Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Miragememories]

Thanks for those very illustrative bare assertion fallacies, and a classic argument from authority.
The observations of Jowenko go far beyond simple documentary evidence which would be required to 'prove' scientifically that a CD had actually occurred. As discussed elsewhere, these would need to include careful engineering data, audio evidence of CD explosions, documentation of explosive squibs, forensic evidence of high explosives and cutter charges on the steel and the rubble, etc...

But of course his comments are devoid of any of these. Instead, he merely speculates about how it 'was' done, as if he actually knows!!!! He's not even a little bit skeptical..

I'll dig up some arguments in support of the moon landing hoax which show the same pattern. Time to go hike up a mountain tho...

When it comes to an opinion about whether WTC7 was felled by controlled demolition alienentity, I'll take the word of an expert in controlled demolitions over that of a corporate video producer any day.


MM

 

[Miragememories]

Jowenko's fallacies have already been addressed in this forum, and were done so years ago. To recap that which has been known since 2006: The truthers who initially interviewed him did not tell about the extensive fires in the towers or that those were unfought for hours; that by itself demonstrates that his initial conclusion is flawed, given that his interviewers never gave him the necessary and central facts. In later queries, he's never referenced what's known about the fires or structural damage induced by the fires, and has merely expanded on elements of the structure and what would have needed to have been done to conduct an explosives demolition of the towers. Not only is that retailing of mere hypotheticals, but the concept of explosives has been addressed by pointing out the noise produced by the collapse is absolutely inconsistent with the use of such. In short, the sound produced contradicts the possibility of explosives use.

And no, don't bring up thermite; not only is that addressed in other threads, but 1. It's not an explosive, and 2. It's not an element of Jowenko's proposals.

Jowenko's conclusions are quite obviously not accepted by the engineering community at large, and I'm referring to the worldwide community, not merely the US component. As was pointed out to you back in 2007: The Eurocodes have been modified in response to NIST's reports. Furthermore, the findings from the 7 World Trade NIST study was released after the last round of ICC meetings to modify, but knowledge of the Twin Towers reports have already had an impact on codes generated by that body. We'll see what they do with the 7 World Trade studies during the next round of code changes, but if history is any guide, they'll be accepted. Regardless, pointing out Jowenko accomplishes nothing other than demonstrating that minority opinions exist, and when the particulars of Jowenko's opinion are studied, they fail on their own merits. One person in the demolitions industry who was not given complete information on the 7 World Trade building collapse and who has not built a complete theory but merely expanded on what would have been needed is not a contradiction of the established body of knowledge. It's not even a good critique. If you want a good critique, I'd advise looking at Arup or Dr. James Quintiere as examples. Citing Jowenko does you no good.

I suggest you study my post here before you get overwhelmed in your beliefs;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6181645&postcount=1552

MM

 

[Miragememories]

You mean this Jowenko:

I suggest you read my post here before you open the champagne;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6181645&postcount=1552

MM

 

[uke2se]

I suggest you study my post here before you get overwhelmed in your beliefs;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6181645&postcount=1552

MM

So, how about it, MM? Jowenko says WTC 1 and 2 weren't CDs. That's gotta be right as well if we are to take Jowenko's opinion over all others'. Don't try to drag your ludicrous scenario about Jowenko being pressured into lying about WTC 1 and 2 either, because that's probably one of the stupidest ideas I've heard a truther post.

 

[uke2se]

When it comes to an opinion about whether WTC7 was felled by controlled demolition alienentity, I'll take the word of an expert in controlled demolitions over that of a corporate video producer any day.


MM

Ok, here are some experts in controlled demolition saying the WTC towers weren't CD'd. Let's trust them. They is expert.

 

[triforcharity]

I believe Danny Jowenko, like just about every other trusting soul, including myself, was shocked and awed by what he saw on 9/11. In quick order, we accepted the common belief that the sole cause of the WTC Twin Towers collapses were the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

At the time of his 2006 interview, Danny Jowenko was well aware that the mass media, the public, corporations, and most major governments accepted the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Being a wise businessman as well as a demolition expert, Danny knew that to go on record questioning the common belief about the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses, would put him at odds with the people with whom he had to do business.

I'll illustrate my point with this extract from the later interview with Danny Jowenko. The same interview in which he reiterated his firm belief that WTC 7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

Danny Jowenko:"Listen, when the FEMA makes a report that it [WTC7] came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the states as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone, you know?"
Interviewer:"Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?"
Danny Jowenko: "Of course, it's the end of the story."

You might ask at this point; if Danny believed it was bad for business, why in his original interview didn't he just agree that WTC 7 was felled by fire and avoid that controversy as well?

And that would be a fair question.

We know that Danny Jowenko was on record as being in agreement with popular opinion, that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses.

The reason for the apparent discrepancy in Danny Jowenko's responses about the cause of the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC 7, lies in how the original Dutch interview was conducted.

He was asked to watch the video of building 7 at the WTC.

But, and this is the crucial point, he was not told at that moment, that the video was from 9/11.

Here is an extract from the first portion of the interview In 2006, for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

Interviewer:"What you see at the WTC, these are pictures of building #7. Let's take this and look what we see. Do you see a fire above somewhere?"
Danny Jowenko:"I see smoke however. Yeah, you always get dust, nothing has been removed from it? Does the top go first? No, the bottom."
Interviewer:"It starts on the bottom."
Danny Jowenko:"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."
Interviewer:"Did this fall in a different way than the WTC? [WTC 1 & WTC 2]"
Danny Jowenko:"Don't you agree?"
Interviewer:"Yes, you see the bottom floors go first."
Danny Jowenko:"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."
Interviewer:"Your sure?"
Danny Jowenko:"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

At this point, the interviewer tells Danny Jowenko when the collapse they have been studying occurred.

Interviewer:"But it also happened on September 11th."
Danny Jowenko:"The same day??? ..... Are you sure?????"
Interviewer:"Yes."
[long pause]
Interviewer:"There it goes again."
[They watch the WTC7 collapse again]

Danny now realizes the serious ramifications of his earlier unguarded opinion.

Danny Jowenko:"I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days, there was already much smoke gone. Are you sure it was the 11th??? That can't be."
Interviewer:"Seven hours after the World Trade Center came down."

So my argument to you uke2se is that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided into given an honest unguarded response about a collapse that he didn't know was part of 9/11.

He had the integrity to not shift from that opinion when given the opportunity at the time of that interview and in a subsequent interview, a year later.

Had he known beforehand that the collapse was part of 9/11, I'm sure he would have taken the safer, less controversial path.

Knowing how it might impact his business, he likely would have offered the conclusion that the collapse of WTC7 was also a direct consequence of what appeared to happen with the WTC Twin Towers.

MM

Source?

PS, did they have the audio turned on?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I suggest you study my post here before you get overwhelmed in your beliefs;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6181645&postcount=1552

MM

There's not a single element of that post that negates what I said. On the contrary, it confirms my criticism. Like I said: He wasn't given complete information regarding the collapses, and futhermore does not build a hypothesis built on what is known about the fires and subsequent effect of those fires on the towers. He doesn't build any cohesive narrative, he merely gives a reaction to a video he just seen.

If that post was meant to refute any aspect of what I said, then it fails. It supports it. It clearly demonstrates that he was not working with full information and in turn did not build anything near a complete hypothesis. You should go back and reread previous threads on the topics, threads you clearly do not recall despite having participated in them. Jowenko's opinions have already been refuted; you're resurrecting an already failed hypothesis. Here are some links.

 

[TruthersLie]

I believe Danny Jowenko, like just about every other trusting soul, including myself, was shocked and awed by what he saw on 9/11. In quick order, we accepted the common belief that the sole cause of the WTC Twin Towers collapses were the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

At the time of his 2006 interview, Danny Jowenko was well aware that the mass media, the public, corporations, and most major governments accepted the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Being a wise businessman as well as a demolition expert, Danny knew that to go on record questioning the common belief about the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses, would put him at odds with the people with whom he had to do business.

I'll illustrate my point with this extract from the later interview with Danny Jowenko. The same interview in which he reiterated his firm belief that WTC 7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

Danny Jowenko:"Listen, when the FEMA makes a report that it [WTC7] came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the states as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone, you know?"
Interviewer:"Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?"
Danny Jowenko: "Of course, it's the end of the story."

You might ask at this point; if Danny believed it was bad for business, why in his original interview didn't he just agree that WTC 7 was felled by fire and avoid that controversy as well?

And that would be a fair question.

We know that Danny Jowenko was on record as being in agreement with popular opinion, that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses.

The reason for the apparent discrepancy in Danny Jowenko's responses about the cause of the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC 7, lies in how the original Dutch interview was conducted.

He was asked to watch the video of building 7 at the WTC.

But, and this is the crucial point, he was not told at that moment, that the video was from 9/11.

Here is an extract from the first portion of the interview In 2006, for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

Interviewer:"What you see at the WTC, these are pictures of building #7. Let's take this and look what we see. Do you see a fire above somewhere?"
Danny Jowenko:"I see smoke however. Yeah, you always get dust, nothing has been removed from it? Does the top go first? No, the bottom."
Interviewer:"It starts on the bottom."
Danny Jowenko:"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."
Interviewer:"Did this fall in a different way than the WTC? [WTC 1 & WTC 2]"
Danny Jowenko:"Don't you agree?"
Interviewer:"Yes, you see the bottom floors go first."
Danny Jowenko:"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."
Interviewer:"Your sure?"
Danny Jowenko:"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

At this point, the interviewer tells Danny Jowenko when the collapse they have been studying occurred.

Interviewer:"But it also happened on September 11th."
Danny Jowenko:"The same day??? ..... Are you sure?????"
Interviewer:"Yes."
[long pause]
Interviewer:"There it goes again."
[They watch the WTC7 collapse again]

Danny now realizes the serious ramifications of his earlier unguarded opinion.

Danny Jowenko:"I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days, there was already much smoke gone. Are you sure it was the 11th??? That can't be."
Interviewer:"Seven hours after the World Trade Center came down."

So my argument to you uke2se is that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided into given an honest unguarded response about a collapse that he didn't know was part of 9/11.

He had the integrity to not shift from that opinion when given the opportunity at the time of that interview and in a subsequent interview, a year later.

Had he known beforehand that the collapse was part of 9/11, I'm sure he would have taken the safer, less controversial path.

Knowing how it might impact his business, he likely would have offered the conclusion that the collapse of WTC7 was also a direct consequence of what appeared to happen with the WTC Twin Towers.

MM

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. When you pay attention to how many times he says "I'm just guessing here..." and there rest it is rather funny.

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?

 

[GlennB]

So my argument to you uke2se is that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided into given an honest unguarded response about a collapse that he didn't know was part of 9/11.

Jowenko was also under the impression that the base of building was gutted by debris impact damage and that the CD team could just walk in and get straight to work on exposed columns.

He was also given the impression that there were only 12 core columns.

And - critically - not a single thought was given to why a CD team might be hanging around.

 

[bardamu]

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. When you pay attention to how many times he says "I'm just guessing here..." and there rest it is rather funny.

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?

Bill was wondering which corner of WTC 7 dropped first.

 

[bill smith]

Jowenko is qualified to make the call.

He was quite unambiguous in his conclusions.

MM

Jowenko confirms absolutely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko

 

[dafydd]

I believe Danny Jowenko, like just about every other trusting soul, including myself, was shocked and awed by what he saw on 9/11. In quick order, we accepted the common belief that the sole cause of the WTC Twin Towers collapses were the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

At the time of his 2006 interview, Danny Jowenko was well aware that the mass media, the public, corporations, and most major governments accepted the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Being a wise businessman as well as a demolition expert, Danny knew that to go on record questioning the common belief about the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses, would put him at odds with the people with whom he had to do business.

I'll illustrate my point with this extract from the later interview with Danny Jowenko. The same interview in which he reiterated his firm belief that WTC 7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

Danny Jowenko:"Listen, when the FEMA makes a report that it [WTC7] came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the states as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone, you know?"
Interviewer:"Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?"
Danny Jowenko: "Of course, it's the end of the story."

You might ask at this point; if Danny believed it was bad for business, why in his original interview didn't he just agree that WTC 7 was felled by fire and avoid that controversy as well?

And that would be a fair question.

We know that Danny Jowenko was on record as being in agreement with popular opinion, that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses.

The reason for the apparent discrepancy in Danny Jowenko's responses about the cause of the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC 7, lies in how the original Dutch interview was conducted.

He was asked to watch the video of building 7 at the WTC.

But, and this is the crucial point, he was not told at that moment, that the video was from 9/11.

Here is an extract from the first portion of the interview In 2006, for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

Interviewer:"What you see at the WTC, these are pictures of building #7. Let's take this and look what we see. Do you see a fire above somewhere?"
Danny Jowenko:"I see smoke however. Yeah, you always get dust, nothing has been removed from it? Does the top go first? No, the bottom."
Interviewer:"It starts on the bottom."
Danny Jowenko:"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."
Interviewer:"Did this fall in a different way than the WTC? [WTC 1 & WTC 2]"
Danny Jowenko:"Don't you agree?"
Interviewer:"Yes, you see the bottom floors go first."
Danny Jowenko:"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."
Interviewer:"Your sure?"
Danny Jowenko:"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

At this point, the interviewer tells Danny Jowenko when the collapse they have been studying occurred.

Interviewer:"But it also happened on September 11th."
Danny Jowenko:"The same day??? ..... Are you sure?????"
Interviewer:"Yes."
[long pause]
Interviewer:"There it goes again."
[They watch the WTC7 collapse again]

Danny now realizes the serious ramifications of his earlier unguarded opinion.

Danny Jowenko:"I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days, there was already much smoke gone. Are you sure it was the 11th??? That can't be."
Interviewer:"Seven hours after the World Trade Center came down."

So my argument to you uke2se is that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided into given an honest unguarded response about a collapse that he didn't know was part of 9/11.

He had the integrity to not shift from that opinion when given the opportunity at the time of that interview and in a subsequent interview, a year later.

Had he known beforehand that the collapse was part of 9/11, I'm sure he would have taken the safer, less controversial path.

Knowing how it might impact his business, he likely would have offered the conclusion that the collapse of WTC7 was also a direct consequence of what appeared to happen with the WTC Twin Towers.

MM

Will these delusionauts still be harping on about this in twenty years time? They've had nine years and produced nothing,no evidence,no whistle blowers,no passengers who were in on it,zilch,nada,rein-de-knots,niks. How long can they keep this up for? Surely this is a wide open field for psychologists?The 911 syndrome.Have any studies been done on truthers?

 

[Oystein]

Jowenko was also under the impression that the base of building was gutted by debris impact damage and that the CD team could just walk in and get straight to work on exposed columns.

He was also given the impression that there were only 12 core columns.

And - critically - not a single thought was given to why a CD team might be hanging around.

He also did not know that WTC7 had burned for hours. When he learned about that, he was pretty much clueless, as he know perfectly well that you can't rig a building whil it is burning, and that the charges already placed in burning fire would also just burn, not explode, before they could be detonated.

So here is a picture perfect example for the "Fallacy from false authority": While Jowenko may be an authority for CD, in this case he was clearly a very ill informed expert. An expert with wrong information can not come to the right conclusion.
Even if he presumably (we can doubt that he is correctly identified inb that phone call, could be fake) confirmed his CD stance a year later, we have no indication that he has in the meantime received better information.

 

[dafydd]

Jowenko was also under the impression that the base of building was gutted by debris impact damage and that the CD team could just walk in and get straight to work on exposed columns.

He was also given the impression that there were only 12 core columns.

And - critically - not a single thought was given to why a CD team might be hanging around.

Do not bother truthers with allusions to reality,it is non-productive.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

My reply addressed your post completely. If you don't realize that I can't really help you. You want to be able to use Jowenko to support your delusion of CD for WTC 7, but you don't want to acknowledge his opinion that WTC 1 and 2 weren't CD, so you invent a scenario in which Jowenko is somehow passively peer-pressured into supporting the official line for WTC 1 and 2, but "blindsided" into "revealing" that WTC 7 was a CD. You further claim that he had enough "integrity" to not recant his opinion on WTC 7 later on, despite this completely undermining your entire scenario.

Once again, epic fail.

Because he is a professional; he can never be wrong.
Anyway... He thinks Jowenko is something other than human (actually he thinks this of the Gage crew too). Most people understand that in the end these professionals are people and they have the same faults as everybody else, but not conspiracy theorists

 

[Miragememories]

There's not a single element of that post that negates what I said. On the contrary, it confirms my criticism. Like I said: He wasn't given complete information regarding the collapses, and futhermore does not build a hypothesis built on what is known about the fires and subsequent effect of those fires on the towers. He doesn't build any cohesive narrative, he merely gives a reaction to a video he just seen.

If that post was meant to refute any aspect of what I said, then it fails. It supports it. It clearly demonstrates that he was not working with full information and in turn did not build anything near a complete hypothesis. You should go back and reread previous threads on the topics, threads you clearly do not recall despite having participated in them. Jowenko's opinions have already been refuted; you're resurrecting an already failed hypothesis. Here are some links.

You ignore the truth at your own peril.

Danny Jowenko had ample opportunity to change his mind.

He did not.

He had access to all the information available to everyone here.

He could have changed his mind.

Did he change his mind?

To quote Mr. Jowenko;
"It couldn't have been done by fire. Absolutely not!".

Has the level of bigoted responses changed one iota in this forum.

Absolutely not.

I do hope all the open-minded visitors who come here pay close attention.

The best case for supporting the cause of 9/11 Truth is presented by the clear ignorance behind the replies of all the Official Conspiracy Theory supporters here.

MM

 

[Oystein]

You ignore the truth at your own peril.

Danny Jowenko had ample opportunity to change his mind.

He did not.

He had access to all the information available to everyone here.

He could have changed his mind.

Did he change his mind?
...

Did he actually access the information and study it?
Do you know?

 

[Miragememories]

Jowenko was also under the impression that the base of building was gutted by debris impact damage and that the CD team could just walk in and get straight to work on exposed columns.

He was also given the impression that there were only 12 core columns.

And - critically - not a single thought was given to why a CD team might be hanging around.

To rename an old song;
Who's Lying Now?

I guess the truth only has to be provided by those who disagree with you?

Apparently, make it up as you go along, is just fine for those who support the Official Conspiracy Theory.

MM

 

[Telltale Tom]

Danny is one of the special truthers whose truth consists of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was caused by the plane attack and subsequent fires while WTC 7 was caused by a controlled demolition team.

I would say he believes this, but at ae911truth we don't have beliefs, only truths.

 

[Miragememories]

He also did not know that WTC7 had burned for hours. When he learned about that, he was pretty much clueless, as he know perfectly well that you can't rig a building whil it is burning, and that the charges already placed in burning fire would also just burn, not explode, before they could be detonated.

So here is a picture perfect example for the "Fallacy from false authority": While Jowenko may be an authority for CD, in this case he was clearly a very ill informed expert. An expert with wrong information can not come to the right conclusion.
Even if he presumably (we can doubt that he is correctly identified inb that phone call, could be fake) confirmed his CD stance a year later, we have no indication that he has in the meantime received better information.

What you fail, or refuse to grasp the significance of Oystein, is that fire was so far from a being a possible cause for the WTC 7 collapse, that Danny has never wavered, even to this day, in his unequivocal conclusion that WTC 7 was felled by controlled demolition.

MM