'What about building 7'?

[Africanus]

Regardless, there is still only one meaning for what he said about the status of the towers when he arrived at the 8th floor.

Ok, let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume that Jennings claim is correct and both towers were still standing when the explosion occured. But how does this fit his later claim that he had no way of knowing of the collapse of the towers?

And then they ran away. See, I didn't know what was going on. That's when one the first tower fell.

When they started running the first tower was coming down. I had no I had no way of knowing that.

This claim and his previous claim don't match, he should be well aware of the collapse of both towers, especially the north tower, as 7 WTC was engulfed in dust (cf. fig. 5-103 NCSTAR 1-9). Because of this contradiction his previous claim must be rejected.

 

[GlennB]

He did not have any reason to make up stuff that might be discredited by other witnesses like Mr. Hess or his rescuers.

Nobody is suggesting he has "made up" anything, just that's his account is muddled, liable to misinterpretation and, in places, plain wrong.

For example, his arrival time "before the second plane crash" at the EOM is demonstrably wrong, whereas the idea he saw the 2 Towers while at the 8th floor is an understandable misinterpretation of a garbled account.

 

[Gamolon]

One of the important things Jennings has said is the statement about him looking one way and it was there, then looking the other way and it was gone.

What exactly is he talking about? He says it twice in the interview.

Early in the video at 2:10, Barry says this:

After getting to the the 8th floor, everything was dark. It was dark and very, very hot. VERY hot. Um... I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Once I broke out the windows, I could see outside below me, I saw... uh... police cars on fire... buses on fire... uh... I looked one way, the building was there. I looked the other way, it was gone.

Later in the video at 10:42, Barry says this:

When we made it back to the 8th floor. As I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing because I looked... two... I looked one way, looked the other way, now there's nothing there.

What does this mean?

Does he mean he saw the tower when he looked in one direction and when he looked in the other direction it had collapsed?

Or does it mean he looked in one direction down a face (west or south)of WTC7 and the building was still intact, but when he looked in at the face in the other direction, it was gouged out?

If the latter is true, then that puts him looking out an 8th floor window on either the west side looking at the southwest, gouged corner or on the south side looking at the southwest, gouged corner, or the gash in the middle of the south face.

 

[TJM]

I already conceded my doubts about Mr. Jennings reaching the 23rd floor OEM before 2 WTC was attacked.

That does not justify your insistence that he actually arrived a whole hour later and that it took him almost half an hour to make a descent that could be managed easily in under ten minutes (I timed it in a similar building).

If you're overweight and / or elderly and did your time trial in a dark & smoky stairwell you're not familiar with, then I'd say you're onto something.

But you didn't. So you're not. And you should factor in the time they wasted groping around in the dark when they got lost.

Full disclosure: I've made similar descents in just over two minutes, under optimal conditions.

 

[TJM]

What does this mean?

Jennings is trying to tell the loose change idiots what they want to hear but isn't sure what that is.

 

[jaydeehess]

Some quotes were given upthread, or you could Google "WTC7 tenants".

Or just use a little logic - assume he arrived at 9:00 (between the two plane strikes). What would be the odds on evacuating the whole building in 14 minutes so that he'd find it empty? Precisely zero.

That he didn't arrive before the second strike is the obvious answer to the puzzle.

Bears repeating!

 

[jaydeehess]

One of the important things Jennings has said is the statement about him looking one way and it was there, then looking the other way and it was gone.

What exactly is he talking about? He says it twice in the interview.

Early in the video at 2:10, Barry says this:


Later in the video at 10:42, Barry says this:


What does this mean?

Does he mean he saw the tower when he looked in one direction and when he looked in the other direction it had collapsed?

Or does it mean he looked in one direction down a face (west or south)of WTC7 and the building was still intact, but when he looked in at the face in the other direction, it was gouged out?

If the latter is true, then that puts him looking out an 8th floor window on either the west side looking at the southwest, gouged corner or on the south side looking at the southwest, gouged corner, or the gash in the middle of the south face.

I admit I am a bit confused as to how Jennings could have seen both towers. If I understand correctly, one exits the stairwell at the 8th floor , to the north side of the floor. That puts the entire core between him and the south windows. Not a lot of opportunity to see through to the south side windows from there. In addition, WTC6 sits directly across the street and its 8 storeys tall so its roof is above Jennings, blocking his view south. Maybe if one went right up to the south windows one could see over WTC6 and observe the towers from there.
MM claims a window on the east side of WTC7 was broken out by Jennings and so he could see WTC1. Well part of WTC1 from there but certainly not WTC2 which, MM insists, Jennings is saying he also saw.

While I admit that his statement truly seems to be that he saw both towers standing when he reached the 8th floor I see no way of him being able to do so unless he actually went right up to the south side windows. In that case, and given that at this supposed time, there would be a much greater fire, police and emergency responders presence on Vessey than on Barclay, why did they choose to travel accross to the NE corner to break a window and call for help? His whole statement regarding this issue is muddled and confusing. If one is to take his statement at face value here though, then one should do so for his stating that "once" the window was broken he could see the burning vehilces to mean that before breaking the window it was difficult to see through them, ie. that they were covered in dust, and that these vehicles were burning before the FFs left the first time which Jennings believes was the time of WTC2 collapse. Why were vehicles burning before #2 came down? Why were vehicles burning and visible from a north window of WTC7 before #1 came down?

Also, the stairwells are described was smoky before the supposed explosion. How does that occur if both towers are still standing?

How is it that all occupants of WTC7 except for the police and security in the lobby have exited the building if J&H arrive there before WTC2 is hit, let alone get to the 23rd floor before that event?

If Jennings is in error about getting to the OEM before #2 is hit, then its quite possible he is wrong about much of his timeline.

 

[Miragememories]

I admit I am a bit confused as to how Jennings could have seen both towers.

If I understand correctly, one exits the stairwell at the 8th floor , to the north side of the floor.

That puts the entire core between him and the south windows.

Not a lot of opportunity to see through to the south side windows from there.

In addition, WTC6 sits directly across the street and its 8 storeys tall so its roof is above Jennings, blocking his view south.

Maybe if one went right up to the south windows one could see over WTC6 and observe the towers from there.

MM claims a window on the east side of WTC7 was broken out by Jennings and so he could see WTC1. Well part of WTC1 from there but certainly not WTC2 which, MM insists, Jennings is saying he also saw.Wrong! 2 WTC, not 1 WTC

While I admit that his statement truly seems to be that he saw both towers standing when he reached the 8th floor I see no way of him being able to do so unless he actually went right up to the south side windows.

In that case, and given that at this supposed time, there would be a much greater fire, police and emergency responders presence on Vessey than on Barclay, why did they choose to travel accross to the NE corner to break a window and call for help?

His whole statement regarding this issue is muddled and confusing.

If one is to take his statement at face value here though, then one should do so for his stating that "once" the window was broken he could see the burning vehilces to mean that before breaking the window it was difficult to see through them, ie. that they were covered in dust, and that these vehicles were burning before the FFs left the first time which Jennings believes was the time of WTC2 collapse.

Why were vehicles burning before #2 came down? Why were vehicles burning and visible from a north window of WTC7 before #1 came down?

Also, the stairwells are described was smoky before the supposed explosion. How does that occur if both towers are still standing?

How is it that all occupants of WTC7 except for the police and security in the lobby have exited the building if J&H arrive there before WTC2 is hit, let alone get to the 23rd floor before that event?

If Jennings is in error about getting to the OEM before #2 is hit, then its quite possible he is wrong about much of his timeline.

That has to be one of the most civil posts I've seen from you jaydee.

This posting from an iPad is a pain, so if I overlook anything..blame Apple.

Okay. Mr. Jennings exited the stairwell on the north side of 7 WTC and of course he could not immediately view out any south facing windows.

After arriving at the 8th floor, he did a number of things in God knows what order. He broke out a window in an office at the NE corner with a fire extinguisher.

Walking to that corner office would have enabled the view blocked by the core.

He broke out at least one more window (accepted as fact by the NIST), which appears to have been on the east face, part way to the south side.

If he looked out of that window opening, and towards the south, he would have seen 2 WTC (not 1 WTC). Mr. Jennings never made that claim.

Again, I have to point out that it was necessary to break windows in order for calls for help to be heard. As well, it made it possible to see directly below.

It is reasonable to assume that sometime during those activities Mr. Jenning's insistence he looked and saw both towers standing must have taken place.

The east face broken window did place him in the vicinity of the south facing windows, and depending on how far south he walked, he would most certainly have been in a position to look and see if the WTC twin towers were indeed standing.

At this time there was no record of any significant fire activity (other than a small fire on the 7th floor, time of occurrence unknown).

But there was the explosion below the 6th floor and subsequent other internal explosions inside 7 WTC as testified to by Mr. Jennings. This could have been a source of smoke and dust.

In addition, anyone who has been in an office tower when the a/c has failed, knows how quickly they become very hot and stuffy.

Regarding police and firefighter activity, prior to the collapse of 2 WTC, there is no reason to believe the influx of these people was confined to just one side of 7 WTC which based on Mr. Jenning's testimony, was not yet damaged by the WTC twin towers..yet.

 

[1stClassAlan]

[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/WTC7EF.jpg[/qimg]

This doesn't look much like a break through safety glass - can anyone state the specification of the glass actually fitted to WTC7?

If any glass was fitted to a high rise in the U.K. that shattered into shards - there would be prosecutions!

This Mr Jenning's testamony seems to be such a bone of contention because he states that there were "explosions" in the building BEFORE the Towers collapsed and this is unacceptable to many and for others casts suspicions of dastardly deeds. However, considering that two airliners had by that time, been flown into each Tower - causing massive damage to their electrical circuits - could those "explosions" be nothing more than the Consolidated Edison powerhouse located in the basement of WTC7 having a rather dramatic tantrum? I have had personal experience of a large transformer cooking off after being subjected to overload and it is not to be forgotten easily!

WTC7 was certainly well alight for hours - with plenty of black smoke issuing from somewhere low down - if it's not the generator diesel - what else is it?

 

[DGM]

This doesn't look much like a break through safety glass - can anyone state the specification of the glass actually fitted to WTC7?

If any glass was fitted to a high rise in the U.K. that shattered into shards - there would be prosecutions!

I can give you that later after I get home.

This looks like typical safety glass used in these parts. It's not super hard because of weather conditions we have. The "shards" you see would not be overly sharp, certainly not like plate glass. We need a little more flexibility to deal with harsh winter conditions.

Like I said, if you want the spec, I can get it.

ETA: I can say, Jennings would have had to work to make that hole. This glass is tough.

 

[jaydeehess]

That has to be one of the most civil posts I've seen from you jaydee.

This posting from an iPad is a pain, so if I overlook anything..blame Apple.

I mostly post from a Kobo Android tablet.

Okay. Mr. Jennings exited the stairwell on the north side of 7 WTC and of course he could not immediately view out any south facing windows.

Correct.

After arriving at the 8th floor, he did a number of things in God knows what order. He broke out a window in an office at the NE corner with a fire extinguisher.

Well, since that was the window from which they contacted people on the ground, they likely never left that window after doing so. First rule of being 'saved' is never leave a location where your rescuers know you to be.

Walking to that corner office would have enabled the view blocked by the core.

How so? Through the corridors through 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.

He broke out at least one more window (accepted as fact by the NIST), which appears to have been on the east face, part way to the south side.

No, as said before, NIST simply reports on what Jennings said. In other pats of interviews he states "a window". NIST made no comment on how many windows he broke, and why would they? Its a point of minutia that NIST is simply not concerned with in the least.

If he looked out of that window opening, and towards the south, he would have seen 2 WTC (not 1 WTC). Mr. Jennings never made that claim.

Yes, I got the number wrong. So glad you pointed that out in large red font.
True Jennings never made that claim, you did.

Again, I have to point out that it was necessary to break windows in order for calls for help to be heard. As well, it made it possible to see directly below.

Where he says they saw burning vehicles. That had to be before they contacted anyone since they could not make contact until window was broken. Jennings indicates that when they broke the windows they saw the burning vehicles. He does not say that they broke the windows, contacted people on the street, then the FFs ran for cover, twice, and THEN they saw burning vehicles. Instead its "once the window" were broken they could see burning vehicles.

It is reasonable to assume that sometime during those activities Mr. Jenning's insistence he looked and saw both towers standing must have taken place.

Not to me since besides the inconsistencies in his statements we have other evidence that suggests his timeline is way off and that both towers were down at least by the time he got to the 8th floor.

The east face broken window did place him in the vicinity of the south facing windows, and depending on how far south he walked, he would most certainly have been in a position to look and see if the WTC twin towers were indeed standing.

There is a 40 foot tall tree in the neighbour's yard accross the street from my house. I have a large picture window in the living room that rises up to within a couple inches of the ceiling. I cannot see the top of that tree, indeed I cannot see the upper windows of the two storey house beside it, without getting to within 6 feet of the window, much less the trees beyond that house.
Tell you what. I'll do a bit of number crunching sometime and figure out how close to the south window he'd have to be.

At this time there was no record of any significant fire activity (other than a small fire on the 7th floor, time of occurrence unknown).

,,, and yet no reports of explosions in WTC 7 by others in the building.

But there was the explosion below the 6th floor and subsequent other internal explosions inside 7 WTC as testified to by Mr. Jennings. This could have been a source of smoke and dust.

,,, or the source of dust and smoke was from the dust and smoke that entered WTC 7 as a result of WTC 1 coming down and tearing great new holes in the south face.

In addition, anyone who has been in an office tower when the a/c has failed, knows how quickly they become very hot and stuffy.

Oddly though, it doesn't make the place dusty or smoky. Hess says that the stairwell became more smoky when the stairs became impassable.

Regarding police and firefighter activity, prior to the collapse of 2 WTC, there is no reason to believe the influx of these people was confined to just one side of 7 WTC which based on Mr. Jenning's testimony, was not yet damaged by the WTC twin towers..yet.

True, however since the major events of the day at this supposed time, before the collapses, was taking place at the towers, to the south of WTC 7. It stands to reason that Vessey would have more activity than the smaller and more distant Barclay especially given that the large #7 lobby was on Vessey.

 

[Animal]

This doesn't look much like a break through safety glass - can anyone state the specification of the glass actually fitted to WTC7?

If any glass was fitted to a high rise in the U.K. that shattered into shards - there would be prosecutions!

Most likely it is 2 lites of tempered glass (as opposed to "safety glass" that is laminated) Most commercial glazing are thermal panes with the tinting/mirror finish on the inner face of the outer lite. Tempered will shatter into marble size pieces without larger shards (like size and rear windows of cars) Laminated glass is more costly and not used unless required and shatter but remain in place (like windshields of cars)

 

[1stClassAlan]

Most likely it is 2 lites of tempered glass (as opposed to "safety glass" that is laminated) Most commercial glazing are thermal panes with the tinting/mirror finish on the inner face of the outer lite. Tempered will shatter into marble size pieces without larger shards (like size and rear windows of cars) Laminated glass is more costly and not used unless required and shatter but remain in place (like windshields of cars)

Thanks too to DGM.

Yes, agreed - roughly the same here where this applies :- http://www.pilkington.com/resources/brimpactsafetypdf.pdf

We refer to both tempered AND laminated glass as "safety" glass - it is illegal to fit anything else in certain areas of a building and has been so for many years. I take it that by refering to "two lites" you imply that some sort of sealed unit was installed in each window rather than a single thickness of glass? I can understand the need for that with your -30 winters!

Insulation and energy consumption is far more important in the U.K. than it once was and many domestic homes are double and some now triple glazed but in commercial settings - the large dimensions usually dictate 11mm laminated regardless of the expense - it is what it is.

I also appreciate what you say about the various coatings on or in the glass for solar gain etc., ironically - this for me is quite a burning issue ( forgive ) in regard to Truthers. Some of them seem to think the orange/red glow on the glass of the South Tower almost at the moment of impact by the aircraft is evidence of some kind of magic weapon - when really it's nothing more the the nose radar being reflected/ refracted and appearing as visible light. This alone convinces me that it was a REAL plane!!!

 

[Miragememories]

Well, since that was the window from which they contacted people on the ground, they likely never left that window after doing so. First rule of being 'saved' is never leave a location where your rescuers know you to be.

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.

How so? Through the corridors through 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.

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.

No, as said before, NIST simply reports on what Jennings said. In other pats of interviews he states "a window". NIST made no comment on how many windows he broke, and why would they? Its a point of minutia that NIST is simply not concerned with in the least.

Mr. 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.

Yes, I got the number wrong. So glad you pointed that out in large red font.

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

Where he says they saw burning vehicles.

That had to be before they contacted anyone since they could not make contact until window was broken.

Jennings indicates that when they broke the windows they saw the burning vehicles.

He does not say that they broke the windows, contacted people on the street, then the FFs ran for cover, twice, and THEN they saw burning vehicles. Instead its "once the window" were broken they could see burning vehicles.

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.

I do not agree with your time line though.

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

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

You can see it your own way but that is how I comprehend Mr. Jennings.

There is a 40 foot tall tree in the neighbour's yard accross the street from my house. I have a large picture window in the living room that rises up to within a couple inches of the ceiling.

I cannot see the top of that tree, indeed I cannot see the upper windows of the two storey house beside it, without getting to within 6 feet of the window, much less the trees beyond that house.

Tell you what. I'll do a bit of number crunching sometime and figure out how close to the south window he'd have to be.

This is pure nonsense.

He does not have to see the top of either of the WTC twin towers!

He only needs to see a recognizable part!

 

[DGM]

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

Interesting statement considering eyewitness testimony is not really considered fact unless backed by several other witnesses and aligns well with known time lines. If you brought this to court..........................

 

[000063]

...
This posting from an iPad is a pain, so if I overlook anything..blame Apple....

No, I don't think I will.

 

[GlennB]

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

And as major WTC2 debris didn't reach Barclay St this can only be WTC1. Which puts the breaking of the window subsequent to that, and his stairwell 'explosion' is explained by WTC1 debris hitting WTC7. Scroll back a little and the loss of elevator power is explained by the WTC2 collapse. All perfectly reasonable and logical.

 

[Reactor drone]

This doesn't look much like a break through safety glass - can anyone state the specification of the glass actually fitted to WTC7?

If any glass was fitted to a high rise in the U.K. that shattered into shards - there would be prosecutions!

According to the NIST reports typical floors used 1" thick darkened, insulated glass.

 

[Miragememories]

And as major WTC2 debris didn't reach Barclay St this can only be WTC1. Which puts the breaking of the window subsequent to that, and his stairwell 'explosion' is explained by WTC1 debris hitting WTC7. Scroll back a little and the loss of elevator power is explained by the WTC2 collapse. All perfectly reasonable and logical.

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.

 

[Animal]

According to the NIST reports typical floors used 1" thick darkened, insulated glass.

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.