12487RE: [coldwarcomms] Re: AT&T Chatham, NC Project Office
- Nov 3, 2007fts and autovon were different switches.
autovon typical was 4wire 1 ESS
fts 4W #5 crossbar.
separate contracts then and now
last I new autovon > DCTN 5ESS
and fts got the King solomon treatment twice
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
Behalf Of kemartinatsnetnet
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 11:58 AM
Subject: [coldwarcomms] Re: AT&T Chatham, NC Project Office
Thanks for the info.
With all the nut jobs running around I was simply concerned that
appropriate sites whatever the tennant or tennants my be are
I was a Bell switchman back in the 1970's and a particular multi
purpose building that had multiple switches in it. The only one that
appeared different was the one on the floor of the Autovon (FTS)
switch which had signage on the doors to that specific switch "No
access without prior permission of Wire Chief". The switches on the
other floors had no signage on their doors. Also, all the switches
had code lock doors and the Autovon switch had different codes.
I had worked in the switch from time to time and remember asking the
first time in there why is there an additional row of buttons on the
keypads of the test phones and test call directors.
--- In coldwarcomms@ <mailto:coldwarcomms%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, Pj <packy41@...> wrote:
> First, its a civilan property, so unless there was
> some other arrangement or rather another "tennant" you
> wouldn't see any MP's on the property.
> Second, as long as your off the property, there is
> nothing they can do.
> Third, as I stated before, its on a good word that
> there isn't too much going on there these days, as
> many operations have been shifted out of there.
> Other than the topo dishes, there isn't much ABOVE
> ground that an unwanted person could get in trouble
> with, so an actual breech is unlikely to occur.
> --- kemartinatsnetnet <kemartin@...> wrote:
> > That begs the question why has security got so lax?
> > --- In coldwarcomms@ <mailto:coldwarcomms%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mbella42@> wrote:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > A friend who grew up within a mile or so of this
> > place was
> > confronted
> > > when he and a friend wandered to close to the
> > perimeter, I guess
> > that
> > > would have been early-80s. Thats about the only
> > reason I'd have to
> > > think the site would be aggressively secured. I
> > used to work at
> > the
> > > KRSOC at Kunia on Oahu, and the MPs there were not
> > too friendly
> > about
> > > vehicles that turned into the wrong driveway so to
> > speak. Maybe
> > they
> > > were just bored from guarding site in such a
> > laid-back location?
> > >
> > > > What makes you think that a site like that these
> > days would have
> > any
> > > sort of
> > > > "security staff," and especially enough security
> > personnel where
> > > they then
> > > > could have sent a quick-reaction team out to
> > "harass" some
> > > photographers?
> > > > I've certainly been known to 'pass a tres' in
> > the name of bunker
> > > nerdiness, but
> > > > by doing so, Evans & I are the ones doing the
> > harassing, and any
> > > security
> > > > forces would just be doing their job.
> > >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail. <http://mail.yahoo.com> yahoo.com
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>