Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[MSgtWeiss]

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

FYI -- This link to Jowenko on Youtube has now been "removed by user."

One might suspect that the Twoofers have found his whole quote to be rather embarrassing to their little cult.

I'm sure there's another around somewhere with his quote about the twin towers, but I haven't had a chance to locate it yet.

 

[grandmastershek]

FYI -- This link to Jowenko on Youtube has now been "removed by user."

One might suspect that the Twoofers have found his whole quote to be rather embarrassing to their little cult.

I'm sure there's another around somewhere with his quote about the twin towers, but I haven't had a chance to locate it yet.

they're just deleting their way into reality!

 

[Oystein]

Try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3wwdI0XawI

(I've also downloaded a copy for safe keeping.)

We learn valuable things from Danny (if we did not know already:
0:57 - 1:21
Q: "So it's logical the second [tower] went first?"
DJ: "Of course. You clearly see that the building that was hit first was hit higher, so it went last because there was less weight to bring it down. That's essential knowledge for anyone who knows anything about demolition: You have to use the building's own weight."

1:52 - 1:56
DJ: "It collapsed at the exact location where plane hit and heated it."

2:11 - 2:30
DJ: "It can't have been explosives, as there was a huge fire. If there had been explosives, they would already have been burned. What's more, before being burned, their igniters would have gone off at 320 degrees Celsius, so they'd have detonated sooner."

3:54 - 4:07
That's what it looks like [each floor "exploding"]. But don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. That's impossible. ... [It would be] a year's work."

 

[alienentity]

I've seen the videos previously as well. At roughly 2 minutes into video 1, Jowenko proclaims that, if the building fell on Sept 11, then the charges had to be placed very quickly on that day.

About 4 minutes in, Jowenko is clear that the building did not fall cleanly as if the 'heart' had been destroyed by cutter charges. He seems very skeptical, when they look at the debris pile - 'this building was not demolished' 'is that building 7?'

So it may very well be that he can tell by looking at the debris that it wasn't cd, but the truther steers him away from that conclusion - I guess the debris was well outside WTC 7's footprint and Jowenko immediately recognizes that problem.

About 6' 'thirty or forty men' would be needed to do it!

So his theory relies on a large team of demolitions people going in...ON 9/11, while the building was on fire, and placing det cord, boosters, cutting charges.

riiiiiiight. This scenario is just not plausible, according to Jowenko's own words. Even he seems very confused about it, and complains about the lack of photographs.

But with sufficient quote mining, you can make it look like he supports truther cd theories........

 

[Edx]

I've seen the videos previously as well. At roughly 2 minutes into video 1, Jowenko proclaims that, if the building fell on Sept 11, then the charges had to be placed very quickly on that day.

About 4 minutes in, Jowenko is clear that the building did not fall cleanly as if the 'heart' had been destroyed by cutter charges. He seems very skeptical, when they look at the debris pile - 'this building was not demolished' 'is that building 7?'

So it may very well be that he can tell by looking at the debris that it wasn't cd, but the truther steers him away from that conclusion - I guess the debris was well outside WTC 7's footprint and Jowenko immediately recognizes that problem.

About 6' 'thirty or forty men' would be needed to do it!

So his theory relies on a large team of demolitions people going in...ON 9/11, while the building was on fire, and placing det cord, boosters, cutting charges.

riiiiiiight. This scenario is just not plausible, according to Jowenko's own words. Even he seems very confused about it, and complains about the lack of photographs.

But with sufficient quote mining, you can make it look like he supports truther cd theories........

Maybe that's the point, its not that Jowenko is wrong per se about building 7, its that based on the information available to him and ONLY on specific assumptions being met could it be a controlled demolition. Since those assumptions aren't supported and the information available to him inadequate thats what makes the claim fail. In fact if you think about it what he says actually debunks the claim. ie. the idea that they'd need so many people to go into a burning building without anyone noticing is clearly absurd.

 

[alienentity]

Maybe that's the point, its not that Jowenko is wrong per se about building 7, its that based on the information available to him and ONLY on specific assumptions being met could it be a controlled demolition. Since those assumptions aren't supported and the information available to him inadequate thats what makes the claim fail. In fact if you think about it what he says actually debunks the claim. ie. the idea that they'd need so many people to go into a burning building without anyone noticing is clearly absurd.

Exactly. By his own metrics the hypothesis is invalidated. He does seem aware of the contradictions even as he speaks.
that's my take anyway.

 

[cyclonic]

Jowenko is not shown the penthouse falling first and of course the video has no sound when the twoofer shows it on his cheap laptop.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Jowenko is not shown the penthouse falling first and of course the video has no sound when the twoofer shows it on his cheap laptop.

Just for the record: I don't think the reporter is a truther. The clips were part of a longer program, the same where an amateur tries to hit the Pentagon in a simulator three times, succeeding each time.

I think its a bit like the BBC Conspiracy files.

 

[grandmastershek]

i would really love to head over there with all the photographic, video, and seismic data to see what he would say. of course we know though that if he changes his mind that immediately means "they " got to him.

anyone on here from denmark?

 

[Bell]

i would really love to head over there with all the photographic, video, and seismic data to see what he would say. of course we know though that if he changes his mind that immediately means "they " got to him.

anyone on here from denmark?

Jowenko is Dutch. But don't waste your time trying to contact him. Iirc Gravy tried to contact him years ago, but Jowenko does not want to talk about it.

The interviewer did mislead Jowenko. He only showed him the (CBS?) clip (the one that is in the Naudet documentary) and did NOT tell it happened on 9/11. Only afterwards, and then Jowenko was very confused.

 

[lijebaley01]

search --- Dutch tv news show Zembla investigates 9/11 theories ---- In the interview with jawenko around 32:30 he says the igniters would have been destroyed at 320C, making wtc 1&2 CD impossible. I would think that he would have agreed that a WTC7 controlled demolition would have been impossible as well, if he knew of the fires. At the end of the program, around 49 minutes he says he can't explain how a controlled demolition could have been pulled off.

 

[Baylor]

Good point baley. Heat degrades the explosives properties of RDX, HMX, etc. Maybe someone more skilled in science can weigh in and explain exactly how and why.

 

[rubber_ritchie]

Thanks for the work on this guys. For many Troofers Jowenko's testimony is a key piece of evidence. I looked at the supposed phone call with Jowenko QajDxF9uEf4. I believe this to be a fake. The call is mostly leading questions from the caller and Jowenko just agrees and makes very brief statements which could easily be scripted.

 

[Bell]

Thanks for the work on this guys. For many Troofers Jowenko's testimony is a key piece of evidence. I looked at the supposed phone call with Jowenko QajDxF9uEf4. I believe this to be a fake. The call is mostly leading questions from the caller and Jowenko just agrees and makes very brief statements which could easily be scripted.

Truthers can't only use Jowenko's statement regarding WTC7 but ignore his statement regarding WTC1 and 2.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When 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 contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.

 

[TruthersLie]

Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When 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 contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.

So then you agree with ALL of what Danny J says?

yes or no?

 

[rubber_ritchie]

Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When 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 contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.

So, Jowenko is credible? If you take all his testimonies on the 3 buildings from the documentary. He says 7 looks like a controlled demolition and the towers were demolished. So you believe that the first two collapsed without explosives but then they blew up 7 for good luck?

 

[A W Smith]

Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When 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 contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.

They are gone? Really? Gone how? The government cant even keep the mob out of the construction and demo industry and you think just by claiming a CD they can be black balled? Child. You know NOTHING of the industry.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

>So then you agree with ALL of what Danny J says?

That does not follow logically from my statement. You say "So" as if it is "therefore". Please state your premises in the form of a syllogism.

ALL? Only gullible lemmings believe ALL of what anyone says, especially the government's Official Conspiracy Theory, without peer reviewed scientific research.

"Yes or no?" is reminiscent of Bush's "You are with us, or with the terrorists" thinking, artificially limiting a variety of choices to 2.

It depends on what Danny Jowenko says, and I would evaluate the validity of each statement on its merits.

 

[Bell]

>So then you agree with ALL of what Danny J says?

That does not follow logically from my statement. You say "So" as if it is "therefore". Please state your premises in the form of a syllogism.

ALL? Only gullible lemmings believe ALL of what anyone says, especially the government's Official Conspiracy Theory, without peer reviewed scientific research.

"Yes or no?" is reminiscent of Bush's "You are with us, or with the terrorists" thinking, artificially limiting a variety of choices to 2.

It depends on what Danny Jowenko says, and I would evaluate the validity of each statement on its merits.

Jowenko: WTC1 & WTC2 were not a CD
Jowenko: WTC7 was a CD

Which of his statements do you agree with? Both? Only one of them? And if only one, how do you determine which of his statements is true and which one is not?