'What about building 7'?

[Brass]

I know this may be getting off topic from the heated debate right now, but if a "truther" goes to WTC7 as his smoking gun, is it fair to say that through implication they are saying that;

a.) the FDNY is incompetent at their jobs
b.) the FDNY was in on the conspiracy

I don't think it's unfair to assume they believe this, whether they know it or not. Reason is because of all the FDNY testimony to The New York Times, which you can read at your leisure here, they knew something was going down. If you believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition, it's impossible to believe that the FDNY was surprised it was going down, which leads to you believing they knew it was coming down due to structural failure, or they knew it was coming down because they were in on it. You can't claim "somebody told them it was coming down" because that's a strong claim to make with no evidence to support it.

 

[000063]

I know this may be getting off topic from the heated debate right now, but if a "truther" goes to WTC7 as his smoking gun, is it fair to say that through implication they are saying that;

a.) the FDNY is incompetent at their jobs
b.) the FDNY was in on the conspiracy

I don't think it's unfair to assume they believe this, whether they know it or not. Reason is because of all the FDNY testimony to The New York Times, which you can read at your leisure here, they knew something was going down. If you believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition, it's impossible to believe that the FDNY was surprised it was going down, which leads to you believing they knew it was coming down due to structural failure, or they knew it was coming down because they were in on it. You can't claim "somebody told them it was coming down" because that's a strong claim to make with no evidence to support it.

Which is why the Truthers studiously ignore questions about the firefighters' involvement.

 

[Animal]

Which is why the Truthers studiously ignore questions about the firefighters' involvement.

Why do troofers ignore reality?

 

[Miragememories]

Jennings never said, that he saw WTC 1 or WTC 2 collapse; I may remind you of that fact:

So what?

The important fact is that THEY WERE STILL STANDING when he looked after arriving at the 8th floor.

They could not have been responsible for the explosion he witnessed at the 6th floor.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

-nvrmnd-

 

[DGM]

So what?

The important fact is that THEY WERE STILL STANDING when he looked after arriving at the 8th floor.

They could not have been responsible for the explosion he witnessed at the 6th floor.

They couldn't have been. The last tower fell and blocked their egress at floor 6.

Still waiting for you to post a time-line that works and includes all known facts. Care to take that on or does faith work best for you?

 

[TJM]

That NIST statement was supported by empirical evidence.

That NIST statement has to be true because it supports the fairy tale you're clinging to.

That is opinion and not fact.

That's in one of those "massaged" bits you don't like.

We know Mr. Jennings walked roughly halfway to the south side of WTC7 based on the location of the east side window he broke.

We've also known Mr. Jennings to stretch the truth.

It would be impossible to look south and not see the twin towers looming in the near distance.

I can think of one instance where it would be possible.

As I said, and the evidence shows, Mr. Jennings did not confine himself to the NE corner office.

I don't believe you know what that word means.

 

[TJM]

So what?

The important fact is that THEY WERE STILL STANDING when he looked after arriving at the 8th floor.

They could not have been responsible for the explosion he witnessed at the 6th floor.

Yes. An explosion. An explosion so sinister and evilly crafted, that it went off under Jennings and Hess, bypassed the rest of the stairs, including a transfer corridor, leaving them in tact and carried juuuuust enough energy to blow the stairs out from under him while he shimmied unscathed up a pole to the next landing that the explosion seems to have missed.

Sounds plausible.

 

[jaydeehess]

You are unbelievable jaydee.

Do you bother to read what you write?

I am quite content with what I wrote. Not sure how you can be with what you write though.

I expect that next you will go back to rabidly arguing they were at the NW corner again

.
Would you like to have me write that I was wrong about that again... Oh look I just did.

The man was answering questions. Not giving a speech.

"I had no way of knowing that" Does that sound like a man who could have simply peeked out the other window he broke and confirmed his suspicion?
Here's another quote for you, " No explosion"

He was breaking windows so he could call down to the street for help.

Yet all we can see is one broken window.

Mr. Jennings was obviously at the other window when he broke it.

No, what's obvious is you'd like to believe that despite no empirical evidence to support the notion.

Or do you think he tossed the fire extinguisher from the NE corner?

Specious, unremarkable comment.

From his interview, this observation was made soon after their arrival on the 8th floor.

Sorry, what observation? He never comments on having observed the towers.

Midway across the floor placed him in a good location to look and see whether WTC1 and WTC2 were still standing

In a dusty smoky building he can see right through it and over the remains of WTC6?

Is it really necessary for him to have said how he used his eyes in order to validate what he saw?

If you are going to claim it as fact then there does need to be some evidence of this especially given he's the ONLY person to claim this.

And now you complain about the shape of the window break...that line of argument is too pathetic for words.]

That was GlennB who originally noticed that , do try to keep up. However now that you bring it up, how do you explain the gross difference in the ragged and wholly expected outline of the NE corner broken glass as opposed to the very regular and apparently circular appearance of he supposed broken window on the East side.
As I said, did he find a glass cutter laying about?

How about the FFs, did any FF ever comment on how they were invokved in rescuing Jennings, Hess, and the security guard prior to the collapses? Any mention about the inability to access the stairwells prior to the collapses? No FF thought it remarkable that people were trapped by impassable stairways in a supposedly undamaged building? There were security people in the lobby even after the collapse of WTC2, did any of them comment on explosions in WTC7 prior to that collapse? Do you have anything to corroborate the timeline of J&H being at the window prior to either collapse, besides your own deep desire for that to be true of course.

 

[jaydeehess]

So what?

The important fact is that THEY WERE STILL STANDING when he looked after arriving at the 8th floor.

They could not have been responsible for the explosion he witnessed at the 6th floor.

You establish this as fact because you assume he saw the towers standing (" I had no way of knowing that") and despite no other evidence to bolster this timeline ( "no explosion") !

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes. An explosion. An explosion so sinister and evilly crafted, that it went off under Jennings and Hess, bypassed the rest of the stairs, including a transfer corridor, leaving them in tact and carried juuuuust enough energy to blow the stairs out from under him while he shimmied unscathed up a pole to the next landing that the explosion seems to have missed.

Sounds plausible.

And a second explosion that blocked the other stairs. Both explosions going unremarked upon by even the security guard in the south side lobby and seemingly of no concern to FFs who find out about these two men being trapped before WTC7 received any impact damage from WTC1(or WTC2)

 

[1stClassAlan]

Maybe I've missed quite alot because I haven't read through all 52 pages of this thread - but why are folks arguing about the plausibility of possible witnesses to the collapse of WTC7 - BEFORE the collapses of Towers 1 & 2? For as I understand it, 7 suffered its mortal blows from falling debris from those collapses.

Does anyone know if it was damaged by aircraft wreckage or ejected debris and set on fire earlier than the collapses of 1 & 2?

As for the regular shape of a possible broken square of glass - most high rise buildings I've worked on employ 11mm heat treated panes - they break like a vehicle windscreen and as such it would be conceivable for a broken window to display a neat hole - when viewed from a distance at far from clear focus. Damn difficult to break 11mm glass with a fire extinguisher though - a good blow from a small hammer in one corner yes, but large items usually bounce off - I've seen a ceiling fixers scaffold tower do exactly that!

 

[TJM]

Maybe I've missed quite alot because I haven't read through all 52 pages of this thread - but why are folks arguing about the plausibility of possible witnesses to the collapse of WTC7 - BEFORE the collapses of Towers 1 & 2? For as I understand it, 7 suffered its mortal blows from falling debris from those collapses.

I think you'll find nobody claiming 7 went down before the towers.

MirageMemmories Has been arguing the timeline of the collapse of 7 based on nothing more than what he's cherry picked from NIST and the wild claims of a proven story teller.

Now you're caught up.

 

[jaydeehess]

Allan. There are two windows in the discussion. One we know was broken out and by whom. It displays classic broken glass, a ragged hole. The other is at a very oblique angle to the camera and farther away and there is a shape in the center that is basically a pale oval which one poster claims is the hole created by being broken with said extinquisher.

He also claims a timeline that has explosions in WTC7 while the two towers were still upright and burning.

.........

 

[pgimeno]

I may be thick but... don't windows have this amazing quality of letting people see through them without the need to break them?

You know, as in this photo that Redwood brought.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31522&d=1409171886

Or what am I missing?

 

[GlennB]

Maybe I've missed quite alot because I haven't read through all 52 pages of this thread - but why are folks arguing about the plausibility of possible witnesses to the collapse of WTC7 - BEFORE the collapses of Towers 1 & 2? For as I understand it, 7 suffered its mortal blows from falling debris from those collapses.

MM wants to believe the Jennings & Hess situation was caused by something that happened before the Towers' collapses, as this would point to deliberately-placed explosives. As ever, MM has to torture reality to make it fit this view, but as long he's able to argue about something his CT theory stands undefeated (even though he doesn't know what that theory is).

And, yes, laminated car windscreens can have quite neat holes but they're accompanied by a huge amount of crazing where the broken fragments are held together by the lamination. Images

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'd believe MMs argument ab I ut the explosions pointing to CD.... if he provided physical evidence that corroborates what he claims jennings and hess's testimony supports

 

[JayUtah]

I'd believe MMs argument ab I ut the explosions pointing to CD.... if he provided physical evidence that corroborates what he claims jennings and hess's testimony supports

But that's backwards from what he argues. He suggests we have to discount all the other evidence (or lack of it) because we have to believe his witness.

 

[DGM]

But that's backwards from what he argues. He suggests we have to discount all the other evidence (or lack of it) because we have to believe his witness.

.........even considering the fact there's no way to reconcile Jennings time-line.

Everyone can't help but notice MM ignores this subject choosing only to argue what the witness said.

 

[LSSBB]

.........even considering the fact there's no way to reconcile Jennings time-line.

Everyone can't help but notice MM ignores this subject choosing only to argue what the witness said.

I think that's because at this point it's not about convincing anyone else. It's about holding on to a belief. Clinging to the "noble words of the lone martyr" is a great rock to cling to.