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.

 

Help British 911 survivor whats his name?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Help please.

There is a British man who worked in the WTC. And he talks about there being lots of dust at the WTC and building work going on, and people getting moved from floor to floor, office to office.

He survived because he didn’t have to go into work on 911 ,as he had been at the WTC all weekend helping out on some sever issues or something.

I need his name and or any videos you may have on him.


I’ve been searching for him for at least an hour now, and for the life of me I can’t remember his name.

Thanks




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Do you mean the IT-specialist Scott Forbes?
Here a link:
www.metacafe.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenshrew
 


YES thank you I kept thinking Steve Fossett lol.

Thank you I owe you at least a few beers.




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent-ATS
 


Forbes and his story that the South tower was powered off weekend
before has long since been outed as a fraud and liar

www.911myths.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Forbes and his story that the South tower was powered off weekend
before has long since been outed as a fraud and liar

I've read your links and I think you are overstating the case just a little. It might be better to say that statements by Forbes have not been verified and that he himself has said that he doesn't know the full extent of the power down that he alleges took place.

I haven't seen any evidence that he is a fraud or a liar. Nobody seems to think his story is important enough to do the checking necessary to prove that he lied.

All one would have to do is to contact someone else who worked in that location for his company and ask them to verify his statement that there was a power down and that some sort of work was being done during that time.

To my knowledge no-one has done that. 9/11 truthers have undoubtedly made too much of Forbes's statements in furthering their own explanation of events, but you err just as much on the side of debunking his statements. No-one, to my knowledge, has proved that he is a fraud and a liar . . . yet.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Powering down the South Tower would have been instantly obivious to
most of NYC and Northern NJ

Millions of people would notice and no doubt comment on it - I have heard
nothing of it - living just across the Hudson from NYC I know many
people who worked in those buildings. Nobody commented on any
"power down" . It would have been a story in the local news media -
especially the 2 tabloids NY Post, NY Daily News. Imagine would Feature a picture of blacked out South Tower and illuminated North

Considering that the WTC towers housed many large banks and financial
companies which have 24 hr operations such a massive shutdown would
have caused considerable inconvience to them. There would have been
complaints from these powerful companies - nothing was heard from them

I have been involved in many of these operations - it is not a secret. In fact everyone is warned, REPEATEDLY! Have to go around and power off
all the LAN printers and other equipment in area. Then come in early
and repower and test it.

Get messages from building mgmt warning that water is being shut off
on the weekend and the FRIGGING TOILETS wont work !

It has been proven that the observation deck on 106th floor of South
Tower was open that weekend. This shows that power was on to power the elevators and observation deck.

My conjecture is that little Scottie is an attention whore - made up story
about power down. Most likely heard or read message about power
shut down for one floor and conflated it to massive power down.

Problem is got caught in his lie.....



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

He may have just gotten over excited by events. In hindsight he was suspicious of a powerdown of some dimensions. He thought it might tie in with nefarious doings. I think psychoanalyzing him to the point of calling him an "attention whore" is going too far. He is certainly no "balloon boy dad".



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by thedman
 

He may have just gotten over excited by events. In hindsight he was suspicious of a powerdown of some dimensions. He thought it might tie in with nefarious doings. I think psychoanalyzing him to the point of calling him an "attention whore" is going too far. He is certainly no "balloon boy dad".


Lying is lying - whoring is whoring - no two ways about it.

You dont get "over excited" by an event - make up an entire story and get it proven wrong and NOT be a liar - bottom line - plain and simple.

This man has ZERO credibility and you should not waste your time looking to him for ANYTHING!

Dorian Soran



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dorian Soran

Lying is lying - whoring is whoring - no two ways about it.


Tut, tut, Dorian. Surely there are shades of grey abounding in this world.


You dont get "over excited" by an event - make up an entire story and get it proven wrong and NOT be a liar - bottom line - plain and simple.


I'm not sure all of that has taken place. Didn't he himself amend his original statement about the extent of the power down? (I'm starting to feel like counsel for the defense in Salem in 1692.)


This man has ZERO credibility and you should not waste your time looking to him for ANYTHING!


He did work at the WTC, didn't he? I think anyone who worked there who is suspicious about anything that happened around 9/11/01 is at least deserving of a hearing. Witnesses are witnesses. All the credentials a witness needs is a set of sense organs and a brain in reasonable working order.

Donning my peruke and adjusting my pince nez I strike the gavel and rule that the witness may proceed.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by Dorian Soran

Lying is lying - whoring is whoring - no two ways about it.


Tut, tut, Dorian. Surely there are shades of grey abounding in this world.


You dont get "over excited" by an event - make up an entire story and get it proven wrong and NOT be a liar - bottom line - plain and simple.


I'm not sure all of that has taken place. Didn't he himself amend his original statement about the extent of the power down? (I'm starting to feel like counsel for the defense in Salem in 1692.)


This man has ZERO credibility and you should not waste your time looking to him for ANYTHING!


He did work at the WTC, didn't he? I think anyone who worked there who is suspicious about anything that happened around 9/11/01 is at least deserving of a hearing. Witnesses are witnesses. All the credentials a witness needs is a set of sense organs and a brain in reasonable working order.

Donning my peruke and adjusting my pince nez I strike the gavel and rule that the witness may proceed.



1. Afraid not my friend - in order to deny ignorance - one cannot take a liars recant as a declaration of truth - there cannot be more than one truth - plain and simple.

2. No witch trials here - but you are defending a liar - and a blackeye to the truth movement so to speak - how do "amend" somethign like that? It was a lie - he was caught in it and recanted - the main focus is HE LIED.

3. You show me any attorney worth his/her salt and they wouldnt put a proven liar on the stand let alone smack a gavel and say "proceed" - a pretty big "credential" a witness needs is CREDIBILITY - he has none BECAUSE HE LIED. No further questions for this liar ---- errr ----- witness - he may now step down. This whole court is out of order - and he is the leader!

Dorian Soran



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Forbes himself allows that he may have overstated the extent of the powerdown. This could be due to ignorance, misunderstanding or a misapprehension of what happens when a powerdown occurs.

He hasn't to my knowledge retracted his assertion that a powerdown of some dimensions did occur.

At the very worst his statement could be likened to a fisherman's exaggeration, but I don't think it is even that. I think his statement represents a combination of unwitting ignorance of what is involved in a power down at the WTC and perhaps a degree of paranoid suspicion, completely understandable in the wake of the events of 9/11.

I just haven't seen evidence of any kind of self serving calculation in his statements.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by ipsedixit]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join