Jowenko sticks by his statement. (Audio from yesterday)

[Mashuna]

Well he hasnt exactly 'come forward' - he is just a rare case of someone who has observed an event prima facia without the normal bias that infects this debate.

im as certain as i can be that there are people and contractors that would distance themselves from him if only because he is surrounded by controversy, unpredictability of viewpoint, and is high profile - amounts to the same thing

When you say 'I'm as certain as I can be', is that because you assume people will be distancing themselves from him because of his opinions, or do you have any evidence that this has actually ocurred?

 

[pomeroo]

Bias On Display

[=parmanides;2373370]Well he hasnt exactly 'come forward' - he is just a rare case of someone who has observed an event prima facia without the normal bias that infects this debate.

im as certain as i can be that there are people and contractors that would distance themselves from him if only because he is surrounded by controversy, unpredictability of viewpoint, and is high profile - amounts to the same thing

But, you have completely missed the point. The only way that a demolition specialist such as Jowenko can misinterpret the photos of WTC 7 is that his bias overrides his technical knowledge.

He understands that jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. Please, stop right there--the whole conspiracy edifice just collapsed into its own footprints. He believes, vaguely, that intelligence findings and other documents were stored in WTC 7, the contents of which government officials judged as too sensitive for public consumption. Arguing with him, it is difficult to convey the idea that carting those papers away in boxes would probably have been more efficient than blowing up the building. And it is precisely that sort of impasse that reveals the existence of an irrational bias.

 

[Miragememories]

MM,

you are aware that Jowenko says the WTC towers were NOT demolitions, right?

So if you think he's reliable then here's where that leaves you: the WTC towers collapsed according to the OS while WTC7 was blown up 7 hours later for reasons that are not clear.

Good luck explaining that theory to a judge.

A judge would see that WTC7 was a different building than WTC1 and WTC 2 and therefore 'judge' accordingly.

Regarding Jowenko's opinion about the WTC 1 & 2 collapses;

First of all, he couldn't be as objective about images that had been seared into his mind as well as those of the whole world. When he watched the WTC7 collapse video, it was just another building, with no special significance in his mind, so he was as objective as he could professionally be, not influenced by pre-knowledge or other's opinions.

Secondly, the WTC 1 & 2 collapses compared to the WTC7 collapse were not typical controlled demolitions. No one in the 9/11 Truth Movement suggests they are typical CDs. They lacked the 'look' of the classic controlled demolition and he wasn't about to challenge standing belief, at least not on visual evidence alone.

Danny Jowenko had no such doubts about WTC7, it was an 'easy' call and he never hesitated in saying so.

Given a few years since he first declared that opinion, he followed up with a study of the WTC7 building plans, as well as had the opportunity to study all the information available about the WTC7 collapse from FEMA and NIST, as well as media accounts and firefighter eyewitness testimonials.

In the recent phone interview which started this thread, he calmly made it quite clear that he definitely still believed that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that he felt American experts in the field felt the same, but wouldn't dare speak out because of the risk it would place on future business.

MM

 

[parmanides]

But, you have completely missed the point. The only way that a demolition specialist such as Jowenko can misinterpret the photos of WTC 7 is that his bias overrides his technical knowledge.

He understands that jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. Please, stop right there--the whole conspiracy edifice just collapsed into its own footprints. He believes, vaguely, that intelligence findings and other documents were stored in WTC 7, the contents of which government officials judged as too sensitive for public consumption. Arguing with him, it is difficult to convey the idea that carting those papers away in boxes would probably have been more efficient than blowing up the building. And it is precisely that sort of impasse that reveals the existence of an irrational bias.

thanks for response pom

If The building came down from controlled demolition, the motive is academic.
detonation means inside job

As a long standing world expert on demolition, he can see that anything other than controlled demolition to make the building destruct like it did, would require a convoluted 'scientific' explanation more outrageous than the average 'conspiracy theory'. thats why he vaguely points to possible motives and methods - they are speculative inferences following on from a legitmate and undeniable primary observation.

even the official explanation is self admitted as highly improbable!

 

[NoZed Avenger]

This is funny, in a perverse way.

"He's an expert; you're not -- so you must accept his bare opinion as correct."

"His opinion is against you on buildings 1 and 2."

"Oh, well, of course on those he's wrong. He's just an undisputable expert on the building where he seems to agree with me."

 

[pomeroo]

[=Miragememories;2374074]A judge would see that WTC7 was a different building than WTC1 and WTC 2 and therefore 'judge' accordingly.

Regarding Jowenko's opinion about the WTC 1 & 2 collapses;

First of all, he couldn't be as objective about images that had been seared into his mind as well as those of the whole world. When he watched the WTC7 collapse video, it was just another building, with no special significance in his mind, so he was as objective as he could professionally be, not influenced by pre-knowledge or other's opinions.

Secondly, the WTC 1 & 2 collapses compared to the WTC7 collapse were not typical controlled demolitions. No one in the 9/11 Truth Movement suggests they are typical CDs. They lacked the 'look' of the classic controlled demolition and he wasn't about to challenge standing belief, at least not on visual evidence alone.

Danny Jowenko had no such doubts about WTC7, it was an 'easy' call and he never hesitated in saying so.

Given a few years since he first declared that opinion, he followed up with a study of the WTC7 building plans, as well as had the opportunity to study all the information available about the WTC7 collapse from FEMA and NIST, as well as media accounts and firefighter eyewitness testimonials.

In the recent phone interview which started this thread, he calmly made it quite clear that he definitely still believed that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that he felt American experts in the field felt the same, but wouldn't dare speak out because of the risk it would place on future business.

MM

So, the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 are controlled demolitions because they don't look like controlled demolitions, and the collapse of WTC 7 is a controlled demolition because it does look like one. I see. I'm glad we cleared that up!

We continue: the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 are not "typical" demolitions. At last, something we can agree on. Yes, it is true that they are not demolitions at all, typical or atypical. I won't make myself appear ridiculous by feigning interest in your explanation of the precise nature of the demolitions of the Twin Towers. I do want to know why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy decided on a type of demolition unknown to the demolition industry when the traditional method worked so well--if oddly belatedly--for WTC 7. Surely there is more involved than the IVC's well-documented propensity for leaving clues.

 

[parmanides]

When you say 'I'm as certain as I can be', is that because you assume people will be distancing themselves from him because of his opinions, or do you have any evidence that this has actually ocurred?

hi mashuna

I have ethnic and disabled friends who have been turned down for jobs - 'I'm as certain as I can be', as a consequence of their race/physical condition. Could I get evidence of that? Highly unlikely.

Is there any truth to it - Highly likely

I would hate to live in your world, where reality is put on hold until 'evidence' that conforms to your own standards is found!

 

[parmanides]

thanks for response pom

If The building came down from controlled demolition, the motive is academic.
detonation means inside job

As a long standing world expert on demolition, he can see that anything other than controlled demolition to make the building destruct like it did, would require a convoluted 'scientific' explanation more outrageous than the average 'conspiracy theory'. thats why he vaguely points to possible motives and methods - they are speculative inferences following on from a legitmate and undeniable primary observation.

even the official explanation is self admitted as highly improbable!

ps i dont believe cd on wtc1 and 2

 

[pomeroo]

[=parmanides;2374081]thanks for response pom

If The building came down from controlled demolition, the motive is academic.
detonation means inside job

As a long standing world expert on demolition, he can see that anything other than controlled demolition to make the building destruct like it did, would require a convoluted 'scientific' explanation more outrageous than the average 'conspiracy theory'. thats why he vaguely points to possible motives and methods - they are speculative inferences following on from a legitmate and undeniable primary observation.

even the official explanation is self admitted as highly improbable!

But the building did NOT come down from controlled demolition, ergo, no inside job.

Why does Jowenko's opinion carry more weight for you than the opinions of ALL other demolition experts? Don't be silly: Of course it's a rhetorical question.

"even the official explanation is self admitted as highly improbable!"

Could we have an English translation for that sentence? How can an explanation, official or otherwise, "self-admit" (huh?) anything. Tell us the names of the real scientists, structural engineers, and demolition experts who find the conventional explanations for the collapse of WTC 7 "highly improbable."

 

[pomeroo]

Uh, What DID Happen?

[=parmanides;2374118]ps i dont believe cd on wtc1 and 2

I'm sure almost everyone here is waiting to pounce, so I'll be brief: Say, What?

 

[Firestone]

But the building did NOT come down from controlled demolition, ergo, no inside job.

Why does Jowenko's opinion carry more weight for you than the opinions of ALL other demolition experts? Don't be silly: Of course it's a rhetorical question.

"even the official explanation is self admitted as highly improbable!"

Could we have an English translation for that sentence? How can an explanation, official or otherwise, "self-admit" (huh?) anything. Tell us the names of the real scientists, structural engineers, and demolition experts who find the conventional explanations for the collapse of WTC 7 "highly improbable."

I guess he is referring to the following paragraph from FEMA's report about WTC7:

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

CTist generally forget that last sentence, of course.

 

[pomeroo]

[=Firestone;2374139]I guess he is referring to the following paragraph from FEMA's report about WTC7:

CTist generally forget that last sentence, of course.

And when NIST finally releases its exhaustive report, the fantasists will reject it without reading it.

 

[Miragememories]

So, the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 are controlled demolitions because they don't look like controlled demolitions, and the collapse of WTC 7 is a controlled demolition because it does look like one. I see. I'm glad we cleared that up!

We continue: the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 are not "typical" demolitions. At last, something we can agree on. Yes, it is true that they are not demolitions at all, typical or atypical. I won't make myself appear ridiculous by feigning interest in your explanation of the precise nature of the demolitions of the Twin Towers. I do want to know why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy decided on a type of demolition unknown to the demolition industry when the traditional method worked so well--if oddly belatedly--for WTC 7. Surely there is more involved than the IVC's well-documented propensity for leaving clues.

Distortion of what I wrote. I never said the WTC 1 & 2 collapse didn't look like controlled demolitions. Is lying about what people say your favourite method of discussion..pomeroo?

Dropping bombs from an overhead plane onto a building would also be a form of controlled demolition, although it wouldn't look like a typical 'classic' CD.

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

And when NIST finally releases its exhaustive report, the fantasists will reject it without reading it.

Well...almost. What I suspect will come out of the report, because they are HONEST SCIENTISTS WITHOUT AN AGENDA, is they will state that while all the evidence to date points towards a collapse caused by Debris damage and untreated fires, as per their interim report, they cannot rule out that BLAST EVENTS could not have created the collapse.

Of course they will say there is no evidence to indicate there was a BLAST EVENT, but the very lack of ruling it out will make the children of the "truth" go absolutely wild with glee. We will see quotes in signatures from NIST stating "we cannot rule out a blast event".

Come back here when it is out, and acknoledge my correctness...lol

TAM

 

[Miragememories]

I guess he is referring to the following paragraph from FEMA's report about WTC7:

CTist generally forget that last sentence, of course.

NOT AT ALL!

The average seeker of the Truth about 9/11 sets a proper investigation as the primary goal!

Thank you for quoting that closing line from the FEMA report Firestone.

Professor Jones likes to refer to it as well when arguing that the current official story explaining the collapse of WTC7 doesn't stand up.

MM

 

[pomeroo]

Batting Practice

[=Miragememories;2374166]Distortion of what I wrote. I never said the WTC 1 & 2 collapse didn't look like controlled demolitions. Is lying about what people say your favourite method of discussion..pomeroo?

Dropping bombs from an overhead plane onto a building would also be a form of controlled demolition, although it wouldn't look like a typical 'classic' CD.

MM

It's always good for a few laughs when conspiracy liars pretend they're being lied about.

"They lacked the 'look' of the classic controlled demolition and he wasn't about to challenge standing belief, at least not on visual evidence alone."

Your words, right? You say that they (the collapses of the Twin Towers) lack the look of controlled demolitions. I write that you say that they didn't look like controlled demolitions. Somehow, I'm lying.

Am I missing anything?

Should we go over this again?

Aha! I've got it! They didn't look like classic controlled demolitions. Now we're making progress. Explain the concept of non-classic demolition. Is it anything like the top-down demolition dreamed up by some loon on 911blogger.com? Tell us why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy employed non-classic demolition for the Twin Towers, but regarded the classic stuff as good enough for WTC 7.

Here's another example of your "favorite method of discussion":

"I think I remember Cheny off mic saying how well the demolition of WTC7 unfolded and how lucky they were to get away with fooling everyone; (It was mentioned was on a forum I think-don't know if it was legit).

MM"

I think I remember pitching a no-hitter in the World Series and striking out seventeen guys with my 100mph heater. Am I lying or merely nuts? No, you do not remember Cheney saying anything of the sort. NOBODY DOES. The reason nobody does is that it didn't happen. Are you lying or merely nuts?

 

[T.A.M.]

Its like everything else with the twoof movement. They will use something word for word until it is proven unlikely, then they will modify what they call it or how they present it, so that it fits their silly theories.

CD was paraded around for ages by the twoofers, until people with brains actually showed how silly a premise it was, and how the collapses looked nothing like CD, then they started to differentiate it into "Classic" versus "Atypical". That will go on for a while, until it is also proven silly. Then they will likely change it to "Explosives" versus "Official Story", and then when that doesnt work anymore...well then they'll all just jump on the Starwars Beam theory wagon.

TAM

 

[Firestone]

NOT AT ALL!

The average seeker of the Truth about 9/11 sets a proper investigation as the primary goal!

I have yet to meet an "average seeker of the Truth about 9/11" who can properly define a "proper investigation".

Thank you for quoting that closing line from the FEMA report Firestone.

Professor Jones likes to refer to it as well when arguing that the current official story explaining the collapse of WTC7 doesn't stand up.

I would expect a professor to understand the following process:

hypothesis
do

investigate
adapt hypothesis​

loop until hypothesis fits the facts

Once the final report on WTC7 is out, we'll see if the "Truth Movement" will be able to falsify it.
If the NIST-report on WTC 1/2 serves as precedent, it will not.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Do all demolition experts agree with each other all the time? I for one am not surprised that you can find one demo expert who agrees on WTC7 was CD'ed. Its a huge world, and I imagine there are plenty demo experts around.

The interesting thing to see is how he came to the conclusion and how he fits that into the rest of knowledge around 911 we have. Like, how did he think they did it, what would he deem be the proper timeframe for such a demo-job etc.

If Im allowed to go woo here for an instance, I could easily think of unsubstantiated scenarios where WTC7 were brought down, but still excluding 911 from being an "inside job". I find it highly unlikely given the evidence at hand though.

 

[CHF]

A judge would see that WTC7 was a different building than WTC1 and WTC 2 and therefore 'judge' accordingly.

Regarding Jowenko's opinion about the WTC 1 & 2 collapses;

First of all, he couldn't be as objective about images that had been seared into his mind as well as those of the whole world. When he watched the WTC7 collapse video, it was just another building, with no special significance in his mind, so he was as objective as he could professionally be, not influenced by pre-knowledge or other's opinions.

Secondly, the WTC 1 & 2 collapses compared to the WTC7 collapse were not typical controlled demolitions. No one in the 9/11 Truth Movement suggests they are typical CDs. They lacked the 'look' of the classic controlled demolition and he wasn't about to challenge standing belief, at least not on visual evidence alone.

Danny Jowenko had no such doubts about WTC7, it was an 'easy' call and he never hesitated in saying so.

Given a few years since he first declared that opinion, he followed up with a study of the WTC7 building plans, as well as had the opportunity to study all the information available about the WTC7 collapse from FEMA and NIST, as well as media accounts and firefighter eyewitness testimonials.

In the recent phone interview which started this thread, he calmly made it quite clear that he definitely still believed that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that he felt American experts in the field felt the same, but wouldn't dare speak out because of the risk it would place on future business.

MM

So Jowenko is reliable when you agree with him but unreliable when you don't.

You're a hypocrite, MM. No two ways about it.

You have a painful choice to make, kid: either say goodbye to Jowenko as a source or say goodbye to your WTC tower demolition fantasies.

You can't cling to them both at the same time and not be an idiot.