Danny Jowenko Interview

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!

Pages:
1
2
3

Danny Jowenko Interview; 2006 Interview with Dutch TV News
Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 04:57 PM (3,302 Views)
einsteen	Feb 1 2008, 09:01 AM Post #26
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08	In the beginning of the interview you hear Dan Rather speaking (who almost swallows his tongue) which means that he has also seen the behaviour of the penthouses first Edited by einsteen, Feb 1 2008, 09:03 AM.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Feb 1 2008, 09:18 AM Post #27
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	einsteen Feb 1 2008, 09:01 AM In the beginning of the interview you hear Dan Rather speaking (who almost swallows his tongue) which means that he has also seen the behaviour of the penthouses first Dan Rather, when he first presents the collapse of WTC7, indeed sounds quite incredulous, especially when he notes it's similarity to a controlled demolition. I've often wondered if Dan wasn't discredited later as part of concerns that his prestige as one of the last remaining credible TV news journalists might lead to a serious investigation about 9/11. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35531-2004Sep20.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091901445.html Dan Rather was one of the few remaining people that had enough personal and professional integrity to stand up to the establishment if he had reason to suspect them of wrong doing. I can't think of anyone who might have the cajones to do it now. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Chris Sarns	Feb 1 2008, 12:12 PM Post #28
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	Christian Amanpour Edited by Chris Sarns, Feb 1 2008, 12:32 PM.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Feb 2 2008, 11:46 AM Post #29
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Unbelievably, I'm still getting diehards from JREF claiming that the collapse of WTC7 was not at all symmetrical as would be expected in a controlled demolition. After submitting these composites from collapse videos; WTC7 Symmetrical Collapse View No.1 WTC7 Symmetrical Collapse View No.2 Sample Controlled Demolition Symmetrical Collapse View This is the response I get; From JREFer 16.5 "Well, thanks for posting those pictures that clearly show the collapse was not "symmetrical"! Well done. Welcome to the debunker side!!" Apparently my eyes are failing in my old age. MM Edited by Miragememories, Mar 25 2008, 12:28 PM.
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


NK-44	Feb 2 2008, 11:55 AM Post #30
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	No, apparently they live in their own delusional world.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08


outside	Feb 2 2008, 03:17 PM Post #31
Posts: 44 Group: Members Member #19 Joined: 01/14/08	I don't know why WTC7 is still being debated. There is just no way that building could collapse the way it did. Of course, you need to have some intuition. Apparently, a lot of people don't seem to have that. PULL IT!
Posts: 44 Group: Members Member #19 Joined: 01/14/08


Chris Sarns	Feb 2 2008, 09:34 PM Post #32
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	MM Thanx for the composites, they make the point very well. They can be posted for all to see. Videos are not a viable option for people with dial up or those who are too lazy. Gotta luv those JREFers, when faced with indisputable evidence, they shift to abject denial.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Feb 3 2008, 11:01 AM Post #33
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Here's one more I found. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


thefxr	Feb 28 2008, 08:29 PM Post #34
Posts: 3 Group: Members Member #364 Joined: 02/28/08	great transcript/translation, i am dutch so i know exactly what he is saying
Posts: 3 Group: Members Member #364 Joined: 02/28/08


Miragememories	Feb 29 2008, 02:51 PM Post #35
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	thefxr Feb 28 2008, 08:29 PM great transcript/translation, i am dutch so i know exactly what he is saying Thank you. I have to credit Einsteen's contribution for the original subtitling which I referred to. Hopefully the full transcript will prove to be a useful "cut 'n paste" resource for fellow 9/11 Truthers facing constant disagreement from those who argue against the controlled demolition nature of the WTC7 collapse. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sap-guy	Mar 2 2008, 05:07 PM Post #36
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Miragememories Feb 29 2008, 02:51 PM thefxr Feb 28 2008, 08:29 PM great transcript/translation, i am dutch so i know exactly what he is saying Thank you. I have to credit Einsteen's contribution for the original subtitling which I referred to. Hopefully the full transcript will prove to be a useful "cut 'n paste" resource for fellow 9/11 Truthers facing constant disagreement from those who argue against the controlled demolition nature of the WTC7 collapse. MM I transcribed this myself once, and it's clear that it was the interviewer - not Jowenko - who stated that "But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it" Jowenko clearly - and correctly - disputes this claim, indicating debris by the Verizon ("four-zone") building. Also, why did the interviewer indicate 12 core columns, when there were (as I recall) 25?
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


sap-guy	Mar 2 2008, 05:16 PM Post #37
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Miragememories Feb 2 2008, 11:46 AM Unbelievably, I'm still getting diehards from JREF claiming that the collapse of WTC7 was not at all symmetrical as would be expected in a controlled demolition. MM MM - do you have any thoughts as to why the E Mechanical Penthouse - and its associated roof structure - fell into WTC7 several seconds before the observed global collapse?
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Chris Sarns	Mar 3 2008, 01:00 AM Post #38
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	sap-guy NIST and CTers agree that: Columns 79, 80 and 81 on the east end of the core failed first. [based on the videos] A few seconds later the next row [76, 77 and 78] failed. This is where the 'kink' developed. Afew seconds after that, the rest of the core columns failed simultaneously, followed by the exterior walls. The purpose of the staggered collapse was to clear out a hole near the center of the building so the exterior walls would fall inward. Because of the design, this was done at the east end of the core. which resulted in the east part of the north wall buckling out and creaming 30 West Broadway, and WTC 7 falling a little to the west. Edited by Chris Sarns, Mar 3 2008, 01:01 AM.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


sap-guy	Mar 3 2008, 03:08 AM Post #39
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Chris Sarns Mar 3 2008, 01:00 AM sap-guy NIST and CTers agree that: Columns 79, 80 and 81 on the east end of the core failed first. [based on the videos] A few seconds later the next row [76, 77 and 78] failed. This is where the 'kink' developed. Afew seconds after that, the rest of the core columns failed simultaneously, followed by the exterior walls. The purpose of the staggered collapse was to clear out a hole near the center of the building so the exterior walls would fall inward. Because of the design, this was done at the east end of the core. which resulted in the east part of the north wall buckling out and creaming 30 West Broadway, and WTC 7 falling a little to the west. And yet columns 79,80 and 81 were furthest from the centre of the building. How does this help achieve the purpose you describe? Why is it superior to cutting central columns e.g. 67 to 75 ? And with those 3 columns down some seconds in advance of the bulk of the columns - and the "CD" then progressing westwards -what kept the E wall standing? In any event you seem to be agreeing that the collapse was not totally synchronised as in the "all WTC7 core columns failed simultaneously" claim of most 9/11 CT'ers. This seems to knock a hole in a lot of those arguments. Mind if I quote you on this subject?
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Chris Sarns	Mar 4 2008, 03:40 AM Post #40
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	sap-guy Mar 3 2008, 03:08 AM Chris Sarns Mar 3 2008, 01:00 AM sap-guy NIST and CTers agree that: Columns 79, 80 and 81 on the east end of the core failed first. [based on the videos] A few seconds later the next row [76, 77 and 78] failed. This is where the 'kink' developed. Afew seconds after that, the rest of the core columns failed simultaneously, followed by the exterior walls. The purpose of the staggered collapse was to clear out a hole near the center of the building so the exterior walls would fall inward. Because of the design, this was done at the east end of the core. which resulted in the east part of the north wall buckling out and creaming 30 West Broadway, and WTC 7 falling a little to the west. And yet columns 79,80 and 81 were furthest from the centre of the building. How does this help achieve the purpose you describe? Why is it superior to cutting central columns e.g. 67 to 75 ? And with those 3 columns down some seconds in advance of the bulk of the columns - and the "CD" then progressing westwards -what kept the E wall standing?[1] In any event you seem to be agreeing that the collapse was not totally synchronised as in the "all WTC7 core columns failed simultaneously" claim of most 9/11 CT'ers.[2] This seems to knock a hole in a lot of those arguments.[3] Mind if I quote you on this subject?[4] [1]Every building is unique. Looking at the design, i can see where that might be the best way to drop this building. But i'm not an expert, i can only look at the results and describe what happened. The result was a classic progressive collapse* building implosion. *NIST L-51 [2] Funny you should bring that up, i emailed Richard Gage today and told him about that error in his presentation. ............ Just checked, and i got a Thank You return email. [3] No, the result is the same. [4] Yes you may quote me.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


sap-guy	Mar 4 2008, 06:38 AM Post #41
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Chris Sarns Mar 4 2008, 03:40 AM sap-guy Mar 3 2008, 03:08 AM Chris Sarns Mar 3 2008, 01:00 AM sap-guy NIST and CTers agree that: Columns 79, 80 and 81 on the east end of the core failed first. [based on the videos] A few seconds later the next row [76, 77 and 78] failed. This is where the 'kink' developed. Afew seconds after that, the rest of the core columns failed simultaneously, followed by the exterior walls. The purpose of the staggered collapse was to clear out a hole near the center of the building so the exterior walls would fall inward. Because of the design, this was done at the east end of the core. which resulted in the east part of the north wall buckling out and creaming 30 West Broadway, and WTC 7 falling a little to the west. And yet columns 79,80 and 81 were furthest from the centre of the building. How does this help achieve the purpose you describe? Why is it superior to cutting central columns e.g. 67 to 75 ? And with those 3 columns down some seconds in advance of the bulk of the columns - and the "CD" then progressing westwards -what kept the E wall standing?[1] In any event you seem to be agreeing that the collapse was not totally synchronised as in the "all WTC7 core columns failed simultaneously" claim of most 9/11 CT'ers.[2] This seems to knock a hole in a lot of those arguments.[3] Mind if I quote you on this subject?[4] [1]Every building is unique. Looking at the design, i can see where that might be the best way to drop this building. But i'm not an expert, i can only look at the results and describe what happened. The result was a classic progressive collapse* building implosion. *NIST L-51 [2] Funny you should bring that up, i emailed Richard Gage today and told him about that error in his presentation. ............ Just checked, and i got a Thank You return email. [3] No, the result is the same. [4] Yes you may quote me. You appear to be saying that a linear, stage-by-stage collapse of WTC7's core - spread over several seconds - would result in much the same eventual visible global collapse as a standard "synchronised" CD. Is my interpretation of your statements correct?
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


sap-guy	Mar 4 2008, 11:43 AM Post #42
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	sap-guy Mar 2 2008, 05:07 PM Miragememories Feb 29 2008, 02:51 PM thefxr Feb 28 2008, 08:29 PM great transcript/translation, i am dutch so i know exactly what he is saying Thank you. I have to credit Einsteen's contribution for the original subtitling which I referred to. Hopefully the full transcript will prove to be a useful "cut 'n paste" resource for fellow 9/11 Truthers facing constant disagreement from those who argue against the controlled demolition nature of the WTC7 collapse. MM I transcribed this myself once, and it's clear that it was the interviewer - not Jowenko - who stated that "But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it" Jowenko clearly - and correctly - disputes this claim, indicating debris by the Verizon ("four-zone") building. Also, why did the interviewer indicate 12 core columns, when there were (as I recall) 25? My bolding. Bump for MM
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Miragememories	Mar 4 2008, 01:04 PM Post #43
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sap-guy Mar 4 2008, 11:43 AM sap-guy Mar 2 2008, 05:07 PM Miragememories Feb 29 2008, 02:51 PM thefxr Feb 28 2008, 08:29 PM great transcript/translation, i am dutch so i know exactly what he is saying Thank you. I have to credit Einsteen's contribution for the original subtitling which I referred to. Hopefully the full transcript will prove to be a useful "cut 'n paste" resource for fellow 9/11 Truthers facing constant disagreement from those who argue against the controlled demolition nature of the WTC7 collapse. MM I transcribed this myself once, and it's clear that it was the interviewer - not Jowenko - who stated that "But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it" Jowenko clearly - and correctly - disputes this claim, indicating debris by the Verizon ("four-zone") building. Also, why did the interviewer indicate 12 core columns, when there were (as I recall) 25? My bolding. Bump for MM Sorry I missed your question to me. Regarding the transcription, it was accurate as I could make it given the non-synchronous timing of the subtitles and the fact that I do not speak Dutch. I have never seen a text translation post elsewhere which is why I went to the time and effort to provide one. It's regrettable that your version remained apparently private as others could have benefited from it's public availability. Regarding the core columns, I'm not sure where you get the impression that the interviewer indicates only 12 columns when it can be clearly seen in the NIST diagram he provides to Danny Jowenko that there are at least 25 well marked core columns? MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sap-guy	Mar 5 2008, 02:43 AM Post #44
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Miragememories Mar 4 2008, 01:04 PM Regarding the core columns, I'm not sure where you get the impression that the interviewer indicates only 12 columns when it can be clearly seen in the NIST diagram he provides to Danny Jowenko that there are at least 25 well marked core columns? MM Er, because the interviewer actually says "these 12", indicating the core columns. It's in your transcript and it's one of several examples of the agenda-driven and leading nature of the interviewer's performance.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Miragememories	Mar 5 2008, 10:45 AM Post #45
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sap-guy Mar 5 2008, 02:43 AM Miragememories Mar 4 2008, 01:04 PM Regarding the core columns, I'm not sure where you get the impression that the interviewer indicates only 12 columns when it can be clearly seen in the NIST diagram he provides to Danny Jowenko that there are at least 25 well marked core columns? MM Er, because the interviewer actually says "these 12", indicating the core columns. It's in your transcript and it's one of several examples of the agenda-driven and leading nature of the interviewer's performance. "agenda driven"? Are you really that naive? It was an interview for a news documentary. Of course it was agenda driven but that doesn't mean it was intentionally lying or misleading. The interviewer never said there were only 12 core columns or made any attempt to imply that there were only 12 core columns. He directs Danny's attention to certain core columns at times in an apparent attempt to gain a better understanding of what Danny Jowenko is saying. The diagram was created by NIST and the core columns are clearly shown. There is nothing duplicitous going on the part of the interviewer. I would suggest your reply is "agenda driven". MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sap-guy	Mar 5 2008, 12:01 PM Post #46
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Miragememories Mar 5 2008, 10:45 AM There is nothing duplicitous going on the part of the interviewer. MM 1) The plan you have posted just above is not the one shown to Jowenko. 2) Why did the interviewer state that "But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it." -- incidentally an error in your transcript that has not been corrected. 3) Why did the interviewer state "This heart? These twelve" ? 4) An exchange: 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. Jowenko was right, the interviewer was wrong. Speak to Chris Sarns on this subject. Also look at the damage to 30 W Broadway and The Verizon Building. 5) INTERVIEWER: What I sometimes think, has it maybe to do with insurance? Inadmissible in court. Leading the witness. One of dozens of such examples. No duplicity? Give us all a break eh? I could go on for a long time.... Please correct your transcript regarding the "walk around it" business. Edited by sap-guy, Mar 5 2008, 12:02 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Miragememories	Mar 5 2008, 02:43 PM Post #47
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sap-guy Mar 5 2008, 12:01 PM Miragememories Mar 5 2008, 10:45 AM There is nothing duplicitous going on the part of the interviewer. MM 1) The plan you have posted just above is not the one shown to Jowenko. 2) Why did the interviewer state that "But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it." -- incidentally an error in your transcript that has not been corrected. 3) Why did the interviewer state "This heart? These twelve" ? 4) An exchange: 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. Jowenko was right, the interviewer was wrong. Speak to Chris Sarns on this subject. Also look at the damage to 30 W Broadway and The Verizon Building. 5) INTERVIEWER: What I sometimes think, has it maybe to do with insurance? Inadmissible in court. Leading the witness. One of dozens of such examples. No duplicity? Give us all a break eh? I could go on for a long time.... Please correct your transcript regarding the "walk around it" business. WRONG! Good copy of image; Image extracted from the interview; I only have your word that the interviewer said; "But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it." A word that has lost credibility when you lied about the validity of the NIST diagram that was clearly shown to Jowenko! Regardless, the statement, no matter who made it, is of minor importance. The photograph reveals a debris pile that is remarkably well contained for 47 story, square block collapsed building. Your next point deliberately takes words out of context. 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? The interviewer asks which columns need to be blown up to achieved the observed result, Danny points at the drawing and refers to the indicated area as this heart. There are roughly 12 columns in that area and the interviewer merely adds a number to the area designated by Danny to obtain more clarification from Danny's initial answer. Now we move onto your quote of the exchange that followed. You deliberately omit the complete exchange which reveals the error in your disingenuous argument. Danny mistakes the side of the Verizon Building as the side of WtC7 still standing which of course would suggest no walkaround space. 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. Now you move on the discussion about motive where the interviewer suggests he has thought "maybe insurance." Yes, he's offering a 'possible' motive and Danny is free to agree or suggest whatever motive he feels is a better fit. It's outside of his area of expertise and is nothing more than amateur speculation (especially given than not much earlier, Danny had never heard about the 9/11 collapse of WTC 7), which in the context of news interview would be an acceptable posit. It isn't a courtroom setting, and I'm sure had this question and answer session occurred in a courtroom setting, the lawyer would have spoken accordingly. You make quite a lame case for your side and show no interest in an accurate portrayal of the truth. If Einsteen corrects me on the "walk around reference", I'll correct it. I believe he did the original subtitles. Certainly I won't make corrections on the basis of your dishonest approach in this discussion. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


einsteen	Mar 5 2008, 04:22 PM Post #48
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08	Danny has probably also played Q-Bert. You can indeed interpret it wrong, see this I also did that. Sap-guy, feel free to correct the translation, it has not been peer reviewed... ps. this new forum hangs up my browser Edited by einsteen, Mar 5 2008, 04:23 PM.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08


sap-guy	Mar 5 2008, 04:46 PM Post #49
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	einsteen Mar 5 2008, 04:22 PM Danny has probably also played Q-Bert. You can indeed interpret it wrong, see this I also did that. Sap-guy, feel free to correct the translation, it has not been peer reviewed... ps. this new forum hangs up my browser einsteen - before moving on to MM's other points, could you confirm that it is the interviewer who makes the "you can walk around it" remark? You are Dutch, after all. cheers
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


sap-guy	Mar 5 2008, 05:02 PM Post #50
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Miragememories Mar 5 2008, 02:43 PM Miragememories Mar 5 2008, 10:45 AM WRONG! Good copy of image; Image extracted from the interview; Uh, no. Right. When they were discussing "this heart" i.e. "these 12" (as the interviewer put it) Jowenko was being shown a simple black + white plan of the core layout . Not the colour plan you have posted above. That came later. You appear to be just plain lying, MM. Either that or you haven't studied your own transcript.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3