That tends to sear the information in the brain.
But does it sear the right information?
In highly traumatic situations, do you think your recall become more or less accurate?
That tends to sear the information in the brain.
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.
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 ".
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.
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.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/. Is this the same HessBarry 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.
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.
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.
But does it sear the right information?
In highly traumatic situations, do you think your recall become more or less accurate?
Citation needed.
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.
Not at all, I just think that given the fact that his narrative seems to be wrong, it's most likely he's misremembering it.But of course you prefer to believe that someone would invent a false narrative - on the spot
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.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
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.
Debunk what. That he died? Or the claim that he died mysteriously?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.
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.
Debunk what?
Debunk what. That he died? Or the claim that he died mysteriously?
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.
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.
We know he said that. It's just generally considered that he's wrong. That's really all there is to it.
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.
Your suspicion certainly isn't anything to see.So thats OK. Move along. Nothing to see here.
I'm not suggesting anything, Hess told the BBC that, himself?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.
Say that again. .
I'm not suggesting anything, Hess told the BBC that, himself?
Yes. He did. He did a complete 180. Funny that.
Your suspicion certainly isn't anything to see.
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.
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 ?
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.