Comment: Then listen to one of the explosions yourself.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Mr. Cricket, you have to (see in situ)

Then listen to one of the explosions yourself.

If you are not satisfied with Jennings' own eyewitness account of explosions with regard to wtc7, and since he's no longer around to testify in a courthouse for you since his suspicious death, listen to one of the explosions yourself in this 16 second video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw&feature=related

Emergency people are on payphones when an extremely loud explosion is heard. Other fireman approaches telling them, "We gotta get back. Seven's exploding!"

Fyi, even if one were to actually consider Jennings' OWN eyewitness account to be "hearsay", there are exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Recorded recollections and excited utterances are among those exceptions. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

At any rate, while Shyam Sunder and the NIST website mislead people...

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

...as you can hear yourself, there were BOTH. There were audible blast sounds recorded AND witness reports of them.

So this notion of leading people to believe the collapse of wtc was due to falling debris and fire, while completely disregarding (and even denying in the case of NIST and Sunder) the explosions/blasts, when there ARE reports and recorded evidences of them...THAT is what is dishonest, Mr. Godsfavson.