Jowenko sticks by his statement. (Audio from yesterday)

[WildCat]

Politics can EFFECT Science

[nit]
No, politics can AFFECT science.
[/pick]

 

[The Doc]

Jowenko's opinion is obviously important.

He is qualified in the field of demolition. However, his reason for stating why he thinks the building was a demolition is ridiculous. Secret documents I believe.

WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition. That offers no proof that it was a controlled demolition.

The opinion of a structural engineer would be more valid in this case.

 

[Miragememories]

First of all, I appreciate the honesty in your opinions Parmanides. Here are my comments on them:




I don't buy this when it comes to the murder of thousands of people. I for one, would risk my job and my livelihood in a heartbeat if I thought to not do so would allow the murderer of 3000 people to go free. I would like to think that most of my fellow human beings would do so as well.



This is a complete fallacy in almost all cases, particularly complex issues such as the collapses of the towers. If we have never seen a building collapse straight down by any other means than CD (ie the argument that no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire, so what else has caused them to come down), than of course anyone, expert or idiot, will say a building coming straight down looks like a "demolition", as it is our only frame of reference wrt collapsing buildings. The scientific investigation, details surrounding the collapse, debris/airliners hitting it are all VITAL to the TRUTH of why the buildings collapsed, not simply watching a VIDEO of the collapse.



NO, science, in its pure form is not politics. Politics can EFFECT Science, it can manipulate the outcomes of science, but science IS NOT politics.




Jowenko is valuable to the CT movement for what he hasnt said, for what he hasnt looked at. He is valuable because he has made the blanket statement of "WTC7 was done via CD" without examining the evidence (in my opinion, as I do not believe he has read the NIST report).

Trust me, I would bet money that if Jowenko read and UNDERSTOOD the NIST, he would likely retract his statement, or at least make it less absolute.

TAM

Trust you..as if...lol.

Jowenko got caught with his pants down the first time he was shown the video of the WTC7 collapse. As an expert and confident in his trained eye, he called it the way he saw it.

When he was informed as to the nature of the building he was jolted by the realization that he had added his expert opinion to a 9/11 event.

Since then he has examined the blueprints of WTC7 and has had ample opportunity to recant his statement and avoid further controversy directed at him. Amazingly, he has stuck to his guns and still stands by his professional opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

He even acknowledges that members of the controlled demolition industry in America are unlikely to risk their livelyhood by agreeing that WTC7 was a CD. Something that I have be saying all along!

He's an expert and you folks aren't!

Now you discount his belief because it doesn't fit with your own..even though you aren't qualified experts.

Jowenko knows he was originally only examining a video. He followed up with analysis of the WTC7 blueprints and he knows the nature of the buildings condition on 9/11; fire and debris damage. ALL the information was readily available to him. The easy road was to back off and say it wasn't a CD and no one would have thought the less of him. BUT NO..he knew what he saw and his investigation confirmed his belief. It was a controlled demolition, he knew controlled demolitions and he knew the conditions at that time did not suit any other explanation.

Of course you folks would disagree with God him/herself before you'd admit maybe you were mistaken in a belief.

The Truth Movement isn't asking for a belief in flying saucers or space rays...they are merely asking for a proper investigation into 9/11 because there is sufficient reason to cast doubt on the official conclusions that have been accepted as fact.

Yes there are loonys in the Truth Movement but JREF and it's ilk isn't comprised of a 100% stellar membership either.

MM

 

[Wartrac]

So where is his evidence other than looking at it saying it's a CD? No paper at all....what is his account for the penthouse collapse.....so the building fell to the S/SE and the north face fell upon the southern section of WTC7 that collapsed first? If he came out with some form of explanation other than "It looks like a CD" I would be more apt to listen.

And as the question was asked a million times......does this mean he is also right about WTC 1+2 not being a CD?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Jowenko's opinion is obviously important.

He is qualified in the field of demolition. However, his reason for stating why he thinks the building was a demolition is ridiculous. Secret documents I believe.

After looking at the video of his translated interview, I am incredibly underwhelmed by his conclusions. He definitely - despite his qualifications - seems to be just shooting from the hip on his reasons as to why WTC 7 was deliberately demolished. Vague references to "it's all about the money".

I didn't see anything about secret documents, but that would have been a planted idea by the interviewer anyway, if it happened. And totally meaningless. His ideas on motive are as valid as anyone's - no special weight can be given there.

Nothing impressed me about his reasons given for determining that WTC7 was a CD. He seemed to be casting around to justify it.

He's going to have to do a full analysis to be taken more seriously, and he's going to have to square that with what is projected to come from NIST's analysis.

 

[parmanides]

thanks for the response TAM

First of all, I appreciate the honesty in your opinions Parmanides. Here are my comments on them:



I don't buy this when it comes to the murder of thousands of people. I for one, would risk my job and my livelihood in a heartbeat if I thought to not do so would allow the murderer of 3000 people to go free. I would like to think that most of my fellow human beings would do so as well.

Maybe If you know your evidence would conclusively prove CD - The nature of this debate means you could lose everything and still be just another voice in the wilderness - very few would take that risk

This is a complete fallacy in almost all cases, particularly complex issues such as the collapses of the towers. If we have never seen a building collapse straight down by any other means than CD (ie the argument that no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire, so what else has caused them to come down), than of course anyone, expert or idiot, will say a building coming straight down looks like a "demolition", as it is our only frame of reference wrt collapsing buildings. The scientific investigation, details surrounding the collapse, debris/airliners hitting it are all VITAL to the TRUTH of why the buildings collapsed, not simply watching a VIDEO of the collapse.

thats cos in his expert opinion, no amount of collateral damage could give the impression of such a symetric and clean collapse - the initial observation immediately precludes such observations. He knows that the 'evidence' would need to be pretty far out to explain what he saw prima facie. too many conflicting reports and speculative science around the official story means he is forces to stick to his original assesment. If you think NIST is not speculative I suggest you reread.

NO, science, in its pure form is not politics. Politics can EFFECT Science, it can manipulate the outcomes of science, but science IS NOT politics.

we are not machines, we are humans, and our experimentation is greatly shaped by what we expect to find - there is no such thing as pure science, other than an abstract idea that you mistake for reality[/QUOTE]

Jowenko is valuable to the CT movement for what he hasnt said, for what he hasnt looked at. He is valuable because he has made the blanket statement of "WTC7 was done via CD" without examining the evidence (in my opinion, as I do not believe he has read the NIST report).

He has looked, and has kept his opinion

Trust me, I would bet money that if Jowenko read and UNDERSTOOD the NIST, he would likely retract his statement, or at least make it less absolute.

lets wait and see - though in this climate of character smearing i cant see him relishing that prospect

 

[T.A.M.]

MM:

You are so bitter lately...and you seem to have a thing for responding to my posts in particular. Thanks for the attention, but I get enough from FRIENDS and FAMILY.

Parm:

While I agree that Science is not perfect, it is far from POLITICS. As I have said, of course, due to the human factor, it can be AFFECTED (wildcat) by such, but the two are not equal in any sense.

I notice that people who believe Jowenko seem to be speaking alot for him. I am hearing things from you and MM that are obviously speculation or assumption. Since the man has spoken very little of it, and hasnt been interviewed by anyone since the "show him the video only" debacle, How can these things you say he has done (examine the blue prints, read and understood NIST, etc..) be any more than assumption?

If we assume, and it is a great assumption, that he has read the blue prints, and has read NISTs preliminary report on WTC7, and he still feels that WTC7 was ABSOLUTELY taken down by CD, than I will concede that you have ONE, I repeat, ONE Demolition Expert who believes the truth movements side of things.

Score = truth movement:1 Debunkers:The rest

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

The Truth Movement isn't asking for a belief in flying saucers or space rays...they are merely asking for a proper investigation into 9/11 because there is sufficient reason to cast doubt on the official conclusions that have been accepted as fact.

If I thought this was the only thing the truth movement was asking for I would have easily relented by now and said,

"For the love of god give these people their damn investigation...even if it is to just shut them up."

However;

1. This is FAR from all the truth movement wants or seeks or states.
2. Even if the movement got their investigation, they would dismiss any and all evidence that did not fit their CTs, claiming shills and disinfo etc...blah blah blah!!!

TAM

 

[twinstead]

Like a balance sheet, all it takes is ONE similarly qualified CD expert to disagree with Jowenko and we are back to square one.

I'm concerned about any 'movement' that relies on so little evidence, a lone expert here, an anomaly there.

I still submit that any rational, unbiased person, when presented with the bulk of evidence concerning 911 and looking at it in a non political, non ideological way can only come to the conclusion that the official story, while not perfect, is the best explanation of what happened that day.

Some rogue, distanced CD expert is not going to change my opinion. In fact, it is telling to me that you CTs are so keen to take and run with ANY possible vindication of your world view without question.

I don't like you people, you extremists. I never will, and I will fight until my last breath to protect my family from the likes of you ever coming to power in my country.

Take that whatever way you like.

 

[gumboot]

I wonder if he has read the testimony of the firemen who witnessed WTC7.

The FDNY testimony is the key in the WTC7 debate. Either the building was brought down due to structural damage and fires, as described by the FDNY, or the FDNY were in on the plot to demolish the building. There are no other options.

I wonder if the demolition expert in question has had the matter of WTC7 put to him in these terms. If he says WTC7 is a CD, he is saying the FDNY were involved in it.

-Gumboot

 

[Dazed]

The official "we know more about controlled demolition than someone who does it for a living" thread.

Yay.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

That must be why Silverstein had to "pull" the firefighters out.

 

[Mashuna]

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

So has Jowenko had his career ruined then? If not, this would seem to give the lie to the theory that people are scared to come forward when they 'know the truth'.

 

[parmanides]

So has Jowenko had his career ruined then? If not, this would seem to give the lie to the theory that people are scared to come forward when they 'know the truth'.

Well he hasnt exactly 'come forward' - he is just a rare case of someone who has observed an event prima facia without the normal bias that infects this debate.

im as certain as i can be that there are people and contractors that would distance themselves from him if only because he is surrounded by controversy, unpredictability of viewpoint, and is high profile - amounts to the same thing

 

[parmanides]

MM:


Parm:

While I agree that Science is not perfect, it is far from POLITICS. As I have said, of course, due to the human factor, it can be AFFECTED (wildcat) by such, but the two are not equal in any sense.

I notice that people who believe Jowenko seem to be speaking alot for him. I am hearing things from you and MM that are obviously speculation or assumption. Since the man has spoken very little of it, and hasnt been interviewed by anyone since the "show him the video only" debacle, How can these things you say he has done (examine the blue prints, read and understood NIST, etc..) be any more than assumption?

If we assume, and it is a great assumption, that he has read the blue prints, and has read NISTs preliminary report on WTC7, and he still feels that WTC7 was ABSOLUTELY taken down by CD, than I will concede that you have ONE, I repeat, ONE Demolition Expert who believes the truth movements side of things.

Score = truth movement:1 Debunkers:The rest

TAM

Hi TAM

I dont get this idea that science is this pure 'god' given faculty, that cannot lie, and is "all we've' got".

If you contest this, you are flying in the face of decades of modern and continental philosophy and humanities which identify the role of the observer. science is a step by step process and at every step unseen forces are litterally shaping what your senses tell you - come on, this is hardly new stuff. As i ve said before, i dont discount science, i just factor in the observer as well as the observed - if the 'conspiracy theory' became the prevailing paradigm throughout society, you would have thousands of highly intelligent scientists and engineers all finding corroberating evidence for CT. History clearly bares this out, russian/usa science 50 years ago for example.

i dont think Jowenko 'proves' anything - as with everything about 911 - it is another cumulative instance that points to a larger interpretation - given weight by his impartiality.

I dont want to repeat myself but there are reasons why anything that challenges the prevailing paradigm will appear to be an outnumbered view - but i dont form my opinion basedon the number of people who (publicly at least) believe it.

 

[PerryLogan]

Jowenko is obviously a government shill.

There, you see? Now we don't have to listen to what Jowenko says.

If the Truthers can ignore inconvenient sources by calling them shills, so can we.

 

[The Doc]

I didn't see anything about secret documents, but that would have been a planted idea by the interviewer anyway, if it happened. And totally meaningless. His ideas on motive are as valid as anyone's - no special weight can be given there.

I don't think the document issue was in the video. I can't remember though.

At some point (in a different interview? It was on a forum I think - don't know if it was legit) he said something along the lines of "I think that WTC7 was a demolition because the CIA had offices there".

 

[Miragememories]

I don't think the document issue was in the video. I can't remember though.

At some point (in a different interview? It was on a forum I think - don't know if it was legit) he said something along the lines of "I think that WTC7 was a demolition because the CIA had offices there".

I think I remember Cheny off mic saying how well the demolition of WTC7 unfolded and how lucky they were to get away with fooling everyone; (It was mentioned was on a forum I think-don't know if it was legit).

MM

 

[CHF]

Trust you..as if...lol.

Jowenko got caught with his pants down the first time he was shown the video of the WTC7 collapse. As an expert and confident in his trained eye, he called it the way he saw it.

When he was informed as to the nature of the building he was jolted by the realization that he had added his expert opinion to a 9/11 event.

Since then he has examined the blueprints of WTC7 and has had ample opportunity to recant his statement and avoid further controversy directed at him. Amazingly, he has stuck to his guns and still stands by his professional opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

He even acknowledges that members of the controlled demolition industry in America are unlikely to risk their livelyhood by agreeing that WTC7 was a CD. Something that I have be saying all along!

He's an expert and you folks aren't!

Now you discount his belief because it doesn't fit with your own..even though you aren't qualified experts.

Jowenko knows he was originally only examining a video. He followed up with analysis of the WTC7 blueprints and he knows the nature of the buildings condition on 9/11; fire and debris damage. ALL the information was readily available to him. The easy road was to back off and say it wasn't a CD and no one would have thought the less of him. BUT NO..he knew what he saw and his investigation confirmed his belief. It was a controlled demolition, he knew controlled demolitions and he knew the conditions at that time did not suit any other explanation.

Of course you folks would disagree with God him/herself before you'd admit maybe you were mistaken in a belief.

The Truth Movement isn't asking for a belief in flying saucers or space rays...they are merely asking for a proper investigation into 9/11 because there is sufficient reason to cast doubt on the official conclusions that have been accepted as fact.

Yes there are loonys in the Truth Movement but JREF and it's ilk isn't comprised of a 100% stellar membership either.

MM

MM,

you are aware that Jowenko says the WTC towers were NOT demolitions, right?

So if you think he's reliable then here's where that leaves you: the WTC towers collapsed according to the OS while WTC7 was blown up 7 hours later for reasons that are not clear.

Good luck explaining that theory to a judge.

 

[Miragememories]

The official "we know more about controlled demolition than someone who does it for a living" thread.

Yay.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

That must be why Silverstein had to "pull" the firefighters out.

Yes it's apparently standard operating procedure for the FDNY brass to call building owners to get permission to 'pull' fire fighters from non-existing fire fighting operations.[/n]

Yes, nothing strange about that...sigh.

MM

 

[CHF]

Yes it's apparently standard operating procedure for the FDNY brass to call building owners to get permission to 'pull' fire fighters from non-existing fire fighting operations.[/n]

Yes, nothing strange about that...sigh.

MM

Silverstein didn't give permission - he was agreeing with what was already decided.

Good lord.