Oystein, you prove yourself to be just another OCT liar.
If by the end of this reply I find you have not found a lie in what I posted, you will be reported.
Danny Jowenko is a qualified expert in the controlled demolition of concrete and steel buildings who was willing to go on the public record with his opinion on WTC7. An opinion he re-confirmed a year later.
I did not say anything to the contrary. Yes, he is an expert for explosive CD. Yes, he was willing to get interviewed by some Dutch TV crew.
What was saying is: a) He is not an expert for fires in buildings and b) he was clearly ill-informed, which severely deprecates his value as an expert.
I did not lie.
You Oystein are an alias hiding out on an internet forum.
That means? Do I claim to be an expert? No.
I did not lie.
Fires were discussed in the original interview.
Yes. That's where Danny expressed surprise that the building was on fire, and went on to assume that the fires were so small they could have been put out by hand. Which of course is very very far from the truth.
That original interview contains the proof that Danny was in fact ill-informed about the fires.
I didn't lie.
Danny did not hesitate in maintaining his professional opinion that absolutely fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7.
I never said he hesitated offering that opinion. All I say is: He is not an expert on burning buildings, and he was crassly misinformed.
I did not lie.
Danny was well aware of what he did and didn't hear when observing the WTC7 collapse video. He made no qualification to his opinion based on missing audio.
How do you know what he was or wasn't aware of? Naturally, if he was not aware about the lack of sound, or the significance thereof, he would not have commented on the sound (or lack thereof). Which is what he did.
I did not lie there. You just speculate.
A major lie 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." Danny Jowenko was not in any way coerced, and he gave his opinion freely and quickly once he saw the WTC7 collapse video.
I did not say "coerced". He was under a time constraint, because the film crew was there then. He had no time to look at any details, evidence or studies other than what the film crew presented to him. Therefore, he was forced by the brevity of the interview (and, presumably, business priorities) to form an opinion quickly.
The "forced" is not to be construed as a method of getting any opinion from him, it refers to the "quick and dirty".
I did not lie, you did not understand me well.
You lie again Oystein, when you make your unsubstantiated claim that "The man who has no known experience with building conflagrations, fire fighting or related topics.."
Do you know anything about his experience with building conflagrations, fire fighting or related topics? Do you know anybody who knows?
Tell me what you know, or who knows. If you can't, then I will maintain that Jowenko has in fact no such experience known to anybody, and I did not lie.
Since when does knowing when WTC7 collapsed have any bearing on his ability to judge the collapse video?
You did watch the video, right? Jowenko had formed his opinion at a time when he thought a CD team was given several days in a non-burning building to rig it. You did notice his confusion when he learned that they only had a few hours? Had to change his opinion ad hoc. He didn't come full circle round to the conclusion that in fact a CD was very unlikely. He can be forgiven, given the lack of time to think this through.
Obviously, any theory about CDing WTC7 must explain in what timeframe the rigging did take place.
I did not lie. You just spoke from ignorance.
Your whole post is absolute garbage.
You failed to show that anything I said was a lie.
Your post will be reported.
