Point TT-9: The Claim of Widespread Infernos in the South Tower vs the FDNY Radio Transcript Background The importance of this Consensus Point is that a Fire Department of New York radio report unmistakably refutes the claim that there were widespread fires in World Trade Center 2 (the South Tower) the morning of 9/11. The official story claiming the vast extent of fires in the South Tower (as cited below) has been told without taking into account radio reports from firefighters ascending the building, which had been struck at approximately 9:03 AM. An examination of the transcript of a 78-minute radio recording, which was found in World Trade Center 5 and publicly reported in November 2002, shows that firefighters in the South Tower could be heard speaking over their radios while ascending to and arriving at the 78th floor using various stairways, until the building collapsed at 9:59 AM. This transcript undermines the official claims that the floors in the vicinity of the airplane strike [1] were all infernos, and that the fires were of such a nature as to initiate the collapse of the building. http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-9/ [video=youtube;HjrpKV_mI18]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjrpKV_mI18[/video]
Point WTC7-8: The Omission of Evidence that Barry Jennings and Michael Hess Experienced an Explosion in WTC 7 the Morning of 9/11 Introduction The importance of this Consensus Point is that two men occupying senior positions within the New York City administration reported a massive explosion deep inside World Trade Center (WTC) 7 on the morning of 9/11, which trapped them in a stairwell for 90 minutes. On September 11, 2001, Barry Jennings was the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. Michael Hess was the New York City Corporation Counsel. After a plane hit the North Tower (WTC 1) at 8:46 AM, Jennings and Hess had each been summoned to a meeting in the Mayors Office of Emergency Management (OEM) operations center on the 23rd floor of WTC 7. They arrived at the OEM to find the office abandoned and left the building using the stairs. Both were trapped on the way down by a massive explosion that seemed to come from the basement. Serious questions about the destruction of WTC 7 have been raised by the account of Barry Jennings. [1] If corroborated, it would challenge the official story of the WTC 7 collapse, according to which it was caused by fire and fire alone. This account by Jennings and Hess would support evidence presented elsewhere by the Consensus Panel suggesting that WTC 7 did not fall from fire alone but was brought down through demolition. http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-8/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmeY2vJ6ZoA&t=4m8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmeY2vJ6ZoA&t=21s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmeY2vJ6ZoA&t=57s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e3K9jcPdXc&t=27s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy5lpp6yADw
What a bunch of hogwash! Talk about twisting words!!!! Let's look at a few pieces of garbage you are trying to propagate. 1. How does the following quote translate into "the floors in the vicinity of the airplane strike were ALL infernos"? Did they actually say ALL Bob, or is someone exaggerating just a bit? Let's take a look at the actual quote from your link. I'll color and bold the important words for you. So interpreting "most" and "several" as meaning "all" is ok with you? 2. The impact area for WTC2 was between the 77th and 85th floors. According to the transcripts, the firefighters made it to the 78th floor and saw two pockets of fire. What about reports of fire on 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, and 85? So how does the report of "two pockets of fire on 78" negate the reports of fire on the seven other floors? Ridiculous that you buy into this crap. 3. Your linked report states that the firefighters reached floor 79. Can you show me exactly where that is stated? From what I can see, the firefighters were TOLD to head to 79. I see no communication from firefighters actually in WTC2 say that they were ON 79. 4. Another piece of incorrect information. Your link states: At LEAST three stairwells? First of all, there were ONLY three stairwells so insinuating more is just ridiculous. Second of all, show me where any firefighter states that they made it to the 78th floor on stairwell C. Also, point out where any firefighter made it to the 78th floor using stairwell B. They said they were on 77 and going TO GO to 78. Did they ever make it?
1. They weren't trapped in the stairwell for 90 minutes. 2.How does an "explosion" hours before the actual collapse, corroborate controlled demolitions? You do realize Jennings was in WTC7 when debris from WTC2 when it collapsed right? That couldn't have been what he experienced right? Debris colliding with WTC7? 3.What about Hess' testimony in this video? It refutes what Jennings says. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy5lpp6yADw
The "garbage [I'm] trying to propagate" speaks for itself. [video=youtube;HjrpKV_mI18]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjrpKV_mI18[/video] The Consensus Points have been reached by various experts whose credentials are verifiable, who took the initiative to create a panel, conducted extensive research and hearings with multiple experts, who support their opinions with facts and who have a reached agreement on many 9/11 issues based on the following: http://www.consensus911.org/what-is-best-evidence/ http://www.consensus911.org/methodology/ As opposed to an anonymous internet jockey armed with an opinion (always slanted in favor of the OCT and never questioning anything about it) and a keyboard, and/or a politically motivated and biased government controlled entity with a specific agenda, whose fraudulent methodology you defend (and never question).
Right. I provide FACTS that show your provided garbage to be wrong and/or speculation and all you can't answer why? What does an "internet jockey armed with an opinon" have to do with the fact that I provided FACTS? Why do you defend a piece of work that has mistakes contained in it in addition to blind speculation?
If you actually read the Consensus Point title, it's called "The Omission of Evidence that Barry Jennings and Michael Hess Experienced an Explosion in WTC 7 the Morning of 9/11". This is more about how NIST conducted its "investigation", by omitting/ignoring any and all evidence/eyewitness claims that did not support their preconceived and fraudulently concocted fire induced collapse theory. Eyewitness testimony may or may not be accurate and can be in conflict with other eyewitness testimony and/or the evidence. But an investigation that ignores any that is inconvenient is NOT an investigation, it's a fraud, plain and simple. It's telling that you have more of a problem with eyewitness claims and consensus points reached by a panel of experts than the fraudulent methodology NIST used.
Really? Let's look at the information provided by these "experts whose credentials are verifiable". 1. They insinuated that there were more than three stairwells in WTC2. WRONG! 2. They said that the firefighters, based on the transcripts, made it to 79 on at least 3 of the stairwells. There is no verifiable information anywhere in the transcripts you posted stating that they actually made it to floor 79. The only thing in there is that they were TOLD to go to 79. 3. The folks who wrote your linked report blatantly twisted the actual words of the quote from : 4. Your linked report is trying to sell the fact that firefighters reporting two pockets of fire on 78 were also what was seen on the rest 7 floors above. Ridiculous! So tell me what does your unverified assessment of me being an "internet jockey" have anything to do with the FACTS above? It's not an opinion.
Nothing, they are YOUR facts as YOU want to see them. Why do you defend an entity tasked with investigating 9/11 that clearly and unmistakably committed scientific (and criminal) fraud?
Doesn't change the fact that your links are filled with errors does it Bob? Why did your links omit the Hess interview I posted? Why are you not up in arms about that? Why are you ok with all the errors in both links? Why are you ok with the speculation in both links Bob? Why are you ok with the blatant twisting of words?
It seems to me you're ok with NIST's "investigation" that's filled with deliberate "errors" but have more of a problem with me and a panel of experts who exposed NIST. Why did you not see the link? It's in the second post (and reference #16 from the consensus link). http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-8/
Really? 1. Your linked report insinuates that there was more that three stairwells in WTC2. Isn't that a fact Bob? Here's the quote to help you out: FACT: There were ONLY three stairwells in WTC2. 2. Your linked report says that the firefighters were able to climb to floor 78 on at least three stairwells. Below is the quote: FACT: There is nothing in the transcripts you linked to that say anything to verify the claim. One group possibly made it to floor 78 via ONE stairwell. 3. Your linked report claims that the firefighters made it to floors 71, 77, 78, 79, and possibly 80. Here's the quote: FACT: There is no verifiable proof in the transcript provided in the link that says they made it to 79 or 80. 4. FACT: Your linked report takes this quote... ..and tries to turn it into this quote: So are you going to continue to attack me or are you going to address that FACTS that I have provided. Which one of those 4 above are opinion or made up because of me being an "internet jockey"?
Thank you for providing that! Now what do you have to say about it because it contradicts what Jennings says happened. No mention of a massive explosion. - - - Updated - - - That's all you got huh? VERY telling.
I can say the same for you Bob. Why aren't you the least bit concerned with the errors and twisting of words in the information you've provided? I've stated 4 points in which the information you've linked to is deliberately wrong or wording has been deliberately changed from it's original quote all to try and make the case for a conspiracy more enticing. All you can do is say that I'm an "internet jockey with an opinion" instead of addressing the points like an honest person would. Is that your out when you get caught passing on bogus information? Avoid it all together?
How about you Bob? I bring up valid errors in the information you provide and instead of questioning it, you move right into name calling and insults.
You're right I shouldn't be name calling you, you're just here to try to change the subject as usual. The Consensus Points are all about questioning the OCT and the storytellers. For example, why didn't NIST and/or the 9/11 Commission address ALL the eyewitness claims and ALL the evidence? You're here to criticize those who question the OCT and to try to rip apart what they all agree on while always giving the OCT and the storytellers a pass. No one said eyewitnesses are all correct or that they don't contradict each other or they don't modify their claims with time. Hess allegedly contradicting Jennings doesn't make Jennings right or wrong and doesn't make Hess right or wrong. They are both eyewitnesses. None of that is the point, the point is that none of the eyewitness testimony that contradicted or questioned the preconceived OCT was used. Both eyewitnesses should have been interviewed and their claims investigated to the fullest extent possible. You know that was never done. Thanks to those on the Consensus Panel, we have many 9/11 OCT issues exposed, what you like to characterize as "garbage". For me, the Consensus Points are an invaluable piece of work, we all have our sources, you have the OCT, everything else is "garbage". I posted what the Consensus Panel came up with, if you believe it's wrong, send them an E-mail and explain to them why you think it's "garbage". consensus911@gmail.com Let me know how it goes. Thanks.
