Missiles fired from Woolworth Building at North Tower?

reply to post by ResinLA


What I dont understand is why he should proves ULTIMA's argument. The evidence against a rocket/missle is out there ie videos, eyewitness testimony, hard evidence such as plane wreckage. Just what other evidence do you want him to bring? It is ULTIMAS hypothesis, let him prove it. It is upon him to bring the evidence proving his hypothesis, no one else.



[edit on 24-10-2007 by six]

I guess i'm confused.....if the Woolworth building was on fire, or damaged, why arent there any news stories or reports of this damage. After all, the Woolworth building is a landmark, both for its size, and architecture. You would think it would be newsworthy if it suffered ANY damage.

Unless all the damage was covertly covered up, with people silenced if they spoke of it.

edit - fixing typo.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by ResinLA

Originally posted by cw034

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

Uhh,
He is the one arguing the official story. If you believe the official story and would like to argue against ULTIMAs theories, then it is your duty to provide some compelling evidence. Not the other way around. ULTIMA has already stated a valid arguement. You have not! All this "do YOU?" stuff needs to stop because that is the worst arguement foundation ever!


Imo though, I am not sold yet either way on missiles or planes striking the WTC 1 & 2. The official story has been proven wrong on many occassions and the offical story states that planes hit the towers. The doc "September Clues" brings up some very valid points that even though has been attempted, have never been fully debunked. I am not saying that is definative proof. But since the official story doesn't contain definative proof on anything, that is reason enough to doubt the official story. I am a believer in the inside job theory regarding the 9/11 attacks however.
Oh and what is the deal with the engine part landing in nearby NY on a sidewalk? WTF? There is so much property and buildings in that area that the chances of it landing on a sidewalk for everyone to see are pretty slim. Does anyone have an explanation for that?

He is the one constantly claiming all kinds of far out theories. He can claim them he can back them up. I'm not saying the official story is what happened, I'm stating that in every thread ULTIMA comes in with all of these theories and NEVER posts anything to back them up, and NEVER NEVER NEVER answers replies when asked to present evidence for this claims. It's not my job to prove his theory incorrect, it's his job to prove his theory accurate.

Originally posted by cw034
He is the one constantly claiming all kinds of far out theories. He can claim them he can back them up. I'm not saying the official story is what happened, .

I never have claimed any far out stories. I post facts and evidence i come across doing research. If anyone has any evidence to debate the police report or the Port Authortiy radio calls i will check it out.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
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.

The Port Authority calls were made after the first plane at 8:46, they knew it was a plane, the second plane hit at 9:03.

9:04:50 PAPD Police Desk radio report, PA Channel W – “We have visual on that. Not known if it was a second plane, possibly a missile.”

9:06:31 PAPD Police Desk radio report, PA Channel W – “Units on channel W, this is 8581 Sierra. There’s been a reported missile launching from the Woolworth Building. CPD, if you are monitoring, get in touch with New York City. Have them check the Woolworth Building roof top.

Was this ever followed up or mentioned in the official report?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by cw034
He is the one constantly claiming all kinds of far out theories. He can claim them he can back them up. I'm not saying the official story is what happened, .

I never have claimed any far out stories. I post facts and evidence i come across doing research. If anyone has any evidence to debate the police report or the Port Authortiy radio calls i will check it out.

It's a police report, thousands of them a day are falsley reported. IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING. It could have been some nut case having a good laugh during a tragic event. And I've yet to see you post anything that backs up any claim you've made. And I'm not the only one with this complaint, there are other members who constantly ask for back up to no avial. Whenever they question you and you don't have an answer you start your next post with "maybe"...

Well maybe it was a plane, maybe it was hijacked by terrorists, maybe it flew into the building, maybe it flew out the other side....maybe maybe maybe.....

MAYBE IT WASN'T A MISSLE BUT A FALSE REPORT....maybe!

Originally posted by TheJenkster
Was this ever followed up or mentioned in the official report?

I am still looing but cannot find anything.

Here is another police officer report.

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there's a cop, city police officer, in the street. He's telling us, "I'm getting out of here. I just saw a rocket." He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower.

Originally posted by Sauron
Someone asked for a picture, the top of the woolworth building

Yes that was 1 of the photos, do you have any others? I cannot find the ones i had.


[edit on 24-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Try LiveLeak for a clip of a flash and white smoke from the Woolworth Building on 9-11. Although the thrust of the commentary is a high-intensity laser weapon. Concentrate on the forensic evidence, specifically sub-atomic particle analysis of the fine dust that covered Manhattan. Because a significant thermate reading means inside job. Right?
Where’s Miss Marple when you really need her?