Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Miragememories]

At that point in the video, Jowenko still thinks that.

Some times people use the present tense when they discuss the past.

In which case, they should make themselves clear.

Mindreading is not my forté.

MM

 

[Bell]

Mindreading is not my forté.

MM

Remove your tinfoil hat. That will help.

 

[Oystein]

I answered the first question previously.

Here it is again;
"Danny Jowenko is an expert in the controlled demolition of buildings."

In response to your second question, I would have to say yes.

MM

The first does not even address, much less answer my question.
My question was (excuse my aggressive font here, but you seem to have missed the important part):

* Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
I was NOT AT ALL asking about his expertship in "controlled demolition". I was very specifically asking about his expertship in "burning buildings". You must realize that the two are mutually exclusive in the context of this discussion and entirely different things. Please do not again answer a question which I haven't asked. I find this extremely impolite of you.



The second one:
Q Oy: "Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?"
A MM: "I would have to say yes."

Begs the question: How do you know? Why do you have to say this? What is your evidence?

 

[Miragememories]

The first does not even address, much less answer my question.
My question was (excuse my aggressive font here, but you seem to have missed the important part):

* Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
I was NOT AT ALL asking about his expertship in "controlled demolition". I was very specifically asking about his expertship in "burning buildings". You must realize that the two are mutually exclusive in the context of this discussion and entirely different things. Please do not again answer a question which I haven't asked. I find this extremely impolite of you.



The second one:
Q Oy: "Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?"
A MM: "I would have to say yes."

Begs the question: How do you know? Why do you have to say this? What is your evidence?

I know that he is an expert in controlled demolition and I said so.

He may also be an expert in fire behavior within buildings as that would relate to his profession.

If this is of such vital importance to you, I suggest you write to him at his online company address and share your findings with the rest of us instead of brow beating me to do the work for you!

Regarding ""Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?", I said yes in light of his interview a year later where he re-affirmed his original statement that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Again, if that answer does not suffice, go ask him yourself.

MM

 

[uke2se]

I know that he is an expert in controlled demolition and I said so.

He may also be an expert in fire behavior within buildings as that would relate to his profession.

If this is of such vital importance to you, I suggest you write to him at his online company address and share your findings with the rest of us instead of brow beating me to do the work for you!

Regarding ""Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?", I said yes in light of his interview a year later where he re-affirmed his original statement that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Again, if that answer does not suffice, go ask him yourself.

MM

I'd say this translates to "I don't know and I don't care because it doesn't help my argument".

 

[twinstead]

Again, if that answer does not suffice, go ask him yourself.

Perhaps he and you could go together and ask him, so you can find out why he insists that WTC1 and 2 could NOT be CD.

 

[carlitos]

In which case, they should make themselves clear.

Mindreading is not my forté.

MM

Did you know that the word "forte" doesn't have an accent, and it's just pronounced "fort?" I found this fascinating when I learned it. The French word forte means "strong point," more or less. I should have known sooner, because I knew that forte was 'loud' in Italian due to reading music, but still even then I didn't know that the Italians put the accent on the "o" and not the "e." But after learning Spanish, it all came together that you don't use an accent in a 2 syllable word unless you want the accent on the last syllable, like matón or something like that.

Anyway, I just wanted to be sure that someone learned something in this thread!

 

[uke2se]

Did you know that the word "forte" doesn't have an accent, and it's just pronounced "fort?" I found this fascinating when I learned it. The French word forte means "strong point," more or less. I should have known sooner, because I knew that forte was 'loud' in Italian due to reading music, but still even then I didn't know that the Italians put the accent on the "o" and not the "e." But after learning Spanish, it all came together that you don't use an accent in a 2 syllable word unless you want the accent on the last syllable, like matón or something like that.

Anyway, I just wanted to be sure that someone learned something in this thread!

AFAIK, "forte" simply means "strong", as in "Je suis tres forte" and "Il n'est pas forte".
/nitpick

 

[Miragememories]

Did you know that the word "forte" doesn't have an accent, and it's just pronounced "fort?" I found this fascinating when I learned it. The French word forte means "strong point," more or less. I should have known sooner, because I knew that forte was 'loud' in Italian due to reading music, but still even then I didn't know that the Italians put the accent on the "o" and not the "e." But after learning Spanish, it all came together that you don't use an accent in a 2 syllable word unless you want the accent on the last syllable, like matón or something like that.

Anyway, I just wanted to be sure that someone learned something in this thread!

Muchos gracias Carlitos!

I'm sure my life will be vastly improved with that tidbit of knowledge.

No accent on forte...right.

And if you haven't figured it out yet, my posts are not really directed to the closed minds that form the general populace of this forum.

You can't change people's religious beliefs that easily.

It is the more open minded visitors who I hope to reach.

MM

 

[TheRedWorm]

Do you have any evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? Answer honestly.

 

[The Big Dog]

Go back and read the last pages of this thread.

Otherwise your comments are totally meaningless.

Which would appear to be your intention.

MM

What a weasel non-answer, you should be embarrassed.

Answer: truthers lied to your hero, they showed him a grossly misleading video. The last pages of the thread have not addressed these facts, Truther. Why are you lying about this truther?

And Danny has not been heard from since 2007.

C'mon truther, prove me wrong. Link us to something that post dates the NIST report, or go back to Loose Change, and STFU.

It is the more open minded visitors who I hope to reach. C'mon truther. It is 2010, man up. The Truth awaits.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

What a weasel non-answer, you should be embarrassed.

Answer: truthers lied to your hero, they showed him a grossly misleading video. The last pages of the thread have not addressed these facts, Truther. Why are you lying about this truther?

And Danny has not been heard from since 2007.

C'mon truther, prove me wrong. Link us to something that post dates the NIST report, or go back to Loose Change, and STFU.

It is the more open minded visitors who I hope to reach. C'mon truther. It is 2010, man up. The Truth awaits.

You reminded me of something: Boloboffin (he used to post around here) put up a page on Jowenko a while ago.
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/other-issues/danny-jowenko/

I had forgotten that those interviews did indeed occur before the release of the 7 World Trade NIST reports. You're right, of course: There's been nothing out of him since 2007, and prior to that, all he was working with was a video and a blueprint. Definitely not the proper information that is now known.

 

[triforcharity]

It isn't just a matter of; could fire cause a concrete and steel building such as WTC7 to collapse?

But, could any fire make such a building suffer a complete collapse with the same symmetry as is achieved in a successfully executed controlled demolition?

Plain and simple, the answer is no.

You SURE about that? I happen to know of a building that had a massive fire, that was concrete with steel reinforcement, that fell just like a CD, and had no other damage whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ1e3ddf3RM&feature=related
This one doesn't quite collapse like a CD, but brick and concrete buildings collapse from fire alone. The first two prove your little argument from personal ignorance is just that......ignorant.

ETA: One more for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY&NR=1

This was, IIRC, a collage in England.

 

[TruthersLie]

You SURE about that? I happen to know of a building that had a massive fire, that was concrete with steel reinforcement, that fell just like a CD, and had no other damage whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ1e3ddf3RM&feature=related
This one doesn't quite collapse like a CD, but brick and concrete buildings collapse from fire alone. The first two prove your little argument from personal ignorance is just that......ignorant.

ETA: One more for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY&NR=1

This was, IIRC, a collage in England.

Ummm tri.

A collage is where you make a big picture from little pictures... or you take pictures of the same theme and put them together...

I think you mean a college...

But I think it is close enough don't you?

And it is an engineering college in holland which suffers a partial collapse.

 

[triforcharity]

Ummm tri.

A collage is where you make a big picture from little pictures... or you take pictures of the same theme and put them together...

I think you mean a college...

But I think it is close enough don't you?

And it is an engineering college in holland which suffers a partial collapse.

Dude, it's 3 am where I am. Yes, it is collEge not collage. I have another hour to stay awake.

And yes, I did find it was in Holland. Hee is the link. http://www.europeanfireacademy.com/cms/show/id=710654

Click on summary

 

[triforcharity]

The NIST pioneered a theory which they have failed to defend against serious short comings.

Danny Jowenko gave an honest, experienced, professional opinion, that matches well with the know history of concrete and steel buildings
subjected to fire vs those subjected to controlled demolitions.

To say his opinion is worthless is nothing more than a reflection of your arrogance and prejudice.

MM

Show me ONE peer-reviewed paper that shows NIST is wrong. Nothing that comes from Bentham, or Journal of 911 Studies, is peer reviewed.

Get searching!

 

[triforcharity]

I answered the first question previously.

Here it is again;
"Danny Jowenko is an expert in the controlled demolition of buildings."

In response to your second question, I would have to say yes.

MM

Demolition =/= fire. Der.

Secondly, why do you assert that he has, if you have no idea. Cite your source please.

 

[triforcharity]

I know that he is an expert in controlled demolition and I said so.

He may also be an expert in fire behavior within buildings as that would relate to his profession.
If this is of such vital importance to you, I suggest you write to him at his online company address and share your findings with the rest of us instead of brow beating me to do the work for you!

Regarding ""Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?", I said yes in light of his interview a year later where he re-affirmed his original statement that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Again, if that answer does not suffice, go ask him yourself.

MM

I would say that his knowledge of fire science is limited. Not an expert.

Secondly, can you cite your source about the "year later" interview? I have seen the original interview where he was lied to, but not the more recent interview. Please cite it for me. Thanks.

 

[Oystein]

I know that he is an expert in controlled demolition and I said so.

He may also be an expert in fire behavior within buildings as that would relate to his profession.

If this is of such vital importance to you, I suggest you write to him at his online company address and share your findings with the rest of us instead of brow beating me to do the work for you!

Regarding ""Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?", I said yes in light of his interview a year later where he re-affirmed his original statement that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Again, if that answer does not suffice, go ask him yourself.

MM

MM,

the whole Jowenko-thing is an argument from authority. Had anyone asked little Johnny next door, given him the same information, and he had said "must be CD, can't be from fire", no one would push that, as little Johnny is not an expert and can't reliably judge these things.

You know that Jowenko did not have sufficient information about WTC7 before the interview started.
Is that correct? You know this to be true? You know that Jowenko did not even know what day WTC7 fell? You know that he had no idea about the fire situation? You know all that, don't you?

So, going into the interview, he was an expert for CDs without sufficient information. What is an expert without sufficient information? Answer: worthless. Do you agree?


Now what makes you think that a CD-expert is also a fire expert? You guess that, right? It is a personal belief, right? It is something you can imagine, correct?

But hey! Jowenko and his "expert" opinion is YOUR claim. YOU must show that he not only may be an expert for burning buildings, you must show that he is an expert.

In reality, there is no reason to think so. No CD expert ever has to deal with burning buildings. The experts who do are called "firefighters". They are organized in fire departments. The best of them are fire chiefs. The most experienced firefighters in the world with regard to highrise fires are the men and women of the FDNY. Their best men are the chiefs of the FDNY.

If you want to have an expert opinion about the situation of WTC7, the men to go to are the chiefs of the FDNY.

What did they say? The real experts, who were at the scene for hours? Vs. what does some random man in a far away continent say who may or may not be an expert and who is lacking sufficient information?


When Jowenko reaffirmed his original statement, how does that inform you that he has investigated the matter any furhter? That information is not contained in his statement. Isn't it much more likely to argue: He will come to the same conclusion if he still has the same information; he does come to the same conclusion, therefore, he may still have the same information?

Information that was insufficient. He did not understand the scope of the fires! He absolutely did not. He was not shown any fotographs, no witness statements about the size and nature of the fires.

The blueprints he was shown were very very basic. Far away from the detail needed to assess the strength of NIST's theory. In fact, Jowenko did not know NIST's paper.


You pull the answer "He may also be an expert in fire behavior within buildings" out of your arse. It is based on nothing but your personal imagination.

You pull the answer "Yes, Jowenko has looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?" out of your arse. It is based on nothing but your imagination.


You have no proof for either.
You know that you don't.

You are a very dishonest poster.

 

[Miragememories]

"Do you have any evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? Answer honestly."

It appears to be common practice amongst the Official Conspiracy Theory supporters
in this forum to lie.

People who are fond of lying seem preoccupied with the need to specify "honesty"
in the responses from others.

Though it doesn't appear to matter what you say if you are an Official Conspiracy Theory supporter.

TheRedWorm, unlike others of your ilk, it is not necessary to ask me to answer honestly.

I have no reason to lie.

In answer to your question; yes.

MM