A question on the "powerdown" claim, page 2

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" cottforbes2002@hotmail.com>
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.

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