Controlled Demolition Expert and wtc7

Priceless!!

[thumbsup]

the entire world sees how bad the american people are brainwashed,

I do not believe that the man is correct when he says that it was an event done by a group of men planting explosives in the building. I do believe that he does indeed believe he is witnessing a controlled demolition.. But it is nearly impossible to know how much he knew of the actual event, all we see is that he looked at a video on a laptop (seemingly from only one angle, the angle which one cannot see any damage from) and some paperwork that appeared to be maps of the location.. as well as a discussion with the journalist.

He seems a bit puzzled at the end of the video when a mention of fire is brought up 'no explanation' In my view he seems to slightly backstep on his own assertions..

If we only view what happened in the video as the only stuff this guy knew he did not know enough to make a firm analysis of the situation.

If one were to take a cropped portion of the video of the WTC1/2 towers falling, one that doesnt show the damage and fire above, I am sure nearly everyone would believe it was controlled demolition (this is, assuming an imaginary world where nobody knows about the 9/11 attacks and had no opinions formed on the events story) as we have seen many of them on television. But, removing the crop marks and showing a plane smashing into it and the ensuing fire might seriously change their opinion.

I believe it is similar in this case.

It has basially no value right now because we don't know who is this guy.

he works for a controlled demolition company in the netherlands
he didnt even knew this building collapsed on 9/11, it was the 1st time ever he heard about it and saw the video,

a minute before in this clip he said that there was no way in hell that the twin towers was taken down by CD, main reason was because of the fire in the building (you know, explosives arent really fire proof :P ) and the collapse started on the impact point of the plane (WHERE ALL THE FIRE WAS) he has a point here guys

please note that he didnt knew that building WTC7 was burning for 8 hours straight before the collapse, making it impossible to rig it up with explosives

The videos and pictures say that the building (WTC 7) was damaged on 1 side only? this would mean it should have fallen over to 1 side and not straight down?? if no explosives have been used.

He said when he looked at the videos: CD. No question. Very professional work.

But before he had said that wtc 1&2 could not have been CD because of the fire inside the buildings would have damage the explosives.

However, in the end of the video he was told that it was indeed a fire inside wtc 7... and then he was surprised... because of; "They" could taken the building down with CD, although it was a fire in the building.

So, the key point is; It was a VERY professional work.

And a building can be taken down with explosive despite a fire in it.

are you asking? or making assertions?

Other than using 'common sense' are you qualified to make such assertions, if you are indeed making them?

I am thinking something a bit beyond Physics 101 would help in understanding how such complex structures truly fail..

I thought the key point was him saying "no explanation"..

no explanation (other than controlled demolition).


Simply priceless.

but they didnt say that, you put the text bubble to finish his sentance..

dont add stuff !

He didn't say that in those exact words, but that is the meaning of course.
He said that just a couple of minutes ago, and maintains his opinion at the end of the interview.

You just have to look at his face.

:blink: <-- something like this.



(lol, how many times does he ask if that was on September 11th?)

He said "I have no explanation for that."

Which, as far as I know, does not actually translate into "That was a controlled demolition."

The guy is watching a video, how does make his opinion credible?

welp, WTC7 is solved

strike this one up as a fact..


'you just have to look at his face'

'didnt say it in those exact words'

quoting in exact words and paying attention to the context and progression of the video is very important. why watch it if you are gonna put words in someones mouth? might as well just make it up without even looking.

there can be a few interpretations of that video, one of them is that he realizes his fault and no longer believes it was controlled demolition, one is that he believes it was controlled and doesnt know how it was one.. another might be he believes it was controlled and fears who might have done it, etc..etc..etc..

picking out the ONE quote (and misquoting it at that) that applies to a particular theory will do nothing to help a cause if a few moments later the person might be implying (through body language or incomplete sentances) that their previous statement is incorrect.

The way this footage is edited there is no way to know what this man truly meant by his questions of 'it happened on 9/11?' or 'no explanation'

He said when he saw the video of the wtc 7 collapse: This is controlled demolition.
...............................................................................
Mr Jowenko is a controlled demolition expert with years of experience in this area. He didn't know wtc7 came down. He doesn't believe the twin towers had explosives because if there was fire why wouldn't it start immediately. Explosives will burn and otherwise they will be triggered at 320 degrees celsius. The journalist shows him wtc7, interesting.

and his expression changed dramatically when he learned the building had burned for hours

Yes, demolition of a burning building takes some skill. Something to think about, which he did.

So number3 what do you get from this video and what would you like to see or find out to make it any more credible or non-credible ? Also will you do your part in finding out the source of the video or the details about this claimed expert or will you continue to just comment. I'm asking, because I'm interested if you are truly interested or if you don't really care either way.

To clarify:
At the end of the clip the discussion was about WHEN the building was rigged with explosives.
The interviewer aks if it would have been possible to set up the stuff at that very same day.
At that point Jowenko tries to avoid a direct answer and mutters something about how that possibly may have been done with 30 men etc. Then the interviewer confronts him with the fact there were fires in the building, and then he answers (in that case) I have no explanation for that.

To sum it up: he sticks to CD from beginning to end and by saying "I have no explanation for that" he admits explosives must have been placed before 9/11.

(btw, Dutch is my native language)

For all who question credibility.
This interview is part of a 9/11 documentary made by Dutch main stream TV makers "Zembla".
A team of highly acclaimed investigative journalists. Although I admit I never heard of Jowenko before (How should I?), based on their reputation I can assure you they interviewed the best man in this field of expertise available.

http://www.jowenko.nl is his company

I completely agree with the interpretation of Iachi. In fact the reporter confirms that by saying "We discuss all possibilties extendedly with Jowenko. But his conclusion doesn't change, it has been blown up."

The complete show can be watched here: http://player.omroep.nl/?aflID=3273161&md5...b02ccfb786a8df4

A bit of common sense and a bit of physics. The structural integrity of the steel is the weakest at the side where the most damage it (assuming the damage had a significant part in the collapse of WTC7). Hence you expect it to fall to that side.

If i pull your left leg from under your body (i hope the english is correct, but i'm sure you know what i mean), i'm pretty sure you will fall to your left.

Interesting that you now need special "qualifications" in order to understand highschool-level physics.

Parmenides: [salute] [cheers]

The truth foggers will always try to find a way deny and dismiss the truth but this one will convince any REASONIBLE person that might still be in doubt that wtc7 was a CD.

he first states "they must've worked hard" - with 30 or 40 people to set up the demolition charges.. he's perplexed because he's considering: how could a group of CD workers set up demolitions while there's fire everywhere...?

not an "aha! that would explain the collapse" as you seem to be implying..

Jowenko's credentials:
http://www.jowenko.nl/


He is indeed a controlled demolition expert [thumbsup]

Someone contacted Danny Jowenko

"Ik heb net ook persoonlijk met Danny Jowenko gesproken en voor hem is dit verhaal een gesloten boek en hij gaat er niet (nooit) meer op reageren. Danny is trouwens verbaasd over de ophef. Voor hem is er geen reden om te twijfelen aan het officiele verhaal en hij zegt dat hij zich de verslaggeving / nieuwsberichten van destijds nog kan herinneren waaruit bleek dat WTC7 gewoon bewust ‘was nagespongen’, uit voorzorg. Ik heb niet verder gevraagd maar zijn reacties in het gesprek waren voor mijn gevoel in tegenspraak met zijn reacties in de documentaire"

Translation:

"I have just talked personally with Danny Jowenko and for him this story is closed and he's not going to give reactions anymore. Danny is flabbergasted about all the fuss. According to him there is no reason to doubt the official story and he says he can remember the news reports at the time which pointed out that WTC7 was controlled demolished on purpose for safety reasons. I did not ask further about his reactions in this conversation as to me they seem to contradict his reactions in the documentary."

[crylol]

yes yes, lets all put this in our forum sigs now


guy who was an ocean away and didnt even KNOW that the building was part of the WTC complex solves 9/11 ! proves it was an inside job, good going guys

</sarcasm>

Your an idiot if you think it means nothing...

[QUOTE=Roxdog,Sep 14 2006, 03:38 PM] [QUOTE]"WTC7 was controlled demolished on purpose for safety reasons." -Danny Jowenko [/QUOTE]
but.......


is something is being ignored?

WHAT safety concerns?

So he is saying it was brought down in a controlled manner because it would eventually have fallen in an uncontrolled unsafe way?

Isnt this expert refuting the claims that people make that WTC7 would have not fallen down?

How can there be any safety concerns if the building was structurally sound ? How can there be safety concerns if 'fires dont bring down buildings' ?

Seems to me like, if anything, he is proving the whole WTC7 thing as a bunch of hogwash saying that maybe it was "pulled", but only to prevent the inevetible: its eminent collapse due to the fire and structural damage caused by WTC1-2 falling on it

thats the way to do it!

just cut out the part of the quote that refutes your point..



youre becoming a true expert at this deception thing, Karl Rove will be calling you in no time

Oh sorry, "...on purpose". Funny, you can't really say anything to refute what he is saying (it correlates with documented facts).

TEll us more about pancakes.

I am purposely not making an attempt to refute his claim in my recent posts as a means to discuss the issue, if I did as you are and just call folks names and not even mention the claims or points made it would be quite a boring thread..


for my argument, I assume for the sake of argument it was demolished in a planned out controlled explosion merely to debunk the idea that you and many others claim: the building would have never come down in a natural fasion..


this is a common thing to do, it does not mean i believe that this man is correct, imagining he is correct is merely a bridge to bringing light that you people are now ignoring how he refutes one of your main arguments: wtc7 could not have fallen naturally due to damage from the falling towers

"WTC7 was controlled demolished on purpose for safety reasons." -Danny Jowenko

this expert says that the building was taken down for safety purposes, your misquoting him will not hide the fact he is 100% refuting your claims that WTC7 could not possible have come down naturally, dont ignore it! this one folks IS a fact. we got the quote right there to prove it

(show me the documents proving it was a controlled demolition, at this point you are talking about opinions of people who examined video tape and pictures, or quoting official experts who have not yet determined the minutea of how the wtc7 fell down but are 100% sure it fell down as a result of damage sustained by the collapse of WTC1-2)

edit: this thread title should read "Expert makes claim that WTC7 natural collapse possible"

Documents? You want a piece of paper saying it was CD? You are a very silly person.

well seeing as you have no physical evidence proving it was a 'cd' there isnt much left than documents



what is your proof if it is not documents or physical evidence


how can you get facts without real evidence?

you have interpretations and opinions and for you that makes a fact? to me, that is silly

A natural collapse that in its first 100 meters falls faster than the speed of an object in absolute free fall? Conclusion, more kinetic energy is created than potential energy from the mass of the building. Conclusion additional energy source must be applied. Logical explanation a vacuum existed inside the building at the time of collapse. Explosions do create a vacuum, fire does not.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/c-42.htm

I also have to quote Chris Sarns here:

Number3 at least acknowledge the point made in this thread that the "collapse" of 7 WTC looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

scott peterson was convicted without a "document".

there goes your whole argument :P