Call for FOI requests as NY Port Authority deny pre-9/11 'power down'

Yet there's no record of even a single person testifying to concur with Scott Forbes claims, meaning this is very weak evidence - at best - and an outright hoax, at worst.

Earliest involved in this story were WINGTV and Nico Haupt, known hoax disseminators and disruptors.

See 911Review.com -

UNLIKELY: 'The South Tower Was Powered Down Before the Attack'
http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

Scott Forbes stands by his story, but has not provided any corroborating information that might allow it to be verified. An article on George Washington's Blog dated November 24, 2005 contains an Interview with Scott Forbes, based on a half-hour telephone conversation in late 2004. The interview provides only a few additional details to the story, such as that Scott worked on the 97th floor of the South Tower, and that the "power down" lasted from approximately 12 noon on Saturday, September 8 through 2 PM on Sunday, September 9. Although the interviewer queries Forbes on several of the points noted above, Forbes fails to explain any of them. He states that "Many, many people worked on the power down" but does not provide any names.

I can confirm the power-down. I'm unconvinced that it's meaningful, but the Port Authority disavowing it is rather odd.

I'm an IT engineer. On September 11, I was working for a financial institution based in South Dakota but which had offices in the WTC. I was Senior Systems Engineer for the company. In that capacity, I was charged with the maintenance and monitoring of our wide-area network systems. This included not only our primary business locations in South Dakota, but also New York, San Francisco, and other areas.

We had a monitoring system for all of our wide-area network circuits and equipment (maintained by me) that included our server in NYC and both the LAN and WAN interfaces of the Cisco router in the office. Consequently, any time we lost connectivity with NYC, I would be alerted via email sent to my pager.

I recall the power-down in question quite vividly because it was one of the few times we had warning of an outage and consequently disabled monitoring of the NYC site. The overwhelming majority of WAN outages are caused by circuit failures (generally due to bad weather or construction), and can occur at any time without warning.

I'm sure that at least three of my co-workers (including the then-VP of IT) would remember the incident. We were all advised of the power-down well in advance and discussed disabling monitoring for the duration of the outage, as well as advising the NYC staff to power down the local server and other equipment in advance.

I found the timing of loss of connectivity on 9/11 rather amazing. I recall coming downstairs after getting ready for work that morning and being shocked when my then-wife pointed me to the TV. I remember being surprised that my pager hadn't gone off, as the company's WTC offices were well above the impact area. I've generally attributed the delay to the fact that our equipment were on a backup power supply that probably ran out of power after about half an hour. Nevertheless, I was rather amazed that the circuit itself and the supporting equipment in the building were still functional well after the plane impacted.

It wasn't until twenty minutes or so later (as I walked from my car to the office building) -- that my pager went off. There is an error margin of about five minutes, since the monitoring system made a sweep of NYC every five minutes. Assuming that connectivity was lost immediately after the preceding sweep, it could have been out for as long as five minutes before the next sweep would catch it.

Again, I don't know that the power-down in and of itself is particularly meaningful: these things happen from time to time for a variety of valid reasons. However, the fact that the Port Authority now denies that it occurred is unusual.

While there is some reference to power down in the Loose Change DVD at http://www.loosechange911.com/, it is covered in detail with a Scott Forbes interview in the DVD, 911 Mysteries:Demolitions available from http://www.911weknow.com/911-mysteries-movie.html
Thank you for the technical corroboration. The initial corroboration is by all of us who saw the controlled demolition as it happened live on TV on 9/11/01. Controlled demolition takes planning. The many evacautions of the WTC before 9/11/01 are described in both DVDs, all under the pretext of upgrading computer wiring. Then, the bomb-sniffing dogs were suddenly removed shortly before 9/11/01. It was clearly a staged operation, all of which took lots of planning and powering down the buildings.
The other obvious planning was the fact that there was no air defense, which automatically means that the bombings of 9/11/01 in New York and Washington DC were an Inside Job, carried out by the military, under the direction of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Giuliani. Thermate, a military substance, was used to assist in the controlled demolition in New York, making sure the buildings came down in their own footprint in a few seconds in small enough pieces to be carted away immediately, thus illegally removing the evidence. 9 of the so-called hijackers were alive on 9/12/01. There were no hijackers on those planes; they were flown by the US military via remote control. The Pentagon was hit with a combination of a US missile and construction explosives on the side of a building that was under construction. Whatever was shot down over Pennsylvania was shot down by a US missile and was not Flight 93 which landed at the Cleveland airport. Only the US government had the motive, means and opportunity to perpetrate this Reichstag Fire so as to promote war and fascism, all to maximize profits of the capitalist class, the primary goal and law of capitalism.