Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

T.A.M. said:
This is the way I see it. Red was very far from MIHOP (what I saw) until the final report came out on WTC7 and their explanation was (A) Inadequate for him, and (B) was not based on actual hands on physical evidence (part of the reason that it was inadequate for him).

Now to me, that is a weak reason, given all of the other mounds of physical evidence, to go full blown MIHOP...but it is what it is.

See what I do not get, is if we are to believe that all of the other evidence that proves the official account of 9/11 is fabricated and/or planted...the DNA, the plane parts, the phone calls, the eye witnesses, etc...

if that was all fabricated/planted, THEN WHY DID THE BIG BAD NWO NOT PLANT/FAKE SOME COLUMNS FOR WTC7 THAT WOULD PROVE THEIR STORY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT????

Why did the big bad perps forget to make some stuff to cover their asses on WTC7?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hpur by a fire making it too late to use for it's intended purpose. Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly.
The best laid plans and all that. It would have been so neat had it all come to pass as planned. Three buildings, three planes and no mess in Pennsylvania.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7.
Click to expand...


And what would have been the reason given for this choice of target in the official story?

Al Qaeda hit American landmark buildings, the Twin Towers being a symbol of its economic power, the Pentagon being the symbol of its military might, and WTC 7... ?

Doesn't make much sense.
 
bill smith said:
I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hpur by a fire making it to late to use it for it's intended purpose. Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly.
The best laid plans and all that. It would have been so neat had it all come to pass as planned. Three buildings, three planes and no mess in Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

Ok bill, you are harmless enough, so I will take you off ignore for a while.

I will bite. Why do you feel WTC7 was the original target of UA93? Oh and while you are at it, care to explain how they changed the demolition sequence on the fly, and why? Oh, and why did they wait until SEVEN hours later to bring the building down?

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
This is the way I see it. Red was very far from MIHOP (what I saw) until the final report came out on WTC7
Click to expand...
Huh? He's been a no-planer as far as the Pentagon is concerned from day 1 here. No way in hell can you think the Pentagon crash was faked and not be MIHOP.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Huh? He's bene a no-planer as far as the Pentagon is concerned from day 1 here. No way in hell can you think the Pentagon crash was faked and not be MIHOP.
Click to expand...

I always saw him as asking questions, having doubts, but not committing (he rarely does...lol) to anything as definitive as that...but I can't remember that far back that well now...lol

TAM:)
 
bill smith said:
I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hpur by a fire making it too late to use for it's intended purpose. Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly.
The best laid plans and all that. It would have been so neat had it all come to pass as planned. Three buildings, three planes and no mess in Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...
See how it's done RedIbis? bill smith at least has the courage of his convictions, and lays out an actual hypothesis no matter how silly. He's not a coward like you are.
 
bill smith said:
I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hpur by a fire making it too late to use for it's intended purpose. Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly.
The best laid plans and all that. It would have been so neat had it all come to pass as planned. Three buildings, three planes and no mess in Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...


Flight 93's potential targets:
Binalshibh reminded Atta that Bin Ladin wanted to target the White House. Atta again cautioned that this would be difficult. When Binalshibh persisted, Atta agreed to include the White House but suggested they keep the Capitol as an alternate target in case the White House proved too difficult. Atta also suggested that the attacks would not happen until after the first week in September, when Congress reconvened.
Click to expand...

"Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly."

Yeah right Bill! Where did you dig that up from?
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
And what would have been the reason given for this choice of target in the official story?

Al Qaeda hit American landmark buildings, the Twin Towers being a symbol of its economic power, the Pentagon being the symbol of its military might, and WTC 7... ?

Doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...


You choose not to answer, Bill? I understand, it's really embarrassing for you.
 
BigAl said:
Originally Posted by MarkyX
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
Click to expand...
It appears that the video is gone. If it's Jowenko explaining why WTC 1 and 2 were NOT man-made demolition, this link broke a long time ago.
Click to expand...

That was part of a larger documentary which just like every other one produced by real journalists* went against the truthers. IIRC there was even a bit where a Dutch reporter w/no aviation experience was able to a jetliner into a building with a days (or was it hours?) training. It would be great if someone could find that.

* Except for the one made by that Canadian nut whose name escapes me right now.
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
Originally Posted by bill smith
Yeah, Bill Manning of Fire Engineering Magazine didn't think that much of data as opposed to hard evidence in the form of the hastily-removed steel when he wrote this in late 2001.

'' As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. ''
Click to expand...
Bill.

And what did he say AFTER the NIST report was completed?
Click to expand...

And Manning had zero firefighting or engineering experience.He was a journalist, and yes he was talking about the ASCE Report
 
bill smith said:
I believe that the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hour by a fire making it too late to use for it's intended purpose.
Click to expand...

And what route into lower Manhattan might the plane have taken, Bill? In order to hit WTC7 that is, given that it was closely surrounded on most sides by buildings of similar if not greater height ?
 
GlennB said:
And what route into lower Manhattan might the plane have taken, Bill? In order to hit WTC7 that is, given that it was closely surrounded on most sides by buildings of similar if not greater height ?
Click to expand...

And an immense amount of smoke and haze that sould make picking one building out very hard.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
I have no doubt what you say is true. I keep hearing about these guys from people on this forum and I come across some from time to time. But the people that make and do all the stuff we thnk of as the Truth Movement are all really young.

Primarily I'm talking about We Are Change. All those videos on Youtube and all the demonstrations we talk about, the petitions, and the money aspects of the TM, this is all WAC. If there was no WAC, you would hear almost nothing from these guys. We might still have Dickie G, but he'd have trouble paying for things.
Click to expand...
I think all the public "face" is mostly young people but, the older "hippies" are the ones with the disposable income and the "lefty" mindset to support this type of BS. The young NEED the old "lefties".
 
It's interesting you guys are discussing the final destination of the 4th plane (flight 93).

Bill Smith has proposed an extremely weak idea that it was to hit WTC7.

Consider the other 3 targets: WTC towers (The icons of NY City and the Financial Epicenter of the US), Pentagon (The symbol of American Military might).

WTC7 wasn't on the world's radar in importance. I wager every one of us knew of the other buildings, but WTC7? No way.

Truthers, are you with me on this? Were any of you even aware of WTC7 before 9/11?

So the idea that the final destination of flight 93 was the White House is perfectly consistent with the other targets: The Political centre of the US - home of the President of the United States. Targets just don't get any more important than that one.

Add to this the actual flight path of flt 93, before it crashed....take a look and see where it was headed - straight for Washington, DC. Only a truther could look at this and not see the obvious.

But if you're a CD conspiracy drone, your theory absolutely requires that explosives had to be placed in the target buildings. No wiggle room there.

So you have to avoid the White House as a target at all costs. This goes a long way to explaining Bill's notion - severe cognitive dissonance awaits if he doesn't.

You just can't avoid the implications:

The White House was very likely the target of flt 93
There were no explosives planted there...otherwise the perps could've blown it up even if the plane didn't hit.

Another good, solid reason that the whole CD theory needs to be thrown in the dustbin. It just doesn't fit the evidence, no matter how hard truthers work at it.

Props to Kim Hill for pointing this out to Richard Gage in her recent interview..

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/sat/sat-20091121-0910-Richard_Gage_architecture_of_destruction-048.mp3
 
I'd like to know which is it:

Flight 93's target was WTC 7

or

Controlled Demolition for WTC 7

or

Thermite used to take down WTC 7

They can't have all 3 scenerios!

We know Flight 93's targets were the White House & the Capital Building & not WTC 7.

We know that there's no audio of a CD coming from the original videos of WTC 7.

Thermite is just an incendiary & a pyrotechnic. Not an explosive! Nano-thermite could be the same way, it sounds sexy as hell but there's no physical evidence of either being used on 9/11.

Either way the Truthers look it they failed to point out any inconsistencies within the 9/11 Commission & NIST.

No physical evidence of anything in over 8 years & they cry out for a new investigation. I say it's all simple tricks & non-sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom