'What about building 7'?

[Spanx]

Just to clarify something with MM. With the information I have found on the net it would appear Danny was killed off for having his view. Can you confirm this.

Also could you point me in the direction of other practicing demolition experts who agree with Danny Jowenko.

 

[JayUtah]

The problem with your plea is that "pertinent information" when supplied, did not alter Mr. Jowenko's expert opinion.

Asked and answered. When told on the spot it was a Ground Zero building, he didn't know what to say. Later when interviewed over the telephone, he said he had had become better informed, but didn't demonstrate that he had. You provide no evidence that his later testimony is actually based on any better knowledge or study.

It is difficult to believe that in the months that followed his initial interview, Mr. Jowenko somehow did not read or observe additional materials relating to the condition of 7WTC on 9/11.

Asked and answered. You're second-guessing and supposing. Facts, please.

But you are correct that in the months that followed, it is unknown what level of further investigation he undertook.

Then don't assume he did enough to make your belief true.

By the time he was re-interviewed regarding his controversial opinion, months later, you would have us believe the state of Mr. Jowenko's knowledge about 7WTC had not progressed any further.

I see no evidence that it had. You, on the other hand, on the basis of pure supposition, want us to believe he went and studied the problem thoroughly enough to make his opinion fully informed, yet left no evidence of the kind of exercise that would normally attend such a study.

Such an absurd belief, is not only absolutely incredible, but self-serving for those living in denial.

If you say so.

But, the visual evidence was so compelling that Mr. Jowenko did not need to hear about the NIST's guesstimated missing sounds and other inconsequential data.

Supposition. You are not an authority on what thought processes Jowenko used to arrive at his conclusion, nor how he may have incorporated other evidence into his statement.

I would argue that the missing credibility is yours.

Then do your best.

 

[turingtest]

Just to clarify something with MM. With the information I have found on the net it would appear Danny was killed off for having his view. Can you confirm this.

Also could you point me in the direction of other practicing demolition experts who agree with Danny Jowenko.

This would be my question. It seems to me that MM is indulging not only in what is purely an argument from authority, but one from a single, outlier authority. And it's largely irrelevant anyway- the question of what brought down WCT7 in no way affects the conclusions about what brought down the other two that day (IIRC, even Jowenko agrees with the "official story" here). It's just pure anomaly hunting, with no regard for any context that's needed to define anomaly. The "theory" reduces the whole event to one part of it, which proves nothing about what's omitted. It's a little like JFK buffs insisting that Oswald couldn't have shot Kennedy, notwithstanding the ton of evidence that says he did, because they can find one "expert" who says it's not possible for James Tague to have been nicked by a bullet fragment; zeroing in on Tague allows them to escape any responsibility for fitting him into a whole sequence of events that really had nothing to do with him.

 

[Oystein]

... What I am referring to is;"Apparently you will not admit you have lied", and "Your comment is intellectually dishonest but will not admit it."

Already addressed right after the post in AAH where you said this before (and received a warning). It was hyperbole. If you rate hyperbole im general, or in this specific case, as "intellectually dishonest", then that is an opinion (not a fact) that you are entitled to. I don't think it is. I know my intentions, and I believe you are intelligent enough to parse my wording.

 

[Oystein]

Your point would have some merit if, Mr. Jowenko, like the expert witnesses you allude to, had rehearsed his opinion prior to being interviewed for national News.
...
...a demolition expert, who presided over his own company, would not be bothered to seriously investigate the collapse of 7WTC after being blind-sided on a national News program into giving his professional opinion ...

...

I would argue that the missing credibility is yours.

It doesn't improve your own credibility when you can't get the easiest facts straight. Zemla, the program that interviewed Jowenko, is not a "national News" program:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zembla (Google translation)

It is an investigative journalism program. Here is its homepage:
http://zembla.vara.nl/
Klick "AFLEVERINGEN" to get full episode listings for each year (about 30 per year), just to get a feel for what they do.
"Het complot van 11 september" aired on September 10, 2006. The link leads you to the video of the full episode.

 

[Miragememories]

"The problem with your plea is that "pertinent information" when supplied, did not alter Mr. Jowenko's expert opinion."

"Asked and answered"

Oh?

You mean this wrong answer?

"That pertinent information included that the building had been previously damaged by falling heavy debris, that it had burned for several hours…."

Hmm.

In the first interview for the national News, Mr. Jowenko studied this NIST document.

I think there can be little doubt that it revealed that 7WTC received damage.

And then months later when asked again, specifically about the fire;

"I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not…"

"When told on the spot it was a Ground Zero building, he didn't know what to say."

Shock 'n awe will do that to you.

Well maybe not to you.

Most people watching the falling towers for the first time had OMG moments and were briefly rendered speechless.

Well maybe not you.

Once he recovered from his initial astonishment that he had been unaware of this major 9/11 event at Ground Zero, Mr. Jowenko certainly had much to say.

I won't bore readers with more transcription as it is easily obtainable.

 

[Miragememories]

It doesn't improve your own credibility when you can't get the easiest facts straight. Zemla, the program that interviewed Jowenko, is not a "national News" program:

I used small "n" national in front of News.

Given the small size of the Netherlands, it would seem to be a fair assumption that when broadcast, the program would have "national" coverage.

Since its foundation is based on "investigative journalism", the term "News" seemed appropriate.

Hence I referred to it as a national News program.

 

[GlennB]

Once he recovered from his initial astonishment that he had been unaware of this major 9/11 event at Ground Zero, Mr. Jowenko certainly had much to say.

Which boiled down to his speculation that, seeing his building severely damaged, on fire and beyond saving, the owner saw a chance to simplify matters by CD'ing it *on the day* and getting an insurance payout.

A scenario that you reject.

Make up your mind.

 

[Miragememories]

Just to clarify something with MM.

With the information I have found on the net it would appear Danny was killed off for having his view.

Can you confirm this?

So you are saying that you have uncovered "information" (as opposed to conjecture), that, to you, leads to the appearance that Mr. Jowenko was murdered for holding the view that 7WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition?

If so, please share.

Can I confirm your discovery?

No.

 

[Spanx]

I hope Mr Jowenko's work is peer reviewed.

Sound familiar ?

 

[Miragememories]

It seems to me that MM is indulging not only in what is purely an argument from authority, but one from a single, outlier authority.

And it's largely irrelevant anyway- the question of what brought down WCT7 in no way affects the conclusions about what brought down the other two that day (IIRC, even Jowenko agrees with the "official story" here).

It's just pure anomaly hunting, with no regard for any context that's needed to define anomaly.

You fail really badly.

In effect, you are attempting to argue that even if the destruction of 7WTC was a controlled demolition, it is but pure coincidence that it occurred on 9/11.

That is almost too mind-numbing for words.

 

[DGM]

From a brief interview the following year:
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!

The thing is, Mr Jewenko was not a structural engineer or did he do anything more than look at the drawings. He's an expert in demolition, not structures.

J. Mark Loizeaux says it was due to fires and damage and he was actually there the day after. Wouldn't that put him one up (all things being equal)?

 

[Oystein]

I used small "n" national in front of News.

Given the small size of the Netherlands, it would seem to be a fair assumption that when broadcast, the program would have "national" coverage.

Since its foundation is based on "investigative journalism", the term "News" seemed appropriate.

Hence I referred to it as a national News program.

You think you are Humpty Dumpty and have glory.
You're not.

Anyway, here is another chance to show some integrity and show us you are able to correct yourself:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10472325#post10472325

(The VARA broadcasts nationally alright, but of course a weekly hour-long documentary, researched over the course of months, is never ever called "news" by anyone at all.)

 

[Spanx]

Can I confirm your discovery?

No.

No, just like you can't confirm a practicing demolition expert who agrees with Mr Jowenko.

 

[JayUtah]

In the first interview for the national News, Mr. Jowenko studied this NIST document.

Before or after he was asked to render his expert opinion?

And then months later when asked again, specifically about the fire;

And you were already asked what drawings he saw. Did he see structural framing plans, or did he see the cartoon of a floor plan? Think carefully about when he gave his second interview and when the structural framing plans were generally available. Do you really propose that the color sketch of the WTC 7 perimeter is sufficient for structural analysis?

Shock 'n awe will do that to you.

Well maybe not to you

That's right. I don't based my conclusions on shock and awe. I base them on an assessment of available facts according to principles of defensible reason. But preach shock and awe all you want. Emotional arguments win people over, but don't answer questions.

I won't bore readers with more transcription as it is easily obtainable.

Please instead bore us with the answers to the other questions I asked you. You have done quite a lot to spin a gripping tale and pin in on Jowenko.

 

[JSanderO]

What were the plans Jowenko was shown? I don't think they were available at the time of his interview. The Youtube of his interview was in 2007.

On AE's site this was published on 21 Feb 2012.. after Jowenko died!

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/faqs/611-wtc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html

What plans was be looking at and studying to rule in or rule out the cause of collapse?

 

[GlennB]

What were the plans Jowenko was shown? I don't think they were available at the time of his interview. The Youtube of his interview was in 2007.

On AE's site this was published on 21 Feb 2012.. after Jowenko died!

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/faqs/611-wtc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html

What plans was be looking at and studying to rule in or rule out the cause of collapse?

At the initial interview it was suggested there were 12 (12!) core columns that needed CD'ing. "These twelve?"

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 12

 

[JayUtah]

J. Mark Loizeaux says it was due to fires and damage and he was actually there the day after. Wouldn't that put him one up (all things being equal)?

Jowenko said Loizeaux must be lying in order to protect his revenue streams in the United States.

 

[JayUtah]

Which boiled down to his speculation that, seeing his building severely damaged, on fire and beyond saving, the owner saw a chance to simplify matters by CD'ing it *on the day* and getting an insurance payout.

A scenario that you reject.

Make up your mind.

Indeed, that was the genesis of the "They worked really hard," remark.

 

[Oystein]

What were the plans Jowenko was shown? I don't think they were available at the time of his interview. The Youtube of his interview was in 2007.

On AE's site this was published on 21 Feb 2012.. after Jowenko died!...

The episode of the Dutch investigative journalism program "Zembla" that made the interview with Jowenko was first aired on September 10, 2006.
I would guess that there already existed a FEMA report on WTC7 that might contain such a plan.