Len Colby Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 LOL as I wrote just 3 days ago: “Gage has only 20 - 30 structural engineers; last I checked only 2 - 3 claimed experience with buildings more than 2 - 3 stories tall but none of those gave any indication they'd read the reports. 'Troy from West Virginia' called various signatories and asked them if they had read them and they either said no or failed to give straight answers.” To wit I add, few if any have shown their study of the collapses has gone beyond the superficial, can you point us to any papers, articles, videos, PowerPoint presentations etc any of them have written/made? So we have people with little if any technical qualifications writing papers/articles and making videos on one had and a handful structural engineers normally with experience with high or even midrise buildings and a superficial knowledge of the collapses on the other Several of these names are familiar to me and problematic for example: Structural Engineer (ret.) Doyle Winterton Not an engineer, his “engineer in training” license was issued in 1989 and expired 10 years later . He seems to have run a stereo store in Provo. https://secure.utah....icense_id=90735 MohammedAzizullah Khan M Sc in Structural Engineering University of Sheffield Marine Structural Engineer MARINE Structural Engineer Barret Ambrose B.S. Structral Engineering Oxford Brooks University Structural Engineer Despite his unusual name I have not found any information about him, he misspelled the name of the university he claims association with and it only offers classes mechanical engineering and that has been the case since at least 1997 when their website went online. Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Author and co-author of Erdbebenbemessung von Stahlbetonhochbauten (Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures) [...] Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. [...] Mario Fontana, Dr Sc CE – Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Director of the Steel Construction Division, Geilinger AG. Author of more than 40 papers on structural engineering. The only source indicating these Swiss professors doubted the collapse theory was an article written in German and then translated by the same truther. Charles N. Pegelow, BS CE – Licensed Civil Engineer (Structural), State of California. Over 25 years experience in structural design and analysis and project management of major construction projects, including large steel structures. Spent his entire career designing offshore platforms, he thinks the towers were nuked. His statement demonstrated how superficial his knowledge was. The ASCE/FEMA Report had nothing to do with the 911 (Kean) Commission Report, FEMA did not hire anyone or even run the Investigation, they only provided the cash and the mandate, the engineers were volunteers. “FEMA's” investigation was run by the ASCE and other engineering associations. I don't know of any “ firemen calling the Commission (or FEMA Report0 a cover up”. He seemed to have been totally unaware that the more exhaustive NIST Report had been issued over a year before his statement. Give me a few days I'll go through the rest of the names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) MohammedAzizullah Khan M Sc in Structural Engineering University of Sheffield Marine Structural Engineer MARINE Structural Engineer // end Colby off hand can you tell me the tonage of an oil rig ?? hint Amazing ship can carry 100,000 ton oil rigs (photos) | SmartPlanet ==================== Top Five Underwater Hotels http://www.hotelclub...erwater-hotels/ ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Architectural Professionals (Degreed) statements in blue Scott Page, M. Arch – Designer Berkeley, CA (See individual statement above.) Adam J. Caulfield, B.ArchTech – Intern Architect Rochester, NY Andrea Walhof-Grisham, BS Arch – Architect Truckee, CA (See individual statement above.) Andrew McClure, B.Arch Raleigh, NC (See individual statement above.) Arthur Stopes – Planner Berkeley, CA Azin Valy – Partner, Architecture design firm New York, NY Brian Heagney, M.Arch Greensboro, NC (See individual statement above.) Bryan Evan Westgate, M.Arch Cleveland, OH Chad Jones, B.Arch – Architectural intern St. Petersburg, FL (See individual statement above.) Chris Jung – Architectural Professional Berkeley, CA Daniel E. Fairchild, B.Arch – Architectural Consultant Spokane, WA Daniel Sowell, BS Arch – Intern Architect Seattle, WA David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (Community Planning), PhD, F.AICP – Elected Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners Asheville, NC (See individual statement above.) Donald Koberg, M. Arch – Professor Emeritus of Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Retired architect. San Luis Obispo, CA Dylan Lamar, BS CE – Architecture Student, Engineering Intern Eugene, OR Edward Anastas, B.Arch, MS Arch & Urban Design – Designer Santa Monica, CA Elwin Wong – Architectural Professional Oakland, CA Francisco A. Planes, B. Arch – Architectural Consultant, Associate AIA Bloomfield, NJ (See individual statement above.) Gary J. Neville, B.Arch – Architectural Professional. Urban Designer Venice, CA Gene Brault, BS Industrial Design – Contractor and Industrial Designer Los Angeles, CA German Serrano, BA Arch – Architect Lafayette, CA Henri Tso – Architectural Professional Walnut Creek, CA Ian J. Colburn, B.Arch New York, NY James W. Broadbent, M.Arch – Project Manager and Designer Jackson, WY (See individual statement above.) Jan Leits, B.Arch – Architectural Professional Berkeley, CA Jason Wilkinson, B.Arch, LEED AP – Architect Berkeley, CA Jeffrey Tam – Architectural Professional Oakland, CA Justin Feider – Intern Architect Denver, CO Justin P. Touchstone, B. Arch – Project Manager Boise, ID Karlene Gullone – Architectural Professional San Francisco, CA Keenan May, B.Arch – Intern Architect Seattle, WA Ken Hutchinson – Architectural Professional Eugene, OR Kevin M. Hoelscher, M.Arch – Architect Berkeley, CA (See individual statement above.) Kristen Kepner-Coleman, B.Arch – Architect Atlanta, GA (See individual statement above.) Kurt Worthington – Urban Planner San Francisco, CA Mathew T. Stackpole, B.Arch – Architectural Consultant Boulder, CO (See individual statement above.) Michael Reuter – Architectural Professional Berkeley, CA Mojgan Saberi, BS Arch – Designer Oakland, CA Oscar Cisnero – Architectural Professional Antioch, CA Reed Simpson, M.Arch, Associate AIA Overland Park, KS (See individual statement above.) Reuben Gene Walters, B.Arch, Associate AIA – Designer Palm Springs, CA (See individual statement above.) Rex Sucaldito, BS.Arch Lake Worth, FL Shawn M. Fullington, BA Arch – Designer Asheville, NC Suzy Diane Rainey, B.Arch Hayward, CA Thomas Spellman – Urban Activist Lake Geneva, WI (See individual statement above.) Tim Clark – Architectural Professional Albany, CA Travis Van Brasch – Associate, American Institute of Architects. Design Principal San Francisco, CA Wendy Sitler, B.Arch – Designer Berkeley, CA Will E. Schenk, B.Arch, BS Arch Eng – Associate, American Institute of Architects. Intern Architect. St. Louis, MO William Tickell, B.Arch – Member of the Architectural Staff San Luis Obispo, CA Edited March 20, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 MohammedAzizullah Khan M Sc in Structural Engineering University of Sheffield Marine Structural Engineer MARINE Structural Engineer // end Colby off hand can you tell me the tonage of an oil rig ?? hint Amazing ship can carry 100,000 ton oil rigs (photos) | SmartPlanet ==================== Top Five Underwater Hotels http://www.hotelclub...erwater-hotels/ ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Oil rigs and buildings are very different structures Architectural Professionals (Degreed) statements in blue Scott Page, M. Arch – Designer Berkeley, CA (See individual statement above.) None of the people on this list are engineers let alone structural ones, architects do NOT design the frames and other load bearing parts of the buildings they design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) LIONS AND TIGERS NO PEER REVIEW OH ! MY !! +++++++++++++++o0o++++++++++++++++ Scientists' Members Open Up Dialog with Engineers Involved in Official 9/11 Story January, 2013 Members of Scientists for 9/11 Truth recently contacted engineers who were involved, at least tangentially, in the official investigation of 9/11. Those approached included Thomas DiBlasi,then President of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA); Dr. Gene Corley, a structural engineer who served as the lead investigator on the FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Studyfollowing the September 11, 2001 attacks; and James G. Quintiere,Fire Protection Engineering Department University of Maryland. Dr. Quintiere was one of the few individuals within the "official" circle of those concerned with the investigation to question the results of the National Institute of Standards and Technoogy (NIST). The initial contacts were made by Bill Willers,a Scientists' member and Professor Emeritus of Biology, University of Wisconsin, and were supported by Dwain Deets,also a Scientists' member and Former Director for Research Engineering, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Willers email correspondence can be viewed here. On July 5, 2012 Willers emailed NCSEA asking for the prevailing opinion within the community of structural engineers about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7). The email exchange was facilitated by Jeanne Vogelzang, Executive Director of NCSEA. Willers email reached the three associations, NCSEA, CASE, and SEI that represent most of the structural engineers in the United States. In his initial email, Willers pointed to a 9/11 truth "debunking" site whose authors appear to be anonymous. This site quotes an article from Structure Magazine that seeks to explain the cause of the WTC 7 collapse as "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7." On July 10, Tom DiBlasi, then President of NCSEA, responded with an emailed suggestion that Willers read the "peer reviewed reports" by NIST. However, as noted by Dwain Deets in a letter (see below), DiBlasi indicates, by his mention of 767's crashing into the buildings, that he is speaking of the NIST reports for the Twin Towers. He makes no mention of WTC7. Following an email from Willers on July 12 to DiBlasi asking for information on the peer reviews, DiBlasi responded on July 13 that he meant for Willers to read the reports, not the peer reviews, and that he never had a list of the reviewers, but that the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) or the New York Times might know the reviewers. DiBlasi stated that Dr. Gene Corley would be willing to correspond with Willers after he read the reports. To this email, Corley also responded with "Good response." Apparently Corley was being blind-copied by DiBlasi! On July 16 Dwain Deets emailed DiBlasi a letter and alerted him to the Consensus 9/11 Panel. Deets reminded DiBlasi that the NIST final report was the sole support for the official account of 9/11. Deets offered a list of engineering leaders who question the official account, and ending with the opinion that NCSEA should facilitate discussion about the issue. Building Study On July 27 Willers emailed Gene Corley explaining the history of correspondence to that point. Corley's July 27 response was to express hope that engineers involved in the truth movement read this and his mention of the "Code of Ethics" and his reliance on "scientific evidence". Willers, still assuming that the peer reviews existed, emailed Colrey on August 1 requesting help in seeing these reviews. On August 2, Corley responded with a renewed invitation to answer Willers' questions regarding "technical issues". As leader of the Building Performance Study (BPS) team leader for the World Trade Center Study, Corley also facilitated cooperation between this team and the Pentagon BPS team. Corley also led the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), which conducted a structural performance investigation of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, after the bombing there in 1995. For two months thereafter Willers sought via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get access to the peer reviews. Meanwhile he found reference to James Quintiere of the University of Maryland who openly questioned NIST's explanation. On October 16 Willers emailed him, explaining that he had not been able to access his paper. Quintiere's answer the next day, October 17, included his paper along with his comment that rather than peer reviews there was an "Advisory Committee," many members of which were not in agreement with NIST's conclusions. At this point, Willers terminated the FOIA request. Quintiere's short paper on the WTC investigation ends with this statement: "I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues." Despite Quintiere's recommendation and on-the-surface openness to proper investigation (in November 2001 he publicly protested the sale of the WTC steel), Quintiere, in the case of the WTC building destructions as in the WACO hearings in which he participated, does not step outside the parameters adopted by the official investigation. Quintiere offers alternatives to NIST's theory while staying firmly within the official story. On October 17, Willers emailed Quintiere asking for help in seeing the report of the Advisory Committee. On October 18 Quintiere replied that he did not have it. On November 5, Willers emailed Dr. Gene Corley. Referencing Corley's earlier comment regarding his Code of Ethics, Willers cited Dwain Deets' email to him, in which Deets listed many engineers questioning NIST. Willers asked Corley's opinion of the most ethical path forward, a question that Corley has yet to answer. Willers cut short the FOIA request for "peer reviews" when advised there were none, and states he is disinclined to start a FOIA request all over again for an "Advisory Committee Report" from NIST, particularly as he is a zoologist and would not know how properly to interpret an answer that certainly would be in engineering language. The Case for Controlled Demolition: The case for the destruction of the New York Towers and Building 7 by some form of controlled demolition is briefly laid out in our Introduction. Those adhering to the false, official story of why these buildings "collapsed" are careful to stay within the confines laid out by the NIST reports. For example, the NIST study of the Towers, WTC1 and WTC2, ended before the actual "collapses" began. Thus, all evidence items for controlled demolition, appearing as the destructions commenced and progressed, were ignored, as were the eyewitness testimonies to pre-demolition blasts. While Corley and Quintiere claim to have adhered to scientific principles in their analyses, their claim is patently false in light of their failure to consider all the evidence. If a building is about to fall down, the cause (for example, from ground subsidence, earthquake, controlled demolition) is revealed most compellingly in the way it falls and in a forensic examination of the rubble. Quintiere's failure to invoke National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) standard 921 that requires examination for explosives in case of high order damage is particularly egregious for someone who purports to be a fire science expert. Action Item: DiBlasi, Corley, and Quintiere are all supporters of the official story of 9/11. Although it seems highly unlikely that they would step outside this story, they appear willing to discuss technical issues within the official story. This appears to present an opportunity for scientists and engineers to pick up this dialog should they feel it is worthwhile to do so. The above-mentioned individuals can be reached at: •Thomas DiBlasi, Email: tomd@diblasi-engrs.com, Cell: (203) 988-2523 •Gene Corley, Email: GCorley@ctlgroup.com •James Quintiere, Email: jimq@umd.edu Edited March 23, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 24, 2013 Author Share Posted March 24, 2013 No such studies aren't normally "peer reviewed", the NIST reports were not journal articles. The ASCE endorsed code changes based on them, what better peer review could you ask for? And several papers supporting the collapse theory have passed peer review in engineering journals. Truther have only gotten letters to the editors published in such journals. It is notable no truther SE's have published any papers even in truther publications. It's notable that the men behind the exchange were a biologist and an aeronautical engineer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 (edited) Stunning video: Blaze engulfs skyscraper in Chechnya Posted by Joe on Thu, 04/04/2013 - 6:31am Stunning video: Blaze engulfs skyscraper in Chechnya http://www.infowars....s-not-collapse/ Skyscraper Engulfed By Fire, Does Not Collapse Building refuses to conform to post-9/11 understanding of physics Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com April 4, 2013 The new understanding of physics since September 11, 2001, that limited fire damage can cause buildings to implode at almost free fall speed into their own footprints, was confounded once again as a 40-storey skyscraper in Chechnya was engulfed with flames for hours yet did not collapse. The blaze consumed an apartment building in Grozny, the Chechen capital yesterday evening before it was eventually put out in the early hours of Thursday morning. Fires burned on every single floor of the structure apart from the ground floor. “According to the emergencies service, the blaze has damaged an area of more than 14,000 square meters. It has completely destroyed the plastic trimming used on the building’s exterior, but the interior remained untouched,” reports RIA Novosti. The building is the tallest structure in the region outside of Moscow, standing at 145-meters (475-foot). No one was injured or killed in the blaze but dozens had to be evacuated. Although officials expressed concern at one point that the building could collapse, its core structure was not affected by the huge fire. Compare the skyscraper in Grozny to the similar-sized WTC Building 7 on 9/11, which was not hit by a plane, suffered comparably limited fire damage, and yet collapsed almost into its own footprint at near free fall speed. Following 9/11, scientists agreed that instead of accepting the premise that some form of explosives must have been used to bring down WTC 7, physics itself must be wrong and that normal fires can burn hot enough to weaken steel cores, despite the fact that they were barely hot enough to break the vast majority of windows in Building 7. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was forced to invent a “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” to explain to collapse of WTC 7, labeling it “the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building” in history. The collapse of Building 7 was so highly anticipated that it was reported before it happened by several news stations, including BBC and CNN. Firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. The Grozny skyscraper is just the latest example of a building refuse to conform to our new post-9/11 understanding of physics, following the example of a similar sized building in Beijing which was also consumed by fire in 2009 but remained standing. Chechnya High Rise Burns For 29 Hours With No Collapse, WTC 7? http://www.activistp...-for-29-hour... Chechnya High Rise Burns For 29 Hours With No Collapse, WTC 7? Chechnya high rise burned for 29 hours Joe Martino Activist Post On April 3rd Chechnya’s tallest building, a luxury hotel, caught fire and burned for 29 hours before finally being put out. The building is completely destroyed; however, it did not collapse. This raises many questions as to how World Trade Center 7 could have collapsed on 9/11 with only small fires on a couple of floors. Looking at the photo taken of yesterday's blaze and comparing it to the WTC 7 photo taken on 9/11, we see two very different situations. In one we see a large portion of the building on fire and the fire appears to have been burning for some time. In another, we see almost no fire at all. Yet the building with little to no fire collapsed at free-fall speed into its own footprint in just 7 hours. The 29-hour blaze of Chechnya’s building left the building still standing. This should raise some interesting questions as to why WTC 7 collapsed so quickly, or even why it collapsed at all. I wanted to end this one off with one of my favorite WTC 7 videos. Although it doesn’t go into every shocking detail that proves WTC 7 could not have collapsed by fire and was in fact a controlled demolition, it gets straight to an obvious point that doesn’t take a scientist to figure out. I would suggest that anyone who hasn’t researched WTC 7 yet, spend a bit of time checking it out. WTC 7 also fell on 9/11 and was not struck by any planes. For me, it was another nail in the coffin to an already obvious truth. I also would like to be clear that this isn’t just about making a point, but also about the fact that there are some serious questions that have been raised about 9/11 and the US government has refused to answer or re-investigate. As a society we must stop negating any real questions by calling them conspiracies, and instead open our minds up to the fact that there is some big time denial going on here about an event that has drastically changed the way our world functions. Edited April 6, 2013 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted April 6, 2013 Author Share Posted April 6, 2013 Thanks for illustrating my point the people raising such concerns overwhelmingly have no engineering qualifications. Only a handful of structural engineers publicly support CD theories about half of whom have no experience with buildings, the other half with only 1 or 2 exceptions seem to only have experience with low-rise structures. Few if any give any indication of having read the NIST reports. Get back to us with an SE with expericence designing midrise or larger buildings who has read and rejects the reports. As for the building in Grozny, is it steelframed like the WTC towers or more fire-resistant concrete? Is it a "tube in a tube" design with long unsupported floor trusses like the WTC towers or does it have a more traditional grid frame? Was it build over a large pre-existing structure like 7 WTC? Does it have a truss conection system like 7's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 911blogger Debunking The Real 9/11 Myths: Part 9: Larry Silverstein and Barry Jennings Posted by RL McGee on Sat, 04/06/2013 - 1:05pm Barry Jennings Larry Silverstein Popular Mechanics http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/748-debunking-the-... Editor’s note: This is Part 9 of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold. * Larry Silverstein’s “Pull It” Quote * Analysis of Larry Silverstein’s statements about WTC7 reveals that they do not match the sequence of events that occurred on 9/11 PM’s next section deals with another controversial issue in the debate regarding WTC7 – the infamous quote from WTC7 owner Larry Silverstein regarding the building’s destruction. For reference, here is Silverstein’s full quote from his interview with PBS: “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.”1 PM’s book says that “pull it” is not a term generally used in the demolition industry, meaning that it is unlikely that Silverstein was referring to demolishing Building 7. It also notes that Silverstein’s spokesperson later explained he was discussing pulling the firefighters from the building, when he spoke of “the decision to pull.” Although I cannot say with certainty what the meaning of Silverstein’s remark was, there are a number of undeniable facts that should be further investigated. Silverstein claims he spoke with the NYC “fire department commander” on 9/11, which was Chief Daniel Nigro. However, Daniel Nigro has confirmed that he did not speak to Silverstein on 9/11: 1. “I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein’s statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day, and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn’t mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY; it just means that I am not aware of it.”2 2. To date, not a single member of the FDNY has corroborated Silverstein’s story. When members of the group We Are Change confronted Silverstein about his comments, he commented that he received the call from the FDNY at around 3:30 or 4:00 p.m.3 However, according to the NIST report of WTC7, the decision to pull the firefighters away from the area surrounding Building 7 occurred at 2:30 p.m.4 This clearly contradicts Silverstein’s account of events. 3. According to mainstream journalist and 9/11 eyewitness Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, Silverstein discussed demolishing Building 7 on 9/11 with his insurance carrier. This report was sourced not by FDNY officials but by NYPD officers and ConEd employees. Bizarrely, Shapiro seems to think that his claim exonerates Silverstein and that it somehow removes the mystery about how the building came down symmetrically and in freefall without explosives.5 The fact of the matter is that we may never know what part Silverstein may have played in WTC7’s collapse until a real investigation is launched. As noted by the website RememberBuilding7.org, “As part of a new investigation, Mr. Silverstein should be questioned under oath about the conversation he had with the fire department commander, who should also be called to testify.”6 Shapiro, the witnesses he spoke with, and Larry Silverstein’s insurance carriers should also be questioned under oath. Barry Jennings While the cause of 9/11 survivor Barry Jennings’ death in 2008 has not been verified, his testimony about explosions in WTC7 lives on, despite the criticism of Popular Mechanics While PM’s next section regarding 9/11 survivor Barry Jennings may be true in some areas, it is completely false in others. Jennings, the former Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority, died in August 2008, although no official cause of death was provided. PM refers to various internet postings made by someone claiming to be Barry Jennings’ son, who states that he was with his father when he died of leukemia. However, the identity of the individual who made these postings has not been verified for authenticity. This section of PM’s book is clearly meant to play on the emotions of the reader, in order to make it seem that members of the 9/11 Truth movement have been insulting and disrespectful to the memory of Jennings. But beyond the obvious appeal to emotion PM uses in this section, it also claims that Barry Jennings’ death was not the result of foul play. However, it is completely obvious that PM cherry-picked this issue in regards to Jennings and thereby avoided more the important issues. The most important issue raised by members of the 9/11 Truth movement in regards to Barry Jennings is that he was one of the last people rescued from inside WTC7 on 9/11, and that while in the building Jennings claimed to have heard and experienced explosions. PM devotes two paragraphs to this issue. In 2007, Jennings, the father of four, gave an interview to the producers of Loose Change, alleging that he heard “explosions” in Building 7 before it collapsed. “I’m just confused about why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place,” he says on camera. “I know what I heard. I heard explosions.” In that instant, Jennings became conspiracy theorists’ sole eyewitness for a Building 7 controlled demolition scenario… NIST’s analysis of the emergency response at the World Trade Center alludes to Jennings’s story, and provides a timeline suggesting the “explosions” he heard were actually the collapse of WTC1 roughly 300 feet away, along with the subsequent debris damage to Building 7. Jennings backed off his claims during a 2008 interview with the BBC, saying he “didn’t like the way (he) was portrayed” in the film. He added, “I didn’t appreciate that, so I told them to pull my interview.” (pg. 81) PM claims Jennings was the sole eyewitness to report explosions at WTC 7, ignoring the testimony of Air Force medic Kevin McPadden (above) and others PM refers to Barry Jennings as the sole witness to explosions in connection with the destruction of Building 7, when in fact that is completely untrue. There are several other individuals who claimed to have heard explosions right before and during the time Building 7 collapsed, including first responders Kevin McPadden7 and Craig Bartmer8. Furthermore, Michael Hess9, the former Corporation Counsel for New York City was trapped with Barry Jennings in Building 7, and he also claimed to have heard explosions inside the building. Hess has since retracted this claim. In any case, several people claimed to have heard explosions when WTC7 collapsed, and PM’s characterization of Barry as the sole eyewitness is flatly untrue. NIST’s analysis… provides a timeline suggesting the “explosions” he heard were actually the collapse of WTC1 The NIST analysis which PM discusses states that Barry Jennings and Michael Hess were rescued at around 12:00 to 12:15 p.m. However, as David Ray Griffin has demonstrated, the time Hess and Jennings were likely rescued was well before noon10, meaning that NIST’s timeline is inaccurate and that the explosions that Jennings and Hess said they experienced could not have been the result of debris from the collapse of the North Tower. Why did PM not also thoroughly examine NIST’s timeline of events and attempt to determine whether the PM timeline is consistent with it? Jennings backed off his claims during a 2008 interview with the BBC This claim is by far PM’s most dishonest one. Barry Jennings retracted only one aspect of his testimony to the Loose Change producers, and that was his claim that he stepped over dead bodies as he was rescued from the building. However, he never retracted his statement about hearing the explosions in WTC 7. But PM dishonestly portrays Jennings as if he retracted his entire testimony.11 1Quoted from: 2Quoted from: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3440364&postcount=1 3See: http://911blogger.com/node/14361 4See: NIST NCSTAR 1-9, pg. 303 5See: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-ve... 6Quoted from: http://rememberbuilding7.org/silverstein-statement/ 7See: 8See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtX4xWV2q6k 9See: 10See: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080918031403456 11For Jennings’ testimony to the Loose Change producers, see: http://blip.tv/i-am-dylan-avery/barry-jennings-uncut-1071126 For Jennings’ testimony to the BBC regarding his so-called “retraction,” see: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted April 8, 2013 Author Share Posted April 8, 2013 Bartmer and McPadden were talking about the time of collapse so they don't offer confirmation of Jennings claims. Hess who was trapped with him in 7 WTC said he heard an explosion but latter concluded what he actually heard was the collapse of WTC 1 which hurled tons of debris into the building he was in. That left only Jennings claiming there was an explosion in 7. He also claimed that the stairwell he and Hess were evacuated through was blown out and that he stepped over numerous bodies in the lobby, but no one else reported this, in fact was known to have died or been seriously injured anywhere in the building. As for McPadden, he claimed 7 was demoed by the FDNY and that he heard a countdown before the charges went off, something not reported by any other witnesses. To make things worse he said the countdown was carried out by the Red Cross and changed various details of his story. He also claimed the countdown went over the radios which makes no sense, thousands of other 1st responders would have heard it. He has never explained why it took him six years to come forward. And there are other problems, per his account the 'countdown' would have started AFTER the technical penthouses fell in i.e. AFTER collapse initiation. He claimed he could see Amy Goodman and there were “frantic attempts to escape as the building began to collapse.” But a video shows her to have been about a mile away at the time with no “frantic attempts to escape” http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com.br/2007/09/kevin-mcpadden-expands-his-story-and.html Bartmer is has his own issues as I wrote previously on this forum: Bartmer only claims to have heard “explosions” AFTER the building started to collapse but if 7 WTC had been CDed we would expect to hear explosions BRFORE. Most likely the noises he heard were generated by the collapse. Note he says nothing about hearing a count down or that the building was going to be “brought down”. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm As with the others one wonders why it took him years to say anything. He has a grudge with the department and has been reading a lot of “inside job” propaganda; this might have colored his memory Bartmer said he only started questioning 9/11 after some friends got him drunk and showed him Loose Change. Only after that did his experience at 7 WTC seem suspicious to him. As for Shapiro, his account does indeed contradict the truthers because it is yet more confirmation WTC 7 was heavily damaged “its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.” And in typical truther fashion the author omitted this: "While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was." http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/#ixzz2PuZxLsjD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now