It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question on the "powerdown" claim

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Are you suggesting that people powerful enough to pull off a complex covert operation like this couldn't get around a simple permit?


Do you really not see the circular logic of this statement? You might have noticed that HowardR, AgentSmith et al are saying that there never was a "complex covert operation" in the fist place, and are asking you to provide evidence to support your position that there was.


posted by:INOBMAZMAI

So Howard who are you ? Where do you work ? What is your religion ? Are you a republican ? Are you a zionist neocon ? Have you ever visited Israel ?

Where do you work? What is your religion? Have you ever visited Disney Land? Have you ever met Mickey Mouse? Are you a Moron?




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of how things work in the real world.


Is this just your typical debate tactic of belittling your oppenent or do you have "another" example besides the fact that I believe 9/11 was an inside job?




Do you honestly think that the people who managed those buildings, would have allowed anything sort of major electrical work such as this to have taken place without any internal review of drawings, permits, contractor qualifications, insurance certificates, etc?


Whoever said it was electrical work? Is electrical work the ONLY reason there are ever powerdowns?




This is not a plot line for ”Mission Impossible”, this is the real world we are talking about.

You know, the place where people actually have to go out and work for a living.

There would be a paper trail.


So you start with belittling and end with sarcasm. The atrocious behavior of regular posters in this forum is astounding and really contradicts the nice long rule list.


Again: I don't know for sure if the power down is true but it certainly isn't a necessary component of the conspiracy so to me the question is moot.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Are you suggesting that people powerful enough to pull off a complex covert operation like this couldn't get around a simple permit?


Do you really not see the circular logic of this statement? You might have noticed that HowardR, AgentSmith et al are saying that there never was a "complex covert operation" in the fist place, and are asking you to provide evidence to support your position that there was.




The circular argument starts with the original assertion.

Does a lack of permit prove a lack of a powerdown?

No.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
You call it sarcasm, I call it a valid point. I have found that the people that espouse these theories often have little experience in how things work in these settings. If you have some experience in construction, building management, or anything related to the subject at hand, please let us know.

I do have experience in these areas. I know full well the kind of issues that can arise in planning even a simple construction project in this type of setting.

The “powerdown” is a central point to this claim. If you dispute that it was a “powerdown” then please explain how these “10” men were able to run around the building with free access and no questions.


Stop trying to divert this thread with flame bait.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
How come it's ok for you and HowardRoark to consistently spew sarcasm here?

I have seen others get jumped on right away for breaking the rules but you two seem to have a free pass.


Oh no we get into trouble too, but we balance out the sarcasm and stuff with useful contributions. So maybe that has something to do with it?
We also don't do really annoying stuff which puts people's backs up, like use sock puppets for instance or change our screen name every 5 minutes when we think we've lost credability.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
The circular argument starts with the original assertion.

Does a lack of permit prove a lack of a powerdown?

No.


I disagree, for the simple reasons that I have put forth. There is no way that any type of construction project like the “powerdown” could have taken place without permits, plans, etc, OR, the entire construction department of the Port Authority was in on it, Which is it?

Like I said, since you don’t really know what goes into a typical construction project, your claims are not supported.


[edit on 8-2-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
It doesn't matter if you're the Government or anyone else, if you want to arouse little or no suspicion you need to follow standard rules and operating procedures. You don't click your fingers and make things happen at whim, even if you are the President. Get out of movie land and listen to people who have experience. Examine the world around you and see how it applies to this, etc.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark



The “powerdown” is a central point to this claim. If you dispute that it was a “powerdown” then please explain how these “10” men were able to run around the building with free access and no questions.


Stop trying to divert this thread with flame bait.



Incorrect.

The "powerdown" if proven, would merely serve as circumstantial evidence and is NOT central to claim of controlled demolition in any way. In fact if the powerdown is disproven it would have no bearing on the controlled demolition hypothesis whatsoever.

I have no idea why you would accuse me of providing "flame bait" or of diverting the thread. That is a completely unfounded claim.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Just to put my 2 cents in. We had a guy come in the other day and re-route our server in our office. We didn't have to get a permit, drawings, or even permission from the building owner. Does this have anything to do with what we are talking about? About as much as the power down is false because of no permit claim. Just saying. Not that I absolutely believe the demolitions in the building theory but there is definately something fishy going on.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You see, LB, In Jack’s world, a physics professor knows more about building design and structural engineering then those that have actually studied those fields.

It would be easy to prove him incorrect, if he actually published some data and calculations to go with his claims, but he hasn’t. All he has done is regurgitated the same old misinformed B.S.


This is getting out of hand. Why do you continually attack me with sarcasm?

When did I say anything about Jones' knowledge on building design or structural engineering?

We are discussing the physics of a catastrophic collapse and a hypothesis that it was due to controlled demoltion.

It's funny how bothered you are by the accuracy of his paper so much because you can't debunk him.

This shows that you prefer to appeal to authority and cite Greening's paper just because he uses a bunch of equations that you do not understand.

Well we have shown your authority figure, equations and all, to be incorrect.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Just to put my 2 cents in. We had a guy come in the other day and re-route our server in our office. We didn't have to get a permit, drawings, or even permission from the building owner. Does this have anything to do with what we are talking about? About as much as the power down is false because of no permit claim. Just saying. Not that I absolutely believe the demolitions in the building theory but there is definately something fishy going on.


Good point Griff.

HowardRoark made up the fact that the powerdown was for electrical work when no such claim was made so his point is moot anyway.

I think we can be fairly certain that a permit is not required for a powerdown in general.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Where's the evidence for two tons of explosives being all that was needed?

Or is this just accepted as truth because it's from Jones op/ed peice.


As posted in the other thread I have contacted Dr. Jones about how he came to that figure and here is his reply:



The Aladdin Hotel in Las Vegas, built in 1963 as the Tally Ho, about a 18 story structure, 1100 rooms "was leveled in a matter of seconds with … 600 pounds of gelatin-based dynamite." (p. 75) Date: April 27, 1998, 7:30 pm. Contractors: LVI Environmental Services and CDI (Controlled Demolition, Inc.)

Helen Liss w/ the Loizeaux Family of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Demolition; The Art of Demolishing, Dismantling, Imploding & Razing; Black Dog & Leventhal. New York.



Scaling to the size of a tower gives roughly 4,000 pounds.



Likewise, the Seattle Kingdome of over 120,000 tons of concrete (more than either Tower) was felled using 4,700 pounds of explosives:



• “During loading operations, CDI …placed more than 4,700 lb. of explosives in critical locations to control the fall of the structure and reduce vibration. “ www.controlled-demolition.com...


also:


• The Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende, the

• leading conservative paper in the country, published an interview with the explosives

• expert Bent Lund, who pointed out that fire alone could not have caused the collapse of

• the twin towers. He estimated that about a ton of explosives must have exploded inside

• the buildings in order to bring them down in this way. (Berlingske Tidende, September

• 12, 2001; Wisnewski 138; quoted in www.reopen911.org...)



Plus you must realize how silly it is to doubt that 4,000 lbs would be sufficient when you think it was acheived with ZERO lbs!



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Like I responded in the other thread Jones number has nothing to do with reality, and shows his complete ignorance of how demolitions work.

(110/18)*600=Nearly 4000

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how they figure it out at Controlled Demolitions Inc..



And while your right, I do think that it fell without any explosives, but I'm not the one saying that every single floor had exlosives like the 911eyewitness "cannonball" trajectory.

Nor am I claiming that vast amounts of extra energy were required.

What is silly, is claiming that all it needed was 17.5 Gigajoules more energy considering the huge amounts released when the collapse began.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What is silly, is claiming that all it needed was 17.5 Gigajoules more energy considering the huge amounts released when the collapse began.


Put "huge" in context.

The energy behind the top 13 WTC1 floors falling onto an old man or something would of course be huge considering the amount of damage that would be done to the car.

The energy behind the top 13 WTC1 floors falling onto 97 heavier WTC1 floors is another issue. And there was no room for acceleration; all resistance, all the way down, and yet those miraculous 13 floors pulled it off without so much as slowing down.


Btw, you can put Jones' calculations on estimates for the amount of explosives into perspective as well.

Jones was merely trying to point out that an astronomical amount of explosives would not necessarily be needed. To do this, he did a quick estimate, which cannot really be verified or discredited (especially with blueprints locked up), so what can you do?

It's about equivalent to taking tower weights and dividing by the number of floors to get floor weights. It's not entirely accurate, but it's the best we can do, because the information we need for more exact figures is still locked up.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Like I responded in the other thread Jones number has nothing to do with reality, and shows his complete ignorance of how demolitions work.

(110/18)*600=Nearly 4000

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how they figure it out at Controlled Demolitions Inc..


What are you talking about? That is NOT what Dr. Jones said! He compared the amount of explosives it took for other buildings and estimated an approximate weight! How far off could it be? 11 people in 11 trips? 12 in 12? 20 in 20???? No matter how you look at it is feasible to be done within a few weeks or months by operatives that have unlimited access and resources.

If you know so much more about controlled demo then debunk him. How many pounds would it take?




And while your right, I do think that it fell without any explosives, but I'm not the one saying that every single floor had exlosives like the 911eyewitness "cannonball" trajectory.


What? First you mischaracterize Dr. Jones' claim now you blatantly lie about 911eyewitness dvd claims? Do you think that it's not obvious that you are being deliberately deceptive? How on earth does hundreds of tons of steel being ejected in a parabolic arc equate to explosives on "every single floor"??? That claim was NEVER made in 911eyewitness, or by Dr. Jones or anyone in the truth movement that I have heard. It's fine if you want to claim you disagree with the truth movement but lying about the assertions in order to make it easier to disagree with them is pretty low.



Nor am I claiming that vast amounts of extra energy were required.

What is silly, is claiming that all it needed was 17.5 Gigajoules more energy considering the huge amounts released when the collapse began.


What is silly are your deceptive debate techniques.


[edit on 8-2-2006 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Just to put my 2 cents in. We had a guy come in the other day and re-route our server in our office. We didn't have to get a permit, drawings, or even permission from the building owner. Does this have anything to do with what we are talking about? About as much as the power down is false because of no permit claim. Just saying. Not that I absolutely believe the demolitions in the building theory but there is definately something fishy going on.


In New York, according to this, yes, you would have needed a permit. Does that mean that you will get into trouble? Probably not. Does this sort of thing happen a lot? To a degree, yes. I've heard a few horror stories about building inspectors that have red tagged an emergency generator/UPS installation because the contractor failed to get the proper permit. This usually happens with inexperienced office managers. I doubt that that would have been a fair characterization of the WTC building management. To have a construction project red tagged because the contractor failed to get a building permit would have been career suicide for the building manager involved.

In any case, lets look at the original claim again, shall we:


From: "Scott Forbes"
To: skylax@comcast.net
Subject: Official Ver[si]on of 9/11 - new info
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:35:12 +0000

To John Kaminski,

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

On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2,
the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical
supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since
I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that
all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough[t] back up
afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling
in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no
security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers'
coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the
shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold
I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
weekend work ...

I have mailed this information to many people and bodies, including the 9/11
Commission but no-one seems to be taking and registering these facts. Whats
to hide? Can you help publicise them?

Please feel free to mail me.

Scott Forbes


Clearly he is talking about something more substantial then a simple reroute. To me, "cabling
in the tower was being upgraded" indicates that new cables were being installed. Furthermore, anyone who is familiar with high rise shafts and chases will realize that any penetration into a shaft, chase or raceway spanning multiple floors has to be properly firestopped afterwards. All of these things involve work that most definitely would require plans, permits and inspections.

All of this boils down to three possible scenarios.



  1. The powerdown was genuine, and legitimate Some electrical work occurred in the building. The was no connection between this and the 9/11 attack. There is a paper trail somewhere detailing the work and who was involved.

  2. The whole story is a hoax, and no paper trail exists because it never happened.

  3. The powerdown was genuine, but it's main purpose was a ruse or a cover to install explosives. This scenario, however, involves either an improbable number of co-conspirators, or a paper trail that was created in order to legitimize the activities. I think that this scenario is totally improbable and unrealistic.





    [edit on 9-2-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
That is NOT what Dr. Jones said! He compared the amount of explosives it took for other buildings and estimated an approximate weight!


Your right that is what he did. He made a very simplistic comparison based on arbitrary numbers.

Controlled demolition is a very exact science and Jones shows that he knows nothing about it by making such comparisons.

You can't just scale it up and automatically assign a number for it. Different buildings require different methods. It is disingenuous to just "scale it up".




Originally posted by Jack Tripper
How on earth does hundreds of tons of steel being ejected in a parabolic arc equate to explosives on "every single floor"??? That claim was NEVER made in 911eyewitness



Actually that's exactly what they claim.


www.truecastdesign.net...

This Law of Projectile Motion experiment illustrates that heavy steel debris was ejected upward and outward in a parabolic arc by the massive explosions in the middle section of the North Tower. A genuine collapse would have occurred much more slowly due to the resistance of supporting floors and all debris would move downward, falling close to the side of the tower.


Oh, I'm sorry, they didn't say every single floor.

Just the entire middle section of the north tower.




Originally posted by BSbray11

The energy behind the top 13 WTC1 floors falling onto an old man or something would of course be huge considering the amount of damage that would be done to the car.

The energy behind the top 13 WTC1 floors falling onto 97 heavier WTC1 floors is another issue. And there was no room for acceleration; all resistance, all the way down, and yet those miraculous 13 floors pulled it off without so much as slowing down.


Sorry my friend, but a gigajoule is a gigajoule, and your comparison has no bearing on that.

They still use the same units in both situations, and the upper floors are still creating massive amounts of energy.



[edit on 9-2-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
So, instead of arguing on an internet chat site, has anyone tried to get ahold of the Port Authority and see what types of permits were issued say for 6 months previous to 9-11? I'll try but I'm kinda busy at the moment. Let's see for ourselves what was going on instead of speculating. Who's with me?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
So, instead of arguing on an internet chat site, has anyone tried to get ahold of the Port Authority and see what types of permits were issued say for 6 months previous to 9-11? I'll try but I'm kinda busy at the moment. Let's see for ourselves what was going on instead of speculating. Who's with me?


I agree that it would be the best way to go. Arguing is kind of pointless when at the end of the day, a lack of proof will still exist in claims that are made.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Finding the permit might help resolve this issue.

However it has occured to me that theres an easier way to find out if Forbes was telling the truth.

Find a picture of the buildings at night on those dates. If half of one tower has it's lights out, then maybe there was a power down.

If the lights are on then we can safely say that Forbes is a hoax.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join