Barry Jenning's death

[Brainache]

...
No, I'm not implying he was mentally unstable. He told Dylan Avery, "The firefighter who took us down kept saying do not look down. And I kept saying why? He said do not look down. And we're stepping over people and you know you could feel when you're stepping over people."

Make of it what you will.

I recall someone here saying that WTC7 was used as a temporary morgue on the morning of 9/11. That the bodies Mr Jennings was stepping over were those of people who had died before the towers collapsed and had been placed there by rescue workers.

I don't remember who said it or if they had a source for this info, does anyone else know anything about this? Tri? Gravy? Alt.F4?

 

[Thunder]

I recall someone here saying that WTC7 was used as a temporary morgue on the morning of 9/11. That the bodies Mr Jennings was stepping over were those of people who had died before the towers collapsed and had been placed there by rescue workers.

whats what the govt. WANTS you to believe!!!!!

 

[RedIbis]

Be patient, when you find your first 9/11 fact you can start that Fact Movement you dream about, and we'll call you a Facter just like you want!

So how's that search for your first 9/11 fact coming Red?

I've collected quite a few.

 

[Thunder]

I've collected quite a few.

The citizens of many countries were killed on 9-11.

do you have the guts to provide some of your "facts" to the police forces of ANY of these many nations?

 

[TJM]

I recall someone here saying that WTC7 was used as a temporary morgue on the morning of 9/11. That the bodies Mr Jennings was stepping over were those of people who had died before the towers collapsed and had been placed there by rescue workers.

I don't remember who said it or if they had a source for this info, does anyone else know anything about this? Tri? Gravy? Alt.F4?

It was being used as a triage until they had to leave it for fear of collapse:

Here’s a woman who thought the FDNY “brought the building down”
69. Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT: "What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running." (KPFA, 4/27/2005)

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

 

[dtugg]

I've collected quite a few.

Then surely you can name one that shows inside jobby job.

j/k

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I've collected quite a few.

I could imagine where you've caught a few flies with that cobweb memory of yours.

 

[DGM]

I wonder why "truthers" don't talk about the fact that Mr Jennings was not alone on 9/11?

 

[timmyg]

some fair points.
Jennings could have died of natural causes I agree. I generally expect some one like one of you guys to find an official explanation though, just so you can shut truthers up. It usually happens when there is one.
I would be happy to accept his death wasn't suspicious on hearing an explanation of his death. And as it is I don't draw any conclusions on what I think has happened.

I'm not ok with ignoring his testimony, or forgetting about it though.

As for Silverstien/pull it.. I haven't seen anything that I would call 'debunking'.. If you accept the OS it really is the strangest thing to say. Especially when it took him a year to ellaborate on what he meant (after saying to Sam Smith he meant something else but wouldn't ellaborate). If Silverstein has nothing to hide it wouldn't be so hard for him to answer questions on the subject. This is another debate that i'm sure has been 'debunked' by you guys time and time again.

 

[dtugg]

some fair points.
Jennings could have died of natural causes I agree. I generally expect some one like one of you guys to find an official explanation though, just so you can shut truthers up. It usually happens when there is one.
I would be happy to accept his death wasn't suspicious on hearing an explanation of his death. And as it is I don't draw any conclusions on what I think has happened.

I am sure there is an official explanation (ie the results of an autopsy), however - get this through your thick skull- PSYCHOTIC TWOOFERS, NOR ANYBODY ELSE OUTSIDE HIS FAMILY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS.

 

[Thunder]

some fair points.
Jennings could have died of natural causes I agree. I generally expect some one like one of you guys to find an official explanation though, just so you can shut truthers up.

what reason would the Jennings family have to announce to the world why their loved one died?

was he a famous person? no.

though I am sure his close friends know what happened. why don't you truthers harrasse them for answers?

 

[LashL]

In the jref forum I'm a truther, therefore, I'm despicable and a ghoul.

Could you be any more disingenuous, RedIbis? I know that you are capable of reading for comprehension (at least when it suits you) so I assume that you read my post in its entirety and saw yourself in it, since you responded as you did. Either that or you were deliberately cherrypicking in order to be purposefully disingenuous. Which is it?

How truly stupid these labels are.

They aren't the least bit stupid when they are accurate. If the shoe fits, and all that.

The full post to which you purported to respond with your nonsense follows (with bolding added to emphasize that which you appear to have deliberately avoided addressing). How unsurprising that you chose to just pluck out a couple of words in order to post your faux-offence in response to my post, while ignoring the entire substance and point of it. Pitiful, Red.

Truthers are seriously delusional at the best of times, so it is not surprising that they are also despicable ghouls, lowlifes and scumbags when it comes to the deaths of others.

Let me put this in perspective. My brother died on December 2 at the age of 51. You - truthers - are not entitled to know anything about him whatsoever, his place of birth, his place of death, his cause of death or anything else. You wouldn't be even remotely interested in his life, never mind his death, unless you thought you could exploit it for your own purposes. If I told you that he was at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 (he was not), you might suddenly become interested in his death, but only if you thought it would promote your paranoid conspiracy fantasies.

A friend and colleague died three days ago on December 21 at the age of 47. You - truthers - are also not entitled to know anything about her whatsoever, her place of birth, her place of death, her cause of death or anything else. And you wouldn't be remotely interested in it unless you thought her death would somehow further your conspiracy fantasies.

So what makes you think that you are entitled to know the personal circumstances of Barry Jennings - who was just a guy going about his life, with a family, and whose family has no reason whatsoever to share personal information with you?

Just stop it. You're nothing but ghouls. And despicable ones at that.

 

[RedIbis]

Could you be any more disingenuous, RedIbis? I know that you are capable of reading for comprehension (at least when it suits you) so I assume that you read my post in its entirety and saw yourself in it, since you responded as you did. Either that or you were deliberately cherrypicking in order to be purposefully disingenuous. Which is it?



They aren't the least bit stupid when they are accurate. If the shoe fits, and all that.

The full post to which you purported to respond with your nonsense follows (with bolding added to emphasize that which you appear to have deliberately avoided addressing). How unsurprising that you chose to just pluck out a couple of words in order to post your faux-offence in response to my post, while ignoring the entire substance and point of it. Pitiful, Red.

What is the subject of each of those bolded sentences? What is the antecedent? You aim your comments at some non-existent, monolithic entity, and act indigent when called on it.

This tactic is transparent, you should abandon it.

In this thread some people had criticism for WAC. That makes sense to me. Point your comments towards a specific person or specific group. This petulant labeling and conflation is goofy.

 

[Thunder]

Only the Jennings family is entitled to know how he died. He was not a VIP.

 

[T.A.M.]

some fair points.
Jennings could have died of natural causes I agree. I generally expect some one like one of you guys to find an official explanation though, just so you can shut truthers up. It usually happens when there is one.
I would be happy to accept his death wasn't suspicious on hearing an explanation of his death. And as it is I don't draw any conclusions on what I think has happened.

I'm not ok with ignoring his testimony, or forgetting about it though.

As for Silverstien/pull it.. I haven't seen anything that I would call 'debunking'.. If you accept the OS it really is the strangest thing to say. Especially when it took him a year to ellaborate on what he meant (after saying to Sam Smith he meant something else but wouldn't ellaborate). If Silverstein has nothing to hide it wouldn't be so hard for him to answer questions on the subject. This is another debate that i'm sure has been 'debunked' by you guys time and time again.

I work in health care. I have not only pronounced hundreds of people dead, I have filled out hundreds of death certificates.

Here in Canada, if a person arrives at hospital alive, and then dies of natural causes (a heart attack, a massive stroke, etc...) there is no inquiry or autopsy unless the family requests it. If there is an autopsy, the results are not made public unless they are part of an official death investigation, and even then they are not likely available to the general public.

If the person dies UNEXPECTEDLY outside of hospital, then an autopsy is done. If the circumstances of death or conclusions of the autopsy warrant it, an official investigation may be conducted. The result of this may or MAY NOT be made public, based on any number of factors.

So I am confused timmy. Where would we, or anyone else get a "report" on his death. If anything, the absence of any public record as to the cause of his death is proof that in all likelihood it was from natural causes.

I am guessing he was at home, had chest pain, went to the hospital, and there died, likely from a massive Myocardial Infarction. However, like all of the truth movements commentary on it...it is ONLY SPECULATION!!!

TAM

 

[LashL]

I will admit I like reminding the more notable posters that they rely on a cheap rhetorical tactic that exposes the weakness of their discourse. It is entertaining on some level.

Says the fellow who claims that Larry Silverstein was "lying through his dentures" and yet cannot come up with a single lie that Mr. Silverstein told.

Says the fellow who claims that General Myers thought that "attending a tea party" was more important than fulfilling his duties.

Says the fellow who claims that the FDNY was in on it, and yet refuses to provide any evidence in support of his unfounded allegations.

That's cheap rhetoric and pathetically weak discourse, all right, but you grossly overestimate yourself if you think that you are "entertaining" anyone but yourself.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

What is the subject of each of those bolded sentences? What is the antecedent? You aim your comments at some non-existent, monolithic entity, and act indigent when called on it.

This tactic is transparent, you should abandon it.

In this thread some people had criticism for WAC. That makes sense to me. Point your comments towards a specific person or specific group. This petulant labeling and conflation is goofy.

Red, if someone talked about your dead relative or friend, like the way you Truthers do, wouldn't you get pissed at them?

 

[RedIbis]

Says the fellow who claims that Larry Silverstein was "lying through his dentures" and yet cannot come up with a single lie that Mr. Silverstein told.

Of course I can. But that's just a cheap attempt at derailing this thread.

Says the fellow who claims that General Myers thought that "attending a tea party" was more important than fulfilling his duties.

Correct. I stand 100% behind that comment. But that's just a cheap attempt at derailing this thread.

Says the fellow who claims that the FDNY was in on it, and yet refuses to provide any evidence in support of his unfounded allegations.

Total BS. Quote me saying I think "FDNY was in ot it." Quote or retract.

That's cheap rhetoric and pathetically weak discourse, all right, but you grossly overestimate yourself if you think that you are "entertaining" anyone but yourself

Thanks for serving up a series of softballs.

 

[LashL]

What is the subject of each of those bolded sentences? What is the antecedent? You aim your comments at some non-existent, monolithic entity, and act indigent when called on it.

This tactic is transparent, you should abandon it.

In this thread some people had criticism for WAC. That makes sense to me. Point your comments towards a specific person or specific group. This petulant labeling and conflation is goofy.

Why do you persist in pretending that you cannot comprehend simple English? The group to whom my post is directed is - quite clearly - the sub-set of truthers who think they are entitled to personal information about the deaths of private individuals when they are clearly not entitled to such information.

These people (and it appears from your posts that you consider yourself among this group) not only seem to think that they are entitled to personal information to which they are clearly not entitled, but then they run around the Internet building conspiracy theories around those private individuals and acting as though the families of those individuals owe them something - i.e. personal information - and act as though the government also has some kind of obligation to disclose the personal information of these private individuals. This group of truthers thinks nothing of besmirching the deceased with their nonsense, and thinks nothing of how reading their nonsense on the Internet might affect the family members of the deceased. All they seem to care about is how they can exploit the deaths of others to further their silly conspiracy theories. This makes them not only ghouls but despicable ghouls.

It's pretty straightforward, really.

 

[RedIbis]

It's pretty straightforward, really.

I think I got it now. A subset of Truthers are ghouls.