Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why There Were No Helicopter Rescues At The WTC’s On 9-11

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Dear Everybody:

Have any of you wondered why on 9-11 no helicopter rescue attempts were made to get people out of the twin towers? I know I did. It was one of the first thoughts that entered my mind while watching the buildings burn on television that morning. Why don’t they start getting people off from the rooftops? What were they expecting, that firefighters after climbing up 100 stories — gear and all — would be able to carry those down who were too injured to walk on their own?

Of course not. The brutal truth is, those people ‘needed to die’. Everyone in the upper floors would have witnessed that there were no planes. And they would have seen all sorts of other ‘oddities’ (explosives going off, etc.). Their exit paths were purposely cut off. The doors to the roof area were locked and in all likelihood disabled with brass pin lock inserts. Their downward escape routes were deliberately smoke flooded. The planners of 9-11 needed to make sure no one would live to tell what they really saw.

9-11 happened in New York City, not Podunk USA. There would have been plenty of helicopter capacity available. Certainly there were Sikorsky Sea Dragons somewhere nearby. Those puppies can haul some cargo. Ten flights and everyone would have been off. No, none of this happened. Why not? Because it wasn’t supposed to, that’s why.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 2/24/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]




posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
The FEMA birds were called away (the official reason being they were on an exercise). That seems OK when you consider that is why (it is reported) they went there a few days before, but why, if there is a REAL emergency, didn't they scrap the exercise and go do it for real? To flip the coin, surely you don't carry on playing war games whilst you're really being invaded?

Whilst the smoke and reduced visibility could be argued as a technical reason why no attempt was made, it is known that an approach from the north side would have been in the clear, and they could have got in and out quite easily (plenty of video footage to support that theory).

There was no reason to suspect the building would collapse whilst the helicopter landed on it ... was there? (we're not talking about landing on the roof of a house). After all, it would have been a rescue mission, and they are never risk-free.


Their exit paths were purposely cut off. The doors to the roof area were locked and in all likelihood disabled with brass pin lock inserts.

Source?

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Everybody:

Have any of you wondered why on 9-11 no helicopter rescue attempts were made to get people out of the twin towers? I know I did. It was one of the first thoughts that entered my mind while watching the buildings burn on television that morning. Why don’t they start getting people off from the rooftops? What were they expecting, that firefighters after climbing up 100 stories — gear and all — would be able to carry those down who were too injured to walk on their own?

Of course not. The brutal truth is, those people ‘needed to die’. Everyone in the upper floors would have witnessed that there were no planes. And they would have seen all sorts of other ‘oddities’ (explosives going off, etc.). Their exit paths were purposely cut off. The doors to the roof area were locked and in all likelihood disabled with brass pin lock inserts. Their downward escape routes were deliberately smoke flooded. The planners of 9-11 needed to make sure no one would live to tell what they really saw.

9-11 happened in New York City, not Podunk USA. There would have been plenty of helicopter capacity available. Certainly there were Sikorsky Sea Dragons somewhere nearby. Those puppies can haul some cargo. Ten flights and everyone would have been off. No, none of this happened. Why not? Because it wasn’t supposed to, that’s way.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



Greetings to Wizard.... What about the people just below the impact point? The ones that SAW the PLANE come into the building?

Your claim of holograms continues to be one of the most usless conspiracies.




ADD TO EDIT:
Survivors above the impact Zone:

Brian Clark, executive vice president of Euro Brokers on the 84th floor
Clark and co-worker Ronald DiFrancesco
Stanley Praimnath - a loan officer for Fuji Bank
Richard Fern-another Euro Brokers executive

And Wizard...how do you explain the countless about of personal phone calls that people got that were still alive above the impact zone? Did you hear of any of them claiming that the building were NOT hit by planes?

[edit on 24-2-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
There were specific reasons that they were not able to rescue them.

1. They could not land.
2. The doors to the roof were locked
3. The FDNYand NYPD never coordinated on HOW to perform the rescue after they decided to jointly work after the 93 bombing.
4. The pilots reported 'tilting' of the towers.

There are more, but please, before an ignorant statement like " they needed to die". Those people were in contact and told the people they talked to that a plane hit. They were trapped. There is information on this if you take the time to find it.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

1. They could not land.

— Why specifically couldn’t they land? It being a crystal clear blue-mountain morning in NYC on 9-11.


2. The doors to the roof were locked
— They sure were! And knocking them down was not an option?


3. The FDNY and NYPD never coordinated on HOW to perform the rescue after they decided to jointly work after the 93 bombing.

— You’re suggesting that the FDNY and the NYPD couldn’t agree which of each others’ helicopters to use and who would pay for the gas?


4. The pilots reported 'tilting' of the towers.
— Pilots? What pilots? It doesn’t matter who reported what — we all can see that nothing was ‘tilting’.

Some of us may have been born at night — but not last night.
Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 2/24/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Edit to remove video per other members request.



[edit on 24-2-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Wizard, I suggest you read a book called 102 minutes. It explains the infighting between agencies. It explains why the doors were locked. It explains that the pilots could not land on the towers.

The NYPD and FDNY and the PA were not properly trained or briefed on interdepartmental rescus such as this. It was supposed to be accomplished after the 93 bombing, and never was. Look into it.

The PA locked the doors for security and safety reasons. These are heavy, steel safety doors, not interior doors in a house.

The pilots of the choppers notified their superior officers in the NYPD and FDNY that they could see the building was tilting, and that there was no way that the building could support a landing structurally.

The answers are out there, you just have to look for them and get past the videos posted on the internet. THey are complete bull#.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
These are all very good questions IMO. 102 Minutes sounds very interesting, will have to read. I do have one point, though: helicopters don't need to land in order to rescue people. They can throw down a rope and hoist people up with it. Someone should have had the keys to unlock those metal doors or they could have used a small amount of explosives to blow them open. So, why didn't they do that? Or was this because of interagency fighting?



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
The Port Authority I believe was responsible for the locking of the doors. One of the main reasons there was not a rooftop rescue is no one could get out.

They were there to attempt a rescue if needed. They reported however that they would not be able to after witnessing the towers collaspse initiating 5 to 10 minutes prior.

Read reports of the people who were stuck in the resturant that day. IT is interesting reading and explains why they were no ont the roof.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I really can't fathom how people can continue to deny that planes hit the towers. All that video of planes hitting the towers is fake? They are holograms, where were they projected from, space? Give me a friggin break.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
But weren't the FEMA choppers in top for the drill??? I'm asking because that was my understanding.

Who knows, you can couch quarterback all you want.

The main thing is that we probably destroyed our own towers in a Pear Harbor attempt to mobilize ourselves against Iraq and Iran.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
The mayor ran off and didn't call FEMA.

Nor did the governor.

We must all have orders.

They were all shocked and tramatised as all New York was,
why FEMA didn't know is a puZZle.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
These are all very good questions IMO. 102 Minutes sounds very interesting, will have to read. I do have one point, though: helicopters don't need to land in order to rescue people. They can throw down a rope and hoist people up with it. Someone should have had the keys to unlock those metal doors or they could have used a small amount of explosives to blow them open. So, why didn't they do that? Or was this because of interagency fighting?


People were coming out the side windows, a harness like they have in the
Coast Guard would have helped. No ledge perhaps that is why.
No good preparation was another. The people in power were just not up to
the task. Too many cooks, no federal oversight.

Osama said he would use our own devices against us seems true so the
planes fit. Everyone wondered how this attack was going down, like
there was no terrorist air force.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
But weren't the FEMA choppers in top for the drill??? I'm asking because that was my understanding.

Who knows, you can couch quarterback all you want.

The main thing is that we probably destroyed our own towers in a Pear Harbor attempt to mobilize ourselves against Iraq and Iran.


It is almost turning out that way.

It might be under the breath or in the thought of many, more verbal
with some as we know.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Wasnt there too much smoke, for those helicopters to land?

And why didnt the helicopters that were flying near the WTC's eventry an rescue folks from them?

An why was those gates to the roof locked in the first place?



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
And FEMA has had this fleet of helicopters since when exactly? Because every other time FEMA is on the job they borrow military/civil helicopters to do their job.

To those who wonder why they just didnt lower rescue hoists...well do some research on static buildup in helicopters and the use of grounding straps during rescue operations.

As to why the helicopters didnt get too close.....the air above the towers was extremely unstable and would have played havoc with any attempts of the helicopters to get close enough.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Hi Wizard, Once again I find it incredulous that the disbeleivers come up with so many excuses and tripe. How many helicopters is there in the New York Area? Forgive me for saying that when a tragedy occurs the normal thing is to help, every news station has helicopters, so do the Police, no one has to wait for the order or permission to do whats natural in saving people.

With events such as these extrodinary acts of bravery and heroism are carried out either from an individual or a group. But nothing was done, those people were left to their fate. Who gives a dam if doors were locked, they can be broken down just like they are by the Police or Firebrigade under normal cicumstances.

And I find the attitude and excuses of some bordering on cowardice in the extreme.

THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE IN LIFE, THOSE WHO STAND AND WATCH AND THOSE WHO GET STUCK IN



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Hey magicmushroom:

Great to see you chime in. I see you’re still outspoken as usual! Damn, where’d ya get all those points from?

Mirageofdeceit had cautioned early that the massive presence of smoke at the WTC’s could be used as a possible excuse for no rescue flights. The issue of smoke is an important one I forgot to mention. The military utilizes “smoke screens” all the time. It’s age-old classic war tactic, and a rather important one. It wouldn’t surprise one bit if they (the cabal) had those twin towers jam-packed with smoke bombs, smoke grenades and fog-oil type smoke generators.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Hi Wizard, I am a son of Odin, My family tree goes back a thousand years to the time of the Vikings so yes I am outspoken, whilst my tongue will slay my enemies it will also defend the innocent.

Many here have forgotten simple physics, black smoke means oxygen starved fires burning at low temperatures indicating steel weakening temps could not have been achieved.

Do you remeber the Kenedy film staring K Costner he said that Dealy Plaza was set up as a kill zone, there was now way Kenedy was going to get out alive.

It was the same on 9/11 every precaution had been taken to make sure the plan worked. Those who survived would be told to keep quite, your not a patriot etc. I dont know who should be put on trial first the perps or those who have alllowed themselves to be brainwashed, those who defend that they know in their hearts to be wrong.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Great thinking there wizard. There were so many dying on the roof you think they would have at LEAST tried huh.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join