The Unspeakable Truth of 9/11 (undeniable facts concerning 911)

Originally posted by slylee
reply to post by Stich2306

 

Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko views building 7 collapse video for the 1st time

What's your thought's on his opinion ?

Should he know better because he is Dutch?
Or should I believe him over everybody else because he’s Dutch?

He is entitled to his opinion. Just like everybody else. If he gives his opinion after just watching the collapse. His guess is as good as yours and mine. Actually I don’t know what he would think now. He was convinced it was CD, so he tried to explain it. When he heard the building was on fire, the explanation got harder. Do you also have an interview after he had time to investigate the collapse? I just wonder if he changed his mind or found an answer to how they did it. Just curious.

And on him being Dutch. I said “almost” everybody. So there you have the acceptation.


[edit on 15-9-2008 by Stich2306]

reply to post by Stich2306

Here's the extended interview -
Extended version of interview w/ Controlled Demo Expert Danny Jowenko confirming that Building 7 was brought down on purpose
It just shocked me this was the reaction of an expert. I wasnt saying he should know better because he's dutch, just should know better because he's an expert.

I can watch it later. 1) Because I’m still at work and 2) I don’t have sound here.

I don’t know if I should be shocked. They showed him the collapse and he thought it looked like CD. We can all agree it looks like it. It’s just not any proof it is. So I’m curious if he did some investigation and still thinks the same way.

As you can see in the first vid you posted. At first he was convinced. But later on, when he thought about the difficulties (the fires for instance), he wasn’t so sure anymore.

If you get somebody off garret, you can get strange reactions.

Actually the problem is that they try to get people of garret to get the reaction they want. I just don’t understand why. Why didn’t they show him the tape, give him a month to make up his mind, and then ask for his opinion.

I will watch it and get back to you.

reply to post by Stich2306


Just done a bit of looking and found this, it's a de site so maybe you can check it is a legit one. But it has audio so you can tell if it's the same guy.

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Originally posted by architect7777
These towers went down because planes full of fuel destroyed the cores and heated the steel sufficient to reach the point of plastic state.

Could i ask what is the temp that steel core's turn to a plastic state? I cannot get my head round what your saying if i'm reading it right? If it pancaked how did it get the force to go all the way to the bottom? The way i see it is, it's like someone severed my head then it crushed through my body to my feet, instead of just flopping to the side. Can u tell me where im going wrong?

Originally posted by slylee
Could i ask what is the temp that steel core's turn to a plastic state? I cannot get my head round what your saying if i'm reading it right?

Plastic deformation or 'plastic state' is a point on the stress/strain graph for steel. Heating the steel makes the steel more pliable, a good place to start researching would be here: en.wikipedia.org...

If it pancaked how did it get the force to go all the way to the bottom? The way i see it is, it's like someone severed my head then it crushed through my body to my feet, instead of just flopping to the side. Can u tell me where im going wrong?

Sure, what you're thinking about are blocks that are mostly around the same density, you are for all intents and purposes, a bag of water with a few more solid bits. The towers were completely different, they had a perimeter wall supporting approx 50% of their weight, and an inner core supporting the other 50% of this, between these two there was between 30 and 60 feet of empty space.

The floors in the WTC connected to the perimeter columns and the core columns, they were the weakest part of the towers with regards to vertical load.

It's hard to explain without using a lot of images and knowing how much you've researched, but i'm sure you can imagine that it doesn't take a gigantic amount of movement to cause these columns to be able to miss each other, or apply uneven force. It doesn't take much of this to result in floors becoming disconnected, or columns punching right through floor slabs. Once this starts to happen on a large scale and enough columns are not connected to columns below, or are deformed enough that they bend significantly, there is nothing to hold up the rest of the mass. The floors are only lightweight structures and are hung off the core and perimeter columns.

If I have done a bad job of explaining it, i'll prepare a longer post with more details, but you should download and read at least "Collapse of the WTC, what did and did not cause it?" (I think that's the right title) by Drs Bazant, Greening and Benson (and someone else I have forgotten!)

I guess my first question to him, would be...

"During your career demolishing buildings, do you often have the buildings you are collapsing fall to one side and clobber other buildings on the way down?"

Because the video evidence shows WTC 7 tilting to the south as it fell, and 30 West Broadway had to be demolished because of the damage it suffered when parts of WTC 7 hit it.

Ok, I have listened to it.

First to say, according to his opinion the WTC 1 & 2 collapsed because of the plane damage and resulting fires.

Further, I could do some background check on him if he has ever done anything outside of the Netherlands. Because our buildings just aren’t that high.

What I make out of it, he really didn’t have any information. He mentions a couple of times that he doesn’t have any information about the architecture, the damage or the fires. Actually they had to tell him the building was damaged and he didn’t know the building was on fire.

The question was if it is possible to bring that building down in a couple of hours. And to his opinion that is possible. When you only look at the pictures that is. There had to be a team of experts, of about 30 or 40 people, that knew exactly what they were doing. But when he talks about this, he still thinks the building was not on fire.

He doesn’t really talk about the possibility of a cover up. How the experts got there or who had to be involved..

There also was a strange line of thought. According to him, the building could not have collapsed by fire alone. He also thought it would be a good possibility that Silverstein wanted the building to be demolished. The steel frame had to be replaced because of the fire, and the price would be to high. The problem is, if the building can not collapse because of fire. Why should the steel frame be replaced?

In the phone call he doesn’t really say anything. He still stands behind his opinion, but he doesn’t say if he has done any research.

As for the site. My German is not so good, so I can’t really tell you anything about it. Sorry.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I guess my first question to him, would be...

"During your career demolishing buildings, do you often have the buildings you are collapsing fall to one side and clobber other buildings on the way down?"

Because the video evidence shows WTC 7 tilting to the south as it fell, and 30 West Broadway had to be demolished because of the damage it suffered when parts of WTC 7 hit it.

They asked him to give his opinion based on 1 or a couple of vids of the collapse. They don't show what they let him watch.

It first he thought parts of the building were still standing, so he didn’t really have a good view. I think it’s strange that any experts would give his opinion based on so little information.

reply to post by Stich2306

It first he thought parts of the building were still standing, so he didn’t really have a good view. I think it’s strange that any experts would give his opinion based on so little information.

True, but its par for the course for a "toofer" to use this guy as "proof". I mean, those of us on the VRW9/11CC can post all the interviews by controlled demolition experts here in the states that say there is NO way that WTC7 was a CD, but the toofers will take this guy's word over them every time. Sad isnt it?

Indeed it is. Although I don’t want to call them sad just jet. I just started posting and don’t want to be in anyone’s enemybox right away.

I try to understand why people can be so persistent in their points of view. If your sick you go to a doctor. If you disagree whit his findings you go to another one. But if you’ve visited a hundred and you still disagree, you just don’t want to hear the truth.

Off course there are people saying it was a CD, even experts. You can always find someone who will agree whit you. But if 99% says it wasn’t CD, they are probably right.

In stet of trying to find real solid proof. All I see is the same debate over and over again. And in the end nothing is going to happen.

Personally I believe it was an inside job.
I mean it at the very least deserves a proper investigation.

Check this site out for some interesting points about 9/11.

www.911proof.com...

It is almost certain that 9/11 was an inside job, yes they had the patsies primed and ready. All the minor players bet it those alleged terrorists, those who planted bombs etc. will now be all dead the same for the pasengers on the planes and I dont mean by hitting the buildings.

What one should do is go to the end of the story and work back to the front. This event was organised to happen so there would be an excuse to go into Iraq and then Iran. The question is how do you get the nation and the armmed forces to go for it. Well you do what all others have done, you stage an event, people end up dead and then you blame the people of the country you already plan to invade.

Whi is behind it, who has everything to gain, well we can start wit Israel and the Jews, then you have individual persons making billions out of the eevnt, then there are the arms manufacturers and then you have the oil companies. All have something to gain from such an event and that is exactly what has happened.

Americans have murdered their fellow Americans, why that should be a suprise to anyone is starnge given the history of the US. More Americans have died at theri own hands than any other war or reason. kenedy was killed beczause he did not wanty the Vietnam war, but others did. Men, Women, and Children were shot gassed and Burnt at Waco, that event was not committed by terrrorists it was done by your own law enforcement agencies. the only difference between Waco and 9/11 is the scale.

Many of the American people just cannot accept that their own people would not be capable of such a thing yet again why. Look at American history it is replete with such events. When one accepts that your Goverment is capable and history proves me correct then it will be easier to accept it. For most the thought that some Muslim men did it salves their concience they can sleep at night. But how dose one sleep when you know the people who Govern you have just murdered over 3k of your fellow citizens and all just to wage a war for profit, greed and looking after the Israelis.

The concept is most unpalatable but it is the truth non the less. the greatest threat to any nation is its own leaders, just because we have been conditioned to believe we are the good guys dose not mean we are not capable of evil acts. The sooner one realise that the better, and right now in the US, whilst people loose their jobs, homes and everything else trillions are spent on illegal wars. While people are told there is no health care billions are spent every day in Iraq to maim and kill. So once you realise that the Goverment and its enforcement agencies are not there for your benefit it makes everything much clearer.