Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

[beachnut]

Please research it yourself,this is not a joke.

But your knowledge of 9/11 is. Please PM me when you find some facts on 9/11 to support 9/11 truth; or you can just go get the Pulitzer Prize breaking the biggest story in the past 6 years since 19 terrorist cut throats and crashed planes. Your ability to understand 9/11 is a pathetic joke. Got some facts on WTC7?

 

[332nd]

http://www.ussartf.org/images/wtc40.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/010911_Vesey_911_1323.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/street1.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1025247651cd445e81.jpg

[truthy]LOL! Those are not the Enron docs! The Enron docs are written in stone that comes from the bowels (see Magma chambers) of Moloch! That's why they had to CD 7! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!![/truthy}

 

[Corsair 115]

How many people do you think have heard about WTC7 collapse, and how many do you think even care?

I watched it collapse on live television. It was reported that it was in danger of collapsing about two hours before it actually did.

This was a perfect moment to destroy any evidence, the whole country was in chaos, so what's the difference if one more building falls right?

Seems to me a much simpler and easier way of destroying documents is to wait until nighttime on a weekend when there's no one around, send some folks in to retrieve them, then cart the documents away to be shredded or burned.

Claiming that using 'shredder' would somehow be more logical, makes no sense, since the plane attacks, pentagon damage, flight 93, and building collapses causes such a shock that the PNAC boys could have gotten anything they wanted done at that moment.

Wait, are you saying the IVC kept documents pertaining to the IVC inside WTC7? Why on earth would they do something so ridiculously dumb?

Besides, a building collapse doesn't ensure paper documents will be destroyed. It doesn't even ensure electronic documents on hard drives will be destroyed.

And they did get everything they wanted right, thanks to people like Gravy, and you, no?

Who are "they"? What did "they" want exactly? Might you explain how "they" are able to keep the media from outside the United States from spilling the beans on this conspiracy?


And I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why no loud BOOMS were heard when WTC was allegedly destroyed in a controlled demolition...

 

[Slayhamlet]

The idea that it is somehow easier to clandestinely rig a building with enough explosives to make it collapse than to use paper shredders and memory swipes is absolutely batty. Come on, Truthers, there must have been a better reason for the NWO to perpetrate this extremely risky CD.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Please research it yourself,this is not a joke.

Apparently it is.

 

[einsteen]

Here is the video again. Tell me, when was he told during the interview that the building contained "various government offices, and papers dealing with Enron" ? The answer is really simple: at absolutely no point during the interview does anyone tell him that. What is true is that the documentary ended in the conclusion that this was the case and Jowenko likely saw it and believed this conclusion. But the airing of the documentary is obviously after the interview.

I translated this one and I know each sentence, no he didn't talk about that. There are two interviews out, the first is the one from Zembla and the 2nd one is the "raw" one that I grabbed from internet, that one has disappeared now, but that one also is not the complete interview. Someone from this forum (I forgot who) has called him and said that he talked later about the secret nature of it, but there is no proof of that.
I contacted the program maker and he said that Jowenko knew that something has been imploded after 9/11, but he didn't know that wtc7 fell on 9/11. I'm even not sure if he was aware that the first movie he saw was a WTC building, but probably (after he heard it was on 9/11) he immediately started thinking it was one of the buildings that had been imploded the days after 9/11.

And yes, in fairness the buildings we have here are small ones compared with the ones at the other side of the ocean, but does that change anything ? I would say that even a lay man can place charges and implode wtc7 if he only knows the point where to initiate it. Probably a single bomb leading to this progressive failure is sufficient. No I'm not joking, only defending the ridiculous official story now.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Incidentally, making sure that a hard drive is thoroughly wiped is one area where an incendiary device makes perfect sense. Stack those drives in a pile, put a thermite incendiary on top, light it up and watch those bits go to bit heaven.

Might be a bit of overkill though... but it's fun!

 

[Totovader]

And yes, in fairness the buildings we have here are small ones compared with the ones at the other side of the ocean, but does that change anything ? I would say that even a lay man can place charges and implode wtc7 if he only knows the point where to initiate it. Probably a single bomb leading to this progressive failure is sufficient. No I'm not joking, only defending the ridiculous official story now.

So, you're saying a layman could have imploded WTC7 without the proper knowledge... if only he had the proper knowledge?

Got it.

And perhaps you should rethink what you're trying to say- lest you forget about the '93 incident...

 

[SDC]

Has there ever been any reports of the Enron trial or investigations being hampered because of lost documents stored at the WTC 7 building? Or did the people prosecuting the case just say oh well the documents were lost lets forget about it?

I have no inside information, but I obsessively followed the big Enron trial, chiefly through the Houston Chronicle. (Great coverage!) I can recall no, zero, zip, missing document issues, outside of the wholesale shredding by Anderson (the accountants) in late 2001. There were certainly questions as to what documents meant.

This is a non-starter. By the way, Lay appears to be dead, thouugh there are suspicions... http://www.kenlayisalive.org/

 

[Earthborn]

I think it's quite clear what the intention was- not only by interviewing a demolition expert (with no expertise in the specific field) but also by the tone of the rest of the documentary.

So the tone of the documentary after it has been edited, proves the intention the fimmakers had before making it?

I completely agree with Hanlon's Razor- but in this scenario, it's quite clear that it was intentional.

I can follow the documentary in the original language as it is my mother tongue -- making me better able to judge its "tone" -- I have watched it and the interview with Jowenko many times, and it is not at all clear to me that he was intentionally misled. It makes no sense to me at all to come to that conclusion.

Intentionally misleading him suggests that the filmmakers knew beforehand that it wasn't a controlled demolition. It suggests that they knew beforehand which videos and photos would cause Jowenko to come to the erroneous conclusion that it was. Did they contact other demolition experts to pre-select which videos they were going to show to Jowenko so he would come to the wrong conclusion?

It also suggests that they somehow knew beforehand that Jowenko would quickly and confidently claim controlled demolition and would not change his mind when confronted with contradicting evidence. Did Zembla employ mindreaders, or did they ask a loads of demolition experts in the hope that one of them would declare it a controlled demolition and only show that interview?

If they were interested in his informed opinion, then they would not have sprung it up on him in the first place

If they were interested in getting him to declare it a controlled demolition, one would expect they would not have given him any information that would contradict that conclusion, but they did. They told him that during the time when demolition experts supposedly rigging the building with explosives, it was actually on fire and heavily damaged, which would make it practically impossible to set the building up for controlled demolition. Jowenko then says: "I have no explanation for that." Was the intentional misleading of Jowenko just to make him look stupid?

I challenge you to provide some substantial evidence of your conspiracy theory that Jowenko was intentionally misled. I'll send you 500 Euro if you succeed.

 

[SDC]

With regard to Jowenko... why bother? He saw a video and made a judgement from that. That is at best a judgement of limited value, compared to those who investigated the actual case.

His opinion is effectively moot. Until and unless he makes an investigation and public statements of his own, not mediated through others, there really is no point in worrying about him.

He could be the bee's knees of structural engineering/ controlled demolition/ buildings go ka-boom, but without a real investigation, and public statements, it doesn't matter what he was told or shown, and what he said in a casual situation.

 

[Zlaya]

[qimg]http://www.ussartf.org/images/wtc40.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/010911_Vesey_911_1323.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/street1.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1025247651cd445e81.jpg[/qimg]

All pictures of WTC 1 and 2.

And who looked through those papers anyways?

What better camouflage than 9/11???

 

[Zlaya]

But your knowledge of 9/11 is. Please PM me when you find some facts on 9/11 to support 9/11 truth; or you can just go get the Pulitzer Prize breaking the biggest story in the past 6 years since 19 terrorist cut throats and crashed planes. Your ability to understand 9/11 is a pathetic joke. Got some facts on WTC7?

And you are?

Why should i even reply to your useless posts. What have you done for the debunking world? Say 'clunkity clunk' a lot?

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

What?

 

[beachnut]

And you are?

Why should i even reply to your useless posts. What have you done for the debunking world? Say 'clunkity clunk' a lot?

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

What?

At least you have the stupid questions down to a real science. As good as any 9/11 truther I have seen. No facts, no evidence to support any conclusion on 9/11, just asking stupid questions. How does that answer your stupid questions?

I would comment on your points, but they have no factual basis. Maybe you will get better at 9/11 topics. But I do not think so based on your lack of facts on WTC7.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for response to edited post

 

[Dave Rogers]

The old "size is everything" argument.

So at what height does it matter Par?

Somewhere a little above four storeys, I think, because everybody knows the collapse of the Kader toy factory doesn't prove anything about WTC7 - it's supposed to be the only time a high rise steel-framed building collapsed due to fire, isn't it?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

This was a perfect moment to destroy any evidence, the whole country was in chaos, so what's the difference if one more building falls right?

Claiming that using 'shredder' would somehow be more logical, makes no sense, since the plane attacks, pentagon damage, flight 93, and building collapses causes such a shock that the PNAC boys could have gotten anything they wanted done at that moment.

OK, Zlaya, let's see you argue your way out of this one. Suppose the collapse of WTC7 was used to destroy evidence. What, specifically, was the evidence destroyed?

Now if you say "I don't know, because it was destroyed!" then what was the need for demolishing WTC7? If the existence of specific items of evidence was not widely known, then those items could have easily been destroyed quietly using a shredder, with no need to arouse suspicion by demolishing a 47-storey building. I'm therefore looking for something definite like "The evidence destroyed includes the minutes of the meeting held between Enron and WorldCom on June 31st 1999 where it's believed that the Evil Plot to make lots of money was fully described, but which wasn't available at Ken Lay's trial leading to a reduction in his sentence." If you can't come up with something that specific, then there's no reason for the demolition.

Over to you.

Dave

 

[uk_dave]

Ahhhhh but what if it was evidence which the people in wtc7 didn't know they had, but that the people who the evidence related to did know the people in wtc7 had it and might have found out that they had it had they had time to look at it which the people who didn't want them to have it made sure they didn't have?

 

[eeyore1954]

All pictures of WTC 1 and 2.

And who looked through those papers anyways?

What better camouflage than 9/11???

If destroying Enron documents had anything to do with it why haven't there been reports that the case was hampered by the lack of documents.
do you really believe all the pertinent info was there. I hoped they also destroyed all the Arthur Anderson buildings.
Was the Enron trial stopped after 9/11 for lack of evidence?

This holds as much water as the claim that the pentagon was destroyed to hide the trillions of missing dollars. But after 9/11 no cared about the "stolen" money anymore.

 

[Gravy]

I have no inside information, but I obsessively followed the big Enron trial, chiefly through the Houston Chronicle. (Great coverage!) I can recall no, zero, zip, missing document issues, outside of the wholesale shredding by Anderson (the accountants) in late 2001. There were certainly questions as to what documents meant.

I have a page on this issue at my WTC7 site: Motive: to destroy Securities and Exchange Commission files?

 

[Totovader]

So the tone of the documentary after it has been edited, proves the intention the fimmakers had before making it?

All editing is done after filming.

I can follow the documentary in the original language as it is my mother tongue -- making me better able to judge its "tone" -- I have watched it and the interview with Jowenko many times, and it is not at all clear to me that he was intentionally misled. It makes no sense to me at all to come to that conclusion.

Obviously, I'll have to trust you on that one- but I fail to see how it would be any different. I may not understand the language, but inflection, facial expressions, and doubt are not unique to any particular language.

Intentionally misleading him suggests that the filmmakers knew beforehand that it wasn't a controlled demolition.

No, it does not.

It suggests that they knew beforehand which videos and photos would cause Jowenko to come to the erroneous conclusion that it was. Did they contact other demolition experts to pre-select which videos they were going to show to Jowenko so he would come to the wrong conclusion?

They wouldn't need to. All they had to do was select the video with the worst vantage point, and show him the collapse after it had already started. When his suspicions about the credibility of the claim are raised, they made no offer as to what actually happened, or what Jowenko was actually seeing.

It also suggests that they somehow knew beforehand that Jowenko would quickly and confidently claim controlled demolition and would not change his mind when confronted with contradicting evidence.

Quite the opposite. You can see from the video that Jowenko was very reluctant to arrive at that conclusion- a conclusion that obviously makes no sense. However, you are beginning to see what the problem is: they knew beforehand that if they were honest in their depiction of the WTC 7 collapse, they were unlikely to get the response they wanted from Jowenko. This is precisely the reason they had to be misleading.

Did Zembla employ mindreaders, or did they ask a loads of demolition experts in the hope that one of them would declare it a controlled demolition and only show that interview?

Much like your question here, it just needs to be worded in a ridiculous way to get the answer you want. Not only did the filmmakers do that, but they also handed Jowenko "all the evidence he needed" to draw the wrong conclusion.

If they were interested in getting him to declare it a controlled demolition, one would expect they would not have given him any information that would contradict that conclusion, but they did.

One would be entirely wrong in making such an assumption.

If they had approached Jowenko properly, told him their intentions, and allowed him to research it on his own- I doubt he would have arrived at the same conclusion.

Likewise, if they would have just asked his opinion without warning- and then refused to show any reference material, it's likely he would have come back with "I don't know," which would not have served their purpose.

They told him that during the time when demolition experts supposedly rigging the building with explosives, it was actually on fire and heavily damaged, which would make it practically impossible to set the building up for controlled demolition. Jowenko then says: "I have no explanation for that." Was the intentional misleading of Jowenko just to make him look stupid?

They did not specifically state that- Jowenko arrived at that conclusion on his own- a product of skepticism and critical thinking, regardless of the influence the filmmakers were trying to impose.

ETA: Furthermore, that only adds to the claim of a conspiracy theory. To arrive at the conclusion that the building was rigged impossibly fast that day would not result in a conspiracy theory... to then cleverly add that the building was on fire only draws the audience to the next conclusion: that the building was pre-rigged. Jowenko does not specifically state this- because he's (in all likelihood) questioning his premises- but it's what the audience is supposed to conclude.

I challenge you to provide some substantial evidence of your conspiracy theory that Jowenko was intentionally misled. I'll send you 500 Euro if you succeed.

I have provided evidence that the filmmakers intentionally misled Jowenko- you have simply ignored that evidence and claimed that your familiarity with the language trumps my observations. You're also intentionally misrepresenting my position- I never said it was a conspiracy theory. No conspiracy theory would be necessary for a couple of filmmakers to mislead an expert- who really is not even an expert in the field.

If you honestly think that a conspiracy theory is necessary- then I challenge you to go back and read your post. Look at how you attempt the strawman, the complex question fallacy, and then an ipse dixit fallacy all in the same post... Was a conspiracy theory necessary for you to do that? No, it was not.

Misleading a witness or an interviewee is standard practice for biased journalists- in this case, however, the consequences are less than entertaining.