911: Professional experts says it was staged

[psychoticmike]

You do realize those are controlled tests in laboratory conditions using highly specialized equipment.

Not really the type of video gear you'd have up to cover a parking lot. Also remember that this was before widespread use of high definition cameras - most video surveillance cameras aren't even high definition now.

no i know that, but with all the cameras in the area i still don't see how there can't be at least some decent footage, and i saw the tail in the video q posted but other then that i did not see an outline of a plane. I'm not saying there wasn't one its just fishy that there isn't a real clear indication that thats whats in the footage. Does anyone know just how much footage has been released, and from how many cameras?

[Scott G]

no i know that, but with all the cameras in the area i still don't see how there can't be at least some decent footage, and i saw the tail in the video q posted but other then that i did not see an outline of a plane. I'm not saying there wasn't one its just fishy that there isn't a real clear indication that thats whats in the footage. Does anyone know just how much footage has been released, and from how many cameras?

I responded to your post in the 9/11 Pentagon Attack thread, as it's a thread designed specifically for this subject.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Scott G

[Little Fish]

I'll watch the vid at some point, probably not tonight though.

But thermite? You really think that thermite played a role?

I don't think you are being honest with what I said.

I said what about the thermite that was found?

What was thermite doing in the wtc?

I'd be curious about your thoughts on this link I found after a quick and easy Google search of "thermite debunked"... Is this site valid? Or is it maybe part of the conspiracy?

Probably full of disinformation huh?

the article seems to be gibberish, it does not even present a sensical argument for the points it seems to be addressing, its main thesis is presenting reasons to ignore the evidence rather than looking at the actual evidence, and it does so with a number of false assertions such as "no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column", and misrepresentations of what the evidence is. the problem with these debunkers is that they spend too much time in their own echo chamber looking for reasons to ignore the evidence, pretending that the weakest evidence is the strongest evidence and misrepresenting the evidence so eventually they don't even know what the actual evidence is, and they end up writing articles like that and patting each other on the back. the article is a good demonstration of what can be achieved with brainwashing though.

Elemental aluminium and iron oxide intimitely mixed at the nanoscale which produces elemental molten iron and excessive heat when ignited IS thermite.

there is no need to explore reasons to ignore this evidence because the evidence is not speculating that thermite might have been at the wtc, the evidence is that thermite WAS found at the wtc.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Little Fish

[YAADIAY]

MID and Crazynoob what about looking at the science. MID you say you work for NASA? Crazynoob you like to use science in your posts regarding Aliens and stuff. Look at the science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE4O0kniwhU

[psychoticmike]

I responded to your post in the 9/11 Pentagon Attack thread, as it's a thread designed specifically for this subject.

ok I'll check it out.

[Dredimus]

Lets try a new direction here since people seem to be slamming into a brick wall every other post... If you think thermite was used to bring down the towers... please do a little research and find out how much thermite would have been needed to do this. What type of detination system would have to have been used... how many man hours it would have taken to set up a "controled" demolition on this scale... also be advised that thermite has never been used in a large scale demolition (skyscrapers)... its an eradic powder... and it would take thousands and thousands of pounds to cause the damage the "truthers" say it caused.

[Little Fish]

Lets try a new direction here since people seem to be slamming into a brick wall every other post... If you think thermite was used to bring down the towers... please do a little research and find out how much thermite would have been needed to do this. What type of detination system would have to have been used... how many man hours it would have taken to set up a "controled" demolition on this scale... also be advised that thermite has never been used in a large scale demolition (skyscrapers)... its an eradic powder... and it would take thousands and thousands of pounds to cause the damage the "truthers" say it caused.

you are constructing a strawman argument there and you say you are going in a different direction but you aren't, you are taking the same direction as before, that is looking for a reason to ignore the evidence.

The reason you state to ignore the evidence of thermite is based on the assertion that the researchers say it would have to have caused a specific and large amount of damage. the researchers do not say how much damage was caused by thermite, they just say they found large quantities of it.

since nobody knows what the role of the thermite was, whether it was used on its own or as part of something else, or whether it was there to just create and sustain fire, your questions are interesting but they do not matter.

the fact that thermite was found is prima facia evidence that falsifies the official explanation of collapse. prima facia evidence without a rebuttal is proof.

the ball is now in the court of those official theory supporters to give an explanation for the thermite that fits in with the official theory or accept the official wtc theory is falsified.

[Scott G]

the ball is now in the court of those official theory supporters to give an explanation for the thermite that fits in with the official theory or accept the official wtc theory is falsified.

Perhaps a more neutral way of stating this is that the official story has failed to even look for the evidence of nano thermite residue, let alone come up with an explanation for it. Truthers, on the other hand, have done both: they found it -and- they've come up with a great explanation on how it arrived there; it was used to bring down the Twin Towers in a controlled demolition. From a scientific point of view, it seems clear that one of these 2 groups refuses to admit that new evidence has been found and won't even touch on what the implications for that new evidence are.

[YAADIAY]

Lets try a new direction here since people seem to be slamming into a brick wall every other post... If you think thermite was used to bring down the towers... please do a little research and find out how much thermite would have been needed to do this. What type of detination system would have to have been used... how many man hours it would have taken to set up a "controled" demolition on this scale... also be advised that thermite has never been used in a large scale demolition (skyscrapers)... its an eradic powder... and it would take thousands and thousands of pounds to cause the damage the "truthers" say it caused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

[Just Dave]

So basically this aint a conspiracy anymore... ITS A FACT, BACKED UP BY EXPERTS, 1.500 of them,i think abit less, still its fact... US gov. is fighting this with lies and removing conspiracy ideas thru web ( for example recent wikipedia ideas of 9/11 have been censored ). Plus people arent dumb too belive a AFGAN pilot who can bearly speak english was flying a US airplane.. thats whats bugging me most.

[Ozner]

once again peolpe look for reasons to ignore the evidence rather than look at the evidence.

What would be the point for any of us to look at the evidence? The 9/11 incident is already one of the most intensely studied engineering and architectural events in history. Why should we pretend that layman studies of the event can yield anything important? It's like creationists who try to argue about evolution, when they don't really understand all of the science behind it. The idea that people should question the official story of everything and research things themselves is a nice ideal, but it falls apart in practice. Most people aren't properly educated in the fields that they're trying to 'uncover the truth' in.

you should check the statements made thoughtfully in their own comfort zone by the petitioners. an online petition is not something you get pressured to sign, an advocacy peer pressure environment like the example you showed is a different story. furthermore they are professionals in the field and have put their reputation on the line coupled with the fact the issue is a more serious nature. penn and teller would not have been able to get any signatures with a proper education in the sciences, that there are idiots out there does not demonstrate the a&e911 petitioners to be idiots.

So who exactly are these 1,500 petitioners? Truthers are right that it's not just a numbers game, there is also quality involved. Are these 1,500 petitioners the top of their field- or the bottom of the barrel? It makes a huge difference.

[Scott G]

So basically this aint a conspiracy anymore... ITS A FACT, BACKED UP BY EXPERTS, 1.500 of them,i think abit less, still its fact... US gov. is fighting this with lies and removing conspiracy ideas thru web ( for example recent wikipedia ideas of 9/11 have been censored ). Plus people arent dumb too belive a AFGAN pilot who can bearly speak english was flying a US airplane.. thats whats bugging me most.

Hani Hanjour was from Saudi Arabia. In fact, all the hijackers allegedly involved in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, with the lone exception of Fayez Banihammad, who was from the United Arab Emirates. So was Osama Bin Laden.

The pretext for going into Afghanistan was that Osama Bin Laden was residing in Afghanistan and the Afghan government at the time, the Taliban, wouldn't hand him over. The Taliban said, give us the evidence that Osama Bin Laden was actually responsible for 9/11 and we'll hand him over. The U.S. wasn't interested in such things; they'd been amassing their troops near the Afghanistan border well before 9/11 and they had an invasion schedule to keep, as documented by a little reported article in the BBC, published on September 18, 2001. Quoting from the article:

Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

They kept their word too, as wikipedia makes clear:

The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001,^[30] as the armed forces of the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and the Afghan United Front (Northern Alliance), launched Operation Enduring Freedom, invading the country... The United States also said that it would remove the Taliban regime from power and create a viable democratic state.

Source: http://en.wikipedia....80%93present%29

I have no problem with the idea that an Afghani (or in this case Saudi) could fly an airplane in the U.S. The problem is rather with the level of experience of the alleged Afghani pilots. The most experienced of them was apparently Hani Hanjour (who, by the way, is alleged to have piloted Flight 77, not Flight 93). And, his pilots license notwithstanding (one has to wonder where he got it), the people who actually saw him fly a plane said he was terrible:

The pilot who supposedly crashed the huge Boeing 757 into the Pentagon on 9/11, Hani Hanjour, had terrible piloting skills:

Flight instructors from a flying school Hanjour attended 7 months before 9/11 "considered him a very bad pilot." 'I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,' the former employee said. 'He could not fly at all.'"

Source: http://georgewashing...fly-at-all.html

This is the only alleged hijacker who even possessed a pilot's license. As to the rest.. they supposedly just winged it -.-

Edited September 15, 2011 by Scott G

[portraitartist]

What would be the point for any of us to look at the evidence? The 9/11 incident is already one of the most intensely studied engineering and architectural events in history. Why should we pretend that layman studies of the event can yield anything important? It's like creationists who try to argue about evolution, when they don't really understand all of the science behind it. The idea that people should question the official story of everything and research things themselves is a nice ideal, but it falls apart in practice. Most people aren't properly educated in the fields that they're trying to 'uncover the truth' in.

So who exactly are these 1,500 petitioners? Truthers are right that it's not just a numbers game, there is also quality involved. Are these 1,500 petitioners the top of their field- or the bottom of the barrel? It makes a huge difference.

Sometimes I think they are all on here...

[Scott G]

What would be the point for any of us to look at the evidence? The 9/11 incident is already one of the most intensely studied engineering and architectural events in history. Why should we pretend that layman studies of the event can yield anything important?

You may well be right. But I imagine you're mistaken as to -who- has done the intense studying. Every official report on the subject that I've seen to date has been blown apart by independent researchers. Name an official report, I bet I can find a well written rebuttal. And I'm not talking about layman rebuttals. No, I'm talking about physicists, architects and engineers with structural engineering knowledge writing them.

So who exactly are these 1,500 petitioners? Truthers are right that it's not just a numbers game, there is also quality involved. Are these 1,500 petitioners the top of their field- or the bottom of the barrel? It makes a huge difference.

Why don't you take a look yourself? Their names and qualifications are posted for all to see:

http://www2.ae911tru....php#supporters

They'd listed in a few categories. If you want to learn more about any individual, simply click on their name.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Scott G

[Dredimus]

you are constructing a strawman argument there and you say you are going in a different direction but you aren't, you are taking the same direction as before, that is looking for a reason to ignore the evidence.

The reason you state to ignore the evidence of thermite is based on the assertion that the researchers say it would have to have caused a specific and large amount of damage. the researchers do not say how much damage was caused by thermite, they just say they found large quantities of it.

since nobody knows what the role of the thermite was, whether it was used on its own or as part of something else, or whether it was there to just create and sustain fire, your questions are interesting but they do not matter.

the fact that thermite was found is prima facia evidence that falsifies the official explanation of collapse. prima facia evidence without a rebuttal is proof.

the ball is now in the court of those official theory supporters to give an explanation for the thermite that fits in with the official theory or accept the official wtc theory is falsified.

I'm constructing a "Strawman" arguement? Ill go ahead and respond to both replies that my post brought forth... First off.. you cant call anything a strawman arguement that wasnt an arguement, it was a series of questions, of which you chose to completely ignore by saying you didnt have any details as to how it would have been used... you just know it was there because they found iron oxide and aluminum at ground zero... nevermind that those particles are very common. It is highly plausible that those particles were part of the buildings and planes themselves... but you dont wanna hear that... you'd rather go on believing your conspiracy theory... fine.. And to the guy that posted the wiki link... please scroll down and read the page... the "Super thermite" or NanoThermite that you are refering to wasnt easily made in 2002.... much less in 2001. and again, it would have taken TONS of the stuff to do anything... check around online caus im not gonna do your homework for you... but experiements have been done on what level of thermite would have to be used to cut one of the beams...

[booNyzarC]

I don't think you are being honest with what I said.

I said what about the thermite that was found?

What was thermite doing in the wtc?

I'm not being dishonest with what you said. There is a distinction between thermite being intentionally used for such a thing and the signature of thermite to be found as a result of such a thing. That is the key element I think you might be missing. All of the key components to create thermite/thermate were present at the WTC complex; and in great abundance.

I'm sure this has been pointed out to you before but I suspect you choose to ignore it in preference of the conspiracy theory.

the article seems to be gibberish, it does not even present a sensical argument for the points it seems to be addressing, its main thesis is presenting reasons to ignore the evidence rather than looking at the actual evidence, and it does so with a number of false assertions such as "no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column", and misrepresentations of what the evidence is. the problem with these debunkers is that they spend too much time in their own echo chamber looking for reasons to ignore the evidence, pretending that the weakest evidence is the strongest evidence and misrepresenting the evidence so eventually they don't even know what the actual evidence is, and they end up writing articles like that and patting each other on the back. the article is a good demonstration of what can be achieved with brainwashing though.

Gibberish? Is that the label you attribute to things that you don't take the time to fully understand? I suspect that you didn't take the time to review the content of that link, so I'll present it again and give you another opportunity to educate yourself. Here you go.

Elemental aluminium and iron oxide intimitely mixed at the nanoscale which produces elemental molten iron and excessive heat when ignited IS thermite.

there is no need to explore reasons to ignore this evidence because the evidence is not speculating that thermite might have been at the wtc, the evidence is that thermite WAS found at the wtc.

Indeed, and these elements were present in abundance in the building, the 767s, vehicles, concrete, rusted steel, drywall, etc... Naturally these elements would be found in the rubble. There is no way to avoid it with such materials constituting the contents of the building complex and indeed the structures themselves. I don't suppose you read this paper that was among the links on that page of "gibberish" did you?

But what is missing? Was there any aluminum oxide or barium nitrate found? Aren't these primary byproducts of thermate expected if it was used? I'm not a chemist, but are these also a byproduct of thermite/nanothermite? I honestly don't know the answer to that last question, so if you or anyone else has an answer I'm open to hearing it. My question comes after watching one of the videos on that page of "gibberish" which seems to indicate that the absence of these elements thoroughly disproves that thermate could have been used. This video here...

Transcript of the last few points:

Finally, before claiming to have found the chemical signature of thermate in a sample, a reasonable scientist would ensure that all of the elements of thermate are present, and this is where Steven Jones' thermate claim completely, utterly falls apart.

The two main byproducts of thermate are aluminum oxide (41%) and barium nitrate (29%). Both are unique to thermate and would have no reason for being found at the WTC - except through the use of thermate.

However, neither the USGS nor Steven Jones himself report finding any traces of either of these elements.

Jones points to traces of aluminum, but there is a world of difference between aluminum and aluminum oxide (which has 3 oxygen atoms), and aluminum was common through its use in the WTC's facade, the 767's, and vehicles.

The presence of these elements (in quantities consistent with and only with their natural use throughout the WTC complex), doesn't in any way support the use of thermate, and

the lack of aluminum oxide and barium nitrate thoroughly disproves it

.

Is that also "gibberish" in your opinion?

[Little Fish]

you cant call anything a strawman arguement that wasnt an arguement, it was a series of questions,

perhaps I misunderstood, but you said "it would take thousands and thousands of pounds to cause the damage the "truthers" say it caused. as I said before the researchers have not specified what damage it caused, just that it has been discovered. I think you were arguing against the notion that the entire buildings were soley destroyed by thermite which is not a claim I recognise, at least not by the researchers.

All of the key components to create thermite/thermate were present at the WTC complex; and in great abundance.

you just know it was there because they found iron oxide and aluminum at ground zero... nevermind that those particles are very common.

the substance they found was a solid composed of elemental aluminium and iron oxide, the molecules were intimately mixed together at the nanoscale. this is vastly different from just finding small bits of metal and rust mixed up in fine powder. the molecular structure of the particles is mixed at the nanometer scale which means it is engineered to be that way. the debunkers pretend using sophistry that what Harrit et al found was just chips of metals created through collisons of beams, such chips mixed in a powder would be trillions of times bigger than what Harrit found, so the debunkers are using a strawman again here by misrepresenting Harrits findings. do you see that?

It is highly plausible that those particles were part of the buildings and planes themselves... but you dont wanna hear that...

no, that cannot be the case. each tiny particle is made up of trillions of molecules of iron-oxide and elemental aluminium intimatly mixed in a uniform structure. it is not possible for them to form in a chaotic collapse and collision.

the "Super thermite" or NanoThermite that you are refering to wasnt easily made in 2002.... much less in 2001.

it was being developed in the 1990s.

and again, it would have taken TONS of the stuff to do anything... check around online caus im not gonna do your homework for you... but experiements have been done on what level of thermite would have to be used to cut one of the beams...

why is it a problem for tons of thermite to be placed in the buildings?

each tower weighted over half a million tons.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Little Fish

[Dredimus]

perhaps I misunderstood, but you said "it would take thousands and thousands of pounds to cause the damage the "truthers" say it caused. as I said before the researchers have not specified what damage it caused, just that it has been discovered. I think you were arguing against the notion that the entire buildings were soley destroyed by thermite which is not a claim I recognise, at least not by the researchers.

the substance they found was a solid composed of elemental aluminium and iron oxide, the molecules were intimately mixed together at the nanoscale. this is vastly different from just finding small bits of metal and rust mixed up in fine powder. the molecular structure of the particles is mixed at the nanometer scale which means it is engineered to be that way. the debunkers pretend using sophistry that what Harrit et al found was just chips of metals created through collisons of beams, such chips mixed in a powder would be trillions of times bigger than what Harrit found, so the debunkers are using a strawman again here by misrepresenting Harrits findings. do you see that?

no, that cannot be the case. each tiny particle is made up of trillions of molecules of iron-oxide and elemental aluminium intimatly mixed in a uniform structure. it is not possible for them to form in a chaotic collapse and collision.

it was being developed in the 1990s.

why is it a problem for tons of thermite to be placed in the buildings?

each tower weighted over half a million tons.

Its a problem because it would have taken months and months of prep work and man hours to even begin the process... you cant rig something like this up over night... and that I am 100% sure of speaking as a combat engineer. During this time, the thousands of people at the WTC, including the Facilities maintenance crew, would have been like "WTF! Is that Thermite! Im Out". And PLEASE show scientific research / evidence as to the composition of the alleged thermite... and please have it come from some other source besides the one you find when you google "World Trade Center Conspiracy Thermite". Oh, and just so people are aware... Jones is backing off of his thermite theory and is now touting that the minimal ammount of the composition for "thermite" that were found was actually just a detonator for a much larger, yet unknown and untraceable explosive...

Edited September 15, 2011 by Dredimus

[Scott G]

why is it a problem for tons of thermite to be placed in the buildings?

each tower weighted over half a million tons.

Good point. For those who would like to see an in depth study of who had demolition access to the building, I highly recommend Kevin Ryan's in depth article on the subject:

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

[Little Fish]

Was there any aluminum oxide or barium nitrate found? Aren't these primary byproducts of thermate expected if it was used?

I'm not a chemist, but are these also a byproduct of thermite/nanothermite? I honestly don't know the answer to that last question, so if you or anyone else has an answer I'm open to hearing it.

barium does not have to be used. it is an ingredient that can be used as an oxidizer to provide more oxygen to the reaction. military TH3 thermate uses it, but it is an ingredient of choice. its absence is not proof of anything.

aluminium oxide is a byproduct of the thermite reaction, it exists naturally wherever you find aluminium, aluminium reacts with air instantly producing aluminium oxide on its surface, so to suggest aluminium oxide was not there is not correct, besides which I have been discussing something the fresh unreacted thermite that was discovered.

"The two main byproducts of thermate are aluminum oxide (41%) and barium nitrate (29%). Both are unique to thermate and would have no reason for being found at the WTC - except through the use of thermate."

the video is gibberish.

aluminium oxide is not a unique by product to thermate. it exists on the surface of any piece of aluminium. it is very common.

barium nitrate is an ingredient of a specific blend of thermate. the author confuses by products with ingredients.

"However, neither the USGS nor Steven Jones himself report finding any traces of either of these elements.

Jones points to traces of aluminum, but there is a world of difference between aluminum and aluminum oxide (which has 3 oxygen atoms), and aluminum was common through its use in the WTC's facade, the 767's, and vehicles.

The presence of these elements (in quantities consistent with and only with their natural use throughout the WTC complex), doesn't in any way support the use of thermate, and the lack of aluminum oxide and barium nitrate thoroughly disproves it.

Is that also "gibberish" in your opinion?

yes absolultely it is gibberish, aluminium oxide and barium nitrate are not elements should give you a clue he doesn't have a clue.

and he very dishonestly misrepresents the work of jones. he is saying illogically that jones does not have a cake because there are no cherries in it. any piece of aluminium, when it is a chunk you hold in your hand, or whether it is nanomolecule will have a coating of aluminium oxide because the aluminium is always wanting oxygen and grabs it from the air within picoseconds of exposure, and yet the debunker claims gibberishly jones found no aluminium oxide. if jones did not find it, then he has found a new principle of chemistry.

the fact that Harrits work shows the unreacted thermite contains elemental aluminium and iron oxide, and when ignited produces elemental iron proves there is a thermite reaction, which means that the elemental aluminium takes the oxygen from the iron oxide leaving elemental iron. so production of aluminium oxide is implicit.

[Little Fish]

Its a problem because it would have taken months and months of prep work and man hours to even begin the process... you cant rig something like this up over night... and that I am 100% sure of speaking as a combat engineer.

so why would it have to be rigged up overnight?

During this time, the thousands of people at the WTC, including the Facilities maintenance crew, would have been like "WTF! Is that Thermite! Im Out".

how would the Facilities maintenance crew have recognised it to be thermite when the "thermite" labels are taken off? is it normal for thousands of people to be trawling the elevator shafts, ceiling spaces and other such areas areas?

And PLEASE show scientific research / evidence as to the composition of the alleged thermite.

I have in post 162

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

or you can listen to Harrit explain it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4

Edited September 15, 2011 by Little Fish

[psychoticmike]

what I don't get is why people assume that each tower would have to be completely rigged with the stuff to work. Why couldn't they just use a relatively small amount at just the base of the towers to initiate the collapse and then the weight of the building did the rest? I found this video, i don't know if it has been posted on other 9/11 threads but i found it of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DonpXB6gjPA

[MID]

why is it a problem for tons of thermite to be placed in the buildings?

That's a serious question, I shall assume?

each tower weighted over half a million tons.

How is the mass of the buildings related to the difficulty of plcing tons of explosive into one of them?

[Scott G]

Its a problem because it would have taken months and months of prep work and man hours to even begin the process... you cant rig something like this up over night... and that I am 100% sure of speaking as a combat engineer.

Who's disagreeing with you?

During this time, the thousands of people at the WTC, including the Facilities maintenance crew, would have been like "WTF! Is that Thermite! Im Out".

You seem to have this notion that these crews would have noticed. I think that more then one party was responsible for setting up the demolition. I recommend reading the following links for more info on how it could have been done:

Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part One - Tenants

Scene from the documentary "the Elephant in the Room":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brSXmZVVCMI

Scott Forbes Interview with Killtown, a 9/11 researcher

And PLEASE show scientific research / evidence as to the composition of the alleged thermite... and please have it come from some other source besides the one you find when you google "World Trade Center Conspiracy Thermite".

Is that the study from Niels Harrit? That's the best study on the subject I've seen; whether or not it pops up on google is irrelevant. Steven Jones has also published a paper that explains how he discovered it in the WTC dust.

Oh, and just so people are aware... Jones is backing off of his thermite theory and is now touting that the minimal amount of the composition for "thermite" that were found was actually just a detonator for a much larger, yet unknown and untraceable explosive...

Can you show me the evidence that this is so?

[Scott G]

There is one thing that I found particularly interesting in Scott Forbes interview with Killtown, when combined with a critique of Scott Forbes testimony by another 9/11 research site, 911review. I'll begin with some comments that Scott Forbes in his interview with Killtown, then segue into the comment made at 911Review...

Interview with Killtown:

KT: Why were you working the weekend before 9/11?

SF: Because of a "power down" notified by the Port Authority. Power was being switched off for a 36hr period in the top half of tower and as I work for a Financial Institution and Bank in the Technology Group I was working on the shutdown and eventually the startup of all our systems....

KT: How long did you work in the WTC 2 before 9/11?

SF: I started in the company as a consultant in June 1998 and I joined full time in December 1998.

KT: During all this time, how many times did the WTC have a "power down"?

SF: None in Tower 2 that I was aware of. 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 may 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.

KT: How many floors did this power down effect?

SF: I can't give you the absolute numbers, but I know it was the 'top half ' of WTC 2, so I'd say from floor 50 or so....

KT: What did the Port Authority say the power down was for?

SF: As far as I recall it was for re-cabling, though I don't remember the wording on official documents or the detail, as I wasn't in the Management Loop.

KT: What did they say the "re-cabling" was for?

SF: I understood it was something to do with the power supplies.

911Review, a 9/11 research site, doesn't believe Scott Forbes story as they mention in this article, stating:

Powering down for cabling upgrades is laughable as a cover story for demolition preparation work. Cabling upgrades for data bandwidth do not require interrupting AC power at all. Even if the AC wiring were being upgraded, the new wiring would have been installed and powered up in parallel with the old wiring. Any interruptions would be minimized to a few minutes. Powering down large portions of a tower, and for 36 hours, would have generated numerous protests from tenants.

Source: http://911review.com...wtc/forbes.html

The irony is that if what Scott Forbes said was true (and seeing as how this story still hasn't been called a hoax, I definitely believe it is), this adds extra weight to the implications of what the Port Authority was doing here. And Scott Forbes -does- mention that his fellow employees were not happy about the power down.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Scott G