• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Missile fragment hits WTC 1

MaGZ

Philosopher
MaGZ
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
6,917
In National Geographic’s Inside 9/11 one will see a portion of the documentary which reveals damage to WTC 1 several stories below the crash of Flight 11. In the second half of the documentary after an interview with Fox News cameraman Jack Taliercio, we see emergency personal placing someone in an ambulance. The camera pans upward showing the east sides of both towers burnings. If you watch the camera pan slowly up from the ambulance to the Twin Towers you will see damage to the east side of WTC 1 about a third of the way up the building near floor 35.

I believe this is evidence of damage done to WTC 1 by a missile fragment that struck WTC 7 on the 14th floor of that building. The missile exploded into WTC 7 sending fragments everywhere. One of these fragments hit WTC 1 on the east side of the building.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/
 
That is one talented missile... It's amazing it so utterly missed its original target.

-Gumboot
 
David Wong said:
Amazing that nobody else in the world noticed that before now.
Click to expand...

You will only see the black oval on the east side of WTC 1 if you go "slow motion." Apparently firefighters put this fire out. Late on in the documentary you can see both towers standing from a distance and flames are seen coming form this burnt area. At that distance the flames are faint. You have to look for them.
 
There were no missiles

they put nothing out. the operation never got that far. they were rescuing and evacuating people first. I never read reports anywhere that they put out a fire near the 35th floor.
 
MAGZ's missile hit everything except the airliner it was fired at.

Who trained these NORAD pilots?

-Gumboot
 
You know, supporting the theories you do is not like supporting a team in sport. You do realise your supporting your delusions. NOT a sporting team. Watching you do this is like watching you go into to bat against a meteor.
 
So, supposedly, the missile that hit the 14th of WTC 7 managed to richocet off something in WTC 7 UPWARD... several hundred feet?
 
MaGZ said:
I believe this is evidence of damage done to WTC 1 by a missile fragment
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. The terrorists used commercial jet airliners, specifically Boeing 767's as guided missiles, so what is your point?
 
MaGZ said:
The camera pans upward showing the east sides of both towers burnings. If you watch the camera pan slowly up from the ambulance to the Twin Towers you will see damage to the east side of WTC 1 about a third of the way up the building near floor 35.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen that, but isn't the East side of WTC1 the side that was adjacent to the giant explosion erupting from WTC2 when UA175 hit? I wouldn't be surprised if some windows got knocked out of the East side of WTC1 when that happened.
 
I think it's actually the magic bullet from the Kennedy assassination, ricocheting through time and causing all kinds of conspiratorial damage.
 
So...

1) [previous claim] Missile hits WTC7 on about the 14th-ish floor. Ignites fires, but causes no physical damage to the south face of the building.

2) Missile fragment hits WTC1. Destroys windows but does not ignite fires. (Edit: Oh. I see he's claiming it did ignite fires. lol...)

Yeah, uhh... No.
 
Last edited:
Fire missiles at a time where hundreds of thousands of eyes are looking at the buildings. BRILLIANT!
 
Wait, so you think that a missile hit WTC 1, and that the fragments from that explosion hit WTC 7, and then the fragments that hit WTC 7 somehow sent debris back over to WTC 1 and caused a hole? Are you serious? That's almost worse than the magic bullet theory.

If you think that debris came out of one building, hit another building and sent debris out of THAT building to hit the original building from which this debris came, then why couldn't that have been caused by an airplane explosion?

If you're saying that a missile hit WTC 7 and that the debris flying out from that explosion hit WTC 1, then why didn't anyone see that missile, and why didn't we see any explosion or any smoke coming out of WTC 7 after that alleged missile hit?

Why do you think that a missile was involved when there is clear video evidence of a plane hitting both towers?

Why don't you people ever think things through at all?
 
chippy said:
Wait, so you think that a missile hit WTC 1, and that the fragments from that explosion hit WTC 7, and then the fragments that hit WTC 7 somehow sent debris back over to WTC 1 and caused a hole? Are you serious? That's almost worse than the magic bullet theory.

If you think that debris came out of one building, hit another building and sent debris out of THAT building to hit the original building from which this debris came, then why couldn't that have been caused by an airplane explosion?

If you're saying that a missile hit WTC 7 and that the debris flying out from that explosion hit WTC 1, then why didn't anyone see that missile, and why didn't we see any explosion or any smoke coming out of WTC 7 after that alleged missile hit?

Why do you think that a missile was involved when there is clear video evidence of a plane hitting both towers?

Why don't you people ever think things through at all?
Click to expand...



MAGZ thinks NORAD successfully intercepted UA175, fired missiles at the airliner, but missed, hitting WTC7 and causing the fires that brought it down.

As far as I can tell MAGZ theory does not involve any sort of government involvement in the attacks itself, other than a cover-up about the intercept and launch of the missiles.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom