There we have it, Danny Jowenko watched loose change and managed to do a full detailed investigation into how Wtc7 collapsed.
That's just grand. Why didn't they just call him in the first place ?
- Status
There we have it, Danny Jowenko watched loose change and managed to do a full detailed investigation into how Wtc7 collapsed.
That's just grand. Why didn't they just call him in the first place ?
Miragememories
Banned
Like most threads in this forum, long and short, the vast majority of posts are garbage comments and opinions made by members who wish to suppress any and all comment by those few who dare to disagree with them.
I do not dispute that Mr. Jowenko was caught by surprise.
The true value in surprising him was to get him to provide an unbiased assessment of what he observed.
He knew he was going to see something relating to his professional expertise, building demolition, and he knew that his professional opinion was going to be sought.
With that in mind, he screened the video of a building's collapse.
If it had been a non-9/11 building demolition, yourself and others would quite likely have agreeably nodded and readily embraced his immediate expert opinion.
Do you really believe he would have given an objective opinion if he had been told before hand that he was about to watch the collapse of another office tower from the WTC site on 9/11?
That he would have still responded as he did?
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?
The caller's opinion does not really matter does it?
It is Mr. Jowenko's opinion given many months after his first witnessing the 7WTC collapse that matters.
A confirmation opinion given after he had sufficient time to investigate the collapse on his own (which he said he did).
On that basis alone?
Amazing.
You honestly believe that Jeff Hill somehow tainted Mr. Jowenko's professional opinion?
He basically asked if Mr. Jowenko still stood by his original opinion.
Of course he was flabbergasted.
When he did the original interview, Mr. Jowenko did not immediately realize the seriousness of what he determined.
He was thinking that the building must have been prepped for demolition on the day.
Given time to think about it further, and based on his own comments in the interview, he must have realized later that yes, there was not time to rig the 7WTC for demolition on 9/11.
That 7WTC must have been engineered for demolition before 9/11.
The the demolition of 7WTC had to have been an inside job.
It really is staggering how a top demolition expert can come to this conclusion by simply watching a short video which shows half a building collapsing. He didn't even need to leave his office to work it out.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Not ot mentiont hat these have to be the best demolition engineers in the nation that carried this out.
I mean, how many people can rig up a controlled demolition such that it can still be viable after severe fires and massive structural damage?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Pertinent information was withheld. The question is whether his opinion was properly informed. That pertinent information included that the building had been previously damaged by falling heavy debris, that it had burned for several hours with little if any mitigation, and that it had been occupied as an office building right up to a few hours before it collapsed.
Explain why such information would not be important to someone asked to determine from a single bit of video what had caused a building to collapse. Yes, I do suspect that if Jowenko had had that information up front, he may have answered differently. And I surmise that you and the other conspiracy theorists suspect that too, which is why I believe the information was withheld.
He said he did. I dispute that he actually did and have given my reasons for disputing it. Specifically he said he had looked at "drawings." What evidence do you have that he conducted any other investigation?
Yes, on that basis alone I would be comfortable relegating his opinion to the margin. Call it amazing all you want. It doesn't bother me in the least to announce that I have considered someone's opinion in light of other qualified opinions and of other evidence and have concluded Jowenko's is relatively unprobative in that context.
I believe his initial interviewers did that. Further, I believe they did it on purpose. I have already said that Hill announced from the beginning of his phone call that he was a conspiracy theorist and was contacting Jowenko in that role. I have speculated that this may have predisposed Jowenko sympathetically, but I can't support that hypothesis.
I don't accept you as an authority on what Jowenko was thinking or why he reacted as he did.
NoahFence
Banned
Its not a matter of agree or disagree. It's a matter of facts. You can't agree or disagree on facts. They are what they are.
You and I can agree that Braveheart was a good movie or not.
We cannot argue that Mel Gibson was in it.
WTC 7 Was not controlled demoltion. Period. Full stop.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
As as member, do you consider yourself exempt from this?
ETA: I've got to ask, Why do you post here? Do you think you're making a difference or progress? Why here?
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Only in conspiracy land does one believe that a half-assed answer is worth more than a considered one.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Then you discount his opinion on the towers. Explain why?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I seem to recall that he was also played the video only, with no sound track. That's a piece of pertinent information, given NIST's estimate of the sound that would have been produced by an explosive charge sufficiently large to sever column 79; again, I seem to recall the sound level would have been high enough to cause temporary hearing loss within about half a mile of the building, a condition nobody reported.
Dave
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
That is correct, further, I believe he was shown the edited version that starts AFTER the penthouse collapsed.
He even said 'this collapse starts from the bottom.'
He was duped
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
But we're assured by MM that he did due diligence afterward, such that it was a fully informed expert opinion. All that from, "I looked at the drawings, the construction..." And what drawings could Jowenko conceivably have obtained prior to his 2007 phone call? Were copies of the engineer of record's stamped steel framing plans found in Jowenko's effects after his death?
Structural analysis is time-consuming and paper-consuming. MM seems to want us to believe that after his initial interview, where he was just shown a few seconds of video, Jowenko went home and embarked upon such an exercise. Where are his notebooks? And after thus completing such an endeavor -- a service for which a firm like his would normally receive thousands of dollars in fees -- he did absolutely nothing with it. He didn't share it with the others in his firm. He didn't publish a paper. He didn't call a journalist. No notes to that effect found among his possessions and papers.
Nope, in MM's scenario all this important work to validate his opinion simply sat unused, unpublished, and undocumented just waiting for Jeff Hill to call out of the blue and ask if he still believed the same thing.
And for all the erudition he supposedly applied toward solving the problem, he still mentions only "fire" as the purported cause for the collapse. He didn't seem to know about the direct debris damage before (his interviewer certainly didn't tell him), and he didn't seem to know about it when Hill called.
Conspiracy theorists don't get it. They don't appreciate that their readers have to make decisions based on relative credibility. With respect to the collapse causes, on the one hand we have the vast majority of relevantly-qualified scientists and practitioners, including eminent practitioners of Jowenko's trade, saying one thing. And not just saying it, but producing vast reams of documents talking about how they've come to that decision. And on the other hand we had one guy who at worst was duped and and best couldn't demonstrate appropriate knowledge, making a knee-jerk judgment to the contrary. We the readers have to decide which of those is more credible. In addition, the controlled-demolition scenario necessarily says all those opposing opinions must be deliberate lies.
Conspiracy theorists don't seem to frame any of their questions as this kind of judgment, which is quite clearly a no-brainer on that point. Instead they seem to frame them as having waited or searched patiently for the one "smoking gun" that supposedly destroys all opposition. "Here's a hundred engineers who say it was the failure of a distressed structure, but here's one guy who says it was imploded deliberately." "A-ha! I knew it all along!"
Indeed. Jowenko said "They worked really hard." Which then raises the question of who did that. It's not as if there are so many explosive demolition companies in the world that Jowenko wouldn't have been able to guess who did it simply based on the scale of the work. After all, he was the foremost authority in the Netherlands on the subject, right?
Yeah, that's MM's latest tap-dance. Initially he speculates Jowenko believed all the rigging had to be done the day of. He further speculates that Jowenko later concluded it had to have been intentionally pre-rigged before 9/11.
But no. While MM is frantically cramming words in Jowenko's mouth and thoughts into his mind, let's go back to what Jowenko said with respect to the Towers and whether they could have been pre-rigged. He said absolutely not, and explained why. The explosives would have already burned away (not necessarily exploded, but incinerated into uselessness) and their detonators would have already cooked off.
And when asked what it would take to rig WTC 7, he goes into the qualitative tasks, which would include clearing away walls -- you know, the standard things we've heard from demolitions experts about how the structures have to be prepared. On that point Jowenko agreed with the rest of the field. You have to prepare the structure beforehand, including the removal of walls.
Why? Well, you aren't going to use electrical controls here. With every radio in the Five Boroughs blazing EMI all over Lower Manhattan, you can't rig explosives using electrically-operated detonators. So your only other choice is det-cord. Rigging det-cord is an art, right down to the kinds of knots you have to tie. And the effectiveness of the setup depends on carefully measuring lengths of det-cord to achieve the proper sequence. You can't just run those carefully measured lengths behind existing walls or through existing cable runs. That's why you clear the walls. The rigging requires open space.
Not to mention it only takes a no. 8 cap to set off det-cord. You could get that from a well-placed hammer blow. Which means its survival during the shower of debris from the towers is pretty improbable. And you can cut it would a good pair of office shears. (Don't do this, though.) So the chances that it would either go off percussively, cook off, or be cut by direct mechanical damage seem to me to be pretty high.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
If memory serves me right, the TV team (the name of the program was ... Zemla? Or something similar - I keep forgetting) that interviewed Jowenko was not a bunch of truthers out to trick him. I think their plan was to take several truther claims and materials (originally from Loose Change probably) and run them past several experts in the various fields. In another part of the program for example, they went to a professional flight simulator and tested with inexperienced people (non-pilots) the claim that it would have been too difficult for the terrorists, with little to no training on 767/757, to hit their targets - and they found that it is actually very easy even for people who never had flown any plane at all to hit.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
He also asked if this was on the same day.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed. For a treat go to jowenko.com and peruse their online video library of demolitions the company has previously done. Try to find any where you can't hear the charges going off like clockwork right before collapse ensues.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I can't vouch for what clip you may have seen. The clip I saw had dialogue in a language that appeared to me to be Dutch, and had English subtitles. It framed Jowenko's interview in a fair number of insinuations and rhetoric that certainly led me to believe it was a pro-conspiracy program. I do not know its provenance.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Whether intended or not, the way the question was put to him commits an error I've dubbed the Bellwether Fallacy.
Briefly, the Bellwether Fallacy speciously suggests that a complicated question involving many kinds and great amounts of evidence can be conclusively decided by one "smoking gun" determination. It suggests further that any appearance of consilience to the contrary must be set aside in favor of the "bellwether" determination. For example, it's common for Moon hoax claimants to say that the question of harsh radiation in space is the ultimate deciding factor against any human exploration beyond Earth orbit, therefore all the other evidence must have been faked ... "somehow."
Similarly, a bit of video without any relevant context is presented to Jowenko. Not unexpectedly, he decides on the basis of that superficial resemblance alone that it's a building that has been imploded as part of a controlled-demolition exercise. He's been given no information that would challenge that interpretation.
But that determination having been made, now it must supposedly stand forever regardless of any subsequent refinement or remediation. No, the rest of the pertinent evidence doesn't just magically "work itself out" because some knee-jerk initial judgment exists and supposedly overrides everything else. On the one hand, Jowenko's opinion has to be reckoned within the entire body of evidence. On the other hand, we can't have proper faith in the "bellwether" judgment knowing how it was elicited.
Putting it in context with the rest of the evidence, it is clearly outlying. It is less likely to be true than is the preponderance of evidence contradicting him. It would seem that we should have faith in his subsequent confirmation. But I see nothing that convinces me it is based on any better information than he had initially.
The program's name was Zembla and yyou are correct in your comprehension of the documetary. Here's the entire documentary (dutch with english subtitles):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li89cUQNHZ4
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
To be fair, they could have used MDI (http://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/supportmunitions/demolitionsys/mdi.html), which is a non-electrical replacement for det cord. It's essentially a shock tube type arrangement, and it was in use by the time.
It's still, however, vulnerable to physical damage, and fire would melt/burn the tubing and set off the material inside in a similar manner.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, I've seen similar stuff used -- or maybe actually that stuff. I sort of lumped all those jacketed-initiators together for the purpose of that answer. Instead of "det-cord" I should have said "non-electric detonators." But yes, I don't know of any demolition rigging system that you could subject to possible fire and impact damage and be assured it would go off later as planned.
- Status