| Viewing Single Post From: Danny Jowenko Interview | |
|---|---|
| Miragememories | Jan 22 2008, 07:52 PM |
|
Much argument has gone on, particularly in the JREF Conspiracy Forum regarding Jowenko's credibility in light of the contradiction created by his stated belief that the WTC Twin Towers were not the result of a controlled demolition. In JREF I've tried to address this from a more human perspective rather than a pure science one and naturally the audience there has been far from receptive. So much of what happened on 9/11 was based on human motivation and behavior. It's important that we consider this when attempting to understand contradictions that are rejected by science based logic. Looking at the WTC building collapses on 9/11, logically, if WTC7 was a pre-planned controlled demolition triggered on the same day as the pre-planned collapses of WTC 1 & 2, it stands to reason that these events were all part of the same plan. So how can Danny Jowenko be right about WTC7 being a controlled demolition and also be right about the WTC Twin Towers not being controlled demolitions? On one level he can't. On a human level though, it's quite understandable, as we humans, often without realizing it, frequently make contradictory statements. In a nutshell, Danny Jowenko accepted that the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers were not caused by controlled demolitions because; -they were top down collapses -he originally saw them as part of the same indoctrinating 'shock and awe' news event as everyone else -they were assaulted by large commercial passenger jets -they displayed dramatic fire activity -the U.S. government quickly stated the view that it was solely a result of the terrorist aircraft attacks -the mainstream press fully supported the government viewpoint -FEMA's Report presented no alternative viewpoint -the 911 Commision supported the Official Theory -NIST fully supported the Official Theory -multi-national corporations supported the Official Theory -patriots were expected to support the Official Theory -only terrorists and misguided troofers were expected to challenge the Official Theory -like most people, Danny had no motivation to dig deep and question what he was told by those who traditionally commanded the public trust -it's easier, and from a business and professional point of view, safer, to maintain the status quo -Danny had never heard about or viewed the collapse of WTC7 For a good many of us, myself included, we bought the official story. For a good many of us, myself included, when we saw and read about the collapse of WTC7, we stopped buying the Official Story. As a professional editor for broadcast TV, I've probably worked on over a thousand interviews, going back to 1973, including John Dean, Nixon's former White House Counsel when the Watergate scandal made history, and whose interview I recorded in 1974. Watching Danny Jowenko being interviewed, I saw a sincere professional, anxious to fully cooperate with his TV interviewer, well aware that the TV coverage could be beneficial for the Jowenko Demolition Company which he owns. Being a professional building demolition engineer, Danny Jowenko, like all of his peers, must of course been very interested in the major collapses of the WTC Twin Towers. When interviewed specifically about those towers, it was clear that he was quite knowledgeable about the NIST conclusion that it was a cascading collapse resulting from the aircraft collision damage and subsequent fires. He had no reason to question their report, as it was extremely well prepared (10,000 pages) and he obviously embraced it, virtually quoting from it while explaining why he agreed with their collapse initiation assessment. Danny has solidly backed the WTC Twin Tower part of the Official Story and is on record as having done so. To change his belief would look bad professionally, risk harming his business and would put him in opposition to the establishment and the popular point of view. Following up on his WTC 1 & 2 interview, he was asked to express his opinions on the collapse of another large highrise (WTC7). A collapse of which he was totally unfamiliar. He had absolutely no reason to believe there is any notoriety associated with it other than being made aware that it was a building in the WTC complex. Here is summation of his 2006 TV interview comments; His responses after Danny Jowenko is told: "What you see is at the WTC, these are pictures of building #7." "Does the top go first? No, the bottom." "They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards." "Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition." "Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this." Danny Jowenko is now told for the first time: "But it also happened on September 11th." "The same day?" pause "The same day?" pause "Are you sure?" pause "Are you sure it was the 11th? That can't be." "Then they worked hard." "No, I don't believe that. No, I don't believe that."[In reply to the question: Could this building spontaneously collapse for example because these columns are damaged in this way?] "This is work of man!" "No, this is also a hired..." "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" "That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange. I have no explanation for it."[in reply to"the official reports they don't admit it's been imploded."] "I said to you before that I knew nothing about WTC7. I can only say that, if only this is..." [Danny motions to the structural column layout diagram for WTC7] "On this the building will stand. Guaranteed. Guaranteed." A summation of his 2007 phone interview comments; Interviewer Statement: "I've come to my conclusions too that it couldn't have come down by fire..." JOWENKO: "No it...absolutely not..." Interviewer Question: "Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must, it must have been a controlled demolition?" JOWENKO: "Absolutely...I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not"... Interviewer Statement: "I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire." JOWENKO: "No,no,no...absolutely not..." So what happened? Why did Danny effectively contradict himself by stating an opinion about WTC7 that did not mesh with his opinion about the WTC Twin Towers? Let's examine the circumstances. Danny was participating in what for him was an important interview for a national TV news program because they considered him to be one of Europe's foremost experts on the subject of controlled building demolitions. Danny had already given his opinion about the WTC Twin Towers where he solidly came out in support of the Official Theory. He's relaxed, everything is proceeding well. The interviewer tells him he has another building from the WTC complex to show him, WTC7. Danny is not told the date that the video was shot. He watches the video of the building collapse. Just like when he rapidly stated his belief that they were not controlled demolitions, after viewing the 'all too familiar' footage of the WTC Twin Towers' collapses beginning near the tops of each buildings, upon seeing the collapse of WTC7 begin at the bottom he rapidly concludes that it is an implosion and a controlled demolition. No doubt when Danny was told this new video was of WTC7, he assumed that ir was brought down at a date later than 9/11 because it was likely badly damaged and beyond repair. The body blow came when he was told that it occurred on the same day! His response was quite incredulous as the magnitude of what he's been told sinks in; "The same day? The same day? Are you sure? Are you sure it was the 11th? That can't be." That was the moment that he could have decided to retract or fudge his opinion on WTC7. I can only assume that being the proud professional that he is, and knowing that he had already had his uncoerced professional opinion recorded for National TV News, he felt compelled to stand by his statements. He did watch the collapse video a few more times, he studied and commented on the structural column layout diagram explaining where the controlled demolition would have occurred,  And he also studied the NIST Plan View of Collapse Progression Figure L-31 from the 2004 NIST WTC7 Preliminary Report.  The NIST Plan View of Collapse Progression diagram covers virtually all the key NIST arguments which oppose a cause based on controlled demolition. It shows the controversial trusses, the transfer girders, the areas of debris damage, the east and west penthouses, etc. etc. Danny Jowenko was provided with a lot of NIST data that he could have used to back away from his opinion that WTC7's collapse was the result of a controlled demolition. Several months later when asked if he had changed his mind and now agreed that WTC7 had collapsed due to fire, he still responded; "No,no,no...absolutely not..." So this brings the final questions about Danny Jowenko. Why did he effectively contradict himself regarding these three WTC buildings and how can he continue to reconcile this contradiction? I believe the answer to the first question lies in his interview about WTC7. When discussing the possible rigging details of the controlled demolition operation, Jowenko focused on speed and the minimum requirements necessary to achieve the task in the 7 hour time frame presented to him. His whole explanation avoided acceptance of the idea that the demolition was pre-planned and therefore connected to the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers. He believed that it was a same day "seize the moment" operation. The only WTC link he considered was that Silverstein might have seized the opportunity presented by the collapsing Twin Towers to get official approval for demolishing WTC7. Using the argument of public safety, the very expensive to repair, damaged WTC7, could be legally removed and thus Silverstein's losses would be greatly subsidized by his insurance coverage. Regarding the second question of how can he continue to live with the apparent contradiction? He might have given his answer when in the 2006 interview he was told "the official FEMA & NIST reports don't admit it's been imploded" and he responded; "That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange. I have no explanation for it." He might very well have said "I will give no explanation for it". Though interestingly, he wasn't to reluctant to speculate about Silverstein. Maybe the best explanation can be summed up by this statement in his 2007 telephone interview with Jeff Hill; "when the FEMA makes a report that it came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the U.S. as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone....you know??" "It's the end of your, your...it's the end of the story." MM Edited by Miragememories, Jan 23 2008, 10:16 AM.
|
 |
|
| Danny Jowenko Interview · WTC 7 | |
2:12 PM Nov 26
