Is Jowenko Echt Woowoo?

jhunter1163 said:
The Twoofers will say that someone "got to him" if he changes his mind, no matter how vehemently he repudiates them. Just like they did with that other poor (rule8), I forget his name. The guy who said that "this [comment] has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
Click to expand...

*cough* Van Romero */cough*
 
What is more suspicious?

1. People in dark clothes planting explosives
2. People in business suits shredding paper...in an OFFICE BUILDING.

you decide...lol

TAM
 
He was in a hit and run! If you would present the real story and how many CTers are tricking him; he will be very upset.
 
ConspiRaider said:
Yet for so many believers of woo - a statement is made with the implication that no further analysis is required. Beam Weapons: Perfect example.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Beam Weapons, did you see the comments to this ScrewLooseChange Blog post, where BG implies that the people who jumped from the towers did so because they were being beamed with a millimeter-wave crowd control weapon? The most disgusting idea I've seen presented there.
 
Anyone know when Jowenko is gonna produce a report on his beliefs?

My guess would be never.
 
Arus808 said:
let see millions of dollars to make a building look like collateral damage

$10,000 at most to destroy "top secret" documents/equipment/stuff
Click to expand...

Wait, that actually does sound like the way the federal government would do it.
 
pomeroo said:
Perhaps some of you have experienced the sort of embarrassment I feel right now. I have been arguing with a clown on 911blogger.com who posts as "stallion-something-or-other." It is increasingly clear that he can't be more than fourteen years old (for his sake, I hope that's true). Jee-sus! I think I need to take a break.
Click to expand...

I know how you feel, when I posted some responses over at Altnet on the The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement By Matt Taibbi. A fellow found my blog and stated posting comments which I felt compelled to point out his numerous errors. It's was the pure loony stuff and I made a point of calling him a loon, I feel if you come to my site and talk like an idiot I have on obligation to treat you nicely.

But at some point I started to feel sorry for the guy, had to be something wrong with him. I pictured him as this pathetic like dweeb with no life no skills, maybe even mildly retarded. The 911 truther thing was his way of convincing himself he had a purpose in life. I finally had to start ignoring him, he is just too far gone.

It was like talking logic with a child.
 
skunkrider said:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

:)
Click to expand...

That has been debunked. Debunked, and you could debunk it yourself if you tried.

Why not try to do something yourself. Why not show us how he is telling lies? You posted a video to support a lie. Why?

The old CTer hit and run. No facts in 5 years.

I still think Jowenko was not told any facts on 9/11 and his comments were used by CTers who tricked him. Next time tell Jowenko about all the fuel to run the generators all over the building (WTC7).
 
Last edited:
Jowenko makes the point that american CD experts will not dare contradict FEMA. I bet Jeff is going to seek out as many foriegn experts as he can.
 
Do you think that is really an unrehearshed conversation with Jowenko?

He said everything a CT would say.

Controlled demolition companies are afraid to talk because they will lose business.
Pull it means pull it according to CT definition.Even in Dutch?
No one wants to talk about WT7 because they know it is a demolition.
He looked at the video and I think he said the drawings.
Plus he says by fire no mention of damage .

Would it be that easy to reach him and would he answer so quickly to a stranger? Who only identifies himself by first name.
 
Last edited:
Pomeroo has contacted him as well. As has someone else from this forum (pretending to be a reporter). In each case he has repeated that he thinks it was a demolition. He has thought about it since seeing the video, and I believe it his considered view. My understanding is that he believes that WTC7 was demolished to protect secret documents that were in it.

A couple of things to remember:

1. Jowenko is not a structural engineer or a fire engineer - he has no experience in assessing how fire would damage a building.

2. Jowenko contends that WTC1 and 2 were not brought down by controlled demolition - this means that, by his theory, the demolition of WTC7 must have been carried out in the aftermath of the collapse of the towers, in reaction to it.

Once the final NIST report is released, it'd be interesting to try and get Jowenko's thoughts on it.
 
notheist said:
But at some point I started to feel sorry for the guy, had to be something wrong with him. I pictured him as this pathetic like dweeb with no life no skills, maybe even mildly retarded. The 911 truther thing was his way of convincing himself he had a purpose in life. I finally had to start ignoring him, he is just too far gone.

It was like talking logic with a child.
Click to expand...

My 7 month old dogs get logic. Act up? Get a newspaper on the nose. Pee on the floor? Get a nose shoved in pee, and a short vaction to the yard. Stop leaping up and down when I go for the doggie biscuit tin. Then and only when sitting still and behaving do the biscuits come out. My dogs get cause and effect.

I'm just saying my puppies have a better understanding of logic than some troofers. I'm aware its simple Pavlovian psychological with my dogs, I'm just saying I've a couple of springer spaniels who get cause and effect when troofers don't.
 
maccy said:
Pomeroo has contacted him as well. As has someone else from this forum (pretending to be a reporter). In each case he has repeated that he thinks it was a demolition. He has thought about it since seeing the video, and I believe it his considered view. My understanding is that he believes that WTC7 was demolished to protect secret documents that were in it.

A couple of things to remember:

1. Jowenko is not a structural engineer or a fire engineer - he has no experience in assessing how fire would damage a building.

2. Jowenko contends that WTC1 and 2 were not brought down by controlled demolition - this means that, by his theory, the demolition of WTC7 must have been carried out in the aftermath of the collapse of the towers, in reaction to it.

Once the final NIST report is released, it'd be interesting to try and get Jowenko's thoughts on it.
Click to expand...


i am not doubting that jowenko believes this way it just that his answers seemed to be to rehearshed to be spontaneous this time. HIs belief that it was brought down because of secret documents is kind of telling.
 
So he's of the opinion that an enormous building can be rigged for impromptu demolition in a few hours? Unnoticed? From scratch? With no preparation?

Rumsfeld:

"Oh, no! Planes hit the towers! WTC 7 has sensitive documents and has been damaged! Quick, go get several hundred bombs, send your men down into the chaos, past hundreds of police and emergency workers, past the firemen, carrying those truckloads of bombs, get them inside the damaged WTC 7, and wire up the several hundred charges at key points, while the building is burning, so we can blow the building and scatter said documents out onto the street!"

"But Mr. Rumsfeld, why don't we just send five agents into the buildings, flashing badges, saying they need to haul out some documents because they pertain to national security? They can tote them out on hand carts in half an hour. It's not like having classified documents is a crime, right? We don't even have to keep it a secret. They can literally tell people at the scene, 'we're going in to haul out some classified documents,' and the people there would have said, 'okay.' So why blow up the building, at the risk of hundreds of lives and exposure that would ruin us forever?"

"THAT'S INSANE. We're losing time, Johnson!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom