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

Although this video is still around somewhere it is not properly tagged therefore I put it here, let the discussion start

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Jowenko
• wtc1
• wtc2
• demolition
• fire

[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?.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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 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 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

[culturebully3]

itwastyped. com - the truth about conspiracy theories