nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Who the hell is Barry Jennings?

demonspawn

Nearly one year ago, on August 19, 2008, 53 year old Barry Jennings died, two days before the release of the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC7. Jennings was Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. On September 11th, 2001, he saw and heard explosions BEFORE the Twin Towers fell, while attempting to evacuate the WTC 7 Command Center with NYC Corporation Counsel Michael Hess.

http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI

Notice the secret serviceman running around at 0:50 of the following video. What was he doing there and why is he so prepared for all the dust with that head covering? Did he know what was about to happen?

Next Saturday is the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Or it could be a known liar took his words out of context and exaggerated them for his own ends?

But you've tons of evidence Jennings was ever threatened.

I bet you won't.....

meaning what?

Otherwise quit the bull**** about taking words out of context. I've posted the uncut interview for you.

bonkey

Let me try this one more time...

A bit more respect wouldn't go astray here.

Soveriegn

demonspawn wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI

nice post. Did someone mention that Jennings was misquoted lol.

Ya gotta laugh at some of these gobsh****

Did he misquote himself ? lmao

gizmo

Regarding the WTC7 collapse, why would "they" go to such elaborate lengths to bring the two towers down in such an incredulous way i.e. the planes, and then bring down the smaller tower using a method which, according to those engineers and architects, bears the unmistakable footprint of a controlled explosion?

Brown Bomber

gizmo wrote: »

Regarding the WTC7 collapse, why would "they" go to such elaborate lengths to bring the two towers down in such an incredulous way i.e. the planes, and then bring down the smaller tower using a method which, according to those engineers and architects, bears the unmistakable footprint of a controlled explosion?

I'm just throwing this out there but perhaps the Shanksville plane was supposed to hit WTC7 but never made it.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

Sorry Bonkey, but this guy has repeatedly refused to accept even the most irrefutable evidence and puts forward no argument whatsoever. He dismisses this whole CT as a lie then claims to be open-minded, which even the most hardcore skeptic would take offense to. I don't see how that benefits this thread or the CT forum in general.

What irrefutable evidence?

Edit: He even goes so far as to accuse Avery of misquoting a videotaped interview with Jennings. wtf?

Here's a quote from Jennings:

The writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery, told The Conspiracy Files: "The amount of detail that Barry gave us in this interview was unreal. He says he was stepping over dead bodies in the lobby."

Barry Jennings himself disagrees with their interpretation of his words. Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I didn't like the way you know I was portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies. I never saw dead bodies"

Now, you never answered my question, why would they kill Jennings, but leave someone like Avery, who seems to be doing much more to "blow their cover", alive?

gizmo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm just throwing this out there but perhaps the Shanksville plane was supposed to hit WTC7 but never made it.

Given it's origin, flight path and crash site I'd say it was more likely moving towards Washington to be honest.

Given that it didn't crash though, surely it would have made more sense to then call off the bombing in WTC7 rather than leave the "evidence" they did?

joebucks

I think David Lynch sums it up pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ0pOIZpFlc

you don't have to believe everything in documentary for questions to come up.

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Now, you never answered my question, why would they kill Jennings, but leave someone like Avery, who seems to be doing much more to "blow their cover", alive?

Jennings eye-witness.

Avery not eye-witness.

gizmo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Jennings eye-witness.

Avery not eye-witness.

True but Jennings had already refuted what he said whereas Avery insists he said what he said at the time. If I was going to kill one of those people it'd certainly wouldn't be Jennings.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Jennings eye-witness.

Avery not eye-witness.

Why wait so long to kill him then, they surely must have known he was an eye-witness, they could have killed him within hours/days of the towers collapsing. Also if they viewed Jennings as a threat, then surely they view Avery as an even bigger threat?

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

What irrefutable evidence?

Barry Jennings is dead. He was a crucial eye witness to the 9/11 attack, particularly to the destruction of WTC7. There is no known cause of death because there is no public autopsy report. There is a complete media blackout in regards to his life and his death, other than what we can find on CT websites. His family cannot be found and no explanation has been given for their disappearance. If they left because of harassment, then surely a spokesperson for the family would make a statement and ask that they be left alone. The only evidence of Barry's death is a small obituary in a company bulletin with no information about the service location or the burial location, even though it was attended by many dignitaries from the City of New York.

That is irrefutable evidence.

stevejazzx

As someone else mentioned; who misquotes Jennings? Himself?
If anything Diogenes makes the completely unsupported claim that Avery used dodgy editing techniques to misrepresent Jennings? In the BBC rebuttal Jennings says precisely the same thing but focuses on a technicality of what he said to try and un-say what he's on record as saying. Unless Diogenes is in fact right and Avery has jumbled Jennings dialogue around (which from the full interview does not appear to be the case but perhaps that was also edited ) then Jennings is clearly just retracting what he has said (for whatever reason ct or not, perhaps he made it all up then realized it was too serious this however is extremely unlikely unless the man is pathological in some sense).

So we an interesting speculation to look at, why did Jennings say what he did to Avery? We know he was there on the day thanks to the local news report, we know he was clearly trapped in the building, so the only other consideration is whether or not he's a mentalist who decided to embroil himself in a subtle lie about explosions from beneath, people dead on the floor, and the lobby being completely decimated.

As for the stuff about the family disappearing well it seems like total speculation at this stage apart from Avery’s P.I story which let’s face it is tenuous at this stage.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

Barry Jennings is dead. He was a crucial eye witness to the 9/11 attack, particularly to the destruction of WTC7. There is no known cause of death because there is no public autopsy report. There is a complete media blackout in regards to his life and his death, other than what we can find on CT websites. His family cannot be found and no explanation has been given for their disappearance. If they left because of harassment, then surely a spokesperson for the family would make a statement and ask that they be left alone. The only evidence of Barry's death is a small obituary in a company bulletin with no information about the service location or the burial location, even though it was attended by many dignitaries from the City of New York.

That is irrefutable evidence.

His death was acknowledged by the BBC I believe.

Now are you going to answer my other question?

gizmo

demonspawn wrote: »

Barry Jennings is dead. He was a crucial eye witness to the 9/11 attack, particularly to the destruction of WTC7. There is no known cause of death because there is no public autopsy report. There is a complete media blackout in regards to his life and his death, other than what we can find on CT websites. His family cannot be found and no explanation has been given for their disappearance. If they left because of harassment, then surely a spokesperson for the family would make a statement and ask that they be left alone. The only evidence of Barry's death is a small obituary in a company bulletin with no information about the service location or the burial location, even though it was attended by many dignitaries from the City of New York.

That is irrefutable evidence.

Actually that reads like anecdotal evidence to me.

Regardless, I do have some questions though...

As I asked earlier, why make an even bigger issue out of killing him when he had already refuted what he said in the Loose Change documentary?

Since when are all autopsy reports made public?

Why would the company bother with the small obituary and/or why would they be allowed make it given the rest of the cover up surrounding his death?

Since Avery is still going on about it, why not kill him too since they evidently had no problem killing Jennings and the rest of his family?

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

His death was acknowledged by the BBC I believe.

I'd ask you for a link but on second an acknowledgment on the BBC is hardly coverage of this extraordinary story. Where's the rest of the media coverage?

Now are you going to answer my other question?

Do you really believe that if a man like Avery was killed, people would not demand a complete investigation into his death? He is protected by the vast legion of CTers and Tuthers that support him. Barry Jennings was, for all intents and purposes, a nobody until his death. I imagine questions would have been raised if he had not been called into the official investigation to give his evidence, and he died two days before the official report was released. His story and that of Michael Hess completely contradicts the official report. Explain that.

A dead body just leaves a conspiracy theory, a living man leaves evidence.
Avery was not a witness, so why kill him? He has little credibility outside the CT community. Jennings was a credible eye-witness and was murdered because of that.

meglome

I can't see what we're arguing about there. No one is saying Jennings didn't hear some sort of explosion or explosions. As I've already said 2 big planes hit 2 big buildings and a third building caught fire from the debris. It would be amazing if there was not the sounds of explosions. However the sounds of something exploding is not the same as it being caused by explosives.

My problem here is CT'ers are willing accept what Jennings said initially when interviewed as it agrees with what they believe. But when he says his words were taken out of context by Avery they assume he was 'got to' in some way. They talk about the explosions Jennings heard as proof and at the same time support thermite as the reason for the building 7 collapse, a substance which doesn't explode. Jennings says he saw fires burning on several floors which agrees with the NIST reports findings but again CT'ers choose not to believe that either.

Either Jennings can be trusted or he can't, choosing to believe him only when it suits you doesn't help your cause in any way.

nullzero

meglome wrote: »

Either Jennings can be trusted or he can't, choosing to believe him only when it suits you doesn't help your cause in any way.

What cause exactly?
This is a discussion forum, not a competition.
People have differing opinions, we might find some of them odd, I've never seen anyone with a "cause" here, just opinions.

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

My problem here is CT'ers are willing accept what Jennings said initially when interviewed as it agrees with what they believe. But when he says his words were taken out of context by Avery they assume he was 'got to' in some way.

So you're saying we believe what Jennings said in the initial interviews, but do not believe what he said weeks later after he may have received threats on his life.

Yeah, I would tend to agree with that. Anything else you're having problems with?

Brown Bomber

gizmo wrote: »

Given it's origin, flight path and crash site I'd say it was more likely moving towards Washington to be honest.

Given that it didn't crash though, surely it would have made more sense to then call off the bombing in WTC7 rather than leave the "evidence" they did?

I'm the wrong person to be asking questions to be honest, huge gaps in what I know but if we can accept the hypothesis of controlled demolotion for a moment and Jennings' explosions in building 7 pre-twin towers collapse then the building would have had to have been pre-rigged and would have had to have come down regardless. Also, the securities and exchange building was in there, as was Giuliani's bunker, which may have been used for a control centre for the attacks and Silverstein is a greedy bakstard, maybe he just wanted to cash in on the extra insurance.

meglome

nullzero wrote: »

There's clearly two differing beliefs on this thread.
One group believes the CT, the other doesn't (big surpirse), what I don't understand is the one of side people wanting to bludgeon (methaphorically speaking) the other over the head until they agree with them.

Your'e clearly not going to reach a middle ground acceptable to each group, why not at this stage agree to disagree?

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, in a way. For many CT'ers this is very much about belief. I don't rule out that 911 is some sort of conspiracy but each time we look at the details it doesn't show that unless we're very selective in the evidence we accept. Personally speaking I want to see all the evidence. I'm accepting what Jennings said, just not selectively so.

alastair

Podman wrote: »

I feel embarrassed for anyone who still argues that it was "fire" that caused the wtc7 demolition.

I'm not terribly interested in your embarrassement, or the causes of it - the investigation by the most qualified to comment says that the building fell primarily to structural weakening caused by fire (and associated debris impact damage).

Podman wrote: »

Quote and reference please?

To quote Jennings from the Loose Change video interview: "After getting to the 8th floor, everything was dark.
It was dark.
And it was very very hot.
VERY hot."

"I was trapped in there for several hours.
I was trapped in there when both buildings came down.
um.
The firefighters came.
They came to the window.
And they..
Because I was going to come out on the firehose.
I didn't want to stay any longer
It was too hot.
I was gonna come out on the firehose.
They came--to the window and they said
They started yelling "do not do that..it won't hold you."
And then they ran away."

Podman wrote: »

Jennings said, "We were stepping over people, you know you can feel when your stepping over people."

To quote Jennings: "I didn't like the way you know I was portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies. I never saw dead bodies"

"I said it felt like I was stepping over them but I never saw any.

"And you know that's the way they portrayed me and I didn't appreciate that so I told them to pull my interview."

Podman wrote: »

In the video we don't see much of the lobby at all, we see more of the escalator and even then, just a few seconds. Everything is covered in dust and debris, you could be looking at a part of a body and not recognize it, but you'd know what it feels like under your feet.

Really?
I think I'd spot bodies on that floor - dust or no dust, and no - I'm not sure I'd be able to tell what I was walking on in the panic of esacaping the place. Keep in mind he also said that a fireman suggested he crawl on his swollen knees if he couldn't walk (on his swollen knees) and that he exited through a 'hole in the wall' despite wtc7 having complete curtain glass at ground level (which were clearly broken in the lobby video). The man was undoubtedly confused at the time.

Podman wrote: »

What is your source for this claim?

The WTC 7 lobby was reportedly used as a triage centre for the injured from WTC 1 and 2 and surrounding streets:

"Got to 7 World Trade Center. I saw another EMS triage location with Captain Nahmod and Chief Peruggia were treating patients..."

EMS Division Chief John Peruggia:

"As we were having discussions in the lobby (of WTC 7) as to what to do with OEM, a number of people came in the lobby as patients. Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo started to look at them, put them off to the side and talk to them."

Later, Peruggia orders the triage efforts to be moved:

"I directed Captain Nahmod to move the patients into that area (a protected loading dock area). Again, the lobby of number 7 is all glass facade. I was concerned that if something should come off the building, go through the glass or hit the glass, we would have an extraordinary amount of patients in addition to what was already being seen."

After the collapse of the South Tower, Peruggia orders them out:

"We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me--I said, do what ever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water."

Podman wrote: »

What maintenance people, and what were they doing?

Podman wrote: »

His office should have had it's busiest day ever, instead he found it already abandoned.

Because people had left following the first plane hitting (no surprise there!) and the building was subsequently evacuated.

Podman wrote: »

When he and Hess were going down the stairs past floor 6, they witnessed an explosion below them and were blown back by the blast. This is before either of the two towers fell.

They made it out after both skyscrapers had come down, and were told by a police officer that "we have reports of more explosions" and you better run.

They didn't witness any explosion, they were knocked off their feet in the dark by the force of an impact that took the north side of wtc7 off, suggesting the times they provided were most likely well off. What they felt on floor 6 was probably WTC 1 coming down, and debris impact.

Podman wrote: »

Why was building 7 evacuated?

Have a wild guess.

Podman wrote: »

What caused the explosion at the bottom?

What explosion at the bottom?

Podman wrote: »

What other explosions was the police officer talking about?

Impact noises, building collapses, burning cars or equipment blowing up, misplaced rumours? Who knows?

Podman wrote: »

Did someone attempt to demolish the building just after plane #2 but failed?

No.

Podman wrote: »

Are you some kind of explosives expert?

No, are you?

Podman wrote: »

How do you know "what he heard"?

Given that he didn't hear a controlled explosion, and the impact coincided with the removal of much of the north side of wtc7, the probability is that he heard debris hitting the building, and was was the impact force that they felt.

Podman wrote: »

A Seismograph from South Manhattan, New York at the exact date and time would be adequate.

Also, In your opinion, how would that explosion escape a seismograph?

Here you go - no controlled explosions captured there - just the plane impacts, and the subsequent building collapses:

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

I can't see what we're arguing about there. No one is saying Jennings didn't hear some sort of explosion or explosions. As I've already said 2 big planes hit 2 big buildings and a third building caught fire from the debris. It would be amazing if there was not the sounds of explosions. However the sounds of something exploding is not the same as it being caused by explosives.

My problem here is CT'ers are willing accept what Jennings said initially when interviewed as it agrees with what they believe. But when he says his words were taken out of context by Avery they assume he was 'got to' in some way. They talk about the explosions Jennings heard as proof and at the same time support thermite as the reason for the building 7 collapse, a substance which doesn't explode. Jennings says he saw fires burning on several floors which agrees with the NIST reports findings but again CT'ers choose not to believe that either.

Either Jennings can be trusted or he can't, choosing to believe him only when it suits you doesn't help your cause in any way.

Debris from the plane impacts from two seperate buildings caused explosions in a completely seperate building?

I see no reason why he can't be trusted, seems like a gentleman to me. However, his attempted backtrack is suspicious especially in light of claims that his job was under threat for speaking out.

gizmo

meglome wrote: »

My problem here is CT'ers are willing accept what Jennings said initially when interviewed as it agrees with what they believe. But when he says his words were taken out of context by Avery they assume he was 'got to' in some way. They talk about the explosions Jennings heard as proof and at the same time support thermite as the reason for the building 7 collapse, a substance which doesn't explode. Jennings says he saw fires burning on several floors which agrees with the NIST reports findings but again CT'ers choose not to believe that either.

Either Jennings can be trusted or he can't, choosing to believe him only when it suits you doesn't help your cause in any way.

Why has no one commented on this part yet?

stevejazzx

meglome wrote:

Bring a gun on a plane in 2001, good chance to be caught... bring a knife in 2001 and little chance of being caught. In 2001 the accepted way to deal with hijackings was to follow the hijackers commands. The idea of using planes as weapons had come up in books, films and in some security reports. I really can't see the mystery.

Em, the complete, complete absence of any air defense. You know the state of the art defense system that America had pumped billions into over the last 20 years, far more sophiscated than any other country it is...but they were on a 'drill'...all of them.

Now in my day to day office life when I'm tied up I let my co-workers know this in case some other customers come in looking for attention. That’s a kind of basic work life consideration; can you imagine the fault proof systems they must have in places like the department of defense? I mean there can literally be no contingency where the whole workforce of defense pilots are off on a drill exercises so intense that they can't be organized to form a defense; that would be extremely negligent right? Now imagine that on the one day they are needed most this happens, not on one occasion but on three occasions?
These are jets which can fly at thousands of miles per hour speed. I locate the nearest air base; I confirm the real world hijack and I deploy. As for the excuse that an intermediary organization didn't release the information to quickly enough; why? More insane negligence?

Again I am not a 911 conspiracy supporter in that I don't subscribe to or push any particular theory but I've no problem in saying that I don't believe the Bush administration (let’s face it they were responsible for the 911 commission and report). I mean look at the Nixon administration; half of what they put out is now questioned; so why is it some huge surprise to people that a conspiracy may exist here; there are major questions over his initial election win, over his invasion of Iraq and flawed intelligence (let’s face it Iraq was the target for a myriad of political reasons) and also over his handling the 700 billion dollar affair which after being thrown out by congress was ultimately rewarded (pushed through in obvious behind the scene mode) by the Bush administration. Do people have so much respect for this administration that the idea of a conspiracy to gain support for an invasion just seems crazy to them? It seems crazy to me that given their record they have so many supporters.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

I'd ask you for a link but on second an acknowledgment on the BBC is hardly coverage of this extraordinary story. Where's the rest of the media coverage?

Do you really believe that if a man like Avery was killed, people would not demand a complete investigation into his death? He is protected by the vast legion of CTers and Tuthers that support him. Barry Jennings was, for all intents and purposes, a nobody until his death. I imagine questions would have been raised if he had not been called into the official investigation to give his evidence, and he died two days before the official report was released. His story and that of Michael Hess completely contradicts the official report. Explain that.

A dead body just leaves a conspiracy theory, a living man leaves evidence.
Avery was not a witness, so why kill him? He has little credibility outside the CT community. Jennings was a credible eye-witness and was murdered because of that.

Maybe theres no coverage because he's not really that well known? I'm sure there are plenty of people that involved in 911 from firefighters to policemen who have died since, and their deaths don't get reported. I wouldn't exactly see it as that important to see a big news headline of everyones death.

Avery didn't always have his army of ct supporters, they could have 'disappeared' him in the early days and taken down his video, and issued a media blackout before anyone had even heard of him.

Another problem with the controlled explosion theory, why didn't they just wait till the next day or so and say the building is structurally damaged and in danger of collapsing, and then take it down in a controlled explosion? They did this with other damaged buildings

meglome

nullzero wrote: »

What cause exactly?
This is a discussion forum, not a competition.
People have differing opinions, we might find some of them odd, I've never seen anyone with a "cause" here, just opinions.

Just a turn of phrase, call it argument, discussion, opinion, whatever you're comfortable with.

demonspawn wrote: »

So you're saying we believe what Jennings said in the initial interviews, but do not believe what he said weeks later after he may have received threats on his life.

Yeah, I would tend to agree with that. Anything else you're having problems with?

I'm taking what Jennings said in the round. You're taking it that in the confusion of the day everything he said should be taken as gospel and can have no other explanation. But when he says Avery took him out of context you're assuming he was threatened when i see no reason he would be. His interviews were on record and after Avery interviewed him he didn't do any more other than the BBC one. Why kill him, he didn't believe in the CT's, Avery would be a much better target. If any group had reason to kill Jennings it would be the CT'ers as he disagreed with them.

demonspawn

gizmo wrote: »

Why has no one commented on this part yet?

Linear thermite cutting charges are used to cut steel beams then explosives are used to implode the building.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M

Is this satisfy your question?

Mahatma coat

They talk about the explosions Jennings heard as proof and at the same time support thermite as the reason for the building 7 collapse, a substance which doesn't explode.

See thats why I'm against talking in Absolutes, heres a video of some Thermate Exploding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQG3e75XiNg

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Debris from the plane impacts from two seperate buildings caused explosions in a completely seperate building?

Fires burn, stuff in buildings explode (aside from the impacts of the planes)... you know the fires that Jennings talks about at the time too.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I see no reason why he can't be trusted, seems like a gentleman to me. However, his attempted backtrack is suspicious especially in light of claims that his job was under threat for speaking out.

So again we're back to you guys believing him when it suits you. I believe everything he said however that doesn't mean I believe everything he said was completely accurate. To say he had a bad day would be an understatement so I would have to assume some amount of confusion at the time.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Em, the complete, complete absence of any air defense. You know the state of the art defense system that America had pumped billions into over the last 20 years, far more sophiscated than any other country it is...but they were on a 'drill'...all of them.

America's air defence was build to protect the country from outside threats. On 911 there were 3000-5000 planes in the air over the US. They track commercial planes with their transponders, and the hijacked planes had their transponders switched off. And if you look at the typical response times, the times taken on 911 are in keeping with them.