THE MORNING OF
9-11-1 IN
MISSILES WERE
BEING FIRED
9-11 FOR RABID
NITWITS
From A Research E-Mail in November 2004
One of the forgotten details of 9-11-1:
It was apparent to many in
http://www.gallerize.com/woolworth_missiles.mpg
Unbelievable but true! Who placed rocket launchers in their locations so
that missiles could be fired into the
WTC site???
Apparently, the top floors of the Woolworth tower have been standing
empty for several years since the name-giving company, the well-known Woolworth
Department Stores, went bankrupt.
Also
see our additional hothot link at the end below
with
details about the bogus
On the MSNBC footage, we see (taken around 4:04 p.m. on 9-11-1 at
the demolished WTC in On the same footage, we then see another missile, traveling in the
same direction, headed for the smoldering ruins of what on that morning
still had been a group of some of At approximately 4:04 p.m., an explosion was filmed in the vacant
attic of the Woolworth building (same MSNBC footage). We assume this may have
been one of the bastards’ missile launchers, blown up in order to destroy
this lynchpin evidence. But it got taped and we found the tapes!
More stills of the Woolworth building roof explosion: here.
The same militant, deadly stuff seems to have been going on in the
morning when the
(01) Very Important Link:
http://www.wnbc.com/news/2439367/detail.html
The
"Can you send somebody over to the
"The
"`Yeah, on ... on Broadway," the officer said.
Left: stills 15, 19, 13 and 27 from the famous CNN „Long Shot“ video
of alleged „flight UA175“ sweeping in over the south tip of Manhattan. I
investigated this very fishy video in my PDF e-book “T MINUS 9-11, An
Insiders’ Attack On America” (available at www.gallerize.com). At a speed of about
590 mph (estimated), well beyond
the reach of a commercial airliner at sea level, the thing reveals itself
as a military missile by its unsteady “skipping” (shimmying, toggling)
flight path, such as skipping several feet upwards without time lag while
its nose is still pointing down. Subtle but precise evidence that we are
watching a camouflaged form of cruise missile, homing in with precision,
consistent with other evidence, including evidence of a treasonable heist
of the Bush moron clique in control of the world.
(02) At one point in the radio dispatches, there is a report of a
"possible missile launching from
the
Another person called out: "They're shooting at the
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/113055p-102094c.html
------------
(03)
9:05: Sergeant Polland radios Captain Whitaker and states that second
plane hit 2 WTC. Detective Sergeant Zika states he had a visual and it could've
been a possible missile.
9:07: Sergeant DeVona makes third request to WTC Police Desk for every
available
9:08: Detective Sergeant Zika reports possible missile launch off of the Woolworth building and requests to
have CPD contact NYPD to check the Woolworth building.
Left: Famous photo by Carmen Taylor, a travelling housewife from Further, the left wing is almost transparent. In at least three
mainstream videos, it is actually not there at all. The right wing is
shining like a lamp, continuing to shine during its travel through the shadow
of the wall. All this and the strange “resistless” mode of gliding through
the steel wall indicate this is a smaller yet holographically camouflaged
missile, consistent with much other missile evidence. Further note the “pod” on the thing’s belly, probably of military
function.
(04) Very important possible reference:
9/11 Transcripts and Police Reports
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/
----------
(05)
Male: Either... either a plane crashed into the
Male: The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/6648563.htm
---------
(06) 9-11: police channel: "
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/297359.shtml
-------
(07) Mr. Chairman, on the morning of 9/11, I was on the World Trade
Center Concourse when the first plane hit. I responded immediately to the World
Trade Center Police Desk, which was in the immediate vicinity on the plaza
level and was told that the police had a report that a missile had been fired at the
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing11/reiss_statement.pdf
Above: Section from a FEMA photograph (photographer: Anthony
Cotsifas; www.hereisnewyork.org
picture ID: 6588) taken ca. 9:03 a.m. on 9-11-1 at the WTC, looking south
at the approaching so-called “flight UA175 plane”. The root of the left
wing in the hull has an oft-noted huge bulge that would have rendered a
real Boeing 767-222 unpilotable. Fox News employee Mark
Burnback reported this flying apparition as a windowless
gray cargo plane, certainly not a commercial airliner. What we are
witnessing are to my mind faults in the holographic camouflage cloak of a
cruise missile.
(08)
09:18AM a police officer called over the radio that there was a
missile launch at the Woolworth building.
Right: Many still frames from the 9-11 horror videos show us an
underbelly of the OPPOSITE color marking (black line in light surrounding) compared with the United
Airlines marking that Boeing 767-222 registration number N612UA (servicing
flights still today, by the way) had (white line in dark surrounding). This is independent of camera and sun angle. – Note that despite
extreme banking, the side rudder is set on “straight ahead”!
(09) An unidentified police official broadcast this notice just a few
minutes after the second plane struck.
There's been a reported possible missile
launching from the
P.S.: HOT! BRAND-NEW FROM A RESEARCH E-MAIL IN DECEMBER 2004:
This relates to the clip mentioned on my home page, www.gallerize.com:
Flashie clip http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/images/ua175-10.swf
Here are two stills, again pointing out that there was no crunch-up during the
alleged “impact event”
at WTC2 (
Commentary below from: Ronin and Webfairy at
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/planehuggers/message/336
Webfairy, do the port and
starboard engines enter the tower at the same
time?
They seem to. This means that the plane was parallel to the side of
the
tower. Considering it was banked to the left - if it was parallel I
wonder
how easy this was and how easy to get the approach right.
Take a
look at both engines. The starboard engine seems to explode outward
whereas
after a small explosion of the port engine it disappears inward.
Maybe it
is due to the particular structure impacted.
The
"pod" seems to give off a small explosion but much smaller than the
port
engine
explosion. Do you notice that white (hot?) piece that suddenly
appears
near the corner of the tower which then burns up all by itself.
If that
was a part of the plane which just burned up all by itself then
apply
that to "flight 77" and no wonder there was nothing left of it to be
seen.
As you
say, the whole plane disappears inside before it then decides to emit
the cloud
of smoke, with only a little red flame, along its full width. And
then the
full works comes out the adjacent side.
Here is
the amazing thing: If the plane was parallel to the side of the
building
(shown by the same moment of impact of the two engines) then how
could it
also be approaching diagonally to have sent a ball of flame out the
adjacent
side? This is the same concept as the hole in the C-ring which some
folks
believe gives the flight path of "flight 77" (the 50 degree angle to
the wall
- approach).
If it was
parallel to the side of the building wouldn't you expect the
plane/ball
of flame to have stayed within the confines of the tower?
Particularly
if the plane stayed intact (it did upon entry) - what could
have come
out on the adjacent side that contained so much explosive
material?
Is that one wing load of jet fuel? [A transparent
wingfull?]
That piece of debris which
burns up all by itself may account for the
absence
of "77" so what other material burns up without much outside help?
White
phosphorus? (It catches fire spontaneously in air, burning to P4O10,
often
misnamed as phosphorus - White phosphorus is used in military
applications
as incendiary bombs, smoke pots, smoke bombs and tracer
bullets.)
What do
you guys think?
Phosphorus
skinned flying whatsits.
That
would answer the absence of 757 debris at the Pentagon, and even
perhaps
the blue tarpaulined wing-like shape which is about the only thing
that is
possibly of a 757, that is, if one forgets how light it is, weight
wise.
-----
Original Message -----
From:
"The Webfairy" <webfairy@t...>
Sent:
Friday, December 17, 2004 5:16 PM
Subject:
[planehuggers] Re: [GMLH] [Fwd: The UA175 Hologram Unmasked]
> This
video is not "fuzzy."
> This
is what I call "the vanishment."
> It
is visible on all of the videos of alleged Flight 175.
> This
particular flash has scooted the frames to keep the tail in the
> same
place while the vanishment happens.
> I
call this particular video "The Ghostplane" since it vanishes into
the
>
building "like a bad special effect."
> http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/ghostplane.htm
> Also
peculiar is the fact that the explosion on the other side of the
>
building happens BEFORE the explosion at the alleged impact.
> A
flash of what a REAL Boeing looks like is at
> http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig
> A
slideshow of stills of the Ghostplane video is available
> From
appearance to "impact"
> http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2
> From
flashframe thru vanishment and explosion
> http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/2explosion
>
> On
all other videos I've found of airplanes crashing, the fireball
>
begins within 2 frames of touching a hard surface.(1/15th of a second or
>
less) The Ghostplane footage takes nearly 40 frames to manage this.
> http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/crashflash/crashflash.htm
>
> The
same folks who want you to believe two bullets in the head makes a
>
suicide wants you to believe in vanishing planes and invisible planes
> with
interchangeable wings and engines.
> What
is visible in slow motion is "Ungrounded theories and
>
disinformation" according to the Supposed Alleged 911 Truth movement.
>
>
Vicky Davis wrote:
>
>
>Does anybody know what the distance is between the nose and the engines
on the
airplanes that are supposed to have flown into the WTC? In this
image, it
looks to me like the engines disappear with no apparent damage
where they
would have entered the building. It is hard to see because it is
fuzzy...
but I swear it looks like they just dissolve.