http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok

I want a debunker to watch that video in its entirety and offer a substantive response.

When you finish soiling your trousers, vote it up on Digg here: http://digg.com/politics/Explosive_new_vid...lled_demolition

As someone stated on digg...why has it taken this guy 6 years to "remember"?

I'm unable to watch the video from here, I'll check it out later though.

"Do you think that people do not have what they see as good reasons for staying quiet? I don't know about McPadden, you'd have to ask him, Alex Jones or one of the Loose Change guys to find out. In the example of Barry Jennings, he waited to be contacted by the Loose Change guys because he had very real fears of losing his high-profile job with the city. He even recently requested to have his interview not included in Loose Change: Final Cut because he was threatened with job loss after those audio clips were played on Alex Jones' radio show. You think you sound cool asking skeptically a question I can't answer, when there is almost definitely a good reason for it. Try again."

OK, I watched it, so what? The events that he describe are clearly the result of the collapse of WTC1. So six years later he seems to remember that the towers were still standing after that. Unfortunately, that little aspect of his memory conflicts with the documented statements from everyone else at the time.

And you're saying that he pulled out because he's afraid of losing his job?!? He has the info that will find the REAL murderers of 3000 people, and he won't come forward because he doesn't want to change jobs? Are you freakin' kidding me?

Feel free to produce "the documented statements from everyone else at the time." I don't remember any other accounts of an explosion taking out a walkway on the sixth floor, so I don't see how they will conflict. He said he got pushed back up to the eighth floor, where it was now dark (probably due to the explosion), but where he could see out the window, and he said both towers were still standing. You think he made that up?

He also said he was stepping over bodies in the lobby, that the firemen told him not to look at them. Was that a figment of his imagination?

Hey guys...give the guy a break, we don't know his situation. He may need his job and the fact that the US can do many bad things to him is very real for him, with that said yes 3000+ people have died and more are dying everyday because of the LIE.

We should be more concerned with what our government may do to us..you and me. The Patriot Act is very frightening for one and all....We as citizens need to stick together, old cliche', United we stand, divided we fall is very true. Would any of you come to my aide if I should get taken away by member's of the Bush Admin??? No, I'd probably end up as just a person that walked away from my life.

I wish all the skeptic's on here only the best and hopefully they too will find the truth, the truth is out there, you just need to know how to find it and this is the Best Forum to do it in.
Good luck debunker's you'll need it.
Thank you Dylan Avery and Company for all the hard work you have all put into this, keep the Truth Movement going, don't let them stop you.

do you mean wtc2 or wtc1?

wtc2 collapsed first, then wtc1 collapsed 30 minutes later
wtc2 was the south tower furthest away from wtc7
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/articles/aug06/biz2.jpeg
are you suggesting that the damage from the collapse of wtc2 caused the damage to wtc7 barry jennings was talking about?

in case you really did mean wtc1, then barry jennings would have already witnessed the collapse of wtc2 while he was in wtc7, this does not make sense.

It would have been dark when the tower collapsed. I don't think he made it up, I think he got the sequence of events mixed up after all these years. Our memories are especially bad at getting the timing of events right.

They had set up a triage center in WTC7's lobby.

Yes, I meant WTC1. His story is entirely consistent with that, except for his thinking he saw the towers standing after the explosion. He was on his way up to the EOC, which had been abandoned. This was probably right after WTC2 had collapsed. He and Hess couldn't get in, they made their way back down, eventually getting to the 6th floor when the North Tower collapsed, and he felt WTC7 being hit by the tower's debris.

Otherwise, there would be other witnesses to 7's being heavily damaged before either tower collapsed. What does Hess say? The security guy on floor 7? The firemen who rescued them? Are they all on the payroll too?

Jennings' account is perfectly believable with one small exception, and that exception is just a detail of the sequence of events, something that you can almost expect to happen because of how memory works. This just seems like a complete non-story to me, reminiscent of the Mineta recollection affair.

There's 1000's of people like myself that went down the stairwells of WTC 7 or outside on 9-11. Why haven't they come out on these bombs or countdowns?

I have a totally different recollection of the events than Barry Jennings or Kevin McPhadden. Does this mean I am lying or a government agent?

My best friend died on 9-11 working for Cantor Fitzgerald. I have researched everything on this subject too.

Nitpicking aside, there are many documented cases of foreknowledge that Building Seven would be brought down. Not that it might just randomly collapse, but that it was going to be "blown up". The footage in the first couple minutes of the above video has a few examples. More are here: http://www.wtc7.net/warnings.html

Building was going to be blown up ... countdown prior to collapse (McPadden was not the first to mention that -- remember Mike, the EMT from New Jersey?) ... accounts of explosions and a "shockwave ripping through the building"... not to mention the characteristics of the collapse itself...

The debunkers aren't too great at stepping back to look at the big picture. Real scientists would examine the whole body of evidence and see which hypothesis makes more sense, not cling fanatically to an absurd theory with "low probability of occurrence" and require 100% irrefutable proof before changing their minds, just so they can avoid some cognitive dissonance.

you speculate Jennings entered wtc7 after wtc2 had collapsed. This is not a detail he would have omitted in his testimony. He'd have been covered in dust and worried for his safety, he would have evacuated the scene, or if not he'd have remembered entering wtc7 in a state of shock and fear. It is not plausible he would have omitted this.

The alternative that he was already inside wtc7 during the first collapse (wtc2) is just as implausible, if what he describes (explosion on floor 6 of wtc7) was the result of the second collapse (wtc1), he would have to have been in wtc7 for 30 minutes or more which is not consistent with his testimony (up and down elevator, up freight elevator to floor 23, makes quick phone call and then moves quickly down the stairs from floor 23 to floor 6 - this does not take 30 minutes). Not only that, it is implausible that he would not have remembered the collapse of wtc2 (before the explosion on floor 6) had he been in wtc7 when it happened.

his testimony as he tells it is the most plausible.

also emt worker Indira Singh here:

IS:
Well, there was so much chaos Bonnie… when I got there we were setting
up triage sites very close to the area, the triage site that I was
setting up was… to the East of Building 7, where Building 7 came down,
and what we were expecting… as an EMT you’re trained for live
survivors… and there were people on the pile, digging and looking for
survivors, and what happened is, they would bring someone out to the
nearest triage center, we would stabilize them, put them in an
ambulance and send them further uptown.

So we were setting
up triage as close to the pile as possible… on it, in many cases. So
what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations, I.V.
stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations… just trying
to have an organized space.

What happened with that
particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on
9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us that Building 7 was
coming down.

If you had been there, not being able to see
very much, just flames everywhere and dark smoke, it is entirely
possible… I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I
heard that they were going to bring it down, because it was unstable,
because of the collateral damage.

That I don’t know, I can’t
attest to the validity of that, all I can attest to is that by noon or
one o’clock, they told us we had to move from that triage site, up to
Pace University a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna
come down, or being brought down.

BF: Did they actually use the words brought down, and who was it that was telling you this?

IS:
The Fire Department, the Fire Department, and they did use the word,
we’re gonna have to bring it down. And, for us, there observing the
nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was
indeed a possibility.

http://www.nowpublic.com/indira_singh_inte...l_2005_part_one

http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3...427-Wed1400.mp3

If you believe what Indira says then you believe the FDNY was involved in the coverup.

Do you believe the FDNY was involved in the cover up of 9-11?

Mike the EMT? Debunked long ago.

why ?
what do you mean?

firefighters would have been ordered to back away from wtc7 by FEMA officials, they would not have been involved in what happened after. What Indira Singh would have heard would have been firefighters and police relaying instructions to cordon off wtc7 and move back to a safer area. police and firefighters appear in video ordering people to move back.

how would that have involved the firefighters in a cover-up?

the 911 commision and the media have covered up the firefighters testimony.
118 testimonies of firefighters ignored by the media and the 911 commission
http://www.journalof911studies.com/article...TradeCenter.pdf

Hess said:
"i was part of the emergency management crew on the 23rd floor and when all the power went out in the building, another gentleman (barry jennings) and i walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion and we were trapped on the eighth floor, smoke thick smoke was around us for about an hour and a half. The fire department as terrific as they are just came and got us out."
6:30 - http://www.studyof911.com/video/flvplayer/...c7_smoke_04.flv

do they say any different? if they do then put the information down. you don't win an argument by default.

tut! tut! don't let yourself down.

the interview is very specific about the collapse and dust cloud occuring after the explosion on floor 6, he is specific in that he sees people running away from the dust cloud from his viewpoint on floor 8. Your erudite insight into how memory works is a cop out in order to avoid the information, no jury in the land would be swayed by that comment.

Here's the person who ordered the evacuation:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro

Except it's not just what Indira is saying. Since you seem to have trouble clicking on the link I posted above, I'll paste some stuff for you.

From http://www.wtc7.net/warnings.html :

An archive of transcripts of interviews of more than 500 members of emergency services contains at least 26 interviews that describe either warnings or foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse. The following table excerpts the phrases from each interview relating to expectations of collapse.

Interview file number with description.
9110085 was going to collapse or was at risk of collapsing; imminently to collapse
9110413 in eminent collapse
9110398 a possible collapse
9110486 going to collapse
9110425 going to collapse
9110425 going to collapse
9110103 going to collapse
9110179 might collapse
9110170 threat of collapse
9110217 concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing
9110256 an imminent collapse on
9110200 they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure
9110150 a potential for collapse
9110467 concerned about 7 World Trade Center collapsing
9110502 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down
9110021 they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately
9110055 just waiting for 7 to come down
9110301 in danger of collapsing
9110222 concerned about seven coming down
9110222 The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center
9110327 heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down
9110117 around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse.
9110246 in dead jeopardy; stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down
9110472 the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing
9110409 was going to collapse; is coming down
9110462 definitely in danger of collapse

I actually KNOW Indira. I met her first in 1996 and dealt with her a number of times for a group called the Object Developers Group where she was the secretary. She's a very nice woman but tended to be all over the place in our conversations. I have more of an opinion on this but it's another topic.

She's claiming the FDNY of NY was in on the conspiracy. Daniel Nigro just a few weeks ago again announced he ordered the evacuation of WTC7.

DO you thing the FDNY was involved in this conspiracy? Yes or No, please. A no answer would mean you don't believe her story.

you made this comment on screwloose:
"At 11 February, 2007 04:22, NDB said...
I actually know Indira Singh. She was the head of the Object Developers Group in NYC that I was a part of in the mid to late 90's. I thought she was a nice woman but nuttier than a 3 dollar bill."
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...-emt-story.html
now you've downgraded her from "head of" to "secretary".

Indira singh was Senior Enterprise Architecture Consultant at JP Morgan 1995-2000 during which time you claim she was the head (or secretary) of ODG.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ptech_pt1.shtml

you describe her as "nuttier than a 3 dollar bill", "all over the place in our conversations", and you have more slander to say about her that requires a whole new thread. Is this the type of person that JP morgan chase (currently with over $1.5,000,000,000,000 in assets) one of the largest companies in the world, is this the type of person they would employ as a Senior Enterprise Architecture Consultant to work on banking security systems?

no she is not, for someone who claims to work in the software industry, you show very little apptitude for logic.

#1 The ODG was a user group. Nothing more, nothing less. Indira was the main person organizing vendors and companies to speak at these meetings so I assumed she led the group. I found out recently that wasn't the case and her title was Secretary. It wouldn't mean much either way because AGAIN it was a user group for developers and companies involved in OO programming. At the time Java wasn't even around yet and OO programming was really cutting edge technology with plenty of issues. Salomon was a big proponent of this and used CORBA in their two- tier trading architecture. I was involved heavily in this as a project lead and used these meetings as a way of finding quality developers to join our team.

I never claimed that was all Indira did. I never assumed anyone would even think that. If you had any idea what I was talking about that would have been clear from the start just by the name "ODG" and what it stood for. It's clear you know nothing about the software industry. Nobody makes a living by running a users group. You do it to as a way to help each other out and network for a new job mostly. The meetings usually consisted of vendors who would sponsor a meeting space and a free lunch in a chance of hawking their new products. At the time, it was companies like Object Design, Powersoft, Iona, Borland/Visigenics and other OO companies sponsoring these monthly meetings. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you still questioning I'm not in the software industry?

#2 Indira was a nut job IMO but I wasn't going to bring that up again. She would get killed in a court of law under cross examination. Again, this is my opinion but I actually knew the woman. That's more than you can say. She also was brilliant from a technical perspective.

#3 I know many developers. Some are the best in the world. They work for companies like Goldman Sachs (who IMO is the best IT shop on Wall St), SSB and every other firm on the street to Microsoft and Tibco. Many of them are a bit "off". They are brilliant in the ways of writing software or doing software architecting but are full of quirks and just aren't all there. they get hired in a New York minute by companies like JP Morgan Chase if they are good at their job. BTW- Indira worked for JP Morgan. The merger didn't happen until 2000. IMO- JP Morgan were one of the second tier IT organizations on the street but again that's my opinion. They were huge users of DCE and it was a disaster.

Indira was fired from JP Morgan Chase and is now writing a book. She's spinning a very large tale on all these evil FBI and CIA agents and inside information. I don't believe her.

You will deny the FDNY is involved at all because it's bad for the movement even if Daniel Nigro admits that he asked the firefighters be pulled from WTC7 and Indira's comments on what the firemen said.

If the firefighters said "we're going to have to bring down building 7"....how could they NOT be involved?

Firefighters did "take down" a building -- WTC6, with cables.

Firefighters don't wire buildings for demolition.

Firefighters don't make the call whether to demolish a 47-story skyscraper.

Firefighter foreknowledge indicates that SOMEONE knew WTC7 was going to be blown up, and thought the firefighters should be partially clued in to this fact.

Controlled demolition does not necessitate FDNY complicity.

So if the firefighters now know that WTC7 was blown up, they are now complicit in the cover-up.

To suggest that anyone here is saying that the firefighters had foreknowledge or afterknowledge of a planned demolition is a slight of hand. I don't believe NDB's characterisation of Indira Singh, I've watched some hours of video of her speaking and taking questions, in addition to listening to hours of the Guns & Butter interviews, and his characterisation of her isn't evident, in fact she appears quite the opposite, i don't buy it. The testimony of Indira Singh corroborates what the video clip portrays.

There were several groups of people on the scene not just firefighters as evidenced by the video. what's heard in the video is "the whole building is about to blow up, move back" and "we are walking back because the building is about to blow up", the second statement seems to be made by the camerman as it is descriptive ("we are moving back") not instructive. The first statement "is about to blow up" seems to be the same voice. What's not clear is why he would use the term "blow up" if it was just in danger of collapsing from structural failure. did anyone relay this phrase to him, is there any more of this camerman's footage.

its plausible that the phrase "7 has to be brought down (at some point)" was interpreted as "about to blow up (through demolition)" but whatever is speculated, it doesn't explain the witness and video tape evidence of explosions, a reported countdown, and testimony of first responder Craig Bartmer and others describing in detail a controlled demolition.

We are also still left with the fact that all columns failed at the same time from random asymmetrical damage and random fires, a collapse into the buildings own footprint, and a collapse of the roofline at a rate of speed and symmetry exactly as expected in a controlled demolition.

The third such historical first, in a single day, within a single complex of buidlings. Has anyone ever calculated the odds?

Another good thread,

To me Jennings story is the one that makes the most since. From the start I saw his video as presented by the news and always thought he was in one of the towers. Conveniently edited so anyone who sees it would naturally think he was in tower one or two.

He says there was an explosion on the 8th floor. He also is on video covered with dust talking of a big explosion. Coincidently the fires that were burning throughout the entire floor were on about the 8th floor. If fires were caused by debris that fell during the collapse of the (I can’t find a diagram of the buildings) correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t tower 2 fall 1st and isn’t tower 1 closest to wt7? Keep that in mind. The falling debris would have only damaged the exterior of the north face. Any diesel tanks would be in core of the building no matter what floor they are on. Any falling debris would have to penetrate the corridor walls and in most cases those would have a 2-hour fire rating and all doors would have closers on them. The walls around the diesel tanks I would think were 4-hour walls making them even harder to penetrate.

So the sprinklers should have extinguished any fires started from damage to the north face. It is rumored that the sprinklers were not functioning in any of the buildings. The cell phone calls reported this. I don’t remember anyone ever looking wet or talking about the sprinklers going off. Have any of you ever seen a sprinkler system go off, I have.

The stairways are generally in the core of the buildings, rarely on the exteriors of building as to reserve all window space for offices.

An explosion on the 8th floor igniting a diesel tank and the contents of the floor to burn for hours giving them a plausible reason as to why the building spontaneously collapsed. Looking at the big picture that makes more since to me.

Now of coarse I’m purely speculating here because I don’t know the layout of wt7 or the building codes of NYC or even the location of the stairwell that Jennings was trapped in. These things should be verifiable one way or another.

yes I was right the 1st building to collapse was the farthest from wt7 you can clearly see that in one of the photos in this site http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm as you scroll down you can see the brightly lit light or fires in wt7 before either building collapsed.

Not at all bud. In fact even the oh-fishy-alls and those tasked within the NIST to investigate 9/11 also claim that WTC-7 was burning up BEFORE the two towers collapsed. See my video here about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc1PJq8ESIA

Now, even if you want to refuse the idea of explosions in WTC-7, how do you explain that fires were raging inside that building a full hour before the first tower collapsed?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu :)

if there was a massive explosion in the lobby of wtc 7 before the second tower collapses, there should be a picture of a large, thick plume of smoke arrising from the building. there should be a subsequent fire. photographic evidence shows none of this.

Its not a slight of hand, or a sleight of hand either. After bringing up theories which MUST imply firefighter complicity in either the demolition or in the coverup, you simply walk away from your argument and start talking about the impossibility of the building collapse, based on your hearsay and total lack of any relevant expertise. It is a blatantly obvious evade and distract tactic.

The fact is firefighter complicity is an extremely inconvenient yet unavoidable implication of your theories. But that's your problem, not ours.