Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[MicahJava]

LOL

So we're supposed to believe a tale told by an anonymous internet poster whereby they briefly met with another anonymous person supposedly a criminal and a demolition expert too.

Tell me how did your demolition expert explain the fact they were no ear shattering explosions that always accompany a CD????

I think I'll go with the fire experts there that day that knew the building was going to collapse due to unfought fires over some random convict you happened to meet one day.

Well, she was with a small group of construction workers. Construction workers were common customers where I worked. She commented that she would rather work outdoors with the rest of the crew, but for the time being her job was mostly management/office work. You sound very nasty about the "criminal" thing, I bet you're fun to be around. As far as I'm concerned, she's my version of Danny Jowenko.

 

[ozeco41]

By the way, I mentioned this story before, and I'll mention this again.

At my job, I once casually met a lady who mentioned they managed a construction and demolition company. I asked if she was an expert in explosive demolition, and she said "Yeah, I'm an expert, I've had jobs with putting plastic explosives on columns". So I went ahead and asked "So, what do you think about Building 7?", and she replied "I was in jail when that happened. They say seven is a lucky number, but on 9-1-1 it wasn't". I then said "Do you think that might've been a demolition?" and she smiled and nodded 'yes'.

That is the answer I would tend to give to that question.

Smile and say yes. And leave the questioner probably unaware of the reason I was smiling.

Then I do have a weird sense of humour.


Then - if I knew I was speaking to a conspiracy obsessed person I would almost certainly say "Of course!" and be certain they would not get the point.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Well, she was with a small group of construction workers. Construction workers were common customers where I worked. She commented that she would rather work outdoors with the rest of the crew, but for the time being her job was mostly management/office work. You sound very nasty about the "criminal" thing, I bet you're fun to be around. As far as I'm concerned, she's my version of Danny Jowenko.

That's awesome. I'll continue to believe the experts on the scene that day and you can believe your "Danny Jawenko" with a criminal record.

15 years of failure and counting...

 

[skyeagle409]

Did you see earlier where I gave an example of a very basic noise abatement technique?

http://www.aquafoam.com/BlastingExplosions.html

One Scientific American article explains an experiment in which an explosion of 5 pounds of C-4 was dampened with 800 cubic feet of some simple foamy material (9.28 ft edges, 16 ft diameter).

[qimg]http://www.aquafoam.com/images/Sandia2A.jpg[/qimg]

"For each of these photographs, five pounds of the high explosive called C-4 was detonated at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. For the second detonation, the explosive was covered with 800 cubic feet of a low-density (.005 gram per cubic centimeter) aqueous foam. The foam proved to lessen the severity of the explosion by approximately 90 percent. Part of the energy of the shock wave of the explosion was consumed in converting the foam into tiny water droplets; then a further part of the shock energy was dissipated by the evaporation of the droplets."

And we have this actual video of an explosion with 4 pounds of C-4 dampened to sound like a mere rumble under a tent filled with liquid foam substance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL1mqlquZ3g&t=0m13s

That's obviously a lot of space consumed, but this is obviously a simple technology. With enough preparation, they could probably cover demolition charges with all kinds of stuff to dampen the noise, but I think they don't because it's cheaper.

It just goes to show that how well this art can be perfected is not something anyone here can show we know for sure. So enough with the sound crap already?

That won't fly because wrapping demolition explosives in blankets are part of the normal preparation process, which hardly does much of anyting in cutting down the sound level of demolition explosions.

Show us photos taken at ground zero that depicts such form. It shouldn't be a problem considering that the huge amounts of foam would have been spread all over ground zero. If you cannot post a photo of such foam at ground zero, then I will have to say that you lost another argument.

 

[cantonear1968]

Did you see earlier where I gave an example of a very basic noise abatement technique?

http://www.aquafoam.com/BlastingExplosions.html

One Scientific American article explains an experiment in which an explosion of 5 pounds of C-4 was dampened with 800 cubic feet of some simple foamy material (9.28 ft edges, 16 ft diameter).

[qimg]http://www.aquafoam.com/images/Sandia2A.jpg[/qimg]

"For each of these photographs, five pounds of the high explosive called C-4 was detonated at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. For the second detonation, the explosive was covered with 800 cubic feet of a low-density (.005 gram per cubic centimeter) aqueous foam. The foam proved to lessen the severity of the explosion by approximately 90 percent. Part of the energy of the shock wave of the explosion was consumed in converting the foam into tiny water droplets; then a further part of the shock energy was dissipated by the evaporation of the droplets."

And we have this actual video of an explosion with 4 pounds of C-4 dampened to sound like a mere rumble under a tent filled with liquid foam substance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL1mqlquZ3g&t=0m13s

That's obviously a lot of space consumed, but this is obviously a simple technology. With enough preparation, they could probably cover demolition charges with all kinds of stuff to dampen the noise, but I think they don't because it's cheaper.

It just goes to show that how well this art can be perfected is not something anyone here can show we know for sure. So enough with the sound crap already?

So how do you believe this could have been used for WTC7?

Edit: I see that ProBonoShill has asked this question in Tony Szamboti's thread. There's no need to answer in this one.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

So how do you believe this could have been used for WTC7?

I am more interested in how he cuts the steel predemo, so he can prevent the shock wave from resonating though it when the steel cutting demolition charges go off.

I mean if he cuts the steel to install the tent, and prevent the sound from resonating though the steel, what's holding up the building during the demo?

 

[cantonear1968]

I am more interested in how he cuts the steel predemo, so he can prevent the shock wave from resonating though it when the steel cutting demolition charges go off.

I mean if he cuts the steel to install the tent, and prevent the sound from resonating though the steel, what's holding up the building during the demo?

True. But as I stated at the outset I didn't resurrect this thread for discussion because there are several other current threads where WTC7 is the main theme. Not much point in continuing another one. I wanted to find that interview with Ron, and Ozeco (and Ron) were kind enough to provide it.

I think the final word on Jowenko is there are 3 follow up discussions after the Dutch TV interview and he did not change his opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. He does not provide further information on why, or more importantly how, but CTers still have that one demolition expert they can bring up.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

True. But as I stated at the outset I didn't resurrect this thread for discussion because there are several other current threads where WTC7 is the main theme. Not much point in continuing another one. I wanted to find that interview with Ron, and Ozeco (and Ron) were kind enough to provide it.

I think the final word on Jowenko is there are 3 follow up discussions after the Dutch TV interview and he did not change his opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. He does not provide further information on why, or more importantly how, but CTers still have that one demolition expert they can bring up.

It doesn't matter he obviously, is not qualified to comment on WTC 7, he made the comment without knowing the extent of the fires. He showed himself to be solely playing to an audiance of idiots.

 

[cantonear1968]

It doesn't matter he obviously, is not qualified to comment on WTC 7, he made the comment without knowing the extent of the fires. He showed himself to be solely playing to an audiance of idiots.

While I wouldn't go that far I do think Jowenko immersed himself in woo after the Dutch TV interview. I believe it was the Jeff Hill phone call where Jowenko, when asked about demo companies in the States, dismissed them all as going along because they needed govt contracts. That's quite heavy CT mindset.

However most CTers will not get into the nuts and bolts of WTC7 and Jowenko's words. They simply get to hold him as their guilded trophy and his expert opinion.

On a similar note, Gage's 10 year old petition has morphed from a mostly non-qualified list of people who thought it looked strange to "2500 top experts in their field". Most CTers don't care about the qualifications or even if any work was done. If there's "professional" after their name that's enough.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

While I wouldn't go that far I do think Jowenko immersed himself in woo after the Dutch TV interview. I believe it was the Jeff Hill phone call where Jowenko, when asked about demo companies in the States, dismissed them all as going along because they needed govt contracts. That's quite heavy CT mindset.

However most CTers will not get into the nuts and bolts of WTC7 and Jowenko's words. They simply get to hold him as their guilded trophy and his expert opinion.

On a similar note, Gage's 10 year old petition has morphed from a mostly non-qualified list of people who thought it looked strange to "2500 top experts in their field". Most CTers don't care about the qualifications or even if any work was done. If there's "professional" after their name that's enough.

Jowenko was clearly puffing to sell a business service, most likely it back fired.

 

[pgimeno]

That's obviously a lot of space consumed, but this is obviously a simple technology. With enough preparation, they could probably cover demolition charges with all kinds of stuff to dampen the noise, but I think they don't because it's cheaper.

It just goes to show that how well this art can be perfected is not something anyone here can show we know for sure. So enough with the sound crap already?

Appeal to magic.

You can't absorb the explosion sound with a rigid material. The material's other end (the part exposed outwards) would transmit too much of the pressure wave, making it clearly audible.

If it's a soft material (like foam), you're going to need lots of it in order for the pressure not to escape before it reaches the end of the barrier.

Bottom line, there can't physically exist a technology to muzzle explosions that doesn't use lots of space.

 

[jaydeehess]

By the way, I mentioned this story before, and I'll mention this again.

At my job, I once casually met a lady who mentioned they managed a construction and demolition company. I asked if she was an expert in explosive demolition, and she said "Yeah, I'm an expert, I've had jobs with putting plastic explosives on columns". So I went ahead and asked "So, what do you think about Building 7?", and she replied "I was in jail when that happened. They say seven is a lucky number, but on 9-1-1 it wasn't". I then said "Do you think that might've been a demolition?" and she smiled and nodded 'yes'.

There could be credibilty there.
Of course you asked her the name of her company, right? Of course you looked the company up, right?

 

[beachnut]

Remember all those reports of foam filled offices on 9/11? No

Did you see earlier where I gave an example of a very basic noise abatement technique?

http://www.aquafoam.com/BlastingExplosions.html

One Scientific American article explains an experiment in which an explosion of 5 pounds of C-4 was dampened with 800 cubic feet of some simple foamy material (9.28 ft edges, 16 ft diameter).

[qimg]http://www.aquafoam.com/images/Sandia2A.jpg[/qimg]

"For each of these photographs, five pounds of the high explosive called C-4 was detonated at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. For the second detonation, the explosive was covered with 800 cubic feet of a low-density (.005 gram per cubic centimeter) aqueous foam. The foam proved to lessen the severity of the explosion by approximately 90 percent. Part of the energy of the shock wave of the explosion was consumed in converting the foam into tiny water droplets; then a further part of the shock energy was dissipated by the evaporation of the droplets."

And we have this actual video of an explosion with 4 pounds of C-4 dampened to sound like a mere rumble under a tent filled with liquid foam substance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL1mqlquZ3g&t=0m13s

That's obviously a lot of space consumed, but this is obviously a simple technology. With enough preparation, they could probably cover demolition charges with all kinds of stuff to dampen the noise, but I think they don't because it's cheaper.

It just goes to show that how well this art can be perfected is not something anyone here can show we know for sure. So enough with the sound crap already?

Hey, why is our office filled with foam? lol, do you make up BS on the fly, or did you plagiarize this nonsense from 9/11 truth nuts?

Now we have tons of silent explosives covered in tons of quieting stuff, never found or seen on or after 9/11. Good job debunking yourself with BS.


You got no melted steel, no steel cut with explosives, no blast effects on any steel... means you got a CD fantasy born in paranoia, done by people you can't name.

Hey Bob, why is 800 cubic feet of some simple foamy material all over my office space? What is the 10 foot tall pile of foam going down the hall for 10 feet, and 8 feet wide? Is our ceiling 10 feet tall? Where is MY DESK?

This is the best 9/11 truth has, to back in how to silent explosives to cover their silly fantasy of CD.

CD is a fantasy, no steel was damaged by explosives. The only interesting steel was corroded in fires after 9/11. 15 years of failure, a movement based on the overwhelming ignorance of the followers - and Gage is cashing in on the fringe few who remain gullible. The IRS needs to check the top contributors at over 100,000 dollars to see if they were refunded 85,000 dollars per 100,000 dollar contribution with 10,000 going to Gage... tax scam, or failed quest for new investigation. Does Gage believe his lies?

 

[Mark F]

There could be credibilty there.
Of course you asked her the name of her company, right? Of course you looked the company up, right?

Anonymous person says it "might have been a demolition".

Yeah, very compelling. I think that's case closed right there.

 

[Whip]

Now we have tons of silent explosives covered in tons of quieting stuff, never found or seen on or after 9/11. Good job debunking yourself with BS.

not to mention allllll the personel needed to pull this off, yet not say one peep after all these years.

 

[ProBonoShill]

There could be credibilty there.
Of course you asked her the name of her company, right? Of course you looked the company up, right?

I doubt it. Truthers claim they will do anything to get to the "truth" yet fail to perform simple tasks and ask simple questions. They'd rather spend their time trolling YouTube videos and internet forums.