'What about building 7'?

[Animal]

If you look at the NIST damage estimates from falling 1 WTC debris, it is quite obvious that a stairwell loss resulting from an explosion below the 6th floor does not match up.

You keep trying to impose your timeline hypothesis on Mr. Jenning's experienced timeline.

You are trying to force fit Mt Jenning's timeline into you religious belief.....regardless of all the other evidence that contradicts his story.

 

[DGM]

You are trying to force fit Mt Jenning's timeline into you religious belief.....regardless of all the other evidence that contradicts his story.

Not to mention this large explosion during the building evacuation that no one else noticed or reported.

 

[Miragememories]

That is pretty standard.....that would be two lites of slightly less than 1/2" with a sealed air space between. The inside face of the outer lite typically has the tinting / reflective coating.

it was a bright sunny day and the windows were not opaque.

 

[JayUtah]

If you look at the NIST damage estimates from falling 1 WTC debris, it is quite obvious that a stairwell loss resulting from an explosion below the 6th floor does not match up.

It's still far more probable that NIST got it slightly wrong in that detail than it is that magical explosives blew up the stairwell but not the people in it.

You keep trying to impose your timeline hypothesis on Mr. Jenning's experienced timeline.

Oh, please tell us what an "experienced timeline" is. If his idea of when things happened doesn't mesh with all the rest of the evidence, then Jennings simply got it wrong.

You're desperately plugging this one witness in contrast to all the rest of the evidence because he's all you've got. One witness doesn't make a case.

 

[GlennB]

You keep trying to impose your timeline hypothesis on Mr. Jenning's experienced timeline.

You abandoned the classic Jennings timeline in your post 2214, if only you'd pause and work out what you said.

They took the stairs to floor 6 - check

Unable to proceed they went up to 8 - check

Here Jennings says he saw both towers standing - OK

Next thing we know he broke a window and saw fires in Barclay - OK

Now here's the thing - you conceded in 2214 that these fires were caused by a Tower collapse, and I state that must have been WTC1. Hard to argue against that, I'd say.

If both towers were standing when they arrived at floor 8 we have to conclude that a good 30 minutes elapsed between his seeing the two towers standing and busting the window. In which case we must assume they totally missed any personal experience of the collapse of those two buildings - the noise and shock of debris impacting #7, the dust clouds....

Thoughts?

 

[jaydeehess]

Well maybe he broke it second. Maybe he left Mr. Hess there to call for help while he broke the second window on the east side.

Maybe! Your spin because its what you want it to be. You seem unconcerned by the fact that Jennings' timeline is obviously off at the start of his recollection. He cannot have been on the 23rd floor before #2 was hit, you acknowledge this but then still want insist that the rest of his admittedly muddled timeline is correct. Similarly you deal with his characterization of what he experienced as if gospel, even though its at best muddled.

You misinterpret...again!

Once he walked east beyond the core!

All I meant was the core no longer was in his direct south view. I did not say that enabled a clear view of the WTC twin towers.

Nope, I mentioned his being east of the core.

Through office walls east of the main core? Even if possible, recall that WTC 6 is accross the street and is 8 storeys tall. One would have to actually go right up to the south side wndows to see over WTC 6 and glimpse the upper storeys of the towers.

Jennings said he broke "windows", the NIST acknowledges two broken windows by Mr. Jennings, AND, there is a second broken window clearly visible on the east face of the 8th floor in support of Mr. Jennings claim.

I thought you accepted this in an earlier post but like the NW corner of 7 WTC, you seem to be back tracking.

Jennings says, in two other quotes, " a" window. You choose to ignore the inconsistency in favour of what you wish to be true.
I said that the clearer pic showed something that looked more like a broken window than the oddly oval shape in the photo you posted. Given the reflections so plainly visible in other windows its still not clear that the east window is broken, nor is it clear at all the Jennings broke more than one window much less one on the east side of the building. Again only your desire to shoehorn visibility of at least one tower ( looking between WTC5&6, nine and eight storeys tall each) drives you to this conclusion. Nothing in anything Jennings says bolsters this specificity.
NIST never "acknowledges" two windows broken. Why would they even bother to? All they did was report his statement. NIST also reported that FFs said the center of the south face was gouged out, that an elevator car had been ejected from its shaft at (iirc) the fifth floor , and the possibility of diesel fuel fires. These significant reports were investigated further. The extent of a center face damage was shown in the report as being either bolstered by other evidence or simply "reported". The elevator car was reported, no comment on its cause. Diesel fire was investigated and found to lack enough evidence to claim it was probable. Each of these could have potential in explains collapse, the number of windows Jennings broke is absolutely irrelevant to any NIST investigation.

I am just pointing out how you fail to fact check before posting

OK, best be careful, I too can use red font.
See above.

Again, that is just your "spin" on what he said.

I agree that the burning vehicles sightings was after the broken window and after at least one of the WTC twin towers had collapsed.

Any evidence that vehicles were burning on Barclay between collapses?

I do not agree with your time line though.

Interesting! I totally reject yours because other evidence contradicts it or is better match to mine than yours.
For instance Jennings and Hess experience at the sixth floor. You insist that the characterization of this as an explosion must be correct despite no other evidence of any explosion or major damage in WTC 7 prior to either tower collapsing. I accept that the severe damage to the SW corner by the collapse of the north tower easily explains damage to the western stairs. The collapse of #1 also explains why Hess states that the stairs hot more smoky at this time since the collapse of #2 would explain why it was smoky even before this stairwell event. The collapse of #1 also explains why the east stairs are impassable, no power/lights and they'd be full of dust and smoke.

Mr. Jennings was highlighting events for the camera and was not concerned with chronological order.

So despite the very real problem with his characterization of arriving at the OEM before #2 was hit, despite what you claim is a muddled chronology, you choose to impart a timeline of your own making, with nothing at all to back it up, and only because its one you wish for.

I do not believe he meant that the burning vehicles were seen immediately after he broke the windows

.
You insist that his muddled statement suggesting the towers were standing be accepted but cannot bring yourself to do the same with a rather common usage of the word "once".

 

[jaydeehess]

If you look at the NIST damage estimates from falling 1 WTC debris, it is quite obvious that a stairwell loss resulting from an explosion below the 6th floor does not match up.

OK, figure 2-1 in the NIST WTC7 final report, NIST NCSTAR1-A. Shows west side damage of granite and underlying trusses on first floor extending from SW corner to near the center of that side of the structure. SW corner column is gouged out to well above the sixth floor and extends, visibly, past two window lines going north along the west side. There are broken windows on 7,8, and 9 at the location of the core on the west side.

While we are at it the floor plan of American Express offices on the eight floor is shown in figure 1-8. We know that power was out when J&H exited the stairs. To get to the NE window then, their best route would be to the north of the enclosed boardroom which I would expect to be quite dark. That puts them well to the north of the core, the most accessible windows being those of the north face. Yet MM suggests that they broke the NE corner window after having broken an east side window, or that he split from Hess at the north window to go and break a window a hundred feet away.. Why the hell would they do that?

 

[Miragememories]

You abandoned the classic Jennings timeline in your post 2214, if only you'd pause and work out what you said.

They took the stairs to floor 6 - check

Unable to proceed they went up to 8 - check

Here Jennings says he saw both towers standing - OK

Next thing we know he broke a window and saw fires in Barclay - OK NO, NOT OKAY

Now here's the thing - you conceded in 2214 that these fires were caused by a Tower collapse, and I state that must have been WTC1. Hard to argue against that, I'd say.

If both towers were standing when they arrived at floor 8 we have to conclude that a good 30 minutes elapsed between his seeing the two towers standing and busting the window.

In which case we must assume they totally missed any personal experience of the collapse of those two buildings - the noise and shock of debris impacting #7, the dust clouds....

Thoughts?

Just because I agreed that Mr. Jenning's observation of burning vehicles and such likely represented the aftermath of a tower collapse, does not mean that I am in agreement that he made this observation immediately upon breaking the windows.

It was a rushed lunch time interview and a re-telling for the umpteenth time of his 9/11 experience.

Mr. Jennings talks about the events that he believes were of most interest, and he does so with little regard for chronology.

He could not easily see what was directly below his location until he broke windows.

In a review of his testimony, he was pointedly warned that he had to be clear about the status of the WTC twin towers when he arrived at the 8th floor because otherwise, people were likely to believe that the destructive explosion he experienced from below the 6th floor was actually the collapse of 1 WTC.

Beyond any doubt, Mr. Jennings continued to insist that after reaching the 8th floor, he saw that both of the WTC twin towers were still standing!

From the available photographs and video, Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess must have experienced the dust cloud that followed soon after the collapse.

Unfortunately, in the interviews that have been made public, Mr. Jennings was never asked about what he experienced immediately following the departure of his rescuers.

And why would his rescuers "flee". Twice?

If they first appeared, only following both collapses, they would have known there was no immediate danger to themselves, or Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess.

If they had to go for more help, they had time to yell that up to them, no need for a panic-induced retreat.

We do know that Mr. Jennings went home in the afternoon and remained glued to the TV coverage of 9/11.

He must have observed the huge dust clouds created and shown in the collapse videos.

If he only saw the street from the 8th floor after both towers had collapsed, he must at the very least, have wondered why he never witnessed the gigantic dust cloud that enshrouded 7 WTC...twice!

We know he had the several years following 9/11 to consider the contradictions presented by the Official Story.

He remained certain of what he saw and experienced.

 

[jaydeehess]

why would his rescuers "flee". Twice?

If they first appeared, only following both collapses, they would have known there was no immediate danger to themselves, or Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess.

If they had to go for more help, they had time to yell that up to them, no need for a panic-induced retreat.

Not OK
There were continuing reports of unstable buildings, of other inbound aircraft, and indeed of danger from WTC7 itself. All of these could explain a rushed exit from the vicinity.
Detailed information was scant, and detailed correct information in even less supply.

 

[DGM]

Detailed information was scant, and detailed correct information in even less supply.

But this has little to do with the fact you are arguing against a religious belief. MM believes in the (sub) church of Jennings because it supports his higher belief of intentional demolition.

Nothing you say will change this, his mind is focused.

 

[jaydeehess]

He remained certain of what he saw and experienced.

bully for him, just underlines how witness testimony is not considered of prime veracity, especially when not backed up by anything else.

On my way to the facility I am in now, I almost rear ended a stopped car. I recall his brake lights coming on only after I realized he was stopped. That was because he stopped by hitting the smaller vehicle in front of him that was waiting to make a left turn. Originally I thought I had just not seen/ been paying attention. As I swerved around him to the right, brakes sqealing, it was apparent his stop had been unheralded by brake lights or any possibility of my anticipating his stop. Had I not been able to see that he had rear ended the other vehicle, I'd have thought I had almost caused an accident, instead I was a witness who could add little to any investigation, and that's how the police saw it as well.

 

[jaydeehess]

But this has little to do with the fact you are arguing against a religious belief. MM believes in the (sub) church of Jennings because it supports his higher belief of intentional demolition.

Nothing you say will change this, his mind is focused.

Oh, like global climate change deniers, or creationists......

Focused is not a word I'd have used, but OK.

 

[Miragememories]

Not OK
There were continuing reports of unstable buildings, of other inbound aircraft, and indeed of danger from WTC7 itself. All of these could explain a rushed exit from the vicinity.

Detailed information was scant, and detailed correct information in even less supply.

You are basing your reasoning on an unsupported belief that the towers had already collapsed.

The only damaged buildings were 1 WTC and 2 WTC.

7 WTC was undamaged prior to the collapses of the WTC twin towers so that cannot explain the panic reaction of Mr. Jenning's rescuers.

There was no inbound aircraft that caused firefighters to flee, in spite of one earlier rumour.

None of your lame suggestions explains why emergency rescuers would panic and flee the scene.

But, we all saw how people in the immediate proximity reacted when they became aware of the collapsing towers...they fled!

 

[DGM]

7 WTC was undamaged prior to the collapses of the WTC twin towers so that cannot explain the panic reaction of Mr. Jenning's rescuers.

Not according to you. You claim there was a large explosion in the building that caused extensive damage. Did no one else notice this?

 

[Miragememories]

bully for him, just underlines how witness testimony is not considered of prime veracity, especially when not backed up by anything else...

Your almost accident was irrelevant, just like your need to see the top of a 40 ft. tree to know it was there.

I agree that not all details given in eye witness testimony should be considered indisputable.

Major observations like seeing whether the WTC twin towers were still standing on 9/11, is something that would be very difficult to be mistaken about.

Mr. Jennings whole experience was initiated by the attack on 1 WTC.

It is only natural that by the time he reached the 8th floor, especially after all the trauma he had faced so far, that he would be curious as to how 1 WTC was faring, and take a look.

You have no problem accepting the truth of all his observations which do not conflict with the story you wish to believe.

Bottom-line, Mr. Jennings either saw the WTC twin towers still standing when was on the 8th floor, or he must be lying.

I cannot see any reason why a man in his position would tell such a lie while not knowing who might be available to testify against him.

 

[DGM]

Bottom-line, Mr. Jennings either saw the WTC twin towers still standing when was on the 8th floor, or he must be lying.

Wrong. He was not lying he was mistaking.

Do you not understand you can believe something that didn't happen the way you think and not be lying.

Do you believe all eyewitness accounts are accurate?

I only ask these things because I'm sure people reading this thread notice you always fail to address these simple questions.

 

[jaydeehess]

Your almost accident was irrelevant, just like your need to see the top of a 40 ft. tree to know it was there.

I agree that not all details given in eye witness testimony should be considered indisputable.

Major observations like seeing whether the WTC twin towers were still standing on 9/11, is something that would be very difficult to be mistaken about.

Mr. Jennings whole experience was initiated by the attack on 1 WTC.

It is only natural that by the time he reached the 8th floor, especially after all the trauma he had faced so far, that he would be curious as to how 1 WTC was faring, and take a look.

You have no problem accepting the truth of all his observations which do not conflict with the story you wish to believe.

Bottom-line, Mr. Jennings either saw the WTC twin towers still standing when was on the 8th floor, or he must be lying.

I cannot see any reason why a man in his position would tell such a lie while not knowing who might be available to testify against him.

Bottom line is his timeline is not substantiated by anything. In fact one of his first items, when he got to the OEM, is most certainly in error.
BTW no, he need not be lieing, he may simply be in error. Error is very much more common in witness statements, than is embellishment or outright lieing.

I accept his testimony I wish is true? You mean like burning vehicles in the street? Yes, and I note theres a lot more than his testimony to back that up. That I accept he was on the eight floor? That pretty obviously true. That he was in the OEM? Hrss substantiates that.
What are you referring to that doesn't have other backing?

"Testify against him"? What could he possibly be on trial for?

These are men who have had a traumatic experience and want out of the f'n building but you figure one of them would be off handedly curious about WTC1? Well that explains why you think its natural to either pass the first line of windows to others further away then return, or break out a window and then split up to walk 100 feet away to break another one.

I note a continuing inability on your part to successfully characterize my posts correctly. Perhaps you need to read slower.

 

[LSSBB]

Bottom-line, Mr. Jennings either saw the WTC twin towers still standing when was on the 8th floor, or he must be lying.

How could you honestly not include "He was mistaken", "misremembered", or "unclear" as options?

 

[jaydeehess]

You are basing your reasoning on an unsupported belief that the towers had already collapsed.

I am basing it on the fact they did collapse and that would have caused quite an emotional trauma in first responders who just experienced the loss of hundreds of their compatriots , making them a bit skittish i'd expect.

The only damaged buildings were 1 WTC and 2 WTC.

Yeah , so? You expect those there to know what will happen next?

7 WTC was undamaged prior to the collapses of the WTC twin towers so that cannot explain the panic reaction of Mr. Jenning's rescuers.

It most certainly can after the towers collapsed.

There was no inbound aircraft that caused firefighters to flee, in spite of one earlier rumour.

Even if just one, what would be your expectation of the actions of anyone in the vicinity upon such info being passed on?
How about info about possible collapse of the building they are standing next to? You know, in the event that one side of it had been severely damaged and was creaking , bulging, and having chunks still breaking loose from the damaged areas.

None of your lame suggestions explains why emergency rescuers would panic and flee the scene.

Of course not, people normally behave the way action heroes in movies do.

But, we all saw how people in the immediate proximity reacted when they became aware of the collapsing towers...they fled![/color]

Ah. Thanks for making my case for me. After WTC2 went down how would you characterize the way onlookers behaved in the proximity of WTC1? The same as 15 minutes earlier, slightly more wary, or stay away or even the the hell away from Manhattan? And after WTC1 came down, what would be their level of anxiety in the vicinity of a dozen or so damaged and burning structures, especially the tallest one?

 

[SpitfireIX]

How could you honestly not include "He was mistaken", "misremembered", or "unclear" as options?

Because he's attempting to create a false dichotomy where the witness is either supporting the conspiracy theory in question, or the witness is lying. This is a very popular tactic with conspiracists, used to attempt to shame their critics into accepting questionable witness testimony. Of course it never works, but that doesn't stop conspiracists from trying.