| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Danny Jowenko Interview; 2006 Interview with Dutch TV News | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 04:57 PM (3,519 Views) | |
| Miragememories | Jan 20 2008, 04:57 PM Post #1 |
|
Danny Jowenko, Controlled Demolitions Expert from the Netherlands http://www.jowenko.com/ Sample http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,17,1%5E1,1,52,0,0# Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3 from Dutch news program "Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories (2006) http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I Transcript from subtitles with some obvious spelling & typo translation errors corrected. INTERVIEWER: What you see at the WTC, these are pictures of building #7. Let's take this and look what we see. Do you see a fire above somewhere?  [They both watch the WTC7 collapse from the Loose Change documentary. Skeptics like to point out that Jowenko was misled because he wasn't shown the collapse of the WTC7 east penthouse which collapsed a few seconds before global collapse initiation was observed. On February 22, 2007 in a phone interview when asked about rumors that he had changed his mind about his earlier opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, Danny said; "I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..." In addition, we know from the TV interview that Danny examined this diagram from the NIST June 2004 Preliminary Report on WTC7.]  DANNY JOWENKO: I see smoke however. Yeah, you always get dust, nothing has been removed from it? Does the top go first? No, the bottom. INTERVIEWER: It starts on the bottom. DANNY JOWENKO: They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards. INTERVIEWER: Did this fall in a different way than the WTC? DANNY JOWENKO: Don't you agree?  INTERVIEWER: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first. DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.  INTERVIEWER: Your sure? DANNY JOWENKO: Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this. INTERVIEWER: But it also happened on September 11th. DANNY JOWENKO: The same day???  INTERVIEWER: The same day. DANNY JOWENKO: The same day??? ..... Are you sure?????  INTERVIEWER: Yes. [long pause]  INTERVIEWER: There it goes again. [watch the WTC7 collapse again] DANNY JOWENKO: I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days, there was already much smoke gone. Are you sure it was the 11th??? That can't be.  INTERVIEWER: Seven hours after the World Trade Center came down. DANNY JOWENKO: Then they worked hard. I don't know the construction of the building but then they very rigorously, very quickly placed charges. They had the piece of luck that since there was already very much destroyed in the environment that you don't have to be precise. You can imagine if there are all buildings surrounded that are intact and should stay intact with sensitive computer equipment, then you have to prepare very precisely your weakenings etc. But it looks like it was that clean. INTERVIEWER: Ok, that can be but...[Danny interrupts] DANNY JOWENKO: I mean, I mean maybe that they then indeed used packet(?) charges instead off all the cutting torch work plus applying a linear cutter charge. Simply rigorously because it was a mess already. No cutting torch work but only some charges? INTERVIEWER: Simply placing charges and really fast. DANNY JOWENKO: The situation was completely polluted in the environment. [Interviewer shows Danny a layout drawing of the structural columns for WTC7] INTERVIEWER: Globally now, assume you're instructed to do this, this is the map of that building. DANNY JOWENKO: From number seven? INTERVIEWER: That is number seven. These are the carrying steel columns.  DANNY JOWENKO: That is not really much. INTERVIEWER: No, that is not really much. DANNY JOWENKO: That explains quite a lot. INTERVIEWER: What does it explain? DANNY JOWENKO: That you can do it fast. INTERVIEWER: You can blow it up fast? DANNY JOWENKO: That you can do it fast. Look, I don't know the height of the floors. Let me put that first. But maybe they placed more floors in the middle, but in principle per column you only...uh You could even do this with cutting torches and cutter charges. INTERVIEWER: But which columns do you have to blow up to let it collapse as cleanly as we've seen? [Danny points at area of drawing] DANNY JOWENKO: This heart. INTERVIEWER: This heart? These twelve? DANNY JOWENKO: Although I've seen a picture on internet, seen from above, it was not really clean, at the sides there were walls 13-14 floors high still standing. INTERVIEWER: No, it was very clean. DANNY JOWENKO: I can show you that on internet, I don't know which movie it was but it wasn't lying on a heap very nice. Look, it was shortened compared to the 47th. [Interviewer shows Danny a NIST Report photograph of WTC7 heaped ruins] INTERVIEWER: This is the heap. Look, this is what I mean, that's a lot. [runs finger up and down the side of the Verizon Building] But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it. INTERVIEWER: [unintelligible] DANNY JOWENKO: But this is still standing, this is what I mean. You show me exactly the picture that I mean. [Danny is indicating the Verizon Building on the west side of the WTC7 ruins] INTERVIEWER: But this is a different building. DANNY JOWENKO: Is that a different building? INTERVIEWER: That is the building next to it. DANNY JOWENKO: Then they've demolished that later also? Debris is adjacent [next to] I would say. INTERVIEWER: As far as I know this hasn't been demolished. DANNY JOWENKO: And this building... [Danny points to right hand side of photograph..to the U.S. Post Office] Photo from from NIST June 2004 Preliminary Report Appendix L  [Another view of the site around WTC7 after it's collapse.]  INTERVIEWER: I'm not sure but this is building seven. This doesn't belong to it; this is the 4-zone building. DANNY JOWENKO: Let's look, how do I have to see that? Is this an other building? INTERVIEWER: Yes. [very long pause] DANNY JOWENKO: I wish there were more pictures of this. INTERVIEWER: There are some aerial photographs but everywhere you clear see that only building seven collapsed cleanly with the outside walls going inside. DANNY JOWENKO: But you do that to..., here you start with your first times and then it travels to the outside in order to get the walls going to the inside etc. [Danny is pointing to the column layout diagram]. DANNY JOWENKO: A charge in an H-beam, let's say they were H-profiles. You only have to burn 2 holes, in the middle a cutter charge, two skew and you do that again below, a pressure charge against it, a piece of wood with a pressure charge, you connect it and boom, it is gone. It is... we also do that, we also topple steel-construction or implode it. INTERVIEWER: How long would it take for you for this building to... DANNY JOWENKO: If you are coming there with sufficient people and mark the places where the cutting torch guys have to do something... A cutter charge against it with a piece of duct tape, is no-time, a no-time job. A minute per charge, less, a half minute. You have to place all pipes and place all wires. It might have been worse, everyone knows his task. INTERVIEWER: How many men and how much time do you need to do that? DANNY JOWENKO: I'm not sure. INTERVIEWER: Make an estimation. DANNY JOWENKO: You need experienced people but if you had thirty or forty men... A few with cutting torch, others clearing the walls... Others hooking up the det cord and boosters. That all has to be coordinated and another hooks up the electronic systems, and then he goes. INTERVIEWER: Could this building spontaneously collapse for example because these columns are damaged in this way? DANNY JOWENKO: No, I don't believe that. No, I don't believe that. But I have absolutely no single picture of the side of those big towers to building number seven. INTERVIEWER: Look, I've also looked at that as a hypothesis; this is the damage in the whole area, ground zero. [shows Danny a drawing of Ground Zero damage zones]  DANNY JOWENKO: But how far were those buildings away? INTERVIEWER: Building #7 was the farthest building. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM&feature=related Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 2 of 3 DANNY JOWENKO: But how much distance are we talking about? INTERVIEWER: I don't know that exactly but they calculated that this is the area were all steel columns have fallen. DANNY JOWENKO: This is only small debris. But it [WTC7] had been damaged? INTERVIEWER: It has been damaged decently. DANNY JOWENKO: If this is 63 meter and the building is 415 than you can understand that it theoretically hits decently. INTERVIEWER: But that has been confirmed, that building [WTC7] was damaged, not as serious as this building, this building, this building [interviewer is referring to WTC buildings 5 & 6 etc.] certainly not as serious as this building but it was slightly damaged at the outer side. A few columns were surely... DANNY JOWENKO: Then it's the choice of the owner of the building, we fix it or...away with it. INTERVIEWER: But isn't it that if the outer columns, you have three of them here, that it then... would collapse that clean? DANNY JOWENKO: [Studying the WTC7 structural column layout diagram] Again I see that same principle that from the outside...and then complete parts nothing and then inside there are relatively a few columns. INTERVIEWER: That's correct, yes. DANNY JOWENKO: It strikes me that, that could be a reason for Silverstone or stein... The owner. The owner of the building that he says: Look, this will cost me a lot of pennies and what do I get back, still the same old building. And on such a moment I think that Giuliani easily would give a license to demolish, here you are if you want to get rid of it, asap. INTERVIEWER: Ok, but it could not be by fire? That it was on fire and that the building... No From NIST June 2004 WTC7 Preliminary Report  DANNY JOWENKO: Well, maybe that some... that burning parts fly away so far, I don't believe that. But I don't know, it's guessing for me. INTERVIEWER: Yes, on the pictures we've seen you could see clearly... DANNY JOWENKO: This is work of man. INTERVIEWER: This is work of man? DANNY JOWENKO: This is, this is with... INTERVIEWER: Thus we need no discussion about that... DANNY JOWENKO: No, this is also a hired...sir [Silverstein] said it himself, you hear him saying [Danny casually tosses arm] "pull it down", away with it. INTERVIEWER: Look, here for example you see plums of smoke; the special thing is it rises upwards. [long pause, Danny slowly turns head and looks at interviewer with a hint of amusement in his expression]  DANNY JOWENKO: What do you want to say with that, smoke always rises upwards. [finishes with a smile] INTERVIEWER: No in the WTC Twin Towers you saw plums of smoke at the sides of the building. DANNY JOWENKO: Those are pressed out. INTERVIEWER: You saw it from top to down; here you see the reverse thing. It starts at the bottom and goes up. DANNY JOWENKO: These [re: WTC7] are the explosive charges, they damage the structures and at the WTC Twin Towers the mass says: I can't hold you, I can't hold you and it pulverizes the cement from it. INTERVIEWER: What we see here are explosive charges? DANNY JOWENKO: No probably they were not that high, maybe...is this seven? INTERVIEWER: Yes. DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, could be. INTERVIEWER: [not translated] DANNY JOWENKO: But then it's more work than a few hours with 30 men. INTERVIEWER: You don't know whether they are explosive charges, it could be the same effect as in the WTC Twin Towers. DANNY JOWENKO: If all supporting columns are knocked away and we see it here on the corner beams then, [Danny is pointing to locations on the WTC7 structural columns layout diagram] than those also say I can't hold you and you get more or less the same effect. That they break and that then also the bolt connections break. No I don't believe that those are explosive charges [re: WTC Twin Towers]. INTERVIEWER: Ok. Ok. DANNY JOWENKO: But that is also not needed, the outside needs not to be imploded. INTERVIEWER: Here we have it again. [watching LC WTC7 collapse video on laptop] DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, it starts on the bottom; at the outside no implosion is needed. INTERVIEWER: Ok, this has bursted from the bottom. DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, it could be that in the middle sections several levels have imploded to get sufficient fall-speed, that could be. But I don't have to tell those guys how to do that, they do this kind of work the whole day. They for sure know how to handle such a building. INTERVIEWER: Ok, but if you place bursting-charges at the higher floors one needs more time. DANNY JOWENKO: Then you need more time, but they did it very well, but maybe there were large fo(?) I don't know what, I don't know the building. Some locations are missing, 2 or 3 floors. I don't know the building. But in principle it is a very short time. INTERVIEWER: [not translated] DANNY JOWENKO: It is possible, if something must, people can do much. If you have the right teams on the right location. INTERVIEWER:The strange thing about this story is that the official report, made by FEMA, they have investigated how this building could have imploded. They say, it appears the collapse was due to, primarily to fire rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. They don't mention explosives at all. Because according to the official report it hasn't been pulled down by explosives. [Danny pauses long, slowly forming a wry non-responsive smile] DANNY JOWENKO: I don't know than that it has been imploded as we call it. I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded. If this is the consequence of the coming down of the WTC towers... that would greatly astonish me. I can't imagine it. No. INTERVIEWER: Remains strange that in the official reports they don't admit it's been imploded. DANNY JOWENKO: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange. I have no explanation for it. INTERVIEWER: What I sometimes think, has it maybe to do with insurance? DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, that can also be. Look if that man (NYFD Commander on site at WTC7] is bribed by Silverstone because he wants his payment... and here you also have a nice percentage then he writes that simply down. This is how America is tied together. That makes September 11th very hard. INTERVIEWER: That means that you also cannot trust government reports. DANNY JOWENKO: Then it becomes very difficult. But, yes I didn't follow them those government reports, but I've seen a part about those military planes that all flew the other direction, that NORAD was all the way confused. Such a guy doesn't fly over the ocean while he needs to fly the other direction. But they are not sent to the other direction wittingly, it was one big muddle. This was an enormous psychological slap... http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU&feature=related Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 3 of 3 [Danny watches LC WTC7 collapse video again] INTERVIEWER: Look, it is simple like this? If you see the bottom going first bursting-charges are involved? DANNY JOWENKO: Again, you clearly see, those other things start at the top and you see the outer walls being pressed outwardly because the middle-core sags down. There the bolt connections break etc. etc. It goes and the rest is, as the energy comes it comes and it presses it away. INTERVIEWER: And this building, to avoid that other buildings collapse, in my opinion you have to implode it on more levels than only the bottom floor? You can not take that risk then? There were buildings near. DANNY JOWENKO: Uh, right, there are several ways to... [Danny is studying the structural column layout diagram for WTC7] you can for example also only cut/burn the columns on higher levels. That's what they also do. Then they stand loose on top of each other. Yes, you assail me also with this now, if you think a little bit longer about it, how do you have to collapse such a building as fast as possible... and you bring down the columns only on the bottom floor and weakens them, you can cut them funnel-shaped, a column then cannot go to the left or to the right, it remains standing but they are loose. If it then goes you get the effect, they don't need to apply cutter charges everywhere. INTERVIEWER: But what you say not takes more than 7 hours? DANNY JOWENKO: I don't know, you maybe will need 20 guys with a cutting torch. They have such a column within 15 minutes in such a V-form. Let them do 4 floors then with so many people. Everything then is loose as... all possible. It is all possible. I'm convinced. INTERVIEWER: This was the picture and movie thing. I don't know if I have other nice things to show, what more do I have. This has collapsed but the other building has imploded and on such a clean way that you have to ask yourself how could they do that in the chaos of that day. There was fire everywhere, and also in that building. DANNY JOWENKO: But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done. INTERVIEWER: No they didn't do that. DANNY JOWENKO: They didn't extinguish it? INTERVIEWER: No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it while it was on fire. DANNY JOWENKO: For me it is a little bit like "watching coffee dregs", I mean, that is not a lot of information, if we had some pictures from the other side, especially those at the side of the twin towers. INTERVIEWER: That's correct, we don't have that, there has only been created a kind of damage report. Here, it's a little bit guesswork/performed on intuition, using testimonies of firemen. They've seen that there was a damage here that probably went as far as here, it could be that also these 3 columns have been damaged, these 5 and these 2. DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, then Silverstein must say bring it down because once there is fire, if it became hot you have to replace your steel. Do you know what it cost if you have to replace the bottom columns and jack up the rest? That will not be cheap for a building with 47 floors. INTERVIEWER: [not translated] DANNY JOWENKO: Then you say: away with it. And if there is a company, you so much million, we do it for 1 million. That's how it goes. Business goes very fast in such a situation. And they do it. INTERVIEWER: But it remains that it happened in secret. DANNY JOWENKO: I'm sure that I've heard in the journal that it's been imploded, that buildings were weakened. INTERVIEWER: Then it should be here in the official report, and then the whole research should not be needed. DANNY JOWENKO: You should replay those journals from 9/11, could you not somewhere at the NOS...? INTERVIEWER: I'll try that, I'll check it. But it is undeniably true that the official government report dedicated a whole research to this building and said: maybe it could be due to fire and maybe not, we are not really sure. That's the conclusion of the report. DANNY JOWENKO: Take that building of Timothy McVeigh, half of it was gone, they also had to implode it, half of it was gone. INTERVIEWER: That was also why I have the picture of this building... that is WTC3, it sustained the full load of all supporting beams of the two buildings at that side and it is still standing. There is a hole but it still stands. That's what I mean. DANNY JOWENKO: A little bit strange huh? INTERVIEWER: So we don't get all the answers. DANNY JOWENKO: You expected to get them all? INTERVIEWER: Yes, I hoped. DANNY JOWENKO: 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. INTERVIEWER: Okay lets do some things from this corner. [Interviewer shows Danny a diagram illustrating WTC7 structural columns, key trusses, impact damage and collapse progression] INTERVIEWER: Can you point to this with your finger. DANNY JOWENKO: Interesting. Were there people in? WOMAN ASSISTANT: No it was evacuated. DANNY JOWENKO: Completely evacuated, that is of course an important point. WOMAN ASSISTANT: [not translated] DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, that's why it is logical that it is imploded, it was evacuated. INTERVIEWER: Exactly. DANNY JOWENKO: [studying diagram illustrating WTC7 structural columns, key trusses, impact damage and collapse progression] Yes and there were several penthouses, huge huge floor areas. But why did they lie about it? That has probably to do with money I think. INTERVIEWER: But can a millionaire get a government so crazy that they write a false report for the insurance? That is in fact what that means. It is a government report lying over there. DANNY JOWENKO: I think that there are so many concerned parties that played a role in that whole area there. Mr. So and So puts his money in development, re-development, reconstruction. Maybe he say, I'll join for that percentage, It can be everything. That was such a hectic time, in an hour decisions are made that normally would take five years. But he got all the luck, nothing asbestos free, Bush came days later not for nothing, after the measurements said ok. I mean they don't have a king or queen there. Do you think that [Queen] Beatrix would stand on that debris immediately? Asbestos free, cadmium free, all those heavy metals... If that a little bit..then she may come, not earlier. That's the same with Bush, but he is and was... INTERVIEWER: Normally when you implode such a building it takes you weeks and months to remove the asbestos. DANNY JOWENKO: In Paris one recent collapse, it took 10 months of pre-demolition, cleaning. Our insurance policy states that we can implode only after there is an asbestos free certificate. The measurements should indicate that there is nothing left, because otherwise we are not allowed to implode. But that didn't play a part here, everything was already totally spoiled. In the course of years more people shall die. Yes, the first firemen that dies by asbestos cancer are buried already. INTERVIEWER: That's what I mean. End of part 3. Transcript 02/22/07 Danny Jowenko Phone Conversation re WTC7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 DANNY JOWENKO: Danny Jowenko... INTERVIEWER JEFF: Hi is Danny there? DANNY JOWENKO: Yes it's me... INTERVIEWER JEFF: Hi...my name is Jeff...I'm calling you from Canada... DANNY JOWENKO: Hello? INTERVIEWER JEFF: Hi...I was just wondering real quickly...I know you had commented on World Trade Center 7 before... DANNY JOWENKO: Yes that's right... INTERVIEWER JEFF: And...uh...I've come to my conclusions too that it couldn't have come down by fire... DANNY JOWENKO: No it...absolutely not... INTERVIEWER JEFF: Uh...are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must, it must have been a controlled demolition? DANNY JOWENKO: Absolutely... INTERVIEWER JEFF: Yes...and do...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've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not... INTERVIEWER JEFF: Okay, uh, 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 what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire...and I said there's no way that's true... DANNY JOWENKO: No,no,no...absolutely not... INTERVIEWER JEFF: Cause if anybody was real...if anybody...like when I've called controlled demolitions here in North America... DANNY JOWENKO: Yes... INTERVIEWER JEFF: They tell me that oh it's possible it came down from fire and this and that and stuff like that... DANNY JOWENKO: Lis...listen, uh, uh, when the FEMA makes a report that it came down from 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, you're gone, you know? INTERVIEWER JEFF: Yeah, yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right? DANNY JOWENKO: Of course, of course, uh, uh, it's the end of your, your...it's the end of the story. INTERVIEWER JEFF: Yeah...cause I was, 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...obviously because they know what happened and they didn't want to say it, right? DANNY JOWENKO: Exactly... INTERVIEWER JEFF: Okay, I'm very sorry for bothering you and thank you very much for your time sir... DANNY JOWENKO: Okay, that's okay INTERVIEWER JEFF: Okay, thank you very much and have a good day. DANNY JOWENKO: Okay, thank you, bye-bye. INTERVIEWER JEFF: Bye-bye. MM Edited by Miragememories, Mar 6 2008, 08:18 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| Chris Sarns | Jan 20 2008, 08:52 PM Post #2 |
|
Well done. That took a lot of time. People with dial up can't easily see the videos so laying it all out is an excellent idea. Salute Chris |
|
|
|
| illeagalhunter | Jan 21 2008, 06:53 AM Post #3 |
|
Thats the first time ive seen the whole interview ,thanks . |
|
|
|
| einsteen | Jan 22 2008, 03:41 AM Post #4 |
|
MM, did you use my subtitle file that I uploaded... I hope, what a work. Since English is my 2nd language feel free to correct it, 4-zone building should be verizon building. And there are some things that I translated literally, do you want me to upload the video file(s) ? |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jan 22 2008, 09:35 AM Post #5 |
|
Yes I used the subtitled versions you put up on YouTube. Since Dutch is not a language I know, I only made changes where I felt it was safe. If you have better quality video versions, that would be useful (better screencaps) as I used a YouTube downloader application. I am planning to make more additions to this thread but I have to satisfy the demands of my employer first. MM |
|
|
|
| einsteen | Jan 22 2008, 12:36 PM Post #6 |
|
MM, here is the uploaded avi file, the original was an .asf file without subtitles extracted (ripped) from internet. You had to ask the subtitle file, that would save you a lot of time http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UBF6P80I |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jan 22 2008, 06:43 PM Post #7 |
|
Thanks Einsteen! Your right that I should have queried you about the subtitle file but extracting it the hard way afforded me the opportunity to soak up the interview. MM |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jan 22 2008, 07:36 PM Post #8 |
|
good interview. Hey have you peoplz seen ae911truths' Richard Gage in Blueprint for Truth? Great vid by the way. In it he showz some japanese video on WTC7 all zoomed in and slow motioned. The right side at the top has these squibz, about 5 or 6, i never saw these squibs before but it only made it more apparent of CD to me anyway. Like it needs to be more apparent......wierd random fires, no NIST report ,early Cnn&BBC story, the CIA inside the building, Ghoulianni not in the building, firefighters telling people its coming down, "pull it", WTF eh? |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jan 22 2008, 07:52 PM Post #9 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jan 22 2008, 08:30 PM Post #10 |
|
Does Danny Jowenko still think .....after seeing WTC7, and given some time to reflect....that WTC1&2 was a natural global collapse? If so. that is strange. I, like Donny never saw builing 7 collapse untill a couple years after. Then i went "hey thats not right" then caught loose change on Public access TV for the first time. Thanks, that movie made me wake the fudge up and start questioning everything i've been told by all medias |
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Jan 22 2008, 09:34 PM Post #11 |
|
MM: one small correction, It was a few months later that Jeff called Danny, not a year. Einsteen: What is the date of the Jowenko interview? ETA: First post of telephone interview, Feb 22 2007 http://www.shure.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=911calls&action=display&thread=1172175379 Edited by Chris Sarns, Jan 22 2008, 09:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
| einsteen | Jan 23 2008, 02:30 AM Post #12 |
|
The file of the original tv show is mms://streams.omroep.nl/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060910.asf and the filename of the extra interview (only online for 1 few days) was called 20060914-911extra-hi.asf It should be before that date then. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jan 23 2008, 10:18 AM Post #13 |
|
Thanks Chris. Since couldn't locate the actual date of the 2006 interview I guess I took liberties with that time passage estimate. MM |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jan 23 2008, 11:21 AM Post #14 |
|
Your question "Does Danny Jowenko still think that WTC1&2 was a natural global collapse?" is an excellent one. I would very much like to see Danny Jowenko sit down in a proper interview where he is well presented with evidence which displays the apparent contradiction in his views. It is of utmost importance that he be presented fully with the argument that makes the rigging of a 'same day' controlled demolition highly unlikely. This argument should be combined with the fact that no official government agency endorses controlled demolition as a possible reason for the WTC7 collapse. If he can be persuaded to agree that controlled demolition of WTC7 could not have been setup on 9/11, then he has to address the contradiction of his beliefs about the WTC Twin Towers not being controlled demolitions. His apparent belief that the controlled demolition of WTC7 must have been prepped on the same day gives him an exit from his contradiction even if it suffers from low plausibility. If he fears the repercussions of altering his opinion about the WTC Twin Towers, and I believe he does, he will definitely evade the question by using the explanation I suggested above. MM |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jan 23 2008, 11:50 AM Post #15 |
|
Yes MM. a new interview would be nice to clear that up with him. Get someone to sit down with him live and have some good straight foreward evidence on 1 and 2, like richard gauge's blueprint for truth. I'm sure Donny would enjoy his take on WTC7 also. How much of Donny J's business is in the states? Enough to make him go broke if he changes his mind about 1&2? I'm sure controlled demo companies list of clients are mostly all NWObots with lots of property to manage, maybe they would boycott his company. On the otherhand maybe it would boost his companies image in Europe given their opinion on Bush Co. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jan 23 2008, 01:49 PM Post #16 |
|
While I doubt Danny Jowenko does much if any work in the U.S., I'm sure he has concerns about how contrary 9/11 views might upset his European clients who may have strong U.S. connections. Do you go out of your way to make so many typos and misspellings? For the record it's Danny Jowenko and Richard Gage. The tone of your posts suggests to me your heart is with those opposed to 9/11 Truth. MM |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jan 23 2008, 03:05 PM Post #17 |
|
MM u couldn't be more right or wrong about me. Yes I am an awefull typerist. even wurse with namez. I'm really good at Scrabble tho! But I am in no way opposed to 911 truth. I get DVD's from 911dvdproject.com and hand them out to people all over the place, give dvd's out at shows my band is playing at. I'm always telling family about 911 truth,Ron Paul, NWO,Depleted Uranium aka WMD .Sorry about the "tone" you were interpreting from me. Peace Out. NOFX |
|
|
|
| Roxdog | Jan 23 2008, 04:20 PM Post #18 |
|
WOW. |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jan 23 2008, 04:26 PM Post #19 |
|
Rox .Is that sarcasm? MM pretty much called me a OCTer and thats not cool to me anyway,so i gotta say something, how am i supposed to prove i am a 911 truther? |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jan 23 2008, 06:40 PM Post #20 |
|
I apologize for suggesting you might not be a supporter of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Please make an effort to proofread your posts as they are here hopefully to benefit the members as well as guests. A sloppy presentation makes for a sloppy impression. MM |
|
|
|
| NK-44 | Jan 23 2008, 10:49 PM Post #21 |
|
Well layed out, MM. Thanks for this recapitulation of Jowenko's view on WTC 7. |
|
|
|
| exponent | Jan 24 2008, 04:31 AM Post #22 |
|
I was unaware Danny Jowenko had seen the second NIST image you posted MM, I have apparently missed that portion of the video! I will have to rewatch it. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jan 24 2008, 04:32 PM Post #23 |
|
Yes e^n I guess you will. MM |
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Jan 24 2008, 10:12 PM Post #24 |
|
Couldn't get that link to work. What is that date? Chris |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Jan 29 2008, 07:49 PM Post #25 |
|
Based on the filename, I would guess the date is Sept.14, 2006. MM |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic » |
12:07 PM Feb 9
