|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject: Demolition Expert: WTC7 = controlled demolition;absolutely |
 |
|
Danny Jowenko � Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.
Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:
| Quote: |
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.
Danny Jowenko: Exactly |
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm |
and again, does nothing to destract from the issue i set forth to make know.
'DEBUNKING 9/11 DEBUNKING' read a book joo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
ome people say the WTC couldn�t have collapsed the way it did from fire damage alone, that there�s convincing evidence the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, and that steps were taken to obstruct any later investigations. But do these claims stand up to scrutiny?
* Progressive collapse doesn�t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident
* A power-down at the WTC provided an opportunity to plant explosives
* As did the suspicious removal of the WTCs bomb-sniffing dogs
* Accounts of WTC explosions from William Rodriguez, Kim White, Louie Cacchioli and many more prove there were bombs in the building
* The seismic record proves both there were explosions before any planes hit the WTC, and just before the collapse began
* WTC collapse photos reveal steel columns being fractured and ejected at great speed, something that could only have happened through demolition
* The WTC steel was split into neat 30 foot lengths during the collapse, strongly indicating the use of explosives
* The towers fell at free fall speeds
* A purely gravity-driven collapse could not have provided enough energy to pulverise the WTC concrete and create the observed dust clouds
* Molten steel found at the WTC couldn�t have been created by fire, but does make sense if explosives were involved
* DP Grimmer tells us that it was possible to use thermite at the WTC, but do his calculations stand up to scrutiny?
* Thermate-signature chemicals have been discovered on WTC samples
* And don�t miss Dr Frank Greenings detailed paper on the WTC collapse, which he�s kindly agreed to let us host here
* But what about the streams of molten metal, the angle cut beam, the...
* Links to related sites |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
ome people say the WTC couldn�t have collapsed the way it did from fire damage alone, that there�s convincing evidence the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, and that steps were taken to obstruct any later investigations. But do these claims stand up to scrutiny?
* Progressive collapse doesn�t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident
* A power-down at the WTC provided an opportunity to plant explosives
* As did the suspicious removal of the WTCs bomb-sniffing dogs
* Accounts of WTC explosions from William Rodriguez, Kim White, Louie Cacchioli and many more prove there were bombs in the building
* The seismic record proves both there were explosions before any planes hit the WTC, and just before the collapse began
* WTC collapse photos reveal steel columns being fractured and ejected at great speed, something that could only have happened through demolition
* The WTC steel was split into neat 30 foot lengths during the collapse, strongly indicating the use of explosives
* The towers fell at free fall speeds
* A purely gravity-driven collapse could not have provided enough energy to pulverise the WTC concrete and create the observed dust clouds
* Molten steel found at the WTC couldn�t have been created by fire, but does make sense if explosives were involved
* DP Grimmer tells us that it was possible to use thermite at the WTC, but do his calculations stand up to scrutiny?
* Thermate-signature chemicals have been discovered on WTC samples
* And don�t miss Dr Frank Greenings detailed paper on the WTC collapse, which he�s kindly agreed to let us host here
* But what about the streams of molten metal, the angle cut beam, the...
* Links to related sites |
Joo. Simple question, see if you can answer it without a link. Why did the bottom of WTC7 give way like air? Why would they do that? Please explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I use the link why does it matter?
That is how to deal with 9-11 conspiracy theorists. and that is the way it is going to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
ome people say the WTC couldn�t have collapsed the way it did from fire damage alone, that there�s convincing evidence the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, and that steps were taken to obstruct any later investigations. But do these claims stand up to scrutiny?
* Progressive collapse doesn�t seem to happen outside of a terrorist incident
* A power-down at the WTC provided an opportunity to plant explosives
* As did the suspicious removal of the WTCs bomb-sniffing dogs
* Accounts of WTC explosions from William Rodriguez, Kim White, Louie Cacchioli and many more prove there were bombs in the building
* The seismic record proves both there were explosions before any planes hit the WTC, and just before the collapse began
* WTC collapse photos reveal steel columns being fractured and ejected at great speed, something that could only have happened through demolition
* The WTC steel was split into neat 30 foot lengths during the collapse, strongly indicating the use of explosives
* The towers fell at free fall speeds
* A purely gravity-driven collapse could not have provided enough energy to pulverise the WTC concrete and create the observed dust clouds
* Molten steel found at the WTC couldn�t have been created by fire, but does make sense if explosives were involved
* DP Grimmer tells us that it was possible to use thermite at the WTC, but do his calculations stand up to scrutiny?
* Thermate-signature chemicals have been discovered on WTC samples
* And don�t miss Dr Frank Greenings detailed paper on the WTC collapse, which he�s kindly agreed to let us host here
* But what about the streams of molten metal, the angle cut beam, the...
* Links to related sites |
do you read what you post....ever?
read joo read. then we can have a conversation instead of posting meaningless stuff that doesn't apply to my thread.
like i said before, i hope some one is paying you huge bucks to do this.
don't count on anything being retro-active.
they're greedy buggers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
