New Power-Down Witness

[Neily]

New WTC Power-Down Witness: Eileen Coles (Her statement begins around 1:50)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zYo1bKrCQE

[SDuderstadt]

1. Jesus, Neily....

can you listen to this woman and tell us why her story doesn't add up?

First of all, where is the documentation for this powerdown? Her account isn't even firsthand; it supposedly happened to her clients, not her office. Secondly, if she thinks a building the size of either WTC tower could be wired for controlled demolition over a weekend, then she knows absolutely NOTHING about controlled demolition.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

Then there's her claim about the bomb-sniffing dogs. Does she have any firsthand information about this? No. And this issue has already been soundly debunked.


http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html

I'm, of course, saving the best for last. She claims that in 1998, Sun Microsystems tried to assign her to Cantor Fitzgerald and that, of course, if that had actually transpired, she would have died on 9/11. Really? Does she expect us to believe:

1. That Sun Microsystems was "in on it"?
2. And that it began back in 1998?
3. And that, somehow, since the fed dealt with Cantor Fitzgerald as a broker, that they could've moved a lot of money through there? Really? To where? Are we supposed to believe the Fed is now in on this?

Dude. Please.

[Neily]

2. I never spoke of her credibility...

It is just the only person I have seen since Scott Forbes even mention it. Thought it would be an interesting discussion and I don't mind if her credibility is dissected here.

I have no problem when stuff is debunked. I am not seeking a particular truth, just the truth, wherever that may lead.

As for the bomb sniffing dogs debunking. Even the debunker says "we're not sure this is true." He can only verify there was one dog on duty in one tower at the time, but likely 1 in each tower as common sense would suggest. This does not debunk the rumored withdrawal of "enhanced" security in the weeks before 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Listen to Coles' claim again....

she says all the bomb-sniffing dogs were withdrawn which is, of course, not remotely true. And here's what Mike Williams has to say about the removal of the bombsniffing dogs:

The suggestion appears to be that the WTC was running at below normal security levels immediately before the attacks, but we're not sure this is true.

So, what is Williams unsure of? He's unsure of the CT claims. He's not talking about his own position. He's saying (politely) that the CT around this issue is full of shit. I concur.

I'd still like to know how buildings as large as the towers could possibly have been wired for controlled demolition over a mere weekend. And, if you've ever seen a building actually wired for controlled demolition, it would have been obvious to EVERYONE returning that Monday.

For the record, it looks like this:

[Neily]

5. Hmm...

First, let's repost his full quote...

"The suggestion appears to be that the WTC was running at below normal security levels immediately before the attacks, but we're not sure this is true."

His opinion is that WTC security levels were functioning at a normal level, not enhanced or reduced. However, he does not debunk whether or not the levels were increased in the 2 weeks prior and then were returned to normal shortly before 9/11. In addition, he only uses one article to determine if the security levels were at a "normal" level. Furthermore, he is not "sure this is true" which indicates to me he does not have enough data to make a soundproof judgment. And, I would agree that based upon the two sources he quoted, he does not have enough information to completely debunk any theory regarding the security levels the day of 9/11.

SDuderstadt "she says all the bomb-sniffing dogs were withdrawn which is, of course, not remotely true."

From her perspective and others this could have seemed true. That is of course, if it is true that there was an increase in the number of dogs in the weeks before 9/11 roaming the lobby and building. If there were several visible dogs and then they went back to normal levels, she and others may have thought dogs were removed entirely. Even the debunking site admits the remaining dog in each tower would not have been visible.

Quote from the Debunker - "It looks like {dogs} at least were fixed and not wandering the building."

As for your photo depicting a controlled demolition. You are correct that overt controlled demolition projects would look similar to that photo since there is nothing to hide in a legitimately planned controlled demolition. However, if hypothetically, this were a CD, it would be covert CD. We already know that some floors were empty, which was reported by many sources including CNN. And, there was an elevator renovation of some sort occurring over the last year, which could easily obscure any CD's

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html - WTC tenant list and floors

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19889#comment - Information regarding renovations in the elevators

I am sure you have seen all this before, but thought I'd refresh our memories and the forums.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Can you show us what a "covert" CD would look like...

especially for buildings the size of the WTC? Do you honestly believe that if the CD had to be "covert", that it wouldn't have to adhere to certain circumstances that would be critical whether it was "covert" or not? have you ever done the math to figure out just how much explosives would be necessary?


This is getting silly, dude.

[Neily]

11. I am not suggesting CD

I am merely saying the CD theory cannot be debunked entirely.

I will hypothesize for a moment about what a CD in the WTC's would entail.

1. If a higher than normal powered military grade explosive was used, such as the alleged nano-thermite, less than normal would be required. Hence, the name nano and I am sure you are familiar with nanotechnologies. It is the science of making things smaller. See below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology - "Nanotechnology, shortened to "nanotech", is the study of the control of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Generally nanotechnology deals with structures of the size 100 nanometers or smaller, and involves developing materials or devices within that size."

2. If they were doing an elevator renovations, with the number and locations of the elevators, they would have had access to many beams in the core of the towers. Considering the shafts are not accessible by the average person, hiding explosives would not have been a problem. (google wtc elevators and go to images to see the amount and placement of the elevators)

3. If there were vacant floors, which we know there were. Those floors could have been full of explosives. And, if they wanted to hide them from security or others who had access to those floors, all they would have had to do is to re-encase the beams with drywall. Or, if the floors were secured from all access, they wouldn't have to hide them either.

Of course, this is merely hypothetical. Practicality is another issue. I don't think we have enough information to rule it out though.

[William Seger]

13. It isn't really necessary to "debunk entirely" conspiracy theories

It's conspiracy theorists' job to prove their claims. Showing that their "proofs" are dubious is quite sufficient.

[Neily]

18. I disagree..

Why does it fall on anyone's shoulder, but the governments to prove their claims?

If the government were to ever capture Bin Laden and take him to trial, it is their burden of proof right? So, they might want to take this time to get their story straight. There are a lot of holes in their official theory and I am sure any average jury would have the same questions we do.

[William Seger]

19. The government HAS sufficiently proved their claims

... that 19 Arabs hijacked 4 planes and managed to hit 3 of their targets, with evidence that I do believe would easily stand up in court. Dismissing that evidence doesn't make it disappear. If you were tasked with defending the hijackers at trial and wanted to pin it on someone else, I dare say you'd need to do considerably better than the "truth movement" has managed to do so far.

ETA: And that doesn't even consider that if you want to accuse someone else of those murders, then yes indeed you would certainly be required to prove that accusation. That's not my opinion; that's the law.

[Neily]

24. I should repeat...

They don't even have enough evidence to list 9/11 on Bin Laden's FBI's most wanted page, let alone to get an indictment.

Why have they not indicted him if they have so much evidence?

[William Seger]

25. It doesn't appear that anyone intends to bring bin Laden to trial

... whether you believe it's because he's an "asset" or because the intent is to just find him and kill him. I'd say the "confession" video alone is enough for an indictment for involvement in 9/11, but the http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,177983,00.htm">"secret evidence" would need to stand up before he could be convicted on those charges. As for torturing KSM and other suspected terrorists for information, that was not only immoral but also stupid, since I don't believe that information could ever be used in a trial. (That's one reason I don't believe *Co ever intended any trial, whatever the reason.) Anyway, if bin Ladin ever were brought to trial, the fact that he publicly declared war on the US and proceeded to plan attacks on two US embassies and a Navy ship would probably be enough to seal his fate, whether or not 9/11 charges held up.

But my comment was more directed at the evidence in the 9/11 Commission Report and the evidence presented in the Moussaoui trial that we were attacked by radical, suicidal Islamists. Any credible conspiracy theory would need to do much more than simply insist that all that evidence was planted or faked and that a huge number of people were lying.

[Subdivisions]

34. Imagine a vacant floor stocked with explosive packs, each equipped

with an antenna. The explosive packs are loaded onto a service/freight elevator with one man inside the elevator and one on top of the elevator. The man below stops the elevator at each point and hands the man above a pack which he then attaches to a wall or steel column. Repeat until all packs are in place. Clear out. Later, a sychronized series of signals is radioed to the packs and they explode from the top down.

Not hat hard to imagine a scenario where this could be pulled off.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Damn, that would make a great movie...

a comedy that controlled demolition experts like Brent Blanchard and Mark Loiseaux could attend and laugh their asses off at how the maker of the movie has no fucking idea what he is talking about.

[Subdivisions]

33. You have a history of discounting whole swaths of OTHER POSSIBILITIES

that don't fit your idiology.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Dude...if my position were based on ideology...

I'd be one of the biggest "truthers" around. I despised the Bush administration. But read Brent Blanchard's paper that rules out CD. Ask yourself why the leading CD experts don't buy the controlled demolition nonsense. Even the one that I know of (who, nonetheless, was manipulated by being shown a misleading video of WTC 7) denies that WTC 1&2 were brought down by CD. Admit there are many of us "debunkers" who dismiss the CD theory on very principled grounds.

Hope you're doing better, buddy. My best to you and the folks of Cleburne.

[Subdivisions]

37. I'll read the paper (I can't recall if I already have) but, if I were wedded to the

idea that there were explosives in the buildings, and I'm not, I would not consider for a moment that the demolition was "controlled".

Thank you for the well-wishes. Me and the town will do as we must and live on without Hunter, sad as his death is. I hope our school children will take with them the lesson that Hunter's death teaches.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Let us know if there's anything we can do, pal....

our thoughts are with you.

[William Seger]

4. But we do KNOW the dog story is not true

On that fateful day, my job was checking vehicles that were entering the WTC Truck Dock for possible explosives. At about 0830hrs, I was in my office/kennel on the B-1 level #2WTC. About 15minutes later, I felt the bldg shake. I left Sirius in his kennel & responded to the mezzanine of #1 WTC to assist people coming out of the "A" stairwell.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030331-lim.htm

Why would Coles repeat a story that wasn't true, as if she had first-hand knowledge? And if she did that, why wouldn't she repeat another story that doesn't appear to be true (Forbes')? Where are the thousands of other people who should be able to confirm that story?

I'm sorry, but that video was pathetic in at least two senses of the word.

[Neily]

6. See my post above

For the casual observer it could have appeared that no dogs were in the building. Even the article you posted says his dog was in the basement and then was left in the kennel after the strike.

[William Seger]

10. Point is...

... she was repeating something that wasn't true as if she was a "whistleblower."

[William Seger]

12. And another BTW

... since it seems quite clear that at the very least, WTC was still using dogs to check trucks right up until 9/11, how do you suppose the perps got all those thousands of pounds of explosives into the building?

[Neily]

15. Good Question...

who knows what types of delivery trucks were routinely at the WTC. It would be a good question to ask the people who worked in there though.

If we were to again hypothesize a CD theory, then the delivery trucks could have belonged to the military/LE etc. And, maybe those vehicles were ignored by the security staff.

Again, just a hypothesis.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Dude...

with all due respect, this reminds me of the scene from "Rainman" where Tom Cruise is trying to convince Dustin Hoffman that "Who's on First?" is not a riddle. You're exhausting me. Let me know when you get to the bottom of everything.

[Neily]

20. You always give up...

when you cant debunk it.

It is common knowledge that at secured government facilities, known personnel do not even have to go through security. I know firsthand and have done it many times. In addition, there may have been a separate entrances for WTC maintenance trucks, etc...

In addition, we do not know how many explosive detecting dogs were at work on any given day. If there was only one for each tower, I think it is fair to assume that they did not "sniff" every vehicle entering/exiting the parking/loading areas. These same types of procedures are also true at the border crossings and ports of entry. Not every vehicle is "sniffed" and not every cargo container at ports is scanned/sniffed.

So, given the above is likely true, it is not a far fetched assumption that explosives could have made it into the building undetected.

Unless you can concretely confirm the opposite, then you are just giving up because your guess is as good as mine.

[SDuderstadt]

21. I'm giving up because....

it seems you are insisting we go back to square one and start fresh on everything. When you look at all the resources that have been thrown into every investigation of 9/11, it strains logic to believe that the only people who want to get to the truth are from the "truth movement".

Like I said, let me know when you get to the bottom of everything. Good luck.

[Neily]

23. I am not in a movement

Have never attended any truth event and do not belong/subscribe to any truth websites, groups, etc.

As such, I recognize that the dichotomy of truthers versus non-truthers is divisive and pretty much everyone would like to know the truth or that what they have been told by the government is the truth.

So, I guess I don't get your point besides the fact you do not want to re-hash stuff.

[William Seger]

17. The questions that really bug me about CD theories are...

1) Who would possibly plan such an operation with any expectation of getting away it? Just a simple example, what if the dog just happened to get near the truck and go nuts?

2) Who would possible go around to all the people who would need to be involved and say, "Hey, the Prez really needs your help. We're gonna blow up the WTC and make it look like a terrorist attack?"

3) How many people would you expect to go along with that plan, or at least not mention that they had been approached? If you were one of them, and even if you were one who would literally do anything to help the Prez, wouldn't you consider the consequences if the whole crackpot scheme were to go wrong?

Even if we start with an assumption that Neocons wanted a "false flag" attack, why would they pick something so incredibly complicated and risky -- in terms of failing and getting caught -- when it's trivial to think of schemes that they could have very safely pulled off with just a couple of "black ops" guys? Don't you think that when someone proposes a theory that doesn't even register on the Plausibility Meter, they ought to have some pretty convincing evidence?

[Neily]

22. In order for...

the join chiefs of staff to have done their homework and proposed the "Operation Northwoods" plan to JFK, they had to have thought the plan would work. And, had they gone ahead with that plan, many people would have to have been involved or had foreknowledge.

In addition, we all know many covert operations have occurred over the years that include foreign assassinations, drug smuggling, etc. where the participants knew it was illegal and also knew murder would be involved. And, they went ahead and did it anyway.

And, who is to say CD couldn't have been pulled off by a handful of "black ops" guys? And, who is to say that they couldn't find people willing to do just about anything.

[William Seger]

26. Not sure you really appreciated my point

... and it appears to me that Northwood was never more than a half-baked, harebrained scheme by a couple of nuts. Even if you think it was ever under serious consideration (which I don't), you'd have to admit that it appears someone must have realized how stupid it would be to try to pull off something like that with the expectation they wouldn't get caught. And the proposed 9/11 "false flag" conspiracy theories are a couple of orders of magnitude more complicated and risky -- for absolutely no good reason.

But no, it's completely inconceivable to me that just a couple of "black ops" guys could have pulled off a controlled demolition of the WTC and nobody would have noticed. I mean, have you really considered what it would really take to do that, and thousands of people wouldn't notice? And even that wouldn't be enough, since you would also need to fake the hijackings to make sure the planes hit the right spots. The 9/11 conspiracy theories require much more than assuming that there were people in government who were evil enough to do something like that. You also need to assume that the perps were incredibly stupid to plan such an unnecessarily risky thing, but incredibly powerful to get everyone necessary on board, and then incredibly lucky to get away with it. When I consider all of that, there seems to be a perfectly obvious reason why the "truth movement" (at least the MIHOP contingent) is stuck in the mud.

[Neily]

41. Small irrelevant point...

Hypothetically, if it were a CD, I don't think the planes would have to strike in a certain place in order for the CD to go as planned. They would merely be a smoke screen for the CD.

As for Northwoods, read the document and you will see it was addressed to the Secretary of Defense and was signed off by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If the Chairman signed off on it, it was on the behalf of 5 additional highly competent people. See below...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_of_the_Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff "He leads the meetings and coordinates the efforts of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), comprising the Chairman, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army and United States Air Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps."

Continue reading the wiki page and you will see it was actually proposed to the President at the time, JFK. He apparently was the only non-half-baked, non-hair-brained person directly involved with the military decisions at that time. See also Operation Mongoose for the proposals the DOD made. Thus, I do think there are people involved in our government who are evil enough to do just about anything.

As for thousands of people not noticing. Sure they noticed work crews as a daily existence in the towers. Given the size, they likely had hundreds of people repairing, renovating, and cleaning the building on a daily basis. And, with the "elevator renovation" project also occurring within the last year, there was likely an increase in such workers. Therefore, completely visible, but completely ignored at the same time.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

27. Here's a thought

"if" this was some kind of inside job, and "if" explosives were used, couldn't this have happened over time?

The official story has the plot planned well in advance. If an inside job were in the works, it wasn't planned, setup and executed in a matter of weeks.
This could have been years in the making. PNAC was formed when?

[William Seger]

8. BTW, after looking around some more....

It seems Coles has been actively involved with the "truth movement" for at least a couple of years. (She's listed as a member of We Are Change since '07.) And yet, as recently as July 16 this year, when she gave a statement to the press at an NYCCAN press conference, she simply said that she had been at the WTC on 9/11 and "... one thing I did know was that there was no way the United States intelligence community did not see this coming." That's it -- no mention of any power-down or bomb-sniffing dogs or Sun Microsystems attempt to kill her.

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/nyccan-press-conference-at-city-hall-testimony-from-911-survivor-by-eileen-coles/

She's also a member at AE911truth (no date), and her "Personal 9/11 Statement" there also doesn't say anything about her current claims. In fact, I can't seem to find any reference to her confirming Forbes' story before this NYCCAN rally in the video. Not conclusive, of course, but a sudden recollection doesn't help her credibility any.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Quite frankly, I believe Coles to be...

an utter fraud.

[Neily]

14. I agree with both of your concerns and

If you can find anything else on her, I would love to know.

I, too, question people that come out of the woodwork years later, but sometimes we have to remember that they are stifled or dont have access to the resources to be able to come forward.

In addition, she may not have realized the importance of a power-down until she got involved in the movement and it jogged her memory of its occurrence.

Since we really know nothing about her, in the sense that nothing has been verified (i.e. her employment with the military or SunMicro), I don't give much value to her power-down statement at this point.

[rollingrock]

30. Verification

Pictured below is a US Air Force ID when she was a sergeant working in intelligence with top security clearance. On the left is a picture ID of her and electronic keycard when she was an employee at Sun Microsystems. On the bottom you see her business card when she was at Cantor Fitzgerald.

[Neily]

39. Proves Nothing

All those could easily be forged. Especially the military badge and business card. They look pretty sketchy to me.

I would need something more concrete, like confirmation from the military, Sun Micro, and Cantor.

[rollingrock]

43. Well, I see no possible reason or motive for her to be lying

from the way she speaks and presents herself, she seems to be pretty credible to me.

I have never once seen any prominent members of 9/11 truth who were anything other than what they said they were. Have you? By prominent I mean they have spoken in public, or given interviews to the media about their experiences on 9/11, etc.

Most of those people speaking in the video are well-organized family members of 9/11 victims family groups, do you actually think they would ever allow Ms. Eileen Coles to speak for them at one of their public rallies if she were not a credible witness or who she says she was?? Seriously?

Come on folks, try to use your head a little.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Dude...

you assessing anyone's honesty is laughable.

[rollingrock]

45. Whatever you say, pretzelboy

everything that has ever come out your mouth has been an outright fabrication.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Oh, really??

Point to one then, dude.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

47. After looking around some more...

... I believe she is who she says she is and was working for Sun. I just don't quite believe her "power outage" story without some corroboration. She named the guy who allegedly sent the memo and said all her co-workers got the same memo, so that should be easy. But anyway, it all seems to be a red herring to me. Since there don't seem to have been any explosives involved, we don't need to figure out how explosives "might" have gotten there.

[randgrithr]

69. You're showing how little you know

That's a WTC complex badge. It's quite significant that you don't know what one looks like and that the business card isn't enough.

Google my email address, [e-mail]. Numerous posts I made on Usenet come up.

You can also Google my Air Force email, [e-mail].

Have fun now...

[Neily]

113. Here's her email..

However, I am not sure if she still works for Sun/military and would have access to those email accounts now. So, it may be pointless to email her there.

[SDuderstadt]

116. Well, I think it would be pointless to e-mail her for...

different reasons. Again, watching the NYCCAN, something about her just does not add up.

Again, how could you not remember who the memo supposedly came from?

[SDuderstadt]

40. Her Cantor Fitzgerald "business card" doesn't...

even have her name on it, dude. More importantly, I don't believe she ever claimed to have worrked there. I believe she said that when she worked for Sun Microsystems, then wanted to assign CF to her as a client.

BTW, wtf is the ID in the middle at the top? Where do you get this shit?

[randgrithr]

51. Let's just get rid of this first bit of BS right now...

Yes, I did work for Sun Microsystems. Yes, they had offices in the WTC.

Yes, that's my maiden name. Yes, I'm married. Yes, he's cuter than you. Get over it. ;-7

[Theobald]

62. Maybe I'm missing something here, but how are you getting rid of any BS?

Sdude said the Cantor Fitzgerald business card doesn't have your name on it and says that he doesn't think you ever claimed to have worked for Cantor, so what BS are you clearing up by showing us your Sun Microsystems business card? I don't think anyone here ever claimed you didn't work for Sun, altough rolling rock does seem to believe you worked for Cantor; I assume your post was to clear up the BS that you worked for Cantor.

[randgrithr]

70. Somewhere in this goatrope I saw a pair of allegations

1) That I was lying about working for Sun and
2) That Sun never had offices in the WTC

Both are BS.

The Cantor Fitzgerald card was provided to prove that I had a meeting with the gentleman in question.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Can you point to any post containing either of those allegations?

Or, as I asked previously, did you bother to read the thread before just jumping in?

Hint: You are debunking allegations no one even made. We call those "strawmen"

[Name removed]

80. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Theobald]

86. In a posting forum it is standard practice to address your posts

to the post you are referring to. So if you want to clear up the claim that someone made that you didn't work for Sun, you would reply to the posting where a person said you didn't work for Sun. If not replying to that posting you should start an entirely different post, so people don't think you are debunking facts that were not even presented in the post you are replying to.

[randgrithr]

88. Whoever made the original post then edited it when I showed up to defend myself

Sounds like a pretty standard game to play, people familiar with this type of forum probably do it all the time.

[SDuderstadt]

89. Which I already explained would be impossible...

the way that DU works. I'm sure you could confirm with the moderators that no one ever claimed you did not work at Sun, let alone edit their post.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

94. "Post that was deleted"?

Can you point to any post that was deleted? The way DU works is to leave a clear placeholder that shows there used to be a post there, so I'd love for you to point to where there was any post deleted.

The reason I am "trying" (actually with great success) to "discredit" (think more like impeaching a witness) you is because you make goofy claims without much, if anything, to support those claims. The doozy so far is that it would have been "easy" to wire two 110 story skyscrapers for controlled demolition over one weekend. One poster challenged you to prove that controlled demolition brought down the towers; your rejoinder to him was to prove that "controlled demolition did NOT bring down the towers". Have you ever heard the logical fallacy known as "trying to shift the burden of proof"? It's YOUR claim and YOU have the burden of proof, plain and simple.

For the record, I despised the Bush administration and am on record as advocating their indictment, prosecution and conviction. But it's a pipe dream to think they are going to be hung at the Hague.

[OnTheOtherHand]

96. OK, look

You think that someone said that you don't work at Sun, and then deleted the post, and then the moderators would lie to cover that poster's tracks?

That makes no sense. Even if I assume for the sake of argument that the moderators wish you harm, it still makes no sense.

Some posts on this thread have been edited, and you can see that by the time stamps. Maybe one of those contained what you think you saw.* Or possibly you misread something. It happens to all of us sooner or later.

It's totally understandable that you're ticked at SDuderstadt, but let's keep it real.

*ETA: That's a logical possibility given that I don't have access to every version of every post. But if you're thinking of one of SDuderstadt's posts, I don't believe that SDuderstadt would lie about the content of a post. SDuderstadt seems, if anything, candid to a fault.

[SDuderstadt]

98. For the record...

I never once said that Coles did not work at Sun and, in fact, acknowledged in several posts that she did. I never once said that Sun never had offices in the WTC.

Nonetheless, I have been told to "fuck off" twice and have been called a "liar and a troll" several times.

[OnTheOtherHand]

100. yeah, it's been quite a show

Again, I can understand her being annoyed that you called her an "utter fraud." But it doesn't justify her in running amok.

I suspect that she subtly misunderstands what you meant by that phrase, but it's sort of hard to talk about that subject now!

[SDuderstadt]

101. What do you think she understands what I said to be?

I'm at a loss to explain how anyone other than RR and LPG coould have such basic lapses in understanding.

[OnTheOtherHand]

104. well, I'm speculating...

Basically, my impression is that she thinks you meant that she is a poseur from soup to nuts -- never worked for Sun, made up the power-down story, pretty much made up everything she said.

And my impression is that you actually meant, more nearly, that her statements were reckless and (at the risk of euphemism) add nothing whatsoever to our understanding of 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

99. For the record...

this is what a deleted post looks like:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=270508&mesg_id=270830

[Neily]

90. Excuse me?

I am the original poster and I never edited my initial post. I was actually excited to see the 2nd ever power-down witness known publicly that I wanted to learn more. Yes, I said it is entirely OK to dissect your credibility as I would expect everyone would to any "new witness."

[Neily]

95. This also helps with confusion

As it is clear she is not hitting the reply button directly after the person she wants to respond to. Now, she is saying I said stuff others said and visa versa. This whole topic has gone to the shitter simply because of that confusion.

[SDuderstadt]

97. I think whoever "summoned:" you here...

badly misinformed you and falsely claimed that someone had said you were lying about working for Sun or being officed there. You've been badly misled and you appear to have compounded the problem by not bothering to to actually read the posts before you jumped into attack mode.

[randgrithr]

53. Corrections

The Cantor Fitzgerald card is one that was given to me by Ron Baudanza during that fateful meeting.

The silly "Red Sonja" picture is because that is the "hacker handle" I've gone by on the Internet and before that the BBS world, on and off, since 1982.

The righthand ID is for access to a classified SCI facility at HQ USAFE, Ramstein. Long obsolete, I am sure. I wouldn't suggest trying to duplicate it. ;-7

The lefthand ID (as anyone familiar with the WTC complex should recognize) is for access to the WTC complex. It is not my Sun ID.

[Neily]

64. Just a question...

"The Cantor Fitzgerald card is one that was given to me by Ron Baudanza during that fateful meeting"

I have never heard of an employer making up a batch of business cards (which generally are ordered in batches of 500 or more) before an employee actually starts working for someone. Can you please explain further.

I doubt they made up business cards to impress and entice you into accepting the assignment.

[randgrithr]

71. I was not supposed to be working directly for Cantor Fitzgerald

I was supposed to be working as an on-site Sun representative IN THEIR OFFICE. To have a desk there in order to be more immediately responsive to their needs. Later I was part of a team which performed this same function at Morgan Stanley. This was something Sun did (and probably still does) for their bigger Wall Street customers.

[Neily]

91. You are not answering the questions

in the posts you are directly linking to... However, the guy below clearly explained the business card confusion.

[OnTheOtherHand]

79. did you notice that it is Ron Baudanza's business card?

You seem to be thinking that it supposedly has her name on it. It doesn't.*

(I'm not expressing any opinion beyond that. For all I know, Baudanza hadn't started working for CF yet and I'm totally off point!)

ETA: I'm referring to the Cantor Fitzgerald business card in the omnibus picture, not to the Sun card.

[Neily]

87. Thanks for clearing that up...

I get it now.. He handed her his card during the meeting...

Now that makes sense.

[rollingrock]

28. The official story

is an utter fraud.

[randgrithr]

54. All rightie then, mighty keyboard warrior

I was tipped off by a friend that you were flapping your lips about me on this forum. Here I am. Let's see if you have the guts to say stuff like this to my face. :)

[SDuderstadt]

63. Consider it done...

hint: you might want to read all the posts in the thread before jumping in.

[randgrithr]

72. And consider yourself "debunked"

You shot your mouth off, calling me a fraud from a know-nothing position, and you've been called on it.

[SDuderstadt]

74. And what did I say that you specifically debunked?

Did you actually read what I wrote?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

102. Poor Randgrithr....

I suspect she was just too high-strung. We'll miss her.

[rollingrock]

29. Simple answer

'That's it -- no mention of any power-down or bomb-sniffing dogs or Sun Microsystems attempt to kill her.'

Well, duh. If she was working for Sun Microsystems after 9/11, she certainly wouldn't be out there bad-mouthing her employer in public, now would she? That is, if she wanted to keep her job. Perhaps she left the company only recently, which would explain why she is speaking out now.

Sun Microsystems is a major defense contractor supplying computer technology, microchips and what not to the defense industry. The company stood to profit hugely from 9/11 with the wars and defense contracts that followed. So clearly it would be in their best interest to try to silence any potential troublemakers in their ranks, wouldn't it?

[William Seger]

31. Yeeeah, that's the ticket (n/t)

[rollingrock]

32. Wow

what a comeback.

[William Seger]

42. Thanks!

And by the way, since there is absolutely no credible evidence of explosives bringing down the towers, why do we need to figure out when the imaginary explosives were planted?

[randgrithr]

52. Issues with Sun

Sun took a terrible financial hit from 9/11. They had a huge presence on Wall Street and moved into the WTC to be closer to those customers. All equipment that customers lost had to be replaced free of charge because it was under contract or under warranty. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of machines. Morgan Stanley's infrastructure alone was severely impacted.

Sun was definitely wooing the DoD during the time period that I worked for them, but as the company was as well known for it's difficult to co-opt liberal old-school Unix mavericks and geniuses as it was for those willing to play ball with the Bush administration, that didn't always go so well.

I was targeted for a certain amount of harassment while at Sun, but I consider that to be a fault of the management in the NYC office rather than holding the entire company responsible. I do not believe Sun as a corporation was complicit, rather that elements infiltrated the company at a high enough level to manipulate events.

[randgrithr]

49. I have no problem either

Anyone have a problem with me dissecting your dissections? :)

[randgrithr]

50. Wow, wrong in the first sentence and you just keep staying there

Sun Microsystems had offices on the 25th and 26th floor of 2
WTC. I worked at Sun Microsystems from November 1997 until
February 2002. I can scan a business card if you like.

Any building or buildings could be wired for controlled
demolition over a weekend if enough people were working on it.

The bombs could have been placed in the paired primary central
elevator shafts which moved throughout the center of each
building. Look at the blueprints if you don't know what I'm
talking about. They would not have been capable of being seen
by the public.

Sun Microsystems preferred to hire ex-military people in it's
NYC office. It's one of the reasons I was hired. To say the
entire company "was in on it" is sensationalist, but
this manager (who happened to be the worst supervisor I ever
had in a 20 year career) was especially keen on me getting
onsite at Cantor Fitzgerald. Arranging that meeting between
myself, my previous supervisor and and Ron Baudanza, the
Director of IT at Cantor Fitzgerald, was his first act as my
supervisor.

The one person who Sun Microsystems lost was a research
scientist on the flight from Boston to L.A. No one in the NYC
office died or was physically hurt.

Most of the antiterrorism manuals with the WTC in crosshairs
date to 1997 or 1998. There was also a major changeover on the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 1997. Arlen Specter
was no longer chairman. (As an aside, I found it very
interesting that Arlen Specter changed his party affiliation
the DAY AFTER the recent unauthorized flyover of Air Force 1
over lower Manhattan.)

Any financial transactions that took place at the Cantor
Fitzgerald NYC office the afternoon/night before or that
morning before the planes hit have no records left except on
the receiving end. That is a simple fact. Dead men and
pulverized equipment tell no tales. The fact that Cantor
Fitzgerald was capable of handling money for the Federal
Reserve only makes this fact more interesting.

As to the bomb sniffing dogs, it is true that information came
from a Loose Change video and it would seem that if the dogs
were being kept in a fixed location as is claimed that's just
as strange as not having them roaming the site at all.

The unexplained powerdown happened, and is easy enough to
verify. I no longer have the memo, it may have even been
destroyed in the explosion proper as it was issued to me that
Thursday and may have been left among my personal effects in
the building on Friday, but there are enough people who can be
tracked down to corroborate this so I am not that worried.

There is no "sudden recollection" here. I have not
been active in the 9/11 Truth movement until now for two
reasons. The first reason is that the events of that day
affected me personally and it has taken some time for me to be
able to speak about it in public. Much as veterans are not
very chatty about the events which lead to their PTSD, I have
found it difficult to speak about this. I think a lot of
people share my situation and are only just now being able to
process what has happened to them. 

The second reason is that we now have an administration which
has the potential to do something about it and is less likely
to send government sanctioned goon squads after those who
shine a light on the events of that day.

I am here and anyone who wants to ask questions of me
concerning my statements at City Hall or on WBAI may do so.
Flamers and cointelpro types, I can handle you too, but I
don't plan to waste much time playing games with you, and I
won't have to if this is the best you've got. My primary
purpose here is to make it clear to people who are genuinely
after the truth and who can treat me with a modicum of common
decency and respect that I can and will back up what I have
said, to the degree that if I am asked to testify under oath I
will do so.

Eileen Coles
Sgt, USAF 1986-1991

[William Seger]

61. OK, I have a question: Why do you call yourself a "whistleblower"?

Your entire story is obviously based on paranoid speculations stacked on top of each other. In what sense of the word are you a "whistleblower?"

[randgrithr]

73. I don't call myself a whistleblower - NYCCAN does, though

My entire story is based on factual events I lived through interspersed with several observations which I very clearly state in the video are opinions.

There is nothing paranoid or speculative about the memo every SSE in my company got about a site wide powerdown. It happened, and I have no reason to lie about it.

It's a fact that they tried to place me at Cantor Fitzgerald.

It's a fact that Cantor Fitzgerald handled money for the Federal Reserve.

It's a fact that any transactions which took place within a certain time window have no records beyond those on the receiving end due to the massive destruction of equipment and murder of personnel.

These are facts.

[William Seger]

81. Those may be facts

... but they do not tell or even really support the "inside job" story you try to make out of them. THAT is pure paranoid speculation. I've never been interested in Forbes' "power outage" story, because as I've said, it's a red herring and it puts the cart before the horse. First, demonstrate that WTC was a controlled demolition; then, how it was done would be very interesting. Your buds over at AE911truth don't seem to be doing a very good job of that, and I'm not much interested in Ventura's opinion since I possess my own eyes and ears and cannot see or hear any evidence of explosives. Gage's inability to understand a progressive collapse is likewise irrelevant since I believe I understand it pretty well, and "over 900 architectural and engineering professionals" have so far failed to convincingly explain what's wrong with that understanding. There's a fairly well established way of resolving such technical issues, and it should be clear to even a casual observer that AE911truth is more interested in blatant propaganda that deliberately distorts the facts.

But all that is really a different subject. So, why does NYCCAN call you a "whistleblower?" I thought they were interested in the truth. Or is their interest limited to The Truth^TM?

[randgrithr]

82. Sounds to me like you have it all figured out for yourself

But you're convincing me of nothing.

AE911Truth are doing a great job, alongside of the international team which discovered nanothermite particles in 4 different samples of dust. The people who did a craptastic job (at best) are NIST and the FBI, who didn't even test for the presence of thermite despite the fact (yep, there's that annoying little word again) that the fires burned for 3 months.

"Demonstrate that there was a controlled demolition"? No. You demonstrate that there WASN'T one.

Explain the collapse of building 7. Explain how jet fuel burns for three months. Explain the explosions clearly seen coming out of the sides of the building in the video. Explain the black smoke. Explain the presence of nanothermite. Explain why no plane parts were recovered. Explain why investigators weren't allowed onto the site. Explain why the first responder tapes were classified and heavily redacted. Explain why the testimony of over 500 first responders to the effect that they heard explosions was ignored. Explain why the powerdown the weekend before was ignored. Explain why primary members of the 9/11 commission have complained that it was "set up to fail".

[William Seger]

83. We can get into all of that if you like, but FIRST I'm still interested in your Truther Two-Step

Why does NYCCAN call you a "whistleblower?"

[randgrithr]

84. I'm a member of NYCCAN and support them fully

But I'm not the entire organization. You want an answer to that, ask them.

I am GUESSING that it's because I have a few pieces of information they consider to be significant toward the proof that there was LIHOP or MIHOP on the part of the Bush administration.

[William Seger]

107. Well, glad we cleared that up

I see in the tread above that you are very annoyed at being called a fraud. Seems to me that if NYCCAN presents you as a "whistleblower" who has "a few pieces of information they consider to be significant toward the proof that there was LIHOP or MIHOP," but then you get up and repeat junk you picked up from Loose Change (jeez!) and share your paranoid suspicions that a Sun supervisor was trying to get you killed while the Federal Reserve made secret transactions through Cantor Fitzgerald... well, then there's some fraud going on here. So, now you say that you don't really know why NYCCAN presents you as a "whistleblower," so basically you're saying that they are the ones responsible for the fraud, not you. Fine.

But one of these "few pieces of {significant} information" you're claiming is that there was a site-wide power outage on 9/8 and 9/9, so I wonder if you can clarify one point about that claim: You say you saw a memo that there was going to be an outage, but you don't believe anyone from Sun had to go in. Does that mean that you don't know for sure that there actually was an outage that weekend? For example, could it have been canceled, or do you know for sure that there really was one?

[SDuderstadt]

108. Unfortunately....

the only way Randgrither can hear you now would be through one of these, if-you-know-what-I-mean:

[Neily]

109. Why? What happened to her?

I totally missed it I guess...

[SDuderstadt]

110. I'd say she "pushed the envelope"...

one too many times.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=248073

[Neily]

111. Dang it...

I really wanted some questions answered, that she ignored.

So, if any of you on here know her I have some unanswered questions/comments.

1. She didn't answer my question about being only 1 of 2 total people to come forward about a powerdown. She says many people knew. And, if the memo went to other people in her department/agency at the time, I am sure she could ask them if they remember or she could provide us with names of people the memo also went to. I for one, can remember who got memo's that were group specific, department wide, etc 8 years later. Considering all I have to remember is who was also on my team at that time.

2. I gave her the link that shows Ventura saying he is not a building demolition expert and rather an aquatic demolition expert. She didn't get a chance to comment on that.

3. And, I am sure I will have many more if she were able to answer some of the other ones posed to her here.

[SDuderstadt]

112. Didn't she post her e-mail address in one of the posts? n/t

[Neily]

114. See message above

I dont think she works for either of them anymore and would not have access to them. I could always contact her on myspace, but I would rather email her.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

127. WTF are you babbling about now?

Are you accusing the moderators and administrators of stopping debate? Are they aiding and abetting it? Do you believe that any member could get another member banned simply because they wanted to "stop debate"?

I think it's fair to assume that when a member repeatedly accuses another member of having edited their post well after the time for editing has already passed and telling a number of members to "fuck off", we shouldn't be surprised when they are cashiered, don't you?

[William Seger]

115. Aw, too bad you won't be responding, but hopefully you'll still read this

... since you were so looking for explanations.:eyes: Oh well, since I already started this, I might as well finish it and post it.

> "Demonstrate that there was a controlled demolition"? No. You demonstrate that there WASN'T one.

Too easy; watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbGm7GE1tA
This is one of the videos NIST used to conclude that perimeter columns had been bending slowly inward well before the collapse began, and that the tower collapses began when the perimeter columns suddenly buckled inward. Please ask Jesse Ventura how that's done, slowly and silently, with explosives.

> Explain the collapse of building 7.

I have yet to see any credible refutation of the credible hypothesis given in the NIST report: Heat expanded floor beams and girders, and their attachments to columns were not strong enough to withstand the forces of that expansion. AE911truth claims to have engineers who should be able to look at the details of those beam-to-column connections and see for themselves that, yes, girders that are simply sitting on seats and held in place by four half-inch bolts cannot withstand much thermal expansion. They should even be able to do the math, as NIST did, or to model it in a simulator as NIST did, if they can't work it out on paper. They should also be able to do the math or sim, as NIST did, to figure out how much buckling resistance one of those columns would have if the beams restraining it laterally fell out of place. They should also be able to go back to those column connection details and see that the same weakness made progressive horizontal failures possible after the initial column buckling. If they can't build their own sim, then at least they should be able to imagine what would happen to the shell of the building after the entire interior structure collapsed. Have any of the "over 900 architectural and engineering professionals" tried to explain these things to Gage? "Truthers" may look at the top third of that shell falling straight down and be totally mystified, but I am not. And again Mr. Gage does not seem to be able to explain to me where my understanding is incorrect. So why should I be swayed by the argument, "I don't understand this so it must be controlled demolition."

> Explain how jet fuel burns for three months.

No need to explain things that didn't happen. Your turn, explain how thermite burns for three months. (You can, of course, use the same excuse for not needing to explain it.) Explaining how office contents could burn for three months in a rubble pile would be much easier, so can I have that one?

> Explain the explosions clearly seen coming out of the sides of the building in the video.

These "explosions" have not been "clearly seen" by me, so you'd have to show me what you mean. My guess is that if you show me some examples, they will turn out to be your misinterpretation of what you're seeing. The reason I'm guessing that is because so far, I haven't encountered many "truthers" who seem to have actually spent any time looking at the "explosions clearly seen coming out of the sides of the building" in an actual controlled demolition before going out on the net to yammer about how "it looks just like a controlled demolition." What's "clearly seen" by me in those videos are some very distinctive differences.

> Explain the black smoke.

The building was on fire.

> Explain the presence of nanothermite.

Another easy one: There wasn't any nanothermite. If you think there was, explain why Harrit & Jones can't get their paper published in a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal. Since I can see for myself that they jump to conclusions that are not warranted by their data, even if I as a layman accept that data at face value, I don't have a problem coming up with an explanation for that.

> Explain why no plane parts were recovered.

I'm starting to detect a certain pattern here. Plane parts were recovered.

> Explain why investigators weren't allowed onto the site.

Why do you think investigators weren't allowed on site? Was that in Loose Change, too? Perhaps that was a garbled account (similar to the dog story) about how the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team was not allowed on the site until the beginning of October, because of the danger until the fires were brought under control. But there certainly were investigators from the FBI and other agencies all over the site. Oh, so they must all be in on it, huh, so they must have actually been covering up all the CD evidence before letting the BPAT on site? Wow, they must have been extremely lucky that all the evidence was on the top of the pile, since the BPAT was on site for most of the excavation and cleanup.

> Explain why the first responder tapes were classified and heavily redacted.

You'd have to ask NYC why it took a while to release them, but now that the http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html">New York Times has published them, "classified" is moot. I believe I did see a few examples of personal information being redacted, but I don't remember any whole passages being redacted, so again you'll have to be more specific about what you are trying to suggest.

> Explain why the testimony of over 500 first responders to the effect that they heard explosions was ignored.

In the first place, it was nowhere near 500 (Graeme MacQueen only claims 118, and he had to be very disingenuous to get that number), but if you're seriously interested in an explanation of why the reports don't really imply what you're suggesting, then I strongly recommend that you http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard">read this analysis.

> Explain why the powerdown the weekend before was ignored.

What powerdown? The one that only you and Forbes' seems to remember? If there was one, which I doubt, what exactly are you asking me to explain about it? I thought you said a reason was given in your alleged memo?

> Explain why primary members of the 9/11 commission have complained that it was "set up to fail".

You should look to the Kean and Hamilton book to see why they said that, but it seems to me it was because they believe it was "set up to fail" to cause political embarrassment to BushCo by exposing intelligence, airline security, and defense response failures. But to get from there to "inside job," you've got your work cut out for you. Get busy.

You have been propagandized by half-truths and distortions. And now you've opened your own franchise.

[SDuderstadt]

117. Classic Seger....

> Explain the black smoke.

The building was on fire.

You have been propagandized by half-truths and distortions. And now you've opened your own franchise.

You know, by now, I should know better than to read anything Seger has written while drinking any liquid. This makes the 8th new keyboard I've had to buy. If I only had a dollar for everytime I've thought, "Gee, I wish I had said that", when reading his gems.

[Neily]

118. Some answers too simplified...

I am supposed to be cleaning in preparation of moving, and you guys aren't helping me.. he he

Anyway, I don't have time to respond to his whole post, but the black smoke answer is too simplified.

There are several things that contribute to the color of smoke, which is what she was likely alluding to.

Tires and other things burn black regardless of the amount of oxygen available to them. However, she does have a valid question with why there was black smoke in the towers. If the smoke is primarily black in a general office/building fire, it generally means it is a oxygen deprived fire. If it is oxygen deprived, then it is not burning at its full capacity/temperature. Thus, if there was primarily black smoke in the towers, which it appears there was, the question of temperature and strength of the fires to cause collapse does come into play.

I will admit I have not read the 10,000 pages + of reports from NIST and others, so I am not sure they address the black smoke question or not.

Can either of you shed some light on it? (You may have already done so elsewhere in these forums, but the archives are inaccessible and the search feature is very limited unless you are a donor)

As for the other answers that are simplified in Seger's post, I have to get back to cleaning so maybe another time.

[SDuderstadt]

119. I don't think it's overly simplified at all...

her claim starts with a myth, as shown below:

http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html

[Neily]

65. Only 2 people?

"The unexplained powerdown happened, and is easy enough to verify. I no longer have the memo, it may have even been destroyed in the explosion proper as it was issued to me that Thursday and may have been left among my personal effects in the building on Friday, but there are enough people who can be tracked down to corroborate this so I am not that worried."

I think a massive powerdown is quite significant if it did occur the weekend before 9/11. How is it that out of the multitude of people who work there, we have now only heard about it from 2 people.

Did you work in the towers? I thought you said you didn't and the "fateful" meeting was discussing you contracting with CFG on behalf of Sun which would have then placed you in the towers. If my understanding is correct, can you please explain why you would have a WTC badge?

And, if you worked in the towers or not, do you recall any prior notifications of power-downs occurring there, ever. If so, please explain.

[randgrithr]

75. Look at the image of my business card again

Yes, I worked in the towers. As an SSE, I was expected to frequently go to customer sites to work on their machines, but when not assigned to any calls or while doing internal research for a call I would be working out of our offices in 2 WTC.

The powerdown that weekend was the only such powerdown I heard about for the entire duration of my time with Sun Micro.

[Neily]

93. Please answer the full post

My Post

Only 2 people? "The unexplained powerdown happened, and is easy enough to verify. I no longer have the memo, it may have even been destroyed in the explosion proper as it was issued to me that Thursday and may have been left among my personal effects in the building on Friday, but there are enough people who can be tracked down to corroborate this so I am not that worried."

I think a massive powerdown is quite significant if it did occur the weekend before 9/11. How is it that out of the multitude of people who work there, we have now only heard about it from 2 people.

Did you work in the towers? I thought you said you didn't and the "fateful" meeting was discussing you contracting with CFG on behalf of Sun which would have then placed you in the towers. If my understanding is correct, can you please explain why you would have a WTC badge?

And, if you worked in the towers or not, do you recall any prior notifications of power-downs occurring there, ever. If so, please explain.

Your Post in Response

"Look at the image of my business card again

Yes, I worked in the towers. As an SSE, I was expected to frequently go to customer sites to work on their machines, but when not assigned to any calls or while doing internal research for a call I would be working out of our offices in 2 WTC.

The powerdown that weekend was the only such powerdown I heard about for the entire duration of my time with Sun Micro."

You are ignoring huge portions of my questions. Which I think is leading to the confusion here. Can you please explain why only 2 people have even discussed the power-downs in the last 8 years?

[KDLarsen]

55. So, two 110-story buildings could be wired in a weekend..

.. but it took CDI (whom I believe some truthers allege were involved in some form of conspiracy at the WTC), 3½ weeks (on top of 4 months of preparing the building) to rig a single 25-floor building? http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807'

Not to mention that no single camera managed to pick up the tell-tale noise of a controlled demolition (it's loud; very, very loud!)...

[randgrithr]

56. That's a question Jesse Ventura could answer quite well

As a former Navy Seal and demolition expert, he seems to be of the opinion that the buildings came down due to controlled demolition. He'd also be familiar with what aspects of the job could have been done covertly and ahead of time.

As a matter of fact, so would a lot of other demolition experts who work for the government.

You also seem to fail to grasp the concept of "site wide powerdown". No power = chance to turn off ALL cameras and redirect their feeds. If Securacom was complicit, ALL site security can be considered compromised.

[KDLarsen]

57. There was site wide powerdown?

Just to make it clear, are you saying there was no power in the WTC in the weekend of September 8-9 2001?

[randgrithr]

58. I am saying we were told about this powerdown

We were told to stand by in case our customers needed help bringing their data centers back up. To my knowledge, no one from Sun was actually called in.

[KDLarsen]

59. Ah

You see, I was gonna ask how it was possible for people to go to the observation deck if there was a power down:

[randgrithr]

60. Who says the entire complex was powered down at once?

Let's say for the sake of argument that people were planting bombs all over the WTC. Do you really think they carried the things up the stairs?

Stating that there's a sitewide powerdown does not infer there was no power to the elevators or other relevant infrastructure, although it would have been an excellent time to subvert the site's security.

A ticket - which may or may not have been used and may or may not have been actually printed on the date of face value - doesn't really prove much.

[Neily]

66. Ventura's experience with demolitions is limited.

"As a former Navy Seal and demolition expert, he seems to be of the opinion that the buildings came down due to controlled demolition. He'd also be familiar with what aspects of the job could have been done covertly and ahead of time."

I don't deny Mr. Ventura is knowledgeable, but even he admits he is only personally familiar with aquatic demolitions. He may suspect CD in the WTC, but he does not have first hand experience with buildings as even he admitted.

[randgrithr]

77. Provide a link or other proof of your statement

The video I have seen of Ventura clearly shows him stating that he believes it could have been controlled demolition.

[Neily]

85. You are confused...

My Post "I don't deny Mr. Ventura is knowledgeable, but even he admits he is only personally familiar with aquatic demolitions. He may suspect CD in the WTC, but he does not have first hand experience with buildings as even he admitted."

Your Post "Provide a link or other proof of your statement The video I have seen of Ventura clearly shows him stating that he believes it could have been controlled demolition."

I never denied he believes it is a controlled demolition. See above again. What I said was in one of his interviews, he states he was an aquatic demolition expert (meaning under water) and not a building demolition expert.

Here I go sorting through hours of Ventura interviews to find it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HULSCmpbb4

Oh that wasn't too hard.

(By the way, I am not here denying inside job)

[Neily]

67. Eileen Coles Radio Interview

http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/090928_060001wuc.MP3

I cant determine the time stamp where she starts, but it is a bit over 1/2 way through the interview.

[Neily]

68. Google randgrithr

You will find her myspace page and other links

http://www.myspace.com/randgrithr

[SDuderstadt]

103. In the video, Coles states it was probably Darryl Benjamin...

who sent the power-down memo out.

I found this information out about Benjamin, assuming he is the one that sent out the memo. I'm really swamped right now. Does anyone want to follow up on this?

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/darryl-benjamin/8/557/aa4

[Neily]

105. Quick search

indicates very little other than what you found...

Maybe someone with a Linkedin profile can send him a message and ask him politely and professionally if he remembers the memo.

[SDuderstadt]

106. I'm pretty sure it's the same guy...

If he says he didn't send any such memo, there's still the possibility that someone else sent it. I'm puzzled that she doesn't remember who sent the memo. Something doesn't add up.

Also, her body language at the rally is off somehow. In my opinion, she "embellished" her story at various points to impress the audience. I'd love to have Paul Ekman look at the tape. Or, maybe I've just watched "Lie to Me" one too many times.

[CrunchMaster]

120. Hamburg Germany, Muslim Brotherhood and Terror in USA, World Trade Center Basement

POST WORLD WAR II NAZIS + EGYPTIAN MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD ALLIANCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_brotherhood

Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11146

GERMAN TIES TO WORLD TRADE CENTER 1993 BOMBING
Hamburg Germany and Egypt Ties to World Trade Center Bombing 1993 and Ali Mohamed:
Mohamed was a major in the Egyptian army's military intelligence unit, until being discharged for suspected fundamentalism in 1984. A member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), he is reported to have been given the task of penetrating American intelligence by EIJ leader Ayman Zawahiri. He was not successful in that but did succeed in enlisting in the U.S. Army and using U.S. military information to train al-Qaeda and other Muslim militants, and write al-Qaeda's multivolume terrorist training guide.

In 1984 Mohamed offered his services to the CIA in Cairo station and was stationed in Hamburg Germany. There he "entered a mosque associated with Hezbollah and immediately told the Iranian cleric in charge that he was an American spy assigned to infiltrate the community."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed

GERMAN TIES TO OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING 1995
Hamburg Germany Ties to Oklahoma City Bombing 1995 and Tim McVeigh:
""Timothy McVeigh, who had been arrested for the bombing, had apparently telephoned Andy Strassmeir in Elohim City several weeks prior to the bombing," according the FBI document, citing a third-hand conversation relayed by McCarthy.

The son of a prominent German politician and a veteran of that country's army, he moved to the United States from Hamburg in the late 1980s or early 1990s, and established relationships with various racist and anti-government movements around the country. (US v Nichols, 96-CR-68, 12/10/97; In Bad Company, Hamm, pp. 116-117)"
http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2007_01_14_exclusives.html
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/public/Strassmeir-302-5.96.PDF

Strassmeier, McVeigh, KKK
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/labels/Andreas-Strassmeir.html

GERMAN TIES TO 9/11 TERRORISTS
Hamburg Germany and Egypt Ties to 9/11 Lead Hijacker Mohamed Atta
"Nile Delta, Egypt in 1968, Atta moved with his family to the Abdeen section of Cairo at the age of 10. Atta studied architecture at Cairo University, and went to Hamburg, Germany in 1992 to continue his studies at the Technical University of Hamburg, where he remained a student until fall 1999. In Hamburg, Atta became involved with the Al-Quds Mosque."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta

ATTA BROUGHT TO HAMBURG BY GERMAN COUPLE AS PART OF AMERICAN-GERMAN EXCHANGE PROGRAM
"Mohamed Atta, before becoming a ‘terrorist ringleader,’ enjoyed the patronage of a government initiative, known as the “ Congress-Bundestag Program," overseen by the U.S. State Department and the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, the German equivalent of the U.S. Agency for International Development busy currently supervising the secretive bidding race for tens of billions of dollars of post-war reconstruction contracts in Iraq."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0305/S00092.htm

MOHAMED ATTA'S GERMAN, AUSTRIAN AND SWISS ASSOCIATES
http://www.madcowprod.com/11162006.html
http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-477-the-congress-bundestag-program-and-911/

GERMAN TIES TO COMPANY THAT DID WORK ON WORLD TRADE & CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS
"Turner Construction, who supervised the 2000 demolition of the Seattle Kingdome, participated in the post-9/11 Ground Zero clean-up and performed extensive renovations within the World Trade Center towers just prior to 9/11, was in fact performing unspecified renovation work throughout the WTC complex until the very morning of September 11, 2001. The Port Authority of NY/NJ now claims that records describing such work or other projects were destroyed on September 11, 2001. A December 2000 WTC property assessment described required renovation work to be completed within one year, upon steel columns within elevator shafts of both WTC towers that was immediately pending or already underway."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19889

This company (Turner Construction) bought by Germany Company Hochtief AG in Aug. 1999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Construction

Loizeaux family's Controlled Demolition Inc., brought down the Seattle Kingdome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Demolition,_Inc.

Mark Loizeaux graduated from the University of TENNESSEE in 1971.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:JSUGp059OyAJ:pr.utk.edu/alumnus/fall95/bomb.html+http://pr.utk.edu/alumnus/fall95/bomb.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

EGYPTIAN, VENEZUELAN, JORDANIAN, TENNESSEE SCAM, AND WORLD TRADE CENTER BASEMENT

"A photo ID pass for Sept. 5 found on one of the men charged with fraudulently obtaining a Tennessee driver's license from a Memphis woman gave him access to the six underground levels of the One World Center building."

"Sakhera Hammad, from Jordan, is now a U.S. citizen living in New York City, said his father, Peter Hansen, who attended the hearing. FBI agent Nash said Abou-Shahin told authorities he was from Egypt and is a carpenter. Fares has a Venezuelan passport and speaks Arabic, DiScenza said. The nationality of Abdelmuhsen Mahmid Hammad was not given."
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/SakherHammad_WTC_9-11.html

Controlled Demolition Inc, was called in to finish off the collapse of the Oklahoma Murrah building after it was bombed by McVeigh.

"Despite its sad context, the demolition of the Murrah building was judged a great success, "surpassing all expectations," said Doug Loizeaux, vice president of Controlled Demolition Inc. of Phoenix, Md. The firm has razed earthquake-damaged buildings in Mexico City, Scud missile launchers in Hungary and the Dunes Hotel in Las Vegas."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/oklahoma/stories/ok052495.htm

GERMAN TIES TO CURVEBALL INFORMANANT
German Held Informant Named Curveball Spread Lies About Iraqi WMD Which Are Used to
Justify War(and as a result, the lucrative post-war reconstruction...see above)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

There is an American side to this story of course which needs to be told... a good place to start might be Prescott Bush's bank, trading with the Nazis, Skull and Bones, and its German origins... and the American KKK and Neo-Nazis in Oklahoma, Florida and elsewhere that aligned themselves with Muslim Brotherhood and European Nazis.

[Neily]

122. Start your own thread please...

This thread is for power-down discussion. Your response does not contain anything related to it. It is just as easy to start your own thread, versus hijacking mine. Thanks

[RedSock]

121. I Have Been Asking These Q Since 2006

I have posted these questions in several threads since August 2006. Maybe someone can answer them here.

------------------------

Scott Forbes, an employee with Fiduciary Trust: "On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ... without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors."

I have also heard Forbes say basically the same thing in a radio interview.

Does "no electrical supply" mean every one of the top 50 (or so) floors in the South Tower was dark? Does that mean the workers had only the available light coming through windows -- and flashlights, etc. (battery-operated generators?)? This would be odd, since many rooms in the WTC (and especially rooms with cables have no windows.) (I worked for Brown & Wood on the 59th floor of the North Tower for three years (1995-98).) How did these workers work with no electricity?

No electricity = no elevators. If they worked in the tower for two days (?), did they walk down the stairs (perhaps as many as 100 floors) when they went home at night? And then did they walk UP all those floors to work the next day? Or did they sleep in the building to avoid that?

If the power down happened and if it lasted 36 hours, are there any pictures of downtown Manhattan showing the half-dark South Tower? Forbes said the shutdown was unprecedented -- seems like it would be newsworthy. I know the Empire State Building was sometimes completely dark (often after 2:00 am or so), but I can't recall if the WTC was ever 100% dark.

I did a search for all New York Times stories with "world trade center" in them from July 1, 2001 to September 11, 2001 and found nothing.

------------------------

Do we have any physical evidence to authenticate the powerdown? A memo? A photo? A newspaper story? ANYTHING AT ALL???

So far, the answer is no.

*************************************

Anyone wanna discuss this?

[Neily]

123. Server Power-Down Instead?

I am starting to think it was a server power-down since only IT people are the ones who have reported it and because it would have been significant enough for many many more people to notice if it was an electrical power-down. Furthermore, with the tickets for the observatory showing it was open that day, it definitely negates an electrical power down.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[immune]

126. Thank you for this thread, Neily

My brain hurts, but it was worth it.