Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[triforcharity]

NIST speculates as much but never proves exactly how or how much as far as the towers go. And it is not their theory on what happened to WTC-7. So what's the difference?

Listen, I know you think you're top **** when it comes to fire, but I have forgotten more about fire, than you will ever know.

There is no way to prove exactly how much was removed on impact. No way in hell. We can use simmilar experiments, but nothing will be 100% accurate.
So, you can just stop that little line of horse ****.

We know that the impact of a plane, at ~500 mph, or ~773 FPS, it is GOING to dislodge alot of insulation. That insulation could have been removed with a butter knife.

Now, 7 WTC was different, as the insulation was not impacted by a 767 being parked into the side. The SFRM was rated to 2 hours. How long did 7WTC burn?

Thanks. Now, go read the reports, and stop being obtuse.

 

[triforcharity]

As did I. And NIST claims it was not the plane impacts. Besides you have no 500 MPH plane impacts for WTC-7 so what is the difference?

What started the fire on 5 floors instantly?

Actually NIST called it extraordinary.

Yes, extraordinary, as never before had a highrise structure been allowed to burn for 3.5 x's it's SFRM rating either.

Steel framed structures collapse from fire. Alot.

kader Toy Factory
Sight and Sound Theatre.

There are more.

 

[LashL]

Never mind.

 

[fess]

Originally Posted by fess
Please show how the concrete flooring, not the floor pans, was anchored to the inner and outer columns to provide structural integrity to the building. A simple explanation is acceptable, but an engineering drawing would be better.

Why? I already sourced my claim complete with drawings. Did you not look at it? I was asked to cite a claim. I did just that.

My apologies, I may have missed that. Could you link back to it? Thanks.

Originally Posted by fess
Also consider that the temperatures of the fire floors would have spalled the concrete rendering it useless as far as providing any integrity whatsoever.

It's considered. Lets see your reports and drawings on how this would cause a sudden global collapse of an entire skyscraper. Good Luck.

I never said that it contributed to the "global collapse", but it certainly offered no resistance.

 

[cantonear1968]

Even your fairy tale doesn't depict a passenger jet flying into WTC7, or fully-laden ones flying into the towers.




NIST ruled out the possibility of controlled demolition on the basis that there was no evidence of loud explosions, flashes or broken windows. No mention of hydraulic jacks in the NIST report, as far as I'm aware.




Ron Wieck spent an hour with him on the phone, then gave up after realizing he was dealing with a man of integrity.




Show me evidence that the interior columns of WTC7 failed progressively over a period of 7 seconds. The evidence I've seen shows that one column failed, then all the rest failed around 7 seconds later. NIST and some people here must have x-ray eyes.




He doesn't have an axe to grind. He just gave his honest and expert opinion and he'd probably prefer to be left in peace now.

Hi all. I didn't resurrect this ancient thread for discussion but simply for reference and to ask a question. In the above quoted there is is this line:

Ron Wieck spent an hour with [Jowenko] on the phone...

I also found a reference to Ron speaking with Jowenko on the David Icke forum, but I've been unable to find any such conversation. Is anyone aware of this interview? I actually think both references may be confusing this interview conducted by JREF/ISF poster rikzilla but I thought it was worth asking the long time members if this interview with Ron actually took place.

Another interesting item in the rikzilla thread I gave was Brent Blanchard of Protec, who many, I am sure, are aware wrote a paper on debunking conspiracy theories and actually spoke with Jowenko too. I'm interested if anyone knows what became of this as well.

 

[MicahJava]

An audiotape on Youtube of Danny Jowenko reaffirming he considers WTC 7 a CD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbRd6gzFWk

 

[beachnut]

An audiotape on Youtube of Danny Jowenko reaffirming he considers WTC 7 a CD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbRd6gzFWk

He was wrong, like 9/11 truth. He also said the WTC towers were not CD. He was over 66 percent right...
And you, and 9/11 truth remain 100 percent wrong, stuck in the sub-forum for fantasy.

Will you be upset when you learn 9/11 truth lies about 9/11? What will you do?

15 years of failure and thinking opinions are evidence; that is 9/11 truth's legacy of woo.

 

[cantonear1968]

An audiotape on Youtube of Danny Jowenko reaffirming he considers WTC 7 a CD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbRd6gzFWk

Yes. Thank you Micah. I'm aware of this call with Jeff Hill. If you look down to the comments you'll find me there.

I'm asking specifically about Ron Wiek's call, if it exists. I'm doubtful but I'd be interested in the conversation if it does.

 

[ozeco41]

Yes. Thank you Micah. I'm aware of this call with Jeff Hill. If you look down to the comments you'll find me there.

I'm asking specifically about Ron Wiek's call, if it exists. I'm doubtful but I'd be interested in the conversation if it does.

I'll see if I can ask Ronald Weik for comment - ball in his court as to whether he wants to respond or not.

 

[skyeagle409]

An audiotape on Youtube of Danny Jowenko reaffirming he considers WTC 7 a CD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbRd6gzFWk

Apparently, Danny Jowenko's claim is at odds with a number of demolition experts who have stated for the record that the collapse of WTC 7 involved no CD explosives.
BTW, Danny Jowenko also denies that explosives were used to drop WTC 1 and WTC 2. In fact, he goes on to say that it would have taken about a year to prepare the buildings for demolition.

Did Danny Jowenko really think that WTC 7 could have been rigged with explosives just prior its collapse? Danny Jowenko also ignored the fact that no CD explosions were heard as WTC 7 collapsed.

 

[skyeagle409]

An audiotape on Youtube of Danny Jowenko reaffirming he considers WTC 7 a CD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbRd6gzFWk

And top CD experts disagree with Danny Jowenko.

An interview with explosives expert Brent Blanchard

Undicisettembre: What do you think about World Trade Center 7? Was its collapse a controlled demolition, in your opinion?

Brent Blanchard: No. Absolutely not. I know people who were on the site and they told me first hand they knew the building was about to collapse. And even if I didn't know those people you can look at the way the North Tower collapsed and how all the debris that fell to the north directly into WTC7 shearing huge chunks of building 7 on the South side, which is not the side that everyone watches on the YouTube videos. On the south side there was extensive damage all the way down. The entire load bearing mechanism is weakened when a towering structure more than twice the size of the subject structure literally falls on top of it.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2014/10/an-interview-with-explosive-expert.html


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

Now, let's take a look at Danny Jowenko

Jowenko Says The Towers Were Not Demolitions

No conspiracy theorist likes to quote Jowenko when it comes to the towers. He clearly sees that those building’s collapses started from the impact area. Nothing leads him to conclude that those buildings fell from controlled demolition using explosives, no matter how much the interviewer tries to get him to say so.


Jowenko Isn’t Aware Of How Badly The Building Was On Fire

He proposes a charge on each core column, but this is a scenario that could only work in a building that is not on fire.

The fires in WTC 7 are well documented. NIST spent several hundred pages documenting the spread of the fires in WTC 7, so that they could inform their modeling of the fire.

Also, around 2:30 p.m., Daniel Nigro, the acting fire chief on the scene, ordered everyone away from the building. It was his determination that the building’s massive fires, its extensive damage, and the inaccessibility of water to fight the fires added up to a strong possibility of building collapse again on a day that had seen two buildings collapse already. Building 7 wasn’t worth a single life more to him. It took a while, but the collapse zone was finally established.


Jowenko Isn’t Aware Of The Severe Damage To The South

He thinks that only light debris could have gotten to WTC 7. However, the way the perimeter column panels peeled away from those structures shows how very heavy debris could easily have reached the building.


Jowenko Says “I Don’t Know, It’s Guessing For Me.”

Based on a cursory examination of select evidence, Jowenko says that it was a demolition done on that day by a dedicated team. As the interview progresses, he finally admits that he is guessing about all of this:

For me, it is a little bit “watching coffee dregs,” I mean, that is not a lot of information. If we had some pictures from the other side, especially those at the side of the twin towers…

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/other-issues/danny-jowenko/

 

[cantonear1968]

I'll see if I can ask Ronald Weik for comment - ball in his court as to whether he wants to respond or not.

Thank you Ozeco.

 

[ozeco41]

Thank you Ozeco.

R Weik has given me this link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72347

EC

 

[cantonear1968]

R Weik has given me this link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72347

EC

Thank you Ozeco. I was hoping there would have been a little more detail of the conversation provided by Ron, but there probably wasn't anything more to add than rikzilla's. Still it was still good to track this down.

Thanks to you and if you have the opportunity please thank Ron for me. I ran into him a few times on YT but not lately.

 

[MicahJava]

R Weik has given me this link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72347

EC

Wow, that dude sounds like a really unpleasant person. While looking through some ancient JREF posts, I remember seeing a post by him saying words to the effect of "I always vote republican as the lesser of two evils, because at least they understand the threat of terrorism" LOL

 

[MicahJava]

By the way, I mentioned this story before, and I'll mention this again.

At my job, I once casually met a lady who mentioned they managed a construction and demolition company. I asked if she was an expert in explosive demolition, and she said "Yeah, I'm an expert, I've had jobs with putting plastic explosives on columns". So I went ahead and asked "So, what do you think about Building 7?", and she replied "I was in jail when that happened. They say seven is a lucky number, but on 9-1-1 it wasn't". I then said "Do you think that might've been a demolition?" and she smiled and nodded 'yes'.

 

[skyeagle409]

By the way, I mentioned this story before, and I'll mention this again.

At my job, I once casually met a lady who mentioned they managed a construction and demolition company. I asked if she was an expert in explosive demolition, and she said "Yeah, I'm an expert, I've had jobs with putting plastic explosives on columns". So I went ahead and asked "So, what do you think about Building 7?", and she replied "I was in jail when that happened. They say seven is a lucky number, but on 9-1-1 it wasn't". I then said "Do you think that might've been a demolition?" and she smiled and nodded 'yes'.

She could not have been an expert if she said yes.

First of all, explosives make a lot of noise when detonated and the name-of-the-game in regards to demolition implosions is the make a building fall within its own footprint, which WTC 7 did not do. In addition, a steel-framed building must be pre-weaken before explosives are placed on steel columns, otherwise, the dumb building will outsmart the so-called demolition expert and remain standing due to stiffening and structural load redistribution.

Have you ever wondered why the steel structural columns of WTC 1 remained standing within that huge bomb crater after the 1993 terrorist bombing attack? Think about it.

The collapse of WTC 7 was not similar to typical demolition implosions by any means and all it takes to debunk CD are video presentations that were taken as WTC 7 collapsed and photos that were taken after the collapse which proved that WTC 7 did not collapse within its own footprint.

To sum that up, the only thing in common to typical demolition implosions is that WTC 7 collapsed toward the ground and not toward the sky.

 

[ProBonoShill]

By the way, I mentioned this story before, and I'll mention this again.

At my job, I once casually met a lady who mentioned they managed a construction and demolition company. I asked if she was an expert in explosive demolition, and she said "Yeah, I'm an expert, I've had jobs with putting plastic explosives on columns". So I went ahead and asked "So, what do you think about Building 7?", and she replied "I was in jail when that happened. They say seven is a lucky number, but on 9-1-1 it wasn't". I then said "Do you think that might've been a demolition?" and she smiled and nodded 'yes'.

LOL

So we're supposed to believe a tale told by an anonymous internet poster whereby they briefly met with another anonymous person supposedly a criminal and a demolition expert too.

Tell me how did your demolition expert explain the fact they were no ear shattering explosions that always accompany a CD????

I think I'll go with the fire experts there that day that knew the building was going to collapse due to unfought fires over some random convict you happened to meet one day.

 

[skyeagle409]

Wow, that dude sounds like a really unpleasant person. While looking through some ancient JREF posts, I remember seeing a post by him saying words to the effect of "I always vote republican as the lesser of two evils, because at least they understand the threat of terrorism" LOL

I might have asked him who was the Republican president during 9/11.

 

[MicahJava]

She could not have been an expert if she said yes.

First of all, explosives make a lot of noise when detonated and the name-of-the-game in regards to demolition implosions is the make a building fall within its own footprint, which WTC 7 did not do. In addition, a steel-framed building must be pre-weaken before explosives are placed on steel columns, otherwise, the dumb building will outsmart the so-called demolition expert and remain standing due to stiffening and structural load redistribution.

Have you ever wondered why the steel structural columns of WTC 1 remained standing within that huge bomb crater after the 1993 terrorist bombing attack? Think about it.

The collapse of WTC 7 was not similar to typical demolition implosions by any means and all it takes to debunk CD are video presentations that were taken as WTC 7 collapsed and photos that were taken after the collapse which proved that WTC 7 did not collapse within its own footprint.

To sum that up, the only thing in common to typical demolition implosions is that WTC 7 collapsed toward the ground and not toward the sky.

Did you see earlier where I gave an example of a very basic noise abatement technique?

http://www.aquafoam.com/BlastingExplosions.html

One Scientific American article explains an experiment in which an explosion of 5 pounds of C-4 was dampened with 800 cubic feet of some simple foamy material (9.28 ft edges, 16 ft diameter).

"For each of these photographs, five pounds of the high explosive called C-4 was detonated at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. For the second detonation, the explosive was covered with 800 cubic feet of a low-density (.005 gram per cubic centimeter) aqueous foam. The foam proved to lessen the severity of the explosion by approximately 90 percent. Part of the energy of the shock wave of the explosion was consumed in converting the foam into tiny water droplets; then a further part of the shock energy was dissipated by the evaporation of the droplets."

And we have this actual video of an explosion with 4 pounds of C-4 dampened to sound like a mere rumble under a tent filled with liquid foam substance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL1mqlquZ3g&t=0m13s

That's obviously a lot of space consumed, but this is obviously a simple technology. With enough preparation, they could probably cover demolition charges with all kinds of stuff to dampen the noise, but I think they don't because it's cheaper.

It just goes to show that how well this art can be perfected is not something anyone here can show we know for sure. So enough with the sound crap already?