- Status
Miragememories
Banned
Miragememories
Banned
Old ground Glenn. I already accepted the possibility that Mr. Jennings arrived at the OEM after the 2nd attack.
I do not agree that the OEM was occupied until 9:45 am.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That's pretty rich considering the nature of the post to which I was responding. By all means keep ignoring as many of your critics as you wish. I guarantee that the rest of the readers of the thread aren't so selective. And I guarantee they will not come to your carefully-fed conclusion about who has substance and who does not.
So, bluster first. Despite the many well-intentioned attempts to compel you to think critically about Jennings' testimony, you maintain that "people like us" (ad hominem) refuse to accept your interpretation of it, and the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory, solely out of some ideological fear. That's about as blustery as it can get. Between your finger hovering perpetually over the "ignore" button and your emotionally laden tirades, you're missing most of the substance.
I will reiterate the first point I made. You say if Jennings is right then lots of things are wrong. That's putatively true, in the sense that Jennings' testimony contradicts a lot of other testimony and evidence. But the principles of consilience suggest that we don't artificially elevate Jennings such that we reject everything else on the basis of it.
This is a big difference between how fringe theorists think and how serious researchers think. Fringe theories are almost always based on outlying information that is restyled to be some sort of smoking gun. Alternative science and alternative history is all taught according to that principle: "Everything you know is wrong!"
In reconciling the evidence, we find far more parsimony in characterizing Jennings' statements as outlying. The center-of-gravity of all the evidence lies more reliably with a timeline that places Jennings in the building at the time of the collapse. It's not a Science Foul to suggest that a witness has recalled the events incorrectly.
So let's finish up with a little science. You maintain -- against all scientific knowledge -- that the reliability of Jennings' recollection is enhanced by the severity of the events in which he participated. The phrase "seared into memory" frequently arises among any fringe claim that relies extensively upon eyewitness testimony. But in six decades of systematically studying memory and recall under stress, there is not one single iota of scientific evidence that observational skills or recall of a stressful event improve due to the importance of the event. In fact there's even a slight negative correlation.
We find that people's recollection of stressful events is very fragmentary. Consequently a few details sometimes persist, giving rise to the "seared in the memory" myth. But there's no correlation between the recall of detail and the salience of the recalled details to the overall event. Restated, that says the details you recall with great clarity are not necessarily the things that are the most important to what's going on. So for example you could recall the placement of a fire extinguisher perfectly, but be completely wrong about the floor you were on.
But the real problem with fragmentary recall is that the mind unconsciously builds a narrative around them. That narrative is not the factual replay of what actually happened, but rather a logically coherent belief for what happened in order for the recalled details to arise. In constructing the narrative, the mind invents new facts to flesh out and explain the recalled items, and those inventions are honestly recalled with commensurate fidelity as the actual facts. Further, recalled facts that do not fit the narrative are demoted, rearranged, or reinterpreted to achieve coherence.
When we say Jennings may be mistaken or may have recalled things imperfectly, that is not mere handwaving. We know exactly the kinds of ways in which recall fails. There is a plethora of science behind this, and it is upon that scientific basis that we are able to say that Jennings' testimony, as an outlying recollection, is not as likely to be true as the plurality of other evidence by which a consilient conclusion has been reached.
No matter how much you prop up Jennings and attempt to gild his memory, it doesn't make the facts go away.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Whether you agree with it or not, it's a fact.
Old ground, current discussion. "arrived after the 2nd attack" doesn't cut the mustard as that includes 9:04 when he would have found it occupied.
There's ample evidence he arrived closer to 10 than 9, mostly that the order to evacuate the OEM didn't come until 9:30, it would have taken time to clear, and would have required a safety officer to confirm it was truly empty and lock up. 9:45 is a very reasonable estimate. Call it 9:40 if you wish, but then your 'preferred' timeline falls to pieces.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This is why MM keeps bringing up Jennings. It's fairly obvious that he's projecting his obsession with Jennings onto us. We apparently obsess over Jennings trying to debunk MM's interpretation of his testimony, but in fact it's MM who keeps bringing up him as allegedly trumping every other kind of amount of evidence.
Every time the physical or documentary evidence comes to a dead end in MM's case, he brings up Jennings and says we have to set aside those other forms of evidence because we have eyewitness evidence that means it "has to be so." MM relies on Jennings to save what is objectively an untenable position on other aspects of his case. Jennings is now his smoking gun, and he has to point it at whatever other kind of evidence doesn't pan out when scrutinized.
Also the Jennings explosions would have to be CD 'gone wrong', or deliberate preparatory measures.
Either way, these explosions would be there in plain sight and hearing before the Tower collapses, yet failing to blow out windows on the 6th floor while still having the power to demolish the stairwell to the extent that Jennings was 'hanging' from it.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Which is basically irrelevant in his opinion... This is why the thread is a complete waste of time as much as holding a discussion as it presently goes. As people have noticed, MM is being thoroughly selective in his responses and if you deviate outside of the Jennings testimony or otherwise disagree with the "CD" conclusion you are automatically blacklisted as being "self serving", rude, bluster, troll'ish, etc. regardless of the actual nature of the response you put forward. If he doesn't want to put in the time to address weaknesses pointed out in his arguments, that's up to him decide and I don't really care but then it doesn't warrant anyone else taking the time to explain to him in detail why he's wrong. The fact that he views most critics of his treatment of Jennings testimony in all of those terms described above tells me he intends to stick to his guns to hell and high earth... so no need to discuss... except of course linking to previous discussions where these issues have been previously covered. At this point, certain other members have stated as much before... but there's no genuine questions left to rehash, or if there are... they certainly haven't come up from anyone else in this thread. Other members can continue on this if they're bored enough, but I doubt I have much else to say since MM is categorically NOT a fence sitter on this issue. I've had my discussions with him in the past, and between then and now, very very little has changed. I suppose if his belief on this issue is genuine he may view us the same way... but again... that's not my burden to deal with
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
9:04? Now you are grabbing at numbers.
When Mr. Jennings arrived at the OEM, what he witnessed was evidence of a very hasty departure.
The staff that normally occupied the OEM should have been at their desks by 9 am.
Mr. Jennings found half eaten sandwiches and unfinished still-hot coffees, breakfasts that people would have arrived with, yet never finished.
This suggests to me that they left their posts well before 9:45 am.
Animal
Master Poster
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I'm wondering why Mr Jennings didn't mention the fact the lobby area was packed with people when he returned to find someone with a key? This was the case until 9:30 atleast. Officials closed the south exits in fear of people getting hit by falling debris.Of course you do.....that is the only way your religious beliefs survive.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Deliberately stupid timing as well. MM would seem to want us to believe that this is a preparation for the later final CD that will be blamed on the collapse of WTC1. So, not only is it patently stupid to have this explosion occur half a day in advance of its scheduled demise, its also, supposedly occurring 30-45 minutes before the towers collapse.
IIRC there's also a meme out there that contends that the CD of #7 was supposed to happen as WTC1 collapsed and that the Jennings witnessed 'explosion' was part of that which went off prematurely.
How beautifully illustrative of the truther mindset all this is. The best bet for truthers would have been to admit that this 'explosion' did occur at the same time as WTC1 collapsing but contend that the rest of the demolition charges failed to go off.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Well it did take significantly less than half a day! Only about seven hours, the final sequence of which took considerably less than a minute, only 16-20 seconds.
This is MM's current belief. Of course it would be impossible to explain why the building might collapse just then and MM didn't even try.
You know what's truly scary? Following an external link to the Jennings testimony I bumped into this. It contains clear evidence, collated by you, that WTC7 was not Jennings' normal workplace, yet recently here it took days of argument before you conceded that fact, a fact you knew back in 2008.
I don't believe you have any interest whatsoever in establishing facts, or even discussing probabilities, through honest debate; you just feel that as long as you do debate then your beliefs will be protected somehow. Given that you're clearly happy to say things that you really ought to know are untrue then the debate will be endless.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
It suggests to me that like Jennings and Hess, others arrived later than 9 AM, coffee and breakfast in hand.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
How is that grabbing at numbers? Richard Bylicki states the following:
Richard Bylicki said:
Richard says he viewed the South Tower impact via live video feed in the OEM. That places people in the OEM at 9:03-9:04 am. Barry said nobody was in the OEM when they got there.
So know you have a timeframe between 9:03 am (WTC2 impact) and 10:28 am (WTC1 collapse) that needs can be worked with.
When Barry broke out the window on the 8th floor and said he saw burning cars and buses, that means, at the very least, WTC2 had collapsed already. That occurred at 9:59 am.
My other question that I have asked you about is what "building" Jennings is referring to as being "gone"?
Barry Jennings said:
He clearly swiveled his head to look in one direction and then the other and saw two different scenarios. So what was he talking about?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Its quite a confusing statement. All I can think of is that it refers to him being able to locate where in the building he is. He looks west and sees the rest of WTC 7, looks east and sees no more of the building and can conclude he is at the NE corner.
It would be odd indeed for it to refer to what he could see to the south. First of all from the NE corner its unlikely that he could see anything of the towers at this time. First of all its highly unlikely that vehicles would be burning north of WTC 7 from the collapse of #2, only after the collapse of #1. So at this point its established that neither tower is standing. Second , he'd have to be looking across 140 feet of WTC 7 and over dozens of workstations and partitions, past WTC 6, through dust and smoke of at LEAST one tower collapse and the smoke from other WTC complex structures now burning.
Its also not a view from a window on the east side since from there he would have a view of only part of WTC 2 so this statement does not make any sense.
Last edited:
- Status