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

reply to post by mayabong

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.

Second link in dereks post is a good start . There are others , I could probably locate one or two . Forbes admits that he is not sure if any other floors than the one he was on , were affected .

reply to post by Judge_Holden

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 seeout anybody of the ordinary.

You need to watch the video again, he answers your question.

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:

And what if the explosives were already there perhaps, a year in advance? You are giving your opinion that the building was wired for explosives in 24/36 hours, well I do agree it certainly would take more time, but we do not know what type of demo was being used, perhaps it was all done by the use of wireless remote control

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
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.

You Trusters crack me up... seriously, I almost spit my drink out all over my desk when I read the responses here. You say the power downs mean nothing, but the power downs became a talking point when the trusters asked, "When would anyone have had time to wire a building for controlled demo?" The Truthers said, "During the power down" and now the Trustrers say, "That proves nothing!"

Watching some of you guys go round and round like this reminds me of old episodes of the Three Stooges.... so which one of you is Curly? I only ask cause I'm kind of a fan.

reply to post by impressme

And what if the explosives were already there perhaps, a year in advance? You are giving your opinion that the building was wired for explosives in 24/36 hours, well I do agree it certainly would take more time, but we do not know what type of demo was being used, perhaps it was all done by the use of wireless remote control

And herein lies the problem with the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

If something does not fit into your particular line of reasoning, you automatically assume that it must have been done another way. You admit that you do not know what type of demo was being used, and you even suggest that it may have been "done by the use of remote control." You are making unsubstantiated claims without any corroborating evidence. For the life of me, I do not understand how any logical individual can operate on such a flawed line of reasoning. It truly baffles the mind.

It might have been planned a year in advance? Then show me where they had any other opportunities to wire the building.

If the entire detonation was planned a year (or more) in advance, then what is the point in even making this thread? What is the poster trying to prove? That the power went out? Ummm... right... As I previously posted, I have worked in a high-rise building. I know for a fact that power-outages are not rare. I know for a fact that, when the power was shut off at night (in my place of work), they were not wiring the building for a remote detonation.

Rubbish.

reply to post by MrWendal


What an intelligent post.

Please explain to me how 24-36 hours is ample time to wire a 110 story building.

A one-day long power outage means, and proves, absolutely nothing.

reply to post by Judge_Holden

Security was not non-existent. The gentleman in the video even said that he was working basically as “security duty… We were doing nothing.”

Well, some might say that if you are on security duty and describe what you are doing as nothing, that would constitute virtual non-existance, ask any Army buddy. But we don't have to rely on what some people say, because at 1:05 in the video the gentleman clearly states, "again, because of the power down there was a COMPLETE BREAK-DOWN OF SECURITY THAT WEEKEND". Honestly, I'm not yelling at you just highlighting his exact response. He actually goes on to say that "we had guided tours going into secured areas by mistake and nobody picking it up". Again, doesn't prove anything but clearly this is presenting an opportunity that could have been exploited. That opportunity is all that is needed to cast doubt, but alone is not enough to throw out the OS.

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?

Actually, I'm really not at all familiar with setting up the controlled demolition of a high-rise building. Unless you yourself have field experience with this kind of work, then you're probably no more an expert than myself. With that said, it does seem logical that it would take a great deal of preparation and old fashioned elbow grease especially if it was going to be done to a building that wasn't already stripped and partially demo'd to begin with. But talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. You are arguing (as I predicted someone would) that this particular weekend was not enough time to prepare the building, and although that is purely speculation on your part, I'm inclined to agree with you. But if they could do it this weekend, why couldn't they have done it on other occasions? As I've already pointed out to you, there are people who worked in the buildings who have gone on the record to say that there were several instances in the months leading up to 9/11 where entire offices, floors, and even multiple floors were evacuated for a multitude of reasons. So, there you have it. It should be more than obvious that there were times when at least hypothetically, well trained teams could have rigged the building at least to some degree. Also, its laughable that you'd assume that anyone would just come up with their plan on the fly without ever thinking about it before they were in the building.

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.

Lets pretend that me and you run a clandestine organization and we wanted to plant explosives inside in an attempt to bring the entire building down. Which of these three options do you think would create more suspicion?
(A) We take a team of operatives inside during normal business hours, walk around to our targets and let them watch us plant the explosives.
(B) We shut down the entire building and force everyone out at the same time, then we procede with planting the explosives until finished.
(C) We pose as maintenance and/or security workers with companies that those inside the buildings are familiar with and schedule maintenance of some kind with individual floors and companies through normal channels. When our teams arrive, we have little or no supervision and minimal interference or interaction with tenants.
I think you actually proved my point, grasshopper.

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 have no experience working in high-rises and frankly have only stepped foot into a handful, although that doesn't matter at all. Also, you made my point once again in this paragraph. On multiple occasions the building's power was shut off in order to re-wire electronics, right. Did you supervise these people, or did you take someone else's word for it? If you didn't personally stay and watch these people work, then you actually only assume that they did what you think they did. If that same building you worked in free-falls into its own footprint while cracking, popping, and exploding into a cloud of dust (later found to have tell-tale signs of explosives)...would you think back to this past summer and the situations you described and wonder, what if?

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by MrWendal

 

What an intelligent post.

Please explain to me how 24-36 hours is ample time to wire a 110 story building.

A one-day long power outage means, and proves, absolutely nothing.

I cant remember the name of the poster or thread it was on, but I remember an ATS poster claiming that the WTC was rigged with explosives during initial construction, just in case it ever had to be brought down for any reason.

Just a possibility...:@

reply to post by budaruskie

But if they could do it this weekend, why couldn't they have done it on other occasions? As I've already pointed out to you, there are people who worked in the buildings who have gone on the record to say that there were several instances in the months leading up to 9/11 where entire offices, floors, and even multiple floors were evacuated for a multitude of reasons. So, there you have it. It should be more than obvious that there were times when at least hypothetically, well trained teams could have rigged the building at least to some degree. Also, its laughable that you'd assume that anyone would just come up with their plan on the fly without ever thinking about it before they were in the building.

There are 3 things that stick out to me about this argument:
1)If they could have done it on this particular weekend, why couldn’t they have done it on others? This is a hypothetical. You claim to have tons of evidence of building evacuations of multiple floors, so please show me the evidence; it could go a long way in contributing to your argument.

2) I find it clever that you are stating another hypothetical: “well trained teams could have rigged the building”? If I grant you that, then you must also grant me that “well trained teams could have installed/updated security systems/telephone lines/computer networks”, etc.

Also, your statement about me assuming that “anyone would just come up with their plan on the fly” yadda yadda, is bs. I never made that claim. I would actually have to concede that, in order for someone to enter a building with such an intricate objective, it would take some substantial planning. However, that does not take away from the fact that carrying out these plans would be time consuming, loud, and damaging to the building.

3) If secret organizations were evacuating people on multiple occasions, isn’t this contradictive of your argument about the quelling of suspicion? I mean, multiple floors at once for any multitude of reasons? That sounds dumb, if not detrimental to this shady organization’s plans. How obvious could they make it?

Lets pretend that me and you run a clandestine organization and we wanted to plant explosives inside in an attempt to bring the entire building down. Which of these two options do you think would create more suspicion?
(A) We take a team of operatives inside during normal business hours, walk around to our targets and let them watch us plant the explosives.
(B) We shut down the entire building and force everyone out at the same time, then we procede with planting the explosives until finished.
(C) We pose as maintenance and/or security workers with companies that those inside the buildings are familiar with and schedule maintenance of some kind with individual floors and companies through normal channels. When our teams arrive, we have little or no supervision and minimal interference or interaction with tenants.

This does nothing for your argument. The obvious answer is C, but I never claimed it to be anything else. Also, you would have to make the assumption that the clandestine organization was actually carrying out plans to demolish a 110 story building. Hypothetically, that is

I think you actually proved my point, grasshopper

Judge is better. Or Holden. Or Judge_Holden. We’re not enemies, so you don’t have to be facetious. And you don’t have to be sarcastic because we aren’t friends… Yet, at least

I have no experience working in high-rises and frankly have only stepped foot into a handful, although that doesn't matter at all. Also, you made my point once again in this paragraph. On multiple occasions the building's power was shut off in order to re-wire electronics, right. Did you supervise these people, or did you take someone else's word for it? If you didn't personally stay and watch these people work, then you actually only assume that they did what you think they did. If that same building you worked in free-falls into its own footprint while cracking, popping, and exploding into a cloud of dust (later found to have tell-tale signs of explosives)...would you think back to this past summer and the situations you described and wonder, what if?

Another hypothetical.

Of course, I do not know the maintenance workers who carried out the upgrades to the building’s wiring system, so I had to take the word of one of my co-workers. However, you do not strengthen your argument by asking another hypothetical. That building will not be demolished in a demolition of chaos and frenzy, and hundreds or thousands of my fellow Americans/Ohioans/Columbus citizens will not be murdered by an warmongering/issue pushing Mayor/Governor/President… So asking me to take that possibility seriously (even for the sake of your argument) is ridiculous and downright offensive. Again, you are throwing out a hypothetical situation that will not happen.

reply to post by Senz20

I cant remember the name of the poster or thread it was on, but I remember an ATS poster claiming that the WTC was rigged with explosives during initial construction, just in case it ever had to be brought down for any reason.

And let's thank Zeus it wasn't your claim, because it is quite ridiculous.

reply to post by Judge_Holden



I used the word perhaps,

what if the explosives were already there perhaps, a year in advance?

All you can do is come back with a reply with ridicule

And herein lies the problem with the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

If something does not fit into your particular line of reasoning, you automatically assume that it must have been done another way. You admit that you do not know what type of demo was being used, and you even suggest that it may have been "done by the use of remote control." You are making unsubstantiated claims without any corroborating evidence. For the life of me, I do not understand how any logical individual can operate on such a flawed line of reasoning. It truly baffles the mind.

Such as you are doing by saying no demolition was used to destroy the WTC and defending the OS of proven lies.

It might have been planned a year in advance? Then show me where they had any other opportunities to wire the building.

Who said wire, besides you?
I do not have that information and the criminals certainly are not going to let us know, yet you know this already, so why did you ask such a ridiculous question to begin with?

If the entire detonation was planned a year (or more) in advance, then what is the point in even making this thread?

I agree, our discussion needs to be in a new thread. The thread is about someone’s observation while employed at the WTC, or did you not understand the video?

What is the poster trying to prove?

All the OP was doing was presenting a video of a person who worked in the WTC and that person was giving his observation of the power being down and his opinions nothing more.

That the power went out? Ummm... right... As I previously posted, I have worked in a high-rise building. I know for a fact that power-outages are not rare. I know for a fact that, when the power was shut off at night (in my place of work), they were not wiring the building for a remote detonation.

Perhaps so, but you were not at the WTC on the weekend the power went down, and you were not employed at the WTC to understand what goes on when their power goes down.

I know for a fact that, when the power was shut off at night (in my place of work), they were not wiring the building for a remote detonation.

So, I am to assume you are a third shift security guard for your building? How does this make you an expert in demolition?

Originally posted by budaruskie
Did you supervise these people, or did you take someone else's word for it? If you didn't personally stay and watch these people work, then you actually only assume that they did what you think they did

If you returned to your office and noticed holes punched in walls, detcord wiring up large bundles of explosives etc dont you think you would say something? They could not have hidden the explosives, as there would be nowhere to hide them.

that same building you worked in free-falls

Now you are telling lies, as WTC 1&2 did not free fall - why claim that they did? WTC 7 only free fell for a short time

into its own footprint

Another lie, the buildings did not fall into their own footprints - how do you think the other WTC buildings were damaged? Why do people persist with this lie?

later found to have tell-tale signs of explosives

wrong again. no signs of explosives were found.

reply to post by Judge_Holden

You claim to have tons of evidence of building evacuations of multiple floors, so please show me the evidence; it could go a long way in contributing to your argument.

Again, off of the top of my head I know you can find it in the free online documentary Zero...its available on youtube, googlevideo, dailymotion, and even on ATS but you'll have to look for it on your own.

I find it clever that you are stating another hypothetical: “well trained teams could have rigged the building”? If I grant you that, then you must also grant me that “well trained teams could have installed/updated security systems/telephone lines/computer networks”, etc.

Yes, they could have. But they could have been doing something else and the point is that neither you or me can prove one way or another. That isn't hypothetical, that's a fact.

Also, your statement about me assuming that “anyone would just come up with their plan on the fly” yadda yadda, is bs. I never made that claim.

I guess I inserted this into your post

-Decide where best to pre-cut support beams?
-Decide where the explosives should be placed on the support beams?

If secret organizations were evacuating people on multiple occasions, isn’t this contradictive of your argument about the quelling of suspicion? I mean, multiple floors at once for any multitude of reasons? That sounds dumb, if not detrimental to this shady organization’s plans. How obvious could they make it?

Seriously, what grade are you in? This paragraph sounds dumb. Certainly, you could imagine that the CIA, KGB, Mossad, etc, would rather infiltrate or pretend to be members of organizations that their intended targets are familiar with. Christ, even your local law enforcement agency has what we call "undercover" cops...or is that just too hypothetical to wrap your head around.

This does nothing for your argument. The obvious answer is C, but I never claimed it to be anything else.

This is quite possibly the most telling sentence of the entire post, and pretty well sums up the mindset of 99% of the OS supporters out there. I'm gonna let you in on a little secret, the obvious answer is clearly not C! All I can say is, WOW.

In closing, if you want me to stretch my imagination to the limit and pretend that the OS is even physically possible then I don't think its too much to ask for you to warm up your noodle for a couple of relevant yet hypothetical scenarios.

reply to post by impressme

Such as you are doing by saying no demolition was used to destroy the WTC and defending the OS of proven lies.

The Official Story of proven lies? No, I am not defending the official story of proven lies. YOU are defending the conspiracy theory of shoddy evidence, pseudo-science, half-truths, and garbage. That’s right: garbage. I have no other word to describe such a blatant fraud of a theory.

Who said wire, besides you? I do not have that information and the criminals certainly are not going to let us know, yet you know this already, so why did you ask such a ridiculous question to begin with?

When a building is destroyed through controlled demolition (a theory you support, no?) then massive amounts of wiring are used.

So you admit that you do not have the information? Well, if you don’t have important information to support your theory, why do you believe it? Oh, it’s because the criminals have it, huh? Ahhh, I see.

Such logic.

And I know what already? That you don’t have any evidence to support your unsubstantiated claims? You betcha!

Perhaps so, but you were not at the WTC on the weekend the power went down, and you were not employed at the WTC to understand what goes on when their power goes down.

Worthless statement. I never claimed to have known.

If I don’t know, then you definitely don’t know either.

I am not a third shift security guard at the building. I worked there as an intern. Also, I never claimed to be an expert on demolition, however I do know a little bit, as I have done extensive research on the topic. Still, I concede that I am far from an expert.

You see, back in my days of being an impressionable, young, and immature teenager (15-16) I was a troofer . However, I often found myself operating on half-truths, odd inconsistencies, and flat up false information. In an attempt to seek the truth (that is what you are doing, correct?) I did an abundance of research on my own. Thus, here I am.

reply to post by budaruskie

Again, off of the top of my head I know you can find it in the free online documentary Zero...its available on youtube, googlevideo, dailymotion, and even on ATS but you'll have to look for it on your own.

I have seen this documentary. Whatever you think it should convince me of, it obviously failed.

Yes, they could have. But they could have been doing something else and the point is that neither you or me can prove one way or another. That isn't hypothetical, that's a fact.

Ugh.

It is not a fact. There is no substantial evidence that proves this. If you believe it to be a fact, you are simply wrong, and I understand that there is nothing out there to convince you of this.

Seriously, what grade are you in? This paragraph sounds dumb. Certainly, you could imagine that the CIA, KGB, Mossad, etc, would rather infiltrate or pretend to be members of organizations that their intended targets are familiar with. Christ, even your local law enforcement agency has what we call "undercover" cops...or is that just too hypothetical to wrap your head around.

What is with the ad-hominous attack? I have shown you respect during this entire exchange, so I expect you to do the same. It is very unfortunate that you would have to make such a remark. I had respect for you.

Yes, I can imagine that all of those organizations have under-cover cops/agents working for them. I concede that. It is common knowledge. However, following this logic, how is C incorrect? You mention that these organizations would "rather infiltrate or pretend to be members of organizations that their intended targes are familiar with." Yeah, I know. So explain to me, how is C the incorrect answer to your question? Here, I'll re-quote it:

"C) We pose as maintenance and/or security workers with companies that those inside the buildings are familiar with and schedule maintenance of some kind with individual floors and companies through normal channels. When our teams arrive, we have little or no supervision and minimal interference or interaction with tenants."

Your words. So, explain to me how this fails your line of reasoning, when you just jumped down my throat about secret organizations employing undercover agents or whatever. Following your logic, how is this not the correct answer to your question? Explain it to me please, and reveal the "correct" answer to me.

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret, the obvious answer is clearly not C! All I can say is, WOW.

And you say I'm immature?

reply to post by Judge_Holden


To be honest, I thought you were beginning to take shots at me and I wanted to show you that I will give as good as I take. Also, I think it is fairly amusing that you are dumbfounded by that simple multiple choice scenario. If you go back and read the QUESTION I posed to you in the hypothetical scenario, I believe that the answer is quite obvious. However, many things I think are quite obvious I find myself explaining over and over again in this thread and forum in general.
Some people, like yourself, like to point out all of the holes in the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 and I do not take offense to this. Holographic planes, in my opinion, is plain ridiculous. I don't know exactly what happened and that is why I keep looking for the truth. You fellas believe, for some unexplainable reason, that you in fact know exactly what did and didn't happen. I say for some reason, because 100% of the time you all fall back upon NIST and 9/11 Commission reports, which are the official story but have been called into question by thousands of people. These people who are questioning the official story are from every walk of life but I'd think you'd give some credence to the experts, scientists, professionals, military officers, or at least those who were on the 9/11 Commission and others who worked for Underwriters Labs who are now considered"conspiracy theorists". Not only are they questioning it, but they are flat out PROVING that what you believe is as you said "complete garbage" (i.e. maximum burning temp of kerosene vs melting point of steel, ect).
Why do you chose to wear blinders? I don't know if people in our gov't did it, if Mossad did it, if Bush knew, how the buildings were prepared, etc...but I'm keeping an open mind and trying to solve that riddle. You, on the other hand are clearly satisfied with what most people know to be untrue by just using basic common sense. I would love to show you around the world, but you are convinced that if we go too far we'll just fall off.

reply to post by Judge_Holden

The Official Story of proven lies? No, I am not defending the official story of proven lies.

Your not? You have rejected everything and every piece of evidence so what are you defending?

YOU are defending the conspiracy theory of shoddy evidence, pseudo-science, half-truths, and garbage.

Explain what shoddy evidence I have used?
Explain to what pseudo-science I have presented and show with credible evidence it is pseudo-science concerning this thread topic.

Show what half truth I have presented, not your opinion. Do you have credible facts concerning this thread topic then bring it to the table?
Garbage? Do you care to explain this? Or is this all garbage to you because you have failed to research the subject that we are talking about?

That’s right: garbage. I have no other word to describe such a blatant fraud of a theory.

Blatant fraud of a theory? Care to demonstrate this?

When a building is destroyed through controlled demolition (a theory you support, no?) then massive amounts of wiring are used.

This proves your ignorance of the topic of building demolition, perhaps you should research the many ways building are demolished and how the military use explosives, then get back with me.

So you admit that you do not have the information? Well, if you don’t have important information to support your theory, why do you believe it? Oh, it’s because the criminals have it, huh? Ahhh, I see.

Such logic.

Apparently you are not using logic into believe in the OS of 911 and how the government told how the WTC came down.

Why do I believe in my theory? Because it is not a theory anymore, it has been proven by science demolition was used by the physical evidence that was found. You have a lot of research ahead of you. I don’t need to convince you of anything the evidence is in hundreds of threads on ATS and I have posted about this evidence by providing credible sources and showing scientific documents many times. All you are doing is giving your opinions that everything I say is “shoddy evidence, pseudo-science, half-truths, and garbage,” and nothing more.

reply to post by impressme


You are straight-up LYING , when you say "demolition has been proven by science" . If you had read the links dereks posted , you would see that your silly argument is futile , and will no longer hold up to minimal scrutiny . Here is the link again , read it this time . Then come back and tell us all how you are so much smarter than these guys , because this is simply "their opinion" .

Frankly , I can't speak for others , but I am way past tired of you condemning "opinions" , while you turn around and offer nothing but opinions yourself , and the opinions of those who support your theory that the sky is falling . These guys here , are IN THE DEMOLITION BUSINESS , and guess what ?

THEY FOUND NO TRACE OF EXPLOSIVES or anything else that would have indicated controlled demolition . Are you going to call them liars too ???

And , FYI : these guys are "one of the world's most knowledgeable authorities on controlled demolitions ... "
These guys actually LOOKED FOR signs of explosives and found NONE . Care to show us all how they were mistaken , and can't really know that much about controlled demolitions ?

Read this . And come back and tell us why these guys are wrong .

www.implosionworld.com...


From the link : " We have never , ever heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building , and neither has any blast team we've spoken with ."

What ??? "...one of the world's most knowledgeable independant authorities on controlled demolitions ... " has NEVER heard the term "pull it" associated with explosive demolition ? OMG !!! What are you truthers gonna do now ???

Someone previously mentioned Turner Construction. I think they were the construction manager on this impressive "Pull Job" in 2000.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

this impressive "Pull Job"

Sorry , that's not a "pull job" , that's an explosive demolition . Oh , you didn't know there was a difference ? Imagine that ...

Very nice audible explosions , as well as very nice visual explosions though . Sure can't mistake those for anything else , right ?

Too bad you guys can't produce this caliber of evidence for your 9/11 witch-hunt .