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

Dave Rogers said:
Sorry to say this, but I don't know. I'm sure it's been posted on the forum, but I can't say when, and I don't seem to be having a lot of luck with the search facility because there are so many posts discussing Jowenko. I know Einsteen did a translation, but for some reason all I can find from him relates to the WTC7 part. If anyone else can find a transcript it would be useful to have a link.

Dave
Click to expand...

Ok, I can try to locate it later as well. It would be handy.
 
ref said:
Dave,

Where can I find this?

Dave said:
He has explained his reasons for this opinion perfectly clearly; since the collapses initiated in the regions struck by airliners and engulfed in fires, the fires would have set off the demolition charges uncontrollably, and much sooner than the actual collapse initiation times.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

ref, here, starting at 2'10'':

 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
Lash:

Try Robitussin CF for that cough. You've had it for weeks... ;)
Click to expand...

jhunter,

It's an allergy induced cough, actually - I have a strong aversion to BS - so I'll need Robitussin CA rather than CF but thanks for the tip. ;)
 
Thanks, Firestone. Ref, since I started this, here's a transcript of Jowenko's interview, for those who want it in text form.

Starting from 0:34

Jowenko: "This is bizarre." (Looking at the WTC2 collapse) "It crashed in a more favourable spot, a bit more in the center. Plus the building's own weight on top..."

Interviewer: "So it's logical the second went first?"

J: "Of course. You clearly see that the building that was hit first was hit higher, so it went last because there was less weight to bring it down. That's essential knowledge for anyone who knows anything about demolition: you have to use the building's own weight."

Jowenko sees another sign that no explosives were used. The building collapses from the top down. If it had been done with explosives it would have collapsed from below.

J: "You'd place the explosives below, of course."

I: "And it would have started underneath."

J: "Yes, that's how you get the full weight. That's a present. The less you have to blow up. But the tower collapsed top down. It collapsed at the exact location where the plane hit and heated it."

The conspiracy theory assumes that the explosions began at the top. Jowenko says that's impossible.

J: "It can't have been explosives, as there was a huge fire. If there had been explosives, they would already have been burned. What's more, before being burned their igniters would have gone off at 320 degrees Celcius, so they'd have detonated sooner."

Where conspiracy theorists see explosions Jowenko sees something else, which may explain the rapid collapse.

J: "You also see, as it were, the bolts springing loose at each turn. It had a very strong core, and the beams were pretty long, but they're joined, and it was 410 metres tall. The energy is very uneven. So every vertical column has to carry a certain weight at a slightly different moment from its neighbour, so to speak. It can't bear it, so it breaks to pieces across its entire length, bolts and all. It comes loose, all the way down. And the side structures, also strong because of the wind stress, which is how the building was built, were mainly pressed outward."

[Cut to clip of firefighters (?) discussing the collapse]

J: "He also says it, it simply gave out. At every level the weight was too much."

I: "But he says it was as if..."

J: "That's what it looks like. But don;t tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. That's not possible."

I: "Why not?"

J: "Of course it's not."

I: "You wouldn't do it like that?"

J: "It would take a year."

I: "A year to place all those explosives?"

J: "And prepare them and hook them up. With all the cables down there."
Click to expand...

I think I gave a fair representation of what Jowenko said, based on that. I won't be taking part in the LCF debate except as an observer - I simply don't have time to get into that particular forum - but I hope this helps. I see Stundie has already started by shifting the burden of proof.

Dave
 
Before Jowenko saw a frame of 7 World Trade collapsing, he was played the Silverstein "pull it" video. He is operating off the assumption that Silverstein ordered a CD. That is where all of his speculation comes from. He refers to this several times.
 
/Speculation Alert/

IF it was an inside job then WTC 7 could have very well been a command center for the entire Manhattan part of the operation. After all, you have the most powerful and secretive agencies housed in this bldg and you have Ghouliani's OEM. Seems like the perfect spot to organize and plan for the event, and of course, you can't leave that lying around. Over the last few years, why not store highly sensitive files involved in high profile SEC cases with Enron and others, so when the bldg is destroyed so is the evidence for these cases, as well as the entire operation.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
/Speculation Alert/

IF it was an inside job then WTC 7 could have very well been a command center for the entire Manhattan part of the operation. After all, you have the most powerful and secretive agencies housed in this bldg and you have Ghouliani's OEM. Seems like the perfect spot to organize and plan for the event, and of course, you can't leave that lying around. Over the last few years, why not store highly sensitive files involved in high profile SEC cases with Enron and others, so when the bldg is destroyed so is the evidence for these cases, as well as the entire operation.
Click to expand...

The question still remains: Why not use a paper shredder/fireplace/magnet/hammer/garbage can/etc?
 
RedIbis said:
/Speculation Alert/

IF it was an inside job then WTC 7 could have very well been a command center for the entire Manhattan part of the operation. After all, you have the most powerful and secretive agencies housed in this bldg and you have Ghouliani's OEM. Seems like the perfect spot to organize and plan for the event, and of course, you can't leave that lying around. Over the last few years, why not store highly sensitive files involved in high profile SEC cases with Enron and others, so when the bldg is destroyed so is the evidence for these cases, as well as the entire operation.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty batty to me. See this golden oldie, for instance.

If I was the Evil Genius in charge, I would architect an operation that needed no command center at all. If for whatever reason this was impossible, it would be situated outside the blast zone and such that people could enter and exit unobserved. "Getting rid of it" afterward would be done quietly, calmly, and thoroughly, not in seven hours with fire and explosives. Seriously, that whole notion of the command center exploding at the end is pure James Bond.

All it would take is one hard drive, mostly intact, spilling out a window or being found by cleanup crews. What kind of moron would risk that?

I give you credit for being on-topic, though.
 
When I changed to my new computer, I was worried about info on the old computer being used for identity theft and such. Folks said: "Just yank the hard drive" and somesuch.

But I blew up the apartment. Only way to be safe.
 
Maybe the command center for the WTC 7 demolition was in Afghanistan. Then they had to destroy that. The command center for the Afghanistan Center destruction was in Iraq. Then they had to destroy that one. But where is the command center for the current Iraq operation :eye-poppi
 
ref said:
But where is the command center for the current Iraq operation :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

It was in an underground bunker in a field in Shanksville.

*the universe disappears in a puff of smoke.*
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the hologram projectors were in WTC7?

[/twoofer]

One other small problem with the notion of destroying computer files on the premises is hasn't anyone heard of offsite backups? (or if kept onsite then stored in a safe designed especially to cope with this exact kind of eventuality).
 
kookbreaker said:
When I changed to my new computer, I was worried about info on the old computer being used for identity theft and such. Folks said: "Just yank the hard drive" and somesuch.

But I blew up the apartment. Only way to be safe.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom