'What about building 7'?

[Belz...]

In the case of 7WTC, controlled demolition by implosion is so obvious that Danny Jowenko, a professional demolition engineer noted it immediately upon observing the collapse video.

Yes, so obvious that the quasi-totality of engineers missed it, and the only people who do see it are, somehow, conspiracy-minded people.

So tell me, what's obvious about it ?

 

[JayUtah]

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

In a sense. I honestly don't think Jowenko put as much effort into his opinion as the conspiracy theorists claim he has, nor that he cares much about WTC 7 or the Truth Movement. He's their one-and-only expert witness amid many others who dispute them on the point of controlled demolition for WTC 7, so they have to make the most of him.

The problem for any expert who has been manipulated into giving an "expert" opinion is thereafter having to choose between maintaining consistency with what has been said before and maintaining stature in the field. In his case, it is always the conspiracy theorists who contact him. He doesn't affirmatively make statements of his own, and he doesn't necessarily have any idea how his remarks are going to be used by the people who contact him.

I say "sympathy," but maybe that's not the right word. I believe Jowenko is likely to be more acquiescent to the guy right there, right now asking him questions. Telling that person what he wants to hear is likely the best way of avoiding the one end of the controversy (i.e., that Jowenko flip-flopped) and getting back to his actual business.

A guy calls him up out of the blue, says right off the bat that he's a conspiracy theorist, and immediately starts trying to pin him down on a matter of consistency. So not out of politeness necessarily, but out of the sense of having one foot on the dock and one foot in the boat, he errs on the side of consistency. He says he's seen the "drawings," but we don't get any further analysis from him -- ever. He says it can't have been "from fire," but that's not actually the conventional narrative -- it's a combination of physical damage and unfought fires.

While the conspiracy theorists who pester Jowenko for support assert that he is now fully informed, that's still not especially credible given Jowenko's inability to describe accurately what he's actually being asked to refute. And less credible, in fact, given their earlier efforts very clearly to elicit exactly the response from him that they wanted.

When asked how he reconciles his supposedly expert testimony with that already given by other, very well known experts, Jowenko concocts a speculative story that the "heavies" in his industry are just saying whatever they have to in order to protect their revenue stream and that they don't really believe that. At this point in the call he has to offer some reconciliation, because he's been put on the spot to do so. His efforts are not very convincing.

 

[Miragememories]

"I honestly don't think Jowenko put as much effort into his opinion as the conspiracy theorists claim he has…"

Really?

Danny allowed himself to be interviewed by a Dutch television news program called, Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

He placed his name and reputation in front of News cameras in his homeland and you believe he put little effort into the opinions he expressed?

Amazing.

"The problem for any expert who has been manipulated into giving an "expert" opinion is thereafter having to choose between maintaining consistency with what has been said before and maintaining stature in the field.

In his case, it is always the conspiracy theorists who contact him. He doesn't affirmatively make statements of his own, and he doesn't necessarily have any idea how his remarks are going to be used by the people who contact him.

Following the interview he gave to the News, Danny Jowenko had ample time to research 7WTC and compose a new opinion based on information he lacked at the time of the original interview.

He would have been perfectly with in his rights to change his mind, and to be quite honest, I was quite surprised that he showed so much integrity given how unpopular his professional opinion was.

He readily offered in the followup interview by Jeff Hill, that since the original interview for Zembia, he had done more research and was as convinced as ever that the collapse of 7WTC was the result of a controlled demolition.

To the best of my knowledge, that second brief interview was the only additional interview Danny Jowenko gave on the subject of 7WTC's collapse.

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.

"While the conspiracy theorists who pester Jowenko for support assert that he is now fully informed, that's still not especially credible given Jowenko's inability to describe accurately what he's actually being asked to refute.

And less credible, in fact, given their earlier efforts very clearly to elicit exactly the response from him that they wanted."

What conspiracy theorists were pestering Danny Jowenko?

He got one polite phone call that we know of.

Where is it established that he was unable to describe accurately the reasoning behind his professional opinion about what happened to 7WTC?

He answered the questions presented to him and gave no indication he would avoid going into greater detail if requested.

I think the followup call was most certainly the right thing to do and I admire Danny Jowenko's integrity in sticking to his professionally and publicly, unpopular opinion.

"When asked how he reconciles his supposedly expert testimony with that already given by other, very well known experts, Jowenko concocts a speculative story that the "heavies" in his industry are just saying whatever they have to in order to protect their revenue stream and that they don't really believe that.

At this point in the call he has to offer some reconciliation, because he's been put on the spot to do so. His efforts are not very convincing.

In the immediacy of a phone call, you believe Danny concocted a "speculative story about industry "heavies"?

I've listened to and transcribed that phone call. There was no pause. It was obvious that Danny had already thought about the subject before being asked by Jeff Hill.

Furthermore, his response makes perfect sense if your business is controlled demolition and you are, like Danny Jowenko, president of your own demolition company.

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?

 

[Spanx]

I guess the next question is, was Danny killed off for his interview and telephone call ?

Did he commit suicide ?

Did he have an unfortunate accident?

I'll do a Google search and see what comes up.....

 

[beachnut]

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

Or, Danny is a paranoid nut who thinks people in the United States are not honest when they know something is wrong. So far 911 truth has managed to find less than 0.1 percent of experts who agree with them.

Most of 911 truth believers are BS artists, they spent as 15 seconds studying 911. They all make up or repeat BS they found.

The interview proves Danny is nuts or worse, as he said, "you're gone". What does it mean? If you disagree with FEMA you are gone? NIST? What a load of BS.

Danny turns out to be 66 percent right, and 33 percent wrong. WTC burned all day so as Danny said, the explosives were be cooked off. The 911 truth followers fail to pay attention to their own BS artist testimony. It is as if Danny had no clue WTC 7 fires burned without fire fighting, no water.

Thanks for the transcript, it saves time having to watch the BS on video, which is torture for rational people.

 

[Spanx]

It is as if Danny had no clue WTC 7 fires burned without fire fighting, no water.

It gets better than that, Danny didn't even know Wtc7 collapsed on 911. Looks like he fell for the old "did you know a third tower fell on 911" it seems to be a good way to draw the suckers in who were not paying attention on the day.

 

[JayUtah]

Really?

Yes, really.

 

[BasqueArch]

……..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.

I too can read minds. The Truther ISISes got to Jowenko and threatened him and his family like they have done to some of the Rationals in this forum, if he changed his opinion about WTC7.

 

[DGM]

It's interesting how Mr Jowenko can be so right about building 7 but, completely wrong about the towers.

I think I'll call that "truther" tunnel vision. According to them, he's only right 1/3 of the time.

 

[JayUtah]

I too can read minds.

Exactly. I'm happy to speculate on reasons for why Jowenko said what he did, or didn't do what someone supposes he should have. None of it is evidentiary; it's just incumbent upon us to examine the evidence from various angles if we can and discuss it.

I'm also happy accepting any of several interpretations of his contribution, from the notion that he's bonkers to the notion that it was a carefully-considered professional opinion. The reason I can do that is because it doesn't even jiggle the consilience of forensic evidence from all the sources -- it's an outlying opinion, and people with equal or greater credentials than Jowenko, commensurate skill and experience, and demonstrably more knowledge and expertise, have disagreed with him. On that basis I'm happy considering his a legitimate albeit outlying opinion. However, I simply don't see evidence that it has been suitably informed, so that's how I've interpreted it for myself.

It's interesting how Mr Jowenko can be so right about building 7 but, completely wrong about the towers.

I think I'll call that "truther" tunnel vision. According to them, he's only right 1/3 of the time.

As I said, he's the only expert witness the Truthers have on their side, so it all rests on him. This is why they have to spend so much effort carefully framing his statements and so much effort rehabilitating the testimony after it sits awhile in a broader context.

 

[BasqueArch]

….. With all due respect for your analyses and others JSanderO, only a designed implosion accounts for the clearly synchronous descent of the NE, NW and SW corners at FF acceleration for 8 storeys…….

1) But Jowenko said that the he doesn’t believe those are charges, that WTC7 exterior walls need not be imploded to fall.
“No, I don’t believe that those are charges. But that is also not needed, the outside needs not to be imploded….. Yes, it starts at the bottom; at the outside no implosion is needed.” [3:20 min.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM
After their fine toothed analysis of the Jowenko videos, the confirmation biased conspiracists have not disclosed this Jowenko testimony.
2) I’ve shown in other posts that Chandler’s graphs show the start of the collapse at less than free-fall acceleration and that the exterior columns were not demoed, but bent and failed from the gravitational loads.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9680589#post9680589

So there goes that bit of nonsense.
Will the True Believers retract this false claim that ALL the WTC7 exterior columns were silently exploded to bits simultaneously, due to Jowenko’s testimony and the physical evidence? No.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly. I'm happy to speculate on reasons for why Jowenko said what he did, or didn't do what someone supposes he should have. None of it is evidentiary; it's just incumbent upon us to examine the evidence from various angles if we can and discuss it.

Yeah well the problem with CTers is that they don't look at the totality of the evidence, but only the parts that don't fit with the whole picture, assuming they know what that picture is at all. The outliers are their average.

 

[BasqueArch]

Exactly. I'm happy to speculate on reasons for why Jowenko said what he did, or didn't do what someone supposes he should have. None of it is evidentiary; it's just incumbent upon us to examine the evidence from various angles if we can and discuss it.

I'm also happy accepting any of several interpretations of his contribution, from the notion that he's bonkers to the notion that it was a carefully-considered professional opinion. The reason I can do that is because it doesn't even jiggle the consilience of forensic evidence from all the sources -- it's an outlying opinion, and people with equal or greater credentials than Jowenko, commensurate skill and experience, and demonstrably more knowledge and expertise, have disagreed with him. On that basis I'm happy considering his a legitimate albeit outlying opinion. However, I simply don't see evidence that it has been suitably informed, so that's how I've interpreted it for myself.



As I said, he's the only expert witness the Truthers have on their side, so it all rests on him. This is why they have to spend so much effort carefully framing his statements and so much effort rehabilitating the testimony after it sits awhile in a broader context.

Thanks for you rigorous posts. The conspiracists can only muster sloppy epistemology and ignorance of science and engineering. It saves the rest of us a lot of typing.

 

[JSanderO]

I don't think he saw the Cantor drawings in 2007... I think he's bluffing... He saw cartoons of the structure

"Mar-17-2012 13:23
WTC 7 Blueprints Exposed Via FOIA Request: Building Plans Allow for Deeper Analysis of Skyscraper's Destruction

Ron Brookman, Structural Engineer Special to Salem-News.com
Structural Drawings / Shop Drawings Available for Download.

WTC-7 sequence

(SAN FRANCISCO) - Editor’s note: The release of detailed construction documents and shop drawings for WTC Building 7 is the latest in a series of FOIA successes by AE911Truth supporters"

 

[Miragememories]

1) But Jowenko said that the he doesn’t believe those are charges, that WTC7 exterior walls need not be imploded to fall.
“No, I don’t believe that those are charges. But that is also not needed, the outside needs not to be imploded….. Yes, it starts at the bottom; at the outside no implosion is needed.” [3:20 min.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM
After their fine toothed analysis of the Jowenko videos, the confirmation biased conspiracists have not disclosed this Jowenko testimony.
...
So there goes that bit of nonsense.
Will the True Believers retract this false claim that ALL the WTC7 exterior columns were silently exploded to bits simultaneously, due to Jowenko’s testimony and the physical evidence? No.

Watch the video.

All your spin and 'word editing' aside, Danny Jowenko's comments maintain his assertion that 7WTC was felled by a controlled demolition.

 

[NoahFence]

Watch the video.

All your spin and 'word editing' aside, Danny Jowenko's comments maintain his assertion that 7WTC was felled by a controlled demolition.

lie.

what's the point?

 

[Belz...]

Watch the video.

All your spin and 'word editing' aside, Danny Jowenko's comments maintain his assertion that 7WTC was felled by a controlled demolition.

What about the rest of the professional world ?

 

[Oystein]

lie.
...

Actually true.

 

[JayUtah]

All your spin and 'word editing' aside, Danny Jowenko's comments maintain his assertion that 7WTC was felled by a controlled demolition.

Thirty-some previous pages of this thread is occupied in a frantic rehabilitation of the solitary eyewitness to some other purported act of demolition. That having failed, now we're off and running on the frantic rehabilitation of the solitary expert witness to another (and incompatible) demolition hypothesis. Let's hope this one is shorter than 30 pages.

I have watched the video. It clearly depicts someone tricked into giving an expert opinion without being given pertinent facts. I have listened to the phone call. It depicts that person reciting a cursory and incomplete understanding of the pertinent facts when confirming his opinion.

On that basis alone I could easily discount Jowenko's opinion as both tainted and under informed. But wait, there's more! The best respected practitioners of his profession disagree with that opinion. Jowenko's explanation? They must be lying to protect a revenue stream. Even when asked on the video how long it would take him to rig WTC 7 for demolition, he couldn't come up with an answer. He's flabbergasted by the notion that it was done at all in allegedly just a few hours amid all the fire. How is it a useful expert opinion if he can't tell how it was accomplished?

Yes, Jowenko maintained his assertion that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The key here is that it doesn't matter. In every court in the land, several times a day, expert witnesses -- bought and paid for by each party -- sit on the witness stand and tell contradicting stories about how their profession views a set of pertinent facts. The existence of conflicting expert opinion is not itself a scary thing. It's not even especially noteworthy in this case because there is a huge preponderance of such expert testimony against one guy. That's a no-brainer.

 

[jaydeehess]

I am not sure what all the attempts to prove Jowenko did not actually stand by his assessment of CD of WTC7 are for. AFAIK, he never specifically backed away from it, unlike Romero wrt the towers.
However , as pointed out, he cannot envision how it was done. That is quite pertinent, it amounts to what Yosemite Sam said in the Looney Tines cartoons, "I don't know how ya's done it, but I knows ya done it".
I would expect an explosives expert, having stated that he has had access to the construction drawings, would be able to come up with an explosives placement plan. Logistics need not be his forte, in that if he had a plan he need not be able to explain how it was accomplished clandestinely or in a few hours while the structure burned. That is a condition that understandably is never asked of any explosive demolition company. Maybe, just maybe a military demolition expert could opine on that. In that case though the expertise would not be in bringing a structure of this size down, especially with the specifics of causing little to no harm to structures east and west of the demolition, which we are supposed to believe was a requirement.

At any rate if this were ever to go before a court, which it won't despite AE911T's stated wish, the opposing side would simply call more than one recognized expert to testify to the contrary.

Ironically, if AE911T did attempt to devise an explosives demolition plan, it might involve one in which only column 79 is taken out at the 10th or 14th floor connection to the equivalent girder running to the perimeter. Such a plan would solve the issue of dealing with fire, have a ready made progression to collapse courtesy of NIST, and partially solve the issue of noise. Of course they would need to back away from freefall=CD, and sudden onset =CD, so that will never happen.

Therein, imho, lies another of Jowenko's problems with explaining how it was done. The known , visible, progression of collapse requires explosives to cause first the infalling east penthouse, then the development of the kink on the north face in line with the first instance of that EPH infalling, then the tilt of all levels including the roof on either side of the kink(east and west extents staying put while the kink ends drop), then the infalling of more western rooftop structures,,,,,,, and,,,,,, only,,,,,,, then, explosive demolition of the remaining perimeter columns such that free fall begins a couple of seconds after said perimeter demolition.