Missiles fired from Woolworth Building at North Tower?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
So if according to some theories that airliners didn't bring down the towers, how on Earth would a shoulder fired missile have any impact at all structurally speaking?

Who said it was a shoulder fired missile ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I believe the Naudet brothers were on the other side of the building. Also they just happed to get the first plane on film after it flew into the building, we do not know what all was happening just before or around that time.

Although it was coincidentally an incredibly well framed shot, they actually caught the impact on film. I can't remember exactly where they were filming from, but from the vantage point they appear to be north & west of the Woolworth building.

My thought was that a missle fired in the direction of WTC 1 would have been captured on their film.

2PacSade-

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Even if they somehow managed to get a SCUD up on the roof to fire at the WTC, that wouldn't cause as much damage as an airliner, and I'm pretty sure it'd be difficult to covertly get a SCUD onto the roof, and fire it horizontally at another building.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Even if they somehow managed to get a SCUD up on the roof to fire at the WTC, that wouldn't cause as much damage as an airliner, and I'm pretty sure it'd be difficult to covertly get a SCUD onto the roof, and fire it horizontally at another building.

Do you know how many types of missiles we have in inventory, and how many missiles are on the black market from different countries?

Why would they want to use a SCUD? You can get a lot better stuff easily on the black market.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Well don't make your claims so general and show us. I rather that, than some unsubstantiated claims of "black market weapons." Face it. Planes hit the buildings. Find the truth.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Face it. Planes hit the buildings. Find the truth.

Planes hit the buildings, but what planes? Do you have the reports or hard evidence to show what planes hit the buildings?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I didn't distinguish "what planes" hit the towers. I'm not an expert, so I'll spare you some false sense of assurance that I know anything that happened on that day. I know for a fact these missile conspiracies don't hold any water. The more you all defend these stupid theories, the more you're turning people off of your cause. They're a complete diversion from the "truth." You know, whatever it may be.

Missles, Orbs, and Holograms, OH NO!!!!

Give me a break.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
[I didn't distinguish "what planes" hit the towers. I'm not an expert, so I'll spare you some false sense of assurance that I know anything that happened on that day. I know for a fact these missile conspiracies don't hold any water.

I am not looking for or expressing any conspiracies. I am looking for the truth, i just post research that i come across.

Beside the official story is the biggest conspiracy. (terrorist hijacking planes is a conspiracy)

If you do not know what happened that day why are you debating what i post?




[edit on 23-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Mostly, because it's ridiculous. And if you don't watch your quoting, you're going to be hit up by a moderator. 20 points. Just a heads up.

Rocket launcher theory in MI6 attack
September 21, 2000
Web posted at: 6:37 a.m. EDT (1037 GMT)

LONDON, England -- Police investigating a missile attack on the headquarters of Britain's MI6 foreign intelligence service believe a rocket launcher was fired at the building from a distance of between 200 and 500 metres.

A small missile hit the upper part of the high-security building, on the south bank of the River Thames, late on Wednesday evening, but caused little damage.
edition.cnn.com...

Rockets, ok; planes-sure why not.

But I bet dollar for pound the structural integrety of WTC was on par or better - than a much newer J-Bond tower.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Face it. Planes hit the buildings. Find the truth.

Planes hit the buildings, but what planes? Do you have the reports or hard evidence to show what planes hit the buildings?

And again I ask you....do you have HARD EVIDENCE to the contrary?? Video Tape, reports, secretly recorded evidence, witnesses??? NOPE YOU DONT

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Even if they somehow managed to get a SCUD up on the roof to fire at the WTC, that wouldn't cause as much damage as an airliner, and I'm pretty sure it'd be difficult to covertly get a SCUD onto the roof, and fire it horizontally at another building.

Do you know how many types of missiles we have in inventory, and how many missiles are on the black market from different countries?

Why would they want to use a SCUD? You can get a lot better stuff easily on the black market.

No I dont...but since you seem to could you enlighten all of us as to what missles are in our inventory...how many....and what black markets you are speaking of?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
[I didn't distinguish "what planes" hit the towers. I'm not an expert, so I'll spare you some false sense of assurance that I know anything that happened on that day. I know for a fact these missile conspiracies don't hold any water.

I am not looking for or expressing any conspiracies. I am looking for the truth, i just post research that i come across.

Beside the official story is the biggest conspiracy. (terrorist hijacking planes is a conspiracy)

If you do not know what happened that day why are you debating what i post?




[edit on 23-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Do you have any evidence to back up that the official story is the biggest conspiracy?? If you do not know what happened that day why are you debating the official story?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Every post/thread I've seen you debate your style of "finding truth," you seem very passionate about the subject at hand and after it starts getting hit pretty hard with common sense, you have a tendency to back away from it. I'm with you, buddy, but I wouldn't raise your saber for every cause. Make sure your stance is just and credited. At least defendable.


I don't want you to think I'm coming down on you in all these threads. I respect what you have to say.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA1,

If you post the actual video, rather than just a cleverly timed smapshot, you will see this isnt "smoke" on the building at all, but some sort of reflection. It moves across the building rather quickly...and is gone after a few seconds.

Some speculate that the "reflection" may have come from the many media helicopters in the area...catching the morning sun. Other say it has to do with "laser targeting".

One thing the full video shows, though, is that it is not in fact smoke.

edit: double post, my apologies.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Every post/thread I've seen you debate your style of "finding truth," you seem very passionate about the subject at hand and after it starts getting hit pretty hard with common sense, you have a tendency to back away from it.
.

I do not back away, i have been stating the same thing since day 1. I am doing research to find out what happened that day, and posting what information i find. I use my educatoin, expereince but mostly common sense to see a lot of things wrong with the official story.

I would not be fileing FOIA request with the FBI, NTSB, NIST and others if i was not serious about finding out what happened that day.

I also e-mail companies that were at ground zero.

Originally posted by Disclosed
ULTIMA1, Some speculate that the "reflection" may have come from the many media helicopters in the area...catching the morning sun. Other say it has to do with "laser targeting".

I have seen the videos but more importantly i have the Port authority radio calls to check the building. Also a reflection would not explain a police report about a missile.

Do you have any evidnece to state that thier was no smoke or no damage?


[edit on 23-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 23-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Who said it was a shoulder fired missile ?

Can't imagine putting something which would be extremely large surface to surface missile platform to do that kind of damage to a building like the Twin Towers.

Originally posted by deltaboy
[Can't imagine putting something which would be extremely large surface to surface missile platform to do that kind of damage to a building like the Twin Towers.

There are portable missile systems that can be carried and put together.




[edit on 23-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
ULTIMA1, Some speculate that the "reflection" may have come from the many media helicopters in the area...catching the morning sun. Other say it has to do with "laser targeting".

I have seen the videos but more importantly i have seen the photos of actual damage to the building. And from everything i have seen it is smoke. Also a reflection would not explain a police report about a missile.

Do you have any evidnece to state that thier was no smoke or no damage?


[edit on 23-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Please post your photos of damage on the building, I'm sure we would all be interested in seeing these.

If you look at the police reports, the ones mentioning "missiles", please notice the time they were made. They were made prior to the realization that a plane had hit the building. And all made prior to the second impact.

I'll dig up those links as well.