10 story hole in WTC 7

[MaGZ]

What type of missile Magz? SRAAM or MRAAM or AMRAAM or hellfire or any other type?

I have asked you before, you must know?

Also the videos of missiles you posted were very far from being missiles

It was and air-to-air missile fired by one of the fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base.

If you are a military expert–which you claim to be–then you have a good idea of the exact type of missile that was fired. I can not be any more specific than this. Do you want me to provide the serial number?

If you have some clever point to make about missiles, then make it. Now is the time.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And your evidence is what again?

please explain this to some of us who were actually there that day. Were these magical ATA missiles?

 

[MaGZ]

And your evidence is what again?

please explain this to some of us who were actually there that day. Were these magical ATA missiles?

You were there?

Let's hear your story. Where were you at 9:03?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Again, what is your evidence of this missile?

 

[Christopher7]

MaGZ ran this off the page so i'm reposting

Originally Posted by Christopher7
No one can site any evidence to support the official hypothesis, so you all ignore this and talk about other things.


There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core column 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST:
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12, moved toward the east face
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner

As of 2:30 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence that the initiating event was caused by fire.

In order for fire to cause a core column to fail, 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, in the area where the collapse began.

Someone should look into this.

You have nothing of substance to offer this debate.

*****************************

I have debunked the 'spin' about:
the 10 story gouge
diesel fires in the area of the initiating event
all the firefighters thought WTC 7 was going to collapse
WTC 7 was leaning
it toppled over
it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint
the debris damage was a significant factor in the initiating event

 

[MaGZ]

Again, what is your evidence of this missile?

I have seen the video of the missile hit on WTC 7 that was taken by FOX News. Over the past months I have posted videos of the missiles and a CNN transcript where witnesses at 9:03 saw the missiles. I have posted videos of the fighter that was over Ground Zero at 9:03. I can point to an air traffic controller who say the fighters were in the area moments after the crash of the second plane. Bob of the "Bob and Bri" video team confirms a fighter flew over Ground Zero after the crash of the second plane. I can point to an explosion in the Naudet video that was caused by the missile. I have provided photographs of WTC 7 on fire near the 12th floors while both towers were still standing. Recently, the History Chanel documentary has someone stating WTC 7 was on fire at 9:30 before the collapse of the Twin Towers. There is the statement of Mr. Jennings who experienced the missile explosion in the stairwell. This is the evidence.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I’ll ignore the personal attacks since I have you now on this forum. You can start by answering some of the questions you have been avoiding. It would be good if you would keep the conversation civil.

First, how can you say you felt debris from the crash of Flight 175 onto WTC 7? The remains of Flight 175 went in a northeast direction when it exited WTC 2 not in a northerly direction where WTC 7 was located.

I will let you work on this question first. I will have more to follow.

This is not true. The debris exiting the building did not follow a strict northeasterly path; there was in fact a significant range to the debris ejection. Although the fuselage of Flight 175 did go considerably to the northeast, landing on the roof of WTC5, the landing gear followed a different path far more to the north. This landed on a building only two blocks north of WTC7 and across the street (East Broadway) from it, missing a collision with (or a pass over) WTC7 by only about 200 feet. Thus it is more than conceivable that some of the debris from Flight 175 hit WTC7.

 

[Slayhamlet]

NDBoston,

If you look back on it all, I think you will say the impact of the second plane into WTC 2 seemed more forceful to you than the impact of the first plane into WTC 1. Of course what you experienced at the time of the second plane crash was the missile explosion that hit WTC 7.

Yes, of course!

 

[Slayhamlet]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73933

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83514

The uninformed rantings of a neo-Nazi and a ridiculously low-res YouTube clip of a frickin' bird are your evidence?

 

[Christopher7]

I have seen the video of the missile hit on WTC 7 that was taken by FOX News. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, There is the statement of Mr. Jennings who experienced the missile explosion in the stairwell. This is the evidence.

This thread is about debris damage and fire in WTC 7

Please start a separate thread for your missile theory.

Chris

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I have seen the video of the missile hit on WTC 7 that was taken by FOX News. Over the past months I have posted videos of the missiles and a CNN transcript where witnesses at 9:03 saw the missiles. I have posted videos of the fighter that was over Ground Zero at 9:03. I can point to an air traffic controller who say the fighters were in the area moments after the crash of the second plane. Bob of the "Bob and Bri" video team confirms a fighter flew over Ground Zero after the crash of the second plane. I can point to an explosion in the Naudet video that was caused by the missile. I have provided photographs of WTC 7 on fire near the 12th floors while both towers were still standing. Recently, the History Chanel documentary has someone stating WTC 7 was on fire at 9:30 before the collapse of the Twin Towers. There is the statement of Mr. Jennings who experienced the missile explosion in the stairwell. This is the evidence.

From the video I clearly see a CIA trained chicken hawk carrying explosives. Why is your claim as to what's on the video more creible than mine?

And people describing the chicken hawk being like a missile does not prove that it was a missile and not a CIA trained chicken hawk.

Fighter jets going over the WTC does not prove they launched missiles, it proves they got there too late.

WTC 7 being on fire is not proof of missiles. But it does lead to evidence of the CIA trained chicken hawks.

And of course WTC 7 can easily be on fire after two planes hit the WTC 1&2 spewing out a tremendous amount of debris and fuel as everyone can clearly see on the video.

 

[MaGZ]

From the video I clearly see a CIA trained chicken hawk carrying explosives. Why is your claim as to what's on the video more creible than mine?

And people describing the chicken hawk being like a missile does not prove that it was a missile and not a CIA trained chicken hawk.

Fighter jets going over the WTC does not prove they launched missiles, it proves they got there too late.

WTC 7 being on fire is not proof of missiles. But it does lead to evidence of the CIA trained chicken hawks.

And of course WTC 7 can easily be on fire after two planes hit the WTC 1&2 spewing out a tremendous amount of debris and fuel as everyone can clearly see on the video.

Should I have put you on ignore? I’ll know better next time and will not try to answer any of your questions.

 

[funk de fino]

It was and air-to-air missile fired by one of the fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base.

If you are a military expert–which you claim to be–then you have a good idea of the exact type of missile that was fired. I can not be any more specific than this. Do you want me to provide the serial number?

If you have some clever point to make about missiles, then make it. Now is the time.

if its a SRAAM, how do they operate?

heatseaking?

why hit WTC7? not a lot of HE in the warhead? you do know how fast they travel?

try again

your videos stink, they are not missiles

 

[Christopher7]

Should I have put you on ignore? I’ll know better next time and will not try to answer any of your questions.

A chickenhawk did it

with a missile

in the lobby


Seriously, stop spamming this thread.

 

[Christopher7]

The following FACTS are from NIST Apx. L
[These facts are not going to change in the 'final' report]


There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core column 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST:
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12, moved toward the east face
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on east face, Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner

As of 2:30 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence that the initiating event was caused by fire.

For fire to cause a core column to fail, 3 floors would have to collapse all around that column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, in the area where the collapse began.



Is anyone here willing to acknowledge that the evidence does not support the "DD/F caused the collapse" hypothesis?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Should I have put you on ignore? I’ll know better next time and will not try to answer any of your questions.

Please stop making a mockery of what is supposed to be a serious discussion. Should I care if you put me on ignore? Not at all. In fact, pleaser put everyone on ignore so we can have a legitimate discussion.

A more appropriate discussion would be asking Chris what he thinks of the video showing a gash going down pretty much the entire side of WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

Please stop making a mockery of what is supposed to be a serious discussion. Should I care if you put me on ignore? Not at all. In fact, pleaser put everyone on ignore so we can have a legitimate discussion.

A more appropriate discussion would be asking Chris what he thinks of the video showing a gash going down pretty much the entire side of WTC 7.

We've covered that, but i will go over it again if you will acknowledge that the facts listed in post 3335 show that there is NO evidence to support the official hypothesis, or offer evidence to the contrary.

 

[Belz...]

The lack of evidence for DD/F is not evidence of CD.

 

[Belz...]

I have never made any claims the missile contributed to the collapse of WTC 7. It started the fires in the building.

Isn't that contradictory, since the fires brought down 7 WTC ?

The Naudets’ film 9/11 shows WTC 1 was not damaged significantly by the collapse of WTC 2.

Nuh-huh.

There are in fact many references out there to the condition of the lobby of WTC 1 after WTC 2 came down, and it was not good.

There wasn't a missle. There wasn't black ops wiring my building for years before. There wasn't union workers wiring the building when it was constructed.

However, what you felt was not debris hitting WTC 7 but the missile explosion.

You have no evidence for this. All you're doing is CLAIMING it. Would you please stop, get out of your house and gather some evidence, please ?

It was and air-to-air missile fired by one of the fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base.

Then the military should have listed off one missile. Care to check that ?

If you are a military expert–which you claim to be–then you have a good idea of the exact type of missile that was fired.

Except, no missile was fired except in your mind.

I have seen the video of the missile hit on WTC 7 that was taken by FOX News.

All we've seen from you is a blurry object that could easily be, and most assuredly is, debris from the plane.

I can point to an air traffic controller who say the fighters were in the area moments after the crash of the second plane.

"In the area", yes. Over Manhattan, no. Firing missiles, no.

I can point to an explosion in the Naudet video that was caused by the missile.

You can claim it, but can you prove it.

I have provided photographs of WTC 7 on fire near the 12th floors while both towers were still standing.

And we've pointed out that it's just sunlight reflecting in the glass, and indeed photographs show that 7 WTC was completely intact at that point.

 

[Belz...]

IYO

Yes, and your opinion doesn't trump his.