It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dutch demolitions professional says WTC7 was imploded

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Danny Jowenko, of Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie goes on the record [~ 3:30] saying:



"This is controlled demolition."

"You're sure?"

"Absolutely. It's been imploded. This was a hired job, performed by a team of experts."




Way to go Danny!




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

With english subtitles.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Wow, the complete account there is way better still! Awesome! Thanks for sharing!



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
SO where Roark at to debunk this guy and say he doesnt know wtf he is talking about?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
But remember, he's not a structural engineer so he doesn't count.


BTW, didn't this guy not know that the building fell the same day? He thought it was intentionally taken down at some point after 9/11 I believe? Which goes to show that:

A: They either pre-placed the explosives

or

B: Didn't use "conventional" methods (which would take a heck of a lot longer than 7 hours)

Myself, I'm torn between the 2 and come in at around:

They didn't use "conventional" methods and they were pre-placed. But, that's just my opinion.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Keep it clean, and focus on the topic instead of individual "opinions". This is not a grudge debate, it is a thread about a " Dutch demolitions professional". Professional means he gets PAYED to do what it is he does. And that right there, will be agreed to by any engineer, professional or amature.

If he was a demo/explosives "expert", for example unpaid but very knowledgeable in the field, perhaps because of profesional training lets say. It does not take an engineer to know the difference between a demo job and structural failure.

Laws of physics and some common sence is all that's required.
Please, all posters stay on topic and with clear collaboration, for one side or the other.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
How was my post off topic? Or grudge debate?

I was simply saying that Howard Roark would come in and say that he's not a structural engineer that's all. Also, the rest of post was on topic.

Isn't this on topic?


BTW, didn't this guy not know that the building fell the same day? He thought it was intentionally taken down at some point after 9/11 I believe? Which goes to show that:

A: They either pre-placed the explosives

or

B: Didn't use "conventional" methods (which would take a heck of a lot longer than 7 hours)

Myself, I'm torn between the 2 and come in at around:

They didn't use "conventional" methods and they were pre-placed. But, that's just my opinion.


That has everything to do with talking about the demolitions expert. I'm confused? Maybe I wasn't clear that I was speaking of the demolitions expert and not someone else? If so, sorry.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
BTW,

I got the information about the demolitions professional from this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I do believe they are of the same documentary?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Looks like just about everyone beat me to it.


Yes, it's from that very documentary. A peculiar specimen, a concoction of truth- and hit-piece. On one hand, it gave us this about WTC7, and on the other it claimed there was nothing suspicious about the Twin Towers or Pentagon.

They touched upon media stonewalling, which is great.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
This is one of the nastiest con jobs yet by any CT'er.
It is blatantly obvious this guy is making a judgement based on a video of a falling building of which over half is obscured from view. That's all the information he has been given. He was not told of the fires or the extent of the damage to the south face. When the CT'er finally did tell him of the fires (but still not mentioning the damage) he was incredulous that the fires had not been extinguished first. He was at a loss for an explanation. He was incredulous that the building was imploded on the same day as the towers fell. Watch the video again and notice the look on his face. He can't believe it could be done. "The same day?" he asks. The con man reassures him with "the same day". Still incredulous he asks again "the same day?" Then goes at it again with "September 11th?" and finally with "this cannot be true". That should've tipped him off he was being conned but apparently it didn't.
Had he been given enough information to work with, I suspect this video would never have seen the light of day.
He still had no idea he was being sucker-punched by a wingbat CT'er.
Well, if he hasn't figured it out yet, I will fill him in. I have sent him an email informing him of the disservice given to him by the wingbat. And if he wants to pursue it, help him with getting more information.

I don't know why I'm surprised at the glee shown in this thread when its obvious Jowenko is not informed of the circumstances of the wtc7 demise. You act as though he has given careful consideration to the matter and has reached a conclusion. Any casual observer can see this is not the case at all. I wonder, if it were you interviewing him, would you give all information for him to consider or would you follow the lead of the con job?

Some threads on here make me laugh, some make me check sources. This one is disgusting.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by tooblue]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by tooblue
This is one of the nastiest con jobs yet by any CT'er.
It is blatantly obvious this guy is making a judgement based on a video of a falling building of which over half is obscured from view. That's all the information he has been given. He was not told of the fires or the extent of the damage to the south face. When the CT'er finally did tell him of the fires (but still not mentioning the damage) he was incredulous that the fires had not been extinguished first. He was at a loss for an explanation. He was incredulous that the building was imploded on the same day as the towers fell. Watch the video again and notice the look on his face. He can't believe it could be done. "The same day?" he asks. The con man reassures him with "the same day". Still incredulous he asks again "the same day?" Then goes at it again with "September 11th?" and finally with "this cannot be true". That should've tipped him off he was being conned but apparently it didn't.
Had he been given enough information to work with, I suspect this video would never have seen the light of day.
[edit on 16-9-2006 by tooblue]


You answered your question yourself... this was prepared ahead of time. That is why the expert watching could not understand how it could be done properly in several hours and in such difficult conditions.

Maybe like many in the public which the debunker crowd prey on.. he cannot believe the cynical deviance of people that would run such an operation nor even comprehend their methods nor motives.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Yeah, tooblue, tell that guy that there were fires and he would have totally been like "OH, OK, IT MAKES SENSE NOW!"

The reason he was incredulous is because the thing fell at free-fall speed. It kinked in the middle. It fell into its own footprint. The walls folded onto it. Even the Penthouse kinked in the middle when it fell -- straight down.

And the hole in the back... is pretty much debunked. We have a photo of the South Face of WTC7. We've counted the columns, and the only hole is the SW gash that we've all seen for years already, unless the hole NIST alleges is only 1 or 2 stories tall and gave off no smoke or anything to be visibly detected in a photo showing the majority of the South face, including the middle of the face. It wasn't severely damaged. The columns were still intact. No giant holes. Just the SW corner damage.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   
From the link on the OP there was also a video with lucky Larry Silverstein and his famous speech on camera re: pull WTC7, I have tried to write out the dialogue accurately and I put it here so that I can ask a question of ATSer's:

this is Larry speaking to he camera:

"I remember getting a call from the a' fire department Commander..
telling me that they were not sure that they were going to be able to contain the fire..

"I said that you know we've had such terrible loss of life..
maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it'
ah.. they made that decision to pull..
then we watched the buiding collapse.

(if anyone wants to correct this feel free as there may be errors in my transcription)

Now my question is this: what does Lucky Larry mean by this statement which has always haunted me since he said this;

"I said that you know we've had such terrible loss of life..?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   
In this docu, although shotrly mentioned, you can see Jowenko study the surroundings of WTC7 and the possible impact on it of falling buldings around it, but he sticks to his conclusion: Controlled Demolition.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tooblue
This is one of the nastiest con jobs yet by any CT'er.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by tooblue]


Well maybe 1 problem with your side of things is that according to the EPA who recovered fuel from the fuel tanks at WTC 7 siad there were no fires on the ground floor. So it would be possable for someone to get in there and do work.

www.wtc7.net...



To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time.
Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   

from denythestatusquo


I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department Commander...
telling me that they were not sure that they were going to be able to contain the fire...

I said that you know we've had such terrible loss of life...maybe the smartest thing to do is 'pull it', ah...they made that decision to pull...then we watched the building collapse.


(if anyone wants to correct this feel free as there may be errors in my transcription)

Now my question is this. What does Lucky Larry mean by this statement which has always haunted me since he said this:


I said that you know we've had such terrible loss of life...



Deny, LL pretends to appear surprised at his recent investment being destroyed. However, imho it's a ruse. His actions have set him up for a payoff that would seem to indicate sufficient motive all over the place. Like all official insiders he also would be attempting to express a bit of public compassion for the victims. However in his case it may be a cover-up...

Look at the famous 'pull' remark just before that. He is obviously lying imao, 'Lucky' just ran out of luck: for any controlled demolition would obviously have to have been planned weeks in advance.
You understand, this man has just bought the WTC, which would have taken $15 billion to properly repair, a condemned structure really. He has then promptly insured it for $7 billion: against, among other things, 'terrorist attacks' specifically.

Now...he is about to file TWO claims for DOUBLE the full amount, for TWO 'separate' plane attacks.

Building 7 had to go down--it was part of his three-building insurance package...I'm no investigator but that's prima facie evidence, right?

The profit motive that he's set up would seem to indicate that all three buildings not only behaved like they were controlled demolitions, but probably actually in fact _are_.



More including security concerns:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join