have only been 5 floors.


Max
Max
Max
Max
Max

And Max gives up on Max-mihop in 5 floors..... 4 floors....3 floors....2 floors....1 floor.... no floors.

[Tweeter]

I simply find Scott Forbes' story sickeningly suspicious for the fact that he has refused to provide ANYTHING to verify his claims. No e-mail, no paper trail, no names, no witnesses, nothing. Just stories, excuses, and suspicion.

Someone mentioned hindsight in another thread.
In hindsight you could ask for evidence, to bad poor old scott
didnt remember to make a paper trail or some other evidence
just in case the building was destroyed.

[funk de fino]

Someone mentioned hindsight in another thread.
In hindsight you could ask for evidence, to bad poor old scott
didnt remember to make a paper trail or some other evidence
just in case the building was destroyed.

Too bad for you they did.

I'd make one other point at this juncture also, because of the power down backups of system were an absolute necessity and they would have been taken offsite for security. Because of the power outage all our systems backups had to be 100% valid and available in case of an emergency. These were taken offsite, like normal, for security.

[nicepants]

Someone mentioned hindsight in another thread.
In hindsight you could ask for evidence, to bad poor old scott
didnt remember to make a paper trail or some other evidence
just in case the building was destroyed.

The paper trail would most likely be electronic in the form of e-mail. Unless that company had ALL of their servers in the towers, with zero offsite redundancy and zero offsite backups...that digital "paper trail" wouldn't disappear just because the towers were destroyed. No financial company keeps all of their data in a single location.

ETA: Looks like funk beat me to it....and straight from Scott....even better! So there was a backup....maybe Scott just didn't know how to restore it.

[BenBurch]

Twoofers accuse BenBurch of harassment in 3....2...

:dl:

[BenBurch]

Max; Because his claim was 50 floors.

[defaultdotxbe]

Max; Because his claim was 50 floors.
i think max is saying they didnt necessarily rig all 50 powered-down floors for demolition, they just powered down more floors than they needed because they wanted to raise more suspicion than necessary because thats how the nWo works

[LastChild]

He initially claimed more hours than what you have posted and he initially claimed a complete power down above floor 50. Observatory closed? I dont think so. Read the thread I know someone who was up there that morning (sunday). I also know someone who was up the day before the attack.

He has made more recent claims and is a truther thru and thru. He attends truther meeetings in the UK. He lies about intimidation at work. He says as soon as he seen the towers come down it was connected to the power down. He also makes false claims about security doors and strange workmen coming and going.

Well I don't know if he's telling the truth or not. But he doesn't seem to embellish his story when given the chance. He just claims for example when he's asked if the other tower was powered down that he doesn't know. And he would have to be a real nut to make it all up and write a letter. (Wasn't it the 9/11 commission he tried to relay this information to?)

In any case the one question it raises is whether or not the security cameras were on. What does it matter? Has anyone seen any security footage from the weeks leading up to 9/11 up to the attacks? Was it destroyed? And if it was destroyed what would it matter if they were on or off?

Now I know that the Port Authority called in security experts to consult with after the first bombing in 93. Didn't they have some kind of off-site security video feed? I mean this is a building at risk of being hit with a bomb. What good is security footage if it gets destroyed in an attack? How are you going to go back and check who was in the building? It's the same thing they do in IT and off-site storage for disaster recovery. I’ve never been in security but it seems like a no-brainer to me.

The other thing is I know is there were cameras on the roof or near the roof because they used to play the view live on the news locally during the weather report or when they broke to a commercial. Where is that footage from the morning of the attack? It would have been fed back to a news station I would think. Probably multiple ones.

In any case has anyone ever seen any recovered video from inside the tower or even just outside fixed on the doors that were possibly fed to an outside source during the attack or leading up to it? Or even old security footage from before the attack? Wouldn't a real debunking be showing of actual security footage with the time stamp from that day?

And please don't tell me it was backed-up in WTC7. I’m guessing the answer is just going to be it was all destroyed.

[SDC]

So now LC has not only decided that there was video, adequate for his purposes; and that it is the "debunkers'" responsibility to prove that there wasn't. (Either there was no video, or any video that could be useful, or any video that wasn't destroyed.)

"Groundhog Day" all over again. LC ought to offer a service: "Got some worn-out, tired, debunked ideas and crackpot notions that you want to bring to life? Don't have enough nonsense spattered against the walls of your parents' basement? Dial 1-800-LastChild!"

[BenBurch]

So now LC has not only decided that there was video, adequate for his purposes; and that it is the "debunkers'" responsibility to prove that there wasn't. (Either there was no video, or any video that could be useful, or any video that wasn't destroyed.)

"Groundhog Day" all over again. LC ought to offer a service: "Got some worn-out, tired, debunked ideas and crackpot notions that you want to bring to life? Don't have enough nonsense spattered against the walls of your parents' basement? Dial 1-800-LastChild!"

As LC exists only in quotation for me, I have to say I'm glad I missed this one.

[WildCat]

The other thing is I know is there were cameras on the roof or near the roof because they used to play the view live on the news locally during the weather report or when they broke to a commercial. Where is that footage from the morning of the attack? It would have been fed back to a news station I would think. Probably multiple ones.
It's true, multiple news stations are involved in the 9/11 conspiracy. It's the biggest conspiracy ever! And only super-troofers can detect it!

[Firestone]

Truthers seem to ask a lot about (unexisting) video's that somehow would prove something.

But, the existing video's of planes hitting the WTC, of the bowing columns of the WTC, of the fires in WTC7, of Osama Bin Laden clearly taking credit for the attacks, ...
these video's are often dismissed because ... some reason.

Go figure ...

[LastChild]

So now LC has not only decided that there was video, adequate for his purposes; and that it is the "debunkers'" responsibility to prove that there wasn't. (Either there was no video, or any video that could be useful, or any video that wasn't destroyed.)

"Groundhog Day" all over again. LC ought to offer a service: "Got some worn-out, tired, debunked ideas and crackpot notions that you want to bring to life? Don't have enough nonsense spattered against the walls of your parents' basement? Dial 1-800-LastChild!"

Don't get mad just because you are stumped. It's not productive. Just tell me. What is the issue with whether or not security cameras were on if no one can see what was on them anyway? Is it just more useless debunking of nothing?

Now do the ticket stubs show what time the people visited the towers? Because I don't believe he claims the power down was all day on either day. In fact I don't believe he even claims the entire building. They couldn't have kept enough power on in the sections that would have facilitated observation customers? If not how do you know?

[defaultdotxbe]

Now I know that the Port Authority called in security experts to consult with after the first bombing in 93. Didn't they have some kind of off-site security video feed? I mean this is a building at risk of being hit with a bomb. What good is security footage if it gets destroyed in an attack? How are you going to go back and check who was in the building? It's the same thing they do in IT and off-site storage for disaster recovery. I’ve never been in security but it seems like a no-brainer to me.
i work in IT and our offsite backups are taken offsite at the end of the business day, if something were to happen during the day the backups would still be onsite

The other thing is I know is there were cameras on the roof or near the roof because they used to play the view live on the news locally during the weather report or when they broke to a commercial. Where is that footage from the morning of the attack? It would have been fed back to a news station I would think. Probably multiple ones.
unless of course something like a 767 hitting the building knocked out power

[nicepants]

In any case the one question it raises is whether or not the security cameras were on. What does it matter? Has anyone seen any security footage from the weeks leading up to 9/11 up to the attacks? Was it destroyed? And if it was destroyed what would it matter if they were on or off?

A more appropriate question might be: Even if there were security footage from within the towers in the weeks before the attacks...would we see it or know about it anyways?

Now I know that the Port Authority called in security experts to consult with after the first bombing in 93. Didn't they have some kind of off-site security video feed? I mean this is a building at risk of being hit with a bomb. What good is security footage if it gets destroyed in an attack? How are you going to go back and check who was in the building? It's the same thing they do in IT and off-site storage for disaster recovery. I’ve never been in security but it seems like a no-brainer to me.

The other thing is I know is there were cameras on the roof or near the roof because they used to play the view live on the news locally during the weather report or when they broke to a commercial. Where is that footage from the morning of the attack? It would have been fed back to a news station I would think. Probably multiple ones.

This footage is probably not recorded because, as you say, it is shown "live". There may be such footage in the newscast of a particular NYC morning show (or equivalent), but I've neither seen it nor heard it discussed.

In any case has anyone ever seen any recovered video from inside the tower or even just outside fixed on the doors that were possibly fed to an outside source during the attack or leading up to it? Or even old security footage from before the attack? Wouldn't a real debunking be showing of actual security footage with the time stamp from that day?

And please don't tell me it was backed-up in WTC7. I’m guessing the answer is just going to be it was all destroyed.


Again...if such footage existed, would we know about it/see it? That might be a great place to start looking if you want to validate Scott's claims of "strange workmen" coming and going.

[BenBurch]

Again...if such footage existed, would we know about it/see it? That might be a great place to start looking if you want to validate Scott's claims of "strange workmen" coming and going.

In any case, the CT jerks have a positive duty of proof. And I have to date not investigated even one of their claims that was material to the events of that day that was not an absolute, filthy, stinking, dastardly lie. I really do suspect that Trutherism represents a criminal conspiracy to provide aide and comfort to the enemies of the USA, and as such, there should be a federal grand jury empaneled to indict and prosecute them as a group.

[LastChild]

A more appropriate question might be: Even if there were security footage from within the towers in the weeks before the attacks...would we see it or know about it anyways?


Yes

http://www.100share.com/World-Trade-Center.htm

Cameras, he says, are placed in critical locations within the complex, such as machine rooms, computer areas, visitor areas and other sensitive locations.

"High-powered, 400-line SVHS video recorders support the CCTV system," Karpiloff adds. "If someone tries to force a door or a gate, a video buffering feature, which stores images for a certain period of time, will have recorded the person even before he or she tries to force entry."

From a PC in his office, Banks monitors the visitor's desks for managerial and security information such as how long it takes the operators to process visitors. He also examines reports generated by the database.

Tenants, employees, long-term visitors and contractors are using color-coded ID cards until the lobby access control system is fully automated.

Long-term visitors are issued a Polaroid ID3000 system card that is examined by guards upon entry and, when held under special lighting, reveals if there has been tampering.

"All tenant contact names are in a central database and we have issued photo IDs to tenants, employees, long-term visitors and contractors," says Karpiloff.

This is data. It should have been backed-up off site

This footage is probably not recorded because, as you say, it is shown "live". There may be such footage in the newscast of a particular NYC morning show (or equivalent), but I've neither seen it nor heard it discussed.

Even someone at home would have recorded it if there was any. That's what I'm saying I've never seen any kind of video that day from there or inside the tower.

Again...if such footage existed, would we know about it/see it? That might be a great place to start looking if you want to validate Scott's claims of "strange workmen" coming and going.

The place to look would be the security company. Good luck to anyone trying to get that now.

BTW

Look at what else they had...

"The fire system is designed to provide us with an alarm from the individual smoke detectors that automatically transmit to the fire command stations staffed by deputy fire safety directors," says Hurley. "They then notify emergency response personnel in the building, as well as the New York City Fire Department. Each smoke detector and sprinkler head is assigned an 'address' so we know exactly where the alarm originates from. There are satellite fire command stations in each of the buildings."

According to Hurley, the Port Authority and WTC are unique because they have their own police force and emergency response personnel, who serve as an in-house fire brigade. The fire brigade has pre-positioned crash carts with Scott air packs and fire fighting equipment so they can begin fire suppression activities even before the fire department arrives."

[SDC]

LC, why do you think that the evil conspirators rigging the building (as per Scott's claims) would allow themselves to be recorded on camera?

I just don't get it. A conspiracy greater than any since the invention of anything, yet its agents are likely to be too dumb to shut off the cameras. I guess they wanted to leave evidence so LC could, some day, uncover it and become a Hero.

[defaultdotxbe]

"If someone tries to force a door or a gate, a video buffering feature, which stores images for a certain period of time, will have recorded the person even before he or she tries to force entry."
this seems to indicate that video is not recorded by default, and only is recorded if an alarm is tripped

[nicepants]

Yes

http://www.100share.com/World-Trade-Center.htm

Cameras, he says, are placed in critical locations within the complex, such as machine rooms, computer areas, visitor areas and other sensitive locations.

"High-powered, 400-line SVHS video recorders support the CCTV system," Karpiloff adds. "If someone tries to force a door or a gate, a video buffering feature, which stores images for a certain period of time, will have recorded the person even before he or she tries to force entry."

From a PC in his office, Banks monitors the visitor's desks for managerial and security information such as how long it takes the operators to process visitors. He also examines reports generated by the database.

Tenants, employees, long-term visitors and contractors are using color-coded ID cards until the lobby access control system is fully automated.

Long-term visitors are issued a Polaroid ID3000 system card that is examined by guards upon entry and, when held under special lighting, reveals if there has been tampering.

"All tenant contact names are in a central database and we have issued photo IDs to tenants, employees, long-term visitors and contractors," says Karpiloff.

This is data. It should have been backed-up off site

SVHS recorders are ANALOG. They don't record the video as bits/data. So, unless these recorders were offsite, they would have been destroyed when the buildings collapsed. The same goes for their tapes...unless those were moved off-site prior to 9/11.

[funk de fino]

Don't get mad just because you are stumped. It's not productive. Just tell me. What is the issue with whether or not security cameras were on if no one can see what was on them anyway? Is it just more useless debunking of nothing?

You brought them up skip. I do not have an issue with them?

Now do the ticket stubs show what time the people visited the towers? Because I don't believe he claims the power down was all day on either day. In fact I don't believe he even claims the entire building. They couldn't have kept enough power on in the sections that would have facilitated observation customers? If not how do you know?


I repeat. My friends were up the observation deck on the morning of the Sunday of that weekend. The observation deck was not closed therefore there was power on this floor and to elevators etc which serviced this floor. Scott Forbes is very specific about his claims initially. He claims that all power to all floors above 50 was cut. He is wrong. He even suggests this affected the lower levels and lobby area as he seen strange people there. Power off above floor 50 would not affect security in any way at the lobby so what is the point of mentioning this? When someone who knows him personally asked him about the observatory contradiction he then reneged and said it could have been power just on his floor. This changes things a bit no?

He does indeed embellish his claims with claims of his friend seeing the plane, then saying the firiend heard it. Then claiming he watched the second plane all the way from Staten island or somethuing like that. I suggest you go and read his interview with Killtown with all the phonecalls to friends in the towers warning them etc etc

Do not hang your hat on this fraud LC, it could get more embarrassing than your no sounders ass kicking.

[LastChild]

SVHS recorders are ANALOG. They don't record the video as bits/data. So, unless these recorders were offsite, they would have been destroyed when the buildings collapsed. The same goes for their tapes...unless those were moved off-site prior to 9/11.

I wasn't just talking about just the video. Read the article. Besides why would it only be fed inside the building? What good is that if someone walks in with a bomb and leaves it behind? How are you going to go back and see who did it? And I wasn't just talking about on 9/11 but the weeks and months leading up to it.

[defaultdotxbe]

I wasn't just talking about just the video. Read the article. Besides why would it only be fed inside the building? What good is that if someone walks in with a bomb and leaves it behind? How are you going to go back and see who did it? And I wasn't just talking about on 9/11 but the weeks and months leading up to it.
i dont think anyone expected complete destruction of the building, it would be very difficult to pipe SVHS video offsite in realtime, and as i said before, it doesnt even look like it was recorded, just buffered, and it was recorded if an alarm was tripped

[LastChild]

You brought them up skip. I do not have an issue with them?

All I'm saying is if you want to debunk that security video wasn't turned off then produce some time stamp video. I mean you are the debunker no?

I repeat. My friends were up the observation deck on the morning of the Sunday of that weekend. The observation deck was not closed therefore there was power on this floor and to elevators etc which serviced this floor. Scott Forbes is very specific about his claims initially. He claims that all power to all floors above 50 was cut. He is wrong. He even suggests this affected the lower levels and lobby area as he seen strange people there. Power off above floor 50 would not affect security in any way at the lobby so what is the point of mentioning this? When someone who knows him personally asked him about the observatory contradiction he then reneged and said it could have been power just on his floor. This changes things a bit no?

I don't see why it would have had to have been closed. I don't even see why a power down would be needed if no one can see the security video afterwards anyway. What difference does it make?

He does indeed embellish his claims with claims of his friend seeing the plane, then saying the firiend heard it. Then claiming he watched the second plane all the way from Staten island or somethuing like that. I suggest you go and read his interview with Killtown with all the phonecalls to friends in the towers warning them etc etc

He says he saw the plane from the NJ side which is perfectly possible. You can probably find video from the NJ side of exactly what he saw.

Do not hang your hat on this fraud LC, it could get more embarrassing than your no sounders ass kicking.

I'm not hanging my hat on anything. Least of all any claimed debunking of his story.

[nicepants]

I wasn't just talking about just the video. Read the article.

I read it, the video surveillance discussed was Analog, therefore, offsite backups of the CCTV feeds would be very cumbersome.

Besides why would it only be fed inside the building? What good is that if someone walks in with a bomb and leaves it behind? How are you going to go back and see who did it?

It's not my job to know why, I'm just making conclusions based on the article you posted. Perhaps you should contact the company responsible for the installation/support/or operation of the CCTV system.

ETA: It's not the job of any "debunkers" to produce timestamped video from the CCTV system in an attempt to disprove Mr. Forbes. He hasn't provided us with ANYTHING that would validate his claims. The burden of proof is on him.

[BenBurch]

i dont think anyone expected complete destruction of the building, it would be very difficult to pipe SVHS video offsite in realtime, and as i said before, it doesnt even look like it was recorded, just buffered, and it was recorded if an alarm was tripped

No multi-camera digital recording system for security was on the market prior to 9/11.

And I know this because right after I did a proposal to develop one using the DirectPath(tm) technology we had developed at Ikadega.

Sadly this was not enough to keep our investors from pulling out and the company closed a few months later.

And ask any cop how good videotape systems are.

Usually, even when a crime is caught on tape, the tape is SO bad from repeated re-recordings that faces cannot be made out.

And the sort of video clarification you see on the crime shows is simply fantasy - can't be done.

Paradoxically, we were better off before videotape. Back then, a film strip was run through the camera that would take images every couple seconds. The film would of course only be developed if something happened, so that kept the cost down. But the images were most often quite good.

[LastChild]

i dont think anyone expected complete destruction of the building,

Yeah they did. If you go back and look at the trial of the first bombing in 93 someone I believe an architect testified that if the bomb had been closer to a support it could have toppled the building. I don't know if that's even possible but this whole security upgrade was launched because of the first bombing.

it would be very difficult to pipe SVHS video offsite in realtime, and as i said before, it doesnt even look like it was recorded, just buffered, and it was recorded if an alarm was tripped

It probably was difficult but I find it hard to believe that no one thought of it especially in light of the first bombing and in the light of the Olympic bombing where they were still looking for who left behind a pipe bomb down in Atlanta. This isn’t really hind-site. I mean what good are all these cameras if you can't go back and see what it picked up? I would think that footage from inside the building would have also been useful for NIST when they did their investigation.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yeah they did. If you go back and look at the trial of the first bombing in 93 someone I believe an architect testified that if the bomb had been closer to a support it could have toppled the building. I don't know if that's even possible but this whole security upgrade was launched because of the first bombing.
was this common knowledge? if not my point stands

It probably was difficult but I find it hard to believe that no one thought of it especially in light of the first bombing and in the light of the Olympic bombing where they were still looking for who left behind a pipe bomb down in Atlanta. This isn’t really hide site. I mean what good are all these cameras if you can go back and see what it picked up? I would think that footage from inside the building would have also been useful for NIST when they did their investigation.
if power was knocked out in the towers then the cameras would be useless whether they were recorded offsite or not

[LastChild]

this seems to indicate that video is not recorded by default, and only is recorded if an alarm is tripped

Read the article. Not all of the cameras. They considered this when they were doing the upgrade because in the first bombing the parked van was stationery.

[LastChild]

was this common knowledge? if not my point stands

If it's my knowledge I would think it should at least be the knowledge of anyone who justified the cost of this obviously very expensive security upgrade.

if power was knocked out in the towers then the cameras would be useless whether they were recorded offsite or not

Again they considered this. In the first bomb power was knocked out. Everything with the new security was suppose to be separate and on backup power. Read the article.

[funk de fino]

All I'm saying is if you want to debunk that security video wasn't turned off then produce some time stamp video. I mean you are the debunker no?

I never mentioned security video. What is your point? I do not class myself as a debunker. Scott Forbes is a liar, I am correcting his falsehoods.

I don't see why it would have had to have been closed. I don't even see why a power down would be needed if no one can see the security video afterwards anyway. What difference does it make?

I dont see why it would be closed either but if all power from the 50th floor up was cut then it would have to be and this is what Scott claimed.

He says he saw the plane from the NJ side which is perfectly possible. You can probably find video from the NJ side of exactly what he saw.

He said he watched it come in for miles from Staten Island direction. Was this during his phonecalls to friends and during his observation on the TV?

I'm not hanging my hat on anything. Least of all any claimed debunking of his story.

You are trying to defend a false story by someone who has contradicted their story many times and added whistles and bells to it. He also attends truther meetings in the UK and gives interviews even though he claims harrassment and intimidation from his work. He claims that something is suspicious about the power down yet he loses many many colleagues and does nothing about it and keep his trap shut in case he is fired?

Ye ye

[BenBurch]

BTW, I am using my "usual methods" to research Mr. Forbes. It appears that he was not ever an employee of Fiduciary Trust, but I am not fully certain of this.

[funk de fino]

BTW, I am using my "usual methods" to research Mr. Forbes. I appears that he was not ever an employee of Fiduciary Trust, but I am not fully certain of this.

Well he is based in the UK and still claims he is?

Unless it was a sub contract company for FT?

[BenBurch]

Well he is based in the UK and still claims he is?

Unless it was a sub contract company for FT?

I'm not really certain that he ever was in the USA at that time. I'm trying to piece together fragments, and there are too many guys named Scott Forbes.

[nicepants]

Read the article. Not all of the cameras. They considered this when they were doing the upgrade because in the first bombing the parked van was stationery.

Round and 'round we go on the cameras....but the truth is, it really doesn't make much difference at this point. None of Mr. Forbes' claims have been validated by anyone or any supporting evidence. Until that happens, I don't see any reason for anyone to be worrying about the existence of CCTV footage. At this point there is no evidence of any power-down...only the claims of an admitted truther.

[BenBurch]

I simply cannot find ANY record of a "Scott Forbes" living in Jersey City OR Hoboken NJ on 9/11/01

[LastChild]

I never mentioned security video. What is your point? I do not class myself as a debunker. Scott Forbes is a liar, I am correcting his falsehoods.

He might be lying but you are mistaken on some things.

I dont see why it would be closed either but if all power from the 50th floor up was cut then it would have to be and this is what Scott claimed.

It depends on what all power is. Why would they have to turn the elevator power off? And he could just be assuming the security cameras were off. He didn't say he was in security.

He said he watched it come in for miles from Staten Island direction. Was this during his phonecalls to friends and during his observation on the TV?

I think he said 1.5 miles from across the Hudson. Not far at all. There are videos of this view on youtube. You can see a plane coming easy. Some videos from the NJ side track the second hit just like that.

This is where he claims his apt was and it's NJ not Staten Island...

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/forbes_apt.1.jpg

You are trying to defend a false story by someone who has contradicted their story many times and added whistles and bells to it. He also attends truther meetings in the UK and gives interviews even though he claims harrassment and intimidation from his work. He claims that something is suspicious about the power down yet he loses many many colleagues and does nothing about it and keep his trap shut in case he is fired?

Ye ye


I don't know and how do you? I think it could be at worse he makes a lot of assumptions. He should come join the JREF conspiracy forum. He'd fit right in.

[nicepants]

I simply cannot find ANY record of a "Scott Forbes" living in Jersey City OR Hoboken NJ on 9/11/01

He was roommates with Mike the EMT, wasn't he? :cool:

[funk de fino]

He might be lying but you are mistaken on some things.

Show me where I am wrong

It depends on what all power is. Why would they have to turn the elevator power off? And he could just be assuming the security cameras were off. He didn't say he was in security.

I am going by his initial claim it was a complete power down from floor 50 up. Get that? - COMPLETE

Have you been to the observatory?

Will you quit it with the cameras crap. I have not mentioned them or even claimed Scott did. Why do you insist on bringing this into my posts?


I think he said 1.5 miles from across the Hudson. Not far at all. There are videos of this view on youtube. You can see a plane coming easy. Some videos from the NJ side track the second hit just like that.

You can see a plane travelling at that speed when you are looking at the tower burning either on TV or across the Hudson like everyone else on that day? Now who's assuming?

ye, OK

This is where he claims his apt was and it's NJ not Staten Island...
Oh, I see this is one thing you think I got wrong. Get a grip. I said he saw it coming from the Staten Island direction becuse this is what he claimed. I did not claim this is where he stays. As you like to say - FAIL

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/forbes_apt.1.jpg

red cross - Hmmmm.......


I don't know and how do you? I think it could be at worse he makes a lot of assumptions. He should come join the JREF conspiracy forum. He'd fit right in.

He has made these claims to a fellow truther who used to frequent this board who passed this all onto us. This truther met Scott and said he was a likeable guy. He met him at a truther meeting. He is a truther. He attends UK truth meetings. He still gives interviews. He claims he still works for FT in the UK and has been harrassed and intimidated to keep quiet. Now what am I assuming here?

[BenBurch]

He was roommates with Mike the EMT, wasn't he? :cool:

I'd laugh if I didn't have a broken rib. :)

Seriously, can anybody find me a street address? I have the map from Killtown's blog and that narrows it down a bit, if accurate, but even with that I can find no record that he ever lived there.

[BenBurch]

I am finding all sorts of Scott Forbes' and S. Forbes' in NJ, but none at all in Jersey City or Hoboken.

Any Londoners here? I *also* do not find a Scott Forbes in the online BT London phone directory. Would one of you look in your paper version for me?

I am wondering now if Mr. Forbes even exists, or if he is somebody's sick fantasy persona?

[funk de fino]

A truther who claims to have met him used to post here. He shall not be named. He has appeared at UK truther meetings also.

[WildCat]

I am wondering now if Mr. Forbes even exists, or if he is somebody's sick fantasy persona?
I've been wondering that a long time! He seems to have time to make appearances at UK troofer meetups, but no time at all to make his case at non-troofer events.

[BenBurch]

A truther who claims to have met him used to post here. He shall not be named. He has appeared at UK truther meetings also.

Oh, I'm sure there is a person PRETENDING to be Scott Forbes. I don't think its totally vapor, but I cannot prove that this was an actual person and not a persona of somebody else.

[BenBurch]

I have also written to Forbes directly via that hotmail address and to the VP in charge of the London office of FTCI.

[nicepants]

I have also written to Forbes directly via that hotmail address and to the VP in charge of the London office of FTCI.

I'm somewhat concerned that the VP you wrote to may already have been bombarded by e-mail from truthers and, seeing 9/11 in the e-mail, may quickly disregard or trash the message based on that alone.

His e-mail address (listed on KTs siste) almost seems bogus scottforbes2002 at hotmail. If he corresponded via a work e-mail address, that would help his credibility.

His story almost sounds believable. There are multiple places where I would expect a truther to embellish, etc but he doesn't.

I have a tough time believing that if this power-down really happened and was as un-precedented as Scott would have us believe, that no one else who was aware of it brought it up.

Can't wait to hear it straight from Scott!

[BenBurch]

Here is an online profile that at least gives us somewhere to work from. It does not prove he is more than a persona, though.

http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/friendsreunited.asp?WCI=OTHERPROFILE&member_key=75837153

If I do not hear from FTCI within a week or two, I shall burn some Skype minutes and call them directly.

[DGM]

Has anyone besides Scott confirmed his story? I would think this would be something Willie Rodriguez would jump right on.

[BenBurch]

Has anyone besides Scott confirmed his story? I would think this would be something Willie Rodriguez would jump right on.

Not one soul.

Is anybody in contact with Willie who would be willing to ask him? Not that I would set too much store in his account.

[nicepants]

Not one soul.

Is anybody in contact with Willie who would be willing to ask him? Not that I would set too much store in his account.

If Willie was able to corroborate his story, I'm sure we would have heard so by now. It's not like a truther to keep such "smoking gun" evidence to themselves....especially when you can get truthers to pay you lots of money to tell your story in person.

[LastChild]

Show me where I am wrong

I'll try to think of somethuing

I am going by his initial claim it was a complete power down from floor 50 up. Get that? - COMPLETE

50 up isn't even complete.

Have you been to the observatory?

Not lately but yes I have.

Will you quit it with the cameras crap. I have not mentioned them or even claimed Scott did. Why do you insist on bringing this into my posts?

Will you quit thinking you're only one I'm replying to?

You can see a plane travelling at that speed when you are looking at the tower burning either on TV or across the Hudson like everyone else on that day? Now who's assuming?

ye, OK

Like everybody else? Then yes I guess?

Oh, I see this is one thing you think I got wrong. Get a grip. I said he saw it coming from the Staten Island direction becuse this is what he claimed. I did not claim this is where he stays. As you like to say - FAIL

That's what I was supposed to decipher from this...?.

he watched the second plane all the way from Staten island or somethuing like that

Somthing like that huh? Well I interpreted it somethuing like that.


red cross - Hmmmm.......


wuuuhhhhhh?

He has made these claims to a fellow truther who used to frequent this board who passed this all onto us. This truther met Scott and said he was a likeable guy. He met him at a truther meeting. He is a truther. He attends UK truth meetings. He still gives interviews. He claims he still works for FT in the UK and has been harrassed and intimidated to keep quiet. Now what am I assuming here?

You are assuming he's lyng about everything. At least that’s what a little bird told me.

[BenBurch]

Okay, I have some communication with Mr. Forbes now, and I hope we can clear this up and determine if the outage was anywhere near as large as we assume, or if it was only in his datacenter.

The reason I could not find him is that his full name is not Scott Forbes, Scott is his middle name, but apparently the one he goes by. (I can relate.) His addresses;

"1506 The Gotham, Warren Street, Jersey City, NJ. In 2002 I moved to West 88th St in Manhattan"

And he gave me the name of his superior at the time and I will follow that up.

I'd really like to find that this fellow was merely mistaken about the extent of the outage.

-Ben

P.S. Like any good debunker, I will report even data that goes against the narrative I have formed about this event.

[nicepants]

Okay, I have some communication with Mr. Forbes now, and I hope we can clear this up

Couple of questions I would have for Mr. Forbes:

- Who notified you about the upcoming power-down?
- What was FT's procedure for powering down servers & equipment. (who has to approve, how much advance notice, etc)
- How were you notified about the upcoming power-down? (e-mail perhaps?)
- Who else was notified about the power-down?
- Who supervised activities relating to preparation (you mention backups, etc) for the power-down?
- Does Mr. Forbes have ANY written communication, e-mail or otherwise, with other members of his organization or the Port Authority which, in any way, relate to the power-down?

[BenBurch]

I'll consider those questions after I get a reply to my current set. I have asked him simply for anything or anybody to corroborate his account, and whether it might just be his datacenter that was out.

In any case, of course, an outage way up on those floors would be immaterial to the damage and fire that occurred far below.

-Ben

[chillzero]

Ben, please ensure you get his permission to post anything from his emails. Cheers.

[BigAl]

Couple of questions I would have for Mr. Forbes:

- Who notified you about the upcoming power-down?
- What was FT's procedure for powering down servers & equipment. (who has to approve, how much advance notice, etc)
- How were you notified about the upcoming power-down? (e-mail perhaps?)
- Who else was notified about the power-down?
- Who supervised activities relating to preparation (you mention backups, etc) for the power-down?
- Does Mr. Forbes have ANY written communication, e-mail or otherwise, with other members of his organization or the Port Authority which, in any way, relate to the power-down?
Q: Are the systems you have first-hand knowledge of necessary for the services your company's customers use? If yes, is there any evidence that they were notified of the scheduled downtime or else, name the backup site that was used to provide non-stop service.

[BenBurch]

Ben, please ensure you get his permission to post anything from his emails. Cheers.

That's why I have not and will not post his full name, or his superiors. The former addresses did not seem to me to be remarkable and in any case one of them was already indicated on the map.

[funk de fino]

I'll try to think of somethuing

wisecrack and you still fail

50 up isn't even complete. Complete power down from floor 50 up. Dont play stupid games. This was his initial claim. He was wrong.

Not lately but yes I have.

Wisecrack again. You think you are quite the little comedian eh? If you have been to the observatory then you will have seen how much appliances needed electrical power above the 50th floor. Scott claims this was not available. No power - no observatory.

Will you quit thinking you're only one I'm replying to?

It was a reply to me, with a quote from me and you were desperately trying to insert the camera claims into it. Why?

Like everybody else? Then yes I guess?

babble

That's what I was supposed to decipher from this...?.

No, decipher it from this, it was a later clarification and answer to you.

He said he watched it come in for miles from Staten Island direction. Was this during his phonecalls to friends and during his observation on the TV?


Well?

Somthing like that huh? Well I interpreted it somethuing like that.

Pathetic, see above

wuuuhhhhhh?

I see a red cross, not a picture.

You are assuming he's lyng about everything. At least that’s what a little bird told me.

Incorrect. I am saying he is lying about some of his claims and embellishing others.

FAIL again

[nicepants]

That's why I have not and will not post his full name, or his superiors. The former addresses did not seem to me to be remarkable and in any case one of them was already indicated on the map.

Also bear in mind that some of the information we are asking him for *may* be something that his company considers "proprietary information", so please use discretion when posting his responses. I agree it would be best to get his permission. i.e. "I'm doing an investigation to follow up on details that I think Killtown missed and plan to post my results online"....just so he can't come back later and call foul.

[BenBurch]

Allright! Making some progress here.

Mr. Forbes has put me in contact with a colleague in NYC whom he says can corroborate his account, and I have mailed an inquiry to that person.

I will let you know what I find out.

It really would be great to find out that this part of the whole thing was actually in some way true.

-Ben

[BenBurch]

Also bear in mind that some of the information we are asking him for *may* be something that his company considers "proprietary information", so please use discretion when posting his responses. I agree it would be best to get his permission. i.e. "I'm doing an investigation to follow up on details that I think Killtown missed and plan to post my results online"....just so he can't come back later and call foul.

Were I to publish more than a binary indication of if I think I have confirmed the account, I would absolutely seek permission.

[BenBurch]

...
Incorrect. I am saying he is lying about some of his claims and embellishing others.

...

He might just be telling the story as he sees it. Not every honest account is an accurate account.

[funk de fino]

Allright! Making some progress here.

Mr. Forbes has put me in contact with a colleague in NYC whom he says can corroborate his account, and I have mailed an inquiry to that person.

I will let you know what I find out.

It really would be great to find out that this part of the whole thing was actually in some way true.

-Ben

I think there was a power down of some sort for his IT system. I think he worked there that weekend. I think has has added whistles and bells to his account and is reluctant to retract them.

[BenBurch]

I think there was a power down of some sort for his IT system. I think he worked there that weekend. I think has has added whistles and bells to his account and is reluctant to retract them.

Or, from where he literally sat he could not tell that there was power elsewhere. Or, there was a brief complete outage.

Even a brief outage would have been the same amount of work for him as you never can be sure you can bring a circuit back online after you down it.

My natural inclination is to believe people but verify everything anyway.

-Ben

[funk de fino]

He might just be telling the story as he sees it. Not every honest account is an accurate account.

Maybe, but if you listen to and read his interviews over the years, his story changes as he is challenged on some aspects.

If I get an email saying the power on my floor is being cut for upgrades, I would not then go and contact truthers saying that it was a complete power down in half the building unless I knew this was the case.

MJD has maybe poisoned the well on this one by saying things that Scott told him that were suspect.

Maybe worth asking him if he ever attended UK truther meetings and met MJD?

[LastChild]

Wisecrack again. You think you are quite the little comedian eh? If you have been to the observatory then you will have seen how much appliances needed electrical power above the 50th floor. Scott claims this was not available. No power - no observatory.

What appliances? I remember a lot of windows with a lot of light coming in from all directions. I seem to remember window etchings into the glass where you could line up different parts of the skyline. I think maybe an escalator too that wouldn't necessarily have to be on. I still don't see why that floor would need to be turned off or closed or any elevators turned off to get to it. Didn't the workers need the elevators?

It was a reply to me, with a quote from me and you were desperately trying to insert the camera claims into it. Why?

It's not contended that the power down might have been to turn off any electronic security?

No, decipher it from this, it was a later clarification and answer to you. He said he watched it come in for miles from Staten Island direction. Was this during his phonecalls to friends and during his observation on the TV?

You can see the plane come into view long before it hits the tower from video you can find shot from the location around where he lived.

Well?

Well what?

he watched the second plane all the way from Staten island or somethuing like that

That's what you really said. That's what I answered.

I see a red cross, not a picture.

It's a map and an x marks the spot of where Forbes lived right from Killtowns site. You know? What you claimed to have read? That's some research. What else did you miss?

Incorrect. I am saying he is lying about some of his claims and embellishing others.

FAIL again

What's failing miserably is you proving he’s a liar. Just a lot of assumptions based on what you want to believe.

[BenBurch]

funk de fino,

I'll consider asking him that based on what I learn.

Just did a geolocation on his IP address from the email headers, and it did indeed originate in the UK, where he now resides.

[funk de fino]

What appliances? I remember a lot of windows with a lot of light coming in from all directions. I seem to remember window etchings into the glass where you could line up different parts of the skyline. I think maybe an escalator too that wouldn't necessarily have to be on. I still don't see why that floor would need to be turned off or closed or any elevators turned off to get to it. Didn't the workers need the elevators?

No vending machines there?
No cash registers for all the tourist tat?
No way of the sellers printing off your picture that you got taken as you entered the lift?
No PA for the above sellers to shout out the number of your photo?
No power for the many advertising screens that were on?
No lights?

You have this this wrong way round. I am not claiming it had to be turned off. Scott Forbes is claiming that there was a ciomplete electrical shutdown above floor 50. Not me. I am saying there could not have been therfore he is mistaken. OK?

It's not contended that the power down might have been to turn off any electronic security?

Scott has claimed this. I never mentioned cameras yet you post it in reply to me?

You can see the plane come into view long before it hits the tower from video you can find shot from the location around where he lived.

Maybe you can. Where is this video?

Well what?

That's what you really said. That's what I answered.

See below


He said he watched it come in for miles from Staten Island direction. Was this during his phonecalls to friends and during his observation on the TV?


No,I clarified the earlier statement with the above and you still insinuated I had it wrong.

see below, your reply to the above

I think he said 1.5 miles from across the Hudson. Not far at all. There are videos of this view on youtube. You can see a plane coming easy. Some videos from the NJ side track the second hit just like that.

This is where he claims his apt was and it's NJ not Staten Island...



Still claiming I had his location wrong?


It's a map and an x marks the spot of where Forbes lived right from Killtowns site. You know? What you claimed to have read? That's some research. What else did you miss?

You linked a picture that does not show up on my PC. It is only a red cross. I have seen the map on Killtowns site but could not see what you had posted. Is this too difficult for you to understand?

What's failing miserably is you proving he’s a liar. Just a lot of assumptions based on what you want to believe.

I know my friends were up the towers on the sunday morning.
Scott assumes that there no power to all floors above 50.

He is wrong. I am pointing this out.

Piss poor

[LastChild]

No vending machines there?

I don't remember any vending machines. Are these needed to run the observation floor?

No cash registers for all the tourist tat?

I didn't buy anything except my ticket from what I remember and I believe it was on the ground floor.

No way of the sellers printing off your picture that you got taken as you entered the lift?

What picture? Is this required?

No PA for the above sellers to shout out the number of your photo?

I don't have any photos but I was there. Was it needed? Did they forget to call my name? Hey maybe the PA was out that day. You think?

No power for the many advertising screens that were on?

They would close down for this?

No lights?

One of the lights in my office is out right now and the other one is flickering and I don't have giant windows on all sides. Should I have stayed home today? Come to think of it there are no lights on when I get here in the morning.

You have this this wrong way round. I am not claiming it had to be turned off. Scott Forbes is claiming that there was a ciomplete electrical shutdown above floor 50. Not me. I am saying there could not have been therfore he is mistaken. OK?

Mistaken yes. Liar? Not necessarily. He might have assumed that or maybe someone told him that. Should he have gone and confirmed every floor? Wasn't he working? It doesn't mean he's a liar.

Scott has claimed this. I never mentioned cameras yet you post it in reply to me?

Yes and Forbes is the topic no? Is everything about you and your faulty assumptions? I mean what's the relevance as far as inside job goes if there was a power down? Isn’t it that security was turned off?

Maybe you can. Where is this video?

Look on youtube. In fact I think the 9-11 eyewitness video pretty much has the same view only lower and not from an apt window I guess it would be a little closer. I know I’ve seen more then one where they follow the second plane in. It was a very clear day. Not a cloud in the sky.


You linked a picture that does not show up on my PC. It is only a red cross. I have seen the map on Killtowns site but could not see what you had posted. Is this too difficult for you to understand?

There is no way I could possibly know that from your original reply. Wasn't it.."Ah yeee"? LOL

I know my friends were up the towers on the sunday morning.

Ok but does that make him a liar? When did he claim the observation floor was closed?

Scott assumes that there no power to all floors above 50. He is wrong. I am pointing this out.

You said he was lying. All you are pointing out is he could have been mistaken.

Piss poor

Really? You should have that looked at. Does it burn too?

[funk de fino]

I don't remember any vending machines. Are these needed to run the observation floor?

I do I've been there. July 2001

I didn't buy anything except my ticket from what I remember and I believe it was on the ground floor.

They sell tourist gifts and other memorabilia and tat as we call it. They have cash registers. I bought some tat.

What picture? Is this required?

When you walk in and enter the queue you get a tourist picture taken before you get into the lift. Are you sure you were there?

I don't have any photos but I was there. Was it needed? Did they forget to call my name? Hey maybe the PA was out that day. You think?

Once again you miss the point by a mile. The photo they take of you is sent to the obsevatory and they print it off and then call out your name from the ticket number they gave you so you can buy the horrible overpriced picture if you like. You know like when you are on a roller coaster and you get to the end and they have photos of you with your arms up waving like a loon?

They would close down for this?

Recap on all the electrical things at the observatory. How old were you when you were there, just out of interest? I am sure there was a little cinema also that showed films about the towers. Maybe someone can back this up?

One of the lights in my office is out right now and the other one is flickering and I don't have giant windows on all sides. Should I have stayed home today? Come to think of it there are no lights on when I get here in the morning.

There are stairwells you have to go down when you go to the roof. There are rooms which have no windows (I'll let you guess which ones)

Mistaken yes. Liar? Not necessarily. He might have assumed that or maybe someone told him that. Should he have gone and confirmed every floor? Wasn't he working? It doesn't mean he's a liar.

Why claim it over and over? Why reinforce it? he should have confirmed it before going and acting the big mouth online.

Yes and Forbes is the topic no? Is everything about you and your faulty assumptions? I mean what's the relevance as far as inside job goes if there was a power down? Isn’t it that security was turned off?

So what? If you quote me and you are replying to me do not try to argue about stuff I did not mention or bring into it. He claims all security locks were powered off. Feasible to you? People given free reign to wander about banking buildings? Now look at claims about strange people in the lobby area. How did they get there? There was security and there was power and cameras and security locks on the bottom levels. How do you suppose they got past security checks to get to the supposed affected floors?

Whistles and bells again.

Look on youtube. In fact I think the 9-11 eyewitness video pretty much has the same view only lower and not from an apt window I guess it would be a little closer. I know I’ve seen more then one where they follow the second plane in. It was a very clear day. Not a cloud in the sky.

Link?

There is no way I could possibly know that from your original reply. Wasn't it.."Ah yeee"? LOL

Youve never been on a site when a picture is posted and pelople say they can just see a red cross? My first reply was maybe unclear but I did clarify.

Ok but does that make him a liar? When did he claim the observation floor was closed?

He has lied about things. He is mistaken about things. He has exagerrated things. He said complete electrical power down in the tower from floor 50 up. If this meant there was no power for security locks and systems then why would there be power for all the things they needed at the observatory?

You said he was lying. All you are pointing out is he could have been mistaken.

Why would he keep repeating it over and over if he was not sure? Would you assume this and make a big deal about it online and automatically assume this was a strange occurence that led you to believe something fishy happenbed on 911?

Really? You should have that looked at. Does it burn too?

You tell me, you seem to aim into the wind when you do it?

[chillzero]

You tell me, you seem to aim into the wind when you do it?

Will you both please stop this particular line of ... discussion? Thanks.

[Panoply_Prefect]

funk de fino,

I'll consider asking him that based on what I learn.

Just did a geolocation on his IP address from the email headers, and it did indeed originate in the UK, where he now resides.

Did you ever get a reply from Forbes' collegue?

[BenBurch]

Did you ever get a reply from Forbes' collegue?

Not a peep.

[Trojan]

Scott Forbes posts on Youtube as Scooterbooter24.

[Arus808]

holy thread resurrection batman...

[ihaunter]

holy thread resurrection batman...

It seems to be happening a lot, lately. We might have a necromancer infestation. They say you should check for nests in the attic or cellar, but I usually find them behind the refrigerator. If you locate a nest, I suggest baiting a trap with either a fresh corpse or beef jerky, whichever is easier to get in your area. Use a live trap so that you can release it back into its natural habitat.

DO NOT try to keep one as a pet. Sure they look cute, but you wouldn't believe the messes they can make, especially during mating season.

[alexi_drago]

I suggest baiting a trap with either a fresh corpse or beef jerky

Don't they prefer something that's been dead for a while? And I don't know what beef jerky is.

[Trojan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhauHfDJ4b4

For the records, scooterbooter24, who claims to be Scott Forbes states:

"When we were contacted by the Port Authority notifying us of the power down condition we were told that it would affect the top half of the South Tower, including our companys floors (90, 94 - 97). I cannot comment on whether the public floors and elevators were open when our floors had no power as I did'nt go up there that weekend. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the electrical circuitry in the towers but I'm sure that that would have been possible.. "

"As for the 36 or 24 hr period of the power down ... I cannot control what people online report nor can I give an absolute and accurate figure for the duration of the power outtage. I was not in the tower timing it. But I would estimate it was 20-24hrs. "

So Scott Forbes acknowledges the time period was a day or less, and that he knows for certain that the floors occupied by his firm was affected.

So the truthers are misrepresenting his statements in regards to both duration and area.

Who'd a thunk it?? :boggled:

[WildCat]

I did some rewiring in my house, took a little longer than I expected because the new building codes mandate a thermite insulating layer over the conduit.