Barry Jennings, dead at 53

If anyone needed proof that the truth movement is dead, this is it. Grasping at straws trying to make a dead man say things he didn't say.

The dictionary needs a new word, "pathetic" doesn't come close.
 
johnny karate said:
The word your looking for is "implication",
Click to expand...

I like inference. Tell me why I'm wrong - don't just assert.


johnny karate said:
"He said do not look down" is the only statement in that quote that is attributed to the firefighter.

Therefore no one said there were actually bodies present.
Click to expand...


You're lucky my sound isn't working, or else I'd just transcribe the interview myself.

However, going by the quote provided in this thread, it's pretty obvious that "we're stepping over people" is a statement attributed to the firefighter. Prior to this statement, Jennings said he kept asking the firefighter why he shouldn't look down--remember, the suggestion not to look down came from the firefighter. Jennings asked why, and it was the firefighter who answered: "We're stepping over people."

This is the most plausible interpretation of his statements, and any other interpretation is simply ludicrous.
 
radical_logic said:
I like inference. Tell me why I'm wrong - don't just assert.
Click to expand...

Inference is something a listener or observer does, implication is something in a statement which is to be inferred by the listener or reader.

You're lucky my sound isn't working, or else I'd just transcribe the interview myself.

However, going by the quote provided in this thread, it's pretty obvious that "we're stepping over people" is a statement attributed to the firefighter. Prior to this statement, Jennings said he kept asking the firefighter why he shouldn't look down--remember, the suggestion not to look down came from the firefighter. Jennings asked why, and it was the firefighter who answered: "We're stepping over people."

This is the most plausible interpretation of his statements, and any other interpretation is simply ludicrous.
Click to expand...



Barry Jennings: The firefighter that took us down kept saying, "Do not look down." [pause] And I kept saying, "Why?" He said, "Do not look down." [pause] And [pause with gesture] we were [slurred*] stepping over people. And you know you can feel when you're stepping over people.

*sounds like he just says "were."
 
Last edited:
radical_logic said:
I like inference. Tell me why I'm wrong - don't just assert.
Click to expand...

Inference means the act or process of inferring.

Implication means something implied or suggested.

I recommend you learn to use a dictionary and quit embarrassing yourself.

radical_logic said:
You're lucky my sound isn't working, or else I'd just transcribe the interview myself.

However, going by the quote provided in this thread, it's pretty obvious that "we're stepping over people" is a statement attributed to the firefighter. Prior to this statement, Jennings said he kept asking the firefighter why he shouldn't look down--remember, the suggestion not to look down came from the firefighter. Jennings asked why, and it was the firefighter who answered: "We're stepping over people."

This is the most plausible interpretation of his statements, and any other interpretation is simply ludicrous.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. The two sentences in question are in different voices. "He said do not look down" is in the third person because it's Jennings relaying what the fireman told him.

"And we're stepping over people and you know you could feel when you're stepping over people" is Jennings speaking in the second person, the way that is done in casual conversation, relaying his personal experience.

This is confirmed in Jennings' clarification of his statement:
"I said it felt like I was stepping over them but I never saw any".

Please do not continue to argue this point. You've already made yourself look foolish enough and your woeful grasp of grammar makes it apparent you are not in a position to refute anything I've said.
 
Slayhamlet said:
Inference is something a listener or observer does, implication is something in a statement which is to be inferred by the listener or reader.
Click to expand...

"The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inference





Barry Jennings: The firefighter that took us down kept saying, "Do not look down." [pause] And I kept saying, "Why?" He said, "Do not look down." [pause] And [pause with gesture] we were [slurred*] stepping over people. And you know you can feel when you're stepping over people.

*sounds like he just says "were."[/QUOTE]

The existence of bodies on the floor is clearly implied.
 
johnny karate said:
Inference means the act or process of inferring.

Yes, and I inferred that "there were bodies on the floor" based on what Jennings' account. Hence my use of "inference" was correct.


johnny karate said:
No, it's not. The two sentences in question are in different voices. "He said do not look down" is in the third person because it's Jennings relaying what the fireman told him.

"And we're stepping over people and you know you could feel when you're stepping over people" is Jennings speaking in the second person, the way that is done in casual conversation, relaying his personal experience.

This is confirmed in Jennings' clarification of his statement:
"I said it felt like I was stepping over them but I never saw any".

Please do not continue to argue this point. You've already made yourself look foolish enough and your woeful grasp of grammar makes it apparent you are not in a position to refute anything I've said.
Click to expand...

Again, his "clarification" is completely consistent with the claim that there were bodies on the floor. Why did the firefighter tell him not to look down? What's the answer to this question?
Click to expand...
 
radical_logic said:
johnny karate said:
Inference means the act or process of inferring.

Yes, and I inferred that "there were bodies on the floor" based on what Jennings' account. Hence my use of "inference" was correct.
Click to expand...


No it wasn't. You said: "The inference that there were bodies on the floor is explicit." How can an inference be explicit? You meant that the implication is explicit.
Click to expand...
 
Slayhamlet said:
Did you not even read what I wrote?
Click to expand...

Yep, and I stand by what I wrote.


Slayhamlet said:
Yes, he thought there were bodies there. That was his inference from the fireman saying "do not look down."
Click to expand...


He also asked the firefighter why he shouldn't look down, and he got a direct answer. Do you concede that, if his testimony is credible, it's likely that there were bodies in WTC7 prior to its collapse?
 
radical_logic said:
It is explicit, meaning clear and direct.

1. "We're stepping over bodies."
2. Therefore, there were bodies on the floor.
Click to expand...

Is there something in your constitution that renders you unable to admit to simple errors? Let's try again.

Which of these two sentences makes any sense?

"The act of me inferring from Barry Jennings's statement that there were dead bodies on the floor is explicit"

"The implication from Barry Jennings's statement that there were dead bodies on the floor is explicit"
 
radical_logic said:
Yep, and I stand by what I wrote.





He also asked the firefighter why he shouldn't look down, and he got a direct answer. Do you concede that, if his testimony is credible, it's likely that there were bodies in WTC7 prior to its collapse?
Click to expand...

Prove that he got a direct answer. Barry Jennings did not say he got an answer at all.

Edit: Oh, and I don't concede anything at all. Barry Jennings is the sole witness to claim there were any bodies in WTC 7 (not counting the triage zone which was set up there earlier but removed), and he says he didn't even see them.
 
Last edited:
radical_logic said:
It is explicit, meaning clear and direct.

1. "We're stepping over bodies."
2. Therefore, there were bodies on the floor.
Click to expand...


That you have inferred such from the quoted statement is something you have made abundantly clear, yes. What you're failing to grasp, however, is that others here are not inferring the same thing.
 
radical_logic said:
Yes, and I inferred that "there were bodies on the floor" based on what Jennings' account. Hence my use of "inference" was correct.
Click to expand...

And the embarrassment continues.

Yes, you inferred. But your statement "The inference that there were bodies on the floor is explicit" does not make reference to what you did, but rather to that which you inferred, i.e. an implication.

This will be the last time I address this idiocy. Arguing what words mean with an apparent illiterate is beneath me.

radical_logic said:
Again, his "clarification" is completely consistent with the claim that there were bodies on the floor.
Click to expand...

And if that is what you wish to infer, it is entirely your prerogative. However, it doesn't change the fact that neither Jennings nor the fireman he was with actually claimed there were bodies present.

radical_logic said:
Why did the firefighter tell him not to look down? What's the answer to this question?
Click to expand...

I suppose you'll have to ask the firefighter.
 
BTW, is it known who the firefighter that helped Mr. Jennings escape was, and if so, did he survive? Also, is there any testimony of other firefighters who might have been in the building around the same time? Barry Jennings seems to be the only witness to ever claim there were bodies in WTC 7, and as he said, he didn't even see them.

Sorry if this has been answered before; I'm not much up-to-date on this stuff and the witness testimony section of Gravy's site seems to be down.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom