another kook for you guys to 'debunk'

[DGM]

Or beside it, or behind it...yeah, tough choice there, when you want to capture that image of a supposed raging inferno.

What makes you think they were letting anyone with a camera (including the press) just roam around?

 

[ergo]

What makes you think they were letting anyone with a camera (including the press) just roam around?

Gee, I don't know. Just a guess.

 

[DGM]

Gee, I don't know. Just a guess.

Was that large fires I saw in that video?




How far from a decent perspective of the picture you want do you think that was?

 

[ergo]

Off topic to the thread.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

What relevance does this have to the point made? He did not specifically refer to data back-up. You have all latched onto this possibly erroneous assumption of mine as if it somehow debunks everything he has to say. It has nothing to do with it.

So then why did you make it up? Is it because you felt that you needed to somehow give your weak sauce of a story some extra oomph?

Nor was the three weeks notice all that important, except insofar as he found it to be short notice. His point was that it was a significant and unprecedented event--NOT ROUTINE--that required him to physically be there on the weekend it occurred.

And yet he reported no suspicious people planting explosives or doing other nefarious suspicious deeds while he was there that weekend... If he did why didn't he tell security? Was he in on it too?

What possible knowledge could the lot of you have of the preparations that would have been required? Something tells me he would know more about his job than bee dunkers on an internet message board. Okay?

There are plenty of IT types here that do know what that job entails. All of them scoffed at your made up claim (aka lie) about needing 3 weeks to make back ups. Maybe he was miffed because he had made plans for that weekend and the planned power outage cut into them, did you ever consider that?

 

[Mongrel]

And another thing-doofus talks about "guided tours" entering supposedly secure areas. What drooling moron was conducting these "guided tours?" What kind of a docent would not know that an area was supposed to be secure?

It was probably one idiot on the tour getting through a 'No Admittance: Authorised Personnel Only!' door that someone hadn't shut properly, looking for the toilets.

 

[Dog Town]

I've been wondering the same thing about pics of the south wall of the very large WTC7 burning on that day. None? Not a one? Really? Hmmm.....

Dodge noted!
Now once again:
Where are the pictures, that millions would have been able to take? Yet mysteriously none did! Hmmm.......

 

[ergo]

Dodge noted!
Now once again:
Where are the pictures, that millions would have been able to take? Yet mysteriously none did! Hmmm.......

It's a reasonable question. (And so is mine). I have no idea. Maybe there are pictures out there that we don't know about. Maybe the power-down did not involve the lights, as it apparently did not involve the elevators either. Maybe the power down did not involve half the building, as had been told to him.

Do you have some reason to think that either of these two men would be lying? What possible benefit could Scott Forbes gain from that, since he certainly doesn't seem to want "Truther" fame.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Maybe the power down only involved his equipment... Maybe, maybe, maybe. You are now down to pure conjecture, one of the hallmarks of trutherism.

Try a bit of critical thinking. Do you think that truthers in the past have latched onto minor bits of information and exaggerated its importance/relevance/extent? If so, do you think that you should ever rely on those people for any information without triple verifying that it's true in all respects before you embrace it as the truth?

You seem to take what these people say at face value even when it's been shown time and again that they outright lie about even the most simple things (as in things that are easily proven or disproven) and distort the facts when it suits their agenda. They rely on peoples ignorance and their distrust of the government to line their own pockets and you enable them every time you repeat their lies and distortions of the truth as "The Truth".

Nobody's perfect, end everyone makes mistakes. That's why there are peer reviews, to catch those errors and mistakes. The honest person takes in the criticisms and modifies their views and opinions to reflect reality. The charlatan handwaves it away and soldiers on even when he knows that he's been told (and been told why) his ideas are incorrect.

 

[ergo]

Since Scott Forbes has been out with this information for at least four years now, do you think, if he was lying, Fiduciary Trust, a large multinational corporation, might have something to say about it? Do you think someone who has that kind of information would name a large multinational corporation as their employer if they were at all afraid someone would check into what they are claiming?

And if you're that paranoid, why don't you do some fact-checking on it? Like real debunkers do.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Paranoid? We're not the ones seeing boogymen around every corner.

It has been fact checked, and his facts were found to be lacking.

Fact: Nobody else from Fiduciary Trust has said anything about it over the last six years (until now where some random man on the street chimes in). Nobody from floor 50 on up has said anything about it either.

Fact: Scott Forbes has backed down from his initial claim of the power being off from floor 50 on up. He has admitted that all he knows is that his floor (floor 97) had the power off for some reason.

Fact: Cabling upgrades for high speed data doesn't require a 26 hour "Power down". At best you might see the power out for a few minutes in some very localized areas.

Fact: Security systems have battery backups so the loss of power wouldn't compromise it at all.

Fact: These all came from a "Truther" web site, not a debunker one. The story is so bad that even other truthers call you an idiot for taking it at face value as "Proof" of an inside jorb.

 

[ergo]

Fact: Nobody else from Fiduciary Trust has said anything about it over the last six years (until now where some random man on the street chimes in).

Which was the point I made. Wouldn't they have something to say if he was lying?

Nobody from floor 50 on up has said anything about it either.

Maybe the power down wasn't from floor 50 on up. Maybe other companies weren't that affected by it.

Fact: Scott Forbes has backed down from his initial claim of the power being off from floor 50 on up. He has admitted that all he knows is that his floor (floor 97) had the power off for some reason.

That wouldn't surprise me. His claim was that he was told it would be from floor 50 and up.

Fact: Cabling upgrades for high speed data doesn't require a 26 hour "Power down". At best you might see the power out for a few minutes in some very localized areas.

Completely irrelevant since Forbes never claimed to know what the power down was specifically for.

Fact: Security systems have battery backups so the loss of power wouldn't compromise it at all.

Right. So a large international financial management company with hundreds if not thousands of international clients would just say, "meh, we got batteries. Fuggedaboudit."

From interview with Killtown:

We had a backup Generator for our Data Center on floor 97 in the event of an unplanned power outage but it had not been used during my time in the company. You have to understand how unprecedented the power down was. To shutdown all of our financial systems, all inter-related and with connections and feeds to many outside vendors and suppliers was a major piece of work. Additionally, the power outage meant that many of the 'ordinary' building features were not operating, such as security locks on doors, cameras, lighting, etc.

Fact: These all came from a "Truther" web site, not a debunker one. The story is so bad that even other truthers call you an idiot for taking it at face value as "Proof" of an inside jorb.

Source?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Which was the point I made. Wouldn't they have something to say if he was lying?

The company or the other workers? Aside from this one guy whose bona fides are just his word, nobody else who had to be affected by this event has come forward in over 9 years.

Maybe the power down wasn't from floor 50 on up. Maybe other companies weren't that affected by it.

Maybe? How about most likely.

That wouldn't surprise me. His claim was that he was told it would be from floor 50 and up.

And truthers use that as "Proof" that the ninja explosive planters had opportunity to perform their nefarious deeds.

Completely irrelevant since Forbes never claimed to know what the power down was specifically for.

From Scott Forbes email: The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling
in the tower was being upgraded ...

While he doesn't state what the cabling being upgraded was, there is no reason to think that anything other than data cables would need to be upgraded.

Right. So a large international financial management company with hundreds if not thousands of international clients would just say, "meh, we got batteries. Fuggedaboudit."

What makes you think that they didn't enhance physical security? Forbes didn't say either way. For that matter what makes you think that Forbes knew what the specifics of security might be other than data security (on hard drives inside servers that were shut down no less). Again. You are reading into it what you want to see, not what reality presents.

From interview with Killtown:

Source?

Killtown has been banned from here and many other forums for his postings. Not exactly someone whose basket I'd put my eggs into.

And here's the source, the very 1st google hit for "Scott Forbes, wtc".

 

[ergo]

The company or the other workers? Aside from this one guy whose bona fides are just his word, nobody else who had to be affected by this event has come forward in over 9 years.

This thread was started because of another witness that came forward.

And truthers use that as "Proof" that the ninja explosive planters had opportunity to perform their nefarious deeds.

Who used the word "proof"? It's another anomalous fact in the official story.

While he doesn't state what the cabling being upgraded was, there is no reason to think that anything other than data cables would need to be upgraded.

You're using a pretext that was given to Forbes and his company in an effort to debunk Forbes' story?

What makes you think that they didn't enhance physical security? Forbes didn't say either way. For that matter what makes you think that Forbes knew what the specifics of security might be other than data security (on hard drives inside servers that were shut down no less). Again. You are reading into it what you want to see, not what reality presents.

Funny, I thought I just posted this:

Additionally, the power outage meant that many of the 'ordinary' building features were not operating, such as security locks on doors, cameras, lighting, etc.

And here's the source, the very 1st google hit for "Scott Forbes, wtc".

They're entitled to their own opinion. I find 911review.com, although it has some good information, is nevertheless a very confusing site and doesn't seem to be maintained by any one whose articles it lists. I'm not sure it is used much anymore, but go ahead and read up if you like.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

This thread was started because of another witness that came forward.

That's who I was referring to. I've seen nothing more to corroborate his claim of working there. Flashing a key to unknown lock(s) and an ID badge that can't be read (or even verified as one even similar to what what used) in a walk up interview isn't anything close to being strong evidence of anything. Now, I might be wrong and perhaps he is who he says he is but that still doesn't add up to inside job. It does beg the question as to why he waited so long and simply walked up to the camera instead of a more formal interview.

Who used the word "proof"? It's another anomalous fact in the official story.

Then why bring it up? What is your point? What does the "Anomaly" mean? Don't be shy, tell me.

You're using a pretext that was given to Forbes and his company in an effort to debunk Forbes' story?

You're assuming a nefarious scheme instead of actual work being done? Forbes story has huge holes in it that he hasn't closed in over 6 years.

Funny, I thought I just posted this:

Quote:
Additionally, the power outage meant that many of the 'ordinary' building features were not operating, such as security locks on doors, cameras, lighting, etc.

And he would know this how again? He had access to the camera feeds? Are those out in the open for all to see? That sounds like some pretty sloppy security for such an important business. The lights didn't have battery backups? Did they work in the dark? The doors couldn't be opened? How did they get to work? etc.

They're entitled to their own opinion. I find 911review.com, although it has some good information, is nevertheless a very confusing site and doesn't seem to be maintained by any one whose articles it lists. I'm not sure it is used much anymore, but go ahead and read up if you like.

Well at least you admit that truthers are fueled by opinions and not facts. Facts don't lie. If you strip the opinions and hearsay from Forbes account and try to corroborate what he said as fact you have next to nothing. He never names names, he's changed his story at least once after he was cornered with proof that the power down wasn't anywhere near as extensive as he first said it was. What does he have? He some saw people entering the towers (not unusual). He had to do some extra work on the weekend while some work was done somewhere else that resulted in a power loss for his gear on the 97th floor (probably unusual for him but not unusual for office buildings in general). He didn't think that 3 weeks was enough time to prepare for a loss of power for a few hours. God forbid that a substation blew up somewhere causing an unexpected blackout in all or parts of the buildings. Boy that company would've been screwed huh?

Face it. His story has holes big enough to drive a bus through. All you have is innuendo and incredulity, none of which is evidence of anything.

 

[ergo]

You're assuming a nefarious scheme instead of actual work being done? Forbes story has huge holes in it that he hasn't closed in over 6 years.

What are the holes?

And he would know this how again? He had access to the camera feeds? Are those out in the open for all to see? That sounds like some pretty sloppy security for such an important business. The lights didn't have battery backups? Did they work in the dark? The doors couldn't be opened? How did they get to work? etc.

They probably hacked through the doors with axes.

Sorry, but your amateur sleuthing is a little comical.

Well at least you admit that truthers are fueled by opinions and not facts. Facts don't lie.

What are these "facts" you're citing?

If you strip the opinions and hearsay from Forbes account and try to corroborate what he said as fact you have next to nothing.

I don't see any opinions or hearsay in his account.

He never names names,

Probably out of respect for his co-workers' privacy.

he's changed his story at least once

I don't think he changed his story at all. He was told it would be the top 50 floors, so he assumed that. Then he later admitted that it may well have not been the top 50 floors, as they had originally told him.

after he was cornered with proof that the power down wasn't anywhere near as extensive as he first said it was.

Whose "proof"?

What does he have? He some saw people entering the towers (not unusual). He had to do some extra work on the weekend while some work was done somewhere else that resulted in a power loss for his gear on the 97th floor (probably unusual for him but not unusual for office buildings in general). He didn't think that 3 weeks was enough time to prepare for a loss of power for a few hours. God forbid that a substation blew up somewhere causing an unexpected blackout in all or parts of the buildings. Boy that company would've been screwed huh?

Not quite sure what you think you have here. Irrelevant and uninformed speculation about what his job entailed. Anything else?

Face it. His story has holes big enough to drive a bus through. All you have is innuendo and incredulity, none of which is evidence of anything.

I think all you have is the critique you've borrowed from 911review.com

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The holes are numerous and have been noted by many people, many right here on the JREF. They have been known of for years and not only haven't been closed but ignored by most truthers in the apparent hopes that it will just go away. His claims are either overblown or flat out lies. You repeated those lies as the truth and got caught at it. You've back peddled from your original claims (as has he). You've shown no proof nor any reason for a large "Power Down" other than what Forbes has said 6 years ago and what some guy off of the street repeated. Every one of your claims has been shown to be either flat out wrong or inconsistent with standard IT practices. You then go on to try and lessen your role by saying that I am the one who had "Irrelevant and uninformed speculation"? It was speculation however it's speculation based upon what one would expect to see security-wise, IT-wise and building work-wise. It's your story that violates the normal practices and so you need to show that something was being done outside of what would be considered normal. Not I.

As for as you're calls of "What Proof" I suggest that you re-read this thread and use the search function here to see more than enough information in other threads here rather than insist that I regurgitate the same old information all over again.

 

[TJM]

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Those of us who manage high rise buildings will routinely shut down power on a whim and schedule guided tours to coincide. We do that because the high-pitched shrieking of a pissed off tenant is what we truly live for.

 

[ergo]

Every one of your claims has been shown to be either flat out wrong or inconsistent with standard IT practices.

What claims have I been making about IT practices? You're reading things that aren't here.

As for as you're calls of "What Proof" I suggest that you re-read this thread and use the search function here to see more than enough information in other threads here rather than insist that I regurgitate the same old information all over again.

You've provided no proof of anything. You've raised a question, beat at a strawman, and made a number of irrelevant speculations. Like most of the "debunking" that goes on here.

Someone is making a claim about a power down. There may be some valid questions about it, but you haven't debunked a single thing about his claim. Sorry that bugs you so much.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Did anyone see anyone else planting explosive charges against columns?
Did they see anyone removing walls, floors or ceilings to plant explosives against columns?