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.

 

911 Scott Forbes power-down story. Possibly False.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTCs first occupants after it was erected, and that a power-down had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTCs security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors.
globalresearch.ca...


[Edited on 30-4-2004 by AceOfBase]




posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I think it has, though it has been a while. The theory is (if I remember correctly) that while the power was out, and the security cameras dark, someone was able to plant bombs throughout the building. Well... I've been in office buildings of many sizes for the past 12 years, and in each building I've had to deal with power-downs of one sort or the other. It's actually quite common. However, security systems are always on a circuit that remains live.



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
OK thanks.
BTW, I went to the 'members' page and did a search for your name and then clicked the option to send a U2U and this ended up as a news submission.
Is that normal?



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Well... I've been in office buildings of many sizes for the past 12 years, and in each building I've had to deal with power-downs of one sort or the other. It's actually quite common. However, security systems are always on a circuit that remains live.

Yep, just like the emergency lighting system stays on and as SO pointed out, certain "essential" electronics like security, database mainframes, etc, etc...

Many buildings (even 2 story very small ones) have their own generators to run them and they can be hidden very well. We had one behind some trees for a small building here. Ran our whole building (all systems) for a week on one tank of diesel.

Edited: Cause I am sleepy today.


[Edited on 29-4-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I've been trying to find information on the shut down of power and have been unsuccessful so far.

All stories seem to reference this Scott Forbes story.

I found the original message he sent:

From: "Scott Forbes" scottforbes2002@hotmail.com
To: skylax@comcast.net
Subject: Official Verison 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 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

www.serendipity.li...

I'm not sure how legit this is.
If anyone does have information from another source on the shut down, I'd appreciate a link.



[Edited on 29-4-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I know my office building (a comparitively small ~50 stories) has many precautions for power outages. The fire alarm system, stairway lights, emergency devices etc stay on during such outages, even during the blackout last summer. Similarly the WTC had such backup plans in effect mainly due to the nature of some of what was there.



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
AceOfBase, this story makes no sense, as you can see. Modern office buildings (of which the WTC certian was one) have multiple systems. Even if there was a power-down for half of one tower (doubtful), there would still be power to critical systems such as security, fire alarms, etc. Also... you can be certain this was not the first planned outage as one of the stories claimed.



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
AceOfBase, this story makes no sense, as you can see. Modern office buildings (of which the WTC certian was one) have multiple systems. Even if there was a power-down for half of one tower (doubtful), there would still be power to critical systems such as security, fire alarms, etc.

Also... you can be certain this was not the first planned outage as one of the stories claimed.


Yeah, as I researched it, I became more and more sceptical.

I'll rename the thread to make that knwon.



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Ok, this guy claims that there was definitly a power down. If the power-down was part of the 9-11 conspiracy, I don't doubt one sec that youwon't find anything else about it... until someone else that knew of the power-down comes forth. I wouldn't be claiming it as "bunk" quite yet. Why would the security systems be shut down? If this guy was IT, he would also be fully aware of the security system's functionality.

I'd say do some research on the guy doing the claiming, but be nice... just because he may have gotten a DUI when he was 22 doesn't mean everything he says is a lie (just a note to some of you who use crap like that to debunk someone... I don't know if he got a DUI when he was 22, just hypothetical).



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
His email address is in one of my posts: "Scott Forbes" scottforbes2002@hotmail.com

If aanyone wants to set up a temp yahoo or hotmail account to correspond with him, it may be helpful.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I'm another office worker and like lots of the other respondants here, I've been in buildings where the power is down. Now... not every office worker might notice it, but as the others say "power down" is not "complete loss of power."

Also, he says it was down from the 50th floor and upwards. There was power to part of the building, and you can bet that the security cams and systems were in place.

And bombs make no sense. Watch any of the hundreds of building demolition tapes around. You can see explosion patterns and shockwaves and the collapse is entirely different.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Instead of throwing the 'bomb' possibility into the air, it would be best to look at the entire situation and determine what purpose(s) this power down would serve. I don't have any ideas to add, but I'm sure you fine people can think of something.


Am I the only one that finds statements, from those that worked in the WTC, a little strange? A week ago we discussed the one guy that reported the fire drills just weeks before 9/11. He found these drills odd, though many of us know they're quite common. Now, we've got this Forbes guy mentioning the 'first' (to his knowledge) power down since their initial date of occupancy. This power down happened the weekend prior to 9/11. ::smh:: Many of you dismiss the notion of foul play with such certainty. It's not that easy for me.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
It's not that we're dismissing the potential for "foul play" if a power-down occurred... what we're concerned about is the credibility of the basis for the story... "the first power-down ever." As you said, most people who have spend time in office buildings know power-downs to occur. So the credibility of this story is in doubt when the author makes a claim that is unlikely to be true. After that, speculation about what happened during the unlikely claim is even worse... theories based on one-person's unsubstantiated claims.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
As a building engineer for many years I have to chime in on this subject. First of all their are many variables from building to building and region to region all depending on build age, size and local codes. In the dozens of different buildings and several cities I've worked in every building has had its own somewhat unique emergency system. From outward appearances they would all seem the same to an occupant or even the much vaunted knowledge that most but not all IT people think they have.(1 in 10, no offence to the few that do know full building systems)

WTC was built at a time when the common office worker had no more than an electric typewriter and calculator on their desk and 1.5 - 3 watts per square foot was sufficient for lighting and office use, now the minimum is about 6 - watts per square foot going on up to as much as 10 watts.

Because of this quantatative leap in power requirements some buildings primary feed cable/electrical bus systems have had to be upsized for the increased load in order to prevent overload and failure.

A project as large as WTC probably used 4160 volt feeds to multiple switchgear throughout the towers, the high voltage allows for smaller cable size in general and is stepped down with a transformer at the point of use.

My educated guess and I admit assumption (until further research) is that generators served one of the high voltage circuits through the switchgear (again smaller cabling in the risers) and then it was stepped down at a local tranformer to feed the emergency circuits that usually power fire devices, exit devices, emergency lighting and security systems such as access and camera.

If cabling feeding the gear above 50 required upsize for increased tenant load then a system as I descibed would indeed have to be shutdown completely for the work to proceed - even the time frame stated in the story jives with the massive job of pulling old cable and re-pulling the new bigger cable for the riser distances in the WTC.

At this point in the interuption of power - battery backup lasts only a finite time, lighting 30-90 minutes, UPS backup depends on size and load but is usually just long enough to accomplish a proper shutdown.

I see nothing unusual in the work reported and also need to point out that security and cameras below fifty would have been in operation iregardless of work above fifty - so there would have been entry and exit coverage for WTC.

Another point to ponder is the fact that most camera systems only cover the elevator lobby and public corridors and on or off they would not really be an impediment to those up to mischief.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
IMO, whats important is the possibility of a power-down really occur or not!! and not... if it was the first time or not!! just because of one item of the story is not accurate, doesn't mean it has to false....

that's just my humble opinion!



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joe Cat just because of one item of the story is not accurate, doesn't mean it has to false....
Well... experience tells us the opposite. When a one aspect of a "conspiracy theory" is based on a false claim, then all other aspects have doubtful credibility.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
As a building engineer for many years I have to chime in on this subject. . . .

Another point to ponder is the fact that most camera systems only cover the elevator lobby and public corridors and on or off they would not really be an impediment to those up to mischief.


Good post Phoenix. I have a couple of questions for you. Based on your experience:

Besides for the building wide security systems, have you ever had a tenant (especially one in the financial sector) that had their own separate security system?

Have you ever had a tenant with a lease that stipulated access conditions for outside contractors and building personell? (in other words, if you need to get into a space to do even routine maintenance tasks, you still need to clear it with the office manager).

Lets assume that you wanted to put charges on the perimeter columns of the building on 10 different floors. Lets say 75 charges per floor. That would be 750 charges. For the following tasks:

  1. move the furniture out of the way,

  2. open up the column enclosure or drop ceiling

  3. Attach the explosive device

  4. wire the device to a central riser or conduit

  5. close up the enclosure or ceiling

  6. repair and repaint drywall as nessessary,

  7. Clean up

  8. Replace the furniture.



    How many workers would you need to do all of this in 30 hours?



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
From what I can gather (and the little bit of structural engineering I know) I'd assume that charges around the supporting columns in the basement would have been enough to cause the collapse. The buildings were already severely damaged, and the structure was weakening from the fire (grew up as a welder/mechanic... very familiar with steel losing it's temper with heat...). They may have planted the explosives to make sure the buildings went down in the case that the planes didn't do it. We already know that a bunch of explosives next to a column alone couldn't take the place down... but with enough structural damage incurred, a shockwave sent up the base columns would definitly do the trick.

Just speculation, but it is what gives the bomb theory some credibility. I'm pretty sure they knew that the planes alone wouldn't cause a collapse. Also, if you watch the collapse, it starts right at thewreckage, but it seems a bit too controlled. Those things went almost straight down, with the tops only leaning a couple degrees. In a collapse such as this, I would expect to see one of the outer walls go first and fold over more before going all the way down... this is why I believe ther is a good possibility of explosives initiating the collapse.

Pheonix, what do you think? I've never worked on steel structure near that size, but I have worked on alot of rollbars... the premise is the same, but rollcages are designed to take some pretty extrordinary impacts. On a roll, generally you will have one column that collapses, and the others just bend to compensate... even when you drop almost perfect uside-down, one of the front columns will almost always crush, and the other will just bend to compensate for the side-ways pull.

Not saying that it's impossible for a building like that to collapse in an almost vertical fashion, but it's not too likely considering the damage and where the fires were centralized. Again, Pheonix, what's your take on this?



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Howdy folks...

Just curious, why compleatly power down ( electricity ), when all the cables that are being upgraded are going to do, is increase the pc bandwidth ?

To me the cables that are being upgraded are either the CAT 5, or maybe running fibre optic cables ?




The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTCs computer bandwidth.


globalresearch.ca...

I work in IT ( well unemployed at the moment ), and have never cut the main power to upgrade/run cables...



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Phoenix
As a building engineer for many years I have to chime in on this subject. . . .

Another point to ponder is the fact that most camera systems only cover the elevator lobby and public corridors and on or off they would not really be an impediment to those up to mischief.


Good post Phoenix. I have a couple of questions for you. Based on your experience:

Besides for the building wide security systems, have you ever had a tenant (especially one in the financial sector) that had their own separate security system?

Have you ever had a tenant with a lease that stipulated access conditions for outside contractors and building personell? (in other words, if you need to get into a space to do even routine maintenance tasks, you still need to clear it with the office manager).

Lets assume that you wanted to put charges on the perimeter columns of the building on 10 different floors. Lets say 75 charges per floor. That would be 750 charges. For the following tasks:

  1. move the furniture out of the way,

  2. open up the column enclosure or drop ceiling

  3. Attach the explosive device

  4. wire the device to a central riser or conduit

  5. close up the enclosure or ceiling

  6. repair and repaint drywall as nessessary,

  7. Clean up

  8. Replace the furniture.



    How many workers would you need to do all of this in 30 hours?




HR, Those are some great questions that I can answer and the points your questions lead to show just how ludacris the assertion of demolition really is.

Lets start somewhat backwards on your list.
The column enclosures on ALL buildings I've ever worked on are made of sheetrock that has tape and bed joints with a final finish of paint, wood or marble - 90% being painted.
If anyone here has watched the process of tape and bed on sheetrock they will know it is a THREE day process at a minimum. First a layer of drywall mud is put on joint then a thin layer of mud is put over that. This layer must dry for a day in order to sand smooth. After that another layer is applied to feather the joint into the surface of the drywall. It is again sanded when dry after a day has passed. A final thin coat is applied on second day after second layer was sanded and allowed to dry overnight, this layer is sanded on the third day and then can be painted over to provide a smooth finish. There are quick drying compuonds but they do not provide the smooth finish of the three day process and are noticible to the eye.

Even latex paint leaves an odor in a ventilated space, in this case where no power was available - the odor would have caused many complaints.

Even the best contractors cannot clean all of the dust and debris up from comparatively small jobs much less something on the scale your refering to, It takes multiple cleanings by the janitorial crew to get things spotless after work like this. aQgain many complaints would have been generated.

Even in the unlikely case that construction type work could be accomplished undetected. (big stretch involving to many to keep quiet) You have the issue of wiring up 750 charges to go off in sequence not simultainously, correct me if I'm wrong but the wires have to be of just the precise length to stagger the charges apart by micro seconds to many seconds - interior charges first working outwards to cause implosion type collapse. wire lenth determines time multiple charges detonate from common source, this has to be carefully measured and calculated in order to cause the desired collapse. That would be a very difficut endeavor to complete undetected in the time frame available.


Besides for the building wide security systems, have you ever had a tenant (especially one in the financial sector) that had their own separate security system?

Yes in many have had stand alone systems, both alarm and access control - all record entry in one fahion or another.

Have you ever had a tenant with a lease that stipulated access conditions for outside contractors and building personell? (in other words, if you need to get into a space to do even routine maintenance tasks, you still need to clear it with the office manager).

Yes many require notice and entry procedure, some are simple sign in, some want prior notice and reason, the most extreme want backround check each and every time (government and defence related) a valid point on the most extreme security such as government offices is that they do not comply with local or state code with doors opening on power outage, its just the opposite - power failure causes these premises to remain locked and secure.

How many workers would you need to do all of this in 30 hours?

Hundreds, they would out number the electricians by a factor of 10 making the demolition crew VERY prominant and stand-outish, not exactly what is desired for a covert operation, eh

To summarize it is outlandish to assert that explosives were planted during this ordinary outage for what is a common and prudent upgrade to the buildings electrical service. Those that latch onto like this are operating from a position of ignorance and wishful thinking to find conspiracy where none exists.

I have also answered a similar post a while back that asserted the explosives were planted during original constuction, that was a ridiculous assumption as well.
As I know from experience in construction, these guys would not even go up in a building wired this way, thy know all that goes on in the constuction process, its to dangeruos to act otherwise because of stupid mistakes much less purposeful sabotage.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join