Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[GlennB]

...

Danny never once suggested his controlled demolition opinion was uncertain because he required more information.

Lying, incompetence, leading ....

And he was amazed to hear it came down on 9/11 itself, but by that time he'd committed to CD as the reason.

Which video was he shown? Did it have the early collapse of the E Penthouse, because many truther videos conveniently skip that bit.

Was he informed that the FDNY were tracking its lean with surveying gear? That they predicted its fall well in advance? That the building was cordonned off? That Silverstein barely recouped the rebuilding costs from insurance? That no CD flashes and explosions were recorded at time of collapse despite several cameras recording the whole business? Nah.

Jowenko was led like a lamb to the slaughter into over-committing to the point where he couldn't easily back off without loss of face. Then what .. retract a few years later and look stupid, or just stfu and hope everybody goes away?

People are like this, MM. They open their fat mouths without thinking, trying to look good, and live to regret it.

 

[TruthersLie]

False. The interviewer says "No, it was very clean" before the identity of the wall is raised.

Additionally, the disputed wall was not the Verizon building (mis-translated as 'Four-zone') at all, but the US Post Office building, to the left of the photo and to the E of the site. The photo was taken from the N. We can clearly see Fitterman Hall to the left (in the photo) of the Irving Trust building.

Perhaps the interviewer was just plain ignorant, what with 12 core columns and getting buildings' identities entirely wrong. Plus not knowing debris was slammed onto the Verizon and Fitterman Hall making 'walking around it' out of the question.

D'uh

Now what is rather funny is that the interviewer is from a dutch TV show which is DEBUNKING 9/11.

His interview of Danny J is very very (mis)leading for Danny J.

Though I do love how MM ignores the numerous times he states
"I'm just guessing here."
"I wish I had the building plans."

and other similar declarations that he is just guessing.

Of course in the same interview Danny J states very emphatically that CD detonators would fail at 300C in office fires.

What that tells me is that he didn't realize wtc7 had raging fires, and he never had that clarified.

 

[GlennB]

Now what is rather funny is that the interviewer is from a dutch TV show which is DEBUNKING 9/11.

Well, we live and learn. I'd never heard this until now.

Can you clarify that? Is there a link or two available?

 

[Bell]

Well, we live and learn. I'd never heard this until now.

Can you clarify that? Is there a link or two available?

I can verify this. The show was a companion to Loose Change which was aired the same night by the same station (BNN) and was to debunk the claims in that stupid movie.

Eta: In the show they showed that crashing an airplane (three times) into the Pentagon is not hard at all and indeed possible.

 

[alienentity]

Yah, well I first came across MM at the LCF when I posted links to some of my new videos. His method hasn't changed since that encounter - credulous belief in any statement which supports their thinking and outright denial or ignorance of those that do not, with no cognitive ability to balance the contradictions nor context.

The pitfalls of this method are many; one obvious one is that Jowenko himself contradicts the standard truther mythology regarding WTC1 and WTC2 by declaring they were NOT CD. So he really doesn't help their case, except if they ignore 2/3rds of his testimony (they do).

But even more obvious is the fact that other equally or more qualified demolition experts who were actually at GZ either on 9/11 or shortly after contradict truther hero Jowenko's opinions regarding WTC7. They have specific technical and forensic reasons behind their opinions, whereas Jowenko cannot offer forensic examination as he doesn't have access to it before opining.

Really, when you examine Jowenko's testimony in detail you can see a number of problems, which he himself identifies.
He knows that it would be impossible to set up a demolition of this building in just a few hours, it would take weeks or months.
He knows that it could not be done on the day in a burning building.
He knows that a burning building would probably destroy a lot of the devices were they to exist.

But he makes no attempt to eliminate these problems thru a factual examination, he just moves on as if they didn't exist! And his inability to account for the lack of forensic evidence is a tremendous deficit in his analysis.

But of course truthers are not interested in ANY truthful inquiry which would weaken their arguments, they're just looking for a few quick soundbites that they can quotemine and weave into the mythology - bereft of proper context, naturally.
Hence a few things Jowenko mentions in his superficial analysis are touted as definitive proof, but other experts are ignored or treated with great hostility.

That is precisely why the truth movement is doomed to fail. It is not based on competent analysis, and this can be exposed quite readily.

Sure there will always be people like MM and C7 who will trumpet this half-baked nonsense, but so what? They're incompetent...

 

[alienentity]

Of course in the same interview Danny J states very emphatically that CD detonators would fail at 300C in office fires.

What that tells me is that he didn't realize wtc7 had raging fires, and he never had that clarified.

Exactly. Devil's in the details...

 

[Miragememories]

"People are like this... They open their fat mouths without thinking, trying to look good, and live to regret it."

It is a pleasure to quote one of those people.

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Again, that had no influence on his opinion that WTC7 was a victim of controlled demolition.

Danny never once suggested his controlled demolition opinion was uncertain because he required more information.
MM

Jowenko could be the living reincarnation of Jesus Christ and his opinion - with nothing to back it up - would still be irrelevant. No matter how established it is for him. You should really be focusing your efforts on how he supports his opinions rather than continuing to resort to fallacies. Notwithstanding, the martial Law incident you predicted would happen as Bush's presidency was coming to an end hasn't happened yet...

 

[Oystein]

MM, I am sorry if I am bugging you, but you ignored my questions in Post 1007

May I kindly ask you to consider an answer? Here is my post again:

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
Put whatever spin you want on the interviewer's use of "clean".

His main concern was that Danny be corrected in his mistaken belief that the Verizon Building east wall,
was the remains of a the west wall of WTC7.

MM

You forgot this line, which triforcharity highlighted - did you ignore that lie on purpose?

Quote:
INTERVIEWER: ... But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it

MM, tell us, honestly: Was the interviewer speaking true or false with that statement? Did WTC 7 fall "so clean that you can walk around it" - true or false? (Any other answer but "true" or "false" will be handed back to you)

Thanks in advance!

 

[Miragememories]

"Yah, well I first came across MM at the LCF when I posted links to some of my new videos."

There was nothing new, not even the lies were new.

As I recall, it was request that LCF members comment on the videos.

Videos that we found to be nothing more than a regurgitation of the
pro-OCT propaganda created by others.

We, at LCF never found an ounce of original work in those videos.

We did find those videos to be classic examples of amateur film making.

Their debunking lead to the wounded puppy retreating to a forum that rejoiced in all such videos, good or bad, as long as they were anti-9/11 Truth.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"MM, tell us, honestly: Was the interviewer speaking true or false with that statement? Did WTC 7 fall "so clean that you can walk around it" - true or false? (Any other answer but "true" or "false" will be handed back to you)"

If you want an absolute answer; "true" or "false", you have to give an absolute question.

The original question appears to be based on the interpretation of a photograph, and how
a reasonable person would interpret what constituted WTC7, after it had collapsed?

We could get absurdly technical here.

Going beyond your question though. I think it is a pointless exercise, regardless of how I respond, or how Danny Jowenko responded.

I have shown that controlled demolitions are sometimes far from clean.

But they are still controlled demolitions.

The controlled demolition collapse of WTC7 was damn clean, albeit not a 10 of 10.

There was collateral damage, which is to be avoided at all costs in a usual public controlled demolition.

On 9/11, as we all know, WTC7 was not officially sanctioned for a "usual" controlled demolition.

To criticize it for failing to appear exactly as one is truly absurd. Something only an OCT zealot would suggest.

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

By that logic Timothy McVeigh's attack against the Murrah building must have been an attempted "controlled" demolition that wasn't sanctioned to be "controlled."

 

[Fonebone]

False

You forgot this line, which triforcharity highlighted - did you ignore that lie on purpose?



MM, tell us, honestly: Was the interviewer speaking true or false with that statement? Did WTC 7 fall "so clean that you can walk around it" - true or false? (Any other answer but "true" or "false" will be handed back to you)

False -

"clean enough to walk around .." the WTC7 after collapse .
No !
This graphic was taken from the North-East - The post office building is to the left and a clear pile of debris seen looking south to the left of the two telephone pedestals blocks the route.
To the right of the graphic a clear pile of debris reaches the Fetterman building blocking a clear path around the WTC7 pile walking East.
The evidence indicates the interviewer was incorrect when he stated
the WTC7 collapse was "so clean you could walk around it " in the true literal sense of the phrase
--but figuratively speaking the 47 story skyscraper fell into it's own footprint and in a nice neat pile.
This is a us gov LIDAR altitude above sea level scan of the 9/11 murder scene and the WTC7 pile is the pillow shaped on the right.
The LIDAR scan indicates some debris outside the tower footprint but the
neat pile of steel and debris is clearly visible as a neat mound.

Hint - Use the giant crater in the WTC building as a reference point--

In this LIDAR Altitude graphic cameo of the WTC murder scene the WTC7 rubble pile is the pillow shaped neat pile on the left. again , some debris is spread outside of the tower footprint, but again, very little.

Clean enought to walk around ? NO
Nice neat pile of rubble in their own footprints YES
See for yourselves

EXTRA CREDIT
Can you spot the nice neat piles of rubble of the two TWIN WTC
towers ?
Can you spot circular craters scattered around the WTC murder scene ?
Any of you military boys know what creates circular craters ?

 

[GlennB]

On 9/11, as we all know, WTC7 was not officially sanctioned for a "usual" controlled demolition.

To criticize it for failing to appear exactly as one is truly absurd.

Wha ????

It's the CTists who claim that the very precision of the collapse points to CD. The interviewer in the Jowenko interview does exactly this.

Now you want it both ways?

Incidentally it's your theory that WTC7 was prepped way in advance of 9/11. Presumably you're now moving towards the belief that the perps knowingly wired it to generate some collateral damage, to make it look convincing? Do explain, but it's clear that the debunkers here could do a better job of coming up with a coherent narrative on your behalf than you're doing yourself.

 

[Oystein]

If you want an absolute answer; "true" or "false", you have to give an absolute question.

The original question appears to be based on the interpretation of a photograph, and how
a reasonable person would interpret what constituted WTC7, after it had collapsed?

We could get absurdly technical here.

Going beyond your question though...

Tsk tsk tsk, MM
Squirming much because you are specifically asked to answer honestly?
Moving goalposts much?

I told you I'd be returning the question to you if your answer wasn't "true" and wasn't "false".

There is nothing absurdly technical about what the interviewer said to Danny Jowenko. Please remember, the interviewer came prepared, Jowenko unprepared to the interview.

My question WAS absolute. There are absolutely no two ways to interprete the interviewers statement: "But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it"

Is that statement true or false?
Fonebone apparently had no trouble answering that question. Thankfully, he provided some evidence.
Look at Fonebone's evidence.
Do you disagree with Fonebone that the honest answer to my question is "false"?

 

[Oystein]

False -

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814c71db3d77a2d.jpg[/qimg]

"clean enough to walk around .." the WTC7 after collapse .
No !
...
Clean enought to walk around ? NO
Nice neat pile of rubble in their own footprints YES
See for yourselves

EXTRA CREDIT
Can you spot the nice neat piles of rubble of the two TWIN WTC
towers ?
Can you spot circular craters scattered around the WTC murder scene ?
Any of you military boys know what creates circular craters ?

Thank you.
The point of my question was not to discuss any properties of WTC7 and its rubble pile as such, but to assess the interview, and the quality and veracity of the information given to Jowenko by the interviewer.



About your other points:
- Most pieces of rubble in all 3 collapses came to rest close to to some point vertically below their original position. That is because all three were gravitationally driven collapses for the most part (most of the energy involved was kinetic energy in the gravitational field; most of the forces involved were gravitation). CD is only one special case of gravitational collapse. There is no a-priori reasen to assume that rubble piles would look different from different modes ofs collapse initiation.
- Circular craters can come from different causes: Landmines ; meteorites; other high-impulse impacts; hollow structured caving in due to stress; underground wash-out; probably more. Which explanation do you prefer, and why?



ETA: Oh, and while we are at it, Fonebone, you did not yet reply to Post 962 - my reply to your claim about Van Romero.

 

[GlennB]

 

[TruthersLie]

Well, we live and learn. I'd never heard this until now.

Can you clarify that? Is there a link or two available?

to the whole show?

I don't know.

I do know that this was originally from a kind of "debunking 9/11" on danish TV.

They looked at 4 of the biggest claims and rejected 3 of them out of hand.

IIRC they had the "hijackers can't have flown that way" and put a novice pilot in the simulator and he hit the pentagon 3 out of 3 tries.

They talked to Danny J, and in the FULL interview he points out that at 300C (IIRC) the detonators would fail, and that is why wtc 1 and 2 could not have been CD.

He is then taken through WTC7 by the same interviewer

I'll see if I can find the google video of the entire show with subtitles.

Ah.. found parts of it.
It is from the show ZEMBLA
here they look at the "hijackers can't have flown like that"


It is called ZEMBLA and aired on 9/10/06. It is dutch

ETA: Here is part one of 6 on youtube


ETA:
Here is the full video with subtitles on google video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6624447947169635420#

 

[TruthersLie]

False -

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814c71db3d77a2d.jpg[/qimg]

"clean enough to walk around .." the WTC7 after collapse .
No !
This graphic was taken from the North-East - The post office building is to the left and a clear pile of debris seen looking south to the left of the two telephone pedestals blocks the route.
To the right of the graphic a clear pile of debris reaches the Fetterman building blocking a clear path around the WTC7 pile walking East.
The evidence indicates the interviewer was incorrect when he stated
the WTC7 collapse was "so clean you could walk around it " in the true literal sense of the phrase
--but figuratively speaking the 47 story skyscraper fell into it's own footprint and in a nice neat pile.
This is a us gov LIDAR altitude above sea level scan of the 9/11 murder scene and the WTC7 pile is the pillow shaped on the right.
The LIDAR scan indicates some debris outside the tower footprint but the
neat pile of steel and debris is clearly visible as a neat mound.

Hint - Use the giant crater in the WTC building as a reference point--
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814c71fc8b11a2d.jpg[/qimg]

In this LIDAR Altitude graphic cameo of the WTC murder scene the WTC7 rubble pile is the pillow shaped neat pile on the left. again , some debris is spread outside of the tower footprint, but again, very little.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814c71fc8b30cb7.jpg[/qimg]

Clean enought to walk around ? NO
Nice neat pile of rubble in their own footprints YES
See for yourselves

EXTRA CREDIT
Can you spot the nice neat piles of rubble of the two TWIN WTC
towers ?
Can you spot circular craters scattered around the WTC murder scene ?
Any of you military boys know what creates circular craters ?

Just a simple question.

How does a building that collapses into its own footprint manage to strike two buildings which are about 270 degreees away from each other, including striking one of those in the roof?

Were the Verizion building and fitterman hall in the footprint of wtc7? How does taht happen?

 

[Oystein]

...
IIRC they had the "hijackers can't have flown that way" and put a novice pilot in the simulator and he hit the pentagon 3 out of 3 tries.
...

Not really a novice pilot. Just a novice to Boeings. The guy has some experience with small planes.

I can attest you that I, with no experience at the controls of a real plane, but some on PC flight sim, would be able to fly a 767 into a large building 3 out of 3 tries. I have been on a real 707 sim (NATO base training facility) once and found it much easier to align with a runway and do a go-around as low as 30 meters (I was instructed not to land, so the next person in line could take over "my" plane quickly while still flying). I have not the slightest doubt that I could have pointed the nose at any building on the ground and hit it smack-on. Much much much easier to hit a tall thing like the twin towers.