Former WTC worker talks about the Power Downs right before 911.

Of course this man is a little confused since he is still going to protest the muslim "mosque". But I think all will see that he is telling the truth.

Who will be the first to tell us that this was just normal operating procedure? If that doesn't work his character will be attacked, and the "liars" will claim that clearly wasn't enough time to do diddly squat. Finally, we'll all be ridiculed as tin foil hat wearers, un-American keyboard warriors who aren't doing anything. The official story is and that really me off!!

Originally posted by mayabong
Of course this man is a little confused since he is still going to protest the muslim "mosque". But I think all will see that he is telling the truth.

Why wouldn't he be telling the truth? A few years back my own building management notified they were powering down the whole building on a certain date to do wire upgrades, so I had to come in, bring down all the systems, and then bring them back on when the power came back online. If memory serves, noone blew up my building afterwards. Maybe the gov't kept telling me over and over my building never blew up and I simply began to believe it from repetition, I'm not sure.

Not that it matters. since at the WTC they only powered down 1/2 of ONE building and at the remaining building it was business as usual. When they powered the place down to upgrade the wiring, it's clear they really did do it to upgrade the wiring, so this is yet another desperate straw the conspiracy people are grasping in order to keep their conspiracy theories alive.

The official story is

and that really

me off!!

Interesting you would say that, because I think the CT is and it me off.

A power outage in half of the building proves nothing, and the fact that the man obviously believes the OS (he is going to a Mosque protest, is he not?) shows that he sees nothing too suspicious about it. It would be unbelievable to me that somebody that does not believe Muslim extremists attacked us on 9/11 would protest the construction of a Mosque near Groud Zero.

if you had people actually come out and give a statement that they saw the explosives being planted...it still wouldn't get an independant investigation started...whoever did this, has threatened or coerced the very people that could do something, and that is how it will remain. this isn't hollywood, there is no john wayne to ride in and save the day, there are no good guys that force the bad guys to give up, no zorro, no spider-man, it's keep your mouth shut or you and your family will be killed. simple, effective, and used for centuries.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden

The official story is

and that really

me off!!

Interesting you would say that, because I think the CT is

and it

me off.

A power outage in half of the building proves nothing, and the fact that the man obviously believes the OS (he is going to a Mosque protest, is he not?) shows that he sees nothing too suspicious about it.

The power outage really doesn't prove anything, I can agree with that. It does however provide at least some time on some floors when, as he says, security was basically non-existant. Whether or not this opportunity was used by someone for nefarious reasons is completely speculation, but I think you would have to agree that it does show that the opportunity existed. That, my friend, is what we call reasonable doubt...or as the police have now coined it "reasonable suspicion". If this had happened repeatedly throughout the building over any time span, that would present the opportunity to place explosives all over the building, would it not? If you watch the free documentary Zero you will see a man (whose name I forget at the moment) that describes that very thing occuring in the building on several of the floors around his office. Again, this doesn't prove anything at all, but it is reasonable to be suspicious when you see the building exploding and hundreds of people saying they heard, saw, and felt bombs going off. Also, I'd like to point out that clandastine "intelligence" agencies seek to take advantage of those opportunities that people don't get too suspicious about in order to execute their objectives...but of course everybody already understands that. It doesn't make much sense to risk obvious or conspicuous behavior when your goal is to not get caught.

Finally, I'd like to address the following comment:

It would be unbelievable to me that somebody that does not believe Muslim extremists attacked us on 9/11 would protest the construction of a Mosque near Groud Zero.

I bet you could find hundreds if not thousands of people who would do that very thing. He is asked in the video why and he doesn't say "because Muslims attacked us on 9/11", you are assuming that. Let me tell you what I cannot believe, that a news reporter would stand in front of a building that is clearly still standing and tell the world that it is not there, 20 minutes before it falls in what is obviously a demolition. In my opinion, that is far more unbelievable than someone's guess at one man's motives for protesting a mosque could ever be.

reply to post by mayabong

You all need to start researching Turner Construction.

Turner Construction was located in WTC and carried out maintenance on both buildings and on the floors effected prior to event. They also happen to have a hand in Dubai's tallest building and many others.
There is a massive connection.

Do some digging.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden

The official story is

and that really

me off!!

Interesting you would say that, because I think the CT is

and it

me off.

A power outage in half of the building proves nothing, and the fact that the man obviously believes the OS (he is going to a Mosque protest, is he not?) shows that he sees nothing too suspicious about it. It would be unbelievable to me that somebody that does not believe Muslim extremists attacked us on 9/11 would protest the construction of a Mosque near Groud Zero.

Apparently knowing that muslim extremists attacked us on 911 is a foregone conclusion. So the obvious next step is to invade and overthrow sovereign countries that are in fact NOT muslim extremists. Like freakin bigtime obvious.

reply to post by jprophet420

Apparently knowing that muslim extremists attacked us on 911 is a foregone conclusion. So the obvious next step is to invade and overthrow sovereign countries that are in fact NOT muslim extremists. Like freakin bigtime obvious.

And apparently knowing that muslim extremists did not attack us on 9/11 is a foregone conclusion.

The obvious next step is NOT to invade and overthrow sovereign nations. I hope you aren't assuming that, just because I do not buy into the CT, I beleive that invading Iraq and Afganistan were justified, because I don't. I think the wars that are currently being fought in the Middle East are despicable and without warrant. You don't have to believe in the CT to see that.

Although I'd really like to know your thoughts on my last post which was a direct response to you, something else you said has me somewhat intrigued.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by jprophet420

 

And apparently knowing that muslim extremists did not attack us on 9/11 is a foregone conclusion.

The obvious next step is NOT to invade and overthrow sovereign nations. I hope you aren't assuming that, just because I do not buy into the CT, I beleive that invading Iraq and Afganistan were justified, because I don't. I think the wars that are currently being fought in the Middle East are despicable and without warrant. You don't have to believe in the CT to see that.

Don't you realize that 9/11 is the means that justified the end of America's imperialist endevours in the Middle East? That's not to say that one was necessarily planned to create the other, but that is exactly how it played out. Would you please elaborate on this topic, I'm interested to see what you think about it.

reply to post by budaruskie


I'm going to quote the gentleman in the video:

"The power outages started Friday night close of business, and gradually into Saturday morning... About a day.”

And with that, I will begin my response.

It does however provide at least some time on some floors when, as he says, security was basically non-existant. Whether or not this opportunity was used by someone for nefarious reasons is completely speculation, but I think you would have to agree that it does show that the opportunity existed

Security was not non-existent. The gentleman in the video even said that he was working basically as “security duty… We were doing nothing.” If he was working as security duty, isn’t there a pretty good chance that he would have witnessed something suspicious (by seeing or hearing something out of place)? He even said that he didn’t see anybody out of the ordinary.

I supposed I could agree with you that the opportunity presented itself for someone to carry out nefarious activities, but I couldn’t agree with you that those activities had anything to do with rigging a building with explosives. I’m sure that you are aware of the rigorous process one must go through in order to wire a building for implosion, and “24-36 hours” hardly qualifies as adequate time. Is 24-36 hours long enough for the bad guys to:

-Strip dry wall to expose the support beams?
-Decide where best to pre-cut support beams?
-Decide where the explosives should be placed on the support beams?
-Perform pre-cuts on support beams?
-Set charges on said pre-cut beams?

Also, I'd like to point out that clandastine "intelligence" agencies seek to take advantage of those opportunities that people don't get too suspicious about in order to execute their objectives...but of course everybody already understands that. It doesn't make much sense to risk obvious or conspicuous behavior when your goal is to not get caught.

I would agree with you that yes, clandestine intelligence agencies seek to take advantage of certain opportunities in order to quell suspicion. But was this worker not suspicious? Surely the night workers at the Fuji bank that he briefly discusses in the video would have been suspicious, would they not? My point is, if some secret agency was planning on keeping suspicion low in order to wire a building, why would they kill the power and wire a building with explosives while workers still occupy the building? I would argue that that would be incredibly suspicious. You basically prove my point. If they were attempting to remove suspicion, they failed miserably.

I wonder if you have ever worked in a high-rise building. I live in Columbus, Ohio, a city with many high-rise buildings. Over the summer, I worked on a Political Science internship for the Governor’s office, and one of the buildings I worked in was the Rhodes State Office Tower. I distinctly remember that, on multiple occasions during the summer, the building shut off its power at night. The purpose for this? Re-wiring of telephone lines, computer systems, internet hook-ups, security systems, etc.

I bet you could find hundreds if not thousands of people who would do that very thing. He is asked in the video why and he doesn't say "because Muslims attacked us on 9/11", you are assuming that. Let me tell you what I cannot believe, that a news reporter would stand in front of a building that is clearly still standing and tell the world that it is not there, 20 minutes before it falls in what is obviously a demolition. In my opinion, that is far more unbelievable than someone's guess at one man's motives for protesting a mosque could ever be.

You are correct; he is indeed asked why he is attending the Mosque protest. You are also correct in that he did not say “because Muslims attacked us on 9/11.” However, THAT IS THE VERY REASON HE IS GOING. Here is his explanation:

“I personally feel that this is in keeping with Islamic history of building a shrine or trophy near a victorious battleground.”

Those are his words exactly. In saying that, he is highlighting his belief that Muslims attacked us on 9/11, and that they are now building a Mosque near Ground Zero in an attempt to show their victory over the United States. That is why he is protesting. If he felt that the United States government were responsible, then he would undoubtedly feel that the debate over the construction of a Mosque near Ground Zero is moot. He would not feel that they were claiming victory over is, because he would have believed that they had not attacked us in the first place.

Dear god ! What does this prove ? That the perps partially wired one building and somehow brought down three ? Where are witnesses from the other two buildings who can tell us about power-downs ? Surely those dirty bastards had to power down those buildings also , to wire them ???????

Get a grip people , power-downs are a common occurrence in the real world .

reply to post by okbmd

Get a grip people , power-downs are a common occurrence in the real world .

Perhaps so, but it doesn’t prove the man in the video is a liar.
I believe him, what his opinions are about the Moss is no concern to me.

reply to post by impressme

Perhaps so, but it doesn’t prove the man in the video is a liar.
I believe him

I believe him too , there was a partial power-down .

And ?????

Originally posted by okbmd
Dear god ! What does this prove ? That the perps partially wired one building and somehow brought down three ? Where are witnesses from the other two buildings who can tell us about power-downs ? Surely those dirty bastards had to power down those buildings also , to wire them ???????

Get a grip people , power-downs are a common occurrence in the real world .

I'm not saying it proves anything I was just posting something for discussion. Although I know if you talked about powerdowns a few years ago, people called you crazy. Now that people have actually come out and talked about them the reaction is "sure happens all the time so what?"

I really haven't searched for hard info weather there was a documented power down in the WTC's. How do you know if a piece of the WTC was powered down or weather it was the whole thing? If you have this info I'd be interested.

Mike

Originally posted by mayabong
But I think all will see that he is telling the truth.

Some floors may have been powered down, but not all nor the lifts.

conspiracyscience.com... shows the building still had power.

conspiracyscience.com...

reply to post by impressme


Who is trying to prove that the man in the video is a liar? I certainly wasn't. I believe he was telling the truth about the power-outages, but what does that prove? Nothing.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by mayabong
But I think all will see that he is telling the truth.

Some floors may have been powered down, but not all nor the lifts.

conspiracyscience.com... shows the building still had power.

I'd like to see that article that the image goes with. Just seeing the image proves about as much to me as a hijaker's passport being found in the rubble. lol

reply to post by Judge_Holden

Who is trying to prove that the man in the video is a liar? I certainly wasn't. I believe he was telling the truth about the power-outages, but what does that prove? Nothing.

My post was to “okbmd” since he has proven himself on ATS as an OS stanch defender.

What the power outage does prove is a lack of security and people coming and going in the WTC.

reply to post by impressme


I would ask you to read my response to budaruskie.

There was no lack of security. Even if there was, how is 24-36 hours ample time to rig a 110 story building with explosives?