Let's ask again: What was the MOTIVE for WTC7?

Ah, yes, I'd heard MaGZ's stated reason as well, and it's the most sensible of the reasons. It's only crazy because there's no human way to plan a CD in seven hours in a building on fire. This is Jowenko's theory, by the way. He thinks they got in, planted charges on the core columns in about an hour and a half (having enough focused people to do this), got out, and took it down. He says the perimeter columns would have failed on their own.
 
WTC 7 was pulled because it might collapse into the search and rescue area. There was no motive for a conspiracy or inside job.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, though, there's no reason to cite WTC7 as "proof" of an "inside job". Maybe you don't; this thread is addressed to the Truthers that do.
 
RedIbis said:
I'm curious about this particularly persistent canard. Do you honestly think that even a majority of the sensitive information stored in the WTC 7 was in paper form?
Click to expand...

Sensitive documents, by definition, carry with them a security and disposal plan. I gravely doubt the disposal process included "set fire to and then dynamite the building" anywhere on their checklist.

Honestly, when Arthur Anderson got nailed, did they CD their offices? Did Ollie North send Fawn Hall out to rig their office with thermite? The answer is NO, people.
 
MaGZ said:
WTC 7 was pulled because it might collapse into the search and rescue area. There was no motive for a conspiracy or inside job.
Click to expand...

This is like the "United 93 was shot down" argument. If they did it, it would've been for good reason and there would be no reason to deny it.
 
MaGZ said:
WTC 7 was pulled because it might collapse into the search and rescue area. There was no motive for a conspiracy or inside job.
Click to expand...

If that's what you think MagZ...End of story, end of controversy, let it go. Now all the twoofers have to do is let go of the preposterous assumption of demolition and acquire some sanity, if that's possible.
 
It seems like a waste to risk demolishing another busy skyscraper in New York City when demolishing the building does nothing to further the supposed goals of running the black operation, taking away civil liberties and invading Iraq. To me, destroying court case documents that have nothing to do with the main goal isn't worth the risk of being caught while wiring a building for demolition.

Then again, I could be missing a few pieces of the puzzle.
 
Last edited:
Unfit4Command said:
It seems like a waste to risk demolishing another busy skyscraper in New York City when demolishing the building does nothing to further the supposed goals of running the operation, taking away civil liberties and invading Iraq. To me, destroying court case documents that have nothing to do with the main goal isn't worth the risk of being caught while wiring a building for demolition.

Then again, I could be missing a few pieces of the puzzle.
Click to expand...

Those pieces include "insanity," "paranoia," and "idiocy."
 
Alt+F4 said:
2. More "shock & awe" to get Americans hyped for war with Afghanistan and Iraq. Then why wait to destroy the building until everyone was safely evacuated? Even the "troofers" admit that most Americans don't know WTC7 collapsed that day, so how did it's destruction help the push for war?
Click to expand...
most Americans and the world have lttle clue buildings other than the Towers and Pentagon were damaged much less collapsed. WTC# 5, 6, 7, the Deutche bank are not well known or associated with 9/11 outside those who pay more attention to it. Truthers thrive on this to show a "cover up"
 
boloboffin said:
Ah, yes, I'd heard MaGZ's stated reason as well, and it's the most sensible of the reasons. It's only crazy because there's no human way to plan a CD in seven hours in a building on fire. This is Jowenko's theory, by the way. He thinks they got in, planted charges on the core columns in about an hour and a half (having enough focused people to do this), got out, and took it down. He says the perimeter columns would have failed on their own.
Click to expand...


And he is a Demo expert so why are you so quick to disbelieve him?
 
Garb said:
Appeal to authority much?
Click to expand...


Is it a fallacious appeal to authority? No.

Jowenko is a demo expert talking about a demolition.

If you could just reply "appeal to authority" like that, then we could dismiss any experts testimony on anything.
 
Well you see it was bringing down WTC7 that allowed them to scatter emergency workers enough to allow them to steal the gold and escape via an under construction water tunnel only to later fake blowing all the gold up.
 
JHarrow said:
Is it a fallacious appeal to authority? No.

Jowenko is a demo expert talking about a demolition.

If you could just reply "appeal to authority" like that, then we could dismiss any experts testimony on anything.
Click to expand...

Expert testimony matters when they can prove it.

Can Jowenko bring a demo crew and do the same thing he claims to do? I will take an experts opinion over another based on what they bring to the table. Jowenko has mainly speculation.
 
R.Mackey said:
Sensitive documents, by definition, carry with them a security and disposal plan. I gravely doubt the disposal process included "set fire to and then dynamite the building" anywhere on their checklist.

Honestly, when Arthur Anderson got nailed, did they CD their offices? Did Ollie North send Fawn Hall out to rig their office with thermite? The answer is NO, people.
Click to expand...
Maybe they blew up WTC7 to destroy the paper shredder. Has Steve Jones found any paper shredder molecules in that lady's apartment yet?
 
Garb said:
Expert testimony matters when they can prove it.

Can Jowenko bring a demo crew and do the same thing he claims to do? I will take an experts opinion over another based on what they bring to the table. Jowenko has mainly speculation.
Click to expand...

You are suggesting that Jowenko has to blow up a 47 storey building for his opinion to carry any weight?

Well in that case, should Brent Blanchard, who is often quoted here, make a twin tower collapse by fire before his opinion is accepted?
 
JHarrow said:
Is it a fallacious appeal to authority? No.

Jowenko is a demo expert talking about a demolition.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is rather fallacious in the case of Jowenko, because he did not base his *cough* "expert" opinion on facts or evidence. Rather, he based his *cough* "expert" opinion on a very casual look at an incomplete video clip, on grossly incomplete information presented to him, and on his own completely irrelevant personal views on matters quite unrelated to his purported expertise.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Actually, it is rather fallacious in the case of Jowenko, because he did not base his *cough* "expert" opinion on facts or evidence. Rather, he based his *cough* "expert" opinion on a very casual look at an incomplete video clip, on grossly incomplete information presented to him, and on his own completely irrelevant personal views on unrelated matters.
Click to expand...


Ah, I see you are lying again.

Jowenko still believes it was a controlled demolition and says he has throughly researched the topic himself. He is an expert, you are not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom