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.

 

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

page: 15
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Actually we welcome all information, since it keeps proving the official story correct.


Only in your mind. Like most beleivers you only believe what you have been told to believe and do not accept any evidence that questions the official story.




posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Only in your mind. Like most beleivers you only believe what you have been told to believe and do not accept any evidence that questions the official story.


Without examples this is simply empty rhetoric. The following is a list of agencies which I, and I suspect many other 'debunkers' know of factual errors from:
  • NTSB
  • NIST
  • FBI
  • FEMA

These agencies compromise the bulk of the official story and all of them have made mistakes that have been located and shown. Despite this the preponderance of evidence supports the "official story" and no amount of repetition on your part will change this fact.

Please stop making such ridiculous claims when in almost every thread we have debated in you have attempted to deny evidence on incredibly poor reasons (for example claiming that NIST is not an official agency, despite the fact they were sanctioned by law to investigate).

If you believe I am ignoring critical evidence, challenge me to a debate in the moderated debate forum. I am more than happy to present my evidence for a scenario and have a third party determine the veracity of my presentation.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
These agencies compromise the bulk of the official story and all of them have made mistakes that have been located and shown.


So you still want to stand by these agencies even with the known mistakes?

And do not forget the evindece shnown that questions the official story.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you still want to stand by these agencies even with the known mistakes?

Yes, if we dismissed reports on a single mistake which does not invalidate their conclusions, all conspiracy theories would have been dismissed a long time ago.


And do not forget the evindece shnown that questions the official story.

This evidence has either been addressed, or is without merit as far as I am aware. That doesn't mean there are no unanswered questions, simply that I have yet to see a successful attempt to prove some sort of conspiracy.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
This evidence has either been addressed, or is without merit as far as I am aware. .


In statements and opinions only, not addressed with proper evidence.

Do you think the FBI only being at the Pentagon crimse scene for 5 days is without merit?



[edit on 22-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
In statements and opinions only, not addressed with proper evidence.

By your standards the "evidence" challenging the official story is "statements and opinions only". You can't use a double standard with regards to this.


Do you think the FBI only being at the Pentagon crimse scene for 5 days is without merit?

I fail to understand the question. How would this challenge the "official story" in any way?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
By your standards the "evidence" challenging the official story is "statements and opinions only".


But i have posted facts and evidence that questions the official story.


I fail to understand the question. How would this challenge the "official story" in any way?


Well it seems to state the FBI did not do a good crime scene investigation.

I mean this was the biggest attack on America and it was an important crime scene. Why would they only spend 5 days on it?



[edit on 22-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But i have posted facts and evidence that questions the official story.

By your own standards you have not.


Well it seems to state the FBI did not do a good crime scene investigation.

I mean this was the biggest attack on America and it was an important crime scene. Why would they only spend 5 days on it?

Presumably the agents involved felt that their job was done. I can't imagine it would take long to determine that yes in fact AA77 had hit The Pentagon and the DMORT and associated teams began the long process of identifying remains.

How does this possibly question the "official story"?



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
By your own standards you have not.


Just becasue you do not accept them does not mean i have not.


Presumably the agents involved felt that their job was done.


Please explain how long it should take to do a proper crime scene on one of the most important buildings in the US that has been attacked?

How long do the FBI work normal crime scenes like this?



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Just becasue you do not accept them does not mean i have not.

It is not my acceptance you require, you have clearly shown that you are taking an inconsistent approach to what you consider "evidence".


Please explain how long it should take to do a proper crime scene on one of the most important buildings in the US that has been attacked?

I am not an FBI crime scene investigator, so I am not qualified to answer this question. The FBI obviously is composed of crime scene investigators, and as such they would be the best people to answer this question for you.


How long do the FBI work normal crime scenes like this?

I wouldn't say that in any situation this crime scene could be considered "normal". This is the first time in history this has occurred, and unless you have some actual evidence that contradicts the "official story", you are simply speculating based on your personal opinion. This certainly doesn't count as "evidence" under either of our definitions.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
It is not my acceptance you require, you have clearly shown that you are taking an inconsistent approach to what you consider "evidence".


My evidnece is as good or better then most people pot on here.


I am not an FBI crime scene investigator, so I am not qualified to answer this question.


So why try to answer a question you know nothing about as you did above ?


This is the first time in history this has occurred,


So if this is the first time in history this has occured why didn't the FBI take longer?



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by exponent
It is not my acceptance you require, you have clearly shown that you are taking an inconsistent approach to what you consider "evidence".

My evidnece is as good or better then most people pot on here.

Again this is of course your opinion only. And maybe the key word here is "pot" ?


I am not an FBI crime scene investigator, so I am not qualified to answer this question.

So why try to answer a question you know nothing about as you did above ?

You, who also are not an FBI crime scene investigator, has tried to answer the question by stating they should have taken longer. Exactly how much longer and based on what criteria? Be specific using their investigative techniques, number of personnel used, available lab time, etc... If you don't respond, we can assume you have no idea and were only speculating AGAIN.


This is the first time in history this has occurred,

So if this is the first time in history this has occured why didn't the FBI take longer?


Why would it have taken long? How much longer? and why should it have taken "that much" longer? Again, be specific.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
My evidnece is as good or better then most people pot on here.

You have repeatedly dismissed the NIST report as evidence. Nothing you have presented comes close to the level of investigation NIST undertook. Therefore you are using double standards.


So why try to answer a question you know nothing about as you did above ?
...
So if this is the first time in history this has occured why didn't the FBI take longer?

Because you asked me the question. Unless you are experienced with FBI crime scene investigation then we're both in the same boat. You started off this line of debate by talking about evidence that contradicts the "official story". Now you seem to be slipping some sort of generic criticism. If neither of us are qualified to conduct investigations of this type, why don't you give people at the FBI a call? Your position should ensure you have good access to databases of phone numbers and contacts who can inform you why they only took a few days. If this is the case, why are you asking me?



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I mean this was the biggest attack on America and it was an important crime scene. Why would they only spend 5 days on it?


This has come up too many times to honestly claim they spent only 5 days at the scene. They were on the scene from day one and there are strong indications they were there beyond the end of September. The '5 days' only applies to how long they took full control of the scene.

But this has nothing to do with the OP regarding helicopters landing on top of the WTC towers. Faced with suggestions of nuclear weapons, smog machines, holograms etc *koff* maybe it's not surprising that the thread would drift off topic.

I haven't seen any examples of rescue helicopters landing on burning skyscrapers except in Hollywood productions.

Anyone got any verifiable examples of such foolhardiness in real life?

Also - did any building occupants actually make it onto the roof (security in the towers had the majority of stairwell doors accessing floors locked requiring a valid pass key to enter from the stairs)?



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you still want to stand by these agencies even with the known mistakes?


I'm curious, ULTIMA1....

What other agencies performed the investigations, if you do not want to stand by them?? Who else was authorized to investigate other than the NTSB. NIST, FBI, and FEMA?



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Hmmm, I dont see much mention of helicopters in the last page or so either.

One thing you should know about Ultima, he will continue to post his "FBI only spent five days onsite" till the end of time, despite the fact that it has been shown to him that they were still there for 30 days or so after September 11th, going through evidence.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
from the 9/11 commission report


At 9:06, the NYPD Chief of Department instructed that no units were to
land on the roof of either tower. At about 9:30, one of the helicopters present
advised that a rooftop evacuation still would not be possible. One NYPD hel-
icopter pilot believed one portion of the North Tower roof to be free enough
of smoke that a hoist could be lowered in order to rescue people, but there was
no one on the roof. This pilot's helicopter never attempted to hover directly
over the tower. Another helicopter did attempt to do so, and its pilot stated
that the severity of the heat from the jet fuel­laden fire in the North Tower
would have made it impossible to hover low enough for a rescue, because the
high temperature would have destabilized the helicopter.
148
At 9:51, an aviation unit warned units of large pieces of debris hanging from
the building. Prior to 9:59, no NYPD helicopter pilot predicted that either
tower would collapse.


Source: 9/11 commission report, Page 304

[edit on 23-9-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
From the Gotham Gazette


HELICOPTER RESCUES

Grandstanding. An ugly word. But that, according to a front-page Oct. 23 Wall Street Journal story, is exactly how the daring February 1993 police helicopter rescue of 28 people from the top of the World Trade Center was characterized at the time by officials of the fire department.

A bomb that exploded in the garage beneath the towers, killing 6 people and injuring 1,042, had sent smoke up through both towers. People who fled up the towers, rather than down, were successfully rescued after police helicopter crewmen chopped up roof-top antennae and broke through locked doors.

Yet instead of becoming a model for rooftop rescues, the police helicopter rescue was dismissed as dangerous and unnecessary, says the journal. The Association of Fire Chiefs harshly denounced the rescue as a "cheap publicity stunt" in a letter to the mayor.


So in 1993, helecopter rooftop rescue was dismissed as too dangerous. At least an 8 year old policy.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
more info about firefighting


Standard firefighting rationale is with the chiefs. Whenever possible, firefighters fight up to a fire, while always securing a line of retreat. The most dangerous fire is the one that is below the firefighter, such as a basement fire. Thus in normal firefighting experience, encouraging people to move to the roof--especially one reachable only by helicopter--is directing them in exactly the wrong direction. And the firefighters below would be concerned that a helicopter, caught in the wild updrafts of an intense fire, might itself crash, compounding the danger to anyone below.

Officials of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, then-owner of the World Trade Center, agreed with fire chiefs and officials not to plan for future helicopter rescues. Indeed, for security reasons the Port Authority chose to lock the two sets of heavy metal doors leading to the building's only roof exit--a violation of city building codes. As a state agency, the Port Authority is exempt from code.


source: Gotham Gazette

[edit on 23-9-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Hopefully this gives everyone a few answers as to why helo rescues were not tried.


Could some people have been rescued from the roof of the north tower on September 11? (The south tower held no hope. It was hidden in a 100-foot layer of dense smoke.) No one knows for sure. Fire department officials are certainly right that smoke and flames usually rise, and that people are generally best off going down rather than up. But 700 people were trapped above the 93rd floor, the point of impact where the jet hit the tower. They had no prospect of being rescued by going down.

Veteran helicopter-rescue pilots quoted by the journal say a rescue of a few dozen people would have been difficult but possible. Police helicopters hovered nearby, but were ordered away.

Fire Commissioner Thomas Van Essen called the Wall Street Journal story--and its implication that some people might have been rescued--"hurtful."

New York's refusal to plan for helicopter rescues is not unusual. Among American cities, only Los Angeles--whose fire department owns six helicopters--requires high-rise buildings to build helipads. Conventional wisdom says people are better off heading down and not up.

And conventional wisdom may well be right. But September 11 should be forcing all uniformed services to rethink their procedures. Bureaucratic wrangling is unseemly in terrible times, and both police and fire officials have been careful to refrain from criticizing one another. Yet serious issues of command and authority underlie some of the historic tensions between the two departments. The next mayor is going to have to resolve them.


Source Gotham Gazette




top topics



 
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join