quote:

---

Theologian Says Controlled Demolition is Now a Fact, Not a Theory

Friday, October 21, 2005

In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government." On Oct. 15th and 16th, New Yorkers filled two venues to hear the prominent theologian and author of two books on 9/11 give a presentation entitled “The Destruction of the Trade Towers: A Christian Theologian Speaks Out.” Dr. Griffin has continued to blaze a trail of courage, leading where most media and elected officials have feared to tread. His presentation went straight to the core of one of the most powerful indictments of the official story, the collapse of the towers and WTC 7.

Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen’s tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victim’s families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.

Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns. The towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160 mile per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing fires gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much less the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could drop at free-fall speed. The massive core columns--the most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire. There was a volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how so much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine dust. The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward. These are all facts that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the alternative media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on the morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the three WTC buildings with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s important to note that Dr. Griffin is one of many prominent intellectuals--including the likes of Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Falk, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds and Peter Phillips--who have seen through the major discrepancies of the official explanation of 9/11 and have risen to challenge it. These brave individuals represent the tip of an ever-growing iceberg of discreet 9/11 skeptics. Indeed, 9/11 skepticism appears to be almost universal among intellectuals who have examined the evidence, since there has not yet been a single serious attempt to refute the case developed by Dr. Griffin and such like-minded thinkers as Nafeez Ahmed and Mike Ruppert. As for the general public, polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians (63%, Toronto Star, May '04) and half of New Yorkers (Zogby, August 2004) agree that top US leaders conspired to murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01.

How, then, can the mainstream US media continue to ignore the story of the century? Perhaps the best answer was given by Dr. Griffin himself in the conclusion of his talk, and is worth quoting at length:

"The evidence for this conclusion (that 9/11 was an inside job) has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush’s advice not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories.” We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.

"There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:

“'The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of ‘X-Files’ proportions and insidiousness.'

"The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

" In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this lecture---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed elsewhere---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion.

Dr. Griffin’s speech given at the University of Wisconsin earlier this year, entitled “9/11 and the American Empire,” was broadcast twice on C-SPAN. In late September Dr. Griffin was asked to give expert testimony at hearings sponsored by Cynthia McKinney and the Congressional Black Caucus investigating the 9/11 Commission Report. He is currently Professor Emeritus at Claremont College in California.

This weekend's events were sponsored by NY911truth.org, WBAI and the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth: http://mujca.com.
Kevin Barrett
Coordinator, MUJCA-NET: http://mujca.com

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=699&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

---

quote:

---

http://www.enterprisemission.com/millenn4.htm

The"true Equinox" longitude on Earth,where the Equinox would always fall between midnight and midnight, but only within a narrow band of specific longitude. Along this strip of longitude the Equinox would always have occurred on March 21st for literally thousands of years --
This would probably have come to be seen as "God's Chosen Meridian

That longitude is 77° West.



Observers will note that this is the longitude, to a high degree of precision, of the capitol city of the United States, Washington D.C. There is even a "meridian hill" in Washington that marks out the precise location of 77° West, placed there by the architect of the city, Pierre Charles L'Enfante.

---

Griffin raises 9/11 questions

October 25, 2005

This past week, upward of 1,000 people heard David Ray Griffin speak in four cities throughout Vermont on the unanswered questions about the disaster on Sept. 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center. These are questions still being brought forth by the family members of the victims who died in the twin towers.

At each talk, many people asked hard questions concerning the implications that our government knew about this impending disaster prior to 9/11 and did not stop it, and was possibly involved in its cover-up.

Mr. Griffin, a theologian, professor and author, had believed that the hijacked airplanes and crashes were the work of terrorists from other countries until he came across a book with a timeline of all the 9/11 happenings by Paul Thompson. This set him on his own search, and he began looking at all the Web sites speaking of the disaster. He found there were family members of the victims who were not satisfied with the investigation. He listened to their stories that spoke of the extremely lengthy time it took for the government to start an investigation of this disaster that killed over 3,000 people. He heard of gag orders placed on people who wanted and still want to tell their stories.

Just this August, the lawsuit brought by The New York Times and family members to open the testimonies of fire and police personnel to the public was finally won, and we are now hearing the stories of "bombs going off" in and around the buildings before they collapsed.

Mr. Griffin spoke of the many other unanswered questions that the 9/11 Commission Report either did not address or gave answers differing from what officially had been told. "Why did it take 431 days before an investigation was started?" "Why were investigators not allowed at ground zero?" "How could the buildings come down in 16 seconds?" "How could the buildings collapse with 'dead center symmetry'?" "Why was the steel shipped almost immediately to China and India?" "Why was Building 7 'brought down,' when it was not hit by a plane?" and one of the biggest questions, "Why did our defense system, without doubt the best in the world, not intercept those airplanes?"

[SNIP]

Link to entire article:
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051025/NEWS/510250318/1037/OPINION02

quote:

---

ONE

"What I did not know, Mr. Speaker, up until June of this year, was that that secret program called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda in January and February of 2000, over 1 year before 9/11 every happened. In addition, I learned that not only did we identify the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, but we identified Mohamed Atta as one of the members of that Brooklyn cell along with three other terrorists who were the leadership of the 9/11 attack."

TWO

"The Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency was in a meeting with Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer almost a year before 9/11, and Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer showed him a disk in his office with information about al Qaeda and Mohammed Atta, and the Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency stopped the briefing and said, you cannot show me that. I do not want to see it. It might contain information I cannot look at.

Now, Tony Shaffer was not in the room alone, Mr. Speaker. There were other people, and we know their names. So we have witnesses. Now, the Deputy Director has denied that meeting and denied he was there and denied this particular story, but the fact is he knows that we are going to pursue it."

---

quote:

---

"So what has happened to Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, Mr. Speaker? The Defense Intelligence Agency has lifted his security clearance. One day before he was to testify before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in uniform, they permanently removed his security clearance. And now our Defense Intelligence Agency has told Colonel Shaffer’s lawyer that they plan to seek a permanent removal of his pay and his health care benefits for him and his two children. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, like Commander Scott Philpot of the Navy, like J.D. Smith, and like a host of other Able Danger employees, has told the truth."

---

quote:

---

The Commission, in sum, offers peace through exculpation, evasion, and entertainment--and in doing so dangerously reenergizes a national relish for fantasy. Given a chance to brace the electorate with incontrovertible evidence that the search for leadership must be a search for flexible intelligence, endlessly curious and rapid, devouring in its appetite for the whole body of knowledge bearing on fateful choices, the Commission speaks out for loose-limbed feel-good geniality and artful dodging. Its vote for harmony is perfectly comprehensible, but as the costs of the vote are weighed, the imperative of protest against it stands forth as immensely more comprehensible--and just. "In all the general concerns," James Fenimore Cooper wrote long ago, in 1838, "the publick has a right to be treated with candor. Without this manly and republican quality . . . [American] institutions are converted into stupendous fraud." Faced with The 9/11 Commission Report, this country's true need now is to shout Shame!

---

quote:

---

While the Department of Defense and others were threatened with subpoenas for not being forthcoming with information requested, we were of the mindset that all known evidence pertaining to September 11th, should have been subpoenaed by the Commission from the outset, with no exceptions. Which, by the way, was the mandate of the 9/11 Commission.

No stones should have remained unturned. And yet, this was not the case. For example with regard to videos that recorded the Pentagon crash, we knew of at least 3 versions of videos that record the crash of Flight 77. Yet only one version ever made its way into the public domain.

That version had the date stamp of 9/12 instead of 9/11/01. The time stamp is repeated on 2 of the 5 frames while the times on the other frames were missing. We had read in National Geographic about the second video that was recorded by cameras located at the Sheraton Hotel overlooking the Pentagon. We also read about the 3rd video recording that showed the crash from the nearby Nexcom Gas Station security camera.

We asked the Commission, specifically Team 8, to subpoena for these videos, and just before the Commission released its final report, we met with some of them. They told us that they had not subpoenaed for this evidence but had instead issued document requests which were never answered.

This seeming lack of persistence on the part of the Commission to collect all known evidence is worrisome. Again, if they were unwilling to go after even easily obtainable evidence, what other critical and more difficult pieces of the story were they missing?

How was one to feel comfortable with their investigation, knowing that they were not aggressively pursuing the most tangible of evidence or information?

Also missing from the Commission's definitive report was the testimony from national security whistleblowers who had tried to testify before the Commission, but where either not asked to testify or their testimony was only barely acknowledged, or worse yet, completely omitted from the record.

This list includes:

Robert Wright – FBI Agent, whom the FBI refused to allow to testify, and the Commission did not subpoena him.

John M. Cole – FBI Counterintelligence who had pertinent information with regard to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the 9/11 attacks. He notified the 9/11 Commission during its tenure but never received a response back from them.

Coleen Rowley – FBI Division Council, the FBI commission did not interview her and chose instead to rely on transcripts from the Joint Senate House Intelligence Inquiry.

Mike German – FBI Counterintelligence, in February, 2004 his name and contact information were provided to the Commission as a key witness, but they never called him to testify.

Mark Burtons – Senior Analyst at NSA, he provided dozens of pages of information and testimony to the 9/11 Commission but was ignored, and was never invited to testify.

Aris Ashar – Language Specialist at the FBI, he was refused twice by the Commission to testify but finally did testify however, his testimony was omitted from the final report.

This list is in no way complete, rather, it's just a small sample of the legitimate witnesses or corroborators of valuable 9/11 information that they tried to provide to the Commission. But they were instead turned away.

Knowing full well that the best source of how an agency really works would entail talking to the people who actually work there, why is it that the Commission refused these key witnesses an opportunity to tell what they knew?

How could the Commission be trusted to make the right decisions without obtaining all pertinent information?

Worse yet, what happens when the Commission actively and knowingly ignores that information?

---

quote:

---

How was it that it took over an hour after the first transponder went off before planes were scrambled to meet the threat? All of them too late.

What happened to those reports that surfaced within months of September 11th stating that 7 or more of the alleged hijackers had come forward and claimed that they were victims of stolen identities, they were alive and well, living in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Tunisia? Why did the Commission choose not even to address this?

What about the terrorist Omar Said Sheikh? Now sitting in a Pakistani prison on charges of participating in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal's Daniel Pearl. According to Indian intelligence, this man received orders from a Pakistani General to transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta. People all over the world are talking about this story. But not a word about it in the Report.

What about Osama bin Laden and his role in the Mujahadin backed by the CIA in the 1980's to fight the Soviets? The Commission didn't go there.

This morning, we will be hearing about these omissions, errors, and about the historical background of September 11th from the collection of experts we have assembled. In the afternoon we will be looking at the Report's recommendations. And I think we will find very little in them that challenges the Bush administration's foreign policy and its war on terrorism.

In fact, its recommendations for centralizing America's intelligence networks seems designed to further that agenda.

And we will be hearing about how under the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the dual legal system that has been enacted to allow detainees to be held indefinitely without facing judge or jury, how our Civil Liberties are being eroded in the name of fighting the terrorists. As if the term `terrorist' alone tells us all we need to know about our enemies.

We need to know about our enemies, if we're going to reclaim a future free from the fear of terrorist attacks and weapons of mass destruction. We cannot afford to shy away from inconvenient truths. Many of you may find what you hear today to be inconvenient information. But Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but times of challenge and controversy."

I encourage you to engage with the issues that are raised, and if you don't agree, or don't like what you hear, challenge it.

I believe that we should take in what every reasonable person has to say, to inform our decisions, because that's the best way to find the truth.

And in our pursuit of the truth, I encourage you to emulate the courage and the determination of the September 11th families, in their struggle to know, what really happened.

---

quote:

---

Able Danger warned of attack on USS Cole - By: KEITH PHUCAS, Times Herald Staff 10/25/2005 - NORRISTOWN - Senior Pentagon officials were warned not to let the USS Cole dock in Yemen two days before terrorists attacked the ship five years ago killing 17 sailors, according to Congressman Curt Weldon, who said the crucial intelligence was gleaned from the former secret defense operation, "Able Danger."

snip

The military's Special Operations Command ran the high-tech dragnet that searched for terrorist linkages. The terrorist associations were mapped out on large charts, according to Shaffer and other of "Able Danger" colleagues, during the program that operated between 1999 and 2001.

snip

Besides claiming to identifying Atta from a grainy photograph prior to Sept. 11, the intelligence team also tried to warn the Pentagon not to allow the USS Cole to make a refueling stop in Yemen five years ago, Weldon said.

On Oct. 12, 2000, a small boat loaded with explosives rammed into the side of the USS Cole as the ship refueled in port at Aden, killing the 17 Navy personnel. "(Able Danger members) also identified the threat to the USS Cole two weeks before the attack, and two days before the attack were screaming not to let the (ship) come into the harbor at Yemen, because they knew something was going to happen," he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KNOW-THIS
Is there any correlation between the number 2 and nature in numerology?

---

quote:

---

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Interview with Scott Forbes

Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11.

I spoke with Scott Forbes by telephone for around a half hour in late 2004. I also arranged a video interview. However, due to delays by a third person in releasing that video, Scott and I agreed to post a written interview now to fill in some of the details of Scott's experience.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

GW: In 2001, you were working as an information technology specialist for Fiduciary Trust. Were you the main IT person for Fiduciary Trust, or were you an assistant IT person?

SF: I worked within an IT department of around 100 as a senior DBA [database administrator] and team leader.

GW: Fiduciary Trust had floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower at that time. Did you work on a specific floor, or did your duties normally keep you roaming on several floors?

SF: I and my technology colleagues worked on the 97th floor ... in the course of the day we would have meetings or give support on other floors but most our time would have been spent on the 97th floor.

THE WEEKEND OF SEPTEMBER 8TH AND 9TH

GW: You've previously stated that on the weekend of September 8 and 9, 2001, there was a "power down" condition in world trade center Tower 2, the South Tower, and that this power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. Do you know what time the power-down started?

SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

GW: When did it end?

SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.

GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

GW: You've previously stated that you were aware of the power down since you worked in the IT department and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. How many other Fiduciary Trust folks were you working with? Can any of them verify your story?

SF: Many, many people worked on the power down, both from the IT department and from the business, revalidating systems when they were available again. Other people can validate my information. Some people do not remember the circumstances, some people will not revisit that time ... but others acknowledge the power down freely and can validate my information.

GW: You said the reason given by the World Trade Center or Port Authority for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded. Do you know what parts of the building or how extensive the area would have been for upgrading cabling? In other words, would the area being worked on have been near the outer walls of the tower? Near the core? In the middle?

SF: I have no knowledge about this and can't comment ...

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were no security cameras. How do you know that? Could there have been backup generators which powered the security cameras?

SF: Within my company security cameras were monitored and videos retained for reference. They were powered from the usual power supplies so they would ave been out of action like all other electrical appliances.

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were security locks on doors. Are you just referring to outside doors, or also office doors? Were the locks electrical or key? If electrical, were they battery-operated?

SF: I was referring to the secure doors accessing my companies floors (and other companies). I do not believe there were any battery operated doors.

GW: You also stated there were many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. Did you see any of these folks yourself?

SF: Yes. By “engineers” I mean there were workmen on site, in overalls.

GW: Did these folks look "middle eastern"?

SF: No, not particularly, I mean I don't recall registering that the
guys were of one racial group or another.

GW: Did you recognize any of them from previous "work" in the tower?

SF: No.

THE MORNING OF 9/11

GW: You were home on the shore of Jersey City on the morning of 9/11, and -- according to what you have said previously -- you were "convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work". Why did you think that?

SF: When the South Tower collapsed, like a pillar of sand, it seemed unreal and inconceivable and I immediately thought something weird was going on. I became more suspicious several months later when the power down condition was never acknowledged and in some instances was denied by authorities.

THE 9/11 COMMISSION

GW: Finally, you've stated that you gave your information to the 9/11 Commission, but it took no interest. How did you get the info to the Commission (phone, email, letter?)

SF: I contacted the commission through their website and by mail. But I was never acknowledged nor contacted.

GW: Did the Commission ever follow up with you?

SF: No

GW: Anything else you wish to tell us?

SF: I have another piece of interesting information ... after 9/11 my company, along with others, was in disaster recovery mode at a location in New Jersey. At that site were literally hundreds and hundreds of eye witnesses to the events of 9/11. As a British National I was contacted by Scotland Yard in London to interview me on the events ... but I've often wondered why us authorities, like the New York police or FBI, did not interview all those witnesses available altogether in New Jersey. It seems like incompetence to me at best ... negligence at worst.

Postscript: Scott did not wish to speak with me concerning reports of explosions above the impact zone in the tower, perhaps because of privacy concerns for the family members of those who died in the tower. Scott told me that he was recently interviewed for a Dutch TV Documentary. So stay tuned: 2 videos of Scott should be coming out soon. .


Link to article:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html

---

quote:

---

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:

"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 36 hrs 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 ...

"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1691636.php

---

quote:

---

Scott Forbes is a Senior Database Administrator for Fiduciary Trust and used to work in the South Tower of the WTC. This interview with him began last September and was conducted through a series of instant messaging and e-mails. Scott can be reached at:
scottforbes2002@hotmail.com

Killtown: Scott, you have an interesting story to tell. Where were you working the week before 9/11?

Scott Forbes: In my office on the 97th floor in WTC 2 (South Tower), as usual except that myself and a lot of my colleagues were also working the weekend of 9/8 and 9/9.

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: Was it unusual for you to be working on the weekend?

SF: I suppose at that time I would have been working one weekend in every 6 or 8 weeks, so it was not unheard of. Working in Technology you get used to working 'out of business hours.' I guess what was odd about this weekend was that as all power was going down then all of our systems were being shutdown. This was extreme and unprecedented.

KT: Who were you working for and what was your position there?

SF: Fiduciary Trust, an Investment Bank, who had just been acquired by the Franklin Templeton Group and I was (and am) a Senior DBA or Database Administrator.

KT: So you are an IT personnel?

SF: Yes.

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: Was there a power down in the WTC 1 also?


[SNIP]

Click here to read the rest of this interview:
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html

---