Jowenko has made it quite clear that, in his expert opinion, the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 could not possibly have been brought about by the use of explosives. He has explained his reasons for this opinion perfectly clearly; since the collapses initiated in the regions struck by airliners and engulfed in fires, the fires would have set off the demolition charges uncontrollably, and much sooner than the actual collapse initiation times.
So let's look at the possibilities here.
(a) Jowenko's opinion is sufficiently informed that we can assume that everything he says is correct. If this is the case, then WTC1 and WTC2 cannot possibly have been expected to collapse, therefore the debris damage and the fire in WTC7 cannot possibly have been expected to be available to cover the demolition of WTC7. The only possible explanation for a hypothetical demolition of WTC7 is therefore that it was entirely planned and executed between 10am and 5pm on 9-11. This rules out any possibility that the demolition of WTC7 was a part of any premeditated inside job.
(b) Jowenko's opinion, while that of a well-informed expert, is not infallible. Therefore, either he is (1) wrong about WTC1 and WTC2 but right about WTC7, (2) right about WTC1 and WTC2 but wrong about WTC7, or (3) wrong about all three buildings. Possibility (1) is the only one of these that supports an inside job theory based on Jowenko's testimony, because (2) is entirely compatible with the conventional understanding of 9-11 and (3) requires that Jowenko's testimony be discarded altogether.
Your contention that Jowenko's testimony supports an inside job requires, therefore, that Jowenko be wrong more often than he is right (wrong about WTC1 and WTC2 but right about WTC7), yet that on the minority of occasions when he is right his testimony cannot be disputed.
Do you understand how unreliable you need your star witness to be?
Dave
