• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

I remember reading about the Jowenko interview in one of the myriad threads on this sub-forum. But, for the sake of argument, let's say I am mistaken, and Mr. Jowenko was shown the entire collapse, including the penthouse collapse. How did/does he explain the fact that the penthouse collapsed a noticeable time before the rest of the structure?

I can't speak for him.

No one "presented" him with his research.

It was out there, just like it is for you and me, only he viewed it with a professional eye.

In the last interview I heard with him, he also indicated that he had studied the blueprints of WTC 7 and made that the interesting statement that he realized that it would be bad for business if American demolition companies were to contradict the official story about 9/11.

MM
 
I can't speak for him.

No one "presented" him with his research.

It was out there, just like it is for you and me, only he viewed it with a professional eye.

In the last interview I heard with him, he also indicated that he had studied the blueprints of WTC 7 and made that the interesting statement that he realized that it would be bad for business if American demolition companies were to contradict the official story about 9/11.

MM

I'm sorry, but this does not answer my question. Here it is again (just the question):

How did/does he explain the fact that the penthouse collapsed a noticeable time before the rest of the structure?
 
I can't speak for him.

No one "presented" him with his research.

It was out there, just like it is for you and me, only he viewed it with a professional eye.

In the last interview I heard with him, he also indicated that he had studied the blueprints of WTC 7 and made that the interesting statement that he realized that it would be bad for business if American demolition companies were to contradict the official story about 9/11.

MM

So... you aren't even aware of his argument?

You just agree with his conclusion- and really- only a cherrypicked version of it?
 
In the last interview I heard with him, he also indicated that he had studied the blueprints of WTC 7 and made that the interesting statement that he realized that it would be bad for business if American demolition companies were to contradict the official story about 9/11.


So, not only an expert (well, an expert 33% of the time) about controlled demolition, he’s also an expert in arbitrary conjecture (if you are telling the truth, that is).
 
Really? , so did he state why WTC 7 was demolished? emmm no.

Are you going to state why MM?

Emmmmmm ( enter answer).

Was he asked why it was demolished?...No

Does it matter whether an expert in a particular field has an opinion about why his skill is used by another whom he has no acquaintance with?...No.

He wasn't asked about subjective motivation, he was asked for a professional opinion.

MM
 
He wasn't asked about subjective motivation, he was asked for a professional opinion.


So, do you accept that the collapses of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 were not the result of controlled demolitions?
 
I'm sorry, but this does not answer my question. Here it is again (just the question):

It does answer the question.

You asked me.

You didn't ask Danny Jowenko.

It was Danny Jowenko's answer you were after.

I can only answer for myself.

Do you want me to make up an answer?

MM
 
Was he asked why it was demolished?...No

Does it matter whether an expert in a particular field has an opinion about why his skill is used by another whom he has no acquaintance with?...No.

He wasn't asked about subjective motivation, he was asked for a professional opinion.

MM


This is why the appeal to authority fallacy is so dangerous: you actually believe that it does not matter how Jowenko has arrived at his conclusion, just that he has that specific conclusion and is "an expert". This is why you're unable to resolve the issue between WTC1 and 2, and WTC7.
 
So... you aren't even aware of his argument?

You just agree with his conclusion- and really- only a cherrypicked version of it?

He wasn't arguing..you are...sort of.

He stated he researched the collapse and stood by his original conclusions.

What is cherry picked?

If he said ANYTHING that is in contradiction to what I have said, than do your best to present Totovader.

MM
 
Was he asked why it was demolished?...No

Does it matter whether an expert in a particular field has an opinion about why his skill is used by another whom he has no acquaintance with?...No.

He wasn't asked about subjective motivation, he was asked for a professional opinion.

MM

Emmmm no MM , this was not the question , I asked.

I asked you.

Why was WTC 7 demolished?
 
He wasn't arguing..you are...sort of.

Having an argument in the formation of a position does not mean on is arguing with anyone- it means they have a consistent formation of one observation to the next, resulting in a conclusion. You are not only unprepared to examine what his argument is, but don't seem to care.

He stated he researched the collapse and stood by his original conclusions.

Plural?

What is cherry picked?

The fact that you agree with him on 7 (for no reason) but disagree with him on 1 and 2 (for no reason).

If he said ANYTHING that is in contradiction to what I have said, than do your best to present Totovader.

ALREADY DID- remember, it's the point that EVERYONE ELSE keeps bringing up that you are trying very hard to ignore:

JOWENKO EMPHATICALLY STATED THAT 1 AND 2 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. That directly contradicts not only the claim itself- but your assertion that believing 7 is an inside job would necessitate 1 and 2 to be the same. Your own expert disagrees with you. (for no reason)
 
What is cherry picked?


You cherry-picked his statements about World Trade Center 7 whilst ignoring his other statements about World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2. So, you agree that the collapses of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 were not the result of controlled demolitions? Please confirm.
 
Last edited:
For me it was just so obvious that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition that I knew it couldn't be a conspiracy.
Except you seem to be ignoring that none of the numerous videos of WTC7's collapse recorded any of the traditional loud BOOMS associated with a controlled demolition. Nor do any of the eyewitnesses mention hearing such loud and distinctive BOOMS. Where were the BOOMS?

Add to that the fact that news media were reporting about two hours before the building collapsed that the fire department had ordered the area around the building cleared because they feared it might collapse.

As I was at home that day, watching the news coverage from different networks live, I can attest to the previous paragraph being accurate.
 
Last edited:
Quite understandable stateofgrace.

I appreciate your position.

How does one change their mind without losing face after staunchly supporting a single point of view for years?

It's quite alright, you are expected to maintain your opinion even if those responsible for 9/11 confess to their crimes.
they already have


And sorry Merrie Melodies. You wont be getting your six years back
 
Having an argument in the formation of a position does not mean on is arguing with anyone- it means they have a consistent formation of one observation to the next, resulting in a conclusion. You are not only unprepared to examine what his argument is, but don't seem to care.



Plural?



The fact that you agree with him on 7 (for no reason) but disagree with him on 1 and 2 (for no reason).



ALREADY DID- remember, it's the point that EVERYONE ELSE keeps bringing up that you are trying very hard to ignore:

JOWENKO EMPHATICALLY STATED THAT 1 AND 2 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. That directly contradicts not only the claim itself- but your assertion that believing 7 is an inside job would necessitate 1 and 2 to be the same. Your own expert disagrees with you. (for no reason)

The subject was WTC 7.

I'm sure Jowenko has opinions about thousands of things.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 are another topic, on which I've dealt with HERE previously in context with Jowenko's statements.

Unless you can prove that his professional opinion about WTC7's collapse is negated by his opinion about the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2, I don't see the relevance of your argument?

I'm discussing WTC7 and you are trying to steer the subject away to WTC 1 & 2 because you know your very vulnerable about WTC7 and can't defend your position!

MM
 
It's funny that Conspiracy Theorists put so much stock in the opinion of Danny Jowenko, as an expert, yet ignore the multiple demolitions experts who actually were on site on 9/11 and witnessed the collapse of WTC7 firsthand. None of these experts think WTC7 was a demolition.

Furthermore, it's important to understand what a particular demolitions expert actually knows.

Danny Jowenko works for Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie, a controlled demolition company with offices in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany.

Now, to get an idea of the sort of experience people have, let's look at the largest buildings ever demolished in Europe.

Tallest ever demolished - Centre International Rogier Tour Martini in Belgium, 117m
Tallest ever demolished by explosives - Hagen Savings Bank Tower, Germany, 98m

It's worth pointing out that Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie did not do either of these demolitions. The simple fact, supported by Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie's own website, is that they demolish small structures such as low apartment complexes, chimneys, etc.

In contrast, Controlled Demolition Inc, an American Company who do not believe WTC7 was destroyed by demolition, not only were on site in the clean up at the WTC, and demolished several other buildings at the site, but also demolished the tallest structure every brought down with explosives - the 134m J L Hudson Department Store.

In contrast we're talking about WTC7, at 186m, only a fraction shorter than the tallest building ever brought down by any form of legal demolition - the 187m Singer Building.

Basically, Jowenko's expertise is not steel framed high rises, and he has no experience in collapsing steel framed high rises. He was also never at any point at the WTC site. In contrast demolition experts with more experience, who do have expertise in collapsing steel framed high rises, and were at the WTC site have unequivocally stated that WTC7 was not demolished.

End of story.

-Gumboot
 
It's not steering the subject away. It shows you are cherry picking. You use Jowenko when he agrees with the 9/11 cult claims, but not when he says they are wrong. Are you suggesting that Jowenko is wrong about WTC 1&2 but right about WTC&? Or are you suggesting he is right about both and thus WTC 7 was an inside job, but not WTC 1&2?

And you do realize that Jowenko was not given enough data about WTC7 to make a proper judgement right? Hand picked info from cultists designed to show only the data such as video that looks like a CD and leaving out all the rest of the data which shows the complete picture.

Sounds like YOU are the one trying to steer the subject.


And for the OP, my means of ruling out 9/11 being an inside job was the same method I used to rule out Santa Claus, Cheese monsters from the moon, and a rabid pack of Bison being responsible for 9/11. Now if someone shows me some proof that suggests Santa was behing 9/11, I may change my mind.
 
Except you seem to be ignoring that none of the numerous videos of WTC7's collapse recorded any of the traditional loud BOOMS associated with a controlled demolition. Nor do any of the eyewitnesses mention hearing such loud and distinctive BOOMS. Where were the BOOMS?

Add to that the fact that news media were reporting about two hours before the building collapsed that the fire department had ordered the area around the building cleared because they feared it might collapse.

As I was at home that day, watching the news coverage from different networks live, I can attest to the previous paragraph being accurate.

Seem to be.

I just haven't dealt with that aspect of the subject in this thread.

The WTC7 collapse is a big subject.

Looks at the 10 story hole in WTC 7 thread if you doubt me.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71744

MM
 
Seem to be.

I just haven't dealt with that aspect of the subject in this thread.

The WTC7 collapse is a big subject.

Looks at the 10 story hole in WTC 7 thread if you doubt me.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71744

MM
That thread is only proof of how unqualified buffoons are unable to ever admit they are unqualified buffoons. Hmm. Wonder what made me think that? Someone here must have reminded me. Who could it be, who could it be?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom