IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc7 , wtc , danny jowenko , 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 12th January 2007, 06:16 AM   #1
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Is Jowenko Echt Woowoo?

This was posted by a fantasist who imagines that there is a human alive somewhere who would be willing to pay me to post on 911blogger.com (needless to say, if such a philanthropist can be found, I'm at his disposal).
Can it be true that Jowenko really is a loon? I intend to try contacting him by phone. He hasn't responded to e-mails. More to follow...


"The person who made the call was an official 9/11 conspiracy theorist who uses the handle "Jay Ref" at the www.nineeleven.co.uk message forums and has 500 + posts to his name defending the government's BS. Why would he lie about contacting Jowneko? He's on your team, Ron. But go ahead and contact "Jay Ref" to get further corroboration that the call was placed if you don't believe him:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=705&sid...
This is what Jay Ref stated immediately after contacting controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko:
__________________________
Jay Ref
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:59 pm
I just had a nice chat with Mr. Jowenko. He speaks very good english and amazingly enough was in his office this late.
If you don't believe that, then you'll never believe this:
He is still of the firm conviction that WTC7 was a CD...even after he had time to put the event in context. He cited "intelligence operations" that needed to be covered up and does firmly believe in the CT.
You guys win one. You have an actual explosive expert on record. Congrats. You've made a fool out of what sounds like a very nice and accomplished gentleman.
It changes nothing though....you have one gullible expert...
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=23331&sid=4f93ab55d068...
Jay Ref
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:41 pm
NOTE: I expect we will be discussing Jowenko at length over @ JREF. You guys want to come over there and lurk feel free.
I'll give you this much...you've bamboozled someone who should have laughed in your faces.
Poor Mr. Jowenko...he's gonna have some explaining to do when his peers start picking his opinion apart.
-z
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=23346&sid=4f93ab55d068...
__________________________
.
.
.
.
.
Or you can save yourself some time and instead contact Jay Ref at the JREF message board. He's known as "rikzilla" to the OCTers over there. I'm sure you know who he is, Ron. I know for a fact Mark Roberts does:
__________________________
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,088
Posted 14th September 2006, 01:19 PM
[...]
I then called Jowenko Inc posing as a reporter for the Washington Post (my bad, but hey I figured I might get an on-the-record comment) To my amazement I was put right thru to Mr. Jowenko. He's a very nice gentleman who speaks great english. I told him that WTC7 burned extensively and had a gaping 20 story hole in it...I told him just about all I knew of the building from my own research. The fires fed by fuel tanks...the arangement of the columns to accomidate the pre-existing Con-Ed substation....
The guy then went on the record saying that he thinks that "due to the intelligence operations housed in that building it was brought down by a controlled demolition"
That my friends is a direct quote from his mouth to my ear about 5 mins ago!
I'm rather stunned! They picked one off!
-z
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63884
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,088
Posted 14th September 2006, 01:33 PM
Originally Posted by Gravy
"We must let him know that the demolitions experts who were on the scene disagree!'
Gravy...I misrepresented myself to him since I really thought he'd just tell me
he had a first impression that was wrong and has since changed his mind. Now I can't possibly argue too much with him as remember I'm a reporter looking for an on the record comment. He gave it to me. What am I to say now?
I did a bad thing...at least I feel kinda dirty for lying to the guy...please feel free to contact him Gravy. I told him all I could to insure he had context. the fires..the hole...the fuel...the debris strikes...the Con-Ed substation....everything!
I honestly don't know what more I can stay...and I started with a lie for which I'm pretty sorry on retrospect.
-z
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1922478&postcount=10
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,088
Posted 16th September 2006, 07:35 PM
[...]
I found myself feeling sorry for Jowenko towards the end of my short interview of him. He is actually quite adamant that WTC7 was a CD. He had no reservations whatsoever about being put "on the record" by a newspaper reporter.
This was precisely why I did the reporter bit: #1 it gave me access to Danny Jowenko himself. #2 If he told me anything he would know that his words could be made very public.
I expected him to mull this idea of a controversial statement to the press. He didn't. He was very charming,..and quite convincing...
[...]
I expected Jowenko would express dismay that people were passing his reaction on film off as something it wasn't. Instead I found him to be completely taken in by the CTists....so yeah...I'm sorry for him as he seems a nice bloke who now will have to defend an indefensible opinion to his peers. He'll be a laughingstock....or at the least his reputation will suffer mightily.
-z
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1928736&postcount=126
__________________________
Is your buddy "rikzilla" lying, Ronald?
Ron, be a sport and post Jay Ref a.k.a. "rikzilla's" response here about whether or not he made the call to Mr. Jowenko after you contact him.
By the way, Ronald, you didn't answer my "yes" or "no" question about whether or not you've ever been compensated to post at 911Blogger.com. So I'll ask again, have you ever received payment to post here? Yes or no?"

Submitted by stallion4 on Fri, 01/12/2007 - 5:53am.

» edit | reply | 0 points

Maybe Jowenko is Really a Nut


I have never heard of Jay Ref, but if he's the rationalist he claims to be, then I'm forced to conclude that Jowenko is simply an idiot. I still see a huge problem for conspiracy liars. Jowenko, like EVERYONE else in the demolition industry, has stated that the collapses of the Twin Towers look nothing like controlled demolitions. So, you have a guy who tears the heart out of your bogus position, while claiming that an obscure building unknown outside NYC was brought down for purposes that defy explanation.
Your question about my imaginary compensation remains extremely stupid.

Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Fri, 01/12/2007 - 8:09am.



» reply | -3 points
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 06:28 AM   #2
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Frankly i don´t believe in any rumour on 911blogger
until there are confirming, neutral sources, an official
press release or a Video/Soundfile from Jowenko.

Too bad that his companies site does not provide any
press information - so i will take a look if i can find
any non-woowoo source confirming the rumour.

Amazing that the CT´ists only use him as long he
speaks "their language".

ETA: http://www.jowenko.nl/
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 06:31 AM   #3
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Amazing that the CT´ists only use him as long he
speaks "their language".
If he came out against the demolition theory they would call him a shill and discount his words completely.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 06:39 AM   #4
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
If he came out against the demolition theory they would call him a shill and discount his words completely.
How can they praise his statements about WTC7 and
completely ignore his statements on WTC1&2?

One Word ... TWOOF
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 06:53 AM   #5
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,789
The Twoofers will say that someone "got to him" if he changes his mind, no matter how vehemently he repudiates them. Just like they did with that other poor (rule8), I forget his name. The guy who said that "this [comment] has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 06:54 AM   #6
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
The Mystery of Danny Jowenko

Update:

I managed to reach Danny Jowenko. He is a true gentleman, someone whose patience and courtesy makes me regret calling him a woowoo. Sadly, I must report that he believes that the collapse of WTC 7 "looks man-made." He did acknowledge that information obtained from a Dutch documentary formed his opinion initially, but he says that he has received e-mails from Americans on both sides of the issue. He agreed to look at the photos and analysis on debunking911.com and 911myths.com.

I don't know what to think. He agrees that real jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. He regards the remote-controlled drone crap and the laser beams from outer space as lunacy. But, he is stuck on the notion that there were some sort of secret intelligence findings housed in building 7 that "officials" didn't want the public to know about, which accounts for bringing down the building in a manner that harmed no one. He tends to minimize the damage to the building and seemed unaware of the fuel tanks.

So, we have someone who doesn't believe that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy orchestrated the attacks, but who thinks that WTC 7 was destroyed to prevent certain vague information from getting out.

Frankly, I'm gobsmacked .
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 06:59 AM   #7
einsteen
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
A loon, WTF fo you mean ? He is just a cd expert doing it 27 years, check his videos

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,16,1

He is a supporter of the offical story, check his wtc1,2 interview. wtc7 is a total different story.
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 07:01 AM   #8
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
Update:

I managed to reach Danny Jowenko. He is a true gentleman, someone whose patience and courtesy makes me regret calling him a woowoo. Sadly, I must report that he believes that the collapse of WTC 7 "looks man-made." He did acknowledge that information obtained from a Dutch documentary formed his opinion initially, but he says that he has received e-mails from Americans on both sides of the issue. He agreed to look at the photos and analysis on debunking911.com and 911myths.com.

I don't know what to think. He agrees that real jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. He regards the remote-controlled drone crap and the laser beams from outer space as lunacy. But, he is stuck on the notion that there were some sort of secret intelligence findings housed in building 7 that "officials" didn't want the public to know about, which accounts for bringing down the building in a manner that harmed no one. He tends to minimize the damage to the building and seemed unaware of the fuel tanks.

So, we have someone who doesn't believe that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy orchestrated the attacks, but who thinks that WTC 7 was destroyed to prevent certain vague information from getting out.

Frankly, I'm gobsmacked .
It is surprising, but it shows The Power Of The First Impression. He made his mind up, and now he's stuck with it.

The idea that the building was demolished by a hit squad that ran in and planted explosives is silly, but not as silly as the twin towers demoliton theory. It's just possible to believe it and still be remotely sane.

If he were wise, he'd own up and accept that his immediate reaction was wrong. Sadly, the man will be tainted by this, one way or another, for the rest of his career.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 07:01 AM   #9
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Nope ... I didn´t find any reliable source for the rumour
that he still believe in this WTC7/CD humbug. As far i
remember, he refused it - but i don´t remind the source
where i read it.
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 07:18 AM   #10
maccy
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
A loon, WTF fo you mean ? He is just a cd expert doing it 27 years, check his videos

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,16,1

He is a supporter of the offical story, check his wtc1,2 interview. wtc7 is a total different story.
On WTC7 he is only one among many - and from what Ron has to say he doesn't seem to be very familiar with the damage to WTC7 and the extent of the fire.

Once the final WTC7 NIST report comes out, I'm hoping that someone can get him to read it and give his reaction.
maccy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 07:23 AM   #11
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Sad but True

Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Nope ... I didn´t find any reliable source for the rumour
that he still believe in this WTC7/CD humbug. As far i
remember, he refused it - but i don´t remind the source
where i read it.

Oliver, I just had a phone conversation with Jowenko.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 07:25 AM   #12
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
Oliver, I just had a phone conversation with Jowenko.
It took too long to write my post ... and saw it after posting the message.
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 07:50 AM   #13
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Creeping Suspicion

Perhaps some of you have experienced the sort of embarrassment I feel right now. I have been arguing with a clown on 911blogger.com who posts as "stallion-something-or-other." It is increasingly clear that he can't be more than fourteen years old (for his sake, I hope that's true). Jee-sus! I think I need to take a break.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 07:56 AM   #14
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
Perhaps some of you have experienced the sort of embarrassment I feel right now. I have been arguing with a clown on 911blogger.com who posts as "stallion-something-or-other." It is increasingly clear that he can't be more than fourteen years old (for his sake, I hope that's true). Jee-sus! I think I need to take a break.
Maybe you spend less time in blogs. Personally i prefer
to weaken the base instead talking to every teenie who
comes along with the same old stuff - which would drive
me crazy after a pretty short time.
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 07:57 AM   #15
maccy
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,094
The thing that can be even more shocking is when they turn out not to be teenagers. Pdoherty76 is 30, 28th Kingdom is in is 40s I think, Pagan (who has just shown up) is 46, Lyte Trip is 28 and Merc is older (30s I think), Ace Baker (aka Truthseeker1234) is also in his 30s as far as I know and making a living as a musician.

A lot of them have one or more children, and some have wives that haven't left them.
maccy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 07:59 AM   #16
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by maccy View Post
*snip* ...some have wives that haven't left them.
Well, here it is - that´s the perfect explanation why these
people believe in a worldwide conspiracy peace and freedom...
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 08:12 AM   #17
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by maccy View Post
The thing that can be even more shocking is when they turn out not to be teenagers. Pdoherty76 is 30, 28th Kingdom is in is 40s I think, Pagan (who has just shown up) is 46, Lyte Trip is 28 and Merc is older (30s I think), Ace Baker (aka Truthseeker1234) is also in his 30s as far as I know and making a living as a musician.

A lot of them have one or more children, and some have wives that haven't left them.
They claim.... they claim. They all write, and construct arguments, like teenagers, and have world-views that are decidedly juvenile.

For the record: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/BR/Body_and_Rep...staff_list.htm

This link (slightly out of date, but still) shows that I am who I say I am. I'm sure 28k and the others couldn't do the same. Killtown won't even give his name.
volatile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 08:18 AM   #18
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Young at Mind

Originally Posted by maccy View Post
The thing that can be even more shocking is when they turn out not to be teenagers. Pdoherty76 is 30, 28th Kingdom is in is 40s I think, Pagan (who has just shown up) is 46, Lyte Trip is 28 and Merc is older (30s I think), Ace Baker (aka Truthseeker1234) is also in his 30s as far as I know and making a living as a musician.

A lot of them have one or more children, and some have wives that haven't left them.

Judging by their reasoning abilities and syntax, I suspect that many of them are very young. I was momentarily taken aback when "rebel" seemed offended that some of the myths he holds dear were objects of ridicule here. Could you or any other rationalist imagine being so ashamed of an article of faith that the thought of airing it outside a protected circle of true believers would make you cringe? The fantasists sense that their nonsense is indefensible, but their emotional commitment is so great that they can't take the logical next step of abandoning it.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 08:18 AM   #19
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Originally Posted by maccy View Post
The thing that can be even more shocking is when they turn out not to be teenagers. Pdoherty76 is 30, 28th Kingdom is in is 40s I think, Pagan (who has just shown up) is 46, Lyte Trip is 28 and Merc is older (30s I think), Ace Baker (aka Truthseeker1234) is also in his 30s as far as I know and making a living as a musician.

A lot of them have one or more children, and some have wives that haven't left them.
Yet.
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 08:29 AM   #20
Skibum
Graduate Poster
 
Skibum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,659
Originally Posted by mattlodder View Post
They claim.... they claim. They all write, and construct arguments, like teenagers, and have world-views that are decidedly juvenile.

For the record: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/BR/Body_and_Rep...staff_list.htm

This link (slightly out of date, but still) shows that I am who I say I am. I'm sure 28k and the others couldn't do the same. Killtown won't even give his name.

I though John Holmes was dead, turns out he's teaching English and American Literature.

His bio

Dr John Holmes is the author of a monograph on Sexuality, Belief and the Self in the Late Victorian Sonnet-Sequence (Ashgate, forthcoming), as well as various articles on Renaissance and Victorian literary culture. He is particularly interested in sexuality and sexual identity, imperialism and colonial encounters, and the intersection of literature and science. He teaches widely within the nineteenth century, and is the convenor of a module on ‘Nation and Empire’ on the MA in Victorian Literature and Culture.

Spring Term:

Module 4 Week 2
The Fleshly School of Poetry


Skibum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 08:32 AM   #21
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Skibum View Post
I though John Holmes was dead, turns out he's teaching English and American Literature.

His bio

Dr John Holmes is the author of a monograph on Sexuality, Belief and the Self in the Late Victorian Sonnet-Sequence (Ashgate, forthcoming), as well as various articles on Renaissance and Victorian literary culture. He is particularly interested in sexuality and sexual identity, imperialism and colonial encounters, and the intersection of literature and science. He teaches widely within the nineteenth century, and is the convenor of a module on ‘Nation and Empire’ on the MA in Victorian Literature and Culture.

Spring Term:

Module 4 Week 2
The Fleshly School of Poetry



Yeah, porn was getting him down a bit so he did a runner to turgidly suburban England to teach about sexuality (see the connection?) in Victorian literature.

He's gotten rid of the moustache as a disguise, so you probably wouldn't recognise him!
volatile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 08:35 AM   #22
Skibum
Graduate Poster
 
Skibum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,659
I laughed when I read "The Fleshly School of Poetry" part. First read it as fleshy

Last edited by Skibum; 12th January 2007 at 08:38 AM.
Skibum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 08:41 AM   #23
maccy
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
Judging by their reasoning abilities and syntax, I suspect that many of them are very young. I was momentarily taken aback when "rebel" seemed offended that some of the myths he holds dear were objects of ridicule here. Could you or any other rationalist imagine being so ashamed of an article of faith that the thought of airing it outside a protected circle of true believers would make you cringe? The fantasists sense that their nonsense is indefensible, but their emotional commitment is so great that they can't take the logical next step of abandoning it.
I consider it a part of rational discourse that you encourage people to criticise your assumptions and the arguments you make. That's partly why I find the sophistry and the attempted point-scoring so frustrating.

Even if Jowenko considers the evidence and changes his mind it won't matter - the story will then be that he was "got to" by the authorities. Something that somebody says once (often on 9/11 itself, or a few days afterwards) is considered to show the truth no matter what else they say.
maccy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 08:45 AM   #24
maccy
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by mattlodder View Post
They claim.... they claim. They all write, and construct arguments, like teenagers, and have world-views that are decidedly juvenile.
Yes, that's true, but I'm finding it hard to imagine a teenager claiming to be 46, for example. I suspect that some people just don't grow up.
maccy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 08:55 AM   #25
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by maccy View Post
On WTC7 he is only one among many - and from what Ron has to say he doesn't seem to be very familiar with the damage to WTC7 and the extent of the fire.

Once the final WTC7 NIST report comes out, I'm hoping that someone can get him to read it and give his reaction.
I have a feeling his curiosity is piqued enough that he'll eagerly seek it out for himself.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 09:01 AM   #26
bonavada
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,073
when and how?

when and how does jowenko think that the building was prepped for cd? surely not on 9/11? if on the day then, if he is any kind of a rational man, the heavy damage and fires in that building that morning must make him doubt CD??

BV
bonavada is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 09:20 AM   #27
Spins
Muse
 
Spins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 702
Ron here is the thread you seek...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63884

...rikzilla called him soon after the video was made. Since then as far as I'm aware he's stopped talking to conspiracy theorists etc, no doubt because he has been harassed constantly since appearing on that video.

It's possible since he is now privy to all the info on WTC 7 (fires, damage, design compromises etc) he's changed his mind?

__________________
"One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality." - M. Magnan

Last edited by Spins; 12th January 2007 at 09:26 AM.
Spins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 09:24 AM   #28
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
So one solitary demolition contractor in the world believes WTC7 was CD based upon his preconceptions about the US govt and a bit of video without (apparently) any reference to eyewitness reports of severe structural damage, massive fires, sounds of structural movement or the preliminary findings of NIST?

whooooopeeeedoooooo

Well, I'm convinced.

How about you?
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 09:28 AM   #29
einsteen
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
Did you ask them all uk_dave ?
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 09:59 AM   #30
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
Did you ask them all uk_dave ?
No, did you?

You like a bit of physics, right?

Let's say that a group physicists come up with a theory which proves that gravity doesn't exist, and this is adopted as fact by the US govt and is taught in schools and universities and has implications for many aspects of everyday life.

Now, do you have to contact every physicist in the world to obtain their opinions on this new theory, or do you sit back and wait for them to start complaining about this new no-gravity theory?

Let's say the US govt has a policy of denial when it comes to global climate change. Do I have to contact every climate scientist in the world to find out that they disagree with this policy?

http://www.realclimate.org/

I think not
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 10:06 AM   #31
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,811
Back Again!

Lads,

Sorry for the hiatus in posting; back to the hospital as an in patient again due to problems with knee and renewed concerns re: clot. Anyway, they've chucked me out for now.

I for one would be interested in seeing a critical, professional analysis of the WTC7 collapse (or interim NIST findings) by an expert such as our Dutch friend. Has he produced anything as tangible, or is it all just audio?

One of the reasons I ask this is that sometimes it's only when you have to go through the rigorous report/critique phase that you truly analyse your views and come to a final conclusion. Our demolition expert might yet find himself having to revisit his conclusions.....
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 10:10 AM   #32
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
Lads,

Sorry for the hiatus in posting; back to the hospital as an in patient again due to problems with knee and renewed concerns re: clot. Anyway, they've chucked me out for now.

I for one would be interested in seeing a critical, professional analysis of the WTC7 collapse (or interim NIST findings) by an expert such as our Dutch friend. Has he produced anything as tangible, or is it all just audio?

One of the reasons I ask this is that sometimes it's only when you have to go through the rigorous report/critique phase that you truly analyse your views and come to a final conclusion. Our demolition expert might yet find himself having to revisit his conclusions.....
Glad you're back. Was too quiet without you around.
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 10:13 AM   #33
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Look, we've already beaten WTC 7 to death.

You cannot reconcile the building being blown up without simultaneously accusing the FDNY of being part of the plot.

Unless, of course, you think the building was going to burn and fall over, and they blew it up anyway.

The conclusions of a lone demo expert, going by web videos, from thousands of miles away, cannot change that fact.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 12th January 2007 at 10:23 AM. Reason: space... the final frontier
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 10:13 AM   #34
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
Lads,

Sorry for the hiatus in posting; back to the hospital as an in patient again due to problems with knee and renewed concerns re: clot. Anyway, they've chucked me out for now.

I for one would be interested in seeing a critical, professional analysis of the WTC7 collapse (or interim NIST findings) by an expert such as our Dutch friend. Has he produced anything as tangible, or is it all just audio?

One of the reasons I ask this is that sometimes it's only when you have to go through the rigorous report/critique phase that you truly analyse your views and come to a final conclusion. Our demolition expert might yet find himself having to revisit his conclusions.....
That's an excellent suggestion. Asking him to give his opinion on the matter is one thing, but asking him to write proofs and research his position is completely different. It would be especially interesting to see if he started his research in all of the Conspiracy Theory garbage, and later realized that it's all crap.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 10:21 AM   #35
David Wong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,773
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
Update:
I don't know what to think. He agrees that real jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. He regards the remote-controlled drone crap and the laser beams from outer space as lunacy. But, he is stuck on the notion that there were some sort of secret intelligence findings housed in building 7 that "officials" didn't want the public to know about, which accounts for bringing down the building in a manner that harmed no one.
Wait, wait, wait. Did you ask him when exactly he thinks they had time to wire the building? He has to know that project takes months on a building that size.

So they wired the building knowing that 9/11 would happen, knowing it would be their opportunity to blow it up unnoticed?

The implications of that should make it impossible for a rational mind. He can't possibly think they saw the attacks, then rushed in and quickly wired the building to blow. There exists no technology or technique in the world of demolition that would let that be done, in a matter of hours, in the chaos of the event, in a burning building.

It is, literally, insane.

Count me gobsmacked.
David Wong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 12:02 PM   #36
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Here is what I see in all this:

1. he said the collapse "looked man made".
2. he says the reason he believes this is because of the intellgence etc...that was housed inside the building.
3. If buildings have not been brought down by any other means than CD in the past (except 1 or 2 via earth quakes, and those much much shorter), than what else could he say the collapse looked like.

Not like he could say "well, clearly it was brought down by aliens, as opposed to CD" as he only has CD collapses as a visual reference...as do we all. As far as I am concerned, I take his opinion for what it is, an opinion, all be it from an expert, based on his visual observence of said event.

I would like to know (1) has he read the NIST report on WTC7, and (2) if yes he has, then where does he disagree with them?

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 12:47 PM   #37
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
2. he says the reason he believes this is because of the intellgence etc...that was housed inside the building.
Well if that is the reason he believes it was CD, then the question would have to be, what if they didn't house intelligence etc, would you still think it was CD?
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 01:03 PM   #38
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,156
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
Update:

I managed to reach Danny Jowenko. He is a true gentleman, someone whose patience and courtesy makes me regret calling him a woowoo. Sadly, I must report that he believes that the collapse of WTC 7 "looks man-made." He did acknowledge that information obtained from a Dutch documentary formed his opinion initially, but he says that he has received e-mails from Americans on both sides of the issue. He agreed to look at the photos and analysis on debunking911.com and 911myths.com.

I don't know what to think. He agrees that real jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. He regards the remote-controlled drone crap and the laser beams from outer space as lunacy. But, he is stuck on the notion that there were some sort of secret intelligence findings housed in building 7 that "officials" didn't want the public to know about, which accounts for bringing down the building in a manner that harmed no one. He tends to minimize the damage to the building and seemed unaware of the fuel tanks...
(bolding mine)

One of the fun things about being on an aircraft carrier, in communications, with a Top Secret clearance, was that there was always a possibility the ship would be in peril and you'd get to destroy classified material. We'd practice it in drills and war games. Written material would obviously be burned, but as for the equipment? We had these nice big fire axes strategically placed around the radio shack just for that purpose. The idea being: If the ship sinks in international waters, the USA didn't want the Russkies to be able to make any usage out of the comm and crypto gear for reverse engineering. Sadly, we never actually got to whale away at the equipment with fire axes. I would have quite enjoyed that.

Point: If you wish to destroy "secret intelligence findings" housed in a building, wouldn't it be far easier to just go in and surgically remove or destroy it? Sheez! Even if you have to pay off a few security guys to look the other way. What Jowenko is indicating, is that along with the "secret intelligence", Building 7 was also pre-rigged to blow. And then what you do is wait for a convenient terrorist attack in the vicinity, and then, amidst all the confusion, you blow up the building and claim it was collateral damage from all of the other commotion.

Very seldom in science or true skepticism does a thought methodology just stop. A cul-de-sac. End of the line. In reality, the process continues. Yet for so many believers of woo - a statement is made with the implication that no further analysis is required. Beam Weapons: Perfect example. Theorized as the culprit for the collapse. Not necessary to reveal that no such weapons are in existence.

Finally: Destroying a building to eradicate "secret intelligence" within is exceedingly UN-thorough. Very possible that some of it would survive the event, and be recognized for what it is.
ConspiRaider is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 01:19 PM   #39
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by uk_dave View Post
Well if that is the reason he believes it was CD, then the question would have to be, what if they didn't house intelligence etc, would you still think it was CD?
Exactly. This is why, despite him being an expert, by feeling on his opinion of WTC7, is that his expertese is being clouded by his personal suspicions...

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2007, 01:25 PM   #40
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
haha. simply put; it would be easier to rig a bulding with thousands of explosives to destroy at most, 10 floors out of a 47 building that may have "some sort of top-secret-stuff".

than to go out and buy 100 Shredders from Costco/Samsclub and shred those documents (and many shredders are now equiped to render CD'sDVD's useless! We "shred" cd's on a daily basis.) And nothing like a high powered magnet to computer systems to wipe them clean?

let see millions of dollars to make a building look like collateral damage

$10,000 at most to destroy "top secret" documents/equipment/stuff
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.