'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

Time to man up and admit you are wrong jaydeehess!

Seems I was wrong. I see that at about 2:50 the camera pans up from NE corner to Hess.

The shot you are using is initially looking south at the base of the WTC7 NE corner. If it was the SW corner as you stubbornly insist, the corner would have been on the right.

I never insisted it was at the SW corner. I was saying NW corner due to the camera panning down from Hess at about 1:50 to street level and seeming to show WTC7 to the left side of the screen.

 

[jaydeehess]

Had there been a progressive total vertical failure, the building would have tilted and fallen towards the side that initially started failing (presumably the east side).

Clearly this did not happen!

oh MM, CLEARLY it did.

The first visible result of the collapse is a failure that results in the EPH falling in. This very much suggests that column 79 failed.
What happens subsequent to that is the development of the 'kink' in the north facade and the tilting of the sections east and west of that line towards this initial line of failure.
In addition, at about the same time as the tilting towards a column 79 line of failure, the rooftop structures west of the EPH then begin falling in. This highly suggests a progression of core failure. The section of the building west of the kink then falls to the south, suggesting a tilt in that direction, ie. towards the core failure.

Well MM, I admited I was wrong about J&H being at the NW corner.

,,, so you will now be admitting that the building did in fact behave in a fashion consistent with the proposed, and visible, sequence of progressive failure?

This : "fallen towards the side that initially started failing (presumably the east side)", is where you seem to have a problem with understanding. The building's initial failure was along the line of column 79, about 1/3 of the way accross the building, from the east. This is indicated by the location of first rooftop failure and infalling of the EPH.
This is followed by a "kink" obviously affecting the entire north side of the building in that all visible floors east and west of that "kink" tilt down at the line of the "kink".
At the same time as the "kink" forms we also see the beginning of a western progression from the EPH location, of the infalling of rooftop structures. This indicates a progressive east to west loss of core strucure beginning at about the location of column 79.

So we have a leaning in towards the "kink" and then destruction of the core, which is, obviously, south of the north face of the building. The SW corner is also destroyed, having been previously hit by WTC 1 debris, while the eastern third of the south face suffered less severe damage.

You have a situation in which the western 2/3 of the structure had both an initial bulge to the south at the SW corner, and a loss of core structure causing a tilt to the south of the western 2/3 of the north side of the building. That 2/3s of the building then fell , in large part, to the south.

The eastern 1/3 suffered no significant structural damage by the debris of WTC1. When the western portion began coming down it pulled on the eastern portion which then twisted as it fell, coming down to the NE and impacting the Fitterman building which had to be torn down later.

 

[JayUtah]

He's busy running away from his free fall fail by dwelling in Barry Jennings minutae. He can get more mileage out of interview finger pointing and drag things on a while.

Indeed ignoring the huge unsolved problems in one's thesis by dwelling on a legitimately disputed minutia is classic distractionary behavior among conspiracy theorists. The strategy of conspiracism is to perpetuate debate and thereby artificially maintain their relevance, not to arrive at a solution or advance the state of understanding.

But in this case Jennings is his only evidence for the use of explosives. Everything else has been looked at and discounted. The lack of residue, the lack of noise reported by any other sensor -- human or mechanical, the unworkable time line. All these constitute a pile of missing evidence that strongly argues against the use of explosives. Hence it is absolutely imperative to rehabilitate Jennings as the only alleged witness to an explosion inside WTC 7.

Sadly it's still unworkable. In order to overcome the vast mound of circumstantial and documentary evidence to the contrary, an eyewitness would have to be unassailable for all practical purposes. Jennings' report is anything but solid. Hence the parsimonious conclusion is to discount the single, problematic report of an "explosion."

 

[jaydeehess]

:facepalm:

Nothing to say about the smashed glass? If you look at the fourth broken window it looks like you get a glimpse of Barry's cape.

The whole smashed window/windows thing simply serves to illustrate how unreliable eyewitness statements are in such minute details. The video and stills plainly show ONE broken window.

If as many suggest, J&H were in the western stairwell then its filling with dust and smoke is entirely consistent with the fall of WTC 1 which took out the SW corner. Though it can be noted that the WTC 7 lobby was also full of dust and smoke so its not unusual for the eastern stairs to have also filled with dust and smoke. Why were they blocked from further descent? Who knows, they were in complete darkness as Hess expresses when he states that the lights and emergency lights were all out.

A friend of mine was in his basement at night when the lone light bulb burned out. It was his own familiar basement but he said he could not see his hand in front of his face. He stumbled about for what he thought was an hour (may have been only 15 minutes) before hitting his head on the underside of the stairs. From there he could make his way out.

They exited the stairwell due in part to the choking dust and smoke which may be why the made their way to the NE corner, as far away from the SW corner as they could get.

 

[DGM]

Seems I was wrong. I see that at about 2:50 the camera pans up from NE corner to Hess.

Oh man, all those internet points gone. You could have just left this thread for a few days and it would have all reset. You really don't "get" the internet, do you?

 

[jaydeehess]

Hence the parsimonious conclusion is to discount the single, problematic report of an "explosion."

or, as MM would prefer, to discount the second eyewitness's specific refutation of an "explosion", despite it being backed up by the lack of any other evidence of such other than that single problematic report.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh man, all those internet points gone. You could have just left this thread for a few days and it would have all reset. You really don't "get" the internet, do you?

I know, right? What's all this about going back to check one's beliefs against new evidence and then correcting what one has previously written? How do you ever expect to get followers and donations if you constantly change your conclusions to match the facts?

or, as MM would prefer, to discount the second eyewitness's specific refutation of an "explosion", despite it being backed up by the lack of any other evidence of such other than that single problematic report.

Indeed, if you have two witnesses similarly situated and you interview them separately, you will get differences in recollection and interpretation. That's just the nature of eyewitness testimony. But when one witness's interpretation so closely aligns with the circumstantial and documentary evidence, and another's is clearly an outlyer, the conscientious investigator knows what to do.

But the conspiracist preconceives that the majority of available evidence is tainted by the mainstream trying to cover up the conspiracy. So when an outlying data point presents itself, the conspiracist says "Aha! I knew it all along!" and preferentially accepts that minority opinion as the only one not supposedly controlled by the mainstream. That's the paradox of credibility among conspiracy theorists.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh man, all those internet points gone. You could have just left this thread for a few days and it would have all reset. You really don't "get" the internet, do you?

I prefer to act human.

 

[DGM]

I prefer to act human.

Shill.........................(or is that sheep, I can't keep this straight)

 

[Africanus]

deleted

 

[DGM]

You are still wrong, it is the NE corner of the building. The video you are referencing and the photos MM and myself are referencing were recorded from the north. In every case the window we are talking about was at the left edge of the picture, so it is the NE corner of the building. This is corroborated by AJM8125's picture and by NIST (compare Figure 5-91 in the NCSTAR 1-9).

How does this actually effect the time-line MM is desperately trying to avoid?

These details don't matter (although they're proof he's wrong).

 

[Africanus]

There was no obvious motive for Barry to lie about his actions.

I didn't accuse him of lying.

No that is not what he said.

Oh, really?

And they kept asking "where are you? We don't know where you are?" I said "I'm on the north side of the building." Because when I was on the stairs I saw "NORTH SIDE".

When their exit was aborted by the demolished 6th floor stairwell landing, they retreated to the 8th floor.

He didn't give a time from his watch but he clearly understood when each collapse occurred.

You are actually proving me right, as he did not witness the collapse of any of the towers, instead he deduces it from the firemen's behaviour.

Should he have?

Yes, as the building was engulfed in dust after both collapses.

It is quite funny that the Truth Movement relies on a witness, that didn't actually witness the crucial parts of his account: he didn't observe the impact of UA-175 in WTC 2 and he didn't notice any signs of the collapse (noise, dust, vibrations) of any tower.

 

[Africanus]

How does this actually effect the time-line MM is desperately trying to avoid?

These details don't matter (although they're proof he's wrong).

It doesn't effect the wrong timeline, but I prefer to be correct in every place. If you present an argument to your discussion partner, the argument should be correct and his argument wasn't.

BTW, I noticed it a little late, that jaydeehess acknowlegded his error. Therefore, I will delete the post you quoted, as he is out-dated now.

 

[DGM]

It doesn't effect the wrong timeline, but I prefer to be correct in every place. If you present an argument to your discussion partner, the argument should be correct and his argument wasn't.

BTW, I noticed it a little late, that jaydeehess acknowlegded his error. Therefore, I will delete the post you quoted, as he is out-dated now.

Correct in detail is OK. MM is only interested in working this detail because it side-tracks the fact the time-line is not supportable. Don't play his game!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Or we could just get to the point and ask MM to justify his freefall=CD argument and present the physical evidence showing beyo d any doubt that all observations following were resulted from a CD.

Jennings testimony cannot prove CD without all of that. And no he doesnt have to lie for CD not to be true, as MM and others on that fenxe lime to portray.

I realize jennings' testimony give some insight onto the condition of the building as far as it goes but people have to be realistic about how far it carries.

Its just one of those bleeding obvious points that he chooses to ignore.

 

[swright777]

Time to man up and admit you are wrong jaydeehess!

Seems I was wrong. I see that at about 2:50 the camera pans up from NE corner to Hess.

Why do some people think that it takes a special effort to accept correction, say that you were wrong, and move forward? Oh, yeah ...

 

[Miragememories]

There was only one window broken out, the window in the NE corner, where Hess was calling for help.

"I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows.
Once I broke out the windows,.."

There are only photos showing the broken window from which Hess was calling for help.

The lack of complete photo coverage of the 8th floor windows means you have no evidence that disproves what Barry Jennings claimed he did. There was no obvious motive for Barry to lie about his actions.

I didn't accuse him of lying.

Well Barry clearly said he broke "windows", and you keep claiming it was "only one window".

In my book that means someone is lying.

Barry was there and knew what actions he took.

You were not, yet you insist you know what he did and didn't do ("broke only one window").

"... I prefer to be correct in every place.

Well apparently you do not.

Barry Jennings stated in the Loose Change interview that he was trapped at the north side of WTC 7:

No that is not what he said.

When their exit was aborted by the demolished 6th floor stairwell landing, they retreated to the 8th floor.

They were trapped in WTC7 as a result. They made their way from the stairwell. Obviously they were not confined to that NE corner office.

Oh, really?

"And they kept asking "where are you? We don't know where you are?" I said "I'm on the north side of the building." Because when I was on the stairs I saw "NORTH SIDE".

When their exit was aborted by the demolished 6th floor stairwell landing, they retreated to the 8th floor.

A floor in WTC7 has an area roughly the size of a football field.

You can see in the NIST Figure 5-95 above that the stairs were well away from both the WTC1 debris damaged area, and the NE corner (upper right), where they called for help through one of the windows Barry Jennings broke.

Yes they exited the stairs on the north side but that gives you no basis for claiming they were trapped on the north side.

They were "trapped" inside WTC7, and on the north side.

An interesting side note from the original on the street News interview with one of Barry's rescuers.

He said that the backside of BOTH WTC7 stairwells had been blown out making them impassable. If the collapse of WTC1 was responsible for such penetrating devastation that deep into the lower WTC7 at those locations, it is amazing that the NIST failed to note this in their damage estimates.

He didn't give a time from his watch but he clearly understood when each collapse occurred.

"That's when one..the first tower fell.
"When they started running..the first tower was coming down...Now I saw them come back with more concern on their faces.
And then they ran away again.
The second tower fell."

You are actually proving me right, as he did not witness the collapse of any of the towers, instead he deduces it from the firemen's behaviour.

Why would the firemen suddenly feel compelled to run away -- twice?

Obviously Barry could not see the start of each top down collapse if he was talking to firefighters on the north side of WTC7 at that time.

It is absolutely absurd to assume that because Barry didn't recount the obvious (the vibration, the dust, the noise etc.), following the firemen running, that he never experienced them.

He got the full picture when he went home and spent the rest of the day glued to the TV coverage and the repeated videos of the collapsing towers.

He had years to think about the fact that (if you are right), he only experienced the sight of firemen panicking and running away twice. Yet he stayed by his story.

It is quite interesting, that Jennings didn't mention a dust cloud in the LC interview!

Should he have?

Stating the obvious I guess never occurred to him. People in the vicinity of the WTC collapses kinda just knew when those 110 storey towers collapsed.(ridiculous to ask)

Yes, as the building was engulfed in dust after both collapses.

It is quite funny that the Truth Movement relies on a witness, that didn't actually witness the crucial parts of his account: he didn't observe the impact of UA-175 in WTC 2 and he didn't notice any signs of the collapse (noise, dust, vibrations) of any tower.

What remaining major event would compel Barry Jennings and Michael Hess to seek protection under a desk, if WTC1 had already collapsed earlier in the day?

In the interview he was never asked about the dust.

It is unfortunate that the interview was not more in depth. At times, Barry appeared bored from having recounted his story so many times previously. He talked about the highlights of his experience to the camera without worrying about chronological order.

 

[NoahFence]

MM - is it still, REALLY, your contention that the explosions that took down WTC 7 went off, but still left time for Hess and Jennings to get out of the building?

With no due respect - wtf??

 

[jaydeehess]

Omg
MM, Hess talks about a an approx ten second heavy shaking of WTC7 at the same time that the stairwell filled with dust and smoke. He says it was already dusty and smokey but it became unbearable at this event. All the lights went out as well and the stairwell they were in became blocked in the dark.

Certainly if the towers came down when they were at the window the massive dust cloud would certainly merit mention.
In the video with Hess at the window it does not seem like he's previously spoken with the people on the ground.
What other event would cause the ff to leave the area? They could have been called away for more urgent rescue, there could have been reports of other inbound planes or bombs. You seem to assume that whatever caused them to leave had to be a major story. Hess and Jennings were ok at this time, uninjured and not in danger. Any more urgent call would trump assisting them.

 

[jaydeehess]

MM - is it still, REALLY, your contention that the explosions that took down WTC 7 went off, but still left time for Hess and Jennings to get out of the building?

With no due respect - wtf??

Well they went off and J&H were rescued AND a bit later firefighters did a sweep through parts of the building then abandoned it due to its condition at the SW corner and south side and it burned for several more hours then collapsed.

But MM would like us to accept that explosives were set off to begin demolition that would occur 7 hours later.