Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

MarkyX · 19th September 2006, 04:27 PM

Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ?

Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

Bell · 19th September 2006, 04:31 PM

I wish you'd address all our evidence of you being part of some HUGE conspiracy!!1!!one!!

T.A.M. · 19th September 2006, 05:00 PM

What I hate, is they will still try to have it both ways. They will say he is a rock solid expert opinion for collapse of WTC7 via CD, but will say he didn;t know enough about the "proposed atypical demolition" that CTers suggest for WTC1 &2.

None the less, I would like to get Mr. Jowenko to sit down and read...yes READ the NIST Interim Report, and then see what he says.

TAM

Panoply_Prefect · 20th November 2009, 03:13 AM

It seems to me that a new generation of truthers are emerging, at least here in Sweden, and since truther websites are prone to not actually removing old stuff, they tend to pick up somewhere 2005-2006.

This makes the old Jowenko vides starting to circulate again (which is how Google led me to this thread), and I was wondering if he ever elaborated, or even commented on the final WTC7 NIST report?

BigAl · 20th November 2009, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by MarkyX

Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ?

Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

It appears that the video is gone. If it's Jowenko explaining why WTC 1 and 2 were NOT man-made demolition, this link broke a long time ago.

KDLarsen · 20th November 2009, 04:54 AM

Jesus, bumping a 3 year old thread, that has to be a new forum best of sorts

Oliver · 20th November 2009, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by BigAl

It appears that the video is gone. If it's Jowenko explaining why WTC 1 and 2 were NOT man-made demolition, this link broke a long time ago.

He explained that no one could have rigged WTC 1&2 and that he was in line with the official "NWO"-explanation. However, the Twoofers never accepted his stance while quotemining the "interesting" parts of the interview...

Panoply_Prefect · 20th November 2009, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

Jesus, bumping a 3 year old thread, that has to be a new forum best of sorts

Yes, sorry about that, I normally don't bump old threads. But this time I think its appropriate - although I post here regularly, this thread popped up when I was responding on a different board to one of the Truther TNG's. There really isn't any need to start yet another WTC7 CD thread IMHO.

It's actually sort of proves my point, the truthers take of in 2006, so this thread mirrors of how nothing happens in three years, and then just takes off as if time have been frozen...

And even though Truthers TNG ignores it, a lot has happened - the NIST WTC7 report for instance. I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report. In his interviews he didn't strike me as a truther, so I still wonder if he maintains his position, and if he has been interviewed again, somewhere.

Oliver · 20th November 2009, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect

I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report.

Well, you could ask him personally, if he doesn't have enough about all the stupidity already, of course...

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,1,2

RedIbis · 20th November 2009, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect

Yes, sorry about that, I normally don't bump old threads. But this time I think its appropriate - although I post here regularly, this thread popped up when I was responding on a different board to one of the Truther TNG's. There really isn't any need to start yet another WTC7 CD thread IMHO.

It's actually sort of proves my point, the truthers take of in 2006, so this thread mirrors of how nothing happens in three years, and then just takes off as if time have been frozen...

And even though Truthers TNG ignores it, a lot has happened - the NIST WTC7 report for instance. I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report. In his interviews he didn't strike me as a truther, so I still wonder if he maintains his position, and if he has been interviewed again, somewhere.

Here's your answer:

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

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.

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.

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?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Oliver · 20th November 2009, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Here's your answer:

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right. *snip*

http://www.pumpitout.com

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Oh, so you did present NIST's final explanation of the WTC7 collapse to Jowenko and ask him about it, right?

Anyway:

Quote:

Email: info@jowenko.com
Tel: +31 118 612735
Fax: +31 118 612779
Mobile: +31 653 24 21 25

Address:
Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V.
Veerseweg 107
NL - 4351 SL VEERE
Netherlands

JAStewart · 20th November 2009, 06:22 AM

RedIbis - get him in a court room! If he's your (only) expert who thinks its a CD, get him to testify to that. Get him to write a paper to get peer reviewed!

So much possibilities! So much time! So little chance of happening!

RedIbis · 20th November 2009, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Oh, so you did present NIST's final explanation of the WTC7 collapse to Jowenko and ask him about it, right?

Anyway:

Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis?

Oliver · 20th November 2009, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis?

No, I didn't ask him since it's obvious that he didn't know all the facts concerning WTC7 back then, just like some other posters in here today ...

RedIbis · 20th November 2009, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

No, I didn't ask him since it's obvious that he didn't know all the facts concerning WTC7 back then, just like some other posters in here today ...

What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?

HyJinX · 20th November 2009, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?

That WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition

RedIbis · 20th November 2009, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by HyJinX

That WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition

That's an opinion.

johnny karate · 20th November 2009, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis?

Red, is it your contention that it is not possible to definitively determine what caused WTC7 to collapse without physical evidence?

twinstead · 20th November 2009, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

That's an opinion.

One shared by a whole bunch of people who know a whole bunch more than you do about buildings and how they are built and how they fail.

GlennB · 20th November 2009, 07:02 AM

I always found it strange that Jeff Hill (if that's his real name) got straight through to Jowenko. Did Danny not have a secretary/receptionist? Did the recording start after the secretary transferred the call? If so, why?

Even stranger is the lack of comment from Truthers about the pack of lies that DJ was fed in the original video interview. "These 12" springs to mind from memory (the number of core columns). So does "You could walk around it" (of the debris pile).

Could go on. Can't be arsed.

9/11 Chewy Defense · 20th November 2009, 07:12 AM

Danny Jowenko never mentioned hearing any sort of explosions on the tapes when he was interviewed. I brought that to the attention to the Truthers a long time ago. They wouldn't hear of it.

CHF · 20th November 2009, 07:23 AM

Whatever happened to Jowenko? Haven't heard a thing about him, or from him, in 2+ years.

Seems he didn't persue the truth and the truthers didn't persue him. Oh well, throw him into the pile with Laura Chavez, Kevin McPadden and 'Mike the EMT' I suppose.

And I've never been able to figure out why the truthers thought Jowenko was so valuable to their cause. He disagrees with the "truth" 2/3 of the time!

For his opinion to be of value for the truthers we have to assume that he's wrong more often than he's right, and in the minority of cases where he's right he's unquestionably right.

Oliver · 20th November 2009, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?

That the Penthouse collapsed through that whole building before it collapsed. That a HUGE chunk of the WTC Tower did crash into the building. That there were several fires for hours. What else do you need to understand that the building was damaged in a severe manner?

RedIbis · 20th November 2009, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Red, is it your contention that it is not possible to definitively determine what caused WTC7 to collapse without physical evidence?

I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

BigAl · 20th November 2009, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?

That structural failure due to fire and the lack of firefighting caused the collapse.

The exact manor of structural failure is claimed to be the failure of a specific beam. Peole with the facts and relevant expertise might debate that, but nobody claims that fire wasn't the primary cause.

Oliver · 20th November 2009, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by BigAl

That structural failure due to fire and the lack of firefighting caused the collapse.

Maybe RedIbis is right and fires alone might not have brought the building down. But given the big chunk of debris of a WTC-tower falling into the side of WTC7 and the Penthouse on top of WTC7 crashing through that whole building, it is no ****** surprise whatsoever that the whole building collapsed.

Quite the opposite, after all that immense damage, only a fool would claim that all of that was irrelevant concerning the buildings internal structure/stabillity.

uk_dave · 20th November 2009, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

Ahhhhh so it wasn't impossible that wtc7 came down because of structural damage and fire. Thank you.

Job done. We can all go home now.

Gamolon · 20th November 2009, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?

uk_dave · 20th November 2009, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Gamolon

What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?

ooooohh I bet it's controlled demolition supported by evidence of sequential bright flashes and explosions immediately before the structure came down, together with evidence of the demolition charges having been installed and maintained during the fire and backed up with circumstantial evidence regarding the motive behind the cd of wtc7...which was.... ummmmm....some reason...to do with....stuff...an' such.

dtugg · 20th November 2009, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Gamolon

What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?

I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.

Gamolon · 20th November 2009, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by dtugg

I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.

I'm really curious.

If there is no physical evidence as Red claims, then that means there is no physical evidence for ANY theory concerning WTC7. That means that any proposed theory is based on video footage, sound, eyewitness reports, scientific knowledge, etc.

I would like to know what other theory, in Red's opinion, shows a more plausible explanation than what NIST describes.

CHF · 20th November 2009, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Gamolon

What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?

Hey man, if you ignore the penthouse collapse and turn off the volume for the rest of the collapse, it's just like a CD!

What more do you need?

dtugg · 20th November 2009, 08:05 AM

RedIbis once claimed that he had a theory better than NIST's regarding WTC7 and that somehow column 79 was his best evidence. He, of course, refused to explain.

Oliver · 20th November 2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Gamolon

I would like to know what other theory, in Red's opinion, shows a more plausible explanation than what NIST describes.

P.E.E.'s
Phantasy-Enhanced-Explosives

johnny karate · 20th November 2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

So then Jowenko's assessment of WTC7's collapse is, at best, as equally unreliable as that of NIST due to its same lack of physical evidence. And you therefore agree that Jowenko's opinion should be summarily dismissed, right?

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

Please remind me what those two novel phenomena are.

Dave Rogers · 20th November 2009, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?

For a start, he was shown the collapse videos without the soundtrack, so he wouldn't have been aware of the absence of deafeningly loud explosions immediately before the beginning of the collapse.

Dave

Dave Rogers · 20th November 2009, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

Unlike the novel phenomena proposed by the truth movement, the novel phenomena proposed by NIST are consistent with known scientific laws.

Dave

BigAl · 20th November 2009, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

For a start, he was shown the collapse videos without the soundtrack, so he wouldn't have been aware of the absence of deafeningly loud explosions immediately before the beginning of the collapse.

Dave

Reportedly he wasn't told that WTC1 had collapsed just a few hundred feet from the opposite side of the video he was asked to comment on.

Oliver · 20th November 2009, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by BigAl

Reportedly he wasn't told that WTC1 had collapsed just a few hundred feet from the opposite side of the video he was asked to comment on.

As far I remember, they didn't even show him that the Penthouse on top of WTC7 crashed through the whole building before the rest of WTC7 collapsed as well.

Dave Rogers · 20th November 2009, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by BigAl

Reportedly he wasn't told that WTC1 had collapsed just a few hundred feet from the opposite side of the video he was asked to comment on.

Or that the building had been in fire for seven hours, or that it had 47 storeys, or, indeed, that it was WTC7.

Dave

19th September 2006, 04:27 PM	#1
MarkyX Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,158	Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ? Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI
MarkyX Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,158	__________________ MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom

19th September 2006, 04:31 PM	#2
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,465	I wish you'd address all our evidence of you being part of some HUGE conspiracy!!1!!one!!
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

20th November 2009, 03:32 AM	#5
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by MarkyX Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ? Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI It appears that the video is gone. If it's Jowenko explaining why WTC 1 and 2 were NOT man-made demolition, this link broke a long time ago.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

20th November 2009, 05:25 AM	#7
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by BigAl It appears that the video is gone. If it's Jowenko explaining why WTC 1 and 2 were NOT man-made demolition, this link broke a long time ago. He explained that no one could have rigged WTC 1&2 and that he was in line with the official "NWO"-explanation. However, the Twoofers never accepted his stance while quotemining the "interesting" parts of the interview...
	__________________

20th November 2009, 05:40 AM	#9
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report. Well, you could ask him personally, if he doesn't have enough about all the stupidity already, of course... http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,1,2
	__________________

19th September 2006, 05:00 PM	#3
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	What I hate, is they will still try to have it both ways. They will say he is a rock solid expert opinion for collapse of WTC7 via CD, but will say he didn;t know enough about the "proposed atypical demolition" that CTers suggest for WTC1 &2. None the less, I would like to get Mr. Jowenko to sit down and read...yes READ the NIST Interim Report, and then see what he says. TAM

20th November 2009, 03:13 AM	#4
Panoply_Prefect Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,075	It seems to me that a new generation of truthers are emerging, at least here in Sweden, and since truther websites are prone to not actually removing old stuff, they tend to pick up somewhere 2005-2006. This makes the old Jowenko vides starting to circulate again (which is how Google led me to this thread), and I was wondering if he ever elaborated, or even commented on the final WTC7 NIST report?

20th November 2009, 04:54 AM	#6
KDLarsen Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Lord's Posts: 1,940	Jesus, bumping a 3 year old thread, that has to be a new forum best of sorts

20th November 2009, 05:36 AM	#8
Panoply_Prefect Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,075	Originally Posted by KDLarsen Jesus, bumping a 3 year old thread, that has to be a new forum best of sorts Yes, sorry about that, I normally don't bump old threads. But this time I think its appropriate - although I post here regularly, this thread popped up when I was responding on a different board to one of the Truther TNG's. There really isn't any need to start yet another WTC7 CD thread IMHO. It's actually sort of proves my point, the truthers take of in 2006, so this thread mirrors of how nothing happens in three years, and then just takes off as if time have been frozen... And even though Truthers TNG ignores it, a lot has happened - the NIST WTC7 report for instance. I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report. In his interviews he didn't strike me as a truther, so I still wonder if he maintains his position, and if he has been interviewed again, somewhere.

20th November 2009, 06:09 AM	#10
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect Yes, sorry about that, I normally don't bump old threads. But this time I think its appropriate - although I post here regularly, this thread popped up when I was responding on a different board to one of the Truther TNG's. There really isn't any need to start yet another WTC7 CD thread IMHO. It's actually sort of proves my point, the truthers take of in 2006, so this thread mirrors of how nothing happens in three years, and then just takes off as if time have been frozen... And even though Truthers TNG ignores it, a lot has happened - the NIST WTC7 report for instance. I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report. In his interviews he didn't strike me as a truther, so I still wonder if he maintains his position, and if he has been interviewed again, somewhere. Here's your answer: Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07: Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before. Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right. Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire. Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not. Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition? Danny Jowenko: Absolutely. 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. 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. 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? Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right? Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story. Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it. Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

20th November 2009, 06:15 AM	#11
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by RedIbis Here's your answer: Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07: Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before. Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right. snip http://www.pumpitout.com http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html Oh, so you did present NIST's final explanation of the WTC7 collapse to Jowenko and ask him about it, right? Anyway: Quote: Email: info@jowenko.com Tel: +31 118 612735 Fax: +31 118 612779 Mobile: +31 653 24 21 25 Address: Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V. Veerseweg 107 NL - 4351 SL VEERE Netherlands
	__________________

20th November 2009, 06:22 AM	#12
JAStewart Graduate Poster Tagger Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Shetland Islands Posts: 1,523	RedIbis - get him in a court room! If he's your (only) expert who thinks its a CD, get him to testify to that. Get him to write a paper to get peer reviewed! So much possibilities! So much time! So little chance of happening!
	__________________ Ignorance and google is a horrible combination. - BigAl Argumentum ad YouTubeum - sts60

20th November 2009, 06:30 AM	#13
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by Oliver Oh, so you did present NIST's final explanation of the WTC7 collapse to Jowenko and ask him about it, right? Anyway: Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis?
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

20th November 2009, 06:34 AM	#14
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by RedIbis Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis? No, I didn't ask him since it's obvious that he didn't know all the facts concerning WTC7 back then, just like some other posters in here today ...
	__________________

20th November 2009, 06:46 AM	#15
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by Oliver No, I didn't ask him since it's obvious that he didn't know all the facts concerning WTC7 back then, just like some other posters in here today ... What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

20th November 2009, 06:49 AM	#16
HyJinX Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Beyond the Sun Posts: 1,666	Originally Posted by RedIbis What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't? That WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition
	__________________ What? You pooped in the refrigerator? And you ate the whole... wheel of cheese? How'd you do that? Heck, I'm not even mad; that's amazing. - Ron Burgundy

20th November 2009, 06:52 AM	#17
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by HyJinX That WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition That's an opinion.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

20th November 2009, 06:54 AM	#18
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,819	Originally Posted by RedIbis Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis? Red, is it your contention that it is not possible to definitively determine what caused WTC7 to collapse without physical evidence?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

20th November 2009, 06:58 AM	#19
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,572	Originally Posted by RedIbis That's an opinion. One shared by a whole bunch of people who know a whole bunch more than you do about buildings and how they are built and how they fail.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

20th November 2009, 07:02 AM	#20
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,932	I always found it strange that Jeff Hill (if that's his real name) got straight through to Jowenko. Did Danny not have a secretary/receptionist? Did the recording start after the secretary transferred the call? If so, why? Even stranger is the lack of comment from Truthers about the pack of lies that DJ was fed in the original video interview. "These 12" springs to mind from memory (the number of core columns). So does "You could walk around it" (of the debris pile). Could go on. Can't be arsed.

20th November 2009, 07:12 AM	#21
9/11 Chewy Defense Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Johnstown, PA Posts: 3,593	Danny Jowenko never mentioned hearing any sort of explosions on the tapes when he was interviewed. I brought that to the attention to the Truthers a long time ago. They wouldn't hear of it.

20th November 2009, 07:23 AM	#22
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Whatever happened to Jowenko? Haven't heard a thing about him, or from him, in 2+ years. Seems he didn't persue the truth and the truthers didn't persue him. Oh well, throw him into the pile with Laura Chavez, Kevin McPadden and 'Mike the EMT' I suppose. And I've never been able to figure out why the truthers thought Jowenko was so valuable to their cause. He disagrees with the "truth" 2/3 of the time! For his opinion to be of value for the truthers we have to assume that he's wrong more often than he's right, and in the minority of cases where he's right he's unquestionably right.

20th November 2009, 07:30 AM	#24
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by johnny karate Red, is it your contention that it is not possible to definitively determine what caused WTC7 to collapse without physical evidence? I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence. Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

20th November 2009, 07:31 AM	#25
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by RedIbis What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't? That structural failure due to fire and the lack of firefighting caused the collapse. The exact manor of structural failure is claimed to be the failure of a specific beam. Peole with the facts and relevant expertise might debate that, but nobody claims that fire wasn't the primary cause.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

20th November 2009, 07:37 AM	#26
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by BigAl That structural failure due to fire and the lack of firefighting caused the collapse. Maybe RedIbis is right and fires alone might not have brought the building down. But given the big chunk of debris of a WTC-tower falling into the side of WTC7 and the Penthouse on top of WTC7 crashing through that whole building, it is no ****** surprise whatsoever that the whole building collapsed. Quite the opposite, after all that immense damage, only a fool would claim that all of that was irrelevant concerning the buildings internal structure/stabillity.
	__________________

20th November 2009, 07:40 AM	#27
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by RedIbis I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence. Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence. Ahhhhh so it wasn't impossible that wtc7 came down because of structural damage and fire. Thank you. Job done. We can all go home now.
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

20th November 2009, 07:43 AM	#28
Gamolon Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,265	Originally Posted by RedIbis and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence. What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?
Gamolon Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,265

20th November 2009, 07:47 AM	#29
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Gamolon What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it? ooooohh I bet it's controlled demolition supported by evidence of sequential bright flashes and explosions immediately before the structure came down, together with evidence of the demolition charges having been installed and maintained during the fire and backed up with circumstantial evidence regarding the motive behind the cd of wtc7...which was.... ummmmm....some reason...to do with....stuff...an' such.
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

20th November 2009, 07:50 AM	#30
dtugg Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: NWO headquarters Posts: 7,898	Originally Posted by Gamolon What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it? I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.

20th November 2009, 08:01 AM	#31
Gamolon Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,265	Originally Posted by dtugg I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC. I'm really curious. If there is no physical evidence as Red claims, then that means there is no physical evidence for ANY theory concerning WTC7. That means that any proposed theory is based on video footage, sound, eyewitness reports, scientific knowledge, etc. I would like to know what other theory, in Red's opinion, shows a more plausible explanation than what NIST describes.
Gamolon Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,265

20th November 2009, 08:03 AM	#32
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	Originally Posted by Gamolon What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it? Hey man, if you ignore the penthouse collapse and turn off the volume for the rest of the collapse, it's just like a CD! What more do you need?

20th November 2009, 08:05 AM	#33
dtugg Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: NWO headquarters Posts: 7,898	RedIbis once claimed that he had a theory better than NIST's regarding WTC7 and that somehow column 79 was his best evidence. He, of course, refused to explain.

20th November 2009, 08:09 AM	#34
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Gamolon I would like to know what other theory, in Red's opinion, shows a more plausible explanation than what NIST describes. P.E.E.'s Phantasy-Enhanced-Explosives
	__________________

20th November 2009, 08:10 AM	#36
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by RedIbis What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't? For a start, he was shown the collapse videos without the soundtrack, so he wouldn't have been aware of the absence of deafeningly loud explosions immediately before the beginning of the collapse. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

20th November 2009, 08:12 AM	#37
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by RedIbis Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence. Unlike the novel phenomena proposed by the truth movement, the novel phenomena proposed by NIST are consistent with known scientific laws. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member