Jowenko sticks by his statement. (Audio from yesterday)

Quad4_72

AI-EE-YAH!
Quad4_72
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
6,354
Apparently Jowenko still thinks that wtc7 was a controlled CD. Any one hear about this? Not that it matters, but still.
 
So when's his written report?

He could be famous!
 
He is one of Northern Europes leading demolition experts.

He was shown a video of WTC7 then asked if it looked like it was CD. He was then compermised by the truthers who gave him the whole "secret documents in the building, USG is bad" speal, and now he appears to becoming a full blown truther...oh my...

TAM:)
 
Here is all I have to say to Jowenko:

1. did you read NISTs report?
2. If so, do you disagree with any of it?
3. If so, what areas do you diasgree, where are they wrong amd why?

If he answers these to my satisfaction, I will give him some credibility, otherwise he is merely another person LOOKING AT A VIDEO that LOOKS LIKE A CD, and saying, YES THAT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY CD.

TAM:)
 
=T.A.M.;2371269]He is one of Northern Europes leading demolition experts.

He was shown a video of WTC7 then asked if it looked like it was CD. He was then compermised by the truthers who gave him the whole "secret documents in the building, USG is bad" speal, and now he appears to becoming a full blown truther...oh my...

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Well, TAM, he can't be a "full blown truther" because he acknowledges that terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the Twin Towers. He states that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 looked nothing like controlled demolitions (see the thread I started, "Is Jowenko Echt Woo-woo?"). Frankly, I'm baffled. I talked with him over the phone for a half-hour. He is very polite and sounds reasonable. I guess that he suffers from the visceral anti-Americanism that afflicts so many Europeans. Still, it is bizarre that the loons continue to cite as an authority someone who rejects the cornerstone of their madness.
 
I think the loons cherry pick, as always. Based on his tone and language in the audio, I think he is taken in by the whole "secrets stored in WTC7" angle. What is puzzling is that he seems fine, as you have said, living with a polarized opinion on two aspects of a single event that must have a unified causation to be true.

Even with that being said, I have seen truthers rationalize that Jowenko can claim WTC 1&2 not brought down by CD, and WTC7 is, simply by saying that the WTC1&2 were brought down by NON-CONTROLLED, or ATYPICAL DEMOLITION, and hence the reason why Jowenko is fooled.

No matter what proof you provide them, the truthers will believe their own shaite, and find a way to make parts of his statement fit their model of "how it went down".

TAM
 
I cant see what is posted over at LC but am I right to assume that he has agreed that it LOOKS like a CD?

Has he though, agreed that WTC7 WAS a CD...or are the truthers merely jumping on his statement that it does look like a CD when he doesnt actually agree with them that the buildings were actually brought down by CD?

Mailman
 
It is interesting that when you show an expert the raw data (without the political context, and the emotional highjacking that that entails) he can see it like it is - controlled demolition.

BTW he also explains (from an insiders position) that his co-professionals in the in the demolition field would have their careers ruined if they were to be as brave as him in calling it like they see it - explains alot
 
mailman said:
I cant see what is posted over at LC but am I right to assume that he has agreed that it LOOKS like a CD?

Has he though, agreed that WTC7 WAS a CD...or are the truthers merely jumping on his statement that it does look like a CD when he doesnt actually agree with them that the buildings were actually brought down by CD?

Mailman
Click to expand...

It appears that he believes that it was indeed a CD. In his original quote, he was shown the video and then he said without question it was a CD. Now he is saying that he still stands by his original statement. He is full blown woo.
 
parmanides said:
It is interesting that when you show an expert the raw data (without the political context, and the emotional highjacking that that entails) he can see it like it is - controlled demolition.

BTW he also explains (from an insiders position) that his co-professionals in the in the demolition field would have their careers ruined if they were to be as brave as him in calling it like they see it - explains alot
Click to expand...

The raw data? So seeing a video and not analyzing ANY evidence to put it in context is how investigations are now held? This is news to me.
 
Ah yes, that old chestnut of destroyed careers! :D

I think the real reason morons who support CD may have had their careers destroyed is that they lose all credibility...and I guess the last person you want handling explosives is one with no credibility! :D

Mailman
 
pomeroo said:
Well, TAM, he can't be a "full blown truther" because he acknowledges that terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the Twin Towers. He states that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 looked nothing like controlled demolitions (see the thread I started, "Is Jowenko Echt Woo-woo?"). Frankly, I'm baffled. I talked with him over the phone for a half-hour. He is very polite and sounds reasonable. I guess that he suffers from the visceral anti-Americanism that afflicts so many Europeans. Still, it is bizarre that the loons continue to cite as an authority someone who rejects the cornerstone of their madness.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in CD either, but I eagerly await the building 7 report from NIST. Don't forget Bachmann and Schneider who also think 7 was a CD and are probably even more qualified to comment than Jowenko.

I don't think Jowenko haas just looked at the video. He says in the audio that he has also studied the plans of the building and i'm guessing since he first said this he has looked at the interim report from NIST.
 
Well if he has studied the data (which I doubt. He did not state those words, but answered in the affirmative when "Jeff asked him if he had done so, along with some other things...I believe), than see my questions 2 and 3 above, which I would love him to answer.

TAM:)

I would put money on him not even having studied the architectural plans for WTC7, let alone the NIST findings...IMO

TAM
 
mailman said:
Ah yes, that old chestnut of destroyed careers! :D
Click to expand...


That 'chestnut' is a sociological fact.

If you mailman were to (for whatever reason) become a 'conspiracy theorist', would you not loose the esteem and emotional kudos of most of the people here. If you were given a salary via them to make your posts, would you not then jeopardise your livelyhood.

regardless of whether or not you would make such a conversion, the socialogical fact remains
 
Last edited:
Quad4_72 said:
The raw data? So seeing a video and not analyzing ANY evidence to put it in context is how investigations are now held? This is news to me.
Click to expand...

I refer to my last post. If you have a context (and the emotional investment that that entails), a long drawn out investigations can easily be bent to conform to your own preconceptions. Sometimes (not always) the immediate impression is just as valuable as the rabbithole of self deception that a longer 'scientific' investigation entails.

Two equally intelligent people can see the same facts and come up with different interpretations according to their political world view. This guy had no emotional investment and saw it how it was. as someone has mentioned, he has had the courage to investigate further and maintain his position without the emotional hijacking that is rife in this debate - a truly rare and scientifically 'pure' development.

Sometimes over investigating the facts in detail can be a block to the truth - you would rather focus upon an elaborate and hyperthetical scientific explanation that supports your political worldview, than see the elephant in the room. Its really hard to explain to overly logical people that their most treasured faculty may actually lead to an ultimately irrational stance.

BTW i dont support demolition of WTC1 and 2 - I just find WTC7 completely perplexing and appreciate all of you guys being here to help me get my own answers

thanks
 
Last edited:
you would rather focus upon an elaborate and hyperthetical scientific explanation that supports your political worldview, than see the elephant in the room.
Click to expand...

Yes, we call this the Truth movement.

Science is science. And intellectually honest person won't let political leanings change what he or she sees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom