• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

Danny Jowenko never mentioned hearing any sort of explosions on the tapes when he was interviewed. I brought that to the attention to the Truthers a long time ago. They wouldn't hear of it.
 
Whatever happened to Jowenko? Haven't heard a thing about him, or from him, in 2+ years.

Seems he didn't persue the truth and the truthers didn't persue him. Oh well, throw him into the pile with Laura Chavez, Kevin McPadden and 'Mike the EMT' I suppose.

And I've never been able to figure out why the truthers thought Jowenko was so valuable to their cause. He disagrees with the "truth" 2/3 of the time!

For his opinion to be of value for the truthers we have to assume that he's wrong more often than he's right, and in the minority of cases where he's right he's unquestionably right.
 
RedIbis said:
What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?
Click to expand...


That the Penthouse collapsed through that whole building before it collapsed. That a HUGE chunk of the WTC Tower did crash into the building. That there were several fires for hours. What else do you need to understand that the building was damaged in a severe manner? :confused::boggled:
 
johnny karate said:
Red, is it your contention that it is not possible to definitively determine what caused WTC7 to collapse without physical evidence?
Click to expand...

I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.
 
RedIbis said:
What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?
Click to expand...

That structural failure due to fire and the lack of firefighting caused the collapse.

The exact manor of structural failure is claimed to be the failure of a specific beam. Peole with the facts and relevant expertise might debate that, but nobody claims that fire wasn't the primary cause.
 
BigAl said:
That structural failure due to fire and the lack of firefighting caused the collapse.
Click to expand...


Maybe RedIbis is right and fires alone might not have brought the building down. But given the big chunk of debris of a WTC-tower falling into the side of WTC7 and the Penthouse on top of WTC7 crashing through that whole building, it is no effing surprise whatsoever that the whole building collapsed.

Quite the opposite, after all that immense damage, only a fool would claim that all of that was irrelevant concerning the buildings internal structure/stabillity. :boggled:
 
RedIbis said:
I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh so it wasn't impossible that wtc7 came down because of structural damage and fire. Thank you.

Job done. We can all go home now.
 
Gamolon said:
What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?
Click to expand...

ooooohh I bet it's controlled demolition supported by evidence of sequential bright flashes and explosions immediately before the structure came down, together with evidence of the demolition charges having been installed and maintained during the fire and backed up with circumstantial evidence regarding the motive behind the cd of wtc7...which was.... ummmmm....some reason...to do with....stuff...an' such.
 
Gamolon said:
What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?
Click to expand...

I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.
 
dtugg said:
I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.
Click to expand...

I'm really curious.

If there is no physical evidence as Red claims, then that means there is no physical evidence for ANY theory concerning WTC7. That means that any proposed theory is based on video footage, sound, eyewitness reports, scientific knowledge, etc.

I would like to know what other theory, in Red's opinion, shows a more plausible explanation than what NIST describes.
 
Gamolon said:
What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?
Click to expand...

Hey man, if you ignore the penthouse collapse and turn off the volume for the rest of the collapse, it's just like a CD!

What more do you need?
 
RedIbis once claimed that he had a theory better than NIST's regarding WTC7 and that somehow column 79 was his best evidence. He, of course, refused to explain.
 
RedIbis said:
I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.
Click to expand...

So then Jowenko's assessment of WTC7's collapse is, at best, as equally unreliable as that of NIST due to its same lack of physical evidence. And you therefore agree that Jowenko's opinion should be summarily dismissed, right?

RedIbis said:
Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.
Click to expand...

Please remind me what those two novel phenomena are.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
For a start, he was shown the collapse videos without the soundtrack, so he wouldn't have been aware of the absence of deafeningly loud explosions immediately before the beginning of the collapse.

Dave
Click to expand...

Reportedly he wasn't told that WTC1 had collapsed just a few hundred feet from the opposite side of the video he was asked to comment on.
 
BigAl said:
Reportedly he wasn't told that WTC1 had collapsed just a few hundred feet from the opposite side of the video he was asked to comment on.
Click to expand...


As far I remember, they didn't even show him that the Penthouse on top of WTC7 crashed through the whole building before the rest of WTC7 collapsed as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom