Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[uk_dave]

Interviewees can prepare if they want and have the expertise to.

Not if the interviewer has an agenda and wants a reaction rather than a considered opinion.

 

[SpitfireIX]

<snip>

quicknthedead writes;"We all make mistakes, and this includes CD experts.

Think about it."

But an expert's assessment of an event that relates directly to their area of expertise, carries far more credibility than the assessment of a non-expert disagreeing with him or her.

Think about that.

MM

The problem in using Jowenko's statement as evidence of controlled demolition is with the obvious implicit premise, namely, that demolition experts are able to distinguish collapses due to controlled demolition from collapses due to other causes merely by watching video. I dispute this premise. How many videos of tall building collapses from causes other than controlled demolition do you suppose Jowenko had previously seen? He can't have seen more than a handful, because there simply aren't that many. Unplanned building collapses are extremely rare, and when they do occur, it's generally with little or no warning, so there are usually no cameras pointed at them during the event. Contrast this with controlled demolitions, which are routinely recorded.

 

[Miragememories]

Amazing how many experts you've ignored that have written extensively on the WTC 1 & 2 collapses.

Amazing how you embrace the one expert who agrees with you on the WTC7 collapse. Somehow he has even gained the privledge of not even having to explain his theory. His word seems to be good enough for you. Wonder if you'll extend the curtesy to upcoming expert authors of the NIST report?

I wasn't aware that outside of NIST & FEMA, there were that many experts who have written about (as compared to echoing the work of others) WTC 7, or WTC 1 & 2 for that matter.

Regarding the "privileged" Danny Jowenko, he was asked to provide a professional opinion about the nature of a building collapse.

Followup questions were of a "how could a quick CD of such a building be performed?" nature.

He wasn't asked for, or given the opportunity to prepare in detail, a theory as to what preparation and implementation method would best describe what he concluded.

Furthermore, for an experienced professional, depending on the subject under discussion, it's not always necessary to produce a theory in order to provide an initial quality explanation for an observed phenomenon.

MM

 

[DGM]

Your point supports my belief that a CD couldn't have been setup on 9/11.

Same day setup to me also seems out of the question.

Danny Jowenko does endorse the idea that a CD of WTC 7 was possible without the huge amount of preparation that others claim this operation would require.

30-40 man expert team could destroy any building in an afternoon. The problem would be doing it with no blast effects and no noise. Fast setup requires much more explosives (thus even more noise and shrapnel) due to the fact you can't achieve optimum placement. Do you agree?

For this and many other reasons, I would love to see a good followup interview with Danny Jowenko.

I would like to ask him a few questions myself.

Because interviews don't usually allow for advanced preparation, Danny Jowenko was denied the opportunity to give careful consideration to all his replies which is why many of his spontaneous, speculative, non-technical responses don't hold up well under careful examination.

I'm not so sure about this but if I wanted the real truth I would make sure the person I interviewed had all the information he/she needed. Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the interviewer? Do you think this was a shoddy interview?

Your point is a good one (at least in so far as a same day 9/11 setup is concerned) and I have to believe that Danny Jowenko must have reached that same conclusion by now.

I would hope so. I suspect it's why you don't get too many comments from him.

For obvious reasons, he's not likely to volunteer a public statement on this.

No idea what the obvious reason would be to a person true to his convictions. A little help here?

It's one thing for him to declare with certainty that it (collapse of WTC 7) was a controlled demolition, and whole different matter to revise his statement with the conclusion that it had to have been setup as part of 9/11, and not just an opportune response to 9/11.

Not a clue where your going with this. Sorry but I can't see with the limited information he had he could make a positive assessment. This you would need to explain to me. (just not in this tread, please)

 

[uk_dave]

I wasn't aware that outside of NIST & FEMA, there were that many experts who have written about (as compared to echoing the work of others) WTC 7, or WTC 1 & 2 for that matter.

It doesn't really matter that you're unaware of them, suffice to say, they exist.

Regarding the "privileged" Danny Jowenko, he was asked to provide a professional opinion about the nature of a building collapse.

No, a TV company went to a demolition contractor for a professional opinion about the assumed controlled demolition of the wtc towers and wtc7. He disappointed them on the towers.

Followup questions were of a "how could a quick CD of such a building be performed?" nature.

He wasn't asked for, or given the opportunity to prepare in detail, a theory as to what preparation and implementation method would best describe what he concluded.

No of course not, because the suggestion was a complete surprise to him and he wasn't expected to have a detailed response available, only that it looked like a controlled demolition and could have been a controlled demolition because that's the sort of thing the americans always get up to.

Furthermore, for an experienced professional, depending on the subject under discussion, it's not always necessary to produce a theory in order to provide an initial quality explanation for an observed phenomenon.

MM

Only to 'truthers'. The fact that this demolition contractor was asked to give an off the cuff opinion about some video footage he was shown indicates quite clearly that he was set up to give the answers the program makers wanted to hear.

But I'm only speculating about an hypothesis here.

 

[Miragememories]

There are a couple of points I'd like to discuss.

1/ Jowenko: I gather that he has never gone on the record except in one or more recorded interviews, in the Netherlands (and in Dutch). This is unfortunate to say the least, and almost guarantees that interpretations will vary. It also makes me wonder whether there is any point in regarding him as a source -- essentially, he has failed to follow through and put his money where his mouth is, so to speak; in a written opinion. Why? No speculation, please, as to this; only solid evidence (a statement from him that he doesn't want to get involved, for example) should be acceptable.

Well rather than posting a forum question you pre-qualify as unanswerable by the forum participants, I suggest you ask the man you want to provide your answer.

2/ Also MM's statement that "interviews don't usually allow for advanced preparation." I am flabbergasted by this comment. I don't think it's true, at all. We're not talking about Allen Funt here. Interviewees can prepare if they want and have the expertise to.

I've worked for a TV broadcaster for 35 years and I've participated in and edited hundreds of such interviews.

It was clear from the interview that Danny Jowenko was intentionally not provided with all the interviewer's materials in advance. This is not at all unusual in a news documentary. Of course the interviewer is always hoping to capture something controversial to make the story more interesting for the viewers.

Many here seem to think that because Danny Jowenko was 'surprised' by the his first time viewing of the WTC 7 collapse, that his opinion is worthless.

It's clear to me that the producers of the news documentary wanted to obtain an 'honest' opinion rather a 'politically safe' opinion.

If Danny Jowenko had been informed in advance that the WTC 7 collapse he was about to view was a 9/11 event, I would be very much surprised if he had answered without prejudice.

MM

 

[SDC]

I didn't prequalify it as unanswerable. You could ask him. You seem to be interested in him or at least his views and possible support. I've already decided -- sorry if I didn't make this clear -- that his failure to follow through and provide a clear, written statement means that his views are worthless; just an off the cuff opinion, by someone who may or may not be qualified.

Sorry to hear that the Allen Funt approach is the norm. I guess I am naive.
I have had published many articles and a couple of books on historical topics. In that capacity, I might include a statement such as his hedged about with caveats, as a curiosity only. It's time to stop citing him. Way past time, in fact.

 

[SpitfireIX]

That is basically correct. Because of the exterior appearance of the collapse, we know that most if not all remaining major support columns all failed within a short period of time, but this is not terribly surprising. Load redistribution from one column to another takes mere milliseconds. With each column failure, that load becomes more eccentric and more poorly braced, and cascading failure is the expected result.

I feel that gross misunderstanding of this concept is one of the major sources of confusion among truthers who advance the so-called "controlled-demolition hypothesis."

Heiwa, for example, blathers endlessly about how the support columns "magically vanished all at once," or words to that effect. What he and others clearly do not grasp is the fact that the effect of a cascading failure is very similar to what would happen if all of the columns on a single floor did magically disappear at the same time. Heiwa and his ilk also seem to believe that the failing columns would act as some sort of cushion, gently lowering the structure above them onto the floor below. He failing to understand that once a column begins to buckle, its load-carrying capacity rapidly approaches zero, as the bending moment increases. (See here for the non-diffeq challenged.) This process will occur even more quickly if the column is loaded eccentrically to begin with.

 

[quicknthedead]

At this point, I would like to state what I've repeatedly stated in the JREF Conspiracy Forum and elsewhere, that I absolutely do not believe that WTC 7 was rigged for CD on the actual 9/11 day.

Well, OK, Miragememories. Your statement means we are in agreement that it was not rigged for CD on 9/11, which resolves this point.

And I take note that you still believe it was CD.

quicknthedead writes;"How could hypothetical perpetrators be guaranteed in their plan preparation in thinking that fallen debris from the collapsed towers would damage WTC7 sufficiently so that they could proceed to initiate a CD on WTC7, that in the end could be convincingly explained away as “debris damage from the fallen towers” (i.e., their cover story)? The answer is, they couldn’t be."

The key word in your argument is "sufficiently".

Have you ever wondered who first coined the phrase "shock 'n awe"?

The people responsible were less concerned about their plan passing a peer review then they were about it proving believable to a shocked public and a news media machine well under corporate control.

OK again. I understand your position, and although I am not convinced by the logic you’ve just stated, we will have to let it go at that.

Thanks.

 

[gumboot]

Your point supports my belief that a CD couldn't have been setup on 9/11.

Danny Jowenko does endorse the idea that a CD of WTC 7 was possible without the huge amount of preparation that others claim this operation would require.

For this and many other reasons, I would love to see a good followup interview with Danny Jowenko.

It should be pointed out that once Jowenko was aware that WTC7 collapsed on 9/11 after suffering structural damage in the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, and that it had been on fire all day, he was at a loss to explain how it could have been brought down by Controlled Demolition (although he still maintain it was).

I, for one, do not discount Danny Jowenko's opinions regarding WTC7. I acknowledge that even after assessing additional facts about the building he still maintained it was a demolition. I also acknowledge that Jowenko is an accomplished and experienced demolition engineer.

However the opinion of Jowenko must be assessed against the opinions of other experts with varying experience, expertise, and familiarity with the subject matter.

I am of the opinion that the paper written by Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services carries much more authority and is a far more substantial argument than those thus far offered by Danny Jowenko. Blanchard's paper alone, in my opinion, refutes Jowenko's expert testimony overwhelmingly.

This is not any sort of criticism of Jowenko - it is simply an acknowledgement that the Protec paper is based on a much more substantial body of evidence than Jowenko has available to him.

Were I to spend an hour with Jowenko I would simply ask him to read this paper and comment on it. I would find his remarks very interesting.

ETA. Actually I want to change my mind. I've just read the full transcript of the first Jowenko interviews in which he claims Silverstein had his building blown up and then bribed the FDNY to keep quiet about it. Apparently "this is how America is tied together". Every scrap of credibility he ever had just went down the toilet when he uttered such a ridiculous statement.

 

[Miragememories]

SDC writes; "Why? No speculation, please, as to this; only solid evidence (a statement from him that he doesn't want to get involved, for example) should be acceptable."

Miragememories writes; "Well rather than posting a forum question you pre-qualify as unanswerable by the forum participants, I suggest you ask the man you want to provide your answer."

SDC writes; "I didn't prequalify it as unanswerable."

It is certainly unanswerable "by this forum's participants", if only Danny Jowenko's response meets the criteria of your question!

Danny Jowenko is under no obligation to defend himself by; "following through and providing a clear, written statement."

The news media went to him. He did not go to them.

The fact that he allowed himself to be interviewed for a national TV broadcast, risking his professional reputation and that of his company, makes it evidently clear that his 'controlled demolition related views' were "not worthless", and were "not off the cuff opinions".

SDC writes; "Sorry to hear that the Allen Funt approach is the norm. I guess I am naive."

Sorry to hear that you have no appreciation for the importance of an unprejudiced response.

Haven't you ever considered the reason why juries go through a rigorous selection process? The legal system is well aware of how knowledge of an event that played large on the public mind can make it all but impossible for a prospective juror to form a fair, unbiased opinion.

I was unaware that a demolition expert's response to a first time viewing of the collapse of WTC 7 qualified as an event that could be so easily lumped with Allen Funt's reality comedy Candid Camera".

I have no disagreement regarding you're being naive.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

ETA. Actually I want to change my mind. I've just read the full transcript of the first Jowenko interviews in which he claims Silverstein had his building blown up and then bribed the FDNY to keep quiet about it. Apparently "this is how America is tied together". Every scrap of credibility he ever had just went down the toilet when he uttered such a ridiculous statement.

Because interviews don't usually allow for advanced preparation, Danny Jowenko was denied the opportunity to give careful consideration to all his replies which is why many of his spontaneous, speculative, non-technical responses don't hold up well under careful examination.

I prefer to judge him on his comments that relate strictly to his area of expertise.

To totally dismiss him because he gave an uninformed layperson's response to a question regarding motivation seems like hardly a good reason to suddenly discount his judgment on a subject that you've agreed he is an expert.

How would you like it if you were deemed to have no professional credibility because you complied with a request for an unprepared and unsubstantiated opinion outside of your area of expertise?

He was asked to guess about motivation behind an event that he only witnessed moments before and his reply clearly reflects that.

MM

 

[A W Smith]

MM;
And the motive to rig building seven before the events of 9/11 is???

 

[Miragememories]

MM;
And the motive to rig building seven before the events of 9/11 is???

Before 9/11?

To have it ready, would be a logical reason to rig WTC 7 prior to 9/11, or is that too speculative an answer?

MM

 

[aggle-rithm]

MM;
And the motive to rig building seven before the events of 9/11 is???

[ZombieVoice]
That's why we need a new investigation...to answer questions like this...
[/ZombieVoice]

 

[lapman]

Before 9/11?

To have it ready, would be a logical reason to rig WTC 7 prior to 9/11, or is that too speculative an answer?

MM

Yes, it is too speculative. Now why did they want to demolish it in the first place?

 

[A W Smith]

Lacking motive

Before 9/11?

To have it ready, would be a logical reason to rig WTC 7 prior to 9/11, or is that too speculative an answer?

MM

Ready?.. Ready why? Why the need? Was WFC 1 and 2 "Ready"?? Was the Deutsche bank "ready"?

 

[quicknthedead]

Before 9/11?

To have it ready, would be a logical reason to rig WTC 7 prior to 9/11, or is that too speculative an answer?

MM

MM,

Yes, that is speculative, but nevertheless, let's examine it.

When you write, "To have it ready", what do you mean?

Ready for what? I.e.,, what do you think was going on inside the minds of those who wanted "to have it ready"?

It would help if you could be specific.
Thanks.

 

[gumboot]

I prefer to judge him on his comments that relate strictly to his area of expertise.

To totally dismiss him because he gave an uninformed layperson's response to a question regarding motivation seems like hardly a good reason to suddenly discount his judgment on a subject that you've agreed he is an expert.

As I explained I had already discounted his judgement. His comments showed an anti-American bias.

How would you like it if you were deemed to have no professional credibility because you complied with a request for an unprepared and unsubstantiated opinion outside of your area of expertise?

I should have been more clear. I don't think his remark destroys his professional credibility in the field of controlled demolition per se, I think it destroys his credibility specifically in relation to the 9/11 attacks.

In the same way, Dr David Ray Griffin's remarks regarding 9/11 utterly destroy his credibility in relation to 9/11. I don't think they destroy his professional credibility in relation to his area of expertise which is theology.

What we have to remember about Jowenko is that the only thing that he states that actually pertains to his expertise is whether WTC7 could have been brought down by Controlled Demolition, and in such circumstance whether such a demolition could have looked similar to the collapse we saw. I defer to his professional and expert opinion on both these points. Jowenko has no expertise whatsoever in the performance of buildings during fire, thus his remarks that fire could not cause the collapse of WTC7 are also outside his area of expertise. Further, his non-expert opinion on this matter was made without full awareness of the specifics of the incident - extent of fire, extent of damage, full details of building structure. Thus his claim that WTC7 could not have collapsed from fire and impact damage is not only a non-expert opinion but an uninformed opinion. Thus it carries very little weight.

I would counter his opinion with the opinion of FDNY building safety engineers on site at WTC7 who felt that fire and structural damage did cause the collapse of WTC7 as we saw, and their opinions are both expert opinion and informed opinion.

Let's not forget this point. The FDNY has specially trained officers who have the sole authority, at any fire, of assessing the structural integrity of the burning building and determining whether it is safe to enter said building, and whether collapse is likely. These officers determined that WTC7 had suffered sufficient impact and fire damage that collapse was inevitable. Their opinion is by far and away, absolutely the most relevant and credible assessment of the collapse of WTC7. Their testimony outweighs any other testimony that could ever be offered. Even NIST's investigations do not trump their assessments, but indeed rely heavily on their assessments to guide their investigation.

So, if we're talking expert opinion, you must address those of the FDNY officers. Specifically Chief of Department Daniel Nigro and Chief Peter Hayden.

 

[pomeroo]

Well I took a look at that thread and in typical 'kneejerk' fashion,
the usual cast of clowns are re-establishing their ability to post
absolutely nothing of substance regarding this topic.

Your points are nothing special and I see no difficulty in responding to them.

I'm not so foolish as to expect my responses to carry any weight but for the odd visitor who may be interested, I'll provide a response.

quicknthedead writes; " If WTC7 was a CD, it had to have been setup well beforehand, since a CD takes a minimum of weeks to prepare."

Preparation time is dependent on the number of participants, their level of expertise, the amount of continuous time available and the method used to remove the core support. You have no idea what the answer is to any of these points is, so your statement is pure speculation. Danny Jowenko, regardless of how you interpret his reaction to the information about the WTC 7 fires, his expert opinion was that it would have been possible to successfully prep WTC 7 in the time available on 9/11.

According to you and your fellow liars, when Danny Jowenko opines on the collapse of the Towers, he doesn't know what he's talking about . According to all other demolition experts, he doesn't know what he's talking about when he speculates on the collapse of WTC 7. So, there we have it: a host of experts and a few know-nothings agree that Jowenko doesn't know what he's talking about.

quicknthedead performs an act of mindreading; "...for he [Danny Jowenko] then believed the building could not have been setup that day, realizing it had to be a CD setup beforehand (and all the implications that thought entailed). All the same, Danny Jowenko based his thinking on the fact that it looked like a CD, which it did. But just because it looked like one does not mean it was, and with that said, there are other CD experts who do not believe it was."

Danny Jowenko has never said or given any contrary indication that he changed his mind about the possibility of a same day CD preparation of WTC 7.

According to people who, unlike Danny Jowenko, have actually brought down large buildings, the notion that the 47-story WTC 7 could be prepped in one day is preposterous.

Assuming that you are not an expert in controlled demolition methodology, you have no credibility in claiming you know the sole basis for Danny Jowenko's determination that the WTC 7's collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.
Danny Jowenko, when interviewed several months later, stated that he absolutely stood by his original controlled demolition belief. As an interesting side note, Danny also indicated why he believed controlled demolition experts in the U.S. would be unwilling to go on record and agree that WTC 7 was a CD.

Jowenko's speculations are nonsense. He thinks WTC 7 was demolished for "safety reasons."

quicknthedead writes; "If WTC7 was a CD, then supposedly unknown criminals planned and executed it “stealthily” under/inside the “cover story” of 9/11

I.e., they planned to couch it inside the events of 9/11, which means our hypothetical perpetrators had to have known ahead of time that:

…….(a) airplanes crashing into the towers would cause them later to collapse, and thereby

…….(b) damage WTC7 sufficiently so it too would collapse and look as if it was a result of fire and debris damage (and not to be considered a CD, which our hypothetical perpetrators planned ahead of time to carry out with cunning deception).

So, if WTC7 was a CD, both #1 and #2 must be true and dependent upon (a) and (b).

However, how could anyone know for sure in advance that crashing airplanes into the towers would result in…….

…….#3 the towers being damaged so severely (by fire and structural failure) that they would collapse so that…….

…….#4 WTC7 would also be so severely damaged by debris from the fallen towers so as to result in its later collapse (by fire and structural failure)?

For the above to be true, our hypothetical perpetrators would had to have known the future in advance detail, which is not possible."

Your thinking here is really missing the point.

Obviously, if WTC 7's collapse was a CD, then it was part of the larger 9/11 plan.

Yes, if WTC 7 was a CD, it would have been part of the "larger plan." Your conspiracy, however, is imaginary. It is mathematically impossible. No evidence of explosives has been found anywhere in the WTC complex. The "larger plan" is completely incoherent, unless you believe that the super-villains sought to transfer control of both houses of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats. The demolition of an obscure building seven hours after the attacks cannot be shoehorned into any plausible conspiracy theory.

Yes, it reveals that those responsible must have known about the fate of the WTC Twin Towers. It does not mean that the perpetrators expected aircraft crashes were going to bring about the collapses of the Twin Towers. The aircraft attacks served the primary purpose of "shock and awe" and they succeeded brilliantly. They also provided a cover story for the demolition of the Twin Towers. They had to be certain the Twin Towers would collapse and they had no reasonable expectation to base a belief that the aircraft impacts would achieve that result. The plan called for certainty, and not "let's see what happens." Therefore, it's logical to assume that if the WTC 7 collapse was a CD, then so were the Twin Towers collapses. The perpetrators planned the future in advance and they obviously did so in great detail. I don't understand why you would expect them not to?

Conspiracy liars have never come close to figuring out why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy wanted the Towers to collapse. The imaginary evildoers wanted planes to crash into buildings to start a war for the purpose of not building a natural gas pipeline. Causing the Towers to fall, however, midwifed a recession for which Bush got blamed.

Your evil movement has not thought through the implications of its pernicious falsehoods.

quicknthedead writes; "In addition, to argue our perps could have known ahead of time because they were "manipulating" Al Qaeda in some way {LIHOP and/or "privy to their plans"} is also untenable because this too is dependent upon knowing for sure that #3, collapse of the towers, would occur and also cause sufficient damage to WTC7 to provide the plausible explanation needed for #4. This is at the heart of why it could not be a CD."

I'm arguing MIHOP (Make It Happen On Purpose), so I have no reason to argue against LIHOP scenario.

You continue to lock your belief to the Official Story idea that the collapses of the Twin Towers were the consequence of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

Your mindless, evil movement has offered nothing to contradict the conclusions reached by real researchers.

Regarding WTC 7; given it's proximity to WTC 1, and given the knowledge that WTC 1 was prepped to completely collapse, it was understandable that a CD of WTC 7 could easily be masked if it occurred under the umbrella of the huge collapse of WTC 1. This is where the plan must have hit it's first real snag.

For some reason the CD of WTC 7, timed to follow closely behind that of WTC 1, failed. This problem was corrected but the planned cover story was gone.

The apparent contingency plan was to let the fires become the reason for a collapse. Therefore they had to allow sufficient time for the fires to burn and create some credibility, if only a little, for their case.

It was necessary to initiate the collapse prior to sunset (6:15 p.m.) so that the absence of major internal fire would not be emphasized by approaching darkness.

MM

Still desperately spouting the same ancient, thoroughly discredited rubbish. Get a life.