The source of the quote was posted here by road66:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...dpost&p=7233775

"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."

this is being misunderstood all over the forum today..


Danny Jowenko's comment (not a direct quote) was mentioned by whomever wrote the block of text as: "there is no reason to doubt the official story"

People are quoting the next line which was attributed to him as something he said, which is not entirely true as it is something he mentions he heard of,. not a belief:

"he says he can remember the news reports at the time which pointed out that WTC7 was controlled demolished on purpose for safety reasons."

read this one carefully a few times folks and dont just hunt for what youre looking for, this quote is something relating to a question that was likely asked by the person who created the block of text above.. He says he recalls news stories about controlled demolitions.

In no way does the above block of text imply that Mr Jowenko himself actually said he believed that WTC7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons.

It says, again, "he can remember the news reports at the time which pointed out that WTC7 was controlled demolished on purpose for safety reasons"

This is not him saying it, it is him confirming that he heard about a claim.

Just in as much as someone might confirm "Yes, I heard the story that superman could jump three hundred feet high" is not a confirmation that a person really believes that.

It might be possible to quote the person as saying "superman could jump three hundred feet high" but that would be incorrect and false, as the REAL quote the person is merely confirming they heard of a report and makes no hint as to whether it is actually a belief of theirs.

"I did not ask further about his reactions in this conversation as to me they seem to contradict his reactions in the documentary."

At this, I believe the validity/worth of the video that is being spread around comes into play. The man is attributed as saying "there is no reason to doubt the official story" which refutes what he said in the video.

"they seem to contradict his reactions in the documentary."

He seems to have come to his senses.


Do not quote this out of context anymore. The video in question is not suitable for research as the subject making the claims in the video now refutes those claims.


Demolition expert Danny Jowenko is attributed with the comment "there is no reason to doubt the official story"

but... if he heard the reports of building 7 being pulled, then why was he so surprised that a building was pulled on 9/11 in that interview?

I seen the documentary, I have seen his face, he was stunned. He could not believe what the interview said. He asked 3 or 4 times if this really was on 9/11. Why was he so stunned if he already heard reports that they had done such a thing at 9/11?

If you see on the news that superman can jump 300 ft high, would you be surprised if you saw someone jump 300 ft high and then later the interviewer asks: do you know this is superman?

Funny how you accuse people of quoting him out of context while at the same time you go ahead and twist Jowenko's own words.

How is this implying that he agrees with the official story? If he agrees with the official story then why is he pointing out "news reports" about controlled demolition? Here i thought the official story was exactly that it wasn't controlled demolition. <_<

Now there are people here who actually understand Dutch (such as myself) and i've seen the entire interview. Jowenko is absolutely convinced that 7 WTC has been brought down. The interviewer discusses some other possibilities, but he refutes all of them. This guy is not a conspiracy theorist and he does not believe the government is behind it, he suspects that Silverstein had it blown up for insurance money and because it would have cost to much to repair the building. He actually goes to great lengths to explain how it would be possible to bring the building down within 7 hours.

"there is no reason to doubt the official story" that is how he implies he agrees with the official story, he says it directly


the mention in the block of text that mentions his recollection of a news story was likely a question asked by the journalist (if there was one), it is very doubtful he pointed it out without being asked about it, and even if he DID point it out himself he is merely confirming 'yes, i have heard of this story' yet it still stands that he did say "there is no reason to doubt the official story"

the official story is that it wasnt a controlled demolition, he confirms that he heard the unofficial story in his comment but by no means says that he agrees with the story it was a controlled demolition: he explicitly says "there is no reason to doubt the official story"


but you are looking at an interview which preceeded the comments discussed here, he might have realized his mistake, he might have been convinced in the interview but now he clearly does NOT believe it was a controlled demolition because he says "there is no reason to doubt the official story"

no matter what he says in the past it is refuted by what he says now: "there is no reason to doubt the official story"

quoting his acceptance that he did in fact hear ABOUT something is not a confirmation that he agreed that the thing he heard about was true.. he says "there is no reason to doubt the official story"

And here you do exactly what you accuse others off, you put his words out of context. Even worse you then twist them to your liking. It's so actually so abundant in your case that there is no point in arguing anymore. You'll just twist till everyone is just as confused about what the actual arguement is as you are.

And yet he DID point it out without being asked. He asks the interviewer to check old news broadcasts. The full interview is online, but it's only in Dutch.

http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/vara...911extra-hi.asf

What stands out is that he continues to argue that it is controlled demolition and that he does not want to believe in conspiracies. He repeats that it is controlled demolition about some 50 times (no exaggeration here) even after represented with the official theories and the official reports. And then you take 1 (unverified?) statement, which is pure hearsay, from him about no reason to doubt to official story, though in nearly the same breath he again mentions controlled demolition and you conclude that he doesn't think it is controlled demolition?
Let me ask you this, are you insane?

I don't mind that you firmly believe the official theories. I encourage questioning both sides here. I also don't put much weight on this expert opinion. But one thing i can not respect is deliberately twisting the truth like you are doing.

It is not the same breath, if you read the block of text I am quoting from it is obvious that they are not direct quotes.. that block of text is not a verbatim quote from his mouth..


" 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."

You are the one twisting the truth here, you are taking what is an acknowlegement that he is aware of a story and quoting it as his belief.

he said "there is no reason to doubt the official story"

then he confirms he heard about the unofficial conspiracy theory, he does not confirm that he believes that theory, merely mentioning the name of it does not mean he believes it, if that was true I would believe all of the loose change crap I have mentioned in this forum, I dont.



just to mention you heard about something doesnt mean you believe it, are you a person with english as the second language?


"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 believe man landed on the moon. I can remember the reports that man did not land on the moon.


quote away!

"man did not land on the moon" -number3
"I believe man landed on the moon" -number3

both are quotes of things that I said, only one is a valid interpetation of what I said, which one is it?

you are doing the same thing here..

Wether it was in the same breath or not isn't important it was in the same conversation, but thank you for mentioning finallt that it is NOT verbatim.

I'm not taking things out of context since he clearly says two things that contradict eachother unless he believes the official story is controlled demolition. And he does indeed mention official broadcasts saying that it was controlled demolition. But in any case clearly he has not changed his mind about it being controlled demolition.

You are disregarding the second part to substantiate your disturbingly silly interpretation of the first part. Though the first part at most is a contradiction.

And again this all is hearsay. It is a summary of a unverified conversation where through ridicule you attempt to cloud the issue. Still you can't use it to twist the truth because it repeats everything that is shown in the interview. Which is that Jowenko:
- Doesn't believe in conspiracies.
- Is convinced it was controlled demolition.

That is the context.

But if this is the manner in which you discuss by completely neglecting factual info and arguing besides the point then i can beat you on your own nonsensical level. He did not say the official story is correct only that there is no reason to not believe the official story. That can be translated in very different ways. Perhaps he was refering to the fact that too many people share your enthousiasm for distorting the truth that it is pointless to try and expose it.

no matter what the guy thinks about the official story - he thinks the building was controlled demolition.

he's either:

A. being honest and thinks Silverstein rigged and demolished it in 7 hours, but the attacks were as the official story has them.

or

B. being dishonest in saying he believes the official story so he'll be rid of the attention he has received.


in either case, it means there's reason to investigate Silverstein and that he agrees with us - WTC 7 was demolished... what's the official story?

I think you forgot

C. His opinion in the interview was based on too little information.

Remember that in the interview he said many times that he didn't know the floorplan of the building, that he knew even little about the building. He wasn't told about the fuel tanks and the structural compromises that were made because of these tanks.

What is apparent in the interview that he jumped by the journalist with the questions and was asked to form his opinion based on a videoclip and some very skematic floorplans. All he knew about the building was told him by the journalist and based on the questions asked this journalist was not unbiased.

Regardless of what really happened with WTC7 this type of interview, where an expert, whom has no former specific knowledge about the particular building, is asked his opinion does not help the research. It will only muddle the debate and research.

The only thing is does is exposing the inability of some people to distinguish between real arguments/research and ambush journalism and sloppy research. Or of even the willingness of some CT'ers to use arguments, they know are weak, to cinvince others, but I'm not paranoid enough to think this is the case here.

None of that info matters. Anyone with a brain can see that WTC7 fell from controlled demolition. A 6 second symmetrical collapse with the debris removed before a detailed report could be written on why it fell. Anyone who suggests that it fell in any other manner is a fool. The end. [thumbsup]

Key part of that being...

"WTC7 was controlled demolished on purpose"


Next.

Odd that he would remember news stories about it being pulled on purpose, yet no one else has ever seen them. Nor did the 9/11 Coverup Commission make note of them in their "final report" composed of "millions of documents." Hell, for that matter, they don't even mention the building at all....

number3, why didn't you include this person's story about contacting Jowenko that I posted on the same thread that you referenced at the top of this thread? Did you not see it?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...dpost&p=7277604

The person who wrote that above is obviously an official conspiracy believer, government apologist, etc.. And according to the conversation he said he had with Mr. Jowenko, Mr. Jowenko does not believe in the official story.

number3 ? [whistle]

STALLION!!!! :D

[crylol]

Owned!!

ROXDOG!!! [cheers]

re: Danny Jowenko

Loose Change forum member "einsteen" has posted an extended version of the Jowenko interview on youtube:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=15277

Seriously what world do you live in? even if the fuel tanks went off, how does it cause building collapse to look and behave like controlled demolition? What are the chances that tanks will Blow the main support beam allowing building to collapse inwoulds on its own print? You my friend are grasping at strings. He said that he is 100% sure that it was demolition, the guys blown up a lot of buildings, of course he can tell if a collapse was from a fire and one used with explosives. Also so did the fires cause building to collapse from bottom did they? funny in all the pics of small amount fire i never remembered seeing fire down bottom? You my friend are in denial. Even if government said asteroid hit it you probably still believe it would implode perfectly on its own print, cause the government told you so. You are not looking at most obvious signs or are choosing to ignore them. You are choosing a theory that is not logical and the chances that it would cause building to fall like that prob is 1 in million. On 9/11 alot common sense seems to be ignored… It was a day when the “first time in history” was broken 5 times! What are the chances!

If you want a demolitions expert who agrees with the official story, look no further than the link in my signature!!!!

Not Found
The requested URL /Article-WTC9-6-06.pdf was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.27 Server at www.implosionworld.com Port 80

Funny thing is; Danny Jowenko is listed as one of ImplosionWorld.com's demolition experts. Sounds to me like they didn't consult all of their experts about the WTC "collapses" now did they.

.

So... Mr. Jowenko heard it was imploded ... So did others

Even Indira Singh said they were told it was going to be brought down ..

Guess the 911 Commission just didn't get the memo ... ?

Or the Media ....

Or the Insurance Companies ... ? ?

Or the American Public ... ? ? ?

I think Mr. Jowenko is engaging in denial in believing that they decided to bring

down Bldg 7 because it was damaged ....So who were these "heros" ..

Who ran into a damaged and burning building to cut beams and wire it for

Demolition ?


.

The U.S.A®.. 0 \^/ |\| 3 |) since 1963

.