• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

bill smith said:
Forgetting to report that Danny got over the fact that he had initially been as you put it 'ill-informed' by studying the drawings and design of the building in his capacity as a professional demolition expert and STILL coming even more positively to the conclusion that WTC7 had been a controlled demolition could amount to a lie of omission.(see link)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko
Click to expand...
Bottom line. You say that this guy's opinion is gold although he's only right 1/3 of the time.

Did I get that right?
 
DGM said:
So the answer is yes. Why is this so hard for "truthers" to admit?
Click to expand...

Well I don't don't really care what his initial off-the-cuff remarks were about the Twin Towers. I dare say that he has changed his mind about that anyway.

But I DO take extreme note that Jowenko as a top demolition expert says that WTC7 was definately a controlled demolition. This after his careful study of the drawings and design.

Always remember '' If there is a problem with WTC7 then there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story'
 
bill smith said:
Well I don't don't really care what his initial off-the-cuff remarks were about the Twin Towers. I dare say that he has changed his mind about that anyway.
Click to expand...

Assuming much? Your buddy crazy Jeff should have asked Jowenko if he still felt WTC1 and WTC2 were NO demolitions.

But I DO take extreme note that Jowenko as a top demolition expert says that WTC7 was definately a controlled demolition. This after his careful study of the drawings and design.
Click to expand...

It's just one guys opinion. And opinions are like ********, everybody got one.

Always remember '' If there is a problem with WTC7 then there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story'
Click to expand...

The problem WTC7 had was that it was on fire for most of the day.
 
If there is NO problem with the 9/11 official story there is a problem with Jowenko's story. It really does work both ways.
 
Okay Oystein, let me explain it more clearly for you.

L I E: the quality of being false.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6239188&postcount=935

Oystein "That's why he latches on to the most ill-informed of all nearly-experts in the world: Danny Jowenko."
false, unproven, strictly opinion but not stated as such.

Oystein"The man who did not know that fires had burned in WTC7."
false; fires were discussed in the original interview.

Oystein "The man who was kept in the dark about the fact that no explosions were recorded by any video camera."
false; your assumption is based on zero factual knowledge.

Oystein "The man who was forced to form a quick and dirty opinion based upon looking at a very rough blue print of the building structure."
false; His opinion did not originate with a study of a "very rough blue print of the building structure." He was not coerced (forced under pressure). He showed a relaxed confidence, and gave his opinion freely and quickly, once he saw the WTC7 collapse video.

Oystein "The man who never studied any of the scientific studies about WTC7."
false; conjecture. Your post spans the two interviews that Danny Jowenko gave, and you give no evidence to support your belief that he did not study material that was publicly available in that time period. Furthermore, you fail to identify what those scientific studies might be.

Oystein "The man who has no known experience with building conflagrations, fire fighting or related topics, because as an explosive demolisher, all that is entirely irrelevant to his profession."
false; conjecture. You cannot state something as fact when you don't have the knowledge to support the claim.

Oystein"The man who stands alone in the world of professional peers with his ad-hoc opinion."
false; unproven pre-meditation. ad-hoc opinion "arranged for a particular purpose only"
conjecture; Again you have no proof to substantiate your claim that he "stands alone in the world of professional peers" with his opinion.

Oystein "The man who has never demolished anything in the USA and therefore knows nothing about the way public bidding is done there."
The last part of your sentence is false; conjecture; You do not know the extent of Danny Jowenko's familiarity with public bidding on building demolitions in the USA. His only comment on the subject was a statement clearly made as an opinion,
something you would be wise to do.

Oystein "The man who sits an ocean away, uninterested, ignorantly."
false; only truth in that statement is that he does live an ocean away.

The biggest problem with your post Oystein is that you are too inclined to arrogantly state your weak opinions as if they are proven facts.

They aren't.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
The biggest problem with your post Oystein is that you are too inclined to arrogantly state your weak opinions as if they are proven facts.

They aren't.

MM
Click to expand...

Fantastic! And perhaps NOW we will see MM opening his eyes up a little bit.

The biggest problem with your post MM is that you are too inclined to arrogantly state Jowenko's weak (uniformed, off the cuff, "blind sided," mislead) opinions as if they are proven facts. They aren't.
 
Let's not forget .........

Oystein said:
Bill WANTS to see a problem with WTC7 so he can go on trolling. That's why he latches on to the most ill-informed of all nearly-experts in the world: Danny Jowenko. The man who did not know that fires had burned in WTC7. The man who was kept in the dark about the fact that no explosions were recorded by any video camera. The man who was forced to form a quick and dirty opinion based upon looking at a very rough blue print of the building structure. The man who never studied any of the scientific studies about WTC7. The man who did not even know when the building collapsed. The man who has no known experience with building conflagrations, fire fighting or related topics, because as an explosive demolisher, all that is entirely irrelevant to his profession. The man who is therefore neither an expert on the relevant subjects nor sufficiently informed. The man who is so much not the authority to go to. The man who stands alone in the world of professional peers with his ad-hoc opinion. The man who has never demolished anything in the USA and therefore knows nothing about the way public bidding is done there. The man who sits an ocean away, uninterested, ignorantly.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the other explosive/demolition expert that declared explosives were used on the twin towers .

Three days after 9/11, The Albuquerque Journal interviewed Demolition Scientist Van Romero.
http://www.rense.com/general65/911m.htm

<excerpt>
Three days after 9/11, The Albuquerque Journal interviewed Demolition Scientist Van Romero.

........"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit
the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings
that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former director of
the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies
explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other
structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions
used to demolish old structures.
"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that." .........
Click to expand...
 
Fonebone said:
Let's not forget the other explosive/demolition expert that declared explosives were used on the twin towers .
Click to expand...

Next


"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.
Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above.
Click to expand...
 
Fonebone said:
Let's not forget the other explosive/demolition expert that declared explosives were used on the twin towers .
Click to expand...

AWESOME!

Let's not forget the other explosive/demolition expert who investigated the matter in detail and declared that explosives were NOT used on the twin towers.

imagine a laughing dog here!
 
16.5 said:
Fantastic! And perhaps NOW we will see MM opening his eyes up a little bit.

The biggest problem with your post MM is that you are too inclined to arrogantly state Jowenko's weak (uniformed, off the cuff, "blind sided," mislead) opinions as if they are proven facts. They aren't.
Click to expand...
W R O N G

I state his professional opinions as what they are, professional opinions.

MM
 
Fonebone said:
Let's not forget the other explosive/demolition expert that declared explosives were used on the twin towers .
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that the story was brought by the Albuquerque Journal on the day of the attacks, but retracted 10 days later at the request of Van Romero himself. The original article can't be found at the AJ anymore, only the retraction:

AJ search result "Van Romero" for 2001

You should have quoted the newer article:

...
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
...
Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.

Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above.
...
Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.

"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."
Click to expand...

ETA Source: http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles and Notes/WTC Explosives.html /ETA

You knew that, didn't you?
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
W R O N G

I state his professional opinions as what they are, professional opinions.

MM
Click to expand...

Which more and more amounts to a straight lie, as you have been shown how badly informed he was, and that he is not a professional fire scientist, fire fighter or fire anything.

You have so far been unable to support any hint that he is in fact a professional expert in things relating to buildings on fire, or that he was at all aware of any of the scientific studies relating to WTC7, or was aware of the lack of explosion sounds, or was nearly enough informed about the extent and nature of the many fires, or that he knew the critical details of the building structure, or that he knew the timing of the event.

Your assertions are bare.

Your continued presentation of Jowenko's opinion as "professional" is blatantly wrong.

Stop it.
 
Miragememories said:
W R O N G

I state his professional opinions as what they are, professional opinions.

MM
Click to expand...

Then of course you accept professional opinions from any expert, even if they support the commonly-held narrative of 9-11, right? There happens to be a crap load of those.
 
Miragememories said:
You know Al, I really wish that were true.

If you can convince yourself that the Official Conspiracy Theory is the
truth, than I truly envy you that peace of mind.
Click to expand...

Start with observable facts:
  • There are no eyewitnesses reports or audio-video recordings of noises consistent in timing, loudness and brisance with man-made demolition.
  • There are no injuries or deaths with symptoms consistent with man-made explosions.
  • There are lots of injuries consistent with burns caused by of jet fuel.
  • 4 passenger jets were hijacked and made to crash into three buildings and a grass field.
Any hypothesis that doesn't accept the above is by definition broken from the moment of conception.
 
16.5 said:
...
I think Oystein is more credible, because at least there is evidence that he actually read the NIST report,
...
Click to expand...

Only partially ^^

However, the NIST report was written by experts who revealed their real world names, and are really experts. Unlile Danny. And who were very well informed. Unlike Danny.

So in the game of "who counts as expert? Who is more credible?" I guess NIST wins against Danny 100:1. At least.

And MM is just as anonymous and untrustworthy as is Oystein. Obviously.
 
Miragememories said:
I respect people who use their real names and allow their credentials to be validated.

Present yours and I might take you more seriously twinstead.

MM
Click to expand...

The contributers to the NIST report is FULL of just what you want, as are all the authors of the other myriad of papers published about 9-11 which are in the public domain for all to see and scrutinize. As you must be aware, I am not presenting myself as an expert. Like you with Jowenko, I am presenting the opinion of experts in support of my belief that the commonly-held narrative of 9-11 is the one that fits the available evidence the best.

If all you have is Jowenko, I'm afraid that in a war of expert attrition, you can only lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom