• 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

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.

In spite of appearances, I do hope to see an argument from your side that will persuade me that I am wrong.

I know better than to expect you to listen to my viewpoint but putting your
hands over your eyes won't change the truth.

Oh if it were so easy.

MM

If only you would take your own advice. Learn from the experts. Some of the experts post here. Many others can be found through peer-reviewed papers.

Please, feel free to learn. It is not us that has a problem, it most certainly is you.
 
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Anonymity is a license to play God with the truth.

Danny Jowenko is a real person, fully accountable for everything he has said publicly.

You and Oystein can paint yourself anyway you want and be safe in the knowledge that no one can publicly embarrass you for it.

What can't be masked by an alias, is the verifiable truths and quality of reasoning that goes into posts.

If you want to remain anonymous and still have credibility, than address the arguments maturely and quit worrying about the JREF fan club.

There is no personal growth from being a sheeple.

MM

Sheeple? Rolls eyes. Well at least you have proven that you don't know what an ad hominem fallacy nor an appeal to false authority.

"Danny Jowenko is a real person, fully accountable for everything he has said publicly." And? And that doesn't make him correct, now does it? Of course not.

Here, let me play "god" with the facts:

1. he was lied to about the location of the initiation of the collapse
2. shown a misleading video
3. shown a silent video
4. hasn't been heard from in three some odd years.

Game over, truther.
 
What can't be masked by an alias, is the verifiable truths and quality of reasoning that goes into posts.
Your criterion for Jowenko's credibility is based purely on a job title. I'm not seeing where quality of information or validity are entering the picture
 
Several posts have been moved to AAH. Stop bickering, stop personalizing the discussion, and do not call out other members to provide their real names on the forums. I strongly suggest that you abide by the terms of the Membership Agreement and be civil; otherwise, you are likely to find your posting privileges suspended faster than ... well, you know.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Several posts have been moved to AAH. Stop bickering, stop personalizing the discussion, and do not call out other members to provide their real names on the forums. I strongly suggest that you abide by the terms of the Membership Agreement and be civil; otherwise, you are likely to find your posting privileges suspended faster than ... well, you know.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
My old nemesis flexes some muscle.

I am not surprised.

No more real name comments from me C.

MM
 
16.5 said:
"Here, let me play "god" with the facts:

1. he was lied to about the location of the initiation of the collapse
2. shown a misleading video
3. shown a silent video
4. hasn't been heard from in three some odd years.

Game over, truther."

1. You lie.

Show proof that he was " lied to about the location of the initiation of the collapse"

The video was an unaltered recording of the WTC7 collapse.

Danny Jowenko must have been well aware that he was seeing a silent video...your point?

Danny Jowenko never chose to be a spokesperson about 9/11, so it is quite understandable that he hasn't volunteered further comment in the the last few years. Your point is meaningless.

If I am a truther what does that make you?

MM
 
1. You lie.

Show proof that he was " lied to about the location of the initiation of the collapse"

The video was an unaltered recording of the WTC7 collapse.

Danny Jowenko must have been well aware that he was seeing a silent video...your point?

Danny Jowenko never chose to be a spokesperson about 9/11, so it is quite understandable that he hasn't volunteered further comment in the the last few years. Your point is meaningless.

If I am a truther what does that make you?

MM

"you lie." Great way to start a response! You mad!

Anyway: 1. and 2. go together. That was not an "unaltered recording of the WTC7 collapse," now was it? In fact an unaltered video of the collpase would have shown the collapse of the Penthouse at the top.

So they lied to him and showed him a misleading video.

And yeah, Danny gave an off the cuff opinion after watching a silent video. That makes him an idiot for giving an off the cuff opinion, don't it?

And the fact that Danny hasn't said a peep in three years? Well, that makes you the Reanimator, truther.
 
1. You lie.

Show proof that he was " lied to about the location of the initiation of the collapse"

The video was an unaltered recording of the WTC7 collapse.

Danny Jowenko must have been well aware that he was seeing a silent video...your point?

Danny Jowenko never chose to be a spokesperson about 9/11, so it is quite understandable that he hasn't volunteered further comment in the the last few years. Your point is meaningless.

If I am a truther what does that make you?

MM

For WTC7, he didn't know the scale of the fire or that it was unfought. The video was shot from the North and all the fire was on the south side and not shown on the video.

Unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse.
 
MM,

How did the ninja warriors secretly install tons of explosive, tamping materials, detonating cord, weaken structural members, etc, without being seen? Especially in a country like the US where so many of the population have had military service. It's the one big stumbling block to all CD theories. The other is how was the initial damage to wTC7 predicted and how was all this CD explosives and ancills protected from the raging fire that was reported by numerous firefighters?
 
16.5 said:
"Here, let me play "god" with the facts:

1. he was lied to about the location of the initiation of the collapse
2. shown a misleading video
3. shown a silent video
4. hasn't been heard from in three some odd years.

Game over, truther."
Miragememories said:
"1. You lie.

Show proof that he was " lied to about the location of the initiation of the collapse"

The video was an unaltered recording of the WTC7 collapse.

Danny Jowenko must have been well aware that he was seeing a silent video...your point?

Danny Jowenko never chose to be a spokesperson about 9/11, so it is quite understandable that he hasn't volunteered further comment in the the last few years. Your point is meaningless.

If I am a truther what does that make you?"
16.5 said:
"...That was not an "unaltered recording of the WTC7 collapse," now was it? In fact an unaltered video of the collpase would have shown the collapse of the Penthouse at the top.

So they lied to him and showed him a misleading video.

And yeah, Danny gave an off the cuff opinion after watching a silent video. That makes him an idiot for giving an off the cuff opinion, don't it?

And the fact that Danny hasn't said a peep in three years? Well, that makes you the Reanimator, truther."
By your definition, an altered recording would have gone back to the beginning of time.

The video recording that Danny Jowenko viewed was not altered from its beginning to its end.

Nothing was extracted, modified or added.

The fact that it was without sound would have been immediately obvious.

You apparently do not understand what a lie is, which would account for why you do it so much.

The producers did not 'lead' Danny's opinion. They showed him the video. He was then quite free to ask qualifying questions.

They answered every question openly and honestly.

A year later, Danny Jowenko stood by his original opinion that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7.

MM
 
Mikemcc said:
"How did the ninja warriors secretly install tons of explosive, tamping materials, detonating cord, weaken structural members, etc, without being seen? Especially in a country like the US where so many of the population have had military service. It's the one big stumbling block to all CD theories. The other is how was the initial damage to wTC7 predicted and how was all this CD explosives and ancills protected from the raging fire that was reported by numerous firefighters?"
"ninja warriors"?

Your question is mocking and asks for speculation.

When your kindergarten classes resume in September, I suggest you ask your teacher.

MM
 
BigAl said:
"For WTC7, he [Danny Jowenko] didn't know the scale of the fire or that it was unfought. The video was shot from the North and all the fire was on the south side and not shown on the video.

Unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse."

The evidence that WTC7 collapsed due to controlled demolition, was apparently so visually obvious to an expert in controlled demolitions, Danny Jowenko, that he didn't feel the need for further details before giving his initial opinion.

He did examine various NIST diagrams and still was still unequivocal in his original opinion.

At any time, from the first interview, to the one he gave a year later, Danny could have declared that he needed more information
----but he did not!

MM
 
His department is a factor as well.

MM
I could care less if he were Jesus to be honest. If you're going to flail his opinion as an absolute authority you need more than just an appeal to that authority to give his opinion any consideration as credible.

At any time, from the first interview, to the one he gave a year later, Danny could have declared that he needed more information----but he did not!
Opinion's are funny, mostly because that's all they are. Politics is full of them, everybody's got one and everybody is entitled to one. I don't care about his refusal to change it, I care if his opinion is backed by any such additional information. If it's not backed with anything to validate it, or he is unable demonstrate how he arrived at his conclusion with more than just "the looks" it's not relevant, nor credible, period. An Appeal to authority in not sufficient.
 
Last edited:
By your definition, an altered recording would have gone back to the beginning of time.The video recording that Danny Jowenko viewed was not altered from its beginning to its end. Nothing was extracted, modified or added.The producers did not 'lead' Danny's opinion. They showed him the video. He was then quite free to ask qualifying questions.They answered every question openly and honestly.A year later, Danny Jowenko stood by his original opinion that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7.

Do you even read your posts? I mean, I know you are aching to believe that it is an inside jobby job, and that you cling to a person, who by your own admission was “blindsided” and hasn’t been heard from in three years, like a desperate sailor clings to a piece of driftwood after a shipwreck.

Lets review:

“By your definition, an altered recording would have gone back to the beginning of time.” Notably you remove the phrase “of the collapse” from my post. Very notable, isn’t it, because the inclusion of that phrase would have demonstrated how specious your comment was. Did the collapse got back to the end of time, MM? Of course not, so why do you create such ridiculous straw men?

“The video recording that Danny Jowenko viewed was not altered from its beginning to its end.” Have you never heard of fraud by omission MM, because the video he was shown is the very definition of cherry picking, outright fraud.

“The fact that it was without sound would have been immediately obvious…” And that is one of the MANY reasons that Jowenko was INCOMPETENT in giving an off the cuff opinion

“The producers did not 'lead' Danny's opinion. They showed him the video. He was then quite free to ask qualifying questions.” Of course they did, I know you don’t think so because this is almost a religious issue to you, and Jowenko is your prophet, but they lied to him about the location of the initiation of the collapse, and Jowenko incompetently failed to ask basic questions like, Is there another video? Is there one with sound? Should I really be answering questions when i can see about 25% of the exterior of the building? His failure, MM, is your failure. I’ve addressed the phone call that was surreptitiously recorded on a number of occasions (or was that Bob and Doug McKenzie?) and you know, Jowenko was an idiot for repeating his embarrassment to some toque wearing douchebag.

“You apparently do not understand what a lie is, which would account for why you do it so much.” And once again you accuse me of lying. Is that one of the sacraments of the Holy Church of Jowenko, MM?

Have a Blessed Church of the Twoof Day
 
By your definition, an altered recording would have gone back to the beginning of time.

The video recording that Danny Jowenko viewed was not altered from its beginning to its end.
...

Silly argument.

If I show you an "unaltered" video of a soccer game, unaltered, in which team A scored once and team B not, and you were a soccer expert, and I'd ask you "who won?", you'd conclude that team A won.

However, if I had clipped the first 10 minutes of the game, in which team B scored twice and A did not, and did not tell you about that, then clearly I'd have deceived you.

Right?

And the same way Danny was deceived when he wasn't shown the first few seconds of the collapse.



Any honest person would realize: The video of the collapse was clearly altered by snipping away a major portion of the collapse.
 
Any honest person would realize: The video of the collapse was clearly altered by snipping away a major portion of the collapse.

And let's not forget, Danny was not told that this happened on 9/11 and Danny was not told the building was on fire over multiple floors for some 7 hours. Fires which were not fought.
 
The producers did not 'lead' Danny's opinion. They showed him the video. He was then quite free to ask qualifying questions.

Jowenko: <indicates 24 core columns on diagram>
Intervwr: This heart? These 12?

Jowenko: "... it was not really clean ..."
Intervwr: "It was very clean ... so clean you can walk around it"

There's two fat lies, right there. And you have the gall to say he didn't lead Jowenko?
 

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