'What about building 7'?

[DGM]

Did Danny Jowenko sign up to Ae911truth ?

No. If you listen to all the interviews with him, there is no reason to think he actually bought into any of this.

 

[TJM]

I dont contribute much to 9/11 CTs,but do I understand this correct

Building 7 was prepped to demolish before the day thus the planes hitting twin towers sending debri raining down on to Building 7 setting it on fire weakening its structure was just a happy coincidence?

How did these fires and debri not interfere with the explosives planted? How were tptb going to explain the collapse of wtc7 had the planes not hit?

No, no, no...

The whole operation was to take out 7 by having the towers fall on them and when that didn't work a team of NWO ninjas descended on the building, wired it up to the special explosives that are silent but need special sound dampening office furniture to make them even more silent. This is apparently because WTC 7 housed sensitive documents and there is no such things as copiers, fax machines or off-site document storage. Once the building was wired up, WTC 7 became the most expensive paper shredder in history. The ops in Pennsylvania and Washington were decoys to keep world attention focused away from NYC. Jeez, are ya dense or somethin?

 

[Spanx]

No. If you listen to all the interviews with him, there is no reason to think he actually bought into any of this.

I didn't think he did. It makes me wonder why AE911 used him the way they did.

Surely he would have signed up being a supporter of CD

It would be enough for someone to want to drive their car into a tree if they didn't agree with Ae911truth and it was spammed over the net that they did.

 

[DGM]

I didn't think he did. It makes me wonder why AE911 used him the way they did.

Surely he would have signed up being a supporter of CD

I seriously doubt you don't know the answer to this.

 

[JayUtah]

Why do you still lie and depict the collapse as taking ~6.5 seconds? You know this is a lie and continue to promote it. The collapse took 17+ seconds.
Why do you insist on lying?

Perhaps because this is starting to look to me like a fringe reset of all MM's prior WTC 7 claims. All over again.

 

[Oystein]

No. If you listen to all the interviews with him, there is no reason to think he actually bought into any of this.

Here is the part of the very same Jowenko interview that no truther has ever posted, linked to or acknoweldged.

A sixpack of beer that MM will not acknowledge its existence and truthfully summarize what Jowenko says about WCT1+2.

 

[DGM]

A sixpack of beer that MM will not acknowledge its existence and truthfully summarize what Jowenko says about WCT1+2.

Everyone knows he disagrees with "truthers" on the towers but, listening to his interviews he never shows any support of their views on building 7.

This aside. "Truthers" claim him as a supporter although according to them he's wrong 2/3 of the time.

 

[Miragememories]

Here is the part of the very same Jowenko interview that no truther has ever posted, linked to or acknowledged.

A sixpack of beer that MM will not acknowledge its existence and truthfully summarize what Jowenko says about WCT1+2.

k3wwdI0XawI

Lie much?

I like a nice dark ale if you don't mind.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5332688&postcount=84

From November 21, 2009,

Most architects and engineers around the world simply accepted what the media was telling them at face value so when the demolition expert Danny Jowenko was asked about WTC1 and WTC2 he simply followed that pattern.

But when he was shown the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 he had zero doubt about what he was seeing- controlled demolition. I suggest you call him and ask him what he thinks about WTC1 and WTC2 now.

But even in the unlikely event that Danny still thought that WTC1 and WTC2 were as the government say, the controlled demolition of WTC7 will more than suffice. After all if there is a problem with WTC7, there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko

I have gone over this issue many times in the past but I think Bill's comments address the point.

On Aug.1, 2010 I wrote;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6181645&postcount=495

I believe Danny Jowenko, like just about every other trusting soul, including myself, was shocked and awed by what he saw on 9/11. In quick order, we accepted the common belief that the sole cause of the WTC Twin Towers collapses were the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

At the time of his 2006 interview, Danny Jowenko was well aware that the mass media, the public, corporations, and most major governments accepted the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Being a wise businessman as well as a demolition expert, Danny knew that to go on record questioning the common belief about the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses, would put him at odds with the people with whom he had to do business.

I'll illustrate my point with this extract from the later interview with Danny Jowenko. The same interview in which he reiterated his firm belief that WTC 7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

Danny Jowenko:"Listen, when the FEMA makes a report that it [WTC7] came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the states as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone, you know?"
Interviewer:"Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?"
Danny Jowenko: "Of course, it's the end of the story."

You might ask at this point; if Danny believed it was bad for business, why in his original interview didn't he just agree that WTC 7 was felled by fire and avoid that controversy as well?

And that would be a fair question.

We know that Danny Jowenko was on record as being in agreement with popular opinion, that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses.

The reason for the apparent discrepancy in Danny Jowenko's responses about the cause of the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC 7, lies in how the original Dutch interview was conducted.

He was asked to watch the video of building 7 at the WTC.

But, and this is the crucial point, he was not told at that moment, that the video was from 9/11.

Here is an extract from the first portion of the interview In 2006, for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

Interviewer:"What you see at the WTC, these are pictures of building #7. Let's take this and look what we see. Do you see a fire above somewhere?"
Danny Jowenko:"I see smoke however. Yeah, you always get dust, nothing has been removed from it? Does the top go first? No, the bottom."
Interviewer:"It starts on the bottom."
Danny Jowenko:"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."
Interviewer:"Did this fall in a different way than the WTC? [WTC 1 & WTC 2]"
Danny Jowenko:"Don't you agree?"
Interviewer:"Yes, you see the bottom floors go first."
Danny Jowenko:"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."
Interviewer:"Your sure?"
Danny Jowenko:"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

At this point, the interviewer tells Danny Jowenko when the collapse they have been studying occurred.

Interviewer:"But it also happened on September 11th."
Danny Jowenko:"The same day??? ..... Are you sure?????"
Interviewer:"Yes."
[long pause]
Interviewer:"There it goes again."
[They watch the WTC7 collapse again]

Danny now realizes the serious ramifications of his earlier unguarded opinion.

Danny Jowenko:"I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days, there was already much smoke gone. Are you sure it was the 11th??? That can't be."
Interviewer:"Seven hours after the World Trade Center came down."

So my argument to you uke2se is that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided into given an honest unguarded response about a collapse that he didn't know was part of 9/11.

He had the integrity to not shift from that opinion when given the opportunity at the time of that interview and in a subsequent interview, a year later.

Had he known beforehand that the collapse was part of 9/11, I'm sure he would have taken the safer, less controversial path.

Knowing how it might impact his business, he likely would have offered the conclusion that the collapse of WTC7 was also a direct consequence of what appeared to happen with the WTC Twin Towers.

MM

 

[DGM]

From November 21, 2009,
I have gone over this issue many times in the past but I think Bill's comments suffice for the moment.

......and you've not progressed in the 5 years since that post.

I'm just quoting this to show how desperate you are............

 

[Georgio]

Here's a transcript of the English subtitles from the Jowenko video posted by Oystein:

INTERVIEWER: What about the Twin Towers? Could they have been razed by explosives? We do something simple hardly anyone has thought of: We ask an explosives expert.

Danny Jowenko has been doing explosive demolitions for 27 years. He represents the absolute Dutch top. If anyone in the Netherlands can judge whether explosives were used, it's him.

DANNY JOWENKO: This is bizarre. This is bizarre. It crashed in a more favorable spot, a bit more in the center. Plus the building's own weight on top...

INT: So it's logical the second went first?

DJ: Of course...You clearly see that the building that was hit first...was hit higher, so it went last because there was less weight to bring it down. That's essential knowledge for anyone who knows anything about demolition: You have to use the building's own weight.

INT: Jowenko sees another sign that no explosives were used. The building collapses from the top down. If it had been done with explosives, it would have collapsed from below.

DJ: You'd place the explosives below, of course.

INT: And it would have started underneath,

DJ: Yes, that's how you get the full weight. That's a present. The less you have to blow up.

INT: But the tower collapsed top down.

DJ: It collapsed at the exact location where the plane hit and heated it.

INT: The conspiracy theory assumes that the explosions began at the top. Jowenko says that's impossible.

DJ: It can't have been explosives, as there was a huge fire. If there had been explosives, they would already have been burned. What's more, before being burned, their igniters would have gone off...at 320 degrees Celsius, so they'd have detonated sooner.

INT: Where conspiracy theorists see explosions...Jowenko sees something else, which may explain the rapid collapse.

DJ: You also see, as it were, the bolts springing loose at each turn. It had a very strong core, and the beams were pretty long...but they're joined, and it was 410 meters tall. The energy is very uneven. So every vertical column has to carry a certain weight... at a slightly different moment from its neighbor, so to speak. It can't bear it, so it breaks to pieces, across its entire length, bolts and all. It comes loose, all the way down, And the side structures...also strong because of the wind stress, which is how the building was built...were mainly pressed outward.

[footage of fire-fighters]
and we saw floor by floor started popping out.
It was as if they had detonators...like they had planned to take down a building – boom boom boom!

DJ: He also says it, it simply gave out. At every level the weight was too much.

INT: But he says it was as if...

DJ: That's what it looks like. But don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. That's not possible.

INT: Why not?

DJ: Of course it's not.

INT: You wouldn't do it like that?

DJ: It would take a year.

INT: A year to place all those explosives?

DJ: And prepare them and hook them up. With all the cables down there.

 

[Spanx]

Being a wise businessman as well as a demolition expert, Danny knew that to go on record questioning the common belief about the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses, would put him at odds with the people with whom he had to do business.

And Ae911 truth went against his wishes and put him on the record as a CD supporter.

How did this effect Jowenko and his business ? Was it enough to push him over the edge ?
Who knows, the one thing that is for certain Ae911 wouldn't care either way.

Well done guys, another one to add to the list.

 

[Oystein]

Lie much?

I like a nice dark ale if you don't mind.
...

Right after you "truthfully summarize what Jowenko says about WCT1+2"
(stating he was "being in agreement with popular opinion, that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses" doesn't quite qualify - he is not merely agreeing with popular opinion - he supports this opinion with observations and input from his professionalk expertise which clearly goes beyond "agreement" and beyond "popular opinion").

 

[JSanderO]

Jowenko never looked at the structural plans of the building. He shot from the hip and it does fall like a CD does... but it wasn't a CD. He made a fool of himself speaking before he had the facts.

 

[LSSBB]

Jowenko never looked at the structural plans of the building. He shot from the hip and it does fall like a CD does... but it wasn't a CD. He made a fool of himself speaking before he had the facts.

Every profession has its outliers. The Truth movement set all its support on the outliers. That's the main reason why the Truth movement is now an outlier.

You rolls the dice, you takes your chances. Their outlier was wrong, according to available evidence. Now the remaining shreds of the movement cling to the outliers, long after Bush has moved on.

13 years post event, no evidence of CD except the same old disproven canards based on "how it looks", as if their calibrated Mark I eyeballs and brains evolved on the steppes can expertly deliver analysis of a complex building collapse.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Is this still going on? Here's what the Truth Movement needs to do.
Establish:
Motive
Method
Opportunity

The important word here is establish, not conjecture.
I'll give you a demonstration:
Motive: Religious fanaticism, stated repeatedly through print, video, and voice, including but not limited to, written and disseminated declaration of intent.
Method: Flying hijacked airliners chosen specifically to have maximum fuel on board into buildings.
Opportunity: The second the hijackers sat in the pilot seats, after killing the legitimate pilots, leaving nothing between the aircraft and the buildings but a few miles of air.

Now let's see how this works with the WTC7 theory:
Motive: Unknown, except for idle speculation.
Method: Some type of as yet undetermined explosive compound unlike anything that has ever been seen before or since.
Opportunity: More idle speculation. Not even a verifiable timeline on this aspect.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[Miragememories]

Jowenko never looked at the structural plans of the building.

He shot from the hip and it does fall like a CD does... but it wasn't a CD.

He made a fool of himself speaking before he had the facts.

And what did he say when interviewed the following year when he did have the facts?

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill February 22, 2007

Interviewer Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Interviewer Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

 

[Oystein]

Is this still going on? Here's what the Truth Movement needs to do.
Establish:
Motive
Method
Opportunity

The important word here is establish, not conjecture.
I'll give you a demonstration:
Motive: Religious fanaticism, stated repeatedly through print, video, and voice, including but not limited to, written and disseminated declaration of intent.
Method: Flying hijacked airliners chosen specifically to have maximum fuel on board into buildings.
Opportunity: The second the hijackers sat in the pilot seats, after killing the legitimate pilots, leaving nothing between the aircraft and the buildings but a few miles of air.

Now let's see how this works with the WTC7 theory:
Motive: Unknown, except for idle speculation.
Method: Some type of as yet undetermined explosive compound unlike anything that has ever been seen before or since.
Opportunity: More idle speculation. Not even a verifiable timeline on this aspect.

Does that about sum it up?

Nicely.

 

[JayUtah]

And what did he say when interviewed the following year when he did have the facts?

He says he has seen the drawings. But he doesn't seem to have any explanation for all the other people who also saw the drawings and who came to a different conclusion from him. Oh wait, he does -- he insinuates they must all be lying.

Do you think his opinion is based more on science or more on sympathy with the conspiracy theorists who repeatedly approach him?

 

[beachnut]

And what did he say when interviewed the following year when he did have the facts?

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill February 22, 2007

Interviewer Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Interviewer Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Interviewer Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Why does Jeff Hill say your claims are BS now?

Jeff Hill says 911 truth is BS. Jeff woke up to reality. Gee, Pull it, really. The pulled the fire support. Danny sounds paranoid, or something.
Out of thousands of experts why can 911 truth only get less than 0.1 percent.

 

[Georgio]

Do you think his opinion is based more on science or more on sympathy with the conspiracy theorists who repeatedly approach him?

I'm not sure I understand this - it sounds like you're saying Jowenko might have lied out of politeness.