Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

Uploaded by einsteen on Sep 24, 2006

I just heard Danny died in a car crash where he hit a tree.
Very very sad news. We will not forget him!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I"]R.I.P. Danny Jowenko - WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3 - YouTube


next part: [ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM


Reminds me of a typical mob suicide. 5 shots to the head.

any professional that said anything contrary to the us governments version is dead.

Not surprising so many people came out initially telling the truth and then changing their story later.

incidentally, the cia works directly under the president.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3wwdI0XawI"]Danny Jowenko's old interview about the twin towers wtc1 & wtc2 - YouTube

WTC 7 was a 'controlled demolition' for insurance purposes, perhaps...but WTC 1 and 2 were due to aeroplanes hitting the towers.
How should we square those two theories?

 

If I was in charge of a country like this one, and had everyone believing (regardless of how true it may or may not be) that I had that kind of power...I would view it as a BIG leg up.

And that is all I will say.

 

if you were paying attention they showed him videos from those 2 kids on loose change which were so bad that you would be lucky if you could even tell it was a hirise much less see anything that was actually going on.

That said its understandable that he made a prima facia unsubstantial determination since the guy was pressuring him strongly for some kind of an answer.

Most people would have answered the same way under the circumstances.

Had he seen explosions in reverse



people being ejected



cutter charges



perimeter blasting



He like the rest of us would be forced to conclude it was a non-conventional demolition.

 

Is that the best you can do. I don't think you are even trying anymore.

I was paying attention.
The 'kid' came to the conclusion you did with the same footage as a leading expert.
I take it you do not disagree with 'the kid'.
Danny was a demolition expert, one of world's leading building demolition experts - with 27 years experience.
He knew a lot more than anybody within this the film 'loose change', the fire-fighters and any of us.
Did you see the footage he was working with with regards to WTC 7?
Was that any better?
Wasn't 'the guy' putting him under the same pressure as with WTC 7 - more so because he wasn't aware of the circumstance of WTC 7.
He was being fed info as he watched the film.
It wasn't 'Who wants to be a Millionaire' where he had 1 minute to come to an answer.
It's likely he watched footage (and the film) in his own good time, and re-watched it for the purposes of the camera's.
I think somewhere in the WTC 7 interview he is told about the fires burning for hours and said something like: I really don't know.

Danny, would have had more knowledge of WTC 1 and 2, and had more time to think about those two because they were the two iconic buildings that most people know about. He also had read reports on those two buildings.

Imho, the truth is: I like the conclusion Danny came to regarding WTC 7, but I don't like the conclusion he came to regarding WTC 1 and 2 - so I'll make some lame excuses why he was under some immense pressure, the footage was terrible, and he came to unsubstantial conclusion.

Tragic, really.

I think even if you were there at the time, saw two planes hit the buildings - you would still say 'what planes?'.

It's tragic on your part, devaluing somebody you claim to have some respect for, and dismissing his finding because they don't chime with your own...it's really self delusional, too.

R.I.P Danny

R.I.P thread.

 

you just wasted a lot of time making a lot of shit up.

You should stop putting your twist on the matter in pretense it has any value other than to show your spin and that you offer no substantiating evidence for what so ever.

I am sorry the evidence I posted is conclusively and incontrovertibly damning, not my problem

You asked how they square up and I explained it to you with precisely what Danny would have looked for to make a determination on the matter. (among other things) should he still be alive today to see it.

1 and 2 are non-conventional demolitions, 7 however is conventional by every definition, jowenko said so at first glance, yet there are many retarded people who at best are arm chair experts that are and remain completely clueless. (Like those on your debunker site who enjoy word games and all to often impeach their own position)

Not my fault it is so cut and dry.

If you dont like the answer then dont ask the question.

fact is anyone who went against the government is dead, second fact is no "reasonable" person can deny its a demolition.

I am not posting to play footsie with you or to have a debate strategy contest, I posted substantial facts. If you cannot accept that then dont ask and go back to splitting meaningless hairs with whomever has nothing better to do but waste time with you.





to make a point, there are a couple nonconventional demolitions.

there is no manual that forces someone to demolish in a particular style.

You should know that before you engage in these kinds of discussions. EVERYONE has told you to do some homework first.

I posted this for the benefit of others. You are more interested in spinning this into every possible rabbit hole you can get someone to follow you into.

needless to say this is rapidly becoming a waste of time.

 

I've seen you post a magnified slowed down video of an aeroplane hitting a building, and just before the inevitable explosion - it stops (your fave').

I've seen another one were the explosion occurs but the video is panned and scanned to move away from the facia of the building. Removing any images of what occurred outside the building on impact.



Both very manipulative.

Both remove the explosion in it's entirety.

I particularly like your 'perimeter blasting' - suggesting there was, well, a perimeter blast and that is what brought down the towers.
A nice helpful image provided.

I posted a video in real time that showed the inevitable impact explosion/exit plume.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2iGYVh7HZo8

Another (enough fire for you)? - with firefighter testimony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk"]WTC1 North Tower Plane Impact on 9/11 - Naudet - YouTube

If they CGI'd the plane did they also CGI the explosion and flames, too?
Were they such amazing demolition experts they managed to create an explosion that looks like your balloon in the face - Mushroom at the back and a long jet at the front.

So what he should have seen is manipulated slowed down magnified clips?

Watch the clip he does actually watch. Listen to the commentary:Jet fuel/outside/massive fireball. What did you say should have happened?

We don't see the clip he see's. But his explanation is the building collapsed at the base (unlike the two towers) - this equals a controlled demolition.

What are your credentials ma'am?

Clearly not true. Oh, sorry everybody important, right?

Are you a big fan of Alex Jones?
The way he speaks is very much like how you write.

Are you talking about 'scorch'? I just asked a few questions he had not answered.

True.

 

A lot of people recorded every bit of this and your video in fact if you want to get down to the "TRUTH" of the matter is the "manipulative" version not mine.

Mine is the original shown on at least 3 major networks including the BBC. Gomer the crow morphs into a flying beer can to emerge from the other side to be grabbed by the hands and eaten by the flame monster! LMAO


the invincibe beer can, would you prefer the bbc version? LOL


again, you should be able to see what is all wrong with the entry and the explosion unless you have never seen anything like that before. The cgi work is so blatantly in your face obvious you would be blind not to see it. If I have to tell you you will be or should be embarrassed.


Brinkley and evan whoever his face say right on tv it looks like a very bad special effect job! LOL Its like whats your first clue? LOL


we could say a plane hit this on too no?

 

All you have to say is: 'Yes, I am totally ignoring every image that is clearer.
I am totally ignoring every testimony that states 'I saw a plane hit the tower(s)'. (copy and past if you wish)

 

Please do.
Maybe start with this one.
Maybe explain how they created such a scar using explosives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_Wd6ZgWq5gA

 

Zzap,

I remember seeing something come out the other side of the building when watching the network coverage of the event on tv that morning. It wasn't long before the station put up a banner informing us all of something or other, but which also covered up the nose of the whatever-that-was that was protruding from the other side of the building.

And I remember thinking that the person responsible for the decision to cover up that particular part of the screen was either an idiot, or they just didn't want you to look and think about that.

 

Odon,

So, now that Zzap has provided you with video proof of the disturbing similarities between the explosion at the top of the WTC and the explosion at the top of the building in the video, will you never again try to put across the idea that if it didn't start at the bottom of the building, it couldn't have been a controlled demolition?

 

Odon,
Perhaps I will answer your questions regarding an issue that another has brought up when you show yourself to possess at least the level of understanding required to know a controlled demolition when you see one.

I, myself, have a problem believing that when one tenth of a building falls onto the remaining ninety percent of that building, the ten percent will somehow maintain it structural integrity--despite having been subjected to the most damage and most heat--while the lower and cooler core-structure is shattered to bits. It isn't like the core columns were not cross-braced to some extent.

Despite the fact that the top of the building was tipping at a 22-degree angle, thereby compromising its structural integrity, you believe that it nevertheless held together well enough to cause the rest of the core-structure--which does its best work when facing a load from directly above--to completely give-way in no uncertain terms?

 

and here

You are ignoring nearly every damning point brought up dumbing down the conversation to the level of grade school child.

Dont quit your day job because its perfectly clear you have no experience or understanding of what you are looking at and you should have a school boy approach to this rather than try to fit into the critics shoes.

pointing out grainy when grainy changes nothing is simply another red herring promoting doublethink denial.

this is the last time I am going to dig this shit up on the net for you.

do your own homework.








Now you ask me how explosives can make a big scar on a building. Please, enough already.

 

storch, you still have not answered the couple of questions I asked.


Like I've said, we now have plenty of footage to pour over.

Perhaps you can forget what you supposedly saw that particular day - or what supposedly some editor decided to cover up.

Do you want me to answer questions? Oh, so you know how to ask them but not answer them? Convenient! I will answer, Zzap has not provided video proof of the disturbing similarities between the explosion at the top of the WTC and the explosion at the top of the building in the video.

I know Zzap will never see it as anything other than a 'controlled demolition' even with the conclusion of a demolition expert it wasn't.

I have the distinct feeling you will not answer others questionns and my own.
Mine are very simple ones: Do you think planes hit the towers or not? Are you ignoring the testimonies of others?

I have answered both questions, so has Zzap. Why do you find it so hard to? Maybe you have answered them both indirectly, but It would be a lot easier if you did so directly. Thanks.

 

these people are simply in complete denial or they are so inexperienced that they cannot comprehend how fragile planes are! Land them to hard and parts break off yet they think it can fly through both sides of a building!


Here is a c130 that ticked a tree top! wood! not even steel! panes instantly burst into flames the moment the tank was ruptured! how do we spell

FRAGILE​

here is perimeter blasting but they still dont get it, they say they do then go right back to their old mantra



They just seem to lack any spacial reasoning ability and simply cannot make the connection unless its an "identical" match! (and even with that its questionable)




they cannot tell the difference between this one and those above, real planes and cgi'd clips, yet they want their opinions to be taken seriously and without ridicule.




and even then they reject what they see with some meaningless complaint about grainy etc.

seriously what does it take?

 

The prosecution rests!

 

Zzap, did you read the video comment?

Maybe you can explain the impact blast and the outgoing plume of fire. How did they manage that? that we see on most videos. Were they such experts they could blow the building where it is not a symmetrical blast?

 

oh yeh just ignore the obvious@! sure thats a real plane! The forward swept shadows and the downward shadow tail give it away



the moon is made of cheese

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9mmMHgFI6c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2lfp6PRyJ0


I have no intention of giving you ammunition to call me a conspiracy theorist.

I did not post theories as to an explanation as to how they did it, nor do I intend to. That frankly is obvious.

HOW they did it is completely IRRELEVANT!

The only think I did was show they are lying and masses of foolish people believed them, I dont give a damn HOW they did it and neither should anyone else.

They are lying, guilty of trust and fiduciary breach, misprision, fraud you name it

he is all yours storch or anyone else that wants to deal with it. when he is cornered he jumps from one position to the next grabbing onto anything he can toss out here does not matter how useless and irrelevant it is and I dont have the patience for this shit

 

In that image and the footage it came from - I agree, it does not look real. I'm not basing most of my thoughts on one or two images, though. There are better videos. There is not only the plane to consider but the explosion pattern and eye witness testimony.
You have to weigh as much up as possible.

Too late.

I think it would be very difficult to explain.

:seeya: