Eyewitness accounts of explosions

What is interesting ? The time was irelevent. It was purely posted to show that there was video evidence of massive explosions. Explosions that are being denied.

Who is denying explosions were heard? All I see is people saying the sounds could be from a variety of causes other than demolition charges.


You decided to leap to the conclusion that I was claiming it was when WTC7 fell. I made no such claim. Go back and re-read my entry. What I wrote was - " Mark 2:03. That came from the WTC7 vicinity ".

Did I leap to that conclusion? Or did I ask, "If the explosion was the sound of controlled demolition why did it take another 7 hours for the building to collapse?"?


It is far more likely that it was one of the explosions that Barry Jennings refers to in my post #36. Most likely at around 11:00 am.

Jennings said both towers were still up after he heard the explosions so he heard the explosions before 9:59 AM. That eliminates the first explosion heard on the video as being the explosion Jennings heard.
 
Do you know which side of the building's window he broke to yell for help? Just trying to ascertain if he could see the towers from the window he called for help from.

I think it was the eight floor on the corner of the South and East face. First window on the East face. Stood there he could have broken either the first window on the South face or the first window on the East face as they are only a yard or so apart. He chose the East window, but obviously could still see through the South window as he stood there, where both towers would be visible.

In any case, if he had broken that window after a tower fell he wouldn't have been able to see anything as the dust cloud would be pretty obvious to him. He made no mention of any dust of course, for the very good reason that it hadn't yet happened.

Another confirmation of that is when firefighters heard him yelling from the broken window, they exchanged words, saying they would arrange rescue. Just then, the first tower fell and the firefighters ran rapidly away to get away from the dust cloud. When it cleared a bit they returned to confirm the proposed rescue. Then the second tower fell and they ran away again. Later. they again returned and effected a rescue.
 
Barry Jennings was filmed on the street soon after he was released from WTC7 having just lived through that traumatic experience. That tends to sear the information in the brain. And there is nothing better than a contemporaneous narrative- on film - with it confirmed by a witness who was one of those who rescued him.

Until hes untimely death he related that identical information many times. He was trapped by an explosion BEFORE any tower fell. And when he broke a window to yell for help both towers were still stood there.

Interestingly, Hess, who was with him on that destroyed stairway, and at the window, confirmed that there was an explosion that caused that. After Jenning's mysterious death he suddenly completely changed his story. Go figure.

So, to answer your question. No we can't pick and choose what narrative to select that suits a particular theory. But isn't that exactly what you are doing ? The official conspiracy theory cannot survive if there were large explosions inside WTC7 before any tower fell. So why do you seek to chose a narrative that supports the official conspiracy theory, written after the passage of much time to ponder on its content, rather than a contemporaneous narrative delivered minutes after the event.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/. Is this the same Hess
Another Building 7 eyewitness was Michael Hess, Mayor Giuliani’s chief lawyer. He and fellow city worker Barry Jennings got caught in Building 7 and barely escaped with their lives. Michael Hess said that he heard and felt the building shake like an earthquake for 5–10 seconds prior to the collapse of either tower. But in 2007, he too changed his story, claiming in a BBC interview that he got his timing wrong and that the 10-second-long earthquake sound was most likely caused by tower debris hitting the building later in the morning. “There were no explosions. That was caused by the north half of #1 falling onto the southern half of our building.” He compared what he heard to a loud rumbling earthquake, not the staccato blasts of explosions.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
Another confirmation of that is when firefighters heard him yelling from the broken window, they exchanged words, saying they would arrange rescue. Just then, the first tower fell and the firefighters ran rapidly away to get away from the dust cloud. When it cleared a bit they returned to confirm the proposed rescue. Then the second tower fell and they ran away again. Later. they again returned and effected a rescue.

Citation needed.
 
But does it sear the right information?

In highly traumatic situations, do you think your recall become more or less accurate?

More accurate. Why would someone invent a narrative when just rescued. That is exactly why a report given within minutes is better regarded than one taken weeks later.

But of course you prefer to believe that someone would invent a false narrative - on the spot - that could be used later as proof of a heinous conspiracy theory and blow the official conspiracy theory out of the water. And do that before he knew that his testimony would later prove contentious. Makes no sense.

Isn't it a pity that he never got to relay that to the 911 commission and conveniently died the day before he was due to go there. And isn't it also a pity that Hess did a full 180 on his own narrative given at the time. After Jennings died.
 
More accurate. Why would someone invent a narrative when just rescued. That is exactly why a report given within minutes is better regarded than one taken weeks later
Well then why did Mr. Hess explain to BBC he was mistaken and that the 10 second earthquake sound was most likely the tower collapsing and NOT AN EXPLOSION. Memory isn't always correct. They had no idea what was happening outside of the building they were stuck in. So it's easy to confuse an explosion (that you've never heard or felt before) with the collapse of the twin towers. Imagine being stuck inside a building and you don't know what's going on outside. If you heard a loud "explosive noise" and rumbling that was felt how could you distinguish if it happened outside or within the building where you were standing. Especially considering the fact that the collapse of 2 not 1, 100 story buildings collapsed across the street. If you were standing there, do you think your first thought would've been a skyscraper collapsed, or that there was an explosion or possibly another plane crash.
 
Jennings died in August 2008. The 9/11 Commission Report was published in 2004.

Yes- sorry. I meant to say a few days before the NIST report was released. This info was crawled over in great detail many years ago and memory fades. Im surprised that attempts are still being made to debunk it really.
 
Yes- sorry. I meant to say a few days before the NIST report was released. This info was crawled over in great detail many years ago and memory fades. Im surprised that attempts are still being made to debunk it really.

Debunk what?
 
Yes- sorry. I meant to say a few days before the NIST report was released. This info was crawled over in great detail many years ago and memory fades. Im surprised that attempts are still being made to debunk it really.
Debunk what. That he died? Or the claim that he died mysteriously?
 
Well then why did Mr. Hess explain to BBC he was mistaken and that the 10 second earthquake sound was most likely the tower collapsing and NOT AN EXPLOSION. Memory isn't always correct. They had no idea what was happening outside of the building they were stuck in. So it's easy to confuse an explosion (that you've never heard or felt before) with the collapse of the twin towers. Imagine being stuck inside a building and you don't know what's going on outside. If you heard a loud "explosive noise" and rumbling that was felt how could you distinguish if it happened outside or within the building where you were standing. Especially considering the fact that the collapse of 2 not 1, 100 story buildings collapsed across the street. If you were standing there, do you think your first thought would've been a skyscraper collapsed, or that there was an explosion or possibly another plane crash.

You are suggesting that he was mistaking the sound of a tower falling down ( that caused him and Hess to cling to a staircase as it collapsed under them ) for an explosion within a few yards of them. And then, after climbing out and looking out of a window they didnt see the massive clouds of dust from that tower falling down - instead they saw the two towers still there- and said so. Can you explain that conundrum ?
 
I'm sorry if that was one too many dots to connect.

Jennings stating that there was a massive explosion that destroyed a staircase inside WTC7 that he was descending, BEFORE any tower had fallen.

We know he said that. It's just generally considered that he's wrong. That's really all there is to it.
 
Well then why did Mr. Hess explain to BBC he was mistaken and that the 10 second earthquake sound was most likely the tower collapsing and NOT AN EXPLOSION.

I have no idea @Jason. But it's possible that he felt threatened in some way by speaking of events that didn't fit in with the official conspiracy theory. And possibly Jenning's death focussed his mind on that too. Who knows.
 
Yes- sorry. I meant to say a few days before the NIST report was released.

He was scheduled to testify a few days before the NIST report was released? How is that supposed to work? How is "silencing" him any help when NIST worked on it for 3 years before Jennings died? And he already gave a revised interview to the truthers?

This info was crawled over in great detail many years ago and memory fades.

Say that again. The part about memories fading.
 
You are suggesting that he was mistaking the sound of a tower falling down ( that caused him and Hess to cling to a staircase as it collapsed under them ) for an explosion within a few yards of them.
I'm not suggesting anything, Hess told the BBC that, himself?
 
Say that again. .

You are now trying to construct a 'strawman' argument. Well known tactic in here. If you can take down a detail you can then claim to have taken down the whole information being discussed. Its far easier to nitpick details than address the real problem.

Two guys issue statements on day one that co-incide. Much pressure is applied to them both. Jobs threatened and careers on the line. Direct threats implied. Both recant. You would do the same.

But lets discect small details to the n'th degree rather than make a judgement on whether their first reports are more accurate than ones issued after a huge amount of personal pressure.
 
Sorry about coming to this discussion late, but what experience do most people have of 'explosions' in everyday life, other than what Hollywood tells them? Most things like fuel tanks failure are in fact rapid combustion, rather than 'explosions' in the strictest sense of the term.

Explosive events using energised materials make a more "thud" sound, rather than a hollywood 'ka-boom':

Here is some irresponsible explosive use, and what a small explosion sounds like, small being less that .5Kg:



And here is a mortar explosion of about 3Kg:



Normal bulk explosives used as cutting charges:



Obviously none of the above have been suggested as possible causes for 911, but I am using them as examples of how the differ from explosions in movies, which use combustion to create a visual effect.

Here is a collection of explosions using linear cutting charges, which are one of the types mentioned by conspiracy theories for 911.



On the other suggestion, that thermite/thermate charges were used, they do not have an audible signature that is similar to an explosion:

See about the 9 minute mark.

For another thermal tool...

So, not that these videos directly contradict the witnesses accounts, it adds clarity to what an explosion actually sounds like and looks like, and more importantly what they do not look and sound like.

My next point is that people remember traumatic events in different ways, and in discussions with my colleagues, we can recall the same event but with differing details. I also take statements off people as an explosives event investigator, and consistently, blameless people with no reason to lie declare seeing or hearing things that did not happen, or similarly cannot recall events which demonstrably did happen.

Finally, if someone sticks a microphone in someone's face in the midst of a traumatic event, do you think it reasonable that they are able to give a coherent and well thought out answer?
 
Perhaps on careful consideration of the facts he realized it must have been the tower falling.

Because he forgot to mention that in his initial version when he was with Jennings breaking the window he could see both towers stood there. Jennings was stood with him and reported that.

And he also forgot to mention in his initial statement that he couldnt actually see out of the window they were intending to break. Because the cloud of dust was too thick. Which would have been pretty obvious if indeed it was there. Why didnt his initial statement make mention of being unable to see out of the window for that reason ?

That detail didnt make its way into the revised version either - which in itself is odd. He didn't suddenly remember, on careful consideration, that he couldn't see out of the window.
 
Because he forgot to mention that in his initial version when he was with Jennings breaking the window he could see both towers stood there. Jennings was stood with him and reported that.

And he also forgot to mention in his initial statement that he couldnt actually see out of the window they were intending to break. Because the cloud of dust was too thick. Which would have been pretty obvious if indeed it was there. Why didnt his initial statement make mention of being unable to see out of the window for that reason ?

That detail didnt make its way into the revised version either - which in itself is odd. He didn't suddenly remember, on careful consideration, that he couldn't see out of the window.

No I think he probably had the same memories, just realized it could not have happened that way.

False memories happen all the time. I'm sure you've had several yourself.
 
You are suggesting that he was mistaking the sound of a tower falling down ( that caused him and Hess to cling to a staircase as it collapsed under them ) for an explosion within a few yards of them. And then, after climbing out and looking out of a window they didnt see the massive clouds of dust from that tower falling down - instead they saw the two towers still there- and said so. Can you explain that conundrum ?

I don't see why it isn't possible they mistook what was happening if they didn't know what was going on outside of their general area. Take the Aurora shooting. People were shot in the theater adjacent to the one the gunman was actually in. The people that were shot didn't know that and assumed the gunman was in the same theater as them.

It goes to show that a witness can tell us what he or she thought happened, and be completely honest about it, but still be wrong.
 
You are now trying to construct a 'strawman' argument.

Pointing out inconsistent logic is never a strawman. You maintain Jenning's recollection is inerrant. You write something wrong then blame it on fading memory. Do you see the inconsistent logic there? Either memories fade or they are inerrant. You can't have it both ways just when it suits your beliefs.


Well known tactic in here. If you can take down a detail you can then claim to have taken down the whole information being discussed.

If I can take down a detail that is required to support a premise then the premise must go with it. Basic logic, right? But I didn't take down a detail. You are leaping to conclusions. All I did was point out your inconsistent application of logic.


Its far easier to nitpick details than address the real problem.

If the details don't hold up then there isn't a real problem.


Two guys issue statements on day one that co-incide. Much pressure is applied to them both. Jobs threatened and careers on the line. Direct threats implied. Both recant. You would do the same.

No, I wouldn't. Telling me I would do the same says more about you than it does about them. But it's a useless comment because there is no evidence either one of them was threatened.
 
To steer back to the thread title: "Eyewitness accounts" of an "explosion".

Pointed out, already (for thirteen years, now) the inaccuracy of the "eyewitness" in many well-documented instances.

But aside from that....here's a question: "How many actual people were in a position to be 'witnesses' on that day, and WHY are there so few who report "explosions"?"

That may have seemed rhetorical, so here's a clarification and an assertion: Logically, since there were many thousands of people in the area, yet only a tiny handful are now (or then) reflecting on their "memory" of "explosions"....it stands to reason that they are simply mistaken. (This concept is also bolstered by the sheer lack of any audio/visual evidence of CD, from the numerous recordings that were made that day).
 
Back
Top