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

There was no motive to hit WTC 7. That's why the terrorists didn't target it.

As far as the "Government did it to destroy documents" theories. I know the government can be inefficient, but come on. They aren't THAT bad are they? Apparently rigging an entire building for demolition, secretly, is easier than getting rid of a few computers, and documents? What?

About Jowenko. What research has he done exactly?
 
Last edited:
In the old "WTC 7 - Why blow it up?" thread, I compiled a list of roughly a dozen motives and ancillary motives that ZENSMACK89 seemed to be pushing. IIRC, he never clarified which ones he actually favored. But I think it covered all or most of the alleged motives for secretly blowing up WTC 7.

None of which made a lick of sense, of course, but then the whole secret-CD claim is sheer insanity. FDNY had already evacuated the building and immediate area after observing unambiguous collapse indicators. Why risk a secret demolition when you could just say "we expect it fall, so we're going to bring it down on purpose"? Why even bother with such a relatively anonymous building when you're going to wait until everyone's safely out, after the spectacular tragedies of the morning?

My all-time favorite, though, has to be the way CTs harp on the BBC's mistaken announcement of the collapse before it happened. I really want to know the motive for the Powers That Be to force (and bungle) such an announcement. What, were they afraid no one would notice the collapse of a 47-story building?
 
sts60 said:
In the old "WTC 7 - Why blow it up?" thread, I compiled a list of roughly a dozen motives and ancillary motives that ZENSMACK89 seemed to be pushing. IIRC, he never clarified which ones he actually favored. But I think it covered all or most of the alleged motives for secretly blowing up WTC 7.

None of which made a lick of sense, of course, but then the whole secret-CD claim is sheer insanity. FDNY had already evacuated the building and immediate area after observing unambiguous collapse indicators. Why risk a secret demolition when you could just say "we expect it fall, so we're going to bring it down on purpose"? Why even bother with such a relatively anonymous building when you're going to wait until everyone's safely out, after the spectacular tragedies of the morning?

My all-time favorite, though, has to be the way CTs harp on the BBC's mistaken announcement of the collapse before it happened. I really want to know the motive for the Powers That Be to force (and bungle) such an announcement. What, were they afraid no one would notice the collapse of a 47-story building?
Click to expand...


You don't find it slightly odd the BBC predicted it's collapse 23 minutes before it happened?
 
JHarrow said:
You don't find it slightly odd the BBC predicted it's collapse 23 minutes before it happened?
Click to expand...

Go look at the transcript from the BBC again

What does very sketchy mean?

What british person knew it was called the Salomon (spelling?) pior to 911

I've been there prior to 911 and I never knew it by that name

Will you address post number 146 please. It is a rebuttal to your arguments.
 
JHarrow said:
You don't find it slightly odd the BBC predicted it's collapse 23 minutes before it happened?
Click to expand...
Do you find it odd that the Chicago Daily Tribune predicted Dewey to be president instead of Truman? INZIDE JAWB!!!111!!!1
 
Last edited:
lapman said:
Do you find it odd that the Chicago Daily Tribune predicted Dewey to be president instead of Truman? INZIDE JAWB!!!111!!!1
Click to expand...

There is no comparison. How does a news agency predict the collapse of a building when no building has ever collapsed in those circumstances.
 
This is a thread about the possible motives for destroying World Trade Center 7. Jharrow is now trying to move the focus of the thread away from that issue. Ask yourselves, why might that be?
 
JHarrow said:
You don't find it slightly odd the BBC predicted it's collapse 23 minutes before it happened?
Click to expand...

No.

The firefighters predicted it several hours before. Don't you think its possible that the BBC could have gotten word of that from someone at GZ?
 
Par said:
This is a thread about the possible motives for destroying World Trade Center 7. Jharrow is now trying to move the focus of the thread away from that issue. Ask yourselves, why might that be?
Click to expand...

Again, I didn't mention the BBC.

I notice you don't admonish the people who are using the thread to accuse me of sock puppetry.
 
GStan said:
No.

The firefighters predicted it several hours before. Don't you think its possible that the BBC could have gotten word of that from someone at GZ?
Click to expand...

They announced that it had collapsed. 23 minutes later it collapsed. That's an amazingly accurate mistake.
 
Par said:
This is a thread about the possible motives for destroying World Trade Center 7. Jharrow is now trying to move the focus of the thread away from that issue. Ask yourselves, why might that be?
Click to expand...

..because there are no motives to knock it down?:rolleyes:
 
JHarrow said:
There is no comparison. How does a news agency predict the collapse of a building when no building has ever collapsed in those circumstances.
Click to expand...
It couldn't be because 2 other building had collapsed that day. Nah. Add to that the fire department evacuating 7 because of they suspected an imminent collapse. That couldn't add to it as well along with wanting to be first to report the collapse. No new service wants that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom