The Missiles at Ground Zero

[MaGZ]

This is your white supremacy junk again. Wrong on all counts. (are you in one of those cults of white supremacy guys?)

How much are you dues in you white supremacy group? And who told you to blame 9/11 on jews?

Still no missiles and still wrong on anthrax. You are still 100 percent wrong; perfect record.

The Jews and 9/11?

Unlike some, I am not blaming "the Jews" for 9/11.

To be clear, my position is the Mossad learned of the plans for 9/11 and let it happened.

 

[JimBenArm]

The Jews and 9/11?

Unlike some, I am not blaming "the Jews" for 9/11.

To be clear, my position is the Mossad learned of the plans for 9/11 and let it happened.

Oh, and that's not blaming the Jews?

Interesting. Stupid, but interesting.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Okay, so who runs the Mossad?

The Jews and 9/11?

Unlike some, I am not blaming "the Jews" for 9/11.

To be clear, my position is the Mossad learned of the plans for 9/11 and let it happened.

So you're not blaming the Jews, you're blaming the Mossad.

Well, who makes up the Mossad? Eskimos? Aztecs? Head-hunters from New Guinea? Left-handed Baptists who drive De Sotos? The St. Louis Browns?

Naah, I know where this is going. This is where your neo-Nazis divide the "good Jews" who are not Zionists from the "bad Jews" who are Zionists. Sometimes they go a little further, and say that the Zionists are not even Jews at all, but "Khazars," going back to pre-medieval times, suggesting that the Zionists are not Jews at all.

It's amazing how complex the conspiracies people with small minds dream up. They can believe a story with more twists and turns than the Burma Road, but they can't figure out Occam's Razor to save their lives.

 

[twinstead]

Left-handed Baptists who drive De Sotos?

I KNEW it!

 

[MaGZ]

Sorry, MaGZ, your dots only connect in your own head.

But what I'm really interested in is not your silly theories...there are plenty of them floating around the world, about everything from the designated hitter rule to the wreck of the Carroll A. Deering. I'm more interested in your pathology...you still haven't answered my questions about what you think about Jews and how you got from the womb to becoming a cracked anti-Semite.

The other question I have is that since you're bright enough to read the English language, you should have figured out by now that this collection of readers is not going to buy or accept your silly ideas, and that we regard you as slightly below a ferret in intelligence. That should tell you that we're not going to support your grandiose cause in the first place. So the mystery to me is why do you persist in your behavior? A definition of insanity is to practice the same anti-social behaviors, hoping for different results each time.

Are you doing this to get more attention than you deserve or ever got from your family and co-workers, or do you really believe that one of us will leap up, and say, "Yes, I'm the guy who did it for the NWO! I've got the proof here, the letter from the Chief Rabbi of Moscow to the Chief Rabbi of New York, ordering him to blow up the World Trade Center!"

You're getting boring, pal. But at least you're amusing. A-Train has his Israeli commandos parachuting out of the plane just after they point it at the World Trade Center, you have the US Air Force shooting down the World Trade Center with its heat-seeking missiles. You two should get together and combine stories. How about the USAF shooting down the jet just after the Israeli commandos parachuted onto Governor's Island?

The missile that hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor was unintentional. The fighters were trying to shoot down the second hijacked plane. Are you intentionality misrepresenting this or you just don’t understand?

 

[Dog Town]

Are you intentionality misrepresenting this or you just don’t understand?

Excuse me, but that's our question!


ETA: I was a left handed babtist once! Mezcal wears off, I ran like hell, after chewing my right arm off, of course!

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Yeah, I get it...

The missile that hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor was unintentional. The fighters were trying to shoot down the second hijacked plane. Are you intentionality misrepresenting this or you just don’t understand?

Only as folks around here who actually know about chemistry, physics, the military, and so on, have pretty well proven, your theory is what Dick Young used to call "horsespit."

Anyway, as I've said only a few dozen times, since your theory is "horsespit," I'm not interested in it. I want to know about your anti-Semitism, and how you developed it.

 

[fezzic]

The evidence:
...
Here is the white cloud smoke from the missile impact at 9:04.
---911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

You do realize that this site you cited actually claims that there was an explosion in WTC 6 not 7? It seems to go into much detail about the alleged explosion.

---.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/
Bob Varcapade: I rememember the two F-15’s. They were moments after the impact. And I was just said to myself, “If they only could’ve gotten there a couple minutes earlier.

Moments or minutes? How many minutes? Makes a bit of a difference here. Were they seconds from being able to shoot or minutes from being able to shoot? New York City is a pretty big area and arriving at NYC is hardly the same as arriving on the spot and following the hijacked airliner to get a firing lock.

---.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/wtc6-explosion.htm

And what building did you say was hit by a missile?

---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.

Thought or saw? Certainty or merely a possibility? I recall in one video seeing something streak diagonally across a portion of the screen. Was it a missile or a bird? Hard to say. A missile that supposedly missed would be a very small object to see and this looked like it passed pretty close by, given its "apparent" size. More likely a bird than a missile.

---oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7damage.jpg

Shows what NIST thought was the damage. Hardly proof that it was caused by a missile.

=====

The biggest hurdle, for me, in trying to connect dots is the rationality one. Why would blowing up WTC 7, supposedly because there was secret stuff in some offices, be a more rational act (to protect said secrets) than merely locking the doors or posting guards in the building in the relevant areas? If the building was on fire and threatening the secret areas, getting FDNY to let it burn uncontrolled (thereby destroying the secret areas) would seem to be a more rational act than blowing up the building.

Face it. If the intent is to show that the building was blown up, then the presence of government agencies (including the CIA) merely provides a rationalization for irrational behavior to get the desired end result. It hardly proves that the building was blown up.

 

[twinstead]

Yea, MaGZ, who cares about your silly little theory? It's crap and deep down in your ideologically addled mind you KNOW it.

What's important is why you hate Jews.

I think you should start a thread in the politics section of this forum. Perhaps call it "I hate Jews, and this is why...", and then state why you hate Jews.

No. How about a thread in the conspiracy section about how you think the Jews are responsible for 911. Oh, wait. You already did that. Never mind.

Anyway, perhaps this is the forum for you:

Try http://www.godlikeproductions.com

Like A-Train, you will fit in quite well.

 

[babazaroni]

The evidence:

Here is the NIST diagram showing the impact area of the missile explosion.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7damage.jpg

Connect the dots.

Explain where the damage show in this diagram can be seen on the picture below taken well after 9:04 am:

 

[MaGZ]

You do realize that this site you cited actually claims that there was an explosion in WTC 6 not 7? It seems to go into much detail about the alleged explosion.


Moments or minutes? How many minutes? Makes a bit of a difference here. Were they seconds from being able to shoot or minutes from being able to shoot? New York City is a pretty big area and arriving at NYC is hardly the same as arriving on the spot and following the hijacked airliner to get a firing lock.

And what building did you say was hit by a missile?

Thought or saw? Certainty or merely a possibility? I recall in one video seeing something streak diagonally across a portion of the screen. Was it a missile or a bird? Hard to say. A missile that supposedly missed would be a very small object to see and this looked like it passed pretty close by, given its "apparent" size. More likely a bird than a missile.

Shows what NIST thought was the damage. Hardly proof that it was caused by a missile.

=====

The biggest hurdle, for me, in trying to connect dots is the rationality one. Why would blowing up WTC 7, supposedly because there was secret stuff in some offices, be a more rational act (to protect said secrets) than merely locking the doors or posting guards in the building in the relevant areas? If the building was on fire and threatening the secret areas, getting FDNY to let it burn uncontrolled (thereby destroying the secret areas) would seem to be a more rational act than blowing up the building.

Face it. If the intent is to show that the building was blown up, then the presence of government agencies (including the CIA) merely provides a rationalization for irrational behavior to get the desired end result. It hardly proves that the building was blown up.

Why would a national security team pull WTC 7?

The building was already damaged and likely would have fallen toward the southwest at some point in time. Locking the doors in this case would do no good. They had to have control of the material in the building. Bring the building down onto a neat pile–not blowing it up in all directions–would give them control over the pile and the sensitive hard drives and paper within. The military would be called in to protect the pile. Truck by truck the pile could be taken to a military base and then everything could be sorted.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

And of course...

Why would a national security team pull WTC 7?

The building was already damaged and likely would have fallen toward the southwest at some point in time. Locking the doors in this case would do no good. They had to have control of the material in the building. Bring the building down onto a neat pile–not blowing it up in all directions–would give them control over the pile and the sensitive hard drives and paper within. The military would be called in to protect the pile. Truck by truck the pile could be taken to a military base and then everything could be sorted.

Blowing up the building would be a lot easier than simply shredding the paper and wiping the disks clean. Of course.

And we're still waiting for your views on the Joooooos.

 

[volatile]

Why would a national security team pull WTC 7?

The building was already damaged and likely would have fallen toward the southwest at some point in time. Locking the doors in this case would do no good. They had to have control of the material in the building. Bring the building down onto a neat pile–not blowing it up in all directions–would give them control over the pile and the sensitive hard drives and paper within. The military would be called in to protect the pile. Truck by truck the pile could be taken to a military base and then everything could be sorted.

By "pull" you mean "bring down by attaching cables to the superstructure" or "end the firefighting operation" and not "demolish with explosives", right?


Just checking. JAQ.

 

[Gravy]

The evidence:

Here is the time line suggesting fighters were over NYC at the time of the second attack at WTC 2.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=otis_air_national_guard_base
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a852otistakeoff

The fighters, which had been in a holding pattern in military airspace off Long Island, arrived several minutes after flight 175 hit.

Here is the picture of the missile at 9:03.
http://www.public-action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/3/flash91.htm

It's a bird. You do realize, don't you, that that object is nowhere near, nor is it heading near, WTC 7, don't you?

Here is the white cloud smoke from the missile impact at 9:04.
http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

Are you on drugs? That's the dust cloud from the collapse of the south tower. I suggest you watch the video.

Here is the statement from CNN saying the white cloud appeared at 9:04.
http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/wtc6-explosion.htm

If Chris Bollyn says so, it must be true!

Here is the claim from witnesses that they also saw a missile when the second plane hit WTC 2.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html

No, they saw the streams of smoke from the engine and other parts, and followed those back to the south tower. A few people thought that the streams came from the Woolworth building. They didn't, as is obvious from all the photos and videos we have. You've been asked this before, MaGZ: why doesn't your "missile," which is so obvious on the video you use, appear on a single one of the thousands of other images taken of that scene that day?

Well, what's your answer?

Here is the NIST diagram showing the impact area of the missile explosion.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7damage.jpg

Give Mike Newman at NIST a call about that. He'll set you straight.
ETA: Judging from his name, he may be Jewish. A word to the wise is sufficient.

Connect the dots.

Connect your neurons.

 

[Gravy]

Truck by truck the pile could be taken to a military base and then everything could be sorted.

Yet nothing was taken to a military base. What's your explanation, O sage one?

 

[fezzic]

Why would a national security team pull WTC 7?

The building was already damaged and likely would have fallen toward the southwest at some point in time. Locking the doors in this case would do no good. They had to have control of the material in the building. Bring the building down onto a neat pile–not blowing it up in all directions–would give them control over the pile and the sensitive hard drives and paper within. The military would be called in to protect the pile. Truck by truck the pile could be taken to a military base and then everything could be sorted.

So you concede that WTC 7 could have collapsed on its own due to physical and fire damage?

I use the words "blow up" because to me controlled demolition implies a greater degree of control and precision than I think was at all likely to be achieved under the circumstances. I do not mean to infer by that reference that the or any building was literally blown apart. That would be a bit obvious.

Now, if the building collapsed on its own, then the supposed goal was achieved sans putting demo experts at risk. If the building didn't collapse, then how would the government lose control over the contents of the supposed secret areas? The fires would burn out and the government could still have some control over who entered the building and even put some of their people on the inspection teams looking at building stability. Certainly if the Secret Service or CIA were to tell NYPD and FDNY that there were classified areas or files in WTC 7 and would they mind if a couple of their agents went along with the inspectors to protect National Secrets, those people would have certainly gone along with the request, right?

You pose actions that have to be plausible in order to buttress your theory. The action -- trucking away debris to a military base -- would be among the more provable things. Have any evidence that it occurred?

 

[Gravy]

Explain where the damage show in this diagram can be seen on the picture below taken well after 9:04 am

See the dark band across WTC 7? That was made by Air Force AGM-1979 "Cutter" missiles, manufactured by Raytheon/Cinzano. They are normally used to shorten enemy buildings.

 

[~enigma~]

Connect your neurons.

Is it too late to LOL?

 

[Belz...]

The anthrax case has been solved.
You can read about it here.

If it's been so "solved", why hasn't anyone declared war on Israel ? I'm sure Iran would be delighted.

To be clear, my position is the Mossad learned of the plans for 9/11 and let it happened.

Again, I can claim that 9/11 really was caused by the Great Brown Chicken, pecking at someone in the buildings and misfiring. But it doesn't necessarily make it so, even if I quote a crackpot website.

The missile that hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor was unintentional.

Cognitive dissonance. You've been shown a picture of WTC7's south side WHILE WTC2 WAS COLLAPSING. There was NO damage to the building. Where did that missile hit, again ? And what kind of air-to-air missile can blast a building like this. Please answer.

The building was already damaged and likely would have fallen toward the southwest at some point in time.

Like Fezzic, I'm going to ask you to confirm this statement. This sentence of yours means that a demolition would be superfluous.

 

[MaGZ]

So you concede that WTC 7 could have collapsed on its own due to physical and fire damage?

I use the words "blow up" because to me controlled demolition implies a greater degree of control and precision than I think was at all likely to be achieved under the circumstances. I do not mean to infer by that reference that the or any building was literally blown apart. That would be a bit obvious.

Now, if the building collapsed on its own, then the supposed goal was achieved sans putting demo experts at risk. If the building didn't collapse, then how would the government lose control over the contents of the supposed secret areas? The fires would burn out and the government could still have some control over who entered the building and even put some of their people on the inspection teams looking at building stability. Certainly if the Secret Service or CIA were to tell NYPD and FDNY that there were classified areas or files in WTC 7 and would they mind if a couple of their agents went along with the inspectors to protect National Secrets, those people would have certainly gone along with the request, right?

You pose actions that have to be plausible in order to buttress your theory. The action -- trucking away debris to a military base -- would be among the more provable things. Have any evidence that it occurred?

I read WTC 7 remains was given priority in the clean up. I do not know where the material was taken. I find it a bit incredible the government would not be interested in retrieving the sensitive information from WTC 7.