Same missile?

[David Wong]

I have never made the claim that a missile caused the collapse of WTC7. I believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

And thus, WTC7 went down as the unluckiest building in history.

 

[MaGZ]

Do you plan on inventing MORE videos like this ?

Don't go down the christophera road.

Have you seen the Naudet video? I suggest you do. Take a look at it and then you may make your comment.

 

[MaGZ]

Hey MaGZ.... Whenever you get around to posting that image of WTC7 on fire before the collapse of WTC2, that'd be swell.

I am sure you have seen it by now. Any comments?

 

[MaGZ]

Any fool can see that building 7 is blazing away.​

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879046586254890ab.jpg​

At the time the fires were burning on only a few floors. WTC 7 was not blazing away.

Also for others, please notice WTC 7 is in a shadow at the time of collapse of WTC 2. One of the photos taken from across the river shows WTC 7 on fire at the time WTC 2 fell.

 

[MaGZ]

No, you didn't. Why then in the picture Gravy posted is WTC7 unscathed?

The missile hit near the 14th floor. The picture provided by Gravy does not show the 14th floor.

 

[DGM]

MaGZ:
Does the "Ma" stand for the state MA? Just curious.

 

[MaGZ]

MaGZ,

Suppose you got your hands on the original footage. What would it have to show in order to convince you that what you saw was not a missile, but something else (debris, a bird, an optical illusion, camera artifact etc.)?

Blue Monk has provided us with the original footage and it clearly shows the object moving in front of the Twin Towers. With this information, I am now convinced both videos which are listed at the start of this thread is evidence of the same missile. A missile that passed in front of the Twin Towers and traveled southeast to northwest above the WTC plaza. This matches the video I have provided showing the F-15 in the area at the time of the crash of the second plane which is the likely source of the missile.

 

[MaGZ]

Magz, do you realize you have been handed evidence and opinion be people from many different fields, many of which could rightfully claim to be experts in those fields, have been show several times that what you think happened did not. You choose to discount it all and go with something that you have no proof of. Please explain this. And just to make this an even field, please, no snarky comments from anyone. Magz, I am asking for your honest answer. Why do you choose to only believe what you THINK you saw.

I saw the missile strike WTC 7 which was shown on the news days after 9/11 and was filmed by FOX cameraman Jack Taliercio. To the best of my knowledge he is the only news cameraman to have been inside the plaza before the crash of the second plane into WTC 2.

 

[Unfit4Command]

The missile hit near the 14th floor. The picture provided by Gravy does not show the 14th floor.

Shouldn't some smoke rising from the building still be visible. At the point of the South Tower's collapse, WTC 7 would have been burning for about 56 minutes according to your missile theory, so smoke should be visible rising above the roof, but oddly enough, it isn't. Why do you think that is?

 

[Belz...]

I have never made the claim that a missile caused the collapse of WTC7. I believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

You guys just keep piling that stuff up, don't you ?

 

[Belz...]

Have you seen the Naudet video? I suggest you do. Take a look at it and then you may make your comment.

Irrelevant. You claimed to know what you would see if the video had not been cut. You're making stuff up.

I saw the missile strike WTC 7

You saw it HIT ? Link, please.

 

[MaGZ]

Simple question for you, MaGZ:

Why didn't anyone hear the missiles?


It isn't like missiles are silent.

There's a military exercise area here where I work. Last week, I could hear the Army firing small, man portable missiles. I couldn't see them, and they're at least a mile from where I am (the fence is at least a mile from here.) I could hear them, though.

How loud is the explosion going to be that could destroy WTC7? How much high explosives will your missile have to carry? How big (and loud) is that missile going to be?

Q: How much noise is a missile going to make that is big enough to destroy WTC7, or punch a hole in the Pentagon?

A: Enough that everybody there was going hit the deck and go "WTF?!"


Get a grip, MaGz, get a clue. Better yet, get both. And use them.

Both missiles were flying at the time of the crash and explosion of the second plane into WTC 2. This may be the reason why the missile noise was not noticed. However, some people say they did see the missile.


CNN transcript

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jim, I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft, or to be more specific, some people said they thought they saw a missile. I don't know how people could differentiate, but we might keep open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings.

 

[MaGZ]

Shouldn't some smoke rising from the building still be visible. At the point of the South Tower's collapse, WTC 7 would have been burning for about 56 minutes according to your missile theory, so smoke should be visible rising above the roof, but oddly enough, it isn't. Why do you think that is?

At the time of WTC 2 collapse firefighters apparently had put out the fires of the burning cars in Vesey Street and also apparently thought they had the fire in WTC 7 under control. At the time I suppose the fire on the floors of WTC 7 was minimum and any smoke coming for the building was not noticeable from the distance that Gravy’s photo was taken.

 

[Hamradioguy]

At the time of WTC 2 collapse firefighters apparently had put out the fires of the burning cars in Vesey Street and also apparently thought they had the fire in WTC 7 under control. At the time I suppose the fire on the floors of WTC 7 was minimum and any smoke coming for the building was not noticeable from the distance that Gravy’s photo was taken.

Wrong yet again. Are you now able to answer my previous question concerning YOUR firefighting experience?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

MagZ,

Do you think the missile that struck WTC7 aided collapse initiation, or was it only the planted explosives that caused the collapse?

 

[CurtC]

MaGZ:
Does the "Ma" stand for the state MA? Just curious.

It stands for "Missiles at." The "GZ" stands for "Ground Zero."

Blue Monk has provided us with the original footage and it clearly shows the object moving in front of the Twin Towers. With this information, I am now convinced both videos which are listed at the start of this thread is evidence of the same missile.

One of them flappin', bird-like missiles.

 

[MaGZ]

MagZ,

Do you think the missile that struck WTC7 aided collapse initiation, or was it only the planted explosives that caused the collapse?

I think was a controlled demolition that brought WTC 7 down.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

I think was a controlled demolition that brought WTC 7 down.

But you believe a stray missile missed it's target and struck WTC7, right? However, this stray missile didn't do enough damage to aid in the collapse?

 

[realitybites]

I am sure you have seen it by now. Any comments?

I have, and I did.

Check my last post on page 4 of this thread.

 

[pomeroo]

I saw the missile strike WTC 7 which was shown on the news days after 9/11 and was filmed by FOX cameraman Jack Taliercio. To the best of my knowledge he is the only news cameraman to have been inside the plaza before the crash of the second plane into WTC 2.

No, you are either mistaken or lying. You did not see a missile strike WTC 7. No missiles were fired in the U.S. on 9/11/01.