Would a helicopter rescue have been impossible?

It's known that there were helicopters around the WTC on 9/11, would it have been possible to land on either of the towers to rescue people? If I remember correctly WTC2 had a helipad on the top, so the space was there.

I understand that there would have been severe turbulence due to the damage and fire on the tower, but a landing would presumably have been possible. So if it was possible, why hadn't they done it? I know that apparently the doors to the top were locked, and were controlled from the ground (really useful, the systems were severed), but if someone had got on the roof, could they have opened the doors?

And if they had got people off the roof it would have been worthwhile even if only one extra person had survived.

I've thought the same thing before.... don't know that much about choppers and what it would take....

On the other hand, would the extra weight of a chopper on the roof have caused the collapse sooner and possibly have killed more people?

I agree when watching it all unfold on TV that day it was one of the things I kept shouting at the TV. Especially with all those people hanging out the windows and dropping out. Doesn't the FDNY have any choppers? Surely if fireman had landed on the roof they could have cut through the locked door fairly quick?

I also wondered why they didn't inflate those huge cushions to save some of the jumpers.

Forget about a helicopter rescue, why didn't they just tell people to evacuate the second tower before it was hit?

Also, if there was no helipad on top, and i don't THINK that there is, then it wouldn't be able to land on it.

On the other hand, would the extra weight of a chopper on the roof have caused the collapse sooner and possibly have killed more people?

No. The helicopter's weight is infinitesimal compared to the weight of the building on its support structure.

Especially with all those people hanging out the windows and dropping out.

You can't rescue people from a skyscraper's window with a regular helicopter. MAYBE they could hover over the building and drop a 100 story rope out along the side, but even if it stayed in place, people'd get smashed to death as it thwacked against the building, or loose their gripe anyway.

Doesn't the FDNY have any choppers?

Do they? How long would it take to get one to the site? I suspect that they don't have rescue helicopters for taking people out of skyscrapers.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Forget about a helicopter rescue, why didn't they just tell people to evacuate the second tower before it was hit?

Didn't they actually tell people to go back to their offices? What fools (not the people who went back in...the officials who told them to go back in). I would think if I was in WTC 2, I wouldn't go back in after WTC 1 was hit.

Edit: Just so I don't derail another thread. I have no idea about helicopters and what it would take. I would hope that the NYPD was doing ALL in it's power to do what they could.

[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]

Yes, that it was I was trying to refer to. Everytime I hear it I am just shocked. And I've been in offices many times where an alarm went off, and people just stand around being annoyed, waiting for a warden to say over the speaker 'nevermid, go back to work'.

Of course, even in this instance, there was a big plane that smashed into the building right next to you. No way they should've been told to go back to their offices. No way they should've listened.

Originally posted by Nygdan
And I've been in offices many times where an alarm went off, and people just stand around being annoyed, waiting for a warden to say over the speaker 'nevermid, go back to work'.

This happens in my office all the time. We don't even get a warden, we just continue working until the alarm goes off. Actually, since I smoke, my co-workers send me down to check it out. I guess we are pretty stupid for doing that. One of these days it's going to bite me in the ass I'm sure.

IMO a helicopter rescue was possible butyou would have needed a hell of a lot of helicoptors (not possible in the time frame) and No one was trying to reach the roof as far as I'm aware ,despite the many news choppers circling.

Like I said in my first post, if it had only saved one or two people, it would have been a worthwhile rescue.

No one was trying to reach the roof as far as I'm aware ,despite the many news choppers circling

Pity they didn't decide to act rather than just circle and watch. Fair enough if they knew they couldn't do it or there was no space in the helicopter, but otherwise they should have tried.

If people had of been rescued off there ,and the others went up I think we may have seen an even worse side of humanity than we did that day(think the Titanic lifeboats) ,speculation but maybe someone made that call.


Would you as a pilot endanger your chopper and passengers(news peeps) by landing in chaos?

Just a thought.

Originally posted by kuhl
Would you as a pilot endanger your chopper and passengers(news peeps) by landing in chaos?

Well if I had been in that situation then I suppose I would have had to get them to agree to it, but it depends as we don't really know what we would do in that sort of a situation.

And i hadn't thought about the Titanic Lifeboats scenario, but then they also left without doing enough, or is that what you mean?

I have wondered that as well... Why not have every TV and Corporate helicopter in NY (there are TONS of them.. ) fly and pick people up... or better yet a chinook or something?..

The other thing I though odd...

If a tower in Ny where to catch fire.. and burn.. is the only way to put it out threw having fire fighters climb the stairs to get to the fire to put it out with hoses? .. They should have had helicopters with water cannons or something..

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by kuhl
Would you as a pilot endanger your chopper and passengers(news peeps) by landing in chaos?

Well if I had been in that situation then I suppose I would have had to get them to agree to it, but it depends as we don't really know what we would do in that sort of a situation.

And i hadn't thought about the Titanic Lifeboats scenario, but then they also left without doing enough, or is that what you mean?

I refer to the chaos due to there not being enough m8 ,trust me in times such as 9/11 we see heroes but also villains.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
If a tower in Ny where to catch fire.. and burn.. is the only way to put it out threw having fire fighters climb the stairs to get to the fire to put it out with hoses? .. They should have had helicopters with water cannons or something..

Well hopefully they have learned from the painful mistakes of the past, something good may come of this.

The trouble with any other type of craft is the distance involved, even if a Chinook had been able to scramble, how long might it have taken?

I refer to the chaos due to there not being enough m8 ,trust me in times such as 9/11 we see heroes but also villains.

oh I thought you might have meant the way they left with less than half loads in some cases.
Of course the people in the WTC might have had some smoke inhalation, so they may not have had the strength to fight their way through to cause such chaos.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by Nygdan
Also, if there was no helipad on top, and i don't THINK that there is, then it wouldn't be able to land on it.

WTC2 had one:

I think there was to much smoke, and very little or no visibility.

Flying in thick smoke is ok for maybe a few minutes, but anything longer and the air filters will get clogged up and choke the helicopter and possibly cause it to stall out. Although a lot of helicopters have dual engines (like a Huey), its still risky. Unless of course they clean their air filters after every time they land and let people out. I think that's what firefighting helicopters do. After a few passes they have to land and clean their filters (at least that's what I herd).

Also, the visibility of the building was very low because of the smoke. Helicopter pilots are trained to fly in low visibility with instruments, but that is usually just during long open flights, and landing in familiar areas where they already know the altitude of their L.Z. and know about any surrounding buildings, trees, antenna, fences, power lines and other stuff. First priority when landing is to make sure you dont hit your tail rotor on anything.

Also, there is only a helipad on WTC2, and it was disused. Meaning no beacon lights, and no familiar pilots, and not safe to land because of surrounding objects.

Many factors to add in, it just wasn't safe.




[edit on 30-1-2007 by SWAT Life]

I believe SWAT Life is correct with this one. The smoke is likely what kept most helicopters away. Any type of dust or ash etc. can be extremely dangerous if your engines suck some in.

I seen a video of one of the helicopter's camera view where they were trying to see if they could rescue anybody, all you could see is smoke and so much you can't see the roof. I'll try to find it.

Although I'm not a helicopter pilot, (Hope to be someday) I have a couple of friends who are and have flown with them many times.

One buddy is a senior pilot with L.A.P.D. who was also a Huey pilot in Vietnam. Probably one of the most experienced guys around. We spoke about this a few months ago. He said that while the weight of the ship wasn't a problem (choppers can hover a few inches off the ground with a skilled pilot) the massive smoke made it impossible to see where to land on the roof. He added that the landing pad was quite small, built for personal/executive transportation, not mass evacuation.

That and the fact that there was not an air rescue plan in place (Unlike the rooftop helicopter rescues at the Hilton Hotel fire in Las Vegas in the late '70s) Not to mention the fact that the roof doors were locked, and yes firefighters could have opened them but they had to get there first.

It was too big of a risk to send helicopters in, it would have compounded the problem, not help it. Most choppers fly on visual and there was no vision through that smoke.

As far as the giant airbags. I don't know. Good theory, but do they work when someone jumps from 100 stories?

Regarding giant air bags, therotically they could work (albeit hard to see exactly how!) wikipedia puts a ball park figure of 120 mph or 54 m/s as terminal velocity for a human body (unstreamlined sky diver in the example)

If the bag was big enough, that would give you enough time to decellerate SLOW enough, straghten your tie and off to Starbucks.

Looking around the internet, it seems we could survive a maximum change in direction force of 12G.

A decelleration of 98m/s/s (meters per second squared cos its a decelleration not a velocity) is a (mere!) 10G.

So crude maths here, a bag that will slow you from 54 m/s to 0 m/s over 1 second would be 54 meters high, you would experance a little over 5G and the ride would serously kick ass!! (if it wern't for the horror-not trying to make light of a distaster here ) In theroy you could of dove right off the roof - providing you landed square you would make it.

The air bags work by splitting at the sides in a controlled fashion to release the air - so this idea would not of worked in theroy as it would have to be reset after each impact.

Would be cool to find a stunt person mad enough to try tho!!!!

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Now_Then]

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Now_Then]