It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Missle protection on tower 2?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I have been reading that there were missle protection on tower two and Spatz helicopter that provided air protection. I have so far not heard or seen anything about such knowledge in the news. Does anyone have anything else on this.




posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Whoever made this up needs to stop taking crack, not even the pentagon had missile protection. Where would these missles be, noone ever saw them, and where would the helicopter be based at?



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Whoever made this up needs to stop taking crack, not even the pentagon had missile protection. Where would these missles be, noone ever saw them, and where would the helicopter be based at?


Thanks for your helpful remarks very nice indeed. Not sure if your capable or not but you can search using the (INTERNET) and find them. Tower 1 did not have them but tower 2 did the helicopter is based on the heli pad like all highrises which even the sears tower has one. I really hope your question about where the heli were based was just a pun!



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Why are you even considering this? The WTC towers were private property, they would have to break laws to get missles and attack helicopters. No company could ever justify the cost, and must I repeat, not even the pentagon had missles or helicopters protecting it. The idea that a privately own building would have military grade equipment protecting it and have to pay for the missles and helicopters, upkeep on them, and the personel to man them, it's just a retarded notion.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
At one point the Pentagon may have had SAMs installed..but this was most likely during the Coldwar



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Why are you even considering this? The WTC towers were private property, they would have to break laws to get missles and attack helicopters. No company could ever justify the cost, and must I repeat, not even the pentagon had missles or helicopters protecting it. The idea that a privately own building would have military grade equipment protecting it and have to pay for the missles and helicopters, upkeep on them, and the personel to man them, it's just a retarded notion.


The WTC area are leased areas from the Federal Port Authority it is not private property the property is leased and then released again to tenants. No Laws were broken to place protection on federal property. What has the pentagon have to do with missiles on the tower 2? Why should it be military grade equipment, remember who are tenants, Federal trade bank in national overseas precious metal reserves, stock market, CIA, FBI, NSA, Federal Contractors, World NEWS, AMerica Free Radio,.
As you have stated but have not included no company could ever justify the cost. so is cost of the protection system the reason you think its a hoax. You stated that not even the pentagon had this protection has what to do with tower 2 havve them.
You keep infeering twcs are private building but they are not federal port authority equals us government. You call this a retarded notion yet you post no proof except your personnel opinion which is lacking of information and direction.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   


Why should it be military grade equipment, remember who are tenants, Federal trade bank in national overseas precious metal reserves, stock market, CIA, FBI, NSA, Federal Contractors, World NEWS, AMerica Free Radio,.


There are non military missles?




As you have stated but have not included no company could ever justify the cost. so is cost of the protection system the reason you think its a hoax.


One of the reason, cost, no reason to have them, as I said before unless they're invisible everyone would be able to see them, and not even the pentagon, which houses top military personal, has any missile defences.




You keep infeering twcs are private building but they are not federal port authority equals us government. You call this a retarded notion yet you post no proof except your personnel opinion which is lacking of information and direction.


First of all, you have provied no evidence of thier existance, it's your burden of proof,
i posted evidence in my first post, they would be visible to everyone. Second, the federal port authority would have no reason to protect them, silverstien had a 99 year lease and was responsible for them, even for the cost of rebuilding them.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Source: www.apfn.org...


"I Don't Buy It" " I was one of the first tenants in the World Trade Center (WTC) back in 1979. Back then----over 20 years ago----it was known to all the tenants of the WTC that the WTC was a "no fly" zone. If you came within 12 miles of the WTC, flying outside of a pattern where you were supposed to be, you were warned to back off. If you came within five miles, they would threaten to shoot you down. If you came within three miles, they could shoot you down. If I remember correctly, on the roof of tower No. 2 they had surface to air missiles for that purpose, plus also the Spatz helicopters for that purpose. "I had a friend who was flying a small plane who got warned away and they almost blew him out of the sky 20 years ago because he was showing somebody a close view of the towers. "I can see the first tower getting hit by surprise, but 15 minutes later the second tower also gets hit? I don't buy it." Walter Burien, Radio Free America, Nov 11, 2001



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
even if it did have protection, at what point do you decide to use it? while the planes already over land, so shooting it down protects the tower and people in it, but you kill the people on the plane and whoever the wreckage falls on? or do you shoot it down further out and risk shooting down a totally inocent slightly out of control plane which may recover before any damage is done?

Get real, I'm sure theres a long list of buildings, before the WTC, that would require armed protection of the nature you state.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Thanks ULTIMA1, man I forgot where that thread was at when I questioned about the tower protection. Radio Free America is a Government sponsored information site I might add. Did any missiles ever exist on tower 2 is a question.
Ernold Same presents a good question about the consequences of using or losing.
I will have to look again but there were some witnesses that states they saw missiles being fired. Many witnesses have stated many things and we link many things to those witnesses. But the fact is many witnesses have had there events not reported in the 911 field of study. Is Walter Burien a fake person is his information to be considered a real event that should be followed up. Maybe, but where does that take us next. Were the missiles still there, were they removed in the past, were they taken off line because of the following days events of rewiring the building a week prior to 911. There may be a connection to 911 in any case. Yes, it might be a straw dog that moves the investigation away from the real events, but that is the real world when searching for answers like 911.




posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Do you realize how ridiculous this is? This is more ridiculous than Tomahawks and Harpoons being suspected of being used (two types of missiles used to attack ground targets).

When I first heard about 9/11, the talk in school was that a plane loaded with guns and missiles flew into the WTC towers....... being the military-head I am - I thought they were all crazy to think that a military plane would get within a hundred miles of our coastline. Later, after the teachers intervened a little more, it got straightened out that they were airliners and that both towers had collapsed (that's pretty much a duh - skyscrapers aren't built to have planes fly into them).

So it surprises me little that people would be saying they saw missiles fling - because they are ignorant civilians who see a flare and immediately think it's a nuclear weapon or some bogus. I also question the legitimacy of these 'eye witnesses' - no one can prove whether or not they were actually there. There is no footage of such 'missiles' - and trust me - with a range of a minimum 5 nauticle miles for IR missiles - people would have started looking around when they heard a sidewinder jump off the rails.

So, unless you're going to back the idea that there were 'stealth missiles' in use on a civilian instalation and were used without ANYONE grabbing photographic evidence - not even so much as a contrail or smoke plume after the fact - I think the discussion is over.

Plus - missiles don't vaporize the plane.... by time you know it's going to hit the tower - you shoot it down - and it hits you or falls on another building, anyway. It's a fool-hearted concept.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Not sure what your talking about AIM64C, Since some witness reported events from the Woolworth buildings. Why would you state that missiles hit the building when 6 billion people have seen planes strike the towers.
Two: Why should I trust you!
If you can google or use other search engines, you will find that NY has had a lot of missile protection in the past. I am not sure if your old enough to remember but there were NIKE sites in NY city and NJ.
alpha.fdu.edu... is the former NY Nike sites. Yes we did have missile protection in the past, but did technology go forward with something else. Walter Burien is a more reliable witness then anyone stating they saw a 757 hit the pentagon, or stating they saw the faces of the passengers as it went by at 500 mph.
Not sure where you came up with the idea of stealth missiles from at all.
If you wish to not be part of the discussion that is your right.
Still many question about the towers and also flight 77 and 93.
Now this thread was about someone stating that the WTC tower 2 had missile protection in the past, his remark still stands as a valid remark to question.
www.brook.edu... site might give interest to people that chhose to visit it.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen
Not sure what your talking about AIM64C, Since some witness reported events from the Woolworth buildings. Why would you state that missiles hit the building when 6 billion people have seen planes strike the towers.



Here is a police report from a witness for the 911 commission.

Source: www.9-11commission.gov...


TESTIMONY OF ALAN REISS BEFORE THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
May 18, 2004.
Thank you Chairman Kean, Vice Chairman Hamilton and distinguished members
of the Commission for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Alan
Reiss and I am currently the Deputy Director of Aviation at The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Prior to assuming my current position, I was the Director of the agency’s World Trade Department, which operated the World Trade Center

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 World Trade Center from the Woolworth building.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Thanks Ultima1 what with all the information that has been compiled over the years
finding and keeping things in order is a challenge. I remember reading about this
event, could this such event be the missile protection I started here, one wonders
why there was no films of this or was there and it was taken and never reported!

You seem to stay focused in this event of 911. The army at one time had nikes protecting the buildings of NY and I see no reason to not think that private contracters such as Warren Buffett aka major owner of Halliburton would not have
such protection in place.

If we can go back and remember that one week prior to 911 both towers were
in retrofit in electrial work. It seems power was turned off for what a week throughout the building, more then enough time to plant explosives, and least we forget that on 911 all GPS systems were being jammed!




top topics



 
0

log in

join