TruthersLie said:
"Just a simple question.
In this same interview you are quote mining here, how many times does he say "I'm just guessing here..." or "I wish I could look this up..." or "I have no idea how they could do that..." or "I wish I had the plans here..."
Because when you quotemine it like you have, boy does it look impressive."
Are you familiar with the value of salient points?
Well, what you are referring to as "quote mining" is just my concise presentation of the salient points in the Danny Jowenko interview.
When papers are written and researchers extract salient material from reference documents, they aren't accused of "cherry-picking" because they don't present the whole reference document.
The Danny Jowenko interviews are readily available for you to cross-reference if you feel I've misrepresented him in any way.
If my presentation looks impressive, it is because what Danny has to say is impressive, and not easily ignored or dismissed.
TruthersLie said:
"When you pay attention to how many times he says "I'm just guessing here..." and there rest it is rather funny."
Nothing unusual about that, given the length of the interview and the size of the demolition project.
He never once suggests that there is insufficient information for him to be sure of this conclusion;
Danny Jowenko: "I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not...""
TruthersLie said:
"He states in the interview he has NO IDEA how they could rig the building. None. And he is the TOP european CD expert (according to truthers).
he states the detonators would fail at 320C in any fire.
he states very clearly that wtc 1 and 2 are not CD.
Will you take ALL of Danny J's testimony? Or are you just a typical quote mining truther fraud?"
It is a lie to say; "He states in the interview he has NO IDEA how they could rig the building."
He makes numerous detailed suggestions about the procedures they could have followed.
One example;
Danny Jowenko: "... it maybe that they indeed used packet charges instead off all the cutting torch work, plus applying a linear cutter charge."
Yes, he did accept that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not controlled demolitions and here is my take on that.
It is an appeal to those with open minds.
In a nutshell, Danny Jowenko accepted that the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers were not caused by controlled demolitions because;
-they were top down collapses
-he originally saw them as part of the same indoctrinating 'shock and awe' news event as everyone else
-they were assaulted by large commercial passenger jets
-they displayed dramatic fire activity
-the U.S. government quickly stated the view that it was solely a result of the terrorist aircraft attacks
-the mainstream press fully supported the government viewpoint
-FEMA's Report presented no alternative viewpoint
-the 911 Commision supported the Official Theory
-NIST fully supported the Official Theory
-multi-national corporations supported the Official Theory
-patriots were expected to support the Official Theory
-only terrorists and misguided troofers were expected to challenge the Official Theory
-like most people, Danny had no motivation to dig deep and question what he was told by those who traditionally commanded the public trust
-it's easier, and from a business and professional point of view, safer, to maintain the status quo
-Danny had never heard about or viewed the collapse of WTC7
For a good many of us, myself included, we bought the official story.
For a good many of us, myself included, when we saw and read about the collapse of WTC7, we stopped buying the Official Story.
As a professional editor for broadcast TV, I've probably worked on over a thousand interviews, going back to 1973, including John Dean, Nixon's former White House Counsel when the Watergate scandal made history, and whose interview I recorded in 1974.
Watching Danny Jowenko being interviewed, I saw a sincere professional, anxious to fully cooperate with his TV interviewer, well aware that the TV coverage could be beneficial for the Jowenko Demolition Company which he owns.
Being a professional building demolition engineer, Danny Jowenko, like all of his peers, must of course been very interested in the major collapses of the WTC Twin Towers. When interviewed specifically about those towers, it was clear that he was quite knowledgeable about the NIST conclusion that it was a cascading collapse resulting from the aircraft collision damage and subsequent fires. He had no reason to question their report, as it was extremely well prepared (10,000 pages) and he obviously embraced it, virtually quoting from it while explaining why he agreed with their collapse initiation assessment.
Danny has solidly backed the WTC Twin Tower part of the Official Story and is on record as having done so. To change his belief would look bad professionally, risk harming his business and would put him in opposition to the establishment and the popular point of view.
Why did he effectively contradict himself regarding these three WTC buildings and how can he continue to reconcile this contradiction?
I believe the answer to the first question lies in his interview about WTC7.
When discussing the possible rigging details of the controlled demolition operation, Jowenko focused on speed and the minimum requirements necessary to achieve the task in the 7 hour time frame presented to him.
His whole explanation avoided acceptance of the idea that the demolition was pre-planned and therefore connected to the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers.
An inside job scenario had not entered his mind, so he logically assumed that it must of been a same day "seize the moment" operation.
The only WTC link he considered was that Silverstein might have seized the opportunity presented by the collapsing Twin Towers, to get official approval for demolishing WTC7. Using the argument of public safety, the very expensive to repair, badly damaged WTC7, could be legally removed, and thus Silverstein's losses would be greatly reduced by his insurance coverage.
Regarding the question of why, having had the time to study 9/11 further, he has not yet acknowledged the difficulty in reconciling his collapse conclusions about WTC 7 and the WTC Twin Towers?
Maybe the best explanation can be summed up by this statement in his 2007 telephone interview with Jeff Hill;
Danny Jowenko: "when the FEMA makes a report that it came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the U.S. as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone....you know??"
"It's the end of your, your...it's the end of the story."
MM
