Secret Service Does Not Use Its Stinger Missiles to Protect New York

Originally posted by FredT
As no doubt mentined before, If the Stinger is up, armed and ready to go

I don't get that impression, all I see is that they were there in storage, behind lock and key. I can't access the original article now for some reason, but I don't think there's reason to believe that people who knew how to use them were even onsite.

One must consider the utter confusion of the incident, and in addition to that the fact that if a plane is heading towards you about to crash, especially a huge passenger plane, a stinger missile is not really...well..going to do anything to help your situation.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
To fire the Stinger successfully you would have had to have had a clear line of sight. Not likely in downtown Manhattan. The missle is a heat seeker
it does not use radar, You would have had to have been on top of a building or on a boat in the river in order to obtain a clear shot.

But we have the police report of a missile being fired from the Woolworth building. Also a photo showing smoke and some damage to the top of the Woolworth building.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1But we have the police report of a missile being fired from the Woolworth building. Also a photo showing smoke and some damage to the top of the Woolworth building.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here Ultima1. What is the link between an unconfirmed report, (not the only one that day), of a missile fired from the Woolworth building and Stingers which may or may not have been stored in WTC7 which were clearly not used against aircraft for what seem like very good reasons.

Are you suggesting that one of these missiles was fired from the Woolworth building? It would seem a little rash to req out a very high profile piece of kit and then take the risk of moving it around downtown NYC before firing it in full public view at another building.

Just doesn't make any sense to me.

If a Stinger was fired from the Woolworth Building it is possible to take down a plane. Provided you know the direction of approach, you have a trained operator who knows how to operate a manpads system, There are no buildings between you and the plane that prevent you from obtaining a lock on signal, and in the case of a 727 you have a chance for a second shot.

There are a few building south of the WTC site that would probably prevent a target lock, and a few to the north taking into account the speeds of the aircraft. I personally dont remember seeing any missle contrails on 9/11 and if a stingers were fired you would see the contrails

I wouldnt want to be the guy hanging off the top of the Woolworth building firing a missle, in both cases you would be firing at the plane from a near head on view and its much more difficult to get a lock when facing the target head on.

[edit on 7/23/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

As I recall, the report was that a missile was fired from the Woolwoth building at the WTC rather than at an aircraft.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Stingers vs a 757 aren't as effective as people have been led to believe. They're perfect for helicopters and low flying fighters or other attack craft, but it would take several of them to bring down a 757. Just look at the DHL Airbus in Iraq that was hit by a similar missile and landed safely. It was similar in size to a 757-200. And as the previous poster pointed out there was no way of knowing that the planes were going to crash into the buildings until it was way too late to do anything about it with any kind of MANPADS.

They didn't even try to use them, I think that's the collective point.

" The "fire-and-forget" Stinger missile employs a passive infrared seeker to home in on its airborne target. A passive infrared seeker emits no radiation that a target aircraft can detect, and, instead, guides on the infrared energy (heat) emitted by the target. " link

A stinger taking out one of the engines would have amazing results.

Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo

They didn't even try to use them, I think that's the collective point.

You have to assume they knew the plane/planes where coming and you have to assume that a qualified operator was on site.

" The "fire-and-forget" Stinger missile employs a passive infrared seeker to home in on its airborne target. A passive infrared seeker emits no radiation that a target aircraft can detect, and, instead, guides on the infrared energy (heat) emitted by the target. " link

True but you still have to have a Lock on target before launching the missle. You would recieve a loud tone from the launcher before you would fire otherwise whatever you fire could end up anywhere hot. Head on shots with a Stinger are very difficult to achieve, its much easier to put the missle up the tailpipe.

A stinger taking out one of the engines would have amazing results.

The Stinger would probably take out the engine, but more than like the wing would have remained intact and the plane would have spiraled out of control over a heavily populated urban area.

The warhead section consists of a fuze assembly and the equivalent
of one pound of high explosives.

[edit on 7/23/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

I almost hurt myself laughing when I first read this. Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking.

I can recall reading the ATS threads about the possibility that Flight 93 was shot down and now there is one about shooting down one of the other flights that hit the WTC. Give me a break!

A couple of points.

1. Communications are not instantaneous and not everything is recieved by all government agencies and offices at the same time. So odds are pretty good that the first indication by the people in the Secret Service office in Bldg. 7, that anything was wrong was when the first plane hit the tower. Even then it was probably assumed to be an accident.

2. Even if the missiles themselves were in the offices at Bldg. 7, is there any indication that the gripstock assembly and the battery/coolant units were there? The missile itself can be stored for years, but the gripstock and battery/coolant units need periodic servicing.

3. If all of the Stinger components were there, if there was someone present who was trained to use the missile was there, if they recieved notification of what was happening and were able to get to the roof of Bldg. 7, there wasn't much that 1 or 2 Stingers were going to be able to do.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow

A stinger taking out one of the engines would have amazing results.

The Stinger would probably take out the engine, but more than like the wing would have remained intact and the plane would have spiraled out of control over a heavily populated urban area.

The warhead section consists of a fuze assembly and the equivalent
of one pound of high explosives.

Yes, precisely what I would have said. A hit on one of those planes, could well have caused more casualties than the hit on WTC2. Think about it, it goes down over a larger distance, probably not head on into a building, and definitely not into one that is at least partly evacuated.

Think about what happened when the debris from the Lockerbie bombing came down, or the disaster in November 2001. Now imagine that in Manhattan.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by apex]

I haven't read the whole thread yet but I have a question. Could all those supossed munitions be a source for the "explosions" heard and maybe be partly responsible for the failure of the building? That is if the fires were like they say they were.

The warheads on shoulder fired Sam (MANPADS) are only about 1-2 lbs
of explosive, other presumed munitions probably include tear gas
grenades, flash bangs and other similar devices. They were presumedly
stored in fireproof safes. At 9/11 museum across from WTC site in NY
(next to "TEN HOUSE" - quarters of FDNY Engine 10/Ladder 10) there
is exhibit of 2 Smith Wesson 357 handguns recovered from ruins of
WTC 6 - guns are fused together in one mass from intense heat

Originally posted by JIMC5499
1. Communications are not instantaneous and not everything is recieved by all government agencies and offices at the same time. So odds are pretty good that the first indication by the people in the Secret Service office in Bldg. 7, that anything was wrong was when the first plane hit the tower. Even then it was probably assumed to be an accident.

I guess you did not read all the post.

The agency is also known to have air surveillance capabilities. These include a system called Tigerwall, which provides “early warning of airborne threats” and “a geographic display of aircraft activity” (see (September 2000 and after)). And according to Barbara Riggs, who is in the Secret Service’s Washington, DC headquarters on this day, the agency is “able to receive real time information about other hijacked aircraft,” through “monitoring radar and activating an open line with the FAA.” [US Department of the Navy, 9/2000, pp. 28 ; PCCW Newsletter, 3/2006; Star-Gazette (Elmira), 6/5/2006] These capabilities would presumably be of use if the Secret Service wanted to defend the World Trade Center.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I guess you did not read all the post.

I read it. Was an announcement sent out on this system? Was the New York office monitoring it? It seems to me that unless someone whom the Secret Service was assigned to protect was in New York that day there might have been no one monitoring this system. Was anyone in the New York office even qualified to fire a Stinger or were the missiles just cached there for use by agents who came to New York on a protection detail?

I'm suprised that no one has asked why the Aegis cruiser that was in New York Harbour didn't fire up it's radar and shoot down the planes?



[edit on 24-7-2007 by JIMC5499]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Was anyone in the New York office even qualified to fire a Stinger or were the missiles just cached there for use by agents who came to New York on a protection detail?

OK. Going on supposition that there were stingers there, why wouldn't there be someone who is qualified to use it? That's like saying, "we have 3 fighters ready on alert but we have to call in the pilots from out of state to fly them.

It would be like. "oh, look, there's planes in the NYC air space. Let me call Joe Blow in Hobboken, NJ to come and defend us." That my friend, doesn't make sense.

Of course, this is if they actually existed.

Plus, even if they were fireproofed, having them fall with the building would set them off IMO. I know practically nothing about the warhead, so I'm willing to be told different.

Originally posted by Griff
OK. Going on supposition that there were stingers there, why wouldn't there be someone who is qualified to use it? That's like saying, "we have 3 fighters ready on alert but we have to call in the pilots from out of state to fly them.

Considering that New York is a prime destination for people that the Secret Service are detailed to protect, it makes sense to stockpile these items there. There are issues that make the transportation of these type weapons complicated. It is far simpler to stockpile them in specific locations and then bring in the people to use them.

As far as your comments about the fighters go, when i was in the Navy I got to ride as B/N in an A-6 Intruder down to the Pinecastle bombing range. We left out of Cecil Field and flew to Key West to load our bombs, before continuing to the range. The reason for flying to Key West to arm up was because weapons could be transported there by ship, instead of flying them or trucking them in to Cecil. Think about the hassle if the truck transporting Stingers to New York City was in an accident and the press caught wind of what it was carrying.

I'm suprised that no one has asked why the Aegis cruiser that was in New York Harbour didn't fire up it's radar and shoot down the planes?

Thank you for bringing that up, remember Iran Air Flight 655 ?

The Aegis system was involved in an incident in which USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 resulting in 290 civilian fatalities.

The Aegis combat system is the most capable surface launched missile system currently being used.[5] It can guide weapons to destroy almost any kind of threat including attacks from subsurface, surface, and the air. Because of its advanced computer system, the Aegis combat system can track over 100 weapons.

en.wikipedia.org...

On 9/12 USA Today reported that aircraft carrier USS George Washington was anchored off Long Island on 9/11.

In addition to the aircraft carrier USS George Washington standing watch off Long Island and the carrier USS John F. Kennedy at an undisclosed location further off the East Coast, the Navy was moving several cruisers and destroyers out of port in Norfolk, Va., headquarters for the Atlantic Fleet. .

USS George Washington deployment

August 14, 2001 - August 27, 2001 Local operations off the east coast

September 12, 2001 - September 15, 2001
Provided air defense for NYC following the terrorist attacks on September 11.

navysite.de...

Originally posted by Intheshadwos
USS George Washington deployment
August 14, 2001 - August 27, 2001 Local operations off the east coast

She was in the Jacksonville Op Area about 140nm NNE of Jacksonville. Roughly 8 hours at full speed from New York.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'm suprised that no one has asked why the Aegis cruiser that was in New York Harbour didn't fire up it's radar and shoot down the planes?



[edit on 24-7-2007 by JIMC5499]

Thier are too many things that went on that day that do not make a lot of sense. Thier is no way a hijacked airliner should have gotten into restricted airspace over the Capital and white house and get to the Pentagon. Thats why i believe the officail story is just missing or left out too much imformation.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by ULTIMA1]

in order to fire upon a civilian craft you need order of the president...whether you be a destroyer sitting in the harbor....or an f-16 tailing it....