I am very suspicious of the commentary at the beginning.
They ask about bringing the building down and talk of implosions and terrorists.What do you make of those comments at the very beginning of that video`?
note also just before the second aircraft impact the expulsions/explosions?
The start of the "collapse" is edited out...
I don't know about the comments, but there were explosions that were heard by so many people long before the collapse and we don't hear any on that video.
This video allows us to hear many of them clearly. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516#docid=-29391...
It's not edited out according to the cameraman.
He said that he was being moving back from the scene, (like you see in multiple clips preceding the demolition), and he didn't have the camera on.
I read that explanation on a duplicate of his clip posted by another YT user, along with this:
"No matter what happened that day, and i agree there is some crazy images and video, all i know is that i tried to capture what was going without any type of ulterior motive." (my emph)
vigNYC
And there is indeed "some crazy images and video" of superb quality that clearly wasn't "edited out."
it seems, from the www.reinvestigate911.org meeting in SOAS London UK at which Scott Forbes spoke that the power downs were just long enough that none of the computer- dependent businesses in the building would have electricity generating capacity to endure- (i think Scott Forbes' company's generator could keep the data base running 24 hours but the power downs may have been 36 hours) . therefore the businesses found off-site locations to store their data. The point being that one purpose for the power downs seems to have been to keep wall st running through 9/11 as the off site databases could be used to replace those blown into a fine powder in the WTC
Yes, I noticed those explosions/expulsions at (I think just AFTER) impact (@1:57), and when I read your comment and went back to them, was amazed. Considering the camera seems to be about half a mile away, the delay of sound travel from the exploding plane would be ~2.5 seconds, giving time for a vacuum after the explosion to develop. Not sure if that is how it works, but it looked like a great pull from the second aircraft hit, like a vacuum. Perhaps the windows in that area were at a tipping point of stress, and the shock helped blow them out from the fire inside. Maybe someone familiar with the dynamics of explosions can shed light here. Is it possible that some pre-set charges were triggered by the nearby explosion in the other building? I tend to think something a little less nefarious in this case.
The violent "pull" of smoke from isolated spots is very suited to the NIST description of pressure pulses from within, keeping in mind that a pressure pulse is typically produced by an explosion...
======================================
The puff of smoke and/or dust just prior to the release of the (molten) material occurred suddenly, in the process creating a pressure pulse that forced smoke and/or dust out of open windows over three floors.
[...]
A particularly strong pressure pulse started at 9:56:11 a.m. It lasted nearly 10s. This particular pulse was strong enough to push flames from the tower at many locations. Following a pressure pulse at 9:56:31 a.m., the flames present on the 81st floor in the northeast corner opening and nearby flames on the north face abruptly died down. The large flame in window 81-301 on the east face also declined within 2s. All of these flames reappeared after a few seconds.
NIST NCSTAR, 1-5a
======================================
tell me exactly why the pressure pulse from the massive fuel-air explosion from the impact of UA 175 could not be responsible for the observed phenomena?
Because I see no compelling reason whatsoever why I should believe anything else at this point.
2) the classic air-fuel explosion typically requires dispersal of the fuel in a mist over a large area prior to ignition, and that is not what occurred.
3) a flash immediately precedes ejection of black smoke from a new area:
4) the smoke peeling upwards in regions above and surrounding the puffs is unaffected, and
5) a flame blows out a window on the opposite face, while the smoke peeling upwards on that side remains unpulled:
6) the jet-fuel explosion hasn't even had a chance to expand before these thing occur:
Perhaps you should respond to the 6 rational explanations I proffered (as you requested) instead of saying "go elsewhere" like some kind of forum cop trying to discourage discussion of excellent, strong, explosive evidence, including cutter charges flashing in the towers.
The power down, even if it were true, would be worth NOTHING.
clarification addendum: employees discuss a power downversusexplosions and flashes that can be seen in quality footgage
There' is simply no contest between the two over which ball the truth movement should keep an eye on, as far as I can tell.
The explosions are there, accompanied by flashes, and the pull theory for explaining them is irrational, preposterous, and it literally sucks.
invitation to discuss this amongst experts who have the wherewithal to add to and critique your findings. It's wasn't a cop out, it was made out of genuine curiosity. You could choose a defensive, hostile posture or you could present your evidence among neutral scientists and engineers who would be very interested. I felt like offering you a constructive venue for discussion. Your response is insulting, and makes me regret my good intentions. The forum I invited you to I hold in very high regard. Ad hominem there is forbidden.
Well I apologize sincerely for reading your response as a brush off of sorts.
I have not heard of the 911forum, and I will give your suggestion some thought.
I know there are some pretty smart people here, however, for I read their posts often, including some of yours.
Topics per day: 0
Posts per day: 15 (?)
Users per day: 0
With Dr. G(reening) , David B. Benson, and "onewhiteeye" on the list of most prolific posters apparently not posting anymore, I'm not sure there would be much value in accepting your courteous invitation, assuming I am correct about the address that you neglected to include with it.
I already wasted a lot of time in a futile effort to extract plausible explanations from those same NISTorians - in 2006!
Recently... the signal to noise ratio has degraded somewhat.. but.. it's still active. I can't make a much longer reply, because I have an appointment, but maybe you would reconsider. I searched their topics and afaik, a topic about your specific research here is sorely missing.
"The explosions are there, accompanied by flashes, and the pull theory for explaining them is irrational, preposterous, and it literally sucks."
I understand your frustration that something so obviously false as this pressure pull/pulse threory gets so much attention. Its like the crush down/up theory - so obviously bogus yet a lot of people can't see that.
So, for those of you that believe there could have been a significant pressure pull/pulse, why not do a little experiment for yourself e.g. set something on fire and apply a pressure pulse to it. See if you can affect the object without affecting the fire/smoke.
What kind of external vaccum would only pull puffs of smoke violently from a few windows while having no effect whatsoever on the smoke already billowing from the tower??
I asked the same question here a few days ago and received no answer.
Note also the flash in the window immediately preceding the "great pull" as you call it:
(left circle)
flash in right circle also, and a "great pull" on both visible faces, but only effecting isolated spots near a few special windows...really?
"Great pull" theory, or "shockwave" or magical isolated rarefaction of air outside the towers doesn't add up--it's not a plausible explanation, given what we actually see.
I agree - a suction would pull all the smoke not just isolated puffs from a few windows.
Also, if the impact on WTC2 created a pressure pulse of any kind we would see a reaction in the smoke.
No noticeable reaction in the smoke = no significant pressure pulse.
However, I can hear people saying the impact caused a vibration that travelled down WT2 and up WTC1 which caused a floor or something to fall resulting in the puffs of debris blowing out.
I haven't seen these obvious squibs before, at 1:57 into this video.
The fact that a) no other smoke plumes are impacted, and b) the squibs are exactly simultanious, but also widespread on two faces of the building, seems to indicate that this is not the result of some internal structural failure. Since they are timed exactly together, any counter argument would mean it is a "single event" on the inside. Any naturally ocurring event (due to fire) which creates such widespread smoke expulsions would have a broad impact across all the smoke on both visible faces.
This single event can only be timed explosives.
The timing has the squibs slightly before the impact of the second plane, is indicative of an attempt to have the second impact be a diversion from the charges firing (though slightly mis-timed).
He stopped to talk to this guy with the camera because he acknowledged the "9/11 was an Inside Job" sign, yet completely fails to make the connection between that statement and the so-called "Mosque" issue. I was hoping the interviewer would have asked, "perhaps "arabs" had nothing to do with it?"
About two years ago I requested of the Con-Edison utility, any electric service records that might reflect such a powerdown but was advised the information was not available for release.
Also made FOI requests of the Port Authority of NY/NJ for final utility statements for WTC offices that might reveal such a powerdown upon comparison. Was advised no such records were located.
Also made a similar FOI request of the NY State Dept. of Taxation for their WTC office but they provided me statements for a different field office.
After being posted on scores of websites for over a year, this story has failed to elicit any corroborating reports, even about the identity of 'Scott Forbes'. Aside from the fact that the sourcing of the story doesn't meet the most basic journalistic standards, its content is thoroughly implausible.
* It makes no sense that the perpetrators would do something so obvious as powering down half of a tower so shortly before the attack. This would create a profound disruption of business for dozens of companies, and would be noticed by thousands of people. Thousands of e-mails would have been broadcast and a great deal of work would have been done by scores of employees to prepare for the outage.
* It makes less sense that they would take such a drastic action but only for one half of one tower. Why was the disruption only necessary for the upper floors of the South Tower, or how would similar power-downs of the other sections have gone unnoticed?
* Powering down for cabling upgrades is laughable as a cover story for demolition preparation work. Cabling upgrades for data bandwidth do not require interrupting AC power at all. Even if the AC wiring were being upgraded, the new wiring would have been installed and powered up in parallel with the old wiring. Any interruptions would be minimized to a few minutes. Powering down large portions of a tower, and for 36 hours, would have generated numerous protests from tenants.
* Contrary to the e-mail's assertion, security cameras are designed to use independent uninterruptible power supplies. If power to the security systems were interrupted, many doors would remain unopenable except by key. http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html
What I think he is trying to relate is that in retrospect the power down is suspicious to him. By being attracted to the inside job sign he is relating his experience and concerns. He most likely believes that while the terrorists who crashed the planes were involved other people who had access to the inside of the building may have also been involved. He hasn't really put the whole story together in his own mind yet.
The power down makes sense to me as last minute concerns or problems could have arisen in the operation. We know for sure that a problem arose with WTC7.
In the second video a plane or something appears around 1:32. Anyone know anything about that?
1) The interviewee said the "power down was for central areas only" : corresponding to elevator shaft zones?
2) A gentleman who is a staff member of INN Studios where the Our Lives Post 9/11/2010 WAC NY Conference was held also came forward and bore witness to his regular observation of several elevators (inc. the direct line to Windows of the World) at WTC1 being continuously worked on (inc. personnel with crates of computers), shut down and guarded by security weeks prior to September 11, 2001. I expect footage might emerge when finished video of the symposium is released.
Why only 2 people, out of hundreds or thousands, who will talk about this? Wouldn't Willie R have known if there was a powerdown and he was the "key master"?
There should be a focused search of people who will confirm it if this claim is going to be spread as evidence. He should be contacted and asked for others who would corroborate it.
When they ask about if he'd seen people go in when security was down he mentions that they could have been blond, or middle east types . . . it seems typical that people who come out and appear to believe that things were rigged ahead of time think that Middle Eastern men were the ones planting bombs or scouting out the buildings . . . they don't really get it, and so the story can begin to get very bizarre.
Two people in 9 years . . . it starts to become irresponsible to advocate this claim publicly if no one is going to try to follow it up and make it real. Like the "bombs in the basements" idea, these will remain on the level of "ghost stories" unless they are followed up on carefully.
in the basement is real, the discussion is just over what exactly happened there...
As for the "power down", this witness might not be as informed about other issues as we are, but it is the first real corroboration... The alternative is that both are lying or fake witnesses. Or somehow mistaken. I'm reluctant to go there, although there is something about this production that alerts my spider sense, so to speak.
Mind you, many of these men's colleagues are simply dead; they can't come forward. I'm an IT guy myself, and I don't know why exactly a 'power down' would be necessary for a cabling upgrade, but I don't rule it out either. If you're opening up maintenance spaces for work, you might want to shut down the power here and there for safety reasons. There are numerous possible IT-related reasons why you might want to do this, I would like to know more to see if they make any sense.
new footage of wtc7 collapse
I am very suspicious of the commentary at the beginning.
They ask about bringing the building down and talk of implosions and terrorists.What do you make of those comments at the very beginning of that video`?
note also just before the second aircraft impact the expulsions/explosions?
once again..
The start of the "collapse" is edited out...
I don't know about the comments, but there were explosions that were heard by so many people long before the collapse and we don't hear any on that video.
This video allows us to hear many of them clearly.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516#docid=-29391...
give the guy a break
It's not edited out according to the cameraman.
He said that he was being moving back from the scene, (like you see in multiple clips preceding the demolition), and he didn't have the camera on.
I read that explanation on a duplicate of his clip posted by another YT user, along with this:
"No matter what happened that day, and i agree there is some crazy images and video, all i know is that i tried to capture what was going without any type of ulterior motive." (my emph)
vigNYC
And there is indeed "some crazy images and video" of superb quality that clearly wasn't "edited out."
huh?
I really don't know what you're talking about.
I thought that was part of the recently obtained videos from NIST....
I was commenting the other video, not the interview...
Your comment was wrong and unfair
You said, in reply to a post that referred to the Steve Vigilante video, that it was "edited out."
In plain common English that you shouldn't be confused by, I replied
NO, IT WASN'T.
And I quoted Steve Vigilante (vigNYC) to make the point.
Your confused response to me is that one that makes no sense.
back to WTC Employee Discusses pre 9/11 Power Downs
it seems, from the www.reinvestigate911.org meeting in SOAS London UK at which Scott Forbes spoke that the power downs were just long enough that none of the computer- dependent businesses in the building would have electricity generating capacity to endure- (i think Scott Forbes' company's generator could keep the data base running 24 hours but the power downs may have been 36 hours) . therefore the businesses found off-site locations to store their data. The point being that one purpose for the power downs seems to have been to keep wall st running through 9/11 as the off site databases could be used to replace those blown into a fine powder in the WTC
"737" ," Airbus" No an Airbus is too big"
"737" ," Airbus" No an Airbus is too big"
Engine location. Church & Murray Street
WTC 7?
I didn't see its collapse in the video.
A great sucking sound
Yes, I noticed those explosions/expulsions at (I think just AFTER) impact (@1:57), and when I read your comment and went back to them, was amazed. Considering the camera seems to be about half a mile away, the delay of sound travel from the exploding plane would be ~2.5 seconds, giving time for a vacuum after the explosion to develop. Not sure if that is how it works, but it looked like a great pull from the second aircraft hit, like a vacuum. Perhaps the windows in that area were at a tipping point of stress, and the shock helped blow them out from the fire inside. Maybe someone familiar with the dynamics of explosions can shed light here. Is it possible that some pre-set charges were triggered by the nearby explosion in the other building? I tend to think something a little less nefarious in this case.
The less nefarious explanation
is correct. I wanted to say the same thing, but you beat me to it. I was familiar with this phenomenon before via the Rogue Status video.
addendum to my previous post (below)
The violent "pull" of smoke from isolated spots is very suited to the NIST description of pressure pulses from within, keeping in mind that a pressure pulse is typically produced by an explosion...
======================================
The puff of smoke and/or dust just prior to the release of the (molten) material occurred suddenly, in the process creating a pressure pulse that forced smoke and/or dust out of open windows over three floors.
[...]
A particularly strong pressure pulse started at 9:56:11 a.m. It lasted nearly 10s. This particular pulse was strong enough to push flames from the tower at many locations. Following a pressure pulse at 9:56:31 a.m., the flames present on the 81st floor in the northeast corner opening and nearby flames on the north face abruptly died down. The large flame in window 81-301 on the east face also declined within 2s. All of these flames reappeared after a few seconds.
NIST NCSTAR, 1-5a
======================================
Compression and rarefaction of air outside the towers cannot account for what we see here, anymore than it can account for the explosive ejection seen in the video released by NIST to IC911Studies that is so popular at the moment.
I know a little about compression and rarefaction of air, because I am a sound engineer.
Could you
tell me exactly why the pressure pulse from the massive fuel-air explosion from the impact of UA 175 could not be responsible for the observed phenomena?
Because I see no compelling reason whatsoever why I should believe anything else at this point.
Yes I can, 6 times!
1) a pressure pulse will push things, not pull.
2) the classic air-fuel explosion typically requires dispersal of the fuel in a mist over a large area prior to ignition, and that is not what occurred.
3) a flash immediately precedes ejection of black smoke from a new area:
4) the smoke peeling upwards in regions above and surrounding the puffs is unaffected, and
5) a flame blows out a window on the opposite face, while the smoke peeling upwards on that side remains unpulled:
6) the jet-fuel explosion hasn't even had a chance to expand before these thing occur:
small frames from Xenomorph911WTC's compilation on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYwW3o4-Ztk
Perhaps this
is something to discuss over @ the911forum. Are you a member?
Perhaps
Perhaps you should respond to the 6 rational explanations I proffered (as you requested) instead of saying "go elsewhere" like some kind of forum cop trying to discourage discussion of excellent, strong, explosive evidence, including cutter charges flashing in the towers.
The power down, even if it were true, would be worth NOTHING.
clarification addendum: employees discuss a power down versus explosions and flashes that can be seen in quality footgage
There' is simply no contest between the two over which ball the truth movement should keep an eye on, as far as I can tell.
The explosions are there, accompanied by flashes, and the pull theory for explaining them is irrational, preposterous, and it literally sucks.
(several tag edits)
It was a courteous
invitation to discuss this amongst experts who have the wherewithal to add to and critique your findings. It's wasn't a cop out, it was made out of genuine curiosity. You could choose a defensive, hostile posture or you could present your evidence among neutral scientists and engineers who would be very interested. I felt like offering you a constructive venue for discussion. Your response is insulting, and makes me regret my good intentions. The forum I invited you to I hold in very high regard. Ad hominem there is forbidden.
My Bad, 2
Well I apologize sincerely for reading your response as a brush off of sorts.
I have not heard of the 911forum, and I will give your suggestion some thought.
I know there are some pretty smart people here, however, for I read their posts often, including some of yours.
cheers,
AP
I didn't want to comment further..
but, the only "the911forum" I can find most likely to fit your reference (correct me if I'm wrong), is here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/portal.php
Topics per day: 0
Posts per day: 15 (?)
Users per day: 0
With Dr. G(reening) , David B. Benson, and "onewhiteeye" on the list of most prolific posters apparently not posting anymore, I'm not sure there would be much value in accepting your courteous invitation, assuming I am correct about the address that you neglected to include with it.
I already wasted a lot of time in a futile effort to extract plausible explanations from those same NISTorians - in 2006!
That's the forum
Recently... the signal to noise ratio has degraded somewhat.. but.. it's still active. I can't make a much longer reply, because I have an appointment, but maybe you would reconsider. I searched their topics and afaik, a topic about your specific research here is sorely missing.
I understand your frustration
"The explosions are there, accompanied by flashes, and the pull theory for explaining them is irrational, preposterous, and it literally sucks."
I understand your frustration that something so obviously false as this pressure pull/pulse threory gets so much attention. Its like the crush down/up theory - so obviously bogus yet a lot of people can't see that.
So, for those of you that believe there could have been a significant pressure pull/pulse, why not do a little experiment for yourself e.g. set something on fire and apply a pressure pulse to it. See if you can affect the object without affecting the fire/smoke.
Great Pull Theory.
What kind of external vaccum would only pull puffs of smoke violently from a few windows while having no effect whatsoever on the smoke already billowing from the tower??
I asked the same question here a few days ago and received no answer.
Note also the flash in the window immediately preceding the "great pull" as you call it:
(left circle)
flash in right circle also, and a "great pull" on both visible faces, but only effecting isolated spots near a few special windows...really?
"Great pull" theory, or "shockwave" or magical isolated rarefaction of air outside the towers doesn't add up--it's not a plausible explanation, given what we actually see.
(edited for spellophonics)
Agreed
I agree - a suction would pull all the smoke not just isolated puffs from a few windows.
Also, if the impact on WTC2 created a pressure pulse of any kind we would see a reaction in the smoke.
No noticeable reaction in the smoke = no significant pressure pulse.
However, I can hear people saying the impact caused a vibration that travelled down WT2 and up WTC1 which caused a floor or something to fall resulting in the puffs of debris blowing out.
1:57 into the video
Is this a new finding ?
I haven't seen these obvious squibs before, at 1:57 into this video.
The fact that a) no other smoke plumes are impacted, and b) the squibs are exactly simultanious, but also widespread on two faces of the building, seems to indicate that this is not the result of some internal structural failure. Since they are timed exactly together, any counter argument would mean it is a "single event" on the inside. Any naturally ocurring event (due to fire) which creates such widespread smoke expulsions would have a broad impact across all the smoke on both visible faces.
This single event can only be timed explosives.
The timing has the squibs slightly before the impact of the second plane, is indicative of an attempt to have the second impact be a diversion from the charges firing (though slightly mis-timed).
A stunning find. Well done.
I felt
for him ...But he lost me at the end with his comments on the so called "Mosque"....
Agreed
He stopped to talk to this guy with the camera because he acknowledged the "9/11 was an Inside Job" sign, yet completely fails to make the connection between that statement and the so-called "Mosque" issue. I was hoping the interviewer would have asked, "perhaps "arabs" had nothing to do with it?"
Better Questions needed
The interviewer did not ask very good questions, such as: "Has there ever been power downs at the WTC before? if so when?"
Tried To Obtain Con-Ed and State Agency Utility Records
About two years ago I requested of the Con-Edison utility, any electric service records that might reflect such a powerdown but was advised the information was not available for release.
Also made FOI requests of the Port Authority of NY/NJ for final utility statements for WTC offices that might reveal such a powerdown upon comparison. Was advised no such records were located.
Also made a similar FOI request of the NY State Dept. of Taxation for their WTC office but they provided me statements for a different field office.
Unlikely
UNLIKELY: 'The South Tower Was Powered Down Before the Attack'
After being posted on scores of websites for over a year, this story has failed to elicit any corroborating reports, even about the identity of 'Scott Forbes'. Aside from the fact that the sourcing of the story doesn't meet the most basic journalistic standards, its content is thoroughly implausible.
* It makes no sense that the perpetrators would do something so obvious as powering down half of a tower so shortly before the attack. This would create a profound disruption of business for dozens of companies, and would be noticed by thousands of people. Thousands of e-mails would have been broadcast and a great deal of work would have been done by scores of employees to prepare for the outage.
* It makes less sense that they would take such a drastic action but only for one half of one tower. Why was the disruption only necessary for the upper floors of the South Tower, or how would similar power-downs of the other sections have gone unnoticed?
* Powering down for cabling upgrades is laughable as a cover story for demolition preparation work. Cabling upgrades for data bandwidth do not require interrupting AC power at all. Even if the AC wiring were being upgraded, the new wiring would have been installed and powered up in parallel with the old wiring. Any interruptions would be minimized to a few minutes. Powering down large portions of a tower, and for 36 hours, would have generated numerous protests from tenants.
* Contrary to the e-mail's assertion, security cameras are designed to use independent uninterruptible power supplies. If power to the security systems were interrupted, many doors would remain unopenable except by key.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html
This guy is credible to me
What I think he is trying to relate is that in retrospect the power down is suspicious to him. By being attracted to the inside job sign he is relating his experience and concerns. He most likely believes that while the terrorists who crashed the planes were involved other people who had access to the inside of the building may have also been involved. He hasn't really put the whole story together in his own mind yet.
The power down makes sense to me as last minute concerns or problems could have arisen in the operation. We know for sure that a problem arose with WTC7.
In the second video a plane or something appears around 1:32. Anyone know anything about that?
2 points
1) The interviewee said the "power down was for central areas only" : corresponding to elevator shaft zones?
2) A gentleman who is a staff member of INN Studios where the Our Lives Post 9/11/2010 WAC NY Conference was held also came forward and bore witness to his regular observation of several elevators (inc. the direct line to Windows of the World) at WTC1 being continuously worked on (inc. personnel with crates of computers), shut down and guarded by security weeks prior to September 11, 2001. I expect footage might emerge when finished video of the symposium is released.
corroboration
Why only 2 people, out of hundreds or thousands, who will talk about this? Wouldn't Willie R have known if there was a powerdown and he was the "key master"?
There should be a focused search of people who will confirm it if this claim is going to be spread as evidence. He should be contacted and asked for others who would corroborate it.
When they ask about if he'd seen people go in when security was down he mentions that they could have been blond, or middle east types . . . it seems typical that people who come out and appear to believe that things were rigged ahead of time think that Middle Eastern men were the ones planting bombs or scouting out the buildings . . . they don't really get it, and so the story can begin to get very bizarre.
Two people in 9 years . . . it starts to become irresponsible to advocate this claim publicly if no one is going to try to follow it up and make it real. Like the "bombs in the basements" idea, these will remain on the level of "ghost stories" unless they are followed up on carefully.
What happened
in the basement is real, the discussion is just over what exactly happened there...
As for the "power down", this witness might not be as informed about other issues as we are, but it is the first real corroboration... The alternative is that both are lying or fake witnesses. Or somehow mistaken. I'm reluctant to go there, although there is something about this production that alerts my spider sense, so to speak.
Mind you, many of these men's colleagues are simply dead; they can't come forward. I'm an IT guy myself, and I don't know why exactly a 'power down' would be necessary for a cabling upgrade, but I don't rule it out either. If you're opening up maintenance spaces for work, you might want to shut down the power here and there for safety reasons. There are numerous possible IT-related reasons why you might want to do this, I would like to know more to see if they make any sense.