Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Pardalis]

On top of that, the towers weren't brought down by a standard controlled demolition implosion.

But but... It looks so much like a controlled demolition!

You can't have it both ways, either you say it looks like a CD, or it doesn't.

When he was shown the Building 7 video, he had no preconceived view of the event and recognised it straight away as a controlled demolition.

That's the initial reaction you are talking about. That's what truthers expect people to think because it does, superficially, look like a CD.

When you look deeper, you understand it can't be a CD.

 

[Jono]

Jowenko has been given enough information by several people, besides truthers, on the WTC7 structural damage, construction and fire.
I recall that some time ago he replied that he still believed it to have been brought down by CD, because alleged secret important documents were destroyed (yes, he gave that as a reason).
It sounds to me like a man trying to rationalize his initial impression and digging in deeper instead of walking away from it, albeit to my knowledge he has never done any actual written work on his convictions thereof.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It might be more useful to examine the context. When Danny Jowenko was shown the videos of the Twin Towers, he already knew the official jet fuel story from the media. On top of that, the towers weren't brought down by a standard controlled demolition implosion. When he was shown the Building 7 video, he had no preconceived view of the event and recognised it straight away as a controlled demolition.

So what you're saying is that Jowenko's careful analysis of the Twin Towers collapses, based on a thorough understanding of the background to the events and a study of the actual collapse progression, is less reliable than his first impression when shown a video of a building he'd never heard of with the soundtrack missing so he wouldn't notice that there weren't any explosions? Classic truther thinking: the less information you have, the more right you must be.

Dave

 

[Pardalis]

Classic truther thinking: the less information you have, the more right you must be.

Truther thinking? That's an oxymoron.

 

[bardamu]

See, we don't need Jowenko. We can quite easily dismiss everything he says as unsubstantiated speculation and the body of evidence from which we draw our conclusions remains completely intact.

You don't have much choice, really.

Truthers, on the other hand, desparately need Jowenko. If he goes away, he takes one of their few "experts".

The debunkers have tried and failed to make him go away. Ron Wieck spent an hour talking to him on the phone trying to win him over.

Looks like a controlled demolition = controlled demolition.

Doesn't look like a controlled demolition = controlled demolition.

Your logic is unassailable.

Standard controlled demolition entails controlled demolition.

Non-standard controlled demolition (also) entails controlled demolition.

If the Truthmovement would be an organized and intelligent group of people, they would show him the blueprint of WTC7 and show him all relevant footage concerning the debris that damaged the building, the information about the fires and let him examine that evidence to come to a sound conclusion in contrast to his initial thought.

He's been given all the relevant details now and he's confident that his original conclusion was sound.

But but... It looks so much like a controlled demolition!

You can't have it both ways, either you say it looks like a CD, or it doesn't.

They don't look like the kind of CD people are used to seeing, but they do look like top-down CD. That's because they ARE top-down CD.

That's the initial reaction you are talking about. That's what truthers expect people to think because it does, superficially, look like a CD.

When you look deeper, you understand it can't be a CD.

At first glance it looks like a standard CD and the more you watch it, the more it looks like a standard CD.

I recall that some time ago he replied that he still believed it to have been brought down by CD, because alleged secret important documents were destroyed (yes, he gave that as a reason).

I don't know the details behind this statement, but I'm guessing that somebody asked him for a possible motive. The reason he still believes it was brought down by CD is because there's no other rational explanation.

It sounds to me like a man trying to rationalize his initial impression and digging in deeper instead of walking away from it, albeit to my knowledge he has never done any actual written work on his convictions thereof.

I'm sure he doesn't want the attention, but he won't walk away from it because he has too much integrity.

Classic truther thinking: the less information you have, the more right you must be.

Well he's been given all the information since he first made the statement, so he must be even more right now than he was before.

 

[Thunder]

At first glance it looks like a standard CD and the more you watch it, the more it looks like a standard CD. .

none of the collapses at the WTC look like a standard controlled demolition.

a standard controlled demo of a building, starts with lots of loud bangs and flashes going up and down the building, but the building does not collapse.

then, there are more loud bangs and flashes going up and down the entire height of the structure..and then the building starts to collapse from the bottom up.

not WTC 1, WTC 2, or WTC 7, collapsed in this manner.

we all have seen controlled demolitions before. lots of them. the videos are all over the internet. they look nothing like what happened on 9-11.

try again.

 

[T.A.M.]

exactly. The only part of it that resembles a controlled demolition is specific to WTC7, and is the relatively (note that) symmetrical fall of the building when it collapses,...that is it.

No series of flashes. No series of audible (and quite loud) explosions. Nadda.

TAM

 

[Thunder]

if people can see Jesus in their Cheez-Wiz, then they can convince themselves that WTC 1,2, and 7 looked JUST LIKE a typical industrial controlled demolition.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This has always been a really burning question for me when it comes to the CT's logic; if a building fails in a so-called "natural" manner won't the area where the collapse initiates determine the behavior of the rest of the structure as it fails? I know the answer to that already, but it seems n the CT's mind this is a non-existent issue.

As far as I can see if you ignore every other characteristic and focus on what happens when a building no longer has sufficient support to hold itself up it pretty much kills any attempt to call a collapse a controlled demolition.

They may look similar and are in fact only in the sense that the building in either case ultimately looses its integrity. In the absence of more characteristics that'd point to a CD, this argument that looks like = is has been dead on arrival........... for the last 8 years.... An uninformed or incompetent expert's opinion is irrelevant at this point.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well he's been given all the information since he first made the statement, so he must be even more right now than he was before.

So we can be absolutely certain that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed due to the fires and the impact damage. Or is there some reason why Jowenko gets more right the more he learns about WTC7, but that doesn't apply to WTC1 and WTC2? Are you sure you want to go there?

Dave

 

[bardamu]

none of the collapses at the WTC look like a standard controlled demolition.

a standard controlled demo of a building, starts with lots of loud bangs and flashes going up and down the building, but the building does not collapse.

then, there are more loud bangs and flashes going up and down the entire height of the structure..and then the building starts to collapse from the bottom up.

not WTC 1, WTC 2, or WTC 7, collapsed in this manner.

we all have seen controlled demolitions before. lots of them. the videos are all over the internet. they look nothing like what happened on 9-11.

exactly. The only part of it that resembles a controlled demolition is specific to WTC7, and is the relatively (note that) symmetrical fall of the building when it collapses,...that is it.

No series of flashes. No series of audible (and quite loud) explosions. Nadda.

As Europe's top demolition expert has confirmed, loud noises and flashes are only secondary features of a standard controlled demolition. The primary feature of a standard controlled demolition is the sudden, (relatively) uniform and symmetrical fall of the roofline, brought about by removing the supporting structure one way or another at a lower level. In the case of WTC 7, the fall of the roofline was not just relatively uniform and symmetrical, it was so perfect that it seems more like a caricature of a controlled demolition than a real one.

This has always been a really burning question for me when it comes to the CT's logic; if a building fails in a so-called "natural" manner won't the area where the collapse initiates determine the behavior of the rest of the structure as it fails? I know the answer to that already, but it seems n the CT's mind this is a non-existent issue.

As far as I can see if you ignore every other characteristic and focus on what happens when a building no longer has sufficient support to hold itself up it pretty much kills any attempt to call a collapse a controlled demolition.

One column fails and because of that the other 80 columns all collapse together in the blink of an eyelid? Have the architects been prosecuted?

So we can be absolutely certain that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed due to the fires and the impact damage. Or is there some reason why Jowenko gets more right the more he learns about WTC7, but that doesn't apply to WTC1 and WTC2? Are you sure you want to go there?

OK, it's a deal. WTC 7 was demolished but the Twin Towers weren't. Now let's take it from there. Who demolished WTC 7?

 

[dtugg]

Hey genius, why don't you explain how the controlled demo was done without there being extremely loud blasts. Perhaps superdupernanotherm*te? But wait, your hero Steven Jones says that was just a fuse for regular explosives! Oops!

 

[Scott Sommers]

OK, it's a deal. WTC 7 was demolished but the Twin Towers weren't. Now let's take it from there. Who demolished WTC 7?

The firefighters and police who told everyone to move away because the building was coming down?

This is a real question; how old are you?

 

[GlennB]

In the case of WTC 7, the fall of the roofline was not just relatively uniform and symmetrical, it was so perfect that it seems more like a caricature of a controlled demolition than a real one.

Spot the newbie truther who hasn't yet heard of the East mechanical penthouse.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Spot the newbie truther who hasn't yet heard of the East mechanical penthouse.

Franky, this is just getting stupid. Don't you know, the US is being torn apart by the TRUTH of 911? Everyday the movement is growing. Important people like Charlie Sheen and Ed Asner are speaking up. There are demonstrations in the streets. Hundreds and thousands of construction professionals speak up all the time about this - not to mention all those firefighters. By the way, I've joined Firefighters for 911 Truth - really.

Actually, there have been 2 presidential elections in between then and now and 911 didn't come up once. Save yourself some time. Get a girlfriend, watch a movie, join a real political party. Just stop being one of these 911 Truth losers. It'll make your parents feel better.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As Europe's top demolition expert has confirmed,

Jowenko is only regarded as Europe's top demolition expert by truthers, and that only because they desperately want him to be Europe's top demolition expert.

loud noises and flashes are only secondary features of a standard controlled demolition. The primary feature of a standard controlled demolition is the sudden, (relatively) uniform and symmetrical fall of the roofline, brought about by removing the supporting structure one way or another at a lower level.

Your usage of the words "primary" and "secondary" is deliberately misleading here. What is more important is whether certain penomena are necessarily observed in accompaniment to a controlled demolition. Since it is impossible to muffle the noise of demolition explosives by more than about 6dB, a loud noise in excess of 124dB must necessarily be heard when an explosive demolition takes place. If no noise is heard, no demolition has taken place. On the other hand, the nature of the drop of the roofline is determined by the sequence in which the main structural members fail, not by the means by which they fail. Therefore, we can exclude explosives by the first, and cannot prove them by the second.

In the case of WTC 7, the fall of the roofline was not just relatively uniform and symmetrical, it was so perfect that it seems more like a caricature of a controlled demolition than a real one.

This is just drivel. You're claiming it must have been a controlled demolition because it looked too much like one to have been one. And, of course, like all 9/11 'truth', it's not true. The fall of the roofline consisted of a collapse of the East mechanical penthouse, a 4-6 second pause, then a V-shaped collapse starting from the middle and moving outwards. To describe it as perfect and symmetrical is, quite simply, a blatant lie.

One column fails and because of that the other 80 columns all collapse together in the blink of an eyelid? Have the architects been prosecuted?

I don't know about you, but I can blink in rather less than six seconds. Has your opthalmologist been prosecuted?

OK, it's a deal. WTC 7 was demolished but the Twin Towers weren't. Now let's take it from there. Who demolished WTC 7?

Let me point out that I don't have to answer that, because my claim is that Jowenko is mistaken about WTC7 being demolished. You, on the other hand, now have to construct a plausible hypothesis in which WTC1 and WTC2 fell due to fire and impact damage, but WTC7 was demolished. If you can't so this, you have to admit Jowenko might be sometimes wrong and sometimes right. And therefore, since your only argument is Jowenko's infallibility, you no longer have a position.

So why don't you take it from there? Give me a plausible scenario.

Dave

 

[eromitlab]

The primary feature of a standard controlled demolition is the sudden, (relatively) uniform and symmetrical fall of the roofline, brought about by removing the supporting structure one way or another at a lower level.

And how do you propose this happened to WTC 7 without the "secondary feature" of explosive charges going off, visibly and audibly? Is this where superduperultramegananotherm*te fits into your theory, only to be tossed aside when "people said 'bomb' and 'explosion' on TV!!!!11!!" is the next talking point?

Seriously, I wish troofers would at least watch Loose Change more than once before they hit forums to spread how many sooper sekrit smoking guns they now know all about and have to inform the brainwashed sheeple about before American Idol starts back up for another season.
I wish they'd do a little critical analysis of the claims and realize how wrong it all is, but hey, baby steps. Once we get troofers to stop informing people that Marvin Bush ran WTC security, more progress can be achieved.

 

[TruthersLie]

As Europe's top demolition expert has confirmed,

Who is this again? Danny J? Really? PROVE IT. Appeal to authority REJECTED

loud noises and flashes are only secondary features of a standard controlled demolition.

PROVE IT. PRovide a citation. As a "secondary feature" then you should be able to show DOZENS of if not HUNDREDS of Cd's around the world without loud detonations and flashes from the explosives going off. Provide a few. It should be easy.

(p.s. I worked in CD for a year... it doesn't happen except for the verinage technique, or when you pull a building over)

The primary feature of a standard controlled demolition is the sudden,
(relatively) uniform and symmetrical fall of the roofline, brought about by removing the supporting structure one way or another at a lower level.

Ah.. so the building falls down is the primary feature... Ok.

Uniform and symmetrical fall? GREAT. So then when the eastern mechanical penthouse collapsed... where was the symmetry? Was there another part of the building which collapsed t the same time symetrically?

Uniformly? If it was so symmetrical and uniform, how did fitterman hall get hit on the FREAKING ROOF from the collapse of wtc7?

In the case of WTC 7, the fall of the roofline was not just relatively uniform and symmetrical

It was neither uniform, nor symmetrical. You might just want to look up those words... they do not mean what you think they do.

, it was so perfect that it seems more like a caricature of a controlled demolition than a real one.

argumentum from assium noted. It would help if you had any experience or education in the field to back up your claims.

One column fails and because of that the other 80 columns all collapse together in the blink of an eyelid?

again you use words which do not mean what you think they do. "blink of an eyelid?" No. The collapse started when the eastern mechanical penthouse collapsed... then it 8 seconds pass and the rest of the structure collapses. that is not the "blink of an eyelid'

OK, it's a deal. WTC 7 was demolished but the Twin Towers weren't. Now let's take it from there. Who demolished WTC 7?

so you will fully accept Danny J's statements? Goody. Now that we agree on that lets look further at wtc7 and throw out the woo about the towers.

so we have wtc7 collapse and a single CD person (not the top Cd person in europe) says it looks like CD... but and I quote him "I'm just guessing here."

that is nice. Now we look for collaborting evidence. I mean it should be easy to find dozens of (if not hundreds of) peer reviewed engineering journals from around the world agreeing with Danny J. FIND ONE.

What you don't have any?

ok. Lets look at the standard characteristics of CD.
1. Loud explosive detonations. Where are they? Oh there are none.
2. Bright flashes of explosives detonated. Where are they? Oh there are none.
3. The people who set up these demolitions.. provide just one who says they did it. (to wire up a 30 story building took 2 20 man teams working 20 hours a day 4 months.). ARe there any? None.
4. Witnesses who saw this CD being set up? Oh there aer NONE.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

What exactly qualifies Jowenko as "Europes Top demolition expert"?

Has he won some sort of competition?

 

[MikeW]

Jowenko is only regarded as Europe's top demolition expert by truthers, and that only because they desperately want him to be Europe's top demolition expert.

Slight derail (but supporting your point, so not really) - I just realised truthers do exactly the same thing with someone else, a Professor Bruce Lawrence.

When he said the "fatty bin Laden" tape was "bogus" he was happily referred to us America's top bin Laden expert, leading academic expert on bin Laden, and so on. I never found anyone else who said this other than truthers, so I think they just created the title to boost his credibility.

But the interesting bit is while he says one tape is fake, his "statements from bin Laden" book includes another from 2004 where bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks, so presumably Lawrence believes this is genuine. Now his great expertise is, well, inconvenient, so what he says here is largely ignored.

So, the truther's treatment of Jowenko isn't unique. It's just part of the cherry-picking self deception required if you're to maintain your "inside job" beliefs.