• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

another kook for you guys to 'debunk'

timmyg said:
oh right...

so maybe there was a power down eh??

from previous posts on here it seemed like you guys found this notion impossible. not to mention disgusting to even talk about
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I never said a power down was impossible, I said if it was real, it would leave a trail of paperwork and witnesses a mile wide and until this guy came forward no such confirmation existed.

Me? I've managed corporate 24x7 computer systems in very large and secure Manhattan bank buildings for 30+ years with experience with countless power downs.

I've also worked on bare-beams building renovations and with the unions, including Local 3, mentioned in the video. The idea that non-union or unknown people could even use the elevators without getting caught is silly.
 
timmyg said:
scott forbes has said that the port authority has denied that the power down ever happened. I can see no reason why he would invent such claims.
Click to expand...

Around these parts, that's the kind of claim that needs a citation to be taken seriously.

In any case, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the collapse was caused by anything but the impact of a plane and the resulting damage and fire.
 
Last edited:
Damn evil port authority, allowing forbes and his co-workers in the wtcs for days on end and then denying it without first silencing Forbes and the others....not following standard NWO protocol.

TAM:)
 
BigAl said:
I've also worked on bare-beams building renovations and with the unions, including Local 3, mentioned in the video. The idea that non-union or unknown people could even use the elevators without getting caught is silly.
Click to expand...

It worked in Ocean's 11.
 
T.A.M. said:
Why would the commission ignore it? Ok wizkid, WHY WOULD THE COMMISSION even mention it. Please state for me the reason why said power down is connected to the terrorist attacks on America?

Please tell me how that power down is relevant to the planes crashing into the towers...please.

Thanks.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Why can't truthers and wannabe truthers ever connect the dots?
 
timmyg said:
oh right...

so maybe there was a power down eh??

from previous posts on here it seemed like you guys found this notion impossible. not to mention disgusting to even talk about

this idea you guys have of debunking is simply taking a piece of information and spouting vile insults at the witnesses involved and the people discussing it.
Click to expand...

The initial claim was impossible. The initial claim was more than a few floors.

Someone got tickets to the viewing area for the towers for the time the top section was suuposedly powered down. That is not hurling vile insults it is proving claims to be false. If those idiots want to now claim a floor or two was powered down only, then it does not help the inside job claims at all.
 
timmyg said:
why would the port authority deny that the power down ever occurred?

and why would the commission ignore it?

putting aside ideas about an 'inside job', any situation where security systems could be compromised should surely be investigated with respect to this crime like this.
Click to expand...

Security systems typically work on a dedicated circuit, and are never powerd down. Most have UPS's and generators that supply their power 24/7/365.

Not to mention the fact that there was actual security there 24/7/365 also. You can't power-down a human being.
 
timmyg said:
oh right...

so maybe there was a power down eh??

from previous posts on here it seemed like you guys found this notion impossible. not to mention disgusting to even talk about

this idea you guys have of debunking is simply taking a piece of information and spouting vile insults at the witnesses involved and the people discussing it.
Click to expand...



Well then, show use how a power down for a day or so in one of the towers leads to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job/the towers where brought down by cd.

ETA: are you surprised that Truthers throwing a piece of debunked nonsense for the 182382771371th time at us are met with a certain degree of ridicule?
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
How does a ticket prove there was no power down in the upper half of the building? Did the WTC have two big switches one that said upper half and the other lower half? I'm sure they had per floor control of power supply.
Click to expand...

Your point? If shutdown happened, that fact does nothing to change the massive amount of evidence knowledgeable people have for the engineering and eyewitness accounts that show that collision and unfaught fires caused the towers to collapse.
 
BigAl said:
Your point? If shutdown happened, that fact does nothing to change the massive amount of evidence knowledgeable people have for the engineering and eyewitness accounts that show that collision and unfaught fires caused the towers to collapse.
Click to expand...

Touchy topic then to have you brush it off so quickly. Why don't you respond to the question rather than brush it away?

My point is that a ticket is brought forth as "evidence" that power down did not happen, but just some thought on the matter reveals that the ticket is no conclusive evidence against the shutdown. This is accentuated by your quick dismissal of the matter. Curious.
 
Java Man said:
Touchy topic then to have you brush it off so quickly. Why don't you respond to the question rather than brush it away?

My point is that a ticket is brought forth as "evidence" that power down did not happen, but just some thought on the matter reveals that the ticket is no conclusive evidence against the shutdown. This is accentuated by your quick dismissal of the matter. Curious.
Click to expand...

Because the alleged power down is a distraction and changes nothing about how and why the towers collapsed.
 
Java Man said:
Touchy topic then to have you brush it off so quickly. Why don't you respond to the question rather than brush it away?

My point is that a ticket is brought forth as "evidence" that power down did not happen, but just some thought on the matter reveals that the ticket is no conclusive evidence against the shutdown. This is accentuated by your quick dismissal of the matter. Curious.
Click to expand...

Well, show us the ticket that says "Power this floor down at this time". We can't prove a nagative. You can certainly back up the OP's claim with evidence though!

We'll wait.......
 
Java Man said:
Touchy topic then to have you brush it off so quickly. Why don't you respond to the question rather than brush it away?

My point is that a ticket is brought forth as "evidence" that power down did not happen, but just some thought on the matter reveals that the ticket is no conclusive evidence against the shutdown. This is accentuated by your quick dismissal of the matter. Curious.
Click to expand...
Do you have any information on how much of the floors this gentleman talked about were shut down? I work on large buildings and you can't just "power down" a whole floor (everything included).

As far as security goes I would like to know what part of the system he thinks was down. Building (non tenant) and tenant spaces are secured separately.
 
DGM said:
Do you have any information on how much of the floors this gentleman talked about were shut down? I work on large buildings and you can't just "power down" a whole floor (everything included).

As far as security goes I would like to know what part of the system he thinks was down. Building (non tenant) and tenant spaces are secured separately.
Click to expand...

Got no idea. Nevertheless that doesn't address the point of some brought up tickets are no evidence at all. I think your line of reasoning is better set than "look mom I have them tickets" argument.
 
Java Man said:
Got no idea. Nevertheless that doesn't address the point of some brought up tickets are no evidence at all. I think your line of reasoning is better set than "look mom I have them tickets" argument.
Click to expand...
I think the "ticket" thing was to the original claim that a large part of the tower was "powered down". (1/3 IIRC)

Just another comment about the Port Authority not knowing about it. If it was a local tenant request or upgrade there would be no reason for them to be notified. We "shut down" small sections of buildings all the time. If you ever worked with organizations like the Port Authority the less you tell them the more work you actually get done. The fact they didn't know would indicate to me it was a small local event.
 
Java Man said:
How does a ticket prove there was no power down in the upper half of the building? Did the WTC have two big switches one that said upper half and the other lower half? I'm sure they had per floor control of power supply.
Click to expand...

The claim was that the power was down on the whole upper half of the building. Therefore, no one would have been on the observation deck any time during the power down. Here is something else Scott Forbes said:

Additionally, the power outage meant that many of the 'ordinary' building features were not operating, such as security locks on doors, cameras, lighting, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
My point is that a ticket is brought forth as "evidence" that power down did not happen, but just some thought on the matter reveals that the ticket is no conclusive evidence against the shutdown. This is accentuated by your quick dismissal of the matter. Curious.
Click to expand...

The original allegation was that the top 50 floors had a power down. This was refuted by the evidence of a ticket to visit the top floor during the time these floors were claimed to have been powered down. Therefore, all that we have so far is evidence that, at some time prior to 9/11, some localised power shutdown occurred in some floors of one tower, an event so commonplace as to be completely unworthy of note. The original claim, that the power was shut off to a significant part of the tower in order to defeat security systems (although, of course, no truther goes so far as actually to make a claim, they just say "Doesn't that look suspicious?" in the usual vague, innuendo-based way), is refuted. All we have is evidence of a minor event that could not conceivably have been part of a conspiracy to install demolition devices without many similar events also having taken place over a long period of time for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

In other words: So there was a local power shutdown. So what?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom