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

[JHarrow]

It wasn't mentioned that he was backing any kind of motive, you made that claim.

So, what is it?

Here's a hint. Boloboffins post where Jowenko was first mentioned. It's all there if you bother to look.

 

[Pardalis]

Here's a hint. Boloboffins post where Jowenko was first mentioned. It's all there if you bother to look.

You're the one who can't read.

Jowenko is mentioned on how he thinks it could have been done. Nobody said anything about motives except you.

 

[JHarrow]

But a fact is true and provable. Can you do that or do you want to stop using the word 'fact'?

No.

 

[JHarrow]

You're the one who can't read.

Jowenko is mentioned on how he thinks it could have been done. Nobody said anything about motives except you.

Heres what bolo said in response to the idea that the motive was to protect rescue workers:

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.

Learn to read.

 

[stateofgrace]

Yes, just like it is a fact that a guy killed 5 prostitutes but has not revealed his motive.

Not having a motive does not negate the extraordinary circumstances of 7's collapse.

Really?

So because he did not reveal his motive means he had no motive, well done , great comparison.

So you admit you can not think of a single motive or reason for demolishing WTC 7 ? Yes or no ?

If the answer is yes, then simply list them, I promise to take you seriously and not laugh ( too much ).

 

[Pardalis]

Learn to read.

You're reading it wrong.

 

[JHarrow]

Really?

So because he did not reveal his motive means he had no motive, well done , great comparison.

So you admit you can not think of a single motive or reason for demolishing WTC 7 ? Yes or no ?

If the answer is yes, then simply list them, I promise to take you seriously and not laugh ( too much ).

Stop lying. I never said I couldn't think of one. I said I don't know what the motive is. They have already been listed in this thread.

 

[JHarrow]

You're reading it wrong.

No. Jowenko states that it could have been demoed in a day. This backs up the motive that it was done to protect the rescue workers. Again, learn to read.

 

[Quad4_72]

A lack of percieved motive does not alter any other evidence. Many criminals are convicted when their motive is unknown.

I have no idea what the motive for 7 was but that does not change the fact it was demolished.

So if you are not going to comment on the motive, WHY did you post in this thread?

 

[Pardalis]

No. Jowenko states that it could have been demoed in a day. This backs up the motive that it was done to protect the rescue workers.

Not necessarily. As far as I know, Jowenko never said anything about motives.

 

[JHarrow]

Not necessarily. As far as I know, Jowenko never said anything about motives.

I didn't claim he did. The common response to the idea that it was demoed on the fly to protect the rescue area is that it couldn't have been done in a day. Jowenko says it could.

Do you need a diagram or have you caught up now?

 

[Par]

Oh I see, so it is fact now is it? Its a fact that WTC 7 was demolished even though in the very same sentence you can offer absolutely zero motive for it. Brilliant, no wonder everybody takes you so seriously.

Yes, just like it is a fact that a guy killed 5 prostitutes but has not revealed his motive.

This, of course, is a false analogy. The murderer has revealed no motive. In the case of World Trade Center 7, however, you cannot even perceive of a motive. (Further, the murder has been proven guilty in a court of law.)

 

[stateofgrace]

Stop lying. I never said I couldn't think of one. I said I don't know what the motive is. They have already been listed in this thread.

Excuse me? Please remain civil and answer my question. I asked you what you think the motive was

So what do you think the motive was?

 

[Par]

Stop lying. I never said I couldn't think of one. I said I don't know what the motive is. They have already been listed in this thread.

You’re so masterful. Anyway, can you cite an example of a possible motive that you find plausible?

 

[JHarrow]

Excuse me? Please remain civil and answer my question. I asked you what you think the motive was

So what do you think the motive was?

I don't know what the motive was. I have said that 3 times now.

Just like the court didn't know the motive of the killer, but still convicted him.

Not knowing the motive does not mean it didn't happen.

How exactly are we meant to know the motive anyway?

 

[Pardalis]

have you caught up now?

Yes, you are putting words and intentions in his mouth, again.

 

[JHarrow]

You’re so masterful. Anyway, can you cite an example of a possible motive that you find plausible?

Any of the motives is more plausible than small fires imploding a building.

 

[Par]

Any of the motives is more plausible than small fires imploding a building.

I see. So, can you cite an example of a possible motive that you find plausible?

 

[JHarrow]

Yes, you are putting words and intentions in his mouth, again.

Bolo made the link. Go talk to him.

 

[dudalb]

Any of the motives is more plausible than small fires imploding a building.

I love the way some people just have to display their ignorance.