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

Par said:
I see. So, can you cite an example of a possible motive that you find plausible?
Click to expand...


Of all the motives listed, I don't see any as more plausible than another. But they are all more plausible than the fantasy of fire imploding the building.
 
chillzero said:
Do you know what 'motive' means?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Do you know that the percieved lack of one does not make evidence go away?


I should think all of those motives are far more plausible than Al Quedas supposed motive of "hating our freedoms"
 
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...

Especially since he would have to bring them in from out of town, since demolition by explosives is forbidden in New York City and they would have no reason to be there.

Can you imagine the crew fighting against the torrent of people fleeing the WTC area? They wouldn't even have been able to get to the site in the time required.
 
JHarrow said:
Yes.

Do you know that the percieved lack of one does not make evidence go away?


I should think all of those motives are far more plausible than Al Quedas supposed motive of "hating our freedoms"
Click to expand...
Then list one.

Please show us the evidence you have now. So far you post only hearsay and talk!

They said they will kill us, period. UBL told us in the 90s he intends on killing Americans where he can; so relax if you are not American, you will just be UBL collateral damage! Research is the key, you have not researched or are just ignorant on every single issue of 9/11. How did that happen?
 
JHarrow said:
I should think all of those motives are far more plausible than Al Quedas supposed motive of "hating our freedoms"
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here is claiming that Al Qaeda had a motive for destroying WTC 7. In fact, I'm sure Al Qaeda was not even aware of its existence.

It's the troofers that claim the destruction of WTC 7 was a separate act of terrorism. The question we're asking is: Why execute this separate act of terrorism?
 
Par said:
I agree. However, can you cite an example of a possible motive that you find plausible?
Click to expand...
JHarrow said:
They are all plausible.
Click to expand...


I see. So, you consider the desire to destroy sensitive information (that could be destroyed using a shredder) to be a plausible motive for carrying out a nefarious controlled demolition on a skyscraper as the whole world looked on.

I need say nothing critical about such a notion.
 
Last edited:
JHarrow said:
Any of the motives is more plausible than small fires imploding a building.
Click to expand...

chillzero said:
Do you know what 'motive' means?
Click to expand...

JHarrow said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Then why would you match motive with event, as you did above?

JHarrow said:
Do you know that the percieved lack of one does not make evidence go away?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone claimed it did.

JHarrow said:
I should think all of those motives are far more plausible than Al Quedas supposed motive of "hating our freedoms"
Click to expand...
Now you're catching on.

All which motives, precisely? "small fires imploding a building" are not motives.
 
Earlier in this thread, a partial transcription of Jowenko's comments appeared; I believe they covered only WTC1 and 2. Could someone advise as to the whereabouts of a transcription about his comments on the Salomon Bros building?

Thanks. I realize this is not really on topic, but since Jowenko keeps getting brought up I figured I could ask. I hope I'm not cast into the outer darkness by mods waving fiery swords as a result.

ETA: the one time I was on the jury for a criminal case, the question of motive never came up. It was a bank fraud case; I guess the lawyers thought we (the jurors) could figure it out on our own.
 
Last edited:
chillzero said:
Then why would you match motive with event, as you did above?



I don't think anyone claimed it did.


Now you're catching on.

All which motives, precisely? "small fires imploding a building" are not motives.
Click to expand...


I didn't say they were. The point is that the motive being considered implausible is not going to make me stop believing the building was demolished, because the alternative is just too ridiculous.
 
SDC said:
Earlier in this thread, a partial transcription of Jowenko's comments appeared; I believe they covered only WTC1 and 2. Could someone advise as to the whereabouts of a transcription about his comments on the Salomon Bros building?

Thanks. I realize this is not really on topic, but since Jowenko keeps getting brought up I figured I could ask. I hope I'm not cast into the outer darkness by mods waving fiery swords as a result.
Click to expand...

Well, there are heaps of threads already about Jowenko... you should really look in those, to prevent derailing this one again.

JHarrow,
Try this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/motive

–noun 1.something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive. 2.the goal or object of a person's actions: Her motive was revenge.
Click to expand...
 
JHarrow said:
I didn't say they were. The point is that the motive being considered implausible is not going to make me stop believing the building was demolished, because the alternative is just too ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you could answer the question... which motives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom