Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers
- Thread starter MarkyX
- Start date
-
- Tags
- danny jowenko
You found someone who thinks your CD delusion is real. Wow, go get your Pulitzer Prize. Cool; prove Danny studied the WTC 7 plans and knows the design cold. Prove it.
Wow, you did do something, you found someone who is wrong on 911 like you are. Got that
Provide your detailed technical argument to tie your eutectic to your failed conclusions on 911? Sorry, skip that question, that was big talk on your part, you have no technical argument!
Please list your list of "incriminating evidence"; can you do that? Or is that another lie? You will not; you have no evidence. 8 years of failed talk.
What did Danny say about the eutectic? What did Danny say about the fires not being fought and WTC 7 fully involved? The eutectic, how does it play in your idiotic not able to explain conspiracy as you look, with no real effort, for the murderers who did 911?
Last edited:
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Evidence?
Miragememories
Banned
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Qualified? Apparently so.
Was he given complete and accurate information? Apparently not.
Was he told that WTC7 was an unusual all-steel building and that firefighting was impossible on 9/11?
He'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.
Then he must also be qualified to justify his call to other similarly qualified experts, in a way that convinces them. Which is what normally happens when an expert discovers something that other experts aren't aware of yet.
Too bad he's taking his time about doing so. If I were a Truther I'd be getting rather impatient after all these years. Perhaps some of his supporters who hold his views in such high regard should organize to pay his expenses (and if feeling generous, a consulting fee) for writing that technical paper.
Respectfully,
Myriad
No CD on 1 and 2, if he uses Danny. He impeaches his own source with the ease of a trained 911 truth faith based conspiracy theorist. Self debunking each lie and delusion with failed logic and no evidence.
MM says goodbye to CD in WTC 1 and 2; his expert tells him so; and his expert is qualified to make the call. lol
Now would be a great time for MM to back this lie up with more than delusional talk.
I know what happen to the incriminating evidence; like a wife leaves a husband for good in an open marriage,
the incriminating evidence walked out of the "open minds" of all the truthers.
How does the eutectic fit MM's failed delusions on 911? Still waiting for the long list of (enormous) incriminating evidence! The only incriminating evidence so far is 911 truth spreads delusions based on lies and fantasy.
Don't forget; the eutectic, how does it fit MM's failed delusions on 911?
Miragememories
Banned
BigAl said:
Apparently so.
Danny Jowenko said:
Interviewer:"There was fire everywhere, and also in that building. [WTC 7]"BigAl said:
Danny Jowenko"But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done."
Interviewer:"No they didn't do that."
Danny Jowenko"They didn't extinguish it?"
Interviewer:"No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it while it was on fire."
MM
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Source?
Who told him the fires were "small"?
Was he told there as no attempt at firefighting and the fire went on for hours?
He'd never here this from Richard Gage.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Yes, we realize you like Jowenko - the only expert in controlled demolitions who has spoken in favor of a twooth-movement claim, even though he apparently did so with insufficient information.
The question remains, MM: Does this mean you agree with Jowenko that WTCs 1 and 2 were NOT controlled demolitions?
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Thanks for those very illustrative bare assertion fallacies, and a classic argument from authority.
The observations of Jowenko go far beyond simple documentary evidence which would be required to 'prove' scientifically that a CD had actually occurred. As discussed elsewhere, these would need to include careful engineering data, audio evidence of CD explosions, documentation of explosive squibs, forensic evidence of high explosives and cutter charges on the steel and the rubble, etc...
But of course his comments are devoid of any of these. Instead, he merely speculates about how it 'was' done, as if he actually knows!!!! He's not even a little bit skeptical..
I'll dig up some arguments in support of the moon landing hoax which show the same pattern. Time to go hike up a mountain tho...
If Mr. Jowenko had sufficient information and qualifications to reach this conclusion, then he must also have sufficient information and qualifications to present his conclusion to other similarly qualified and informed experts, in a way that convinces them. That is what normally happens when an expert discovers something that other experts aren't aware of yet.
Too bad he's taking his time about doing so. If I were a Truther I'd be getting rather impatient after all these years. Perhaps some of his supporters who hold his views in such high regard should organize to pay his expenses (and if feeling generous, a consulting fee) for writing that technical paper.
The more you argue how solid and well-informed Jowenko's opinion is, the more glaring and contrary his failure to offer a professional technical argument for his position becomes.
No one's opinion matters, not even those of experts. The importance of expertise is that experts can show how they arrived at those opinions using accepted methods within an area of expertise. That (along with the level of relevant expertise) is the difference between e.g. NIST and ae11t. There's no equality of "your experts vs. our experts." It's experts who have shown their work vs. those who offer only opinions.
Respectfully,
Myriad
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
The funny thing is, if Jowenko's opinion really mattered as much as MM and others want it to, that would mean WTCs 1 and 2 weren't controlled demolitions. This is why MM has fled from the discussion.
Miragememories
Banned
uke2se said:
I believe Danny Jowenko, like just about every other trusting soul, including myself, was shocked and awed by what he saw on 9/11. In quick order, we accepted the common belief that the sole cause of the WTC Twin Towers collapses were the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.
At the time of his 2006 interview, Danny Jowenko was well aware that the mass media, the public, corporations, and most major governments accepted the Official Conspiracy Theory.
Being a wise businessman as well as a demolition expert, Danny knew that to go on record questioning the common belief about the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses, would put him at odds with the people with whom he had to do business.
I'll illustrate my point with this extract from the later interview with Danny Jowenko. The same interview in which he reiterated his firm belief that WTC 7 was felled by a controlled demolition.
Danny Jowenko:"Listen, when the FEMA makes a report that it [WTC7] came down from 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, you're gone, you know?"
Interviewer:"Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?"
Danny Jowenko: "Of course, it's the end of the story."
You might ask at this point; if Danny believed it was bad for business, why in his original interview didn't he just agree that WTC 7 was felled by fire and avoid that controversy as well?
And that would be a fair question.
We know that Danny Jowenko was on record as being in agreement with popular opinion, that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses.
The reason for the apparent discrepancy in Danny Jowenko's responses about the cause of the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC 7, lies in how the original Dutch interview was conducted.
He was asked to watch the video of building 7 at the WTC.
But, and this is the crucial point, he was not told at that moment, that the video was from 9/11.
Here is an extract from the first portion of the interview In 2006, for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.
Interviewer:"What you see at the WTC, these are pictures of building #7. Let's take this and look what we see. Do you see a fire above somewhere?"
Danny Jowenko:"I see smoke however. Yeah, you always get dust, nothing has been removed from it? Does the top go first? No, the bottom."
Interviewer:"It starts on the bottom."
Danny Jowenko:"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."
Interviewer:"Did this fall in a different way than the WTC? [WTC 1 & WTC 2]"
Danny Jowenko:"Don't you agree?"
Interviewer:"Yes, you see the bottom floors go first."
Danny Jowenko:"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."
Interviewer:"Your sure?"
Danny Jowenko:"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."
At this point, the interviewer tells Danny Jowenko when the collapse they have been studying occurred.
Interviewer:"But it also happened on September 11th."
Danny Jowenko:"The same day??? ..... Are you sure?????"
Interviewer:"Yes."
[long pause]
Interviewer:"There it goes again."
[They watch the WTC7 collapse again]
Danny now realizes the serious ramifications of his earlier unguarded opinion.
Danny Jowenko:"I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days, there was already much smoke gone. Are you sure it was the 11th??? That can't be."
Interviewer:"Seven hours after the World Trade Center came down."
So my argument to you uke2se is that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided into given an honest unguarded response about a collapse that he didn't know was part of 9/11.
He had the integrity to not shift from that opinion when given the opportunity at the time of that interview and in a subsequent interview, a year later.
Had he known beforehand that the collapse was part of 9/11, I'm sure he would have taken the safer, less controversial path.
Knowing how it might impact his business, he likely would have offered the conclusion that the collapse of WTC7 was also a direct consequence of what appeared to happen with the WTC Twin Towers.
MM
No CD for WTC 1 or 2; and a failed opinion on WTC 7. 66.5 percent, not bad, but the terrorists made 75 percent. 911 truth zero percent.
What does Danny say about the eutectic; you know the topic of the tread you have failed to tie to your delusional WTC 7 CD theory now supported by Danny who says 1 and 2 are not CD.
Eutectic? The topic? Found your enormous amount of incriminating evidence yet; can you please list it, after you explain why your 8 years of failed CD ideas are tied to the eutectic?
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Jowenko's fallacies have already been addressed in this forum, and were done so years ago. To recap that which has been known since 2006: The truthers who initially interviewed him did not tell about the extensive fires in the towers or that those were unfought for hours; that by itself demonstrates that his initial conclusion is flawed, given that his interviewers never gave him the necessary and central facts. In later queries, he's never referenced what's known about the fires or structural damage induced by the fires, and has merely expanded on elements of the structure and what would have needed to have been done to conduct an explosives demolition of the towers. Not only is that retailing of mere hypotheticals, but the concept of explosives has been addressed by pointing out the noise produced by the collapse is absolutely inconsistent with the use of such. In short, the sound produced contradicts the possibility of explosives use.
And no, don't bring up thermite; not only is that addressed in other threads, but 1. It's not an explosive, and 2. It's not an element of Jowenko's proposals.
Jowenko's conclusions are quite obviously not accepted by the engineering community at large, and I'm referring to the worldwide community, not merely the US component. As was pointed out to you back in 2007: The Eurocodes have been modified in response to NIST's reports. Furthermore, the findings from the 7 World Trade NIST study was released after the last round of ICC meetings to modify, but knowledge of the Twin Towers reports have already had an impact on codes generated by that body. We'll see what they do with the 7 World Trade studies during the next round of code changes, but if history is any guide, they'll be accepted. Regardless, pointing out Jowenko accomplishes nothing other than demonstrating that minority opinions exist, and when the particulars of Jowenko's opinion are studied, they fail on their own merits. One person in the demolitions industry who was not given complete information on the 7 World Trade building collapse and who has not built a complete theory but merely expanded on what would have been needed is not a contradiction of the established body of knowledge. It's not even a good critique. If you want a good critique, I'd advise looking at Arup or Dr. James Quintiere as examples. Citing Jowenko does you no good.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Ah, I see. Jowenko is an authority to rely on when it comes to WTC 7, but not when it comes to WTC 1 and 2. That explains how you can claim that he later affirmed his view on WTC 7 even though he had a chance to recant because of the huge controversy that you allege.
Interesting way of attempting to have your cake and eat it. In internet parlance, we call this a massive fail.
Miragememories
Banned
The failure is all yours uke2se.
Your reply does not address my post at all.
Your obfuscation is an not argument.
MM
Last edited:
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
My reply addressed your post completely. If you don't realize that I can't really help you. You want to be able to use Jowenko to support your delusion of CD for WTC 7, but you don't want to acknowledge his opinion that WTC 1 and 2 weren't CD, so you invent a scenario in which Jowenko is somehow passively peer-pressured into supporting the official line for WTC 1 and 2, but "blindsided" into "revealing" that WTC 7 was a CD. You further claim that he had enough "integrity" to not recant his opinion on WTC 7 later on, despite this completely undermining your entire scenario.
Once again, epic fail.