Danny Jowenko - Dutch Demolition Expert Still Maintains WTC7 Could NOT Collapse Due to Fire


Just spotted this GEM over at Pilots For 911 Truth Forum

There have been rumours lately that Danny Jowenko (controlled demolition expert) of http://www.jowenko.nl/ had changed his mind on WTC 7.....

So Jeff of http://www.pumpitout.com/ called him and asked him

Very intersting to say the least (call lasts just over 2 minutes)

Click link below to listen or right click and save target as to download:

Phone call to Danny Jowenko

Don't miss this !!!

Good stuff! I gotta say the

Good stuff!

I gotta say the stuff on the front page of pumpitout.com is a bit odd though. Maybe not the best thing to have on the front page of this site ("proof that 1+1 = 2")? I'm sure that makes sense to them, but it makes no sense to me.

Yea I agree about their

Yea I agree about their website, the fact they they've got "Killtown’s" crap there is a big black mark.

Call to Jowenko now on Youtube (w/ Building 7 footage)


"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Awesome. Jowenko for President!!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Hahaha... Nice website, cool

Hahaha... Nice website, cool audio.
Good that he managed to get Jowenko on the phone. Last time someone tried in Holland, Jowenko said he never wanted to talk about the whole thing ever again, if I remember correctly.
So this confirmation sure is a good thing.


Here's the original interview with Mr. Jowenko...

Extended version of interview w/ Controlled Demo Expert Danny Jowenko confirming that Building 7 was brought down on purpose

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Are you around stallion4...

I think I have discovered something VERY significant re WTC7 (been spending the last two days going through "archive.org" footage of 9/11)...

Like the "BBC World" report that WTC7 had collapsed even before 5pm EST.

Can you spot anything wrong with this news report at 5:10pm EST.

Note : Salomon Smith Barney occupied the following floors of WTC7 - Ground, 1 to 6, 13, 18 to 46.

If you want to start downloading the Mpeg (it contains BBC world footage from 16:54 to 17:36 EST) - get it whilst you can.

Download from : http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg - "right click / save target as"

Working on the report now - things like this make the research worthwhile :)

Best wishes

What on earth do you mean?

"Like the 'BBC World' report that WTC7 had collapsed even before 5pm EST."


It took a lot of time to download the whole thing, and I can't see anything of what you suggest above.

I'm putting together a little movie...

Which should make it clear...

The picture above should be enough...

Read the news ticker at the bottom (remember it's 5:10pm EST) and then look to the right of her head...

They were reporting the building collapsed at 4:57pm EST.


The news reported JFK had just been shot, you see him alive behind the reporter as she discussed his death, then 23 minutes later he actually was shot....

If you see what I mean

Best wishes

PS.... Just incase you are unfamiliar with the Salomon Brothers Building, below is a picture.


Yes, 911veritas, I'm pretty familiar with the Salomon Brothers Building:


(that's my page) :-)

And while looking at the picture and watching the video, I *was* thinking "that building to the right of her looks just like WTC 7". But then I thought it couldn't be, or that the footage shown on the background was not real-time.

But *how* do you know it's 5:10 when she is talking, or that they were reporting the building collapse at 4:57? I didn't get that?

All I can say is they are so BUSTED !!!!

The timings of the sections, listed on archive.org are pretty accurate, but I want to remove as much margin of error as possible !!!

To calculate / confirm the actual time of the footage, was simply referencing live sections that referred to the time...

I.e. George Pataki's Speech (with a big clock in the background) that displays 2:38pm.

This is corroborated by other live sections where presenters said it is now "3:30pm" in New York and "4pm" in New York, calculating the times is easy because all the footage is continuous and chronological with no breaks or missing footage.

I have done some maths and the worst margin of error could be 6 minutes at most.

So even with the maximum error possible, the first televised official report that WTC7 was down was at 5:03pm EST...

17 minutes before the building actually came down.

Still to me the most damning evidence is the lady reporter "Jane Standley" who is obviously not in front of an artificial background, the sun is clearly shining on her and when she puts her hand out the window, you can clearly see the sun on her hand. They have also been filming out that window all day.

She talks for a full seven minutes about WTC7 having collapsed whilst you can still see it over her left shoulder....

Two possibilites

Either someone deliberately issued a press tip-off / release early as to bust the perps story wide open (sorry we took so long).


The press statement detailing WTC7's demise was issued but the perps had problems for twenty or so minutes getting the demolition job done.

I am working on reducing the margin of error to less than sixty seconds... and will get back when done.

Best wishes.

This is SO BIG

Nice find!

I agree with your analysis too.
Waiting eagerly for your final presentation about this, 911veritas.

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

make sure you blog it, i

make sure you blog it, i look forward to it.

Someone DID blog it earlier today, but it's since disappeared

Not sure why, though. Hopefully it's just undergoing an updating process? But there were several comments on it including 911veritas' latest research regarding this story. There was also a video about it posted on the blog that disappeared, that was produced by (I think) 911veritas. Here it is:


A graphic has also been created to go along with this story by (I think) PUMPITOUT.com:

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Show "Yes, 911blogger took it down - maybe because it's TROLL BAIT!" by Nicholas

Nicholas what are you talking about?

Building 7 can clearly be seen still standing behind the reporter:

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace



Troll bait, disinfo... I can smell your worried and desperate BS from here....

I would bet my last dollar on the BBC reporting WTC7 down at 5pm (local time New York on 9/11) YES that's 20 minutes before it actually came down...

This will be FULLY verified, proved without doubt (you can do it yourself, with the information on the blog, when it eventually gets authorized) and I hope you eat your post with beans on...

Better still, order the BBC World footage from 14:40 to 17:19 Eastern time... yes local to New York on 9/11 (that's 19:40 to 22:19 UK time).

sheeesh, you disinfo troll

always right on time huh

always right on time huh Nick?

I agree this is big. This

I agree this is big.

This should be used as a lever to force WTC 7 to the a lot of people. There already were so many things about it... and now this!

My colleague said they'll probably just try to explain this as some kind of confusion... They feared it was going to collapse, something got mixed up, etc.



I'm speechless right now

Good thing a picture is worth $7 billion words
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Great post 911Veritas

History was made with this post! Just had to come back to acknowledge that!

This is good to hear.

This is good to hear. Thanks.

Anyone have a high-quality

Anyone have a high-quality version of the above-vids? And while I'm making requests -- anyone have a high-res video of David Ray Griffin's speech in NY before the anniversary? Or Ralph Shoenman's? Thanks.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

re Jowenko vid

Hi Danse. Try contacting the person who posted the footage on youtube:


His moniker is "einsteen". He also posts at LCF, so you may want to try to get a hold of him there if you're registered:


Thanks. Will do. The

The uncut interview was put

The uncut interview was put on their internet site, it's low quality. It's possible to buy a dvd of the broadcast version but i guess it will not contain these extra's.
You can email them and ask if they also sell the extra's on dvd. They also put the english subtitled version on their website so i guess the dvd will contain english subtitles??

You can mail them at zembla (at) vara.nl and ask all you want.

I'm curious if everyone will still be so fond of mr. Jowenko when they see him telling WTC 1 and 2 were not demolished, impossible. You guys should really watch the whole show, it's really nice. I still get a bit annoyed when people firmly claim the flight path at the Pentagon was impossible for a novice pilot. You see them go inside a real simulator and pull it off, piece of cake. They say its a fact that there was insider trading and foreknowledge. It's a very informative and high quality investigative program, it's highly respected in Holland. It's a hot piece of journalism but it seems to be a bit hidden on the internet??
It's a bit of cherry picking and deceptive to only show the WTC 7 clip.

No one is "cherry picking"

When Danny Jowenko was first interviewed about the towers and their "collapses" for the first time, Mr. Jowenko -- not being familiar with unconventional "Top Down" controlled demolition method, and not having studied information supporting WTC controlled demolition theories in depth -- stated that he did not think the twin towers were brought down by explosives.

However, after examining WTC-7 information for the first time later on during the same interview, he explained that the building was in fact a conventional "bottom up" demolition, based on his personal experience in performing conventional "bottom up" demolitions for 20+ years.

Months after the interview (after he researched Building 7 in much greater detail than he had during his original interview for the Dutch TV documentary about 9/11), Mr. Jowenko is still convinced that explosives brought down Building 7. His current opinions and research about whether or not the towers were brought down with explosives is unknown at this time.

Many "skeptics" argue that Mr. Jowenko is only 1 of thousands in the demolition industry who believe WTC-7 was a controlled demolition. This is a false and disingenuous claim, because the number of people experienced in demolition (or Structural design) who actually believe in the WTC controlled demolition theory, or how many have actually studied it is unknown. Most have never gone on public record to say what they believe happened to the WTC buildings on 9/11.

Also, "top down" controlled demolition is possible to accomplish, but not a practical method of controlled demolition, That's the reason why demolition experts such as Danny Jowenko aren't familiar with "top down" demo. They simply don't use that method, because it's not practical.

The only reason why the towers were brought down using a "top down" demolition method was to give the illusion that the planes brought the towers down -period. If they would have been demolished conventionally -- bottom up -- it would have been much too obvious that the planes did not bring the towers down.

Anyway, when and if Mr. Jowenko says that he now believes the towers were also brought down by explosives, the "skeptics" will just call him a "kook". Hell, they're already calling him a "kook" because he believes WTC-7 was brought down from explosives. Will you call Mr. Jowenko a "kook" too, monkeyman, if he comes out and says the towers were controlled demolition?

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Show "In fact Jowenko spends some" by misterguy

hurl abuse?

Where did I "hurl abuse" at monkeyman?

And at this time it's unknown what Mr. Jowenko believes regarding the towers. It's a fact that he hadn't researched the issue of WTC controlled demolition before he was interviewed several months ago for the Dutch TV documentary. He's now had several months to research CD theory. I'm sure he's discovered what other researchers have discovered, i.e., witnesses who reported finding bombs in the buildings, heard explosions and felt the ground shaking seconds before the towers fell, saw orange and red flashes at the base of the towers shooting up and all around seconds before the towers fell, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera..

misterguy, the only abuse that's being hurled at someone on this thread is coming from you. Not me.

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Oh. I see. Turn about is

Oh. I see. Turn about is fair play I suppose.

I think you were unnecessarily harsh in your response to monkeyman, but you're right. No abuse. I stand by my original comment (I think, although now I can no longer read what I wrote) about how we can no more claim that Jowenko is likely to change his mind about the Towers than a debunker can rightfully claim that he was likely to change his mind about WTC 7. Until we hear otherwise his response is what it is.


Over-statement man strikes again!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Why the hostility, i'm just

Why the hostility, i'm just stating some facts here. Why in the world would i want to call him a kook for changing his mind. Would you call him a spineless creature if he changes his mind on WTC 7?
I just get a bit tired of people cherry picking quotes and simply making stuff up (or being hostile).
I'll just tell you one thing, i asked the people behind this documentary MYSELF if he changed his mind about WTC 1/2 after seeing WTC 7. That's a logical question right, they clearly told me he didn't and won't.
You can read it back on zapruder.nl by the way, in Dutch ofcourse. But somehow you know exactly that he didn't research WTC1/2, he doesn't understand top-down demolition bla bla bla. Did you speak with Jowenko or are you just making these things up in your own head so it fits your ideas? He explained in details why he thinks it's impossible and the towers behaved in a normal way.
That's the whole story, those are his words. If you wanna check your own theories call him up and ask the man, don't speak for him! He probably don't care if people call him a kook, he answers the phone call very polite and even explains stuff. If he's so worried about it he would have hung up. He stands behind his words, it's a bit lame to praise him for WTC7 but then question his expertise when it comes to WTC1/2.
Anyways, building 7 is enough proof for a big investigation. At the end no one knows what EXACTLY happened in those buildings, it's just very suspicious and worrying.

Edit: i call it cherry picking because people use it as proof but won't talk about the WTC1/2 conclusion of Jowenko because that doesn't fit their own ideas.
His conclusion about wtc7 is being used to support the demolish for WTC1/2, but that's deceptive. These things will bite you in the butt eventually, just show the man's opinion about the WHOLE subject. No need to be scared.


Your reading comprehension isn't the best I can see. Chill. I'm simply stating the facts. Jowenko has not publicly said what he believes happened to the towers since he was first asked about them in the Dutch TV documentary. What part of that don't you understand? I asked you a simple question -- if you'd consider him to be a "kook" if he now believes the towers were brought down by controlled demolition -- because I noticed you registered here less than 24 hours ago to tell us we're "cherry picking" and being "deceptive". You sounded like a "debunker" from JREF throwing around accusations like that.

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Right, it's my fault.

Right, it's my fault. Howcome you have this idea in your mind that i might call him a kook in the future if he changes his mind. Just because i registered 24 hours ago, wow. I must be a weird debunker supporting WTC7, insider trading but also demand context. That's what bothers me, all these thoughts (not just yours) based on nothing. Indeed he never talked about his ideas after the documentary, but he didn't talk about many things, what does this prove???Just stick with the hard facts, just call the guy and ask it himself, untill then your ideas are based on nothing. If someone comments on it he must be a debunker or can't read, sounds more like Bill O'Reilly tactics ;-) Anyways i was just a lurker and wanted to help the person to get his high quality version. There's also a 7gb version available recorded by me personally but it doesn't have subtitles or the extra's. If someone needs it for a project anyone can ask on the zapruder.nl forum for help.

Good I'm glad you acknowledge that it's your fault ;)

The reason why I suspect(ed) you were a "debunker" was because I noticed that your fist post as a registered member (less than 12 hours at the time of this post) was to attack other members of this blog. You should at least wait a few days to start lecturing and disrespecting people who've been here a lot longer than you ;)

Seriously, though, this blog has been infiltrated with "debunker" trolls for months. It's a well known fact to anyone who's been here 24+ hours. At first glance you came off like one to me. So I responded to you in a way that I felt you deserved -period.

That said, welcome to 911blogger! Thank you for gracing us all with your presence and for chastising us for being "deceptive cherry pickers" . Is that better? LOL

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Twist and turn all you want,

Twist and turn all you want, half the movie/opinion is shown which is cherry picking, that's all i've said till you started to "pick a fight". If that's disrespecting or attacking people that's because of long toes. Just don't cry when the debunkers over and over use the hidden part to debunk things. You cannot defend explosives in WTC1/2/7 using half of Jowenko's story.
I also don't believe in elite groups so i speak my mind right away and don't consider myself new ;-)
Anyways, i'll be gone now and no hard feelings.

I'll repost for you what I told misterguy on another thread...

"I (thought I) clearly explained why Jowenko said the towers weren't brought down with explosives -- because he hadn't researched WTC controlled demolition theories before he made his comments about them. This is a fact. The man didn't even know about Building 7 before the interview.

He's had several months now (since being interviewed on Dutch TV) to analyze all aspects of WTC controlled demolition theories. If he publicly announces that he still believes that the towers weren't demolished after looking at all the available evidence, I will accept that. I won't agree with it (based on my own research and findings) but I will still respect Mr. Jowenko's opinion.

I suppose the main point I was trying to make on that other thread was that even if and when Mr. Jowenko ever comes forward to say that the towers were demolished with explosives, the "debunkers" will simply dismiss him as a "kook", a "crank", a "woo woo " and every other derogatory name they can think of in hopes that other people won't take him seriously -- even if he's right.. They already refer to him as such for his opinions about WTC-7. But LOVE to expose what he said about the towers, even though he hadn't had sufficient time to research what happened to them before he was asked for an opinion.

Those so-called "debunkers" don't care about the truth. So who really gives a flying fuck what they can claim about Jowenko? I don't. Do you? Do you honestly care what a small group of disingenuous assholes think about Jowenko, 9/11, you, me, etc.?"

Sorry to hear you're going to be "gone now", monkeyman. But I'll get over it ;-)

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

I think the monkey's point

I think the monkey's point is that we've got to be more scurpulously honest than the debunkers (by a factor of a gazillion probably). That is we can't be seen to use the same sort of wishful thinking that they use. Jowenko didn't retract his position on WTC 7. Just because the debunkers are so sure that they're right doesn't mean that Jowenko can't disagree with them.

The same thing is true in regards to us and our position on the towers.

But really I think we're agreeing now anyhow.

Top-down demolition "safer" in some respects?

Just something that I've thought about a couple of times: in the case of very tall and relatively narrow buildings, wouldn't it be actually safer to demolish them from top to bottom?

My thinking goes as follows: if something goes wrong in a bottom-up demo job, the whole upper part might topple to one side. However, when a very tall building is being destroyed from the top downwards, only the portion above and around the demolition wave could topple.

Is this totally wrong? Feel free to correct me.

Anyway, what we need is Structural Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Not a structuaral engineer,

Not a structuaral engineer, but I'm sure one will come along to correct what I get wrong: ;-)

As I understand it, bottom up demolition takes advantage of gravity--you blow the supporting columns, and as they go, and the rest of the charges travel up and around, the building falls in on itself more or less neatly. I don't know about safety, but one problem I see with top-down is, not using gravity, you'd need MORE explosives to do the same job.

As for it tipping over, I have seen a clip of a failed demolition--they tend to just crash to a halt straight down. It's funny, actually.

I always thought they did the top down because the buildings were so tall--both larger than any demolished on record, but making it look more like the planes did it makes sense.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

You've hit the nail on the

You've hit the nail on the head. That's one of Jowenko's reasons for not believing the Towers were brought down by CD. He said it would take way to much explosives to do the job from the top down.

I'd say a top-down demo also

I'd say a top-down demo also uses gravity, but less effectively than a bottom-up demolition.

I have also seen the failed demo clip. It suggests that a collapse is arrested fairly quickly in an intact structure and that highrises don't topple easily. I'm still wondering if buildings as tall as the Twin Towers can be safely demolished using the traditional technique. Has any skyscraper been demolished outside 9/11?

This picture shows how difficult it is to collapse a tall building:


Military explosives failed to cause even a single floor to give in.

Those in the demolitions

Those in the demolitions industry will tell you even when everything is set just so, it's touch and go whether it will work according to plan. That link--which BTW the picture won't load :( --does say 1944; explosives and their use have been improved since.

Still, it makes one good point: if explosives CAN fail to bring a building down, what the hell makes anyone think kerosene has a chance?


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

"that link--which BTW the

"that link--which BTW the picture won't load :( "

That's strange, because for me that page (made by me, incidentally) loads just fine. Could you retry?

"if explosives CAN fail to bring a building down, what the hell makes anyone think kerosene has a chance"

Exactly. Or, referring to Jowenko's argument, if a huge amount of explosives would be needed in a top-down demolition, how could short-lived fires accomplish the same?

Incidentally, those saying that the fires weakeaned the steel also typically claim that the fires lasted for 56 minutes in the South Tower and 102 minutes in the North. But of course, fires keep moving to new locations as burnable materials exhaust. I've read somewhere that any given place could burn for 20-30 minutes before the fire is exhausted there. More info, anyone?

So in practice for steel to have weakened to the point of collapse in a given location, it would have had to be weakened within just 20-30 minutes, if the above is correct.

And even if the steel had dramatically weakened in, say, one or two places, how would that translate into an entire floor collapsing at once? How large were the floors again in the Towers?

re: "a huge amount of explosives needed for top-down demo"

Consider what explosives expert Van Romero said on 9/11:

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points."


"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Except they only had one

Except they only had one chance to do it right. So I'd think they'd err on the side of more.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Loaded Image on imageshack for ya...

You can find a good video of a "FAILED DEMOLITION" below

Click to Watch Video

That's the one!

LOL--because what else are you going to do when your demolition fails? :)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

This call now with video.

I added some video of WTC7 collapsing while this call is playing. I posted it at Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum:


Spread this video around...

Thanks BoneZ

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace