Is Jowenko Echt Woowoo?

[pomeroo]

This was posted by a fantasist who imagines that there is a human alive somewhere who would be willing to pay me to post on 911blogger.com (needless to say, if such a philanthropist can be found, I'm at his disposal).
Can it be true that Jowenko really is a loon? I intend to try contacting him by phone. He hasn't responded to e-mails. More to follow...


"The person who made the call was an official 9/11 conspiracy theorist who uses the handle "Jay Ref" at the www.nineeleven.co.uk (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/) message forums and has 500 + posts to his name defending the government's BS. Why would he lie about contacting Jowneko? He's on your team, Ron. But go ahead and contact "Jay Ref" to get further corroboration that the call was placed if you don't believe him:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=705&sid... (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=705&sid=4f93ab55d0685526f9382b73c0f4acf0)
This is what Jay Ref stated immediately after contacting controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko:
__________________________
Jay Ref
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:59 pm
I just had a nice chat with Mr. Jowenko. He speaks very good english and amazingly enough was in his office this late.
If you don't believe that, then you'll never believe this:
He is still of the firm conviction that WTC7 was a CD...even after he had time to put the event in context. He cited "intelligence operations" that needed to be covered up and does firmly believe in the CT.
You guys win one. You have an actual explosive expert on record. Congrats. You've made a fool out of what sounds like a very nice and accomplished gentleman.
It changes nothing though....you have one gullible expert...
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=23331&sid=4f93ab55d068... (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=23331&sid=4f93ab55d0685526f9382b73c0f4acf0#23331)
Jay Ref
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:41 pm
NOTE: I expect we will be discussing Jowenko at length over @ JREF. You guys want to come over there and lurk feel free.
I'll give you this much...you've bamboozled someone who should have laughed in your faces.
Poor Mr. Jowenko...he's gonna have some explaining to do when his peers start picking his opinion apart.
-z
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=23346&sid=4f93ab55d068... (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=23346&sid=4f93ab55d0685526f9382b73c0f4acf0#23346)
__________________________
.
.
.
.
.
Or you can save yourself some time and instead contact Jay Ref at the JREF message board. He's known as "rikzilla" to the OCTers over there. I'm sure you know who he is, Ron. I know for a fact Mark Roberts does:
__________________________
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,088
Posted 14th September 2006, 01:19 PM
[...]
I then called Jowenko Inc posing as a reporter for the Washington Post (my bad, but hey I figured I might get an on-the-record comment) To my amazement I was put right thru to Mr. Jowenko. He's a very nice gentleman who speaks great english. I told him that WTC7 burned extensively and had a gaping 20 story hole in it...I told him just about all I knew of the building from my own research. The fires fed by fuel tanks...the arangement of the columns to accomidate the pre-existing Con-Ed substation....
The guy then went on the record saying that he thinks that "due to the intelligence operations housed in that building it was brought down by a controlled demolition"
That my friends is a direct quote from his mouth to my ear about 5 mins ago!
I'm rather stunned! They picked one off!
-z
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884)
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,088
Posted 14th September 2006, 01:33 PM
Originally Posted by Gravy
"We must let him know that the demolitions experts who were on the scene disagree!'
Gravy...I misrepresented myself to him since I really thought he'd just tell me
he had a first impression that was wrong and has since changed his mind. Now I can't possibly argue too much with him as remember I'm a reporter looking for an on the record comment. He gave it to me. What am I to say now?
I did a bad thing...at least I feel kinda dirty for lying to the guy...please feel free to contact him Gravy. I told him all I could to insure he had context. the fires..the hole...the fuel...the debris strikes...the Con-Ed substation....everything!
I honestly don't know what more I can stay...and I started with a lie for which I'm pretty sorry on retrospect.
-z
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1922478&postcount=10 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1922478&postcount=10)
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,088
Posted 16th September 2006, 07:35 PM
[...]
I found myself feeling sorry for Jowenko towards the end of my short interview of him. He is actually quite adamant that WTC7 was a CD. He had no reservations whatsoever about being put "on the record" by a newspaper reporter.
This was precisely why I did the reporter bit: #1 it gave me access to Danny Jowenko himself. #2 If he told me anything he would know that his words could be made very public.
I expected him to mull this idea of a controversial statement to the press. He didn't. He was very charming,..and quite convincing...
[...]
I expected Jowenko would express dismay that people were passing his reaction on film off as something it wasn't. Instead I found him to be completely taken in by the CTists....so yeah...I'm sorry for him as he seems a nice bloke who now will have to defend an indefensible opinion to his peers. He'll be a laughingstock....or at the least his reputation will suffer mightily.
-z
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1928736&postcount=126 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1928736&postcount=126)
__________________________
Is your buddy "rikzilla" lying, Ronald?
Ron, be a sport and post Jay Ref a.k.a. "rikzilla's" response here about whether or not he made the call to Mr. Jowenko after you contact him.
By the way, Ronald, you didn't answer my "yes" or "no" question about whether or not you've ever been compensated to post at 911Blogger.com. So I'll ask again, have you ever received payment to post here? Yes or no?"

Submitted by stallion4 (http://www.911blogger.com/user/191) on Fri, 01/12/2007 - 5:53am.

» edit (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/edit/107372) | reply (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/reply/5425/107372) | 0 points

Maybe Jowenko is Really a Nut (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5425#comment-107372)


I have never heard of Jay Ref, but if he's the rationalist he claims to be, then I'm forced to conclude that Jowenko is simply an idiot. I still see a huge problem for conspiracy liars. Jowenko, like EVERYONE else in the demolition industry, has stated that the collapses of the Twin Towers look nothing like controlled demolitions. So, you have a guy who tears the heart out of your bogus position, while claiming that an obscure building unknown outside NYC was brought down for purposes that defy explanation.
Your question about my imaginary compensation remains extremely stupid.

Submitted by Ronald Wieck (http://www.911blogger.com/user/537) on Fri, 01/12/2007 - 8:09am.



» reply (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/reply/5425/107021) | -3 points

[Oliver]

Frankly i don´t believe in any rumour on 911blogger
until there are confirming, neutral sources, an official
press release or a Video/Soundfile from Jowenko.

Too bad that his companies site does not provide any
press information - so i will take a look if i can find
any non-woowoo source confirming the rumour.

Amazing that the CT´ists only use him as long he
speaks "their language". :rolleyes:

ETA: http://www.jowenko.nl/

[twinstead]

Amazing that the CT´ists only use him as long he
speaks "their language". :rolleyes:



If he came out against the demolition theory they would call him a shill and discount his words completely.

[Oliver]

If he came out against the demolition theory they would call him a shill and discount his words completely.

How can they praise his statements about WTC7 and
completely ignore his statements on WTC1&2?

One Word ... TWOOF™

[jhunter1163]

The Twoofers will say that someone "got to him" if he changes his mind, no matter how vehemently he repudiates them. Just like they did with that other poor (rule8), I forget his name. The guy who said that "this [comment] has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

[pomeroo]

Update:

I managed to reach Danny Jowenko. He is a true gentleman, someone whose patience and courtesy makes me regret calling him a woowoo. Sadly, I must report that he believes that the collapse of WTC 7 "looks man-made." He did acknowledge that information obtained from a Dutch documentary formed his opinion initially, but he says that he has received e-mails from Americans on both sides of the issue. He agreed to look at the photos and analysis on debunking911.com and 911myths.com.

I don't know what to think. He agrees that real jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. He regards the remote-controlled drone crap and the laser beams from outer space as lunacy. But, he is stuck on the notion that there were some sort of secret intelligence findings housed in building 7 that "officials" didn't want the public to know about, which accounts for bringing down the building in a manner that harmed no one. He tends to minimize the damage to the building and seemed unaware of the fuel tanks.

So, we have someone who doesn't believe that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy orchestrated the attacks, but who thinks that WTC 7 was destroyed to prevent certain vague information from getting out.

Frankly, I'm gobsmacked:confused: .

[einsteen]

A loon, WTF fo you mean ? He is just a cd expert doing it 27 years, check his videos

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,16,1

He is a supporter of the offical story, check his wtc1,2 interview. wtc7 is a total different story.

[westprog]

Update:

I managed to reach Danny Jowenko. He is a true gentleman, someone whose patience and courtesy makes me regret calling him a woowoo. Sadly, I must report that he believes that the collapse of WTC 7 "looks man-made." He did acknowledge that information obtained from a Dutch documentary formed his opinion initially, but he says that he has received e-mails from Americans on both sides of the issue. He agreed to look at the photos and analysis on debunking911.com and 911myths.com.

I don't know what to think. He agrees that real jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. He regards the remote-controlled drone crap and the laser beams from outer space as lunacy. But, he is stuck on the notion that there were some sort of secret intelligence findings housed in building 7 that "officials" didn't want the public to know about, which accounts for bringing down the building in a manner that harmed no one. He tends to minimize the damage to the building and seemed unaware of the fuel tanks.

So, we have someone who doesn't believe that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy orchestrated the attacks, but who thinks that WTC 7 was destroyed to prevent certain vague information from getting out.

Frankly, I'm gobsmacked:confused: .

It is surprising, but it shows The Power Of The First Impression. He made his mind up, and now he's stuck with it.

The idea that the building was demolished by a hit squad that ran in and planted explosives is silly, but not as silly as the twin towers demoliton theory. It's just possible to believe it and still be remotely sane.

If he were wise, he'd own up and accept that his immediate reaction was wrong. Sadly, the man will be tainted by this, one way or another, for the rest of his career.

[Oliver]

Nope ... I didn´t find any reliable source for the rumour
that he still believe in this WTC7/CD humbug. As far i
remember, he refused it - but i don´t remind the source
where i read it.

[maccy]

A loon, WTF fo you mean ? He is just a cd expert doing it 27 years, check his videos

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,16,1

He is a supporter of the offical story, check his wtc1,2 interview. wtc7 is a total different story.

On WTC7 he is only one among many - and from what Ron has to say he doesn't seem to be very familiar with the damage to WTC7 and the extent of the fire.

Once the final WTC7 NIST report comes out, I'm hoping that someone can get him to read it and give his reaction.

[pomeroo]

Nope ... I didn´t find any reliable source for the rumour
that he still believe in this WTC7/CD humbug. As far i
remember, he refused it - but i don´t remind the source
where i read it.


Oliver, I just had a phone conversation with Jowenko.

[Oliver]

Oliver, I just had a phone conversation with Jowenko.

It took too long to write my post ... and saw it after posting the message. :covereyes

[pomeroo]

Perhaps some of you have experienced the sort of embarrassment I feel right now. I have been arguing with a clown on 911blogger.com who posts as "stallion-something-or-other." It is increasingly clear that he can't be more than fourteen years old (for his sake, I hope that's true). Jee-sus! I think I need to take a break.

[Oliver]

Perhaps some of you have experienced the sort of embarrassment I feel right now. I have been arguing with a clown on 911blogger.com who posts as "stallion-something-or-other." It is increasingly clear that he can't be more than fourteen years old (for his sake, I hope that's true). Jee-sus! I think I need to take a break.

Maybe you spend less time in blogs. Personally i prefer
to weaken the base instead talking to every teenie who
comes along with the same old stuff - which would drive
me crazy after a pretty short time. :D

[maccy]

The thing that can be even more shocking is when they turn out not to be teenagers. Pdoherty76 is 30, 28th Kingdom is in is 40s I think, Pagan (who has just shown up) is 46, Lyte Trip is 28 and Merc is older (30s I think), Ace Baker (aka Truthseeker1234) is also in his 30s as far as I know and making a living as a musician.

A lot of them have one or more children, and some have wives that haven't left them.

[Oliver]

*snip* ...some have wives that haven't left them.

Well, here it is - that´s the perfect explanation why these
people believe in a worldwide conspiracy peace and freedom... :D

[volatile]

The thing that can be even more shocking is when they turn out not to be teenagers. Pdoherty76 is 30, 28th Kingdom is in is 40s I think, Pagan (who has just shown up) is 46, Lyte Trip is 28 and Merc is older (30s I think), Ace Baker (aka Truthseeker1234) is also in his 30s as far as I know and making a living as a musician.

A lot of them have one or more children, and some have wives that haven't left them.

They claim.... they claim. They all write, and construct arguments, like teenagers, and have world-views that are decidedly juvenile.

For the record: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/BR/Body_and_Representation/staff/staff_list.htm

This link (slightly out of date, but still) shows that I am who I say I am. I'm sure 28k and the others couldn't do the same. Killtown won't even give his name.

[pomeroo]

The thing that can be even more shocking is when they turn out not to be teenagers. Pdoherty76 is 30, 28th Kingdom is in is 40s I think, Pagan (who has just shown up) is 46, Lyte Trip is 28 and Merc is older (30s I think), Ace Baker (aka Truthseeker1234) is also in his 30s as far as I know and making a living as a musician.

A lot of them have one or more children, and some have wives that haven't left them.


Judging by their reasoning abilities and syntax, I suspect that many of them are very young. I was momentarily taken aback when "rebel" seemed offended that some of the myths he holds dear were objects of ridicule here. Could you or any other rationalist imagine being so ashamed of an article of faith that the thought of airing it outside a protected circle of true believers would make you cringe? The fantasists sense that their nonsense is indefensible, but their emotional commitment is so great that they can't take the logical next step of abandoning it.

[JimBenArm]

The thing that can be even more shocking is when they turn out not to be teenagers. Pdoherty76 is 30, 28th Kingdom is in is 40s I think, Pagan (who has just shown up) is 46, Lyte Trip is 28 and Merc is older (30s I think), Ace Baker (aka Truthseeker1234) is also in his 30s as far as I know and making a living as a musician.

A lot of them have one or more children, and some have wives that haven't left them.

Yet.

[Skibum]

They claim.... they claim. They all write, and construct arguments, like teenagers, and have world-views that are decidedly juvenile.

For the record: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/BR/Body_and_Representation/staff/staff_list.htm

This link (slightly out of date, but still) shows that I am who I say I am. I'm sure 28k and the others couldn't do the same. Killtown won't even give his name.


I though John Holmes was dead, turns out he's teaching English and American Literature.

His bio

Dr John Holmes is the author of a monograph on Sexuality, Belief and the Self in the Late Victorian Sonnet-Sequence (Ashgate, forthcoming), as well as various articles on Renaissance and Victorian literary culture. He is particularly interested in sexuality and sexual identity, imperialism and colonial encounters, and the intersection of literature and science. He teaches widely within the nineteenth century, and is the convenor of a module on ‘Nation and Empire’ on the MA in Victorian Literature and Culture.

Spring Term:

Module 4 Week 2
The Fleshly School of Poetry


:D

[volatile]

I though John Holmes was dead, turns out he's teaching English and American Literature.

His bio

Dr John Holmes is the author of a monograph on Sexuality, Belief and the Self in the Late Victorian Sonnet-Sequence (Ashgate, forthcoming), as well as various articles on Renaissance and Victorian literary culture. He is particularly interested in sexuality and sexual identity, imperialism and colonial encounters, and the intersection of literature and science. He teaches widely within the nineteenth century, and is the convenor of a module on ‘Nation and Empire’ on the MA in Victorian Literature and Culture.

Spring Term:

Module 4 Week 2
The Fleshly School of Poetry


:D


Yeah, porn was getting him down a bit so he did a runner to turgidly suburban England to teach about sexuality (see the connection?) in Victorian literature.

He's gotten rid of the moustache as a disguise, so you probably wouldn't recognise him! :)

[Skibum]

I laughed when I read "The Fleshly School of Poetry" part. First read it as fleshy

[maccy]

Judging by their reasoning abilities and syntax, I suspect that many of them are very young. I was momentarily taken aback when "rebel" seemed offended that some of the myths he holds dear were objects of ridicule here. Could you or any other rationalist imagine being so ashamed of an article of faith that the thought of airing it outside a protected circle of true believers would make you cringe? The fantasists sense that their nonsense is indefensible, but their emotional commitment is so great that they can't take the logical next step of abandoning it.

I consider it a part of rational discourse that you encourage people to criticise your assumptions and the arguments you make. That's partly why I find the sophistry and the attempted point-scoring so frustrating.

Even if Jowenko considers the evidence and changes his mind it won't matter - the story will then be that he was "got to" by the authorities. Something that somebody says once (often on 9/11 itself, or a few days afterwards) is considered to show the truth no matter what else they say.

[maccy]

They claim.... they claim. They all write, and construct arguments, like teenagers, and have world-views that are decidedly juvenile.

Yes, that's true, but I'm finding it hard to imagine a teenager claiming to be 46, for example. I suspect that some people just don't grow up.

[chipmunk stew]

On WTC7 he is only one among many - and from what Ron has to say he doesn't seem to be very familiar with the damage to WTC7 and the extent of the fire.

Once the final WTC7 NIST report comes out, I'm hoping that someone can get him to read it and give his reaction.
I have a feeling his curiosity is piqued enough that he'll eagerly seek it out for himself.

[bonavada]

when and how does jowenko think that the building was prepped for cd? surely not on 9/11? if on the day then, if he is any kind of a rational man, the heavy damage and fires in that building that morning must make him doubt CD??

BV

[Spins]

Ron here is the thread you seek...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884)

...rikzilla called him soon after the video was made. Since then as far as I'm aware he's stopped talking to conspiracy theorists etc, no doubt because he has been harassed constantly since appearing on that video.

It's possible since he is now privy to all the info on WTC 7 (fires, damage, design compromises etc) he's changed his mind?

:confused:

[uk_dave]

So one solitary demolition contractor in the world believes WTC7 was CD based upon his preconceptions about the US govt and a bit of video without (apparently) any reference to eyewitness reports of severe structural damage, massive fires, sounds of structural movement or the preliminary findings of NIST?

whooooopeeeedoooooo

Well, I'm convinced.

How about you?

[einsteen]

Did you ask them all uk_dave ?

[uk_dave]

Did you ask them all uk_dave ?

No, did you?

You like a bit of physics, right?

Let's say that a group physicists come up with a theory which proves that gravity doesn't exist, and this is adopted as fact by the US govt and is taught in schools and universities and has implications for many aspects of everyday life.

Now, do you have to contact every physicist in the world to obtain their opinions on this new theory, or do you sit back and wait for them to start complaining about this new no-gravity theory?

Let's say the US govt has a policy of denial when it comes to global climate change. Do I have to contact every climate scientist in the world to find out that they disagree with this policy?

http://www.realclimate.org/

I think not

[Architect]

Lads,

Sorry for the hiatus in posting; back to the hospital as an in patient again due to problems with knee and renewed concerns re: clot. Anyway, they've chucked me out for now.

I for one would be interested in seeing a critical, professional analysis of the WTC7 collapse (or interim NIST findings) by an expert such as our Dutch friend. Has he produced anything as tangible, or is it all just audio?

One of the reasons I ask this is that sometimes it's only when you have to go through the rigorous report/critique phase that you truly analyse your views and come to a final conclusion. Our demolition expert might yet find himself having to revisit his conclusions.....

[JimBenArm]

Lads,

Sorry for the hiatus in posting; back to the hospital as an in patient again due to problems with knee and renewed concerns re: clot. Anyway, they've chucked me out for now.

I for one would be interested in seeing a critical, professional analysis of the WTC7 collapse (or interim NIST findings) by an expert such as our Dutch friend. Has he produced anything as tangible, or is it all just audio?

One of the reasons I ask this is that sometimes it's only when you have to go through the rigorous report/critique phase that you truly analyse your views and come to a final conclusion. Our demolition expert might yet find himself having to revisit his conclusions.....

Glad you're back. Was too quiet without you around.

[R.Mackey]

Look, we've already beaten WTC 7 to death (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2046671#post2046671).

You cannot reconcile the building being blown up without simultaneously accusing the FDNY of being part of the plot.

Unless, of course, you think the building was going to burn and fall over, and they blew it up anyway.

The conclusions of a lone demo expert, going by web videos, from thousands of miles away, cannot change that fact.

[The Almond]

Lads,

Sorry for the hiatus in posting; back to the hospital as an in patient again due to problems with knee and renewed concerns re: clot. Anyway, they've chucked me out for now.

I for one would be interested in seeing a critical, professional analysis of the WTC7 collapse (or interim NIST findings) by an expert such as our Dutch friend. Has he produced anything as tangible, or is it all just audio?

One of the reasons I ask this is that sometimes it's only when you have to go through the rigorous report/critique phase that you truly analyse your views and come to a final conclusion. Our demolition expert might yet find himself having to revisit his conclusions.....

That's an excellent suggestion. Asking him to give his opinion on the matter is one thing, but asking him to write proofs and research his position is completely different. It would be especially interesting to see if he started his research in all of the Conspiracy Theory garbage, and later realized that it's all crap.

[David Wong]

Update:
I don't know what to think. He agrees that real jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. He regards the remote-controlled drone crap and the laser beams from outer space as lunacy. But, he is stuck on the notion that there were some sort of secret intelligence findings housed in building 7 that "officials" didn't want the public to know about, which accounts for bringing down the building in a manner that harmed no one.

Wait, wait, wait. Did you ask him when exactly he thinks they had time to wire the building? He has to know that project takes months on a building that size.

So they wired the building knowing that 9/11 would happen, knowing it would be their opportunity to blow it up unnoticed?

The implications of that should make it impossible for a rational mind. He can't possibly think they saw the attacks, then rushed in and quickly wired the building to blow. There exists no technology or technique in the world of demolition that would let that be done, in a matter of hours, in the chaos of the event, in a burning building.

It is, literally, insane.

Count me gobsmacked.

[T.A.M.]

Here is what I see in all this:

1. he said the collapse "looked man made".
2. he says the reason he believes this is because of the intellgence etc...that was housed inside the building.
3. If buildings have not been brought down by any other means than CD in the past (except 1 or 2 via earth quakes, and those much much shorter), than what else could he say the collapse looked like.

Not like he could say "well, clearly it was brought down by aliens, as opposed to CD" as he only has CD collapses as a visual reference...as do we all. As far as I am concerned, I take his opinion for what it is, an opinion, all be it from an expert, based on his visual observence of said event.

I would like to know (1) has he read the NIST report on WTC7, and (2) if yes he has, then where does he disagree with them?

TAM

[uk_dave]

2. he says the reason he believes this is because of the intellgence etc...that was housed inside the building.


Well if that is the reason he believes it was CD, then the question would have to be, what if they didn't house intelligence etc, would you still think it was CD?

[ConspiRaider]

Update:

I managed to reach Danny Jowenko. He is a true gentleman, someone whose patience and courtesy makes me regret calling him a woowoo. Sadly, I must report that he believes that the collapse of WTC 7 "looks man-made." He did acknowledge that information obtained from a Dutch documentary formed his opinion initially, but he says that he has received e-mails from Americans on both sides of the issue. He agreed to look at the photos and analysis on debunking911.com and 911myths.com.

I don't know what to think. He agrees that real jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. He regards the remote-controlled drone crap and the laser beams from outer space as lunacy. But, he is stuck on the notion that there were some sort of secret intelligence findings housed in building 7 that "officials" didn't want the public to know about, which accounts for bringing down the building in a manner that harmed no one. He tends to minimize the damage to the building and seemed unaware of the fuel tanks...

(bolding mine)

One of the fun things about being on an aircraft carrier, in communications, with a Top Secret clearance, was that there was always a possibility the ship would be in peril and you'd get to destroy classified material. We'd practice it in drills and war games. Written material would obviously be burned, but as for the equipment? We had these nice big fire axes strategically placed around the radio shack just for that purpose. The idea being: If the ship sinks in international waters, the USA didn't want the Russkies to be able to make any usage out of the comm and crypto gear for reverse engineering. Sadly, we never actually got to whale away at the equipment with fire axes. I would have quite enjoyed that.

Point: If you wish to destroy "secret intelligence findings" housed in a building, wouldn't it be far easier to just go in and surgically remove or destroy it? Sheez! Even if you have to pay off a few security guys to look the other way. What Jowenko is indicating, is that along with the "secret intelligence", Building 7 was also pre-rigged to blow. And then what you do is wait for a convenient terrorist attack in the vicinity, and then, amidst all the confusion, you blow up the building and claim it was collateral damage from all of the other commotion.

Very seldom in science or true skepticism does a thought methodology just stop. A cul-de-sac. End of the line. In reality, the process continues. Yet for so many believers of woo - a statement is made with the implication that no further analysis is required. Beam Weapons: Perfect example. Theorized as the culprit for the collapse. Not necessary to reveal that no such weapons are in existence.

Finally: Destroying a building to eradicate "secret intelligence" within is exceedingly UN-thorough. Very possible that some of it would survive the event, and be recognized for what it is.

[T.A.M.]

Well if that is the reason he believes it was CD, then the question would have to be, what if they didn't house intelligence etc, would you still think it was CD?

Exactly. This is why, despite him being an expert, by feeling on his opinion of WTC7, is that his expertese is being clouded by his personal suspicions...

TAM

[Arus808]

haha. simply put; it would be easier to rig a bulding with thousands of explosives to destroy at most, 10 floors out of a 47 building that may have "some sort of top-secret-stuff".

than to go out and buy 100 Shredders from Costco/Samsclub and shred those documents (and many shredders are now equiped to render CD'sDVD's useless! We "shred" cd's on a daily basis.) And nothing like a high powered magnet to computer systems to wipe them clean?

let see millions of dollars to make a building look like collateral damage

$10,000 at most to destroy "top secret" documents/equipment/stuff

[DarkMagician]

The Twoofers will say that someone "got to him" if he changes his mind, no matter how vehemently he repudiates them. Just like they did with that other poor (rule8), I forget his name. The guy who said that "this [comment] has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

*cough* Van Romero */cough*

[beachnut]

A loon, WTF fo you mean ? He is just a cd expert doing it 27 years, check his videos

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,16,1

He is a supporter of the offical story, check his wtc1,2 interview. wtc7 is a total different story.

He did not know the building burned all day! He was not shown the pile of ruble, he was fooled and he is pissed.

[T.A.M.]

What is more suspicious?

1. People in dark clothes planting explosives
2. People in business suits shredding paper...in an OFFICE BUILDING.

you decide...lol

TAM

[beachnut]

He was in a hit and run! If you would present the real story and how many CTers are tricking him; he will be very upset.

[CurtC]

Yet for so many believers of woo - a statement is made with the implication that no further analysis is required. Beam Weapons: Perfect example.Speaking of Beam Weapons, did you see the comments to this ScrewLooseChange Blog post (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/killtown-gets-schooled.html), where BG implies that the people who jumped from the towers did so because they were being beamed with a millimeter-wave crowd control weapon? The most disgusting idea I've seen presented there.

[CHF]

Anyone know when Jowenko is gonna produce a report on his beliefs?

My guess would be never.

[David Wong]

let see millions of dollars to make a building look like collateral damage

$10,000 at most to destroy "top secret" documents/equipment/stuff

Wait, that actually does sound like the way the federal government would do it.

[Peephole]

Anyone know when Jowenko is gonna produce a report on his beliefs?

My guess would be never.
Of course he won't. He simply doesn't care. and neither should we.

[notheist]

Perhaps some of you have experienced the sort of embarrassment I feel right now. I have been arguing with a clown on 911blogger.com who posts as "stallion-something-or-other." It is increasingly clear that he can't be more than fourteen years old (for his sake, I hope that's true). Jee-sus! I think I need to take a break.

I know how you feel, when I posted some responses over at Altnet on the The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement By Matt Taibbi. A fellow found my blog and stated posting comments which I felt compelled to point out his numerous errors. It's was the pure loony stuff and I made a point of calling him a loon, I feel if you come to my site and talk like an idiot I have on obligation to treat you nicely.

But at some point I started to feel sorry for the guy, had to be something wrong with him. I pictured him as this pathetic like dweeb with no life no skills, maybe even mildly retarded. The 911 truther thing was his way of convincing himself he had a purpose in life. I finally had to start ignoring him, he is just too far gone.

It was like talking logic with a child.

[skunkrider]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

:)

[Oliver]

http://youtube.com/watch?v= (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U)Ml_n5gJgQ_U (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U)

:)

The code to imbed YouTube videos is:
Ml_n5gJgQ_UMl_n5gJgQ_U

[Pardalis]

Ollie to the rescue!

:rolleyes:

[beachnut]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

:)

That has been debunked. Debunked, and you could debunk it yourself if you tried.

Why not try to do something yourself. Why not show us how he is telling lies? You posted a video to support a lie. Why?

The old CTer hit and run. No facts in 5 years.

I still think Jowenko was not told any facts on 9/11 and his comments were used by CTers who tricked him. Next time tell Jowenko about all the fuel to run the generators all over the building (WTC7).

[Firestone]

Our Canadian friend Jeff has called Jowenko (http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3).

Hij is echt woowoo. :confused:

Source (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4358&view=findpost&p=12259633)

[Aphelion]

Jowenko makes the point that american CD experts will not dare contradict FEMA. I bet Jeff is going to seek out as many foriegn experts as he can.

[eeyore1954]

Do you think that is really an unrehearshed conversation with Jowenko?

He said everything a CT would say.

Controlled demolition companies are afraid to talk because they will lose business.
Pull it means pull it according to CT definition.Even in Dutch?
No one wants to talk about WT7 because they know it is a demolition.
He looked at the video and I think he said the drawings.
Plus he says by fire no mention of damage .

Would it be that easy to reach him and would he answer so quickly to a stranger? Who only identifies himself by first name.

[maccy]

Pomeroo has contacted him as well. As has someone else from this forum (pretending to be a reporter). In each case he has repeated that he thinks it was a demolition. He has thought about it since seeing the video, and I believe it his considered view. My understanding is that he believes that WTC7 was demolished to protect secret documents that were in it.

A couple of things to remember:

1. Jowenko is not a structural engineer or a fire engineer - he has no experience in assessing how fire would damage a building.

2. Jowenko contends that WTC1 and 2 were not brought down by controlled demolition - this means that, by his theory, the demolition of WTC7 must have been carried out in the aftermath of the collapse of the towers, in reaction to it.

Once the final NIST report is released, it'd be interesting to try and get Jowenko's thoughts on it.

[8den]

But at some point I started to feel sorry for the guy, had to be something wrong with him. I pictured him as this pathetic like dweeb with no life no skills, maybe even mildly retarded. The 911 truther thing was his way of convincing himself he had a purpose in life. I finally had to start ignoring him, he is just too far gone.

It was like talking logic with a child.

My 7 month old dogs get logic. Act up? Get a newspaper on the nose. Pee on the floor? Get a nose shoved in pee, and a short vaction to the yard. Stop leaping up and down when I go for the doggie biscuit tin. Then and only when sitting still and behaving do the biscuits come out. My dogs get cause and effect.

I'm just saying my puppies have a better understanding of logic than some troofers. I'm aware its simple Pavlovian psychological with my dogs, I'm just saying I've a couple of springer spaniels who get cause and effect when troofers don't.

[eeyore1954]

Pomeroo has contacted him as well. As has someone else from this forum (pretending to be a reporter). In each case he has repeated that he thinks it was a demolition. He has thought about it since seeing the video, and I believe it his considered view. My understanding is that he believes that WTC7 was demolished to protect secret documents that were in it.

A couple of things to remember:

1. Jowenko is not a structural engineer or a fire engineer - he has no experience in assessing how fire would damage a building.

2. Jowenko contends that WTC1 and 2 were not brought down by controlled demolition - this means that, by his theory, the demolition of WTC7 must have been carried out in the aftermath of the collapse of the towers, in reaction to it.

Once the final NIST report is released, it'd be interesting to try and get Jowenko's thoughts on it.


i am not doubting that jowenko believes this way it just that his answers seemed to be to rehearshed to be spontaneous this time. HIs belief that it was brought down because of secret documents is kind of telling.

[David Wong]

So he's of the opinion that an enormous building can be rigged for impromptu demolition in a few hours? Unnoticed? From scratch? With no preparation?

Rumsfeld:

"Oh, no! Planes hit the towers! WTC 7 has sensitive documents and has been damaged! Quick, go get several hundred bombs, send your men down into the chaos, past hundreds of police and emergency workers, past the firemen, carrying those truckloads of bombs, get them inside the damaged WTC 7, and wire up the several hundred charges at key points, while the building is burning, so we can blow the building and scatter said documents out onto the street!"

"But Mr. Rumsfeld, why don't we just send five agents into the buildings, flashing badges, saying they need to haul out some documents because they pertain to national security? They can tote them out on hand carts in half an hour. It's not like having classified documents is a crime, right? We don't even have to keep it a secret. They can literally tell people at the scene, 'we're going in to haul out some classified documents,' and the people there would have said, 'okay.' So why blow up the building, at the risk of hundreds of lives and exposure that would ruin us forever?"

"THAT'S INSANE. We're losing time, Johnson!"

[maccy]

From earlier in this thread:

Update:

I managed to reach Danny Jowenko. He is a true gentleman, someone whose patience and courtesy makes me regret calling him a woowoo. Sadly, I must report that he believes that the collapse of WTC 7 "looks man-made." He did acknowledge that information obtained from a Dutch documentary formed his opinion initially, but he says that he has received e-mails from Americans on both sides of the issue. He agreed to look at the photos and analysis on debunking911.com and 911myths.com.

I don't know what to think. He agrees that real jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. He regards the remote-controlled drone crap and the laser beams from outer space as lunacy. But, he is stuck on the notion that there were some sort of secret intelligence findings housed in building 7 that "officials" didn't want the public to know about, which accounts for bringing down the building in a manner that harmed no one. He tends to minimize the damage to the building and seemed unaware of the fuel tanks.

So, we have someone who doesn't believe that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy orchestrated the attacks, but who thinks that WTC 7 was destroyed to prevent certain vague information from getting out.

Frankly, I'm gobsmacked:confused: .

Here is the earlier Rikzilla thread on the same issue:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884

Jowenko doesn't seem to go into details about how it was done. However, it seems clear that he thinks it is independent of what happened in WTC1 and 2. This means that they either prepped the building on 9/11 or it was prepped in advance "just in case".

Neither of these make a lot of sense.

Also what kind of Government keeps extra-secret documents in a shared commercial office building in the middle of a major city?

[Aphelion]

So he's of the opinion that an enormous building can be rigged for impromptu demolition in a few hours? Unnoticed? From scratch? With no preparation?

Rumsfeld:

"Oh, no! Planes hit the towers! WTC 7 has sensitive documents and has been damaged! Quick, go get several hundred bombs, send your men down into the chaos, past hundreds of police and emergency workers, past the firemen, carrying those truckloads of bombs, get them inside the damaged WTC 7, and wire up the several hundred charges at key points, while the building is burning, so we can blow the building and scatter said documents out onto the street!"

"But Mr. Rumsfeld, why don't we just send five agents into the buildings, flashing badges, saying they need to haul out some documents because they pertain to national security? They can tote them out on hand carts in half an hour. It's not like having classified documents is a crime, right? We don't even have to keep it a secret. They can literally tell people at the scene, 'we're going in to haul out some classified documents,' and the people there would have said, 'okay.' So why blow up the building, at the risk of hundreds of lives and exposure that would ruin us forever?"

"THAT'S INSANE. We're losing time, Johnson!"


When will you be informing Mr Jowenko that he is wrong in your expert opinion?

Please tape the call so we can all hear.

[Dog Town]

When will you be informing Mr Jowenko that he is wrong in your expert opinion?


There are cracked nuts, in every bag! So what? He is wrong, happens.

[David Wong]

When will you be informing Mr Jowenko that he is wrong in your expert opinion?

Please tape the call so we can all hear.

Cool that you've admitted you're MIHOP now.

When you will be informing all of the other experts in the world that you disagree with their expert opinions, and agree with Mr. Jowenko?

Please tape the calls so we can all hear.