'What about building 7'?

[JSanderO]

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.

The FEMA report only had the cartoons... And I believe FEMA first attributed the collapse to the load transfer structures. NIST changed that years later when they came out with their report in 07 I think... I am not up on the dates or the details.

If Jowenko only saw the FEMA cartoons he could not make an informed opinion as if he had studied structural plans.

 

[DGM]

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.

To the best of my knowledge FEMA never did a study on building 7 outside of including it on a general site damage study. The drawings MM uses were released afterwards. He would have had to actively pursue them on his own because they were not in the public domain at that time (not saying he didn't).

 

[JSanderO]

So what is the "official" time line of "explanation" for the collapse of 7wtc?

I assume the default was it came down from damage and fire... but the report didn't come for ???? 6 or 7 years???? FEMA came out with some "concept" and this was withdrawn and not official???

Did the long time for release of the NIST report fuel truther speculation that NIST was "cooking the books" to make up a fire cause?

Why DID it take so long?

 

[Oystein]

The FEMA 403 report came out on September 01, 2002. Chapter 5 is about WTC7, some drawings. Fig. 5-2 has the columns and typical floor framing for floors from 8 up.

The NIST final report on WTC7 came out in November 2008, the draft in August 2008.

 

[JSanderO]

The FEMA 403 report came out on September 01, 2002. Chapter 5 is about WTC7, some drawings. Fig. 5-2 has the columns and typical floor framing for floors from 8 up.

The NIST final report on WTC7 came out in November 2008, the draft in August 2008.

Thanks for the time line. Jowenko could not have looked at any detailed structural plans for the building when he made his comments.. no?

Also interesting is that their 3 suggested failure scenarios were in the lowest floors, not 13... And the location of the "kink" was not inline with col 79-80-81. I don't know of this is accurate, but in light of their scenarios it makes sense.

 

[Oystein]

Thanks for the time line. Jowenko could not have looked at any detailed structural plans for the building when he made his comments.. no?

The original docu:
http://zembla.vara.nl/seizoenen/2006/afleveringen/10-09-2006
Forward to 46:30, and nevermind the Dutch. That's where the WTC7-part of the Jowenko-interview gets introduced.

At 46:50 the announcer says that Jowenko had not heard about the WTC7 collapse. So any materials presented to him came from the journalists.
At 47:48 they show the front page of the FEMA report Chapter 5 (a graphic cut into the film, not shown live to Jowenko)
At 47:59 they look at a plan of the entire WTC complex, apparently with "zones" indicating how far debris could fall when the twins collapsed.
Around 49:05 again some page from the FEMA report (a graphic cut into the film, not shown live to Jowenko)

And that's it... Hmmm I thought there was a part where they looking at the column layout... I don't have the time now to review that.

 

[turingtest]

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.

I'm not arguing that at all, MM. I'm saying that if it was the CD your theory posits, while the other two towers were not, then it's your theory that requires it to have been a "pure coincidence." I'm not separating the events- you are. "Mind-numbing" is right.

 

[JSanderO]

The original docu:
http://zembla.vara.nl/seizoenen/2006/afleveringen/10-09-2006
Forward to 46:30, and nevermind the Dutch. That's where the WTC7-part of the Jowenko-interview gets introduced.

At 46:50 the announcer says that Jowenko had not heard about the WTC7 collapse. So any materials presented to him came from the journalists.
At 47:48 they show the front page of the FEMA report Chapter 5 (a graphic cut into the film, not shown live to Jowenko)
At 47:59 they look at a plan of the entire WTC complex, apparently with "zones" indicating how far debris could fall when the twins collapsed.
Around 49:05 again some page from the FEMA report (a graphic cut into the film, not shown live to Jowenko)

And that's it... Hmmm I thought there was a part where they looking at the column layout... I don't have the time now to review that.

This sort of puts a lie to the notion that Jowenko has studied the structure when he offered his opinion.

Had I been shown a building coming down as 7WTC with no context... I would have... as many witnesses said... it looks like a typical building demolition. You don't have to be a demo expert to make that sort of observation.

But I also had never seen any high rise collapse from a non CD cause... and maybe none have... because they were not damaged enough to collapse.

When one avails themselves of some of the "facts" such as the FDNY determined the building to be unsafe and set up a zone believing it could collapse... and learns about fires burning all day throughout much of the tower.... it does seem unreasonable that it could collapse. Steel structures REQUIRE fire suppression and protection. The sprinklers did not work on 9/11.

The story of 7wtc is actually how the fire affected what leading to a progressive and total collapse.

Jowenko's remarks do not support in any manner CD... because despite his occupation... he was ill informed when he made the remarks. Unfortunate...

 

[GlennB]

Jowenko's remarks do not support in any manner CD... because despite his occupation... he was ill informed when he made the remarks. Unfortunate...

Yes, and he was shown a simple schematic of the layout. In addition, the interviewer managed to suggest that only 12 columns comprised 'the heart'.

Check here at about 3:10 in the Einsteen video (with sub-titles)



Jowenko was led by the nose to the conclusion the interviewer wanted. Later he was too proud to backtrack.

Had it been suggested to him - from the outset - that WTC7 had been rigged over several storeys well in advance I imagine he would have laughed his head off.

 

[JSanderO]

Yes, and he was shown a simple schematic of the layout. In addition, the interviewer managed to suggest that only 12 columns comprised 'the heart'.

Check here at about 3:10 in the Einsteen video (with sub-titles)



Jowenko was led by the nose to the conclusion the interviewer wanted. Later he was too proud to backtrack.

Had it been suggested to him - from the outset - that WTC7 had been rigged over several storeys well in advance I imagine he would have laughed his head off.

I think too proud to backtrack or admit you were taken in by your own willingness to believe rubbish. It is very difficult for most people who have taken a very public and controversial stand to admit they were wrong. Usually they just fade away. I think maybe this is the case with Gordon Ross. In one email he wrote he was disgusted by the amateurs in the truth movement, admitted to me he was wrong about some things he published and decided to separate from the truth movement. I don't know that he wanted to take them on and get smeared and so forth as a plant, a sell out and so on. And he certainly did not become active on the debunker side which might have inspired truther attacks. I really don't know.

In my own case I looked to AE for some answers... saw rubbish up close and left. It was valuable to have an insider view.

 

[chrismohr]

So what is the "official" time line of "explanation" for the collapse of 7wtc?

I assume the default was it came down from damage and fire... but the report didn't come for ???? 6 or 7 years???? FEMA came out with some "concept" and this was withdrawn and not official???

Did the long time for release of the NIST report fuel truther speculation that NIST was "cooking the books" to make up a fire cause?

Why DID it take so long?

Michael Newman at NIST told me that they considered hiring outside help to work on Building 7 but for budget, security and reasons of just knowing their own scientists, they decided to do all the reports in-house. That's why it took so long.

 

[JSanderO]

Michael Newman at NIST told me that they considered hiring outside help to work on Building 7 but for budget, security and reasons of just knowing their own scientists, they decided to do all the reports in-house. That's why it took so long.

Doesn't 7 years still seem like a terribly long time? I don't know how many people worked on this and how many hours they each spent (would this be publicly available?)... and I know gov can move very slowly... but it still seems like a terribly long time to me.

 

[TJM]

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Why did the investigation take so long to complete?
The overall NIST investigation began on Aug. 21, 2002. Early in the investigation, a decision was made to complete studies of the two tower collapses (WTC 1 and WTC 2) before fully proceeding on the WTC 7 investigation. A major technical conference on the draft reports on WTC 1 and WTC 2 occurred on Sept. 13-15, 2005. The time between the technical conference on the WTC towers report and the issuance of this draft WTC 7 report is approximately three years, comparable to the length of a typical investigation of an aircraft crash.

 

[pgimeno]

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)?

So does Brent Blanchard. That would make two demolition experts who disagree with Jowenko's assessment on WTC7. Hmmm...

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

Blanchard has been active in debunking conspiracy theories, not just silent which would be the wisest thing to do if your goal is to protect your revenue streams.

But this is interesting. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you step forward and say "9/11 WAS an inside job" then you might lose your job, so you don't and that way you protect yourself. But if you step forward and say "9/11 was NOT an inside job", then you're protecting your revenue streams and thus yourself.

I guess that goes with the conspiracy theorist mindset.

 

[JayUtah]

I guess that goes with the conspiracy theorist mindset.

As does relying exclusively on a single witness they characterize as night unto infallible.

 

[Miragememories]

Thanks for the time line. Jowenko could not have looked at any detailed structural plans for the building when he made his comments.. no?

"The original docu:
http://zembla.vara.nl/seizoenen/2006/afleveringen/10-09-2006
Forward to 46:30, and nevermind the Dutch. That's where the WTC7-part of the Jowenko-interview gets introduced.

At 46:50 the announcer says that Jowenko had not heard about the WTC7 collapse. So any materials presented to him came from the journalists.
At 47:48 they show the front page of the FEMA report Chapter 5 (a graphic cut into the film, not shown live to Jowenko)
At 47:59 they look at a plan of the entire WTC complex, apparently with "zones" indicating how far debris could fall when the twins collapsed.
Around 49:05 again some page from the FEMA report (a graphic cut into the film, not shown live to Jowenko)

And that's it... Hmmm I thought there was a part where they looking at the column layout... I don't have the time now to review that."

"This sort of puts a lie to the notion that Jowenko has studied the structure when he offered his opinion."

So what was it that the producers cut into the film supposedly unbeknownst to Mr. Jowenko?

Well at ~47:48 the cover page for the FEMA WTC 7 Report is shown.

At ~49:05 when Mr. Jowenko's portion of the program is finished, the cover page for the FEMA WTC 7 Report is again shown along with a 7 WTC tenant listing.

There is no evidence that the producers were disingenuously dropping graphics in (during editing) with the intention of Mr. Jowenko not seeing them.

They did show him documents which directly related to his area of expertise, building demolitions.

Here are some screen captures from Mr. Jowenko's first interview showing the camera repositioning and the document *Figure L-31 sitting on the keyboard in front of him.

If you watch the complete interviews with Mr. Jowenko it is obvious that the producers were presenting him with all their available materials.

With English subtitles;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&gl=CA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

And regarding the title page, Mr. Jowenko was made aware that it was a FEMA report.

"The strange thing about this story is that the official report, made by FEMA, they have investigated how this building could have imploded. They say, it appears the collapse was due to, primarily to fire rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. They don't mention explosives at all. Because according to the official report it hasn't been pulled down by explosives."

"I don't know than that it has been imploded as we call it. I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded. If this is the consequence of the coming down of the WTC towers... that would greatly astonish me. I can't imagine it. No."

 

[Spanx]

How did Mr J manage to establish Wtc7 was not brought down by fire and damage from the towers by viewing the above paper ? Did he look at it with the view of how he would demolish it ? What exactly were his views ?

Can someone point me to his full conclusion please.

 

[DGM]

So does Brent Blanchard. That would make two demolition experts who disagree with Jowenko's assessment on WTC7. Hmmm...

It's telling that MM ignores this fact going on the opinion of the "expert" he believes.

You would think that such slam-dunk proof would catch on easily, could it be someone has nothing?

MM, maybe you can donate to the AE study. surely they will confirm your belief.

 

[grandmastershek]

If nothing else, you can be assured MM takes Jowenko's opinion on the Towers as just as valid.

 

[beachnut]

Jowenko got WTC 7 wrong, and 911 truth uses his failure as their support for the delusional CD claims. Idiotic claims backed up with failed analysis based on opinion.

When Jowenko says the "NWO-MIB" operatives had to work fast,--- I think of these fireproof invisible supermen, with bags of fireproof silent no blast effects explosives (which act like fire effects) running around WTC setting the silent explosives. How many doses of stupid and gullible are required for membership in the fantasy world of 911 truth CD.

911 truth followers are easy to fool, the only truth in 911 truth.

In 50 years 911 truth lies will be fooling failed minds, another 911 truth truth.