Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[fourtoe]

Has DJ ever discussed the use of [super/nano]thermite in taking down WTC7? Or any building in general?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Odd, since the clip that MarkyX posted back in -06, which contained the part where Jowenko states that WTC1 and 2 were not CD, is gone, I went back and tried to find it in the original interview. I assumed thats where I first saw his statement, but I can't find it in any of the three parts available on Youtube. Neither can I find it anywere else.

Is it gone, or am I just missing something?

 

[Scott Sommers]

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

With the trial of KSM coming up, this is the perfect opportunity to go public with this information. I'm sure hs lawyers will be looking for any chance to show that WTC was destroyed by Silverstein himself. You might also try seeing if Silverstein's insurances companies are interested in this because they had to pay him billions of dollars that you'll almost certainly be able to help they get back.

By the way, how old are you?

 

[bill smith]

Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ?

Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

Most architects and engineers around the world simply accepted what the media ws telling them at face value so when the demolition expert Danny Jowenko was asked about WTC1 and WTC2 he simply followed that pattern. But when he was shown the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 he hd zero doubt about what he was seeing- controlled demolition. I suggest you call him and ask him what he thinks about WTC1 and WTC2 now.

But even in the unlikely event that Danny still thought that WTC1 and WTC2 were as the government say, the controlled demolition of WTC7 will more than suffice. After all if thre is a problem with WTC7, there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

But when he was shown the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 he hd zero doubt about what he was seeing- controlled demolition.

But he didn't describe hearing any explosives going off when he viewed the video of WTC7.

So that means no explosives were used, Bill.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Most architects and engineers around the world simply accepted what the media ws telling them at face value so when the demolition expert Danny Jowenko was asked about WTC1 and WTC2 he simply followed that pattern. But when he was shown the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 he hd zero doubt about what he was seeing- controlled demolition. I suggest you call him and ask him what he thinks about WTC1 and WTC2 now.

But even in the unlikely event that Danny still thought that WTC1 and WTC2 were as the government say, the controlled demolition of WTC7 will more than suffice. After all if thre is a problem with WTC7, there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko

Except the brave members of AE911 who fight tirelessly for the truth. And don't forget all the ones who have published research in academic journals and other forums that support the idea of collapse through fire and damage.

In fact, I was talking to two construction specialists just today. One of them I've talked to about 911 Truth. The other man is his chief project engineer. When I told him there are Americans who believe the US government blew up the WTC with a CD, he started to laugh. What makes you think all those other architects and engineers who haven't joined AE911 and don't act as expert witnesses in 911-realted legal and civil cases haven't thought about this?

By the way, how old are you?

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Most architects and engineers around the world simply accepted what the media ws telling them at face value so when the demolition expert Danny Jowenko was asked about WTC1 and WTC2 he simply followed that pattern. But when he was shown the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 he hd zero doubt about what he was seeing- controlled demolition. I suggest you call him and ask him what he thinks about WTC1 and WTC2 now.

But even in the unlikely event that Danny still thought that WTC1 and WTC2 were as the government say, the controlled demolition of WTC7 will more than suffice. After all if thre is a problem with WTC7, there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko

Ah, so nowadays its "The leading expert on controlled demolition is sure WTC7 was CD, and has probably changed his mind about WTC1 and 2 which means that was CD too."

Truther logic, I love it.

 

[Thunder]

Most architects and engineers around the world simply accepted what the media ws telling them at face value so when the demolition expert Danny Jowenko was asked about WTC1 and WTC2 he simply followed that pattern.

and WHY should I give a damn about Mr. Jowenko from Poland?

we have more then enough HIGHLY qualified Phd. level engineers right here in the USA, who are convinced that the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were NOT caused by a CD.

case...closed.

 

[bill smith]

Except the brave members of AE911 who fight tirelessly for the truth. And don't forget all the ones who have published research in academic journals and other forums that support the idea of collapse through fire and damage.

In fact, I was talking to two construction specialists just today. One of them I've talked to about 911 Truth. The other man is his chief project engineer. When I told him there are Americans who believe the US government blew up the WTC with a CD, he started to laugh. What makes you think all those other architects and engineers who haven't joined AE911 and don't act as expert witnesses in 911-realted legal and civil cases haven't thought about this?

By the way, how old are you?

But why did your friend laugh ? Had he studied the subject or was this simply a case of someone finding the scenario ridiculous even without even looking into it ? If so it is a lot less than meaningful.

On the other side the engineers and architects of se911truth.org have studied the collapses before signing the petition demanding of Congress a new and independent 9/11 enquiry. There are now 1,000 of these degreed and licenced professionals signed up to the petition with more signing almost every day. Show your fiend this post and see how hard he laughs.

Why Suh, that's no question to ask....

 

[A W Smith]

But why did your friend laugh ? Had he studied the subject or was this simply a case of someone finding the scenario ridiculous even without even looking into it ? If so it is a lot less than meaningful.

On the other side the engineers and architects of se911truth.org have studied the collapses before signing the petition demanding of Congress a new and independent 9/11 enquiry. There are now 1,000 of these degreed and licenced professionals signed up to the petition with more signing almost every day. Show your fiend this post and see how hard he laughs.

Why Suh, that's no question to ask....

there are not "1,000 of these degreed and licensed professionals " signed up to the petition, there is barely 1,000 licensed OR degreed signed up. Gage admitted as such in the NZ radio interview posted in another thread here.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

On the other side the engineers and architects of se911truth.org have studied the collapses before signing the petition demanding of Congress a new and independent 9/11 enquiry. There are now 1,000 of these degreed and licenced professionals signed up to the petition with more signing almost every day.

According to Richard Gage, they didn't study it scientifically in his interview with Kim Hill.

1,000 A & E's! Only 1,000 of them? What about the rest of the A & E's?? Why only 1,000???

 

[Scott Sommers]

But why did your friend laugh ? Had he studied the subject or was this simply a case of someone finding the scenario ridiculous even without even looking into it ? If so it is a lot less than meaningful.

On the other side the engineers and architects of se911truth.org have studied the collapses before signing the petition demanding of Congress a new and independent 9/11 enquiry. There are now 1,000 of these degreed and licenced professionals signed up to the petition with more signing almost every day. Show your fiend this post and see how hard he laughs.

Why Suh, that's no question to ask....

I'm sure he'll be swayed by the powerful arguments of AE911.

Actually, he's one of the top steel structure engineers in Taiwan. One of the partners of his firm was the THE chief engineer at what was, for its time, the tallest steel structure building in Taiwan. But I suppose an American interior designer knows more than him right? After all, they're not Americans, right? And just like the 911 hijackers, there's no way anyone can do anything right, except Americans, right?

Sorry dude, but almost all engineers and building designers who listen to this crap believe it's swill. Have you ever talked with any of them? Do you actually know anyone who's graduated from university? What makes you think soooo many of them just don't know the facts, even 8 years later? Have you ever spoken with building designers who wouldn't even bother with Gage?

And honestly, how old are you?

 

[NutCracker]

and WHY should I give a damn about Mr. Jowenko from Poland?

we have more then enough HIGHLY qualified Phd. level engineers right here in the USA, who are convinced that the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were NOT caused by a CD.

case...closed.

Err.. I do sense an Ad Hominem here ("from Poland") an appeal to authority ("highly qualified") and some US bias. Some here use the word racism to describe the Truthers' "cavemen" argument. That term might be appropriate here.

Why should not give anything about Jowenko's opinion because it seems to be only superficially founded in the facts. (Him being shown a short clip of the collapse on a laptop on the other side of the Atlantic without any further information.). An opinion that does not take the particularities of the event and the design of the building into consideration has limited value. That's why.

 

[bill smith]

I'm sure he'll be swayed by the powerful arguments of AE911.

Actually, he's one of the top steel structure engineers in Taiwan. One of the partners of his firm was the THE chief engineer at what was, for its time, the tallest steel structure building in Taiwan. But I suppose an American interior designer knows more than him right? After all, they're not Americans, right? And just like the 911 hijackers, there's no way anyone can do anything right, except Americans, right?

Sorry dude, but almost all engineers and building designers who listen to this crap believe it's swill. Have you ever talked with any of them? Do you actually know anyone who's graduated from university? What makes you think soooo many of them just don't know the facts, even 8 years later? Have you ever spoken with building designers who wouldn't even bother with Gage?

And honestly, how old are you?

Is this the same engineer that you told us about who said he would run a mile in the other direction if he saw a tower like the WTC on fire ? The reason being that everybody knows that Steel-framed skyscrapers always fall down from fire ? If so you will understand if I decide not to pay him a lot of heed.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Is this the same engineer that you told us about who said he would run a mile in the other direction if he saw a tower like the WTC on fire ? The reason being that everybody knows that Steel-framed skyscrapers always fall down from fire ? If so you will understand if I decide not to pay him a lot of heed.

Is this your idea of 'research'. I did not say this. I said, he said that steel-framed buildings on fire are dangerous and unpredictable. Do you need the original post to prove this? Besides, this is his chief project engineer.

Bill, are you a teenager? This is a real question.

 

[bill smith]

Is this your idea of 'research'. I did not say this. I said, he said that steel-framed buildings on fire are dangerous and unpredictable. Do you need the original post to prove this? Besides, this is his chief project engineer.

Bill, are you a teenager? This is a real question.

Yes I would like to see the original post you made. Don't forget to include a link so that I can go through the replies and so on. Thanks.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Yes I would like to see the original post you made. Don't forget to include a link so that I can go through the replies and so on. Thanks.

I'll get you the quote if you answer my other question. How old are you? I ask this question because it's related to my often repeated point that almost every active 911 Truther I can identify is under 25.

 

[bill smith]

I'll get you the quote if you answer my other question. How old are you? I ask this question because it's related to my often repeated point that almost every active 911 Truther I can identify is under 25.

My age is a closely guarded secret I am afraid. Not that it is a material point or will get you off the hook.

 

[Scott Sommers]

My age is a closely guarded secret I am afraid. Not that it is a material point or will get you off the hook.

It is material to me. I will answer your questions regardless of how old you are, but I'd like to find out how general my understanding of the situation is. You tell me you have never attended a Truther rally and I do know that almost every Truther that attends rallies is under 25.

I'm increasingly understanding that this whole Truther thing is really a bunch of kids with great internet video skills. I just can't see it anymore as anything that anyone should worry about. It's just amusement for people with too much time and really nothing else.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My age is a closely guarded secret I am afraid. Not that it is a material point or will get you off the hook.

Bill's probably 16-25 yrs old. Give or take!