Barry Jennings: an explosive account

by Bryan Kinnear

I heartily commend OffG for hosting their 9/11 series; most sites tend to be polarised as either pro or con – it is a rare opportunity for both sides to air simultaneously. I also commend Jerome and Carroll for largely driving one side of the argument; and in particular to Carroll for his diligent and detailed research. I concur that the jury is still out regarding nano-thermite and that further studies are required to verify this. This, in itself is in line with the Harrit et al paper. [1]
In agreeing that Carroll has done valuable work and broadened the debate, I however also believe that he then goes too far in his hypothesis. Where I begin to diverge is in the production of what I would term an “If Chewbacca lives on Endor – you must acquit”; [2] a type of non sequitur argument with a fallacious conclusion – that no thermite = no CD = fire collapse.
To my mind, he has at most highlighted that the mechanism of collapse needs further research, but has not proven irrefutably that fire collapse is the simplest, and therefore only logical, conclusion. For one thing, if answers can be found, they must account for all the known factors.
Unless I misunderstand him, as a method of collapse Carroll posits the ‘self-discovered’ chimney effect. As far as I am concerned the ‘flue effect’ is well understood by any designer of low or hi-rise buildings; and buildings are assiduously designed to prevent it. In one of his posts states (in 7WTC):

A chimney effect in the shaft of the dislodged elevator reported by Mr. Jennings.

Here I detect a glaring omission; which I can only conclude as to be conscious in one so versed in the study of 9/11 (“I have forgotten more about NIST than most people know”). Viz – that Barry Jennings also testified that a large internal explosion left the lobby of 7WTC ‘in total ruins’ (the timing of which would be consistent with this [3] NIST FOIA video shot around 10:15 a.m).
That’s how Carroll posits his ‘chimney’ – dislodged elevator and (I presume) fire doors; but fails to mention the elephant in the room – that this dislodging was caused by an internal explosion or series of explosions that occurred before the North tower even started to fall. Curious. (For more detailed analysis see [4][5] [6])
I am presuming that most readers are at least as well informed about Barry Jennings as Carroll; so I will forego a wider discussion of the timeline. I should however briefly set the scene.
Barry Jennings was formerly deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority. When the first plane hit the North tower (8:46 am), he (and Michael Hess, the New York City Corporation Counsel.) headed to the Office of Emergency Management’s (OEM) Emergency Operating Centre on the 23rd floor of WTC 7 (the so called ‘Mayors Bunker’). When they got there, it was empty (Where’s Rudy? By his own admission he had been and gone – he claimed at the time he was told the North tower was “going to be in imminent danger of collapse”. How did he know that before 9am?[7]) As they attempted to exit the building, they were blown back by an explosion beneath them (the 6th floor landing collapsed under them) and they were forced back up to the 8th floor were they were trapped for the rest of the morning. (For the first interviews they gave see [8][9] – if you go to 2:32 in this (originally released by NIST) [10]you can see Hess trapped on the 8th floor and clearly hear him say “an explosion”) (It is important to note that the timing of the UPN 9 News interview places Hess around half a mile from WTC7 before noon.[10][5])
No evidence of explosives (Jerome’s constant refrain); a collapse solely attributable to fires? – here I present the inconvenient, yet seemingly irrefutable evidence of two credible witnesses, both from the OEM, trapped by an explosion inside WTC 7.
Why is this not central to our discussion? Why was this and other evidence of explosions [11] ignored and not followed up?
Here is where history diverges, facts become blurred and opinions polarised. For these two men, briefly united by this act of terror; the eventual outcome and consequences could not have been more different.
The distortion of this testimony has been traced to Rudy Giulianis self-deprecatingly titled 2002 book ‘Leadership’ [12]. The standard debunk is to dilate the timeline, conflate the earlier reports of ‘explosions’ with the North tower falling and attribute the destruction of the lobby to falling debris. I for one am not buying this, not least for the inconsistencies in the new timelines [4][5][12] but simply because when people start to try and distort evidence I get suspicious.
Timelines, especially in a disaster, can be conflicted I agree, but a fact to note is that both men were in one of the northside (NE) stairwells (see the Cantor Structural Drawings in the footnotes of[4) any falling debris would be on the southside (SW corner) – timings aside – is it conceivable that ejecta passed all the way through the core of the building to take out the 6th floor landing from underneath them? If it wasn’t falling rubble, what trapped these men that morning?

Because when I was on the stairs I saw “NORTH SIDE”. All this time, I’m hearing all types kinds of explosions. All this time I’m hearing explosions.
[Barry Jennings (Excerpt from the transcript of “Loose Change – Louder than Words”)]

Yet NIST also followed the Giuliani line; ignore the destruction of the lobby and extend the timeline to have the men being rescued at 12:10 to 12:15pm (bear in mind that Hess was interviewed half a mile away at the latest at 11:57 [4][5]). This could conveniently place them in the stairwell at 10:28am when the North tower fell. This fallacy was ably supported by our very own national propaganda vehicle – the BBC (“The Conspiracy Files: 9/11–The Third Tower” – available on this site) This contained an edited version of a Barry Jennings interview neatly cut with a ‘reassuring’ voice over:

At 10:28, the North Tower collapses. . . Tower 7 takes a direct hit. . . Early evidence of explosives were just debris from a falling skyscraper. [12]

That could have been the end of the Barry Jennings story: edited out of history; anonymously included in NIST – his testimony rewritten in support of the official version ([4]: read – Official Story – Point 8; Footnote [4]); his narrative carefully crafted by the BBC to make it seem he was confused and disorientated. Were it not for Dylan Avery we would never have heard the other side. [<a href= #thirteen13]
The BBC documentary first aired July 6, 2008; NIST’s Draft for Public Comment – was released at a press briefing on August 21 (“Dr. Sunder – the mystery of the collapse of WTC 7 solved – “It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.”) Tragically, two days before that Barry Jennings died. [14] Whether or not this was in ‘mysterious circumstances’ is a moot point. [14] It was none the less convenient for NIST.
Nor did the BBC waste the opportunity to air a second version of the “The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Truth Behind the Third Tower.” (at the end of October 2008.). Despite not even being mentioned in the first version: Michael Hess was now the star. The standard debunk (part 2) is to conflate the original testimonies with a revised ‘in hindsight’ version (which no one could now criticise). Hess, whilst admitting that in 2001 he had “assumed that there had been an explosion in the basement,”

I know now this was caused by the northern half of Number 1 [the North Tower] falling on the southern half of our building,

That this would echo the Giuliani line [15] should be of little surprise: Michael ‘I’m with Rudy’ Hess was not only his close personal friend – but in 2002 he was one of the founding Partners and Vice Chairman of Giuliani Partners LLC. [16] Trading on his former bosses reputation as ‘Americas Mayor’, he has done quite well out of 9/11. Unlike Barry Jennings. I ask – credible witness or corporate shill?
To my mind then, Barry Jennings testimony stands. Apart from the facts, collation of data and cross referenced chronology in the references I have provided: my conjecture is – if he was lying – why bother to try and obfuscate his story? Let it stand and be discredited. I should perhaps add that NIST has so far refused any FOIA requests to release the interviews both men gave in 2004: on the grounds that they are ‘not directly related to the building failure.’ [17] My conclusion is therefore, thermite or not, we need to be looking for an explosive event to at least partly explain this mystery.
[1] Harrit et al – Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe – page 28; point 8
[2]South Parks OJ spoof – see – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
[3] NIST FOIA: WTC 7 Lobby Shots and South Face Around 10:15 a.m – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YdNclhdzSo
[4] http://www.consensus911.org/?s=Barry+Jennings&lang=en
[5] http://www.911truth.org/the-911-interview-with-michael-hess-evidence-that-nist-lied-about-when-he-and-barry-jennings-were- rescued/
[6] http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1
[7] “The information that we got at that time was that they felt both buildings had been severely damaged, but they felt that the North Tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of collapse.” In interview with Peter Jennings of ABC; 1pm on 09/11/2001.Later denied.
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XOK-r80nr8 [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8u-pjN_rA8
[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFuWlLP0jz8 ( this video was originally released by NIST in 2010 following a FOIA request – includes the possible sound of a jumper at 2:38)
[11] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201
[12]This interview was not included in “Loose Change Final Cut” at Jennings’ request, after he had, he said, received threats to his job. But after Jennings participated in a BBC documentary about WTC 7 (“The Conspiracy Files: 9/11–The Third Tower”), Dylan
Avery, who had conducted the interview, put it on the Internet as “Barry Jennings Uncut.” https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=OmeY2vJ6ZoA
[14] A lot has been made of this death, in particular the beneficial timing of it (for NIST etc), the implication being that he was ‘suicided’. I am not saying that. If you read the comments on [13] there is someone who purports to be Jarel Jennings; Barrys eldest son. He says Barry died of a cardiac arrest (whether this was related to toxic dust inhalation – he doesn’t say.) Disinformation – I don’t know? His Facebook page doesn’t give much away (there is another Jarel Jennings, whose father Barry is very much alive!). There is already enough mystery around the collapse of WTC7 without trying to make it more sinister.
[15] ‘Leadership’ Giuliani, 2002, pp. 20-21 and 244
[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliani_Partners
[17] Jennings and Hess testified to NIST in 2004, but this testimony was never released and FOIA requests have been declined. David Ray Griffin cites one such request: “NIST declined on the basis of a provision allowing for exemption from FOIA disclosure if the information is ‘not directly related to the building failure.’” Letter of August 12, 2009, from Catherine S. Fletcher, Freedom of Information Act Officer, NIST, to a FOIA request of August 8, 2009, from Ms. Susan Peabody, for “[t]he complete texts of NIST’s 2004 interviews of Michael Hess and Barry Jennings, which are cited in NIST NCSTAR 1-8 … , 109, n.380, as ‘WTC7 Interviews 2041604 and 1041704.’” In: David Ray Griffin, “9/11 Truth: The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven,”


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Oct 11, 2016 5:52 AM

You give Carrol far too much credit at the start of this article- Carrol cannot be described as having undertaken ‘diligent and detailed research’. He does produce voluminous disinformation if that’s what you mean? Commenting on the John Gross article he claimed as a fact that ‘the bent beam was impacted by the plane’, and ‘the location of the beam is known’. When pressed for evidence for this bold assertion he finally claimed that the un-named ‘engineer’ who ‘proved’ it had ‘died’ and that all of his work was ‘irretrievably lost’. This is not ‘diligent research’: it is patently obvious bullshit. If you made claims like this as an undergraduate at university you would receive a fail grading. An analysis of Carrol’s innumerable bold claims shows a similar pattern. He supposed ‘research’ into nano-thermite, and his claims about ‘ink toner’ are unsubstantiated and farcical. Even the most basic research quickly… Read more »

James Allan
James Allan
Oct 10, 2016 5:45 PM

All this no planes theory is pure BS,where did the noise of the aeroplanes come from?As for the rest of the official story of 9/11 ,it’s obviously a lie.

Oct 10, 2016 1:14 PM

See the renowned Magazin “Europhysics” on WTC 7: http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

Oct 10, 2016 10:19 AM

A well-written and well-sourced article, with one significant error that attests to the degree to which the “made for television shock-and-awe” 9/11 psy-op succeeded in implanting in people’s minds the idea of hijackers and hijacked planes.
“When the first plane hit the North Tower … ” is a statement entirely unsupported by any evidence other than the claims of those journalists/TV anchors who were clearly part of the operation. There is no film evidence of a plane hitting the North Tower. The Naudet film shows only an explosion. That it had been caused by a plane was pure suggestion – subsequently given the appearance of fact by the highly sophisticated use of computer-generated images of ‘the second plane’ and the verbal confirmations of this by the same TV anchors.
There is no evidence of real planes hitting the towers.

Oct 10, 2016 10:49 AM
Reply to  paulcarline

That Naudet film clearly shows a plane, and the sound of it approaching made the firemen look up. Don’t waste too much time down that “no planes” rabbit hole.

Oct 11, 2016 6:00 AM
Reply to  windjammer

The Naudet film shows it- and several years later a second piece of footage emerged- also supposedly shot by two brothers from a balcony in a hotel from memory. I can’t find it just now but it’s out there. There were planes in NYC for both towers- the evidence is overwhelming. Yet the evidence those planes were flight 175 and flight 11 is completely lacking. This total paucity of evidence suggests to me that the flights that hit the towers were not flight 11 and 175. It doesn’t prove it- but it strongly suggests it. Added to the high speeds of both planes at low altitudes- and the witness descriptions of military planes- the picture emerges of an Operation Northwoods style ‘plane swap’. The oldest trick in the book- the ‘switcheroo’. The radar evidence further supports this theory: just why did the 9/11 hijackers fly right over so many military… Read more »

Oct 10, 2016 11:32 AM
Reply to  paulcarline

No discussion of no-planes here – there’s an open thread where any 9/11 topic can be discussed BTL, keep comments here related to this article

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Oct 10, 2016 11:51 AM
Reply to  paulcarline

See reply here

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Oct 10, 2016 12:06 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

I’d just take it down, then, and I can post under the other thread later.

Oct 10, 2016 12:09 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

it’s already up, but if you’d rather re-post that’s fine 🙂

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Oct 10, 2016 12:14 PM
Reply to  Admin

I’m good either way . . .

Oct 10, 2016 12:15 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Ok. let’s let it stand as is 🙂

Oct 10, 2016 3:34 PM
Reply to  paulcarline

Rubbish comment. Try to lay off the crack cocaine before hitting the keyboard :-p ….yer makin’ a fool of yerself!

Oct 10, 2016 5:32 PM
Reply to  paulcarline

paulcarline, there is primary photographic evidence of planes hitting the towers, plenty of it.
This ‘no planes’ trope is disinformation.

Oct 11, 2016 9:39 AM
Reply to  paulcarline

just to set you straight on your baseless claim, something you could have done yourself in 10 seconds on youtube: “The Naudet film shows only an explosion.” wrong: if you look at the very low quality film the plane is less visible- as would be expected; Alone this footage could have been faked- and the Naudet Brothers film is beyond merely suspicious: it stinks to high heaven. However there is a great deal of other evidence that planes struck both towers. Concerning the Naudet Brothers- what are the odds: two brothers on one day between them manage to film and survive: a) Both plane strikes- North and South Tower- and Both collapses- North and South. and those brothers just happen to be making a documentary about NYC firefighters from stationed right beside the WTC complex immediately prior to 9/11 (with a co-producer fireman/actor). Lucky guys hey? What a break for… Read more »