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
 
The funny part is that, if said story were true, the gov't would have an easier time admitting to the fault and punishing the few people involved than having a huge cover-up. It would be a "he-said, she-said" point.
 
And one can reasonably assume that NORAD in an attempt to show that they were worth the billions spent on them would have been glad to trump any intercept or missile firing as proof that they did their job. Rather than face the loud shout of anger from the population at why our national air defense failed that day.

(I am not actually saying they could have done any better than they did mind you)
 
WTC1, east side. Untouched below the fire:
10252461b9d46f17b2.jpg

10252461b9d471e4cb.jpg

10252461b9d4743fe5.jpg
 
Tbone said:
So, supposedly, the missile that hit the 14th of WTC 7 managed to richocet off something in WTC 7 UPWARD... several hundred feet?
Click to expand...
And exploded in a parking lot nearby. Or maybe MaGZ is suggesting that multiple missles were fired. *shrug*
 
MaGZ said:
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/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



And you're not even slightly embarrassed to post this?
 
MaGZ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gosh, that missile's all over the place!
 
This missile was released by an aircraft that would have had to start above the level of most of the buildings in the area ( say at the very lowest, even with the height of WTC 7. It would be suicide certainly to be Below the 14th floor level) and travel down to hit the 14th floor of WTC 7. Then part of it travelled upward over twice that height and several hundred feet south to impact WTC 1 with enough energy left to cause damage and light fires.

Is that it MaGZ?

See any problems with this senario or are you Ok with it?
 
Last edited:
Why not take a look at the documentary Inside 9/11.
What are you afraid of?
 
MaGZ said:
Why not take a look at the documentary Inside 9/11.
What are you afraid of?
Click to expand...
What are you afraid of?

Mancman said:
WTC1, east side. Untouched below the fire:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252461b9d46f17b2.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252461b9d471e4cb.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/10252461b9d4743fe5.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
 
MaGZ said:
Why not take a look at the documentary Inside 9/11.
What are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

I will admit to being afraid of wasting my time watching the same crap that has been presented so often before. I am afraid it will simply contain more junk like the opening post of this tread. I am afraid I have too little time in my life to waste on wild speculation.
 
So let me lay this story of the missile out, just in case I'm getting it wrong.

First, a NORAD pilot actually reached Manhatton before Flight 175 struck the South Tower, while thousands of people watched in horror as the plane smashed into the side of a building, the NORAD pilot fired a series of missiles at the plane. One struck a parking lot:
911_scorched_cars.jpg


And the other hit WTC 7 causing these "fires":
missilesatgroundzero.jpg


There appears to be no damage to WTC 7. The missile that hit WTC 7 then exploded very violently causing a piece of the missile to bounce hundreds of feet back to the North Tower and damage the north wall. Is that correct?

In another thread you made about this idiotic missile theory, you claimed that this was one of the missiles:
12th_Floor.jpg


But if you look at this screenshot, you'll see that the "missile" flies OVER WTC 7 and nowhere near the parking lot:
12th_Floor-1.jpg


Here's where WTC 7 is in relation to the parking lot:
parkinglot-1.jpg
So...unless the missile turned towards the parking lot and made a sudden dive, it's not a missile! The "missiles at ground zero" is the most retarded piece of garabage theory I have ever heard, it has NO evidence at all. A plane can't return to base with 2 missiles missing without anyone noticing. Was the pilot just like, "uh..yeah boss? Before the plane hit one of the Towers, wildly fired missiles towards it, but missed both times. One missile struck a parking lot, and the other hit another building full of people, no one died though, and the missiles somehow didn't make a cloud or anything after striking their targets, so I don't think anyone noticed."

When missiles strike, they make large clouds like this.
IDF_StrikeHezbollah.jpg


There's a problem with firing missiles around buildings that thousands of people are looking at, people notice! There's not a chance in hell that several people wouldn't have reported a missile striking WTC 7.

A little off topic, but I figure I should let everyone see this post MaGZ made over on the Loose Change forum:
lolMaGz.jpg


"It looks like the Israelis hacked the web site."
Evidence? :)
 
To be fair I very much doubt that explosion pic is an air-to-air missile...

The AIM-9 only has a 20lb warhead, and the larger AIM-120 has only either a 40 or 50lb warhead.

-Gumboot
 
The evidence is overwhelming.

Unfit,
The fighters were not over NYC at the time of the crash of Flight 175 into WTC 2. They were close enough to fire at the hijacked plane but not close enough to hit it. A flight controller at Newark said the planes were over NYC "moments"–meaning seconds–after the crash of Flight 175.

The missile in the picture which appears to fly above WTC 7 does present a problem. It appears to come from behind WTC 1 and is at an elevation and direction where it flies above WTC 7. The only possible answer I have at this time is to suggest this is a third missile that perhaps flew into the Hudson River.

There were witnesses to missiles flying at 9:03. Just look at the log of emergency 911 calls that came in after the crash of the second plane.

We have the black crater in the parking lot which is evidence of a missile hit. We have a reporter from MSNBC who talks about the explosion in the open parking area.

We have the suppressed video of a WNYW Fox 5 cameraman who filmed the crash of a missile into WTC 7 on the 14th floor which someday will be found and released.

Also we have the evidence of the damage done to WTC 1 on the east side of the building by a missile fragment. (see "Inside 9/11") This missile also set cars on fire in front of WTC 7 on Vesey Street and injured a number of people.

The evidence is overwhelming.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/
 
MaGZ said:
The missile in the picture which appears to fly above WTC 7 does present a problem. It appears to come from behind WTC 1 and is at an elevation and direction where it flies above WTC 7. The only possible answer I have at this time is to suggest this is a third missile that perhaps flew into the Hudson River.
Click to expand...

Are you forgetting those numerous posts in which it was demonstrated to you that this "missile" is a bird, MaGZ? It flaps!
 
MaGZ said:
Unfit,
The fighters were not over NYC at the time of the crash of Flight 175 into WTC 2. They were close enough to fire at the hijacked plane but not close enough to hit it. A flight controller at Newark said the planes were over NYC "moments"–meaning seconds–after the crash of Flight 175.

The missile in the picture which appears to fly above WTC 7 does present a problem. It appears to come from behind WTC 1 and is at an elevation and direction where it flies above WTC 7. The only possible answer I have at this time is to suggest this is a third missile that perhaps flew into the Hudson River.

There were witnesses to missiles flying at 9:03. Just look at the log of emergency 911 calls that came in after the crash of the second plane.

We have the black crater in the parking lot which is evidence of a missile hit. We have a reporter from MSNBC who talks about the explosion in the open parking area.

We have the suppressed video of a WNYW Fox 5 cameraman who filmed the crash of a missile into WTC 7 on the 14th floor which someday will be found and released.

Also we have the evidence of the damage done to WTC 1 on the east side of the building by a missile fragment. (see "Inside 9/11") This missile also set cars on fire in front of WTC 7 on Vesey Street and injured a number of people.

The evidence is overwhelming.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...

What is the range on these missiles? How could they be close enough to fire and not hit if they could be there in seconds? Where did the fighters come from? Were the fighters travelling above Mach 1? If so, who heard the sonic boom and where? Why did they not report this?
 
BBC reporter eyewitness to missile explosion at WTC

BBC reporter Steve Evans was in the lobby of WTC 2 when the second plane hit. He went outside and experienced another explosion which was the missile hitting WTC 7. Then he hears a series of secondary explosions which were cars on Vesey Street exploding from the shrapnel of the missile that struck WTC 7.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69b.html
Steve Evans, a correspondent for the BBC, reported the following on the air: "I was at the base of the 2nd tower, the second tower that was hit. There was an explosion -- I didn't think it was an explosion, but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake, then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions. We can only wonder at the kind of damage -- the kind of human damage -- which was caused by those explosions, those series of explosions."
Click to expand...

The evidence is overwhelming.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/
 
So, where does he state that it was a missile? Also, please explain how shrapnel makes a car explode.

I think you meant to say the evidence is underwhelming.
 
MaGZ - keep your missiles theory posts in the one thread please and do not start multiple threads to discuss separate aspects of your "theory".
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom