In National Geographic’s Inside 9/11 one will see a portion of the documentary which reveals damage to WTC 1 several stories below the crash of Flight 11. In the second half of the documentary after an interview with Fox News cameraman Jack Taliercio, we see emergency personal placing someone in an ambulance. The camera pans upward showing the east sides of both towers burnings. If you watch the camera pan slowly up from the ambulance to the Twin Towers you will see damage to the east side of WTC 1 about a third of the way up the building near floor 35.

I believe this is evidence of damage done to WTC 1 by a missile fragment that struck WTC 7 on the 14th floor of that building. The missile exploded into WTC 7 sending fragments everywhere. One of these fragments hit WTC 1 on the east side of the building.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

do u have the video?

Sorry, I can not post it. I recorded it onto a tape from televison and was reviewing it today when I noticed the damage area. Perhaps someone can find it on YouTube and post it.

anybody have anything on this?


youtube?
google video?
anything

I have that video, and indeed there is a strange dark oval shaped hole way down the North Tower, visible for only a few frames but definitely there. Wonder what on earth that really is?

is their anyway you guys could upload it?

Seriuosly. Please consider getting this on the web. I would be willing to do it for free. It's THAT important for everyone on this planet.

Later on in the Inside 9/11 documentary there is a view of both towers from the north and from a distance where you can almost see between the two towers. In this view it appears a flame is coming from the east side of WTC 1 in the area of the black oval.

this looks and sounds like an excellant doc

I can't give Robert Pate much credibility after statements like:

I'm about to read up on his anthrax take because I know a bit about this after hearing some John Judge podcasts.....

on google video there is only national geographic-inside the twin towers

Looks like http://AnthraxAttacks.net has been HACKED.

I didn't read anything on this page of Robert Pate's about Fort Dietrich or Aimes Strain or 1 billion spores per gram instead of a couple million or the fact that it was fluffy/weaponized.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36408-2001Nov29

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJu...911dec2001.html

It looks like the Israelis hacked the web site.

You can still read it here.

The Anthrax Mystery: Solved
http://irish-nationalism.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2082

If a missile fragment hit WTC 1 near the 35th floor around 9:03 then some firemen would have reported hearing an explosion. Is anyone aware of firemen hearing explosions near the 35th floor of WTC 1?

Still no video? Someone upload it pls :)

to the OP,

if you have fifty bucks, go to Comp USA, and buy their generic usb/rca capture wires:

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_in...uct_code=318714

if link doesnt work, go compusa.com and put the terms "video grabber" in the search query box.

you could probably find a used set on ebay for much cheaper. anyhow, its pretty easy to use: connect the cables to your vcr, and the other end into a usb port on your pc. the package comes with a free version of ulead video software, install it, capture the video and then upload the saved file to youtube. (if you have a windows pc you probably have windows movie maker on you comp already - it would work also).


good luck.

btw- as far as a missile causing the damage, i think its far fetched, and unnecessary. there may very well have been other explosions in the building(s) prior to "collapse", but there was no need to fire missiles when conventional explosives would be sufficient.

why risk a firing a missile from outside and when that would allow people to witness it?

if u got it on tape then all you need is a video card and you should be able to transfer the video onto your pc

The missiles were fired from fighters sent from Otis Air National Guard Base. The fighters attempted to shoot down Flight 175 as it crashed into WTC 2 at 9:03. The fighters tried to hit the hijacked plane, not the buildings. However in their attempt, one missile accidently hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor. The other missile hit in an open parking area northwest of the WTC complex. Fragments from the missile that hit WTC 7 hit the east side of WTC 1 around the 35th floor creating the black oval.

no offense magz, and no accusations, but that story wreaks of disinformation. it tries to create a fake conspiracy to help subtantiate 2 of the gov.'s claims:

-that they tried to make an intercept, but were too late
-that WTC 7 had damage that would lead to a collapse


here is something to consider:
suppose fighter planes had indeed reached flight 175 in time (though i have never seen any evidence of it in the way of eye witness testimony or video that says/shows fighter jets in the air behind 175).

"IN TIME" means that these interceptors were able to catch up to the plane, BEFORE it was over downtown manhattan. if interceptors caught up to the plane any later than that, the plane would be flying over heavily populated areas of NYC, so they would NOT fire missiles at it. maybe over the hudson river they could shoot it down, BUT NEVER over a crowded city full of people looking up at the first WTC building on fire.

afterall, if fighter jets intercepted the plane and were tailing it, how would they know for sure that it would definitely crash into the WTC? could and would they make the decision to shoot down a passenger plane while all of new york city watched? would they want to be responsible for killing innocent people? imagine the political fallout! its one thing if terrorists crash a plane into downtown nyc, its another if the gov. pulls the trigger on a missile and ends up killing people.

besides, im no expert, but why would missiles miss? wouldnt they seek a heat signature or some other definite signature of a 767? its not like a passenger jet has any chance of eluding a fighter jet. in an aerial race/dogfight, the 767 would be so handicapped that a fighter jet could very easily LOCK ON to a target as big and as slow as it, and nail it. but so far there isnt even any evidence of fighter jets. so before we can explain missiles, we need to establish the existence of these OTIS fighters AND "u93" being in the same airspace at almost the same time, and close to or over NYC.


this same bullshit shootdown-by-missile theory floats around the shanksville 93 incident to confuse and distract. the only difference is there at least the story COULD FIT, because shanksville is such an UNpopulated area. there would be many opportune times and places over which to shoot the plane down, so the fighter jets would NOT have their hands tied. plus in rural pennsylvania there would be alot less witnesses (as opposed to nyc), so they could do damage control and minimize the political fallout.

i have to find the thread, but the most recent thing i read(here at LCF) about 93 was of a witness claiming he saw a flyover. even minus that testimony, the shanksville crater is evidence enough ALL BY ITSELF that flight 93 never crashed there., so the shootdown story is bullshit.

-so in the case of the WTC (1,2,7) i think the missiles are disinfo, or at least MISinfo.

-same with shanksville.

-pentagon, a WHOLE different story. but even there, there is no claim that a missile (or missiles) were fired to stop the plane.


im not sure if you are heavy proponent of the missile theory you mentioned, but i ask you to reconsider how the missiles fired by fighter jets theory DOESNT fit the WTC scenario.

killian, please see the supportive links I provided in this thread to The Missiles at Ground Zero.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=5260

The cooperative research links concerning Otis Air Base indicates it was possible for the fighters to be in the area to make an attempt to shoot down flight 175. The air traffic controller in Newark NJ indicates the fighters were over NYC moments (meaning seconds) after the plane crashed into WTC 2. I think the pilots were following orders in their attempt to bring down flight 175.

ok magz, i have checked out the relevant links and will address them in a moment. but i still await some (any) explantion for why such a thing (missiles) would be necessary? if the perps were gonna claim fuel fires from crashing planes brought the WTC 1 & 2 down, then the last thing they would want is for these planes to be shot down. the perps NEED the planes to crash into the buildings, or their whole plan to demolish the buildings (and convince us fuel fires caused them) would be majorly hindered.

so if the missiles werent intended for the planes, are you saying there were intended for the buildings? for what reason? what would be accomplished by shooting missiles at the towers? it wouldnt help bring them down. why rig the building with explosives and STILL shoot a missile at it? who and what inside the WTC1 would "they" be aiming this missile at?

so i still dont see a reason to use the missiles. there is also a whole list of points i have addressed regarding the specific reasons why it would NOT make sense to use missiles (at length in 2 threads), and as of yet i havent heard any answer as to why those points are negated by this other "evidence" (rumor and innuendo) you point me towards. none the less, i will address the latest set of links and suggestions you pose, BUT i would appreciate some sort of response to my earlier assertions (on a point by point basis would be preferrable, but any direct response is fine).

***

you referred me to your post in this thread:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=5260

lets examine each of these links and claims more closely:

i addressed NEADS and the plane already at length, and most of it was based in the same info/timeline in the above two links. the gov.'s position is that the planes arrived 8 minutes after the crash of flight 175. how did they shoot a missile at a plane they couldnt see? you put this timeline under the category
of "Supportive links to The Missiles at Ground Zero," yet none of this timeline in any way points towards the firing of a missile. if i missed it somehow, please be kind enough to quote the text from these two links that you feel support or corroborate the presence of a missile or the possibility of the firing/launch of such missiles.

the first problem here is that Bob Varcapade's story is NOT available on the page you linked to. a small formality, but i was forced to read all 5 pages to reach his words, and its only on the last page (5) where his relevant quote appears:

well we already have NEADS saying they were late getting there by 8 minutes. Varcapane's quote is not very specific, and in fact seems to missing a possily key verb: "They were ____ moments after the impact". they were what moments "after the impact"? it never says. plus varcapane is generalizing when he says a "couple" of minutes, he never states a time. he is stating basically what NEADS stated, that the planes arrived late. but where NEADS had to be specific for the public record and thus gave an exact time, Varcapane is being interviewed in a less tha official capacity. his words are simply part of an emotional, human news story, not an answer to wether or not proper protocol was being followed.

regardless, lets assume that Varcapane isnt generalizing and is instead being specific about timeframe when he says "couple of minutes". technically speaking, "couple" means equal to or slightly over 2 minutes, and definitely less than 3 minutes. well at 500+ mph for the 767, and at an even faster speed for the fighter jets and missile(s), 2 minutes is a huge amount of time. two minutes is still not enough to suggest that missiles were fired. two minutes still puts the fighter jets out visual range with the plane, and puts the plane over NYC (refer to my earlier post about the political and physical ramifications of attempting to shoot down a plane using a missile, when given these constraints).

now, add the fact that only the president would have to give the "shoot down" order. well the president was in a classroom in florida at this exact moment. so he could NOT have given the order. if you are suggesting then that NORAD and/or a lone fighter pilot would take it upon themselves to make a shoot-down decision, then you need to offer proof (or at least a reason) that they would do such a thing. logic and emotion, as well as protocol dictate that no human would want to make this decision, nor would they be allowed to, UNLESS they were the President himself.

so not only can the fighter planes not see flight 175, but even if they did, they would NOT be allowed to make the decision to shoot down the plane. AND AGAIN, nevermind that shooting down the plane actually HURTS the perp's plan, instead of helping it. lets move on...

this link refers to this now famous sequence:






i addressed that before: is it a bird? debris? or as some have suggested, maybe a doctored clip? for the answer, i would refer to anyone of the many other clips which show these same exact moments, from the same or nearly the same visual perspective, and DO NOT SHOW THIS OBJECT. so either ALL the other clips are fakes since none of them show any such object flying through the WTC tower, or you have to admit that only one camera ever filmed this "anomally". if just one camera saw it, then it would be safe to assume that was because in the vicinity of that camera something flew by. i say its a bird, but nevermind that. explain how a missile goes THROUGH a building unscathed and unexploded, and continues on. and why and HOW would anyone fire a missile THROUGH a building, instead of in to it?

before real evidence of wrongdoing came out and before so many researchers began to put some of the pieces together, this clip was interesting and worthwhile in creating some curiosity and 911 conspiracy "buzz". it was a great "whatzit?". but now that the bigger picture has become clearer, and all the video evidence has been compiled, its easy to say what this thing ISNT. its NOT a missile.

if you read the whole transcript, you will find that it is keeping track of events in real time as the day unfolded. the quote above is both preceded and followed by eyewitness quotes which very specifically identify a plane, NOT a missile. plus, the quote above is in 3rd person. we dont have these people speaking for themselves, nor has the reporter had access to them to confirm their story: " I don't know how people could differentiate", means that he never got to ask any such people any questions.

what his source was for this information? im willing to bet it was a police scanner (a common news/media practice). remember the earlier article (from my otherpost) which detailed and outlined the calls being received and police being dispatched to check out these allegations (woolworth missile rumor). in my earlier post i addressed the issue of why someone would call the police and make false statements (to confuse the response and to osbtruct/divert/distract). then here we have a reporter mentioning it publically. so not only would the news of the missile confuse and distract, but reporting to the public at this very early stage would help to plant the seed and support the notion that "we are under attack".

at this early stage the 2nd crash had just happened, so it was here that the story switched from an accident to an act of terrorism. so as a precursor to the "shock and awe", notions like missile attacks would get people to start realizing that "bad people" were intentionally targetting the WTC's (and the USA). so the perps spread the notion both to the response/rescuers, and to the public that missiles were fired, exploiting people's vulnerability to the real programming (mindfuck) that was to follow.

in the midst of the early moments and the confusion and chaos, this attack notion paid dividends in amping up the fear. but now that such confusion has been cleared up, it should be easy to see that there were no missiles. but of course now the perps can try to again mess with your head by bringing back the missile notion through the use of sneaky suversive blogs and websites that peddle this missile into wtc7 theory.

here the notion is suggested that those quoted saw a missile hit wtc7. but that is far from the truth. in fact, the entire page does nothing of the sort. various witnesses to explosions are mentioned and quoted. NOT ONE OF THEM SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT A MISSILE. NOT ONE. read the page you posted and tell me where you got the idea that the testimony suggests a missile hit the place.

i have said all along that i not only dont deny the existence of explosions, but that i firmly believe they occurred in all 3 (and possibly more) buildings. im sure offices and floors throughout these buildings had explosions prior to collapse, BUT i have contended all along that conventional explosives would accomplish this task efficiently and with accuracy. the fact that you would post this link as eyewitness proof of a missile makes me suspicious that either you are not reading and thoroughly investigating the links you post, or that you are trying to be sneaky and think im gonna be lazy in my research.

you have yet to give one reason why anyone would fire a missile into a building. you say such missiles were intended for the planes but missed. having proven thats extremely improbable and an maybe even impossibile, i get pointed towards disengenuine categorization of information. yet not once have you been able to suggest why someone would shoot missiles at any of the buildings, from any practical standpoint.

please show me where these pics show missile damage? in fact, explain how missiles fired from planes managed to hit WTC7 so close to the ground, which is where the fire in wtc7 appears to be in the pics. or explain why someone would need to shoot missiles from the ground (or close to ground) level at a building that is already rigged with explosives. why the redundancy? and why risk being seen? these pics show: fire yes (barely), missiles no.

you're gonna have to help me out here. on the page i see 6 LIDAR images of the WTC complex taken several weeks after 9/11.

not only do i not see the crater you are referring to, but i am missing the logic. lets say the pic shows a crater, how are you suggesting it came from a missile? are we not looking at the rubble of the aftermath? so are you saying someone fired a missile into the rubble to create a crater? if not, then how does a missile fired into a building, create a crater in the remains of said building, after it has fallen?

and regarding the parking lot pic and the burnt cars, same question applies: how does what you see in the pic indicate missile damage? i dont see it, perhaps you could point it out to me please.

listen to the clip, and tell me where anything he says has anything to do with a missile. he never mentions a missile. in fact he refers very specifically to a possible bomb in a van (inthe basement) or a "suspicious device" the police were looking in to. NOT ONE WORD about a missile. NOT ONE.


so here we are. either you are searching for truth, but only taking it in a spoonfed manner, INSTEAD of doing your own research to find out what's true, OR, you are very intentionally subverting the truth here (you have posted this theory in at least 3 threads). if you would please address any of my technical points, especially my question about WHY USE MISSILES, then we can make some progress in our understanding of each other and this "theory".

;)



***

magz, is it this particular discrepancy that has led you to believe in the missile theory? you did read above where i pointed out that it was minutes, not seconds right? i tripled checked the coop.org NEADS/NORAD links, and they never say "seconds". does that change your understanding of it, or am i mistaken about that information? isnt it Robert Pate who suggests these "seconds"?
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

i dare say it, mr.pate is a liar and intentionally spreading DISINFORMATION. he goes beyond misinfo, and clearly steps into intentional disinformation by taking non-corroborating facts, mis-stating them, and then painting a very weak missile theory, while simultaneously discreditting the WTC demolition theory. his real subversion is that he switches the crime from planting/detonating bombs (a provable offense, and a logical one) to some fairytale bullshit about NON-EXISTENT missiles. once you start believing missiles hit the buildings, then you are prone to believing bombs never went off in the building, and from there its a small hop over to the NON-demolition collapse theory (which is a LIE).

congratulations on compiling the most contradictory pile of bull on this forum. the closing statement says it all about your objectivity

'non demolition collapse theory is a lie'.

this obsession people have with thermite is flawed. it is a dead end unless you start producing evidence. remain objective and stop telling people what you've proven. you have proven nothing. we know the nist collapse theory is bull, but that does not make thermite theory true. writing a long boring post by the way DOES NOT lend it credibility.

who said shit about thermite? i never said one word about thermite. you wanna talk about contradictory? maybe you posted in the wrong thread, otherwise you're a retard (and your post shows it). until you actually address/refute any of my points (which have absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH THERMITE), and until you actually take the time to read accurately what i have stated, you are welcome to go fuk yourself.

yes, there is no way the collapses occurred without the aid of explosives. futhermore, there were multiple pre-collapse explosions in the buildings. none of these explosions were caused by missiles (as the OP contended, and is the thread topic here). thats all my post was saying.

so i dont know where you got this thermite shit from. just so its clear, i will go ahead and address my opinion on thermite now, though again let the record be clear i never mentioned it in my post dickweed:

thermite is too slow and not efficient enough for the wtc demolition. its reaction is too volatile to perform the very precise millisecond detonations necessary to fell the buildings in the matter which was witnessed. some have posted (flimsy) evidence that thermite was used as a cutting charge (at the WTC on 911). but the source they have posted from some company or other, shows a video of thermite cutting a very thin-girthed metal dowel, NOT some massive metal column. so thermite is inefficient in the way of use for controlled building demolition. it may have been used in the aftermath (by having been placed in the basement beforehand) and caused/fueled the rubble fires that raged AFTER the collapse. but i do NOT think it was used in the demolition. conventional explosives were used, cuz they would be plenty sufficient for what occurred. but instead of a traditional implosion, an unorthodox/unconventional blast-architecture was used to help create and support the illusion of a fire-started, gravity inititiated/driven collapse.


next time, try reading my post before blabbering your unworthy opinions dipshit.

Killian, I think the above sources in their entirety supports the missile theory. I am a believer in the theory mainly because I saw the missile hit WTC 7 in the Fox news footage shortly after 9/11. Seeing is believing. I will repeat what I have posted before.

Just to make it clear, I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job nor do I believe explosives were wired in the Twin Towers.

killian, i don't want to be a critic freak, but it seems that the line that was drawn was not straight....did you edit/draw that? or did somebody else? If the line was straight, it would have still gone through the top right hand corner, also a question. If it was a missile, where did it land? it would have landed right inside manhattan...or the press would have seen a splash in the water...just asking

I think the missiles fired by the fighters landed on the 14th floor of WTC 7 (south side) and the second missile hit in the open parking area northwest of the WTC complex setting several vehicles on fire. This all happened at 9:03.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/

i dont pull shady shit like like that. i label every pic and every link. if you check the link magz provided as the source of the sequence of pics, which i linked to when i posted the pics, you will see they are from the webpage.

"they" drew that red line, not me.

yes...and no gehngis...the fact about thermite is used so much because it makes more sense than the NIST report. With the aid of thermite...the steel would weaken enough to melt. Also killian, sorry about that, i didn't mean to bash you if i did, was just wondering :ph43r:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cpw4FZcfiqM

The video

after looking at that, the rapidly flying object doesn't even look like the angle that the plane hit :ph43r: i have no clue what that could be...

Set a couple cars on fire? What kind of missiles were these, Greek fire from the days B.C. or something? And you're saying these missiles, which set a few cars on fire, were able to take out all 3 buildings? Or are you in agreement with the "planes as missiles" theory, for, say WTC 1 and 2, and Pentagon, but not 7? And so this fighter, which shot the missiles, despite the standdown, somehow missed the jumbos (if you've ever flown in one, you'll realize these are the greyhound buses of the sky)? So were expected to believe a jumbo was able to evade a fighter jet, (these are designed and capable of firing missiles to take out other highly maneuverable jets like a MiGs), but somehow missed a jumbo? And even if Bush wasn't too busy reading "My Pet Goat", and Cheney wasn't hiding in his bunker planning armageddon, and they had authorization, would they have auth. to take out a jet over a densely populated area like Manhattan?

Seems like a bit of a stretch.

You've forgotten to reference the most interesting and famous reference to a missile attack - the one from Donald Rumsfeld. In an interview with Parade, Lyric Wallwork Winik actually asked a hard-hitting question (see below), unusual in these days of Faux News and Faux journalists. Rumsfeld, possibly used to scripted Q & As like Bush, was thrown off balance, and said the following in the interview :

There you have it, from the horse's mouth. This seems like a typical Rove strategy, plant some info to a reporter of a shopping newspaper, over the phone (the published story only contained a few lines from the interview), and then when people start the rumour mill, and they get interviewed by major players like Time/Newsweek, say "No, I didn't know Wilson's wife was CIA - where'd you hear that?"

Offtopic somewhat, but apparently Rumsfeld "didn't get the memo" about being clueless about the attack, despite every other spy agency in the world sending warnings.

But it's the duty of the state and local offices to process this info, and pass it to their higher ups, he states, thus shifting the blame from the big shots. Here it seems he didn't get the memo that the FBI, in both Arizona and Minnesota *had* done exactly that, but their reports never got past some bureaucrats desk in Washington for some reason. Just like closing the Able Danger program - not interested in that stuff...


Also an interesting side note, you can already see in this interview that the Iraq drumbeat was well underway...

IT'S A BIRD.

OMG its a part of the plane or part of the building coming out when you have a plane that big hitting something that hard its gonna send shit flying and there is this thing called gravity so when it gets out there a little ways its gonna eventually drop out of the sky thats why its not the same angle as the plane hitting the building , just more drible from folks who have nothin better to do than day dream about shit they have no idea about , you are all probly guys that sit in an office all day probly never had any dealings with steel, fuel -jet fuel , flown a plane and i dont mean in a plane i mean flown as pilot , or have ever had anything to do with demo work but wow you guys sure know it all dont you , its really funny to read this you guys post here , when ever i have a party and we have a few beers we always get on this site cause its always good for a laugh.

Seriously, I don't agree with this man much but IT IS A BIRD DEAR GOD MAN.

The framerate of the video on Youtube seems to be 25fps, the 'object' (bird) is only fully visible for four frames:






From the picture I saw before I am assuming the 'object' (bird) supposedly passed behind or somehow through the towers, taking this into consideration here is an adequate reason it is not a missile:

In the period between frame one and two or 0.08s the 'object' (bird) has travelled at least the same distance as the total width of the WTC, depicted here (terrible source, sorry) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_T..._Arrangment.svg as 208ft, call it 200 for benefit. We can approximate the speed of the 'object' (bird) then as at least 200 feet per 0.08s, or 2500 feet per second. I believe the correct conversion for this would be at least 1704mph. Now that is JUST about reachable (Mach 2.5 is the maximum speed of the Aim-9 Sidewinder) but I have massively underestimated the required speed.

Not only this, but in the period between frames 1 and 3 above, the 'object' (bird) goes from approx 30 pixels in length to approx 15 pixels.

Not only this but the 'object' (bird) is black, I know of no operational missile in US service that is black and have totally failed in my attempts to find one on google.

Do you have any better source than 4 pixellated frames only available on one crappy youtube video that I could find?

i watched the videos over and over and its not even close to the towers its somthin else closer to the camera like a bird or somthin its not even close to the towers if you really watch the video .

Don't have to tell me, it's obviously a bird. I just wanted to provide some reasonable points behind it even though it is a totally ludicrous theory

well it has somthin to do with the guy standin next to the camera or somthin cause when it shows up he moves funny kinda moves to the camera

It is pretty clear this fast moving object is a missile that was fired by one of the Otis fighters sent to intercept Flight 175. Previously I thought this missile might have been the one that hit WTC 7, but as you can see it appears to have over shoot the building. Also it appears to come from behind WTC 1. Some have said this is a bird but anyone can tell this is nonsense since no bird can fly that fast. My current guess is this was a missile which may have landed in the Hudson River.

Only one missile hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor causing the fires. A fragment from this missile hit around the 34th floor of WTC 1 on the east side of the building also starting some fires. Another missile hit in the open parking area northwest of the WTC complex. Look on the NOAA Ground Zero satellite photo and you will see the black crater on the west edge of the parking area which set several vehicles on fire. The third missile–which appears in the video–apparently overshoot all the buildings and landed in the Hudson River.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/