'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

If any credible evidence was presented I would have no problem excepting it. There simply is none.

As far as knowing exactly what member failed first, JSanderO and I still agree to differ but his theory is not without merit (I just cant see adequate fuel source).

I have told JSO that his theory of first structural loss being TT1 could fit the observed collapse. imo, but that I too cannot see enough evidence to support his proposed proximate cause of a TT1 failure, diesel fires.

OTOH, I cannot see any evidence to back the claim that explosions went off in WTC 7 before the towers collapsed, nor any evidence that explosives caused its collapse 7 hours after the towers collapsed.

 

[Richard the G]

How many of you are brave enough to consider the terrifying possibility that you are seriously wrong about what you believe happened on 9/11?[/color]

I am willing to believe that WTC 7 was a CD and if someone could provide some proof I would give it a go.!

The collapse of WTC 1&2 is so obvious that I would be unwilling to believe under almost any circumstances.

Does that make me brave or stupid or wise.

 

[000063]

...
Since 2006 I have been convinced that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and the only argument against that belief usually boils down to incredulity.

Well, and people pointing out that there's no actual evidence of such, barring ignoring much of the actual evidence of the events and twisting the rest of it until it cries Uncle.

How many of you are brave enough to consider the terrifying possibility that you are seriously wrong about what you believe happened on 9/11?[/color]

Yes, I have. Also, shifting burden of proof. Thing is, there isn't a single Truther theory that's possible without appeal to magic, gross incompetence on the part of the masterminds, or both. Finding flaws in the "official story" doesn't automatically validate nanothermite, silent explosives, missiles dressed up like planes, or space lasers.

 

[Miragememories]

No, NIST reported the claims of Mr. Jennings, re: how many broken windows he created. Its a very minor point and was not investigated.
As pointed out, the supposed east side broken window does not actually look like a broken window.

The NIST was 'selective' in what they reported and how they chose to interpret the Jenning's testimony.

Where Mr. Jennings claimed there was an explosion at the 6th floor, as well as many other internal explosions, the NIST chose to not report, but interpret.

I have to disagree with you on the east side broken window. Although the angle is extreme, clearly the window pane has a large hole through which you can see a light colored wall surface.

Neither Mr.Jennings, nor Mr.Hess ever stated that they did in fact see the towers standing.

Jennings implied a timeline from what he observed of the actions of the FFs. There is no evidence to back up that timeline.

I am sorry but Mr. Jennings was unequivocal on that point. He made it clear that he looked and they were still standing.

Mr. Hess made no statement either way.

This is but another example of where you are unwilling to admit you are wrong. At least until another JREF OCT supporter tells you that you are wrong.

I am quite willing to consider I may be wrong, when its warrented and when I can be shown to be in error. Gee, I actually did say I was wrong on one point and you recently just through it in my face. Now you want to have me do it again wrt saying Jennings did as a point in fact, see the towers standing while he was awaiting rescue. No, there is NO evidence to support this other than your desire for it to be true.

"I had no way of knowing that": Jennings
"no explosion":Hess

Does it not strike you at all odd that no fire fighter statement can be found in which they note that they had people to rescue from WTC 7 before either tower fell? That no record of such an occurrence exists?
Does it not strike you as odd that even the security personnel located in the WTC 7 lobby right up to the collapse of WTC 2 did not report these explosions(you allude to both east and west stairwells being blocked by explosions)?

Post after post you doggedly insisted that Jennings and Hess were at the NW corner of WTC7 and you would not concede your error until another OCT supporter corrected you openly.

Then you made a brave show of how willing you were to admit your wrongs.

Anyway.

Mr. Jennings had no way of knowing what the firefighters were reacting to because, 'at that time' he was in the NE corner office calling down to them. He could not see what they were running from.

Jennings and Hess said they spent approx 1 1/2 hours trapped on the 8th floor. Mr. Jennings was not in the NE corner the whole time. He observed the towers were standing prior to his breaking the windows and his subsequent communication with the ground level firefighters.

Mr. Hess in an interview on 9/11 shared the same recollection as Mr. Jennings regarding the 6th floor explosion.

It was not until he gave an interview some 7 years later to the BBC that he modified his testimony. Even then he indicated the possibility of explosions from below.

With regard to firefighter statements that you feel have not been published about the rescue, that is the failure of those who collected such testimony.

One of Mr. Jenning's rescuers was interviewed right after the Jenning's interview. He was the one who claimed the backsiides of the two WTC7 stairwells were too blown out to access the 8th floor. We know he exists but other than the News 7 interview, I have not seen a record of his testimony.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Here's the thing, MM: I would absolutely be willing to believe that WTC7 - or even WTC1 and WTC2, for that matter - were controlled demolitions, if evidence were shown that this was the case. However, when you present me with a paper whose conclusions do not follow from the data (Harrit et al., 2006), and a general argument that runs along the lines of, "It LOOKS like a CD to me and these people heard sounds of explosions, therefore CD", well, that's not very convincing. And that's leaving aside the fact that a controlled demolition does not fit into any theory that encompasses the whole of the known evidence in this case. If you were to present such a theory that involved CD, I think a lot more of us would listen.

 

[DGM]

Why don't we start here.

What time did Mr Jennings and Mr Hess arrive at WTC7? Reconcile that with the time the "bunker" was evacuated(their first trip up).

MM, any idea?

 

[1stClassAlan]

I have said repeatedly, I have no desire to be right about my belief that 9/11 was an inside job.

Well, following on from that then - let's cut to the chase. You may have seen my posts about the large amount of physical evidence left lying about in the debris of every controlled demolition site I've worked on.

What do you suppose happened to it all?

Then, of course, why is there no photos of any steelwork displaying signs of explosive cutting.

GZ was rather a large site to have done any sort of cover-up disposal - what was it 2,000 workers? Many of them in the early days, firemen who had lost colleagues - were they all in on it?

 

[Africanus]

I am sorry but Mr. Jennings was unequivocal on that point. He made it clear that he looked and they were still standing.

Where did he state that?

Mr. Jennings was not in the NE corner the whole time. He observed the towers were standing prior to his breaking the windows and his subsequent communication with the ground level firefighters.

No, he didn't mention the towers before the "running firemen".

 

[DGM]

Well, following on from that then .................

Why bother with this diversion?

Let's stick to the Jennings time-line.

There were people still in the OEM until 9:45 when a total evacuation was ordered. Mr Jennings and Mr Hess arrived for the first time to find it empty. They left and came back(after finding someone with a key) and broke out window(s) after their "explosion" all within 14 min.

I don't buy it.

 

[LSSBB]

Since 2006 I have been convinced that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and the only argument against that belief usually boils down to incredulity.

How many of you are brave enough to consider the terrifying possibility that you are seriously wrong about what you believe happened on 9/11?

I am always open to considering I am wrong. I just haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that there was a CD. You have yet to present any for WTC7, so why should I change my mind?

You haven't shown CD is an explanation for the acceleration profile of the exterior. You have not shown that collapse from the fire could not explain it. Nor has anyone else.

You have not tied sporadic witness reports of "explosions" to any actual explosions, or explained why they are contradicted by other witnesses, or fit them to a cohesive timeline.

You have not provided any recordings of demolition characteristic explosions, visual or auditory.

You have not provided why your definition of "symmetrical" is a characteristic of CD.

You have not provided any paper trail, or witness statements, or confessions of perpetrators, or money trails, or supply chain for your exotic demolitions.

You have not performed any simulations or done any modeling to fit CD to the observations

You have not exonerated or dismissed the government indicted perpetrators, nor linked them to anyone in the government.

You have not been able to scientifically dismiss fires and heat as a possible explanation for collapse, especially considering the building was in all probability not in pristine condition.

I could go on, why bother? You have not one iota of hard evidence. I have a hard time in that light grasping how anyone could have formed a conclusion of CD in 2006. There could not have been any more evidence then, than there is now. Nothing since has come to light to make that conclusion any more probable.

When I came to my conclusion about the Liberty, that was after reading one interpretation, by one author, who just happened to be a Navy JAG. It took going back to check source material to change my mind, and I had also learned a great deal more about critical thinking since then, and checking sources. And not depending on my own incredulity. My brain is as flawed as anyone's, maybe more so than others.

The upshot? Show me evidence, let me kick the tires on it, and I'll be convinced. Haven't seen anything that passes muster yet. Not after discussing this with C7, Tony Sz, or you.

 

[Miragememories]

"No, he didn't mention the towers before the "running firemen".

You are wrong!

"No. What happened was - when we made it back to the 8th floor, --- as I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing because I looked..."

 

[Brainster]

The problem with Jennings' story is that it was almost certainly embellished over the years to make for more drama. Some of the things he says make no sense at all. For example, when the firemen tell him to run and he says he can't run. "Then crawl!" That's completely idiotic; there's a third option, called walking which he presumably was already doing.

Also, when he says that you can tell when you're stepping over bodies--how exactly? If you were stepping on bodies, I could understand it--it would be very uncertain footing. It certainly sounds like he's implying that he could tell by feel, not by sight, otherwise he would just have said "I saw bodies and we had to step over them."

I also wonder why he could not see the ground by then--this is supposedly after they got down to the ground floor, sometime shortly after noon. Surely by then the visibility had improved enough to see reasonably clearly. And if it hadn't how were the firemen leading him out? Probably with lights, right?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If any credible evidence was presented I would have no problem excepting it. There simply is none.

My point all along.

I cant exactly agree with a conspiracy theory where it lacks critical corroborating evidence. And understandably most people reserve the right to point that out, regardless of whatever he may think of the viability of his evidence

 

[JayUtah]

How many of you are brave enough to consider the terrifying possibility that you are seriously wrong about what you believe happened on 9/11?[/color]

Needs more emotionally-laden language. Please rewrite it and have it on my desk by the end of the day tomorrow.

 

[jaydeehess]

The NIST was 'selective' in what they reported and how they chose to interpret the Jenning's testimony.

Where Mr. Jennings claimed there was an explosion at the 6th floor, as well as many other internal explosions, the NIST chose to not report, but interpret.

Its not " interpretation" when the reason for it is a lack of corroboration.

I have to disagree with you on the east side broken window. Although the angle is extreme, clearly the window pane has a large hole through which you can see a light colored wall surface.

Or its a light colored oval shaped object either on the inside of the window or on a wall next to and perpendicular to the window. Can you explain its very regular shape as opposed to the ragged, shattered shape of the broken glass on the N side?

I am sorry but Mr. Jennings was unequivocal on that point. He made it clear that he looked and they were still standing.

I do not recall him saying that. If he did then why did he have " no way of knowing" that the towers were coming down when he assumed they were?

Mr. Hess made no statement either way.

Right. Seems odd he would not mention the most significant occurrence of the morning wrt what he saw.

This is but another example of where you are unwilling to admit you are wrong. At least until another JREF OCT supporter tells you that you are wrong

when I am shown I am wrong it matters no it who points it out.

Post after post you doggedly insisted that Jennings and Hess were at the NW corner of WTC7 and you would not concede your error until another OCT supporter corrected you openly.

Then you made a brave show of how willing you were to admit your wrongs.

Post after post I outlined what in the video had me convinced and when a poster explained exactly what other part of the video demonstrated that I was in error I then examined that part of the clip. That poster did not happen to be you. I believe I mentioned my mistake once and in simple terms. Any further mention has been in response to having it brought up to hammer me with.
So, since according to you I seem to be grandstanding my admission, tell you what, I'll never mention or respond to the incident again. Problem solved, right? Or perhaps now I'm trying to sweep it under the rug. Let me know where the goalpost on this is and we can leave them there, right?

Mr. Jennings had no way of knowing what the firefighters were reacting to because, 'at that time' he was in the NE corner office calling down to them. He could not see what they were running from

.
So now its not so easy to see through to the south. Only when you feel its convenient?

Jennings and Hess said they spent approx 1 1/2 hours trapped on the 8th floor. Mr. Jennings was not in the NE corner the whole time. He observed the towers were standing prior to his breaking the windows and his subsequent communication with the ground level firefighters

.
Is that you assuming it or him saying it?
Regardless, we still supposedly have no one thinking how strange it is that people are trapped in an apparently undamaged building or if damage was there, that its strange to have occurred for no apparent reason.

Mr. Hess in an interview on 9/11 shared the same recollection as Mr. Jennings regarding the 6th floor explosion

.
Yeah, in the adrenaline fueled aftermath of having faced a traumatic experience. In addition we know that the SW corner of WTC7 was violently and very significantly damaged by WTC1 debris which easily bexplains why the western stairs might be damaged. As far as the eastern stairs go they had no way of knowing if they were physically impassable. The Lights were out, the building was full of dust and smoke. They could not get far even if they tried the eastern stairs.

It was not until he gave an interview some 7 years later to the BBC that he modified his testimony. Even then he indicated the possibility of explosions from below.

Quote after sober reflection " no explosion"

With regard to firefighter statements that you feel have not been published about the rescue, that is the failure of those who collected such testimony.

One of Mr. Jenning's rescuers was interviewed right after the Jenning's interview. He was the one who claimed the backsiides of the two WTC7 stairwells were too blown out to access the 8th floor. We know he exists but other than the News 7 interview, I have not seen a record of his testimony.]

Link? Quote( in full, no parsing)?

 

[jaydeehess]

I am always open to considering I am wrong. I just haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that there was a CD. You have yet to present any for WTC7, so why should I change my mind?

You haven't shown CD is an explanation for the acceleration profile of the exterior. You have not shown that collapse from the fire could not explain it. Nor has anyone else.

You have not tied sporadic witness reports of "explosions" to any actual explosions, or explained why they are contradicted by other witnesses, or fit them to a cohesive timeline.

You have not provided any recordings of demolition characteristic explosions, visual or auditory.

You have not provided why your definition of "symmetrical" is a characteristic of CD.

You have not provided any paper trail, or witness statements, or confessions of perpetrators, or money trails, or supply chain for your exotic demolitions.

You have not performed any simulations or done any modeling to fit CD to the observations

You have not exonerated or dismissed the government indicted perpetrators, nor linked them to anyone in the government.

You have not been able to scientifically dismiss fires and heat as a possible explanation for collapse, especially considering the building was in all probability not in pristine condition.

I could go on, why bother? You have not one iota of hard evidence. I have a hard time in that light grasping how anyone could have formed a conclusion of CD in 2006. There could not have been any more evidence then, than there is now. Nothing since has come to light to make that conclusion any more probable.



The upshot? Show me evidence, let me kick the tires on it, and I'll be convinced. Haven't seen anything that passes muster yet. Not after discussing this with C7, Tony Sz, or you.

^^ This
Nice compendium of some of the points working against CD of WTC7,

Should also be noted that this is but one of three sites of destruction on 9/11. There has never been a coherent explanation of any alternative to the commonly accepted history of events of the day.

 

[jaydeehess]

You are wrong!

So Jennings and Hess wanted to attract attention by breaking out window(s) and calling to firefighters, correct?
At this time the towers were still standing and burning, right?
At this time there is no outward indication of damage to WTC7, right? No reason for firefighters to be paying any attention to WTC7 or be on the north side of that building, right?
Supposedly Jennings looked through to the south and saw the towers burning, right?

But for some reason they chose to go to the north side to break out windows.
The only place firefighters would be at this time, at least in great numbers and the area where the most spectators would be at this time, would be to the south of WTC7. Why did they not increase their probability of attracting attention by breaking a south side window?

I'll tell you why, because the south side had suffered greater damage and was much dusty/smoky. IOW WTC1 had already come down and laid a beating on the south and west area of WTC7.

 

[pgimeno]

For example, I used to think that the diesel generator fuel was a significant factor for WTC7. I know now that it was not.

Can you illuminate me as to why you changed your mind?

This may shed some light on the significance of the diesel fuel with regards to the collapse of WTC7:

19. Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000-gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000-gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000-gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition, one system used a 275-gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275-gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50-gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275-gallon day tank on the 7th floor.

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ± 1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with approximately 1,000 gallons as the most likely figure).

The fate of the fuel in the day tanks and the two 6,000-gallon tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed they were full on Sept. 11, 2001.
​

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

To me that sounded persuasive enough as for me to reject the idea of the diesel fuel being a significant factor.

 

[TJM]

One should not have a change of mind unless there is good reason for doing so.

Case in point, the second broken window.

The NIST accepts the validity of Mr. Jenning's claim and I found a documented image that supports Mr. Jenning's claim.

Rather than accept it as legitimate and allow the discussion to move forward, members would rather focus on discrediting it using any ridiculous argument at hand.

It is not just myself that should be open to a change of mind.

You must be equally prepared as well.

So far I see little, if any, willingness on the part of 'said members', to consider they may be wrong.

OK MM, I'll consider I'm wrong - Check this out:

That's a much sharper and better angle of what you claim to be the 2nd broken window and you know what? It does indeed look like another broken window and until someone proves me wrong then that's exactly what I'm saying it is.

That's what rational people do - We correct ourselves when given compelling evidence to do so.

An irrational person, for instance, might be compelled to use the ridiculous term "partially symmetrical collapse" when it is shown that a symmetrical collapse never occurred.

An irrational person might be compelled to use the term "partially destroyed" when it occurs to him that there's no way his star witness would've ever left WTC7 alive if both sets of stairs were "completely destroyed" as asserted.

An irrational person might be compelled to cherry pick his own star witness, instead of using the entire quote, such as:

You are wrong!

"No. What happened was - when we made it back to the 8th floor, --- as I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing because I looked..."

When the whole god damned quote is:

As I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing. Because I looked to..., I looked one way, looked the other way now there's nothing there.

But getting back to your 2nd broken window - doesn't change a bloody thing. The overwhelming evidence shows that Jennings and Hess were on the 6th floor (or lost in the transfer corridor, which is my belief) when WTC 1 collapsed on them. Both towers were down when you claim your hero was single handedly destroying the glazing on whatever side of WTC7 you deem necessary to keep livin the dream.

There's been absolutely zero compelling evidence to the contrary.

 

[Africanus]

You are wrong!

Your effort of creative editing is noted, but I think I have to reject your claim:

Barry Jennings: "No. What happened was - when we made it back to the 8th floor, as I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing because I looked -- [he points] Two [pauses] I look one way, look the other way - now there's nothing there. When I got to the 6th floor there was an explosion that forced us back to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. Keep in mind, I told you the fire department came and ran. They came twice. Why? Because building tower 1 fell and then tower 2 fell. And then when they came back, they came back, they came back all concerned like to get me the hell out of there. And, and they did. And we got out of there.I got into the building a little before nine, a little after nine. I didn't get out of there until like 1 PM."

This reminds me quite a lot of another statement Jennings made:

"Once I broke out the windows, I could see outside below me. I saw er police cars on fire buses on fire. Uh. I looked one way. The building was there. [WTC7] I looked the other way. It was gone.