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

Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

I found a partial explanation from Red as to what he thinks happened.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4131332#post4131332

RedIbis said:
It's not my ground breaking theory, but at least an equally justifiable theory is CD. I would go so far as to say that it's more likely than the magic single column causing global collapse theory.
Click to expand...

Also this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4131270#post4131270

RedIbis said:
I don't know about any movement, but 9/11 skepticism will not die until you can explain something like why WTC 7 collapsed, without having to rely on a series of highly implausible hypotheses, which are not backed by physical, empirical evidence.

WTC 7 is just one example, of course.
Click to expand...

So Red, based on those quotes above, please provide your physical evidence that leads you to believe that a controlled demolition is MORE LIKELY (your words) than what NIST explains.

Also, please provide your evidence that supports your claim that the hypotheses from NIST are HIGHLY IMPLAUSIBLE.
 
Gamolon said:
I found a partial explanation from Red as to what he thinks happened.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4131332#post4131332



Also this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4131270#post4131270



So Red, based on those quotes above, please provide your physical evidence that leads you to believe that a controlled demolition is MORE LIKELY (your words) than what NIST explains.
Click to expand...

It's going to be difficult to upload physical evidence to the forum. Perhaps, that will be available in the next upgrade.
 
Does being such an intellectually dishonest coward bother you at all? It's a serious question.
 
dtugg said:
Does being such an intellectually dishonest coward bother you at all? It's a serious question.
Click to expand...

No it's not. How hard is it for me to ask you the same stupid questions? Does it bother you to be obnoxious and childish?

What's the problem here? How many times do I have to say the same things over and over? There are numerous threads in which I refer to and post the types of reports and evidence I find compelling. Granted, more often I respond to and discuss the official theories.

This thread, like nearly every thread begins with my attempt at adding to a discussion with some specific information. In this case it was Jowenko's follow up response. Soon it turns into another pissing contest. Congratulations, if you've accomplished anything at all, you've gotten me to engage in exactly the type of frivolous nonsense I try to avoid.
 
RedIbis said:
No it's not. How hard is it for me to ask you the same stupid questions? Does it bother you to be obnoxious and childish?

What's the problem here? How many times do I have to say the same things over and over? There are numerous threads in which I refer to and post the types of reports and evidence I find compelling. Granted, more often I respond to and discuss the official theories.

This thread, like nearly every thread begins with my attempt at adding to a discussion with some specific information. In this case it was Jowenko's follow up response. Soon it turns into another pissing contest. Congratulations, if you've accomplished anything at all, you've gotten me to engage in exactly the type of frivolous nonsense I try to avoid.
Click to expand...

Well, if you posted evidence in numerous threads, please provide references here.

The counter now is 3.
 
RedIbis said:
There are numerous threads in which I refer to and post the types of reports and evidence I find compelling.
Click to expand...

I just did a search using your name and "WTC7". I found 3 pages of individual posts from you and not one post links to any evidence or reports nor do you refer to any reports or evidence that supports your claim that controlled demolition is MORE LIKELY than what NIST describes in their report. So please, if I am missing something, refer me to the evidence you have garnered that supports your belief/claim that controlled demolition of WTC7 is more likely than NIST's conclusions.

RedIbis said:
Granted, more often I respond to and discuss the official theories.
Click to expand...
Right. So again, where are the post/posts you have made that refer to the reports or evidence that show controlled demolition to be more plausible than thermal expansion and the weakening of steel?
 
RedIbis said:
Here's your answer:

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Click to expand...

Wow. Red. It is an amazing interview.

I didn't know this happened after the FINAL report from NIST came out. When was that again? When was this telephone interview conducted again?

Oh BEFORE the final draft of the NIST report.

Again, READING FOR COMPREHENSION Red... you should try it.
Why is it that twoofs have such horrible reading comprehension?

Do we really want to get into Danny J again? And how he states repatedly that he is just guessing about wtc7? Or how he states repeatedly he hasn't looked at the engineering plans? Or how he states that wtc1 and 2 were NOT CD.

Do you really want to try that weak stuff all over again?
 
RedIbis said:
What's the problem here? How many times do I have to say the same things over and over? There are numerous threads in which I refer to and post the types of reports and evidence I find compelling. Granted, more often I respond to and discuss the official theories.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you have repeatedly dismissed the NIST hypothesis due to its lack of physical evidence. To be consistent, you would need to detail the physical evidence that exists for these competing hypotheses you find so compelling. I'm not interested in a pissing contest, only that you apply the same standards to theories you find agreeable as to the ones you don't.
 
I thought this thread was about Jowenko. Where did camels come into it? ;)
 
Question for Red,

Why is it that Danny Jowenko never heard any explosives going off?

Here's part 1 of 3 from an interview:



Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM&feature=related

Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU&feature=related

Notice that Jowenko asked if it was on the same day? He paused for atleast a minute to 1 /12 minutes then said about the smoke.

Jowenko in the same interview said: "I don't know the construction of the building." Then later on he says something about "packet charges"?

Red, I'm sorry, but Jowenko doesn't make sense!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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