Mon19Feb - NATIONAL - 5-Live phone-in

[truthmonger]

Forgot to mention what the IT worker said the power-down was for - cabling work! Not conclusive evidence of the preparations for a controlled demolition, but highly suggestive.

Paul

[Mark Gobell]

Scott Forbes has stated that the power down was exceptional and it was a consequence of a network cabling upgrade. He has also said that he was involved in bringing down and restarting the entire data centre at the Fiduciary Trust offices prior to and after the upgrade.

I have been involved in many network cabling installations and upgrades and not once have we needed to power down the entire building or any part of it.

A network upgrade as I'm sure most can imagine involves the installation / replacement of data cables and / or fibres, network routers, data switches, hubs, etc and possibly servers.

If new power circuits are needed to connect remote kit then that is an easy task that does not require switching off large parts of a building. Circuits are normally isolated as and when needed, not en masse. New circuits are dead until they are switched on.

If old power circuits need to be moved, extended or upgraded to facilitate new kit then again, circuits can be isolated as and when needed.

Why anyone would need to power down an entire building or even entire floors of a building to install new data cabling is beyond me.

Don't forget that if this claim is true then all of the tools needed for all of the work must have either been battery operated or driven by generators throughout the entire building.

I also find it hard to believe that a data cabling upgrade could be achieved in a single weekend. I am sure that Forbes states that the entire building was being upgraded which frankly is not achieveable in one weekend.

For a data cabling upgrade even for a single company to take place over a single weekend is, for me, difficult to imagine, unless it was just the installation of a main backbone or something similar.

These cables are routed through floors, ceilings, walls, conduit etc. They have to be accessed, removed, replaced and installed all in two days. They then require terminating, connecting, commissioning and testing before they can be live again.

Scott Forbes testimony is on the 911 Mysteries DVD where he also says that he was getting a bit fed up with having to clean up the dust caused by work going on above his floor.

It has been said before that Forbes' evidence is uncorroborated, which it is and which is unusual given the amount of companies and IT kit alone that must have been similarly affected.

Willie Rodriguez states that strange construction like noises were coming from some of the empty floors too.

As for the possibility to use the power down window to wire up two 110 storey skyscrapers with carefully placed explosives in 48 hours well, I can only imagine.

[conspiracy analyst]

Empty floors, drilling work, dust everywhere, evacuating building for 'computer work'...

Who said the Bush neo-cons were incapable of rigging a building with explosives?

The 9/11 inside job denialists who else?

After all you can invade countries on the other side of this earth, use satellites to control drones but you cant blow up 3 buildings on your own turf?

Sound logical doesn't it.

A man in a cave did it...

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Well the perps knew the cover story of planes bringing the building down would be discredited ---ffs some of the tv newsreaders were saying it on the day itself.

Maybe all the stories about power downs, bomb sniffing dogs etc are bogus in order to plant the belief in the truth movement that the building was brought down entirely by explosives.

Why would they do this ----maybe to divert attention away from what really was used to bring the buildings down.

Take another look at those photos posted in the past few days. The dust clouds lasted several days ---you don't get that with a regular controlled demolition ----the dust will clear in a couple of hours tops

[Mark Gobell]

I've just watched the 911 Mysteries extract and forgot about the claim that Securacom, who managed "electronic security" for the WTC and Dulles Airport had an $8.3 million contract to install a new security system between 1996 and 2000.

Marvin Bush was Principal at Securacom / Stratesec from 1993 until 2000 and Wirt D Walker III a Bush cousin was CEO of same from 1999 to 2002.

Scott Forbes states that the PANYNJ gave only 3 weeks notice of the power down requirement prior to the weekend before 9/11 and that he provided written testimony to the 9/11 Commission, which was ignored.

Willie Rodriguez is on the DVD and does, in fact corroborate the power down.

[Mark Gobell]

[truthmonger]

Nolan didn't even start tackling 9/11 until around 10 - i.e. an hour after the show started. I shut down at around 11 after it appeared that he had moved onto another subject (I could be wrong and he may have come back to it). I emailed him to say: "So that was it, was it? Ordered to close down discussion of 9/11 after two dangerous contributions?" (or words to that effect).

Nolan had sounded slightly nervous after Scott Forbes' contribution.

Paul

[hampton]

any news on the snowygrouch recording?
did anyone record it?
snowygrouch himself or his friends perhaps?

thanks

[Mark Gobell]

LOL - I certainly didn't !

[Mark Gobell]

Scott Forbes on Radio 5 Live 19th February 2007

Transcript of his call to the show's host - Steve Nolan.

[Mark Gobell]

Killtown's interview (text) with Scott Forbes

[blackcat]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/ra dio/aod/fivelive_aod.shtml?fivelive/morning_mon

The above link is the "Listen Again" link for the Radio 5 'phone-in, part of which dealt with responses to the Sunday broadcast of 9/11 Conspiracies. The part concerning the 9/11 conspiracy is at 1 hour and 36 minutes in and has been reduced to about 7 minutes. In other words it is a heavily edited version of the actual broadcast. The three hours format is still there but much 9/11 responses has been edited out, so it has been padded with stuff not broadcast on Monday morning!! Why???? If anyone wants a 13 meg mp3 file of the actual programme (just the parts relating to 9/11 callers) get it here http://d.turboupload.com/d/1549102/radio5.mp3.html and listen to what was actually broadcast. ALL the callers were against the OCT and the only disagreers were by text which the host read out. The BBC are behaving shamefully!!!

[Jdspratt]

Blackcat....email from bbc on your comment

Thanks for your email with regard to the Nolan programme

All of the programmes available on our listen again feature are automatically recorded and generated on the website. There is no human intervention at all.

It is not technically possible that the programmes was edited or padded out with material not broadcast. The online offering is an automatically generated version of what was broadcast live on air.

Hope that helps.

Kind regards

Brett Spencer
Interactive Editor, BBC Radio Five Live

[truthmonger]

It's obviously important to determine what the truth of this is. I listened to most of the original programme, but not to the 'Listen Again' version. Can someone definitively show that the 'Listen Again' version was edited?

Just in general - I would once again urge as many people as possible to respond to the current BBC Trust consultation on "Purpose Remits" i.e. on whether the BBC is fulfilling its broadcasting obligations (truth, accuracy, impartiality, reflecting the diversity of opinion in the UK etc.!!).

The BBC is effectively immune from public criticism. Although we fund it, we have no right to be told how editorial decisions are made, what agendas are being pursued (it's clear from the programmes themselves that there are agendas). I think we do have a right to know who is making these key decisions and what their political and other beliefs are (the evidence is that they are heavily pro-America and pro-Israel, pro the scientific, medical, business and military establishments - and pro maintaining the political and social status quo. That's a set of clear biases which are nominally contrary to the BBC's charter and journalistic standards.

The BBC Trust is supposed to represent the public interest. Let them know what we think!

Paul