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

Originally posted by Long Lance
i honestly don't understand how holograms, smoke generators and whatnot belong into a thread about absent rescue attempts.

Dear Long Lance:

The smoke generators very much do belong in this thread. I suggest they were in the WTC towers to simulate something that was never there — burning fuel from crashed planes. Had rescue workers been allowed into this area — and allowed to leave — be it from the rooftop or from the lower stairwells, the entire plot would have been discovered. Civilians are unlikely to immediately recognize devices such as smoke machines — but professional firefighters would have spotted them in a ‘New York minute’. They are all too familiar with these contraptions, they train with them. This explains very well why the south tower came down a short eleven minutes after the first firemen reached the 78th floor.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

There was no helicopter rescue because there was nobody on the roof to rescue, quite plausable reason.

The question needing asked is... Why nobody was able to make it to the roof or the viewing platform on top of wtc 2?

I am not sure who "all of us' is, but I have a good idea. Let me answer your questions....

1. President George Bush didn’t look surprised when ‘first’ told about 9-11 in Florida classroom. answer - composure and integrity. You should try it sometime

2. No helicopter rescue attempts were allowed at WTC buildings? There were no plans in place for this, the doors to the roof were locked for safety reasons on both towers and in order to perfrom the rescue, the NYPD would have needed to ferry FDNY to the roof for rescue. There is testimony that staes the state of the building by fire officials and the pilots.

3. Twin towers erupted volcano-style like roman candles. A gravitational collapse pulls things down, not up, not sideways and most certainly does not turn solids into ‘dust’. Have you ever seen the towers and stood in awe? I am surprised that there was not more damage from the collaspe.

4. Cell phone calls from flights were impossible in 2001. Also, Ted Olson claims his estranged wife Barbara Olson called him ‘collect’ from an in-flight phone which can only be activated with a credit card (which he claims she did not have, that’s why he said she called collect!) This is simply not true. There are plenty of 'scholars' who I am sure could back this up. or google it...

5. Why again did WTC-7 ‘collapse’ (and WTC-6 blow up?)?? WTC was imploded due to structural reasons and rebuilding. WTC-7 collasped from the inside and fell. You can see that as the roof buckles.

This thread however is about the helicopter rescues. This was not an option based on the fact that no one could reach the roof.

www.mishalov.com...

Read the above, it is a rough outline of the book 102 minutes. Give it a read and make this personal. People died that day who could not get to the roof not becasue of conspiracy but #ty oversight.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Ultima1, kokoro and CameronFox:

Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. My profoundest apologies that I didn’t think about consulting the 9-11 commission report first! Boy I really am dumb. How silly of me. How could I allow such an oversight to happen? I must confess, I don’t have a copy. Where can I get one? So that’s were ALL the answers are! Stupid, stupid me for trying to figure this out on my own — all along all of us foolish ‘conspiracy theorists’ have been doing nothing but reinventing the wheel.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Well the 911 commission report may not be a total report of what happened due to not having enough time or money to do a proper investigation the witnesses testimonies can be verified through different resources.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Long Lance:

The smoke generators very much do belong in this thread. I suggest ...

smoke generators are just one variant why as many immediate witnesses as possible had to die. i won't pretend to know the exact reason, so i'll try to stick with what we know, which is that no rescue attempts were made even though wtc#2's roof as not mired in smoke and therefore in all likelyhood easily accessible by helo. wtc#1's roof condition was probably not that bad with rotor downwash blowing the smoke away from the landing site, but that's not as clear-cut (i am no authority in this regard so i can't really delve into it) therefore does not lend itself very much to demonstrate to sceptics that something out of the ordinary, namely conspiratorial, was going on.

smoke generators might have been used, maybe even fuel oil bladders to keep fires going, who knows, i don't. plane oddities (color, penetration characteristics and -depth, etc.) are seperate issues and adressing various angles simultaneously will only create confusion among people who aren't already well versed in the majority of CTs surrounding 9/11. if you want to pursue smoke generators, fine, but regarding rescue operations, the only question related to smoke is if it prevented helos from landing on the roof, not how it came into being in the first place.


i hope you understand that discussing holograms and pre-planted fireworks will only serve to derail this thread. as you've seen, your detractors have been focusing on just these details, while f-ex. no-one bothered to respond to my posts about wtc#2's essentially pristine roof.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by esdad71

2. No helicopter rescue attempts were allowed at WTC buildings? There were no plans in place for this, the doors to the roof were locked for safety reasons on both towers and in order to perfrom the rescue.

so a welder or cutting charge can't be doung anywhere in NY? give me a break, there are many excuses like inter service rivalry, poor coordination and so on, but none of these can be taken seriously. you ahve hundreds of people doing these things for a living on scene and no-one comes up with the idea?

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Long Lance]

Hands down TRUTH is that they weren't aware that the WTC were going to come crashing down. Otherwise we would not have been still rushing peopel to the base to help people.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
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]

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
Hands down TRUTH is that they weren't aware that the WTC were going to come crashing down. Otherwise we would not have been still rushing peopel to the base to help people.

Dear Deus_Brandon:

Indeed those who didn’t have foreknowledge that the WTC’s would come tumbling down rushed in from the base of the building to help while those who offered to assist from the rooftops were denied to do so — by those who planned what was going to happen. There simply is no other logical explanation.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
Hands down TRUTH is that they weren't aware that the WTC were going to come crashing down. Otherwise we would not have been still rushing peopel to the base to help people.

Dear Deus_Brandon:

Indeed those who didn’t have foreknowledge that the WTC’s would come tumbling down rushed in from the base of the building to help while those who offered to assist from the rooftops were denied to do so — by those who planned what was going to happen. There simply is no other logical explanation.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Please show me the proof that anyone had foreknowledge of the collapse.

Even the firechiefs that were there did not believe the towers would collapse, they were only worried about the upper floors above the damage might collapse.

None of the chiefs present believed a total collapse of either tower was possible. Later, after the Mayor had left, one senior chief present did articulate his concern that upper floors could begin to collapse in a few
hours, and so he said that firefighters thus should not ascend above floors in the sixties.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Please show me the proof that anyone had foreknowledge of the collapse.

Dear Ultima1:

But first I gotta mention something else. CameronFox I love you. Does that sound gay? Well I mean it metaphorically of course. But then again, you may be a smokingly hot female super agent! Seriously, you brighten up my day. I live for this kind of stuff. I really do hope the moderators continue to let us ‘duke’ it out. So far they’ve been lenient and I like that.

Anyways, Ultima1, the proof that people had advance knowledge of the collapses is in their actions and behavior. E. g. our president didn’t act surprised and (was told) continued to sit in front of the schoolchildren. I know, I know, you worship it as ‘composure’. But no one is that cold-as-marble-blooded. Especially not GW who is reported to have a bit of a ‘temper’. And the fact that the VP himself wouldn’t allow the rescue flights has also been floated around in the news media many a times. What kind of ‘proof’ do you expect? Notarized confessions?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods (who is still in stitches!)

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
What kind of ‘proof’ do you expect? Notarized confessions?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods (who is still in stitches!)

I expect the same kind of proof that i have provided. Something that can be supporrted by several good resources.

I do believe that the government knows more then what they have stated through the media and may have let it happen but i have not found evidence that anyone at the scene expected the towers to completly collapse, otherwise thet would have pulled the firemen and resuce workers out.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

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]

to answer your last question, umm you very well might have been born last night, we all know that large objects AKA. towers dont look like their moving alot over long distance (the camera shot you got on the news). not to mention their are few if any reliable witnesses other than pilots of what was happening to the tower at nand above the area of impact.

As for this whole conspiracy theory that the govt. wnted them dead because they needed oil for reptilians who have been working with our govt. to abduct us.



But seriously if president Bush needed an excuse to start a war, i think knocking down two symbols of America and killing lets says just the people killed in the original impact would have been a action large enough to start a war.

Id still have been saddened/annoyed/angry

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

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]

to answer your last question, umm you very well might have been born last night, we all know that large objects AKA. towers dont look like their moving alot over long distance (the camera shot you got on the news). not to mention their are few if any reliable witnesses other than pilots of what was happening to the tower at nand above the area of impact.

As for this whole conspiracy theory that the govt. wnted them dead because they needed oil for reptilians who have been working with our govt. to abduct us.



But seriously if president Bush needed an excuse to start a war, i think knocking down two symbols of America and killing lets says just the people killed in the original impact would have been a action large enough to start a war.

Id still have been saddened/annoyed/angry

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 I expect the same kind of proof that i have provided. Something that can be supporrted by several good resources.

Dear Ultima1:

Now I really am perplexed. You’re calling — as a standalone document — the not-worth-the-paper-it’s-written-on 9-11-report the equivalent of “several good resources”?! You’re right, I cannot match that. All I’ve got is a list of historical facts documented on film and in written accounts. E. g. President George W. Bush remaining seated, the towers collapsing like sand castles, impossible cell phone calls, etc., etc. There is nothing ambiguous about all that. It’s up to us as citizens to connect the dots and draw our own conclusions.

But somehow you keep insisting that a report strong-armed by the leading suspects of the study themselves, the likely 9-11 orchestrators, overrides all the physical realities! In our everyday world, since when are the investigated allowed to write up their own police reports?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Now I really am perplexed. You’re calling — as a standalone document — the not-worth-the-paper-it’s-written-on 9-11-report the equivalent of “several good resources”?! You’re right, I cannot match that. All I’ve got is a list of historical facts documented on film and in written accounts. E. g. President George W. Bush remaining seated, the towers collapsing like sand castles, impossible cell phone calls, etc., etc. There is nothing ambiguous about all that. It’s up to us as citizens to connect the dots and draw our own conclusions.

But somehow you keep insisting that a report strong-armed by the leading suspects of the study themselves, the likely 9-11 orchestrators, overrides all the physical realities! In our everyday world, since when are the investigated allowed to write up their own police reports?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

I used several parts of the report, the staff statements and witness statements with other sources to verify them.

I use several government an professional research sites to support what i post. Please show me the research sites you use to support your thoery of what happened.


[edit on 28-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Dear Ultima1:

In the end it’s a philosophical question. Are ATS members encouraged to think on their own or are they strictly supposed to regurgitate? Will ATS be a site where members are encouraged to develop their own thoughts or is ATS merely a compilation of URL links to other people’s ideas?

It is fine to provide sources to support facts — under the danger of being dependent on the ‘quality’ of the source. Therefore, nothing trumps discussing issues where the facts are already known to everyone.
In this thread “Why There Were No Helicopter Rescues At The WTC’s” the pivotal fact can be verified by anyone — there were no rooftop rescues. You also agree there were none, right?

Where we differ is in explaining the reasons why. You, Ultima1 prefer to quote parts of the 9-11 commission report to support your position. This seems scientific but please remember that report is not a neutral assortment of facts. It may look like one but it’s not. It is a biased document trying to spin a story in a certain way. Can we directly — as in ourselves — confirm the ‘interviews’ and recollections in that paper? No. They will always remain hearsay. Or bla-bla. Or propaganda. All depending on one’s initial viewpoint.

Vice versa, I’m doing exactly the same thing. Striving to support my version of the “story”. I’m trying to reconstruct what might have happened on 9-11 in keeping with all the different things that actually did occur. And I’m attempting to do this in a fashion that “adds up”, i.e. a logical way. For example I have no source whatsoever that smoke machines were used at the WTC. And I dare say you probably won’t find anyone else suggesting that they were. But since they do exist, are commonly used, and fit the 9-11 event puzzle so perfectly, I am strongly suggesting they were applied.

So in the final analysis you favor the findings of the ‘official’ 9-11 report, you find them more believable than any other set of ideas you’ve heard so far including your own. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s perfectly normal and reasonable and it’s quite likely the position of the majority of people in the U.S. and worldwide. It just isn’t congruent with my set of technical beliefs, so I guess in the end it’s a “personal problem”.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Dear Wizard in the Woods,

According to your last post, Ultima is using an actual, real life document that witnesses can testify occuring (hearings, interviews,etc) to prove his story and you use bu**sh** and try to apply it and force it into your story. Is that a good assesment of what you wrote? I mean, just because no one can prove their were not WTC employees using Flamethrowers to melt the inner core, can we dismiss it? Sorry, but your logic is flawed. You really should read the 9/11 commission report. I know it is long, but it is very informative.

Esdad71

Hi ULTIMA, Why would the firefighters expect the towers to collapse, none had collapsed before so as far as they were concerned it was business as usual, those brave men/women were doing what they do every day of the week, fighting fires etc. and saving lives. What they did not know was they were going to be part of the sacrifice/outrage for an excuse for war.

Waco, Oklahoma etc were the dry runs for the big event, lets shoot, gas burn alive and blow up our own people and see if anyone bothers to speak out.

Hi Smokey, see above when your plotting such events each one has to be greater than the last, the greater the event the greater the outrage, a couple of planes going down would not have been enough plus its been done before and not caused wars.

While I respect everybody's point of view what I cannot understand that people are quite happy to believe that the following did commit mass murder;
Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Hussain, Malovich, and countless hundreds more but not their own Goverment, When are people going to realise that the greatest threat to any Nation is its own Goverment irrespective of whom they are.

Just think of WACO, what Western Goverment other than America has committed such an act against its own people in modern times.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Hi ULTIMA, Why would the firefighters expect the towers to collapse, none had collapsed before so as far as they were concerned it was business as usual, those brave men/women were doing what they do every day of the week, fighting fires etc. and saving lives. What they did not know was they were going to be part of the sacrifice/outrage for an excuse for war.

Nobody was expecting the towers to collapse. Remember that one video where the firefighters were in the lobby coordinating to rescue and fight the fires. When the south tower collapsed they were running away. They were risking their lives to help, not to participate in a scheme to start a war. The firefighters seeing north tower collapse and seeing WTC7 on fire and heavily damaged was not willing to risk anymore lives.

Delta thats exactly what I said, the fire fighters were just doing their job full stop.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Delta thats exactly what I said, the fire fighters were just doing their job full stop.

And the question is why did they pull away from WTC7? They suppose to be in there continously fighting fire and without regard for their safety. Buiding collapsed more casualties.