Danny Jowenko is Dead, 3 Days After Sabrosky Interview Implicates CIA/Mossad in 911

[ManFromUncle]

by Voodoo101

Demolition expert Danny Jowenko, one of world's leading building demolition experts, was killed in a one-car accident last week when his car slammed into a tree. Jowenko received international attention as the expert who unequivocally described the collapse of Building 7 at the World Trade Center on 911 as a "demolition."

Jowenko made the judgment before he knew it was WTC7 he was watching on the video. He commented: "This is a controlled demolition which was carried out by a team of experts."

CLICK VIDEO: Demolition expert Danny Jowenko watching Building 7 video for first time, "it was controlled demolition."

‪R.I.P. Danny Jowenko - WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3‬‏ - YouTube

Jowenko gained further noteriety when former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, said in a radio interview in 2010, that his skepticism of the official 911 story was prompted by Jowenko's testimony. Jowenko's death comes three days after Sabrosky gave an exclusive interview to PressTV in which he again reiterated his belief, which he says is common knowledge in some intelligence circles, that elements within both the CIA and Israeli Mossad planned 911. Dr. Sabrosky holds the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research at US Army War College.

He holds that the attacks were planned and executed in order to achieve dovetailing foreign policy goals, foremost the invasion and Balkanization of Iraq. Sabrosky says this has long been a goal among "Neo-conservatives" associated with the think-tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC.)

Dr. Sabrosky's teaching and research appointments also include the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He is a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College.

Dr. Alan Sabrosky

Dr.

Sabrosky says: Quote:
Only two intelligence agencies had the expertise, assets, access and political protection to execute 9/11 in the air and on the ground: our CIA and Israel's Mossad.


Sabrosky describes hearing Jowenko's analysis as the moment in which he first suspected that what he had been hearing in intelligence circles "was true." [SIZE=-1] Sabrosky has noted that in 1996, an important policy paper was written for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which advocated overthrowing Saddam, saying: [/SIZE]​

Quote:
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."
​

[SIZE=-1]The authors of this paper later became key members of George Bush's foreign policy team, almost all of whom were members of Project for a New American Century, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.[/SIZE] Perle was Chairman of Bush Defense Policy Advisory Committee until 2004. Douglas Feith was Bush's Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. In what many have called a wish for a Pearl Harbor-like attack on American soil such as that which justified the American entrance into World War II, PNAC said in "Rebuilding America's Defenses":

Quote:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" - Project for a New American Century, Sept. 2000
​

Sabrosky says local American veterans' posts hold out the best hope for spurring a new 911 investigation and prosecutions, saying: Quote:
"The real 800 pound gorilla in the US lobbying system is the veterans groups..."
Sabrosky says local veterans' posts can drive the process by asking for investigations and prosecutions through their local television news media. He considers both the national leadership of veterans' organizations and the national media too "bought out."

Jowenko's death comes as the latest of what many 911 Truth advocates call an unlikely string of deaths of key 911 witnesses. The most famous of these is former chief of New York City's Emergency Management Response Team, Barry Jennings , who was the last official out of the Emergency Command Center in WTC 7 before its collapse. Jennings said on camera that he had heard explosions from within the building that he knew were not fuel tanks or boilers, as a former "boiler man."

Earlier this year, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations Steve R. Pieczenik said in a radio interview that he is prepared to tell a federal grand jury the name of a top general who told him directly that 9/11 was a false flag attack (inside job.) Pieczenik served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Nixon, Ford and Carter, while also working under Reagan and Bush senior. Pieczenik said in a radio interview:

Quote:
"It was called a stand-down and false flag operation in order to mobilize the American public under the false pretense that we had been attacked by Al Qaeda and bin Laden which is an absolute unmitigated lie. I was even told by a general on the staff of Wolfowitz, I will go in front of a federal committee and swear on perjury who that name was so we can break this open..."
​

Paul Wolfowitz was one of the cabal in the Bush administration who openly expressed the need for "a new Pearl Harbor," as a member of Project for a New American Century (PNAC.)

Online Musical Tribute to Danny Jowenko, "Danny Boy"

Following from Military Officers for 911 Truth: at Patriots Question 911:

Quote:

​

Col. George Nelson, MBA ​

Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic. "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft... The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view."

​

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD [/font]​

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible.. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney."

Quote:

​

Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS ​

Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Retired U.S. Air Force command fighter pilot. Former instructor; U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School. Combat time over Iraq. 20-year Air Force career. " I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back. The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned."

Quote:

​

Commander Ralph Kolstad​

Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career. Retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767, 23,000+ total hours flown. "I started questioning the Sept 11, 2001 “story” only days after the event. It just didn't make any sense to me. How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn't the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767? The evidence just didn't add up. ... At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described...something stinks to high heaven. ​

911 Investigation Ballot Initiative: An Actionable Plan for 9/11 Truth by Senator Mike Gravel​

Senator Mike Gravel Citizens 9/11 Commission

Video clip produced by Robert Bowman

1,518 Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth:Supporters Raise the Stakes this September

911 Case Closed: Aerial Photo Shows Towers Were Exploded Outward, Did Not "Collapse"

911: Venturing a Theory of the Crime

 

[Btodd]

This is going to be an inconvenient video, ManFromUncle.

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


Here, Jowenko states plainly that the Twin Towers were not a demolition, and explains why the 2nd tower to be hit collapsed first...the very same explanation I already gave you.

He also explains that there is no evidence of explosions, nor would a demolition have been done from the top-down. Truthers love to quote him on WTC7, but ALWAYS leave out what he said about the Twin Towers.

He also explains how debris gets moved outward in these natural collapses, another fact that you've already been presented with before.

Aside from all that, you are implying that he was killed because of Sabrosky's claims. So why is Sabrosky alive? Why is Richard Gage alive?

This is just the usual 'connect the dots' conspiracy thinking. Danny Jowenko died in a one-car wreck, with his dog in the car. But no, it couldn't have been that the dog had anything to do with him veering off the road for no apparent reason...it HAD to be a conspiracy!

Good luck with this theory, and pay attention to that video. Regarding the Twin Towers, he's telling you the very same things I have been for quite a while now.


Btodd

 

[ManFromUncle]

This is going to be an inconvenient video, ManFromUncle.

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


Here, Jowenko states plainly that the Twin Towers were not a demolition, and explains why the 2nd tower to be hit collapsed first...the very same explanation I already gave you.

He also explains that there is no evidence of explosions, nor would a demolition have been done from the top-down. Truthers love to quote him on WTC7, but ALWAYS leave out what he said about the Twin Towers.

He also explains how debris gets moved outward in these natural collapses, another uncomfortable fact that you've already been presented with before.

Aside from all that, you are implying that he was killed because of Sabrosky's claims. So why is Sabrosky alive? Why is Richard Gage alive?

This is just the usual 'connect the dots' conspiracy thinking. Danny Jowenko died in a one-car wreck, with his dog in the car. But no, it couldn't have been that the dog had anything to do with him veering off the road for no apparent reason...it HAD to be a conspiracy!

Good luck with this theory, and enjoy that video.


Btodd

Very interesting indeed. Thank you. One thing we do know is that Jowenko never waivered from his postion that Building 7 was a controlled demolition and he confirmed this as well as an understanding of the political ramifications of your position on 911 as a controlled demolition expert. When it was being rumored that he had changed is position on WTC 7, a guy named Jeff Hill just called him. Jowenko confirmed WTC 7 was a demolition, transcript below:

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:



Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.


Danny Jowenko: Yes, that’s right.


Jeff Hill: And I’ve come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn’t have came down by fire.


Danny Jowenko: No, it — absolutely not.


Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?


Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.


Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you’ve looked at the building, you’ve looked at the video and you’ve determined with your expertise that –


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


Jeff Hill: OK, ’cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder — I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, “There’s no way that’s true.”


Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.


Jeff Hill: ‘Cause if anybody was — Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , “Oh, it’s possible it came down from fire” and this and that and stuff like that –.


Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, “No, it was a controlled demolition”, you’re gone. You know?


Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you’ll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?
Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That’s the end of your — the end of the story.


Jeff Hill: Yeah, ’cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, “Pull it” in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn’t — didn’t want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously ’cause they knew what happened and they didn’t want to say it.

That being said, it should be noted that Jowenko never liked talking about 911 much after his comments on WTC 7 because his life had been turned upside down. In addition, Danny was a bottom-up demolition expert, and the towers were of the far more unusual top-down type, used typically for very tall structures when the danger of tipping is greater. He made his comments before knowing about the extensive testimony of explosions, explosive flashes, molten steel, the presence of thermite residue (both reacted and un-reacted) and other issues. Example, some of the testimony of explosions completely omitted from the 911 Commission Report is below, none of which Jowenko knew about.

link to a discussion on Jowenko here

-NEW YORK TIMES ‘ORAL HISTORIES’ - WTC TASK FORCE INTERVIEWS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY Interview Date: October 3, 2001

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/...
pgs 14-16: I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought... I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.


Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?


A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too... it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one of us talked to each other about it. …


Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.


A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes. I don't know how far down this was already. I mean, we had heard the noise but, you know, I don't know.
-CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE Interview Date: November 7, 2001

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/...
pg 10: I had no clue what was going on. Never turned around because a sound came from somewhere that I never heard before. Some people compared it with an airplane. It was the worst sound of a rolling sound, not a thunder. I can’t explain it, what it was. All I know is -- and a force started to come hit me in my back. I can’t explain it. You had to be there. All I know is I had to run because I thought there was an explosion.


pg 11: Whatever this explosion was simply sucked all the oxygen out of the air.


pg 15: Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I went inside and I told everybody that the other building or there was an explosion occurring up there and I said I think we have another major explosion…



-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS FlTZPATRlCK Interview Date: October 1, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/...


pgs 13-14: I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building... My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.



FIREFIGHTER EDWARD CACHIA Interview Date: December 6, 2001
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/...


pg 5: As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.


MORE: link to a discussion on Jowenko

Sorry for the extended reprinting of the testimony but this is as good a time as any to show what got left out of the official report.

Look, when the towers came down, I believed the government explanation of the fires heating the steel, and the pancake theory and all. I wanted to believe it, would still like to believe the official story. But there are just too many things.

It could be that Jowenko was in as much shock as the rest of us. He was a bottom-up expert, not an expert in black ops. Isn't it coincidental, though, that how he will never be able to change his mind, one way or the other, and his testimony stands at best as a contradiction.

He stands by Building 7 being a demolition even recently, and his initial impressions on towers 1 and 2 are on tape, as you have shown. He did however explain why demo experts in the US are so silent. He said business was at stake. His death running into a tree all of a sudden shows maybe even more is at stake. How do you just swerve into a tree on a clear sunny day? Unless, say, suddenly your brakes don't work. We don't know. We may never know. We just know that he is gone.

 

[Btodd]

Very interesting indeed. Thank you. One thing we do know is that Jowenko never waivered from his postion that Building 7 was a controlled demolition and he confirmed this as well as an understanding of the political ramifications of your position on 911 as a controlled demolition expert. When it was being rumored that he had changed is position on WTC 7, a guy named Jeff Hill just called him. Jowenko confirmed WTC 7 was a demolition, transcript below:

You are correct; he never wavered from his belief about WTC7, and I remember reading the Jeff Hill transcript on the JREF Forums, where he (Jeff) is a member.

And sorry to be picky about your language, but Jowenko did not 'confirm that it was a demolition'. He confirmed that he still believed it was.

Look, when the towers came down, I believed the government explanation of the fires heating the steel, and the pancake theory and all. I wanted to believe it, would still like to believe the official story. But there are just too many things.

The pancake theory is not what the NIST report, or the independent investigations rely on, just to be clear. As for the weakened steel, it's the only explanation that fits the actual facts, and is supported by science. They fire-proof steel for a reason.

It could be that Jowenko was in as much shock as the rest of us. He was a bottom-up expert, not an expert in black ops.

This is the fallacy of special pleading, sorry. If you are going to appeal to a demolitions expert to note that WTC7 had to have been demolished, you can't choose to use his authority on that building, and then claim he didn't know about some secret method used on the other buildings. I'm not relying on Danny Jowenko for my conclusion, so it doesn't bother me that he thought WTC7 was a demolition. His explanation of the Twin Towers collapses fits with what is already established physics and structural engineering, and is supported by the NIST report and independent studies. He immediately recognized why the 2nd building to be hit was the first one to collapse, and why debris is ejected outward.

Isn't it coincidental, though, that how he will never be able to change his mind, one way or the other, and his testimony stands at best as a contradiction.

No, I don't think it's 'coincidental'. It's too bad, yes. I don't take any pleasure in the man's death; he seemed like a nice fellow from my perspective.

He stands by Building 7 being a demolition even recently, and his initial impressions on towers 1 and 2 are on tape, as you have shown. He did however explain why demo experts in the US are so silent. He said business was at stake. His death running into a tree all of a sudden shows maybe even more is at stake. How do you just swerve into a tree on a clear sunny day? Unless, say, suddenly your brakes don't work. We don't know. We may never know. We just know that he is gone.

Having a pet in the car is a common cause of a single-car accident like this one. If you have evidence of wrongdoing that you can use to establish this as a murder, then present it. If not, then there's no sense in jumping to a more complex explanation than the simple one.

And again...why kill Danny Jowenko? Why not kill Sabrosky, or Richard Gage, or countless other people who actually promote 9/11 conspiracy stuff? Danny Jowenko was interviewed for that film, and as far as I know...never did a single thing more to promote 9/11 conspiracies. He's the last person they would kill, and there's no evidence that he was murdered. It's pure speculation, and the dog is the likeliest of culprits for swerving off the road.


Btodd

 

[circa02]

To many big name truthers start dying, that would get a lot more attention.

 

[ManFromUncle]

You are correct; he never wavered from his belief about WTC7, and I remember reading the Jeff Hill transcript on the JREF Forums, where he (Jeff) is a member.

And sorry to be picky about your language, but Jowenko did not 'confirm that it was a demolition'. He confirmed that he still believed it was.
...

...

And again...why kill Danny Jowenko? Why not kill Sabrosky, or Richard Gage, or countless other people who actually promote 9/11 conspiracy stuff? Danny Jowenko was interviewed for that film, and as far as I know...never did a single thing more to promote 9/11 conspiracies. He's the last person they would kill, and there's no evidence that he was murdered. It's pure speculation, and the dog is the likeliest of culprits for swerving off the road.


Btodd

Correct, he "believed" wtc7 was a demolition just as he "believed" wtc 1 and 2 were not. One cannot ascribe more credibility to the one which supports your view (or mine) and disregard the other. The NIST report is not physics, it is fantasy in the view of thousands of engineers, architects and scientists.

So Jowenko left us with a contradiction. If WTC 7 was wired for demolition that already blows the lid off the official story, whatever he thinks about the towers. The government said it collapsed from fires and physical damage.

And you are right, any foul play is pure speculation at this point, but the purpose would seem pretty clear. You ask why not kill Gage or Griffin? That would be suicide on the government's part. They maintain a high profile, speak regularly, and have millions of followers. They are too public, and the 911 truth movement would explode. It would be almost an admission of guilt by the government.

Jowenko lived away from the spotlight, in fact refused to talk about 911 after those initial impressions about the three towers were recorded, with the exception of his interview with Hill. Killing Jowenko would serve the purpose (again, speculation) that he would ever change his mind about wtc 1 and 2, which would be the nightmare scenario for the official story.

Now his testimony stands as a wash. It neither supports the OCT nor denies it, a bit of both. Best leave it at that, before after a full review of the evidence he starts shooting his mouth off again.

Yes, he seemed like a very nice man. If only dogs could talk, or if there were people who could connect psychically with them (I'm not about to go there, and don't believe in such a thing. Some folks may.) What happened to daddy?

 

[Btodd]

Correct, he "believed" wtc7 was a demolition just as he "believed" wtc 1 and 2 were not. One cannot ascribe more credibility to the one which supports your view (or mine) and disregard the other.

That's correct. But I'm not appealing to Danny Jowenko to support my arguments, and neither should you. It's the appeal-to-authority fallacy, and it's why the AE911Truth petition, and phrases like, 'over 1000 architects and engineers believe such-and-such' aren't worth anything.

The NIST report is not physics, it is fantasy in the view of thousands of engineers, architects and scientists.

There's that phrase...if the NIST report is 'not physics', and is 'fantasy', then it would be very easy for a structural engineer or demolitions expert to write a detailed scientific rebuttal of it, and introduce it to a peer-reviewed journal. Why can't they do that? It's been almost 10 years, and they're still relying on petitions and videos.

So Jowenko left us with a contradiction. If WTC 7 was wired for demolition that already blows the lid off the official story, whatever he thinks about the towers. The government said it collapsed from fires and physical damage.

Jowenko speculates at some point in the video about them 'working quickly' to get it demolished after the collapse of the towers, so it's not that simple at all. I also don't recall him explaining the lack of sound to the explosion that would have caused collapse, and if I recall correctly...the video he was shown did not have sound. Is that correct?

What if we found out that WTC7 had been demolished after the fact? I still don't think it's plausible at all; I'm just making a point. What would that mean? I get the impression that you think it's a 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' thing, as if once we find something in the official story that isn't correct, then the whole thing is a giant, pre-planned conspiracy. I'll let you elaborate on that.

And you are right, any foul play is pure speculation at this point, but the purpose would seem pretty clear. You ask why not kill Gage or Griffin? That would be suicide on the government's part. They maintain a high profile, speak regularly, and have millions of followers. They are too public, and the 911 truth movement would explode. It would be almost an admission of guilt by the government.

Jowenko lived away from the spotlight, in fact refused to talk about 911 after those initial impressions about the three towers were recorded, with the exception of his interview with Hill.

That's exactly why it makes no sense to kill him, and I want to make the point again that there is no evidence of foul play here to suggest it. People die. All the time. Jowenko wasn't even a 9/11 Truther, as far as I'm concerned. When he speculates that they may have demolished it quickly after the Twin Towers collapse, that has nothing to do with the 9/11 Truth Movement's claims. And he never bothered with the whole thing after that; he would be a worthless target.

Killing Jowenko would serve the purpose (again, speculation) that he would ever change his mind about wtc 1 and 2, which would be the nightmare scenario for the official story.

Now his testimony stands as a wash. It neither supports the OCT nor denies it, a bit of both. Best leave it at that, before after a full review of the evidence he starts shooting his mouth off again.

So now we get to assume that they're killing people who might change their mind in the future? This isn't plausible at all, and there's still not a shred of evidence to suggest he was murdered. The most likely explanation is still that his dog distracted him, or jumped in his lap, or whatever...and he veered off the road. Occam's Razor. If you hear of evidence to suggest he was murdered, then come forward with it. Otherwise, it's just a giant assumption, and makes no sense to me in regard to a conspiracy.

On a final note, this is the most cordial conversation you and I have ever had thus far, so I appreciate that. Thank you.


Btodd

 

[Trainlady]

Do you know how many people who survived the WTC attacks have died since then? Of those I know personally--several of different cancers, a couple of heart attacks, one in a snowmobile accident, one in a motorcycle accident, one of ALS...people die.

The most "coincidental" was the Port Authority's Director of Aviation, running the NY area airports, whose offices were in the north tower. He was in Canada at a conference on 9/11. A worker at the WTC recovery had pulled out some photos from the pile and took them home, and then after a number of years decided to find out who they might be pictures of. Someone recognized the aviation director, so the worker decided to mail the photos to him, which he did, and Bill DeCota received them on September 10, 2009. The next day, on the 8th anniversary of the attacks, the aviation director died of complications related to minor surgery he'd had a few weeks earlier.

Weird coincidence, but a coincidence nonetheless.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Do you know how many people who survived the WTC attacks have died since then? Of those I know personally--several of different cancers, a couple of heart attacks, one in a snowmobile accident, one in a motorcycle accident, one of ALS...people die.

The most "coincidental" was the Port Authority's Director of Aviation, running the NY area airports, whose offices were in the north tower. He was in Canada at a conference on 9/11. A worker at the WTC recovery had pulled out some photos from the pile and took them home, and then after a number of years decided to find out who they might be pictures of. Someone recognized the aviation director, so the worker decided to mail the photos to him, which he did, and Bill DeCota received them on September 10, 2009. The next day, on the 8th anniversary of the attacks, the aviation director died of complications related to minor surgery he'd had a few weeks earlier.

Weird coincidence, but a coincidence nonetheless.

Because vocal truthers dying in car and plane crashes mean nothing.......

We all realize people die but to ignore vocal truthers dying in accidents is plain silly. In the very least it should give pause for consideration.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

That's correct. But I'm not appealing to Danny Jowenko to support my arguments, and neither should you. It's the appeal-to-authority fallacy, and it's why the AE911Truth petition, and phrases like, 'over 1000 architects and engineers believe such-and-such' aren't worth anything.




There's that phrase...if the NIST report is 'not physics', and is 'fantasy', then it would be very easy for a structural engineer or demolitions expert to write a detailed scientific rebuttal of it, and introduce it to a peer-reviewed journal. Why can't they do that? It's been almost 10 years, and they're still relying on petitions and videos.




Jowenko speculates at some point in the video about them 'working quickly' to get it demolished after the collapse of the towers, so it's not that simple at all. I also don't recall him explaining the lack of sound to the explosion that would have caused collapse, and if I recall correctly...the video he was shown did not have sound. Is that correct?

What if we found out that WTC7 had been demolished after the fact? I still don't think it's plausible at all; I'm just making a point. What would that mean? I get the impression that you think it's a 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' thing, as if once we find something in the official story that isn't correct, then the whole thing is a giant, pre-planned conspiracy. I'll let you elaborate on that.




That's exactly why it makes no sense to kill him, and I want to make the point again that there is no evidence of foul play here to suggest it. People die. All the time. Jowenko wasn't even a 9/11 Truther, as far as I'm concerned. When he speculates that they may have demolished it quickly after the Twin Towers collapse, that has nothing to do with the 9/11 Truth Movement's claims. And he never bothered with the whole thing after that; he would be a worthless target.




So now we get to assume that they're killing people who might change their mind in the future? This isn't plausible at all, and there's still not a shred of evidence to suggest he was murdered. The most likely explanation is still that his dog distracted him, or jumped in his lap, or whatever...and he veered off the road. Occam's Razor. If you hear of evidence to suggest he was murdered, then come forward with it. Otherwise, it's just a giant assumption, and makes no sense to me in regard to a conspiracy.

On a final note, this is the most cordial conversation you and I have ever had thus far, so I appreciate that. Thank you.


Btodd

You don't consider Jowenko a truther? He point blank said 7 was a controlled demolition! Good grief.....it would be funny if it wasn't so unbelievably sad.

 

[Trainlady]

Because vocal truthers dying in car and plane crashes mean nothing.......

We all realize people die but to ignore vocal truthers dying in accidents is plain silly. In the very least it should give pause for consideration.

Why? You missed the point of my post, which was that just as many non-truthers are dying in the same ways.

It wouldn't give someone like me pause for consideration at all, because I know engineers and cops and others who were present when 7 went down, and they actually knew the WTC buildings inside out because they worked there for years and managed the facilities. It's not as if 7 "suddenly" fell down without warning, although I see this twist a lot when truthers tell the tale. They determined that it was in danger of collapse and abandoned efforts to save hours before it did fall. As a matter of fact, if you recall, they were saying it was going to collapse and the cameras were trained on it waiting for that moment, and it fell on live television. The biggest, most basic flaw in the truther story is that it is a "government story". The impression is put forth that the federal government somehow swooped down on lower Manhattan, cordoned it off to all but themselves, and controlled the recovery and debris removal and then put out a report without input from anyone else.

The WTC engineers don't take "vocal truthers" seriously at all. One of them with whom I had a conversation about it early on said he had gone onto one of the controlled-demolition sites way back when they first started to appear, and he said someone had gone to a great deal of trouble to create the story but that it was based on incorrect information and assumptions. I am not an engineer myself, but I see things on those sites that I absolutely know are false, too. Or, sometimes information is omitted that would tell a different story if it were included.

 

[ManFromUncle]

I stated why I don't consider him a Truther...he speculated that WTC7 was demolished in a rush-setup after the Twin Towers had collapsed...


Btodd

It doesn't matter if he speculated about a rush set-up, which he did on the basis of assuming the fires had already been extinguished (they weren't) and crews not working with explosives around active fires. It doesn't matter because the government has already committed itself to a very elaborate and detailed hypothesis of fuel tanks blowing, debris damage from the towers, and raging fires. Now three years after the NIST report they are going to do an about-face and say, "oh, we forgot the most important part, we wired WTC7 at the last minute while fires were raging!"


When a criminal starts changing his story that's when you know he's guilty.

Oh, that's right, NOW I remember, Your Honor! I saw her dead when I walked into the room! Yea! (slaps forehead).

I think its important for all sides to be fair to Danny and point out that in the interview he is getting partial information on the fly, saying he wished he "had more pictures" and being told new details every minute. It seems he doesn't know what he is in the middle of, is a trusting guy just thinking out loud and not watching his words. In my personal opinion he had no idea the kind of people he was dealing with, or the consequences of having this little chat. We do know that the telephone interview of 2007 confirms his belief that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, and this time he says nothing about a possible rush job. In that interview he also says nothing about WTC 1 & 2. Perhaps he had learned.

As for murder, we do know, beyond the shadow of a doubt that strange things happen to key people who are credible enough to poke big holes in the official story. Barry Jennings is number one. Jennings was Deputy Director of Emergency Services for the New York City Housing Department. On the morning of 9/11, he received a phone call informing him that a plane had hit the World Trade Center and asking him to go to the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center Building 7. Jennings and NYC attorney Michael Hess were the last men out of WTC7, having arrived after Giuliani and the rest had already fled.

911 researcher Jack Blood summarizes Jennings' video testimony as follows:

When they arrived on level 23, at the Office of Emergency Management (FEMA),) they found it had been recently deserted, “coffee that was on the desk, smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half eaten sandwiches”.

At that point he made some phone calls, and an un-named individual told them to “leave, and leave right away”. Jennings and Hess then proceeded to the stairs, and made it to level 6, when there was an explosion, and the stairwell collapsed from under their feet, Mr. Jennings was actually hanging, and had to climb back up. They made it back up to level 8, where Barry Jennings had a view of the twin towers, both buildings were still standing.

This is an important detail, as many debunkers have used Mr. Jennings statements out of context to claim the damage came to WTC 7 from the towers collapsing, not the case according, to Mr. Jennings.
When they made it to the lobby, Mr. Jennings found it destroyed and littered with dead bodies. He said it looked like, “King Kong had came through it and stepped on it, (it was) so destroyed, I didn’t know where I was...

Jennings firmly denies the explosions were fuel tanks or boilers, saying he knew the difference, being an "old boiler man" himself.

This film testimony was included in Dylan Avery's film Loose Change, and had been extensively reported, until Avery got a call from a very frightened Jennings who asked that the footage be removed. Avery honored this request. Then Jennings was featured in a BBC documentary on WTC7 in which he contradicted his former account. Feeling his own journalistic credibility on the line, Avery re-inserted the footage. Later that year, 3 days before the release of the official NIST report on the collapse of Building 7, it was announced that the 53-year-old Jennings had died of "unknown causes." No official cause of death is available from the coroner of NYC, which is probably a violation of NY law.

Avery then hired a private investigator to look into Jennings death. The Investigator ended up refunding Avery his considerable retainer fee, and told Dylan never to contact him again. Dylan also paid a visit to the Jennings home. He found it vacant and for sale. No one has been able to contact the Jennings family since.

My feeling, all speculation, is that Jowenko ran across people to whom eliminating "liabilities" was nothing. If Danny had ever changed his story on WTC 1 and 2, and said they were demolitions, it would have been the nightmare scenario for the perpetrators.

‪Barry Jennings: WTC 7 (Explosions) Interview‬‏ - YouTube

 

[stelow]

Here's some more classic faked TV.

‪Danny Jowenko, Faked Fatal Accident Site News High Res Images & Video 7-16-11 (11911)‬‏ - YouTube

 

[Supreme]

Sad he's dead. His crazy theories have no more credibility, mind.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Sad he's dead. His crazy theories have no more credibility, mind.

He said the towers came down on their own....I wasn't aware you considered that a crazy theory? He did think 7 was brought down in a controlled demo and why exactly is that crazy? He was an expert.

 

[Trainlady]

@Btodd: By the way, the claim that 'all the WTC steel was destroyed' is false.

I truly don't understand why truthers continue to repeat that. Exactly what is the point of saying something that so many people know not to be true? There's been so much coverage over the years of Hangar 17, and the steel is in the news every day now for the past few months as the PA passes it out all over the country. Even the 200 pieces that "the government" a/k/a NIST had in its possession was returned to the PA, and that was also public. I don't understand what is hoped to be accomoplished by denying the existence of all that steel.

 

[Btodd]

@Btodd: By the way, the claim that 'all the WTC steel was destroyed' is false.

I truly don't understand why truthers continue to repeat that. Exactly what is the point of saying something that so many people know not to be true? There's been so much coverage over the years of Hangar 17, and the steel is in the news every day now for the past few months as the PA passes it out all over the country. Even the 200 pieces that "the government" a/k/a NIST had in its possession was returned to the PA, and that was also public. I don't understand what is hoped to be accomoplished by denying the existence of all that steel.

In my experience, because they only visit Truther sites for their information, and practice confirmation bias.

That's part of what is so irritating about the movement; it's like whack-a-mole. Every time a claim is shown to be false, it will be repeated again tomorrow as if the refutation never occurred; it just keeps popping up over and over again through careless (or intentional) repetition. And so 30 years from now, it will be just like the Kennedy Assassination...people will still believe vast conspiracies because of repeated false information. As I like to say, garbage-in, garbage-out.


Btodd

 

[oldbetang]

Here is the link for the instructions and please note it is not restricted to family members:

Http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/vr/vr-me-cert.shtml

Some relatives of the person who died are able to get certified death certificates by submitting the information listed above. People who are not related to the person who died must show why they should get a copy of the death certificate by providing one of the following documents.
Documentation showing entitlement includes (but is not limited to):
​

• Insurance policy (both the applicant and the person who died must be named on the policy) or
• Bank statement or
• Property deed or
• Will

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Some relatives of the person who died are able to get certified death certificates by submitting the information listed above. People who are not related to the person who died must show why they should get a copy of the death certificate by providing one of the following documents.
Documentation showing entitlement includes (but is not limited to):
​

• Insurance policy (both the applicant and the person who died must be named on the policy) or
• Bank statement or
• Property deed or
• Will

Thank you for helping prove DC's are not restricted to family members.

 

[ManFromUncle]

@Btodd: By the way, the claim that 'all the WTC steel was destroyed' is false.

I truly don't understand why truthers continue to repeat that. Exactly what is the point of saying something that so many people know not to be true? There's been so much coverage over the years of Hangar 17, and the steel is in the news every day now for the past few months as the PA passes it out all over the country. Even the 200 pieces that "the government" a/k/a NIST had in its possession was returned to the PA, and that was also public. I don't understand what is hoped to be accomoplished by denying the existence of all that steel.

"Truthers" keep saying it because truthers like the truth, and destruction of evidence at a felony crime scene is a felony. 99.5% of the steel evidence was destroyed, obviously excluding some token pieces which are being paraded across the country and put into battleships.

From History Commons:

September 12-October 2001: Steel Debris From WTC Shipped Out of US for Recycling

• In the month following 9/11, a significant amount of the steel debris from the WTC collapses is removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of the US. [US Congress, 3/6/2002]

• 9/11 victims’ families and some engineers are angered at the decision to quickly discard the steel, believing it should be examined to help determine how the towers collapsed. A respected fire fighting trade magazine comments, “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.” [Fire Engineering, 1/2002]

• A study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which commences in August 2002 [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 8/21/2002; Associated Press, 8/21/2002] , will have 236 pieces of recovered steel available to it. Of these, 229 pieces are from WTC 1 and 2, representing “roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 85 ]

We have the signed contracts under the authority of the City of New York and the shipping orders. No sane person can deny that 99% of the evidence was destroyed.

Under the contracting authority of the City of New York, Guliani hired Metal Management Northeast of Newark, N.J., Hugo Neu Schnitzer East of Jersey City and Blandford Land Development Corporation of Brooklyn. Weeks Marine Inc. created two steel offloading areas at Pier 25 and Pier 6 in the last week of September to accelerate the shipment of the steel on barges to China to be melted. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co. was awarded a contract for $790,500 to deepen the Pier 6 site.

Fire Science Professor Glen Corbett, City University of New York
‪911 Truth: Rudy Giuliani & the Feds Destroyed WTC Evidence‬‏ - YouTube

"911 Prosecution Plan: Start With Giuliani for Evidence Destruction"