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 (3,295 Views)
Miragememories	Mar 5 2008, 05:40 PM Post #51
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sap-guy Mar 5 2008, 05:02 PM 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. Your response is just plain lame. sap-guy 1) The plan you have posted just above is not the one shown to Jowenko. How long an interview do you think it was? The NIST diagram I posted was shown to Danny Jowenko during the interview which is the important point. I inserted at the top of the post to establish that it was part of the important material made available to Danny Jowenko and I later inserted it at the point in the interview where he is clearly looking at it. I also show this b&w diagram when it appears in the interview. I wasn't aware that you were specifically referring to that one. The main core columns are all shown. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sap-guy	Mar 6 2008, 02:03 AM Post #52
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	We were discussing the erroneous comments by the interviewer regarding "this heart" and "these 12" (core columns). Obviously the debate was about the plan being shown to Jowenko at that time. It was the plain one, as is crystal clear from the video. And your transcript still contains a blatant error in that it was the interviewer who made the "walk around it" claim. Jowenko clearly disputes this claim. This has been pointed out to you a number of times now. That you should insist on retaining this speaks volumes for your lack of integrity and your overwhelming desire to believe.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


einsteen	Mar 6 2008, 06:38 AM Post #53
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08	S-G & MM, Yes that's true, I manually added these subtitles with a subtitle text file which was a hell of a job and sometimes they are out of sync (and I'm also not perfect in English), the whole point is that (that's my interpretation): The interviewer wants to convince Jowenko how clean the collapse was, Jowenko says that it wasn't really clean and mentions a picture he has seen. The interviewer shows the picture and his interpretation was that the wall of the verizon building [at that time I thought he said vierzone which means 4-zone] was a part of wtc7 (see first image I posted), the interviewer corrected Jowenko by pointing out it was a part of the verizon building (optical illusion, perspective, see 2nd image). The interviewer indeed says "but you can walk around it" to convince Jowenko again that it was very clean and complete. I don't see how this changes Jowenko's opinion, in spite of the fact that he says it was not very clean he still says it was a CD. And let's be fair, if you look at it and compare it with the known demolition movies it is very clear.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Mar 6 2008, 08:11 AM Post #54
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	einsteen Mar 6 2008, 06:38 AM S-G & MM, Yes that's true, I manually added these subtitles with a subtitle text file which was a hell of a job and sometimes they are out of sync (and I'm also not perfect in English), the whole point is that (that's my interpretation): The interviewer wants to convince Jowenko how clean the collapse was, Jowenko says that it wasn't really clean and mentions a picture he has seen. The interviewer shows the picture and his interpretation was that the wall of the verizon building [at that time I thought he said vierzone which means 4-zone] was a part of wtc7 (see first image I posted), the interviewer corrected Jowenko by pointing out it was a part of the verizon building (optical illusion, perspective, see 2nd image). The interviewer indeed says "but you can walk around it" to convince Jowenko again that it was very clean and complete. I don't see how this changes Jowenko's opinion, in spite of the fact that he says it was not very clean he still says it was a CD. And let's be fair, if you look at it and compare it with the known demolition movies it is very clear. Thank you for the clarification Einsteen. I will correct my post. Sap-guy's remarks make it plainly clear that he only wishes to attack and not listen. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Miragememories	Mar 6 2008, 08:51 AM Post #55
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sap-guy Mar 6 2008, 02:03 AM We were discussing the erroneous comments by the interviewer regarding "this heart" and "these 12" (core columns). Obviously the debate was about the plan being shown to Jowenko at that time. It was the plain one, as is crystal clear from the video. And your transcript still contains a blatant error in that it was the interviewer who made the "walk around it" claim. Jowenko clearly disputes this claim. This has been pointed out to you a number of times now. That you should insist on retaining this speaks volumes for your lack of integrity and your overwhelming desire to believe. You have not proven, or even presented a case for erroneous arguments by the interviewer. As I've already pointed out and you choose to ignore, it was Danny Jowenko that used the term "heart" and the interviewer was merely asking for clarification when he basically asked if the heart was represented by a particular group of core columns. This is quite reasonable given the interviewer can more easily observe what Danny is pointing out, then can the single camera person who is trying to view Danny and the focus of his attention all at the same time. I edit this stuff for a living and I can assure you there is nothing nefarious going on. 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 was shown 'at least' two WTC 7 floor plans, both of which show the core columns. I've now corrected the "walk around" statement thanks to the translation clarification from Einsteen. There was no dispute from Danny once he realized his misunderstanding about the Verizon Building. In the WTC 7 collapse photo he was shown, it's very easy to see an optical illusion whereby the wall of the Verizon Building closest to the WTC 7 appears to be the wall of WTC 7 still standing and thus indicating no clear path on that side. Einsteen nicely illustrates that illusion (see below), but you continue to totally ignore the debunking of your point! The way Danny Jowenko initially viewed the photograph. The way Danny Jowenko viewed the photograph after his error was pointed out to him by the interviewer. Again I have to say that the person lacking integrity in this discussion is yourself Sap-guy! We honestly attempt to reply to your questions and you simply don't respond to the explanations but continue to attack as if nothing has been said. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sap-guy	Mar 6 2008, 05:08 PM Post #56
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Miragememories Mar 6 2008, 08:51 AM sap-guy Mar 6 2008, 02:03 AM We were discussing the erroneous comments by the interviewer regarding "this heart" and "these 12" (core columns). Obviously the debate was about the plan being shown to Jowenko at that time. It was the plain one, as is crystal clear from the video. And your transcript still contains a blatant error in that it was the interviewer who made the "walk around it" claim. Jowenko clearly disputes this claim. This has been pointed out to you a number of times now. That you should insist on retaining this speaks volumes for your lack of integrity and your overwhelming desire to believe. You have not proven, or even presented a case for erroneous arguments by the interviewer. As I've already pointed out and you choose to ignore, it was Danny Jowenko that used the term "heart" and the interviewer was merely asking for clarification when he basically asked if the heart was represented by a particular group of core columns. This is quite reasonable given the interviewer can more easily observe what Danny is pointing out, then can the single camera person who is trying to view Danny and the focus of his attention all at the same time. I edit this stuff for a living and I can assure you there is nothing nefarious going on. 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 was shown 'at least' two WTC 7 floor plans, both of which show the core columns. I've now corrected the "walk around" statement thanks to the translation clarification from Einsteen. There was no dispute from Danny once he realized his misunderstanding about the Verizon Building. In the WTC 7 collapse photo he was shown, it's very easy to see an optical illusion whereby the wall of the Verizon Building closest to the WTC 7 appears to be the wall of WTC 7 still standing and thus indicating no clear path on that side. Einsteen nicely illustrates that illusion (see below), but you continue to totally ignore the debunking of your point! ... Again I have to say that the person lacking integrity in this discussion is yourself Sap-guy! We honestly attempt to reply to your questions and you simply don't respond to the explanations but continue to attack as if nothing has been said. MM The interviewer stated "these 12" when, in fact, there were double that. Fact. I have never disputed that Jowenko used the term "this heart". I don't know why you raise this point. I only mentioned the phrase to locate the point in the video where Jowenko was shown a b+w plan of WTC7, rather than the colour+annotated plan you presented. You are moving goalposts here. It was never possible to walk around the WTC7 debris pile. Massive WTC7 debris was leaning against the Verizon building. You know this. It's well photographed and documented and I have seen you discussing this over on the old LC forum. Why deny it? And large chunks of the E wall of WTC7 were hanging off 30 W Broadway to the north. In this respect the interviewer either lied or was massively ignorant of the facts. Why you choose to hide behind lines drawn on overhead photos escapes me. But it's nice to see you have changed your transcript in the face of unavoidable facts. Edited by sap-guy, Mar 6 2008, 05:09 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Miragememories	Mar 7 2008, 12:05 PM Post #57
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sap-guy Mar 6 2008, 05:08 PM Miragememories Mar 6 2008, 08:51 AM sap-guy Mar 6 2008, 02:03 AM We were discussing the erroneous comments by the interviewer regarding "this heart" and "these 12" (core columns). Obviously the debate was about the plan being shown to Jowenko at that time. It was the plain one, as is crystal clear from the video. And your transcript still contains a blatant error in that it was the interviewer who made the "walk around it" claim. Jowenko clearly disputes this claim. This has been pointed out to you a number of times now. That you should insist on retaining this speaks volumes for your lack of integrity and your overwhelming desire to believe. You have not proven, or even presented a case for erroneous arguments by the interviewer. As I've already pointed out and you choose to ignore, it was Danny Jowenko that used the term "heart" and the interviewer was merely asking for clarification when he basically asked if the heart was represented by a particular group of core columns. This is quite reasonable given the interviewer can more easily observe what Danny is pointing out, then can the single camera person who is trying to view Danny and the focus of his attention all at the same time. I edit this stuff for a living and I can assure you there is nothing nefarious going on. 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 was shown 'at least' two WTC 7 floor plans, both of which show the core columns. I've now corrected the "walk around" statement thanks to the translation clarification from Einsteen. There was no dispute from Danny once he realized his misunderstanding about the Verizon Building. In the WTC 7 collapse photo he was shown, it's very easy to see an optical illusion whereby the wall of the Verizon Building closest to the WTC 7 appears to be the wall of WTC 7 still standing and thus indicating no clear path on that side. Einsteen nicely illustrates that illusion (see below), but you continue to totally ignore the debunking of your point! ... Again I have to say that the person lacking integrity in this discussion is yourself Sap-guy! We honestly attempt to reply to your questions and you simply don't respond to the explanations but continue to attack as if nothing has been said. MM The interviewer stated "these 12" when, in fact, there were double that. Fact. I have never disputed that Jowenko used the term "this heart". I don't know why you raise this point. I only mentioned the phrase to locate the point in the video where Jowenko was shown a b+w plan of WTC7, rather than the colour+annotated plan you presented. You are moving goalposts here. It was never possible to walk around the WTC7 debris pile. Massive WTC7 debris was leaning against the Verizon building. You know this. It's well photographed and documented and I have seen you discussing this over on the old LC forum. Why deny it? And large chunks of the E wall of WTC7 were hanging off 30 W Broadway to the north. In this respect the interviewer either lied or was massively ignorant of the facts. Why you choose to hide behind lines drawn on overhead photos escapes me. But it's nice to see you have changed your transcript in the face of unavoidable facts. You appear to have a fondness for distortion. When Danny Jowenko referred to an area of core columns as the "heart" how is it that you conclude that he specifically means 24 core columns and not the 12 the interviewer refers to? The interviewer's 12 core columns sounds like a reasonable number to represent the core's heart to me. Again, Danny initially indicates the core columns "heart" and the interviewer merely points out the 12 as a means of seeking Danny's clarification for what what was not easily seen by the viewer. Your choice of 24 core columns sounds more like what would be considered the core's body. You make such a major 'to do' about nothing in your constant attention to whether you could walk around the WTC 7 debris pile. The interviewer said you could walk around. He didn't say you wouldn't find debris on the path. He was using the photograph that he showed to Danny Jowenko and was not hiding sources of information. When I look at that photo, it certainly looks to me like you can walk around the major debris pile. I'm sure the interviewer was never afforded the opportunity to see it firsthand. You are just quibbling and exaggerating, in a feeble attempt to discredit the validity of the interview. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


sap-guy	Mar 7 2008, 03:56 PM Post #58
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08	Miragememories Mar 7 2008, 12:05 PM When I look at that photo, it certainly looks to me like you can walk around the major debris pile. I'm sure the interviewer was never afforded the opportunity to see it firsthand. You are just quibbling and exaggerating, in a feeble attempt to discredit the validity of the interview. MM So - according to you - it's OK to make an unequivocal statement based on the misinterpretation of a single photograph? Was there no obligation on the part of the interviewer to research this issue before presenting it to Jowenko as fact and slapping it into a documentary? "But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it. " In fact the interviewer was wrong. You could not walk around it. Is this ignorance of the facts or is it deliberate deception? Please explain.
Posts: 152 Group: Skeptics Member #133 Joined: 01/19/08


Miragememories	Mar 7 2008, 06:45 PM Post #59
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	sap-guy Mar 7 2008, 03:56 PM Miragememories Mar 7 2008, 12:05 PM When I look at that photo, it certainly looks to me like you can walk around the major debris pile. I'm sure the interviewer was never afforded the opportunity to see it firsthand. You are just quibbling and exaggerating, in a feeble attempt to discredit the validity of the interview. MM sap-guy So - according to you - it's OK to make an unequivocal statement based on the misinterpretation of a single photograph? Was there no obligation on the part of the interviewer to research this issue before presenting it to Jowenko as fact and slapping it into a documentary? "But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it. " In fact the interviewer was wrong. You could not walk around it. Is this ignorance of the facts or is it deliberate deception? Please explain. That's it? That's your best shot? What happened to you could go 'on and on' about all the tricks the interviewer was playing on Danny Jowenko? It now comes down to them both looking at the same photograph and the interviewer stating he believes there is a clear path around the debris pile and you objecting because there was known debris on parts of it. Well the interviewer based his comment on the photograph in hand, and it certainly appeared to me that you could walk around that debris site. Even FEMA acknowledged the relatively small spread to the WTC7 debris pile. At any rate, the photo showed the complete debris pile and evidently, clear path or not, it was not large enough to even remotely alter Danny Jowenko's opinion that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition! So if you've got an argument to make sap-guy I suggest you finally make it and quit wasting our time while you "piss into the wind!" MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


einsteen	Apr 10 2008, 07:52 AM Post #60
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08	I was googling a little bit and found this http://www.ae911truth.info/misinfo/aeppt97/051.html It is really amazing that complete domains are registered attempting to 'correct' the so-called CT'ers view.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Apr 10 2008, 08:56 AM Post #61
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	einsteen Apr 10 2008, 07:52 AM I was googling a little bit and found this http://www.ae911truth.info/misinfo/aeppt97/051.html It is really amazing that complete domains are registered attempting to 'correct' the so-called CT'ers view. As I've said before, if 9/11 was an inside job, and I certainly believe it was, those responsible had very deep pockets. Not only would it be easily affordable, it would be a natural defensive response for them to utilize the internet to undermine any groundswell of opposition to the Official Story. It would be very easy to recruit innocent internet propagandists under the guise of patriotism and the additional encouragement of financial rewards. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Roxdog	Apr 10 2008, 11:23 AM Post #62
Posts: 597 Group: Members Member #80 Joined: 01/16/08	Good lord, there are so many items posted my browser goes berserk when I try to view this thread....sheesh...
Posts: 597 Group: Members Member #80 Joined: 01/16/08


Roxdog	Apr 10 2008, 11:25 AM Post #63
Posts: 597 Group: Members Member #80 Joined: 01/16/08	noeffects Jan 23 2008, 04:26 PM 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? Nah, my "WOW" was in regards to the first post. Welcome. You don't have to prove anything to me...
Posts: 597 Group: Members Member #80 Joined: 01/16/08


einsteen	Apr 10 2008, 02:39 PM Post #64
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08	Technically this forum is very bad, it doesn't load very well.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #110 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Jun 27 2008, 11:03 AM Post #65
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	I wonder if NIST, or the BBC creators of the upcoming doc on WTC 7, bothered to re-interview Danny Jowenko?? Duh. Danny has played no small part in undermining the Official Story re:WTC 7, and ignoring his professional, well-publicized opinion, would be a serious lowering of investigative standards. The point being, how unaware do they believe the public to be? MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


thefxr	Jul 12 2008, 04:42 PM Post #66
Posts: 3 Group: Members Member #364 Joined: 02/28/08	some work of D jowenko. vijverdal Edited by thefxr, Jul 12 2008, 04:42 PM.
Posts: 3 Group: Members Member #364 Joined: 02/28/08


Miragememories	Jul 13 2008, 10:31 AM Post #67
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	vijverdal "some work of D jowenko." http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=UqUgIuWW3pM Thank you for the link vijverdal. It's an interesting example of a minimalist approach to the controlled demolition of a sprawling multi-story building. Danny Jowenko's engineered 'one-two' punch created a total time for the audible explosions of approximately 1.5 seconds and .1 seconds respectively. It's note worthy, how well the blast sounds blended in with the explosive sounds made by the building as it imploded. It appeared that in this 3-wing, Y-shaped, 8-9 story building, that Jowenko's 'step 1', was to first blow out most, or all of the core. The building remained stable until 'step 2', where a second set of rapid explosions, approximately 4 seconds later took out the column support for the 3 wings. One wonders if WTC 7 could have witnessed a version of controlled demolition similar to the above example? Following his very late order to leave the 23rd floor OEM, could the 'step-1' part of a core destruction been the explosion Barry Jennings witnessed when he arrived at the 6th floor stairwell landing? Some still argue that Barry Jennings lied or was confused, and that the destruction he witnessed was from WTC 2's falling debris. If you study the WTC area layout, it's quite obvious that the WTC 7 6th floor, concrete and steel stairwells were too distant, and too well shielded, to be reached by any significant debris from WTC 2. Later that day 'step 2' would remove the few remaining columns that were keeping WTC7 from collapsing. No doubt a 47-story building in this state would be expected to "creak and groan", bulge, and generally give off bad vibes. MM
Posts: 759 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3