Danny Jowenko's old interview about the twin towers wtc1 & wtc2

[mistresmojo]

@culturebully3 awww.. well look who's here.. the coward pretending to be a girl.. this is classic this is. What's happened to your widdle website?. It seems to of disappeared?.

[culturebully3]

@mistresmojo what?

[culturebully3]

itwastyped. com - the truth about conspiracy theories

[amirawi]

onzin

[kazoorocketman54]

Danny Jowenko did, however, think WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

[euro944t]

@kazoorocketman54

Danny was snuffed out this year. RIP

[culturebully3]

@kazoorocketman54 yes, but it wasnt an 'inside job'. he believes it was brought down to avoid millions being spent repairing it, when you could just build a new one.

the fact that twin towers WERE brought down by the planes surely suggests it was a terror attack

ItWasTyped. com

[kazoorocketman54]

@culturebully3 Well, when you have planes deliberately going into buildings, it's OBVIOUSLY a "terror attack"; that's not what's being questioned. What's being questioned is who's responsible for the attacks. Danny Jowenko believed WTC7 was a controlled demolition. If he's correct, and the reality of the matter is that WTC7 was intentionally brought down (regardless of the motive for bringing it down), it would greatly contradict the official story.

[culturebully3]

@kazoorocketman54 okay, so if you were told right now that the reason they brought it down is because it would be cost effective to build a new building instead of repair the crappy old one (and they kept that secret because it was more shitty news, which they may as well blame on the terrorists, after all it was BECAUSE of them essentially), would you accept that or still scream conspiracy?

hehe, i think i'm actually onto something there. what do you think?

[kazoorocketman54]

@culturebully3 If you're implying that if they brought it down INTENTIONALLY on the same day of the attack to make it look like it collapsed as a result of fires ignited by the debris coming from the Twin Towers, then yes it would contradict the official story and NIST, and yes, that mere occurrence would be a conspiracy, regardless of whether it was an "inside job" or not.

[kazoorocketman54]

@culturebully3 Furthermore, if this were actually the case, it would seem that any armchair detective with an average IQ could easily tell you it would be pointing more into the direction of an inside job or an attack that was allowed to happen, as opposed to the official story, because those responsible in this "secret" would have had to have known an attack on the Twin Towers was going to happen before they could have made it look like WTC7 collapsed as a result of the attack.

[culturebully3]

@kazoorocketman54 no, you havent understood. what im suggesting is the terror attack was carried out, bringing down the towers, and damaging WTC7 badly. seeing the state of WTC7, and deciding it would be cost effective to rebuild instead of repair, they say fuck it, lets bring down WTC7, its still essentially the terrorists' fault so we can still blame it on them. do you get it now? it may contradict the official story but doesnt necessarily mean theres anything sinister going on

[kazoorocketman54]

@culturebully3 If you mean they intentionally brought it down in a controlled manner, then I wouldn't agree with what you're trying to say, because that would take a lot of prior preparation (so they would've had to have had known of the attack beforehand), but if you mean they just allowed the building to collapse...then that's more plausible, although whether the building would actually collapse like that due to mere fires is what's up for debate in the first place.

[alliemikaylamcneil]

@culturebully3 You forgot one VERY important factor here... in order to just decide to take down a building, for whatever the reason... it can not be accomplished within hours of something such as what happened on 9-11. It takes weeks to plan and proper placement of explosives required to demolish a building. So that right there tells ya there was a conspiracy.

[thisisyourwakeup]

no i have seen the NOVA and National Geographic docs and seen the BBC hit pieces already , i have also read the Popular Mechanics bunk

911 Inside job, RIP Danny Jowenko

[darthclaytor]

@thisisyourwakeup Wow all that TV watching...high level researching.

Again, when did Jowenko contradict himself on the collapse of WTC1 and 2?

[zilverenmist]

@darthclaytor For reason he s now as a Boston Brake Assesination. It is really strange he keeps up they had to use many wires and time to rig the buildings. He never mentioned the possibility you can also use timers and radio signals to set off a blast. Why should he have forgotten this fact?



[thisisyourwakeup]

this is a fake video , I have been studying 911 full time for 15 months and this is the first time i have seen this video

It totally CONTRADICTS what he said before

how funny that its suddenly been produced, wrong tags indeed

[darthclaytor]

@thisisyourwakeup LOL That is your well researched counterpoint to this video?

Of course this is your first time seeing this video. You never looked for it.

What does it contradict? When did he say that WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions?

[darthclaytor]

@thisisyourwakeup

When you say you have been researching 911 for 15 months, what you mean is you have been researching '911 was an inside job'. That is different. That means you have been researching only one half of the topic.

And by researching '911 was an inside job', that means you goto conspiracy websites that have done 'research' already for you, and you just regurgitate it without checking for actual facts or anything like that.

Keep up the sub-par work!

[darthclaytor]

@thisisyourwakeup

Also, here is the FULL video of the documentary. watch?v=Li89cUQNHZ4

[koertje]

@thisisyourwakeup This only shows how FAKE you are.

It is transalted correctly and now suddenly Danny Jowenko is wrong?

Man, you punk dope addicted murderer of your father, childabuser, mentally complete ill,

sure you can't understand why this is the same Danny Jowenko.

[Xendrius]

He ASSUMES that ordinary RDX was used, why don't you tell him about molten metal found flowing beneath all 3 towers, how will his "weight" theory explain that. If weight could crush a skycraper and totally make it disappear, then demolition companies would actually use that method to brib buildings down to such small pieces as on 9/11.

[aftertruth]

@Xendrius

Yeah, obviously he didn't know some facts related with WTC1 and 2. WTC2, the plane didn't really hit in the middle but to the side therefore it's VERY odd that it came straight down and so forth. Basically I think he bought the official story and that's why he tried to convince himself more than others that it was possible for them to set up charges in WTC7 on 9/11 after the 'attack' though he did agree it was really weird. At any rate, I really feel sad that he was killed...

[cypresspuz]

He thinks it's impossible because of the TIME it would take to place the explosives who says you can't do that in America? WTC1 and 2 were completely different from other skycrapers, he is right they use buildings own weight to finish demolitions, but you need explosives to pulverize concrete. He admits WTC7 wich was a regular building CD'd but he never has demolished a building like those 2.

[2210ethan]

Great to see this video up, and interesting as always to see responses from the 'truth' movement. The way they manipulated Jowenko about WTC7 is disgusting.

[noozilander]

@2210ethan How did they manipulate him? He took one look at the collapse of WTC 7 and said, "that is controlled demolition, without a doubt"!

I saw that part of the interview and there was no gun being held to his head.

NIST said it was fire. Perhaps they should have gotten Danny to explain it to them! LOL!

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

They showed him the collapse without audio, and I believe they didn't show the penthouse go first either, though audio is the big one.

They also quote him as an authority whose opinion is fact on 7 and ignore or dismiss what he says about 1 and 2.

I've heard conflicting reports about him revising/retracting/repeating his statements re: WTC7- watch this space...

[noozilander]

@2210ethan He's a demo expert. He can recognise when a building has been controlled in it's descent by demolition. He said "without a doubt". (That means he had no doubt) LOL!

I don't dismiss what he said about the towers either, but his speciality is not top down demo. The demolition of the twin towers was far from conventional too.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

I see. So he's an expert when it comes to 7, but unreliable when it comes to 1 and 2, right?

[noozilander]

@2210ethan No he's very reliable, but simply because he doesn't recognise the method for the demolition process of the towers does not mean they were not demolished. All the physics and evidence points to that conclusion, no matter what lies you hear from NIST and other government agencies.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

So, 'Nist and other government agencies' are all lying?

[noozilander]

@2210ethan When they knowingly tell things which are not true, it is usual to consider what they have said to be lies, yes. That's pretty standard in the cover-up of a crime.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

I see, that's interesting.

How many thousand people is that? Must be quite a few.

[noozilander]

@2210ethan Not necessarily. It just takes a lot of people to be worried about losing their jobs like Kevin Ryan did over at UL for challenging the liars.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

But if the NIST report is false, everyone involved in it is lying, right?

And any journal article about the collapse (there have been hundreds) is a lie too, right?

[noozilander]

@2210ethan You don't understand.

A cover-up has to be believeable, so NIST includes obfuscation and lies and lies of ommission and other dubious methods to conceal the obvious truth.

They include just enough truth so that slack-jawed yokels are convinced that they are right, cos dems da eksperts, cletus. LOL!

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

Right , so then everyone involved in the NIST report was lying, that's what you're saying, they concealed the obvious truth.

So how many people is that?

[noozilander]

@2210ethan Now you're being ignorant. I didn't say the whole lot at NIST were lying, just some like John Gross and Shyam Sunder are concealing truth.

Do try to understand without changing what I say, swallower.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

OK so some are lying, but all the rest (and all other government agencies) are only complicit in the lie, right?

[noozilander]

@2210ethan What about you start thinking for yourself instead of asking questions constantly.

Do you think you might be able to think things through for yourself for a change, or do you constantly rely on others to explain the world to you, swallower?

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

IWhat I'm curious to hear is your thoughts on how many people are involved.

How many people do you think can successfully keep a secret? A group or 3? 10? 270?

[noozilander]

@2210ethan I know. You're incredulous, but remember how you were incredulous about Santa not being real last week? The same thing is true about the Official Story fantasy, liddle fella.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

You didn't answer the question, but either way- if you think hundreds of people can keep a secret then you're a lot more optimistic (naive?) about human nature than most.

Great stuff with the 'santa....liddle fella' as well, it certainly adds to your credibility (as do the space weapons/no planes/reptiloids did it guys)

[noozilander]

@2210ethan Why do you imagine that hundreds need to be involved?

"(as do the space weapons/no planes/reptiloids did it guys)"

Where have I mentioned any of this nonsense? I haven't. You are just getting hysterical in your lame attempt to discredit me, because you don't have a valid argument.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

Well, when you consider that thousands were involved in writing the report, and thousands more have written articles in thousands of industry journals (real ones, like) and you say they're all lying, then surely hundreds of people must be involved, right? If not more?

And by associating with 'truthers' you are tarred with the David Icke brush instantly; you sir- are part of a lunatic fringe.

[noozilander]

@2210ethan The cover-up has involved a number of people, who were clearly concerned about pleasing their paymasters, i.e. the U.S. government, yes.

As to your assertion that hundreds would be involved in the operational aspect of 9/11, I'm still waiting to see why you imagine so many were involved.

Who is David Icke?

Please attempt to remain on topic. You are getting distracted with trying to tar everyone with a single brush, dickhead! A typical tactic of those who cannot address the issue.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

Once again:

You contest that the NIST report is a lie-correct?

Therefore anyone involved in it is either a liar or stood by whilst others lied- either way that makes them complicit. NIST report alone would be well over 1000 people.

But the 'truthers' make all industry journals complicit (except "journals" like Bentham [now is the time for lol-ing] or the JO9/11S), so you're talking about a huge number of people.

[noozilander]

@2210ethan A lie of ommission is still a lie.

Also not everyone has looked for NT like Harrit Jones et al. Most everyone is running scared of their research, because funding and employment disappears rapidly for anyone challenging the Official lie.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

You're aware that Harrit is claiming that 'hundreds and hundreds of tonnes' of conventional explosives were also used, right?

And there's a reason funding and employment disappears; if you act like a nutter you'll be treated like one.

[noozilander]

@2210ethan If you think fire can destroy steel skyscrapers, you're a nutter.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

Not just fire, there were some plane impacts involved as well. However, I suggest you write down your findings and submit them to a journal if it's so obvious to you.

It's about time the 'truth movement got something published that's not on an 'online research' site or in a pay-to-publish vanity journal.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

No you're right, there was no plane in WTC 7 (or 6, 5, 4, the DB building or the church). There was a fair bit of debris though,severely damaging 7, and fires that burned 3 and a half times longer than the building was intended to stand.

Hope this helps.

ps it wasn't me that flagged your last post as spam, just so you know.

[noozilander]

@2210ethan Harrits' paper was peer reviewed. Are all of those scientists nutters too? Why has no-one to date, been able to refute their findings?

All you cowards can do is attack the messenger, because the message frightens you. You need to grow a pair.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

Now you force me to use a pre-teen acronym- OMG!

Harrit's paper was not, repeat NOT peer-reviewed.

He paid to have it published in a junk journal, the editor of which was under no obligation to read it prior to publication, and she still resigned in protest!

Bentham is an absolute joke just so you know, there's a reason he didn't send it to MIT/Oxbridge/Harvard/NCE et cetera.

[noozilander]

@2210ethan It has been peer reviewed by at least nine other scientists. Sorry if that fact is inconvenient for you. Also I've spoken with scientists who privately agree with his findings.

So, use all the teen language you have recently learned, Princess, it changes nothing. LOL!

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

I'm sure you have.

The fact is that for most professionals, Harrit's chain of custody is enough to stop him in his tracks before he has begun. I believe that the consensus among the few who bothered to respond was that the chips were rusted red paint from beams.

Harrit has since embarrassed himself further with his 'hundreds of tonnes!' claim, and all the water experts, theologians and software engineers in the 'truth' movement supporting him won't change his wrongness.

[noozilander]

@2210ethan The NIST story is an artful cover-up. People don't tend to open their mouths and risk their jobs lightly.

[2210ethan]

@noozilander

PS, Kevin Ryan- that's the water expert, right?

[glennirish]

How Can you Deny this 9-11 Plane Crash Video Isn't Fake? check this out please



[perein03]

The only flaw in the CD theory is the wiring of the explosions, he said it would take a year to do it. How did they initiate the collapse at the point of the impact, wouldn't the wiring fail because of the fires?

[jelinto]

@perein03

Wires? Wiring? You're kidding right? You're not suggesting that conspirators with the means to do this only had access to conventional means of demolition? Oh, pleeeeeease!!! Is it an impossibility for every debunker to think outside the box?

The guy in the video says it would take a year to rig the building for demolition. Well shit....Securacom had a subcontract to "upgrade security" 3 years before 9/11. And that "upgrading of security" was at night in almost empty towers.

[MarkB1ngham]

The BIG question is...how much damage can an object made largely from 1/13th inch thick aluminium do to a steel and reinforced concrete steel building?the steel gets progressivly thicker the lower you go re, WTC2 going first, the "squibs seen exploding out 10 20 and 40 floors below the main collapse were emusified concrete or other solid material not fractured steelwork. Have any of Dutch's demo jobs needed several years of decontaminant soil treatment or any of his staff died from demo cancer ?

[Galv140577]

There was a scheduled power cut in the weeks prior to the event & security was compromised for the purpose of fitting new "cables" supposedly for broadband upgrades. At the end of this vid he mentions the "cables" that would have had to be involved for a controlled or planned demolition. The demolition could start from wherever they wanted it to start to make it look however they wanted to make it look. They had to make it look convincing even to this guy. It might take one man a year to rig it.

[punxsutawneybarney]

He ignores many issues: 1) impact damage and fire damage was asymmetrical, but the "collapse" was symmetrical 2) this demolition could not start from the bottom because it was a tall tippy building, 3) explosives escape burning if installed in fireproof containers 4) explaining the squibs as "bolts springing loose" makes no sense 5) it wouldn't take a year to plant explosives in the elevator shafts and 6) the tipping top of WTC2 should have fallen off.

[NanoThermite911]

So what does Danny's interpretation say about the '93 WTC Bombing, which took out an entire quarter section of the building at it's BASE??? The person interviewing him should really have been more knowlegeable and chosen better lines of questioning...

This is one expert's opinion which was formed after reviewing the evidence of a single video shown to him probably no less than an hour before he made these recorded statements...

Think about it logically.

[poorcocoboiboi]

His "proof" that it was not controlled demo — that CD is done from the bottom up — is not proof. (a) True, most CD is from the bottom up — just like WTC 7 — but sometimes it is done from the top down, and there is no reason other than efficiency why this cannot be done more. Furthermore, WTC 1/2 were not implosions, but EXPLOSIONS, and their collapse pattern is inconsistent with conservation of energy so it had to be explosive: there is no feasible alternative whatsoever.

[rshaddock]

ACE Elevator Company had a plenty of time, over a year of man hours, to plant the explosives, in the biggest "elevator modernization" project in history.

[moh2o]

Hmmm, someone who changes their story 180 degrees turnaround. No mention of WTC7.

[TheSkepticalIdealist]

@moh2o

He never changed his story, he said this in the same show about Building 7.

[perkyc123]

Thanks, a simple and straightforward explanation.

Time to move on conspiracists.

[Ne0mega]

@perkyc123

watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

He says WTC 7 was done by a team of professionals, no doubt about it.

[jacobvision]

Thank you, I for one indeed once saw it and tried to find it, but ...