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

I can understand why this is being kept quiet.

The bomb that exploded in 1993 at the world trade centre, a police helicopter flew to the roof of the north tower, officers climbed down a rope onto the roof and knocked down antennas to clear a space for the helicopter to land. The helicopter landed and they rescued over twenty people. The roof door that day was locked also but they(rescuers) managed to open it quite easily.




..... Your silence speaks volumes.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by Rotator]

Originally posted by RotatorFalling debris knock out the equipment on the 22nd floor, what?? was the equipment being held out the window.

Dear Rotator:

Thank you for posting the best thought I have ever seen on ATS. “Falling debris knock out the equipment on the 22nd floor, what?? was the equipment being held out the window.”
That’s the type of razor-sharp wit that blasts through everything. I myself have read that story of falling-debris-knocked-out-the-equipment-on-the-22nd-floor so many times it makes me wanna puke. But I never had the audacity or clear-sight to place it into context the way you did. Unequivocally brilliant!

Thank you Rotator!
Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Lets look at some FACTS.

www.fas.org...

Doors leading to the roof were kept locked. The Port Authority told us that this was because of structural and radiation hazards, and for security reasons. To access the roof
in either towers required passing through three doors: one leading from the stairwell onto the 110th floor, and two leading from the floor onto the roof itself. There was no rooftop evacuation plan. The roof was a cluttered surface that would be a challenging helipad even in good conditions and, in a fire, smoke from the building would travel upward.

Civilians were not informed that rooftop evacuations were not part of the Port Authority’s evacuation plan. They were not informed that access to the roof required a key. The Port Authority acknowledges that it had no protocol for rescuing people trapped above a fire in the towers.

At 8:50 a.m., the aviation unit of
the NYPD dispatched two helicopters to the WTC to report on conditions and assess the
feasibility of a rooftop landing or special rescue operations.
Within ten minutes of the crash, NYPD and Port Authority Police personnel were
assisting with the evacuation of civilians.


At 8:58 a.m., a helicopter pilot reported on rooftop conditions.
James Ciccone, Police Officer, NYPD Aviation Unit: On the morning of
September 11th, as I arrived at World Trade Tower 1, I was accessing the damage on the north side of the building, and the rooftop area for the possibility of rooftop extraction from one of our heavier lift helicopters. And at that point, a few passes, and slow passes, we made adetermination that we didn’t see anybody up on the roof, but more so we had problems with the heat and the smoke from the building. The heat actually made it difficult for us to hold the helicopters because it would interfere with the rotor system.

At approximately 9:20 a.m., the Mayor and the NYPD Commissioner reached the FDNY overall command post. The FDNY Chief of Department briefed the Mayor on operations and stated that this was a rescue mission of civilians. He stated that he believed they could save everyone below the impact zones. He also advised that, in his opinion, rooftop rescue operations would be impossible.

At 9:06 a.m. the NYPD Chief of Department instructed that no units
were to land on the roof of either tower.

At approximately 9:30 a.m. one of the helicopters present advised that a rooftop evacuation still would not be possible. Mr. Ciccone: After the Second Tower was hit, we tried to make our way towards that area, but the smoke from the first building, Tower 1, obscured the rooftop of Tower 2. It was the first hour-and-a-half that was critical for these observations—for rooftop rescue. We flew a horseshoe pattern—in that horseshoe
pattern—for over a pattern of about an hour-and-a-half before the buildings collapsed. That, the same observations were made. There was no one on the roof. Our ability to get in that type position was still factored in by the heat, and made it difficult to even, to make it plausible, to get on the roof.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Caustic Logic:

Sorry to have kept you from going to sleep. Although it seems you’ve been asleep all along — and just didn’t know it! Didn’t mean to burst your bubble. Or to keep you from remaining a Rip Van Winkle. Don’t know what you do or how you live. And surely it’s none of my business. But quite likely you pay federal taxes, purchase power from Con Edison or the likes and buy petroleum based products. So whether you like it or not, you are a resident of this here country, even if you’re not a citizen, and you have responsibilities. And it doesn’t matter if you putz around all day and only watch television, you’re still part of the ‘system’. The USA is YOUR country. And what it does to itself or the rest of the world is very much YOUR concern. In case you haven’t noticed we have invaded a sovereign country — Iraq — and are about to invade another one — Iran. Now you may not give a rip, but that doesn’t absolve you from your involvement. By doing nothing you’re allowing others to do anything and everything.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Yeah you're okay. that's an excellently put observation, I agree 100%. I am a cheeser on my responsibilities for lack of hope etc. but I try to sort out the truth and keep my own life going on ina slightly better way each day. i often fail, but how we live/what we buy/etc. is exactly what makes the worlds how it is. And I got a lot of work left, which is why no time to argue cartoon arguments. That was kinda my point, I'm sure you understand.

And also yeah, you guys are right on the 22nd floor thing. I remember that now, why people couldn't get out was connected to that. Floors 22-23 also had other things like FBI i think, a bit odd - straight across from the command center in WTC 7. The fireball that hit it was supposed to have come down the elevaor shaft I think I recall and just popped out there. I found it odd.

Dear Everybody:

Since the issue of “heat” from “fires” at the WTC towers on 9-11 keeps popping up — like a bad cold — it’s time it is seriously debunked, once and for all.

The fires at the twin towers were minimal. Yes, that’s right, minuscule compared to what they were purported to be. Again, the definitive proof for this can be found in the countless visual records. The gashes in the towers from the explosives, err, planes, showed nothing but pitch-black holes. Even though they were no more than 35-60 feet deep — this was the distance from the outer walls to the inner core columns. Pitch black means that there were no fires, as in nothing going on, nada. Hydrocarbon based fires are rather colorful and visible. And the crash holes were blackness defined.

A second sure-sign indicator of the absence of the officially implied infernos is the slow wallowing movement of the ‘smoke’. In real, big fires smoke moves much, much faster upward. No, those unfortunate people on the upper floors were suffocated/smothered/smoked to death. It seems most plausible that those who jumped did so because of the fumes and not the flames. Why all this smoke? Probably because it was technically much easier to generate massive amounts of dramatically belching black smoke at the WTC’s than it would have been to pre-position and conceal fuel for hour long raging fires.

Sorry, but the ‘heat’ concern as an excuse not to land helicopters at WTC towers on 9-11 is a lame one. And can readily be — as so many other ones — debunked by anybody through pictures and film.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Everybody:

Since the issue of “heat” from “fires” at the WTC towers on 9-11 keeps popping up — like a bad cold — it’s time it is seriously debunked, once and for all.

Sorry, but the ‘heat’ concern as an excuse not to land helicopters at WTC towers on 9-11 is a lame one. And can readily be — as so many other ones — debunked by anybody through pictures and film.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

I see a lot of postings but no reports or evidence to support it. Show me some research you have done and the sites.

Dear Ultima1:

We’ve had this discussion before. To get to the truth of 9-11 events we need to do more than merely regurgitate other researchers’ opinions and do some analyses of our own. Here’s the evidence you hollered about.

1. There’s no noteworthy fire in the impact hole (the one shown below is at the North Tower)


2. The (machine-generated) smoke barely moves upward before drifting sideways and downward. This also proves there were no hot-burning fires.

So here are my concluding questions. If there were no fiery fires in the towers, why again did they collapse? And, since there was all this smoke for hours, what exactly was smoldering so badly? Was there a rubber tire depository somewhere in the buildings?

And here are, like it or not my answers. Since there were no fires, the falling of the WTC’s had to be explosively induced. Which means — no matter what — 9-11 was an ‘inside job’. Which implies someone had an active interest in making it seem as if the buildings were on fire when indeed they weren’t. And the easiest way to achieve this would be through the extensive use of smoke generating machines. Faking a fire would have been much more difficult.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Ultima1:

We’ve had this discussion before. To get to the truth of 9-11 events we need to do more than merely regurgitate other researchers’ opinions and do some analyses of our own. Here’s the evidence you hollered about.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Problem is without any research or evidence to back up what you post thier is no way of knowing how accurite it is.

It shouldn’t require pixel-by-pixel accuracy research to see that there isn’t a whole lot going on in terms of chemical ‘fires’ in the “impact hole” in the above pictures. Sometimes one single piece of evidence is all it takes.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

How about all those water dropping helicopters that fight fires? They fly through smoke all the time

Originally posted by racerzeke
How about all those water dropping helicopters that fight fires? They fly through smoke all the time

Yes, but they do not have to try to land near the fires.

Originally posted by Rotator
The bomb that exploded in 1993 at the world trade centre, a police helicopter flew to the roof of the north tower, officers climbed down a rope onto the roof and knocked down antennas to clear a space for the helicopter to land. The helicopter landed and they rescued over twenty people. The roof door that day was locked also but they (rescuers) managed to open it quite easily.

Originally posted by Rotator
New York City's fire code requires roof doors to be unlocked or to have devices that allow someone to open a locked door from the inside.

So which is it... they are supposed to be locked or unlocked?

I was unable to find anything in NYC "Fire Codes" stating that roof doors have to be unlocked or have devices that allow someone to open a locked doos from the inside. Can you please provide the code chapter and section? The only thing I could find in any NYC codes regarding roof doors is NYC Building Department regulations governing proper signage for locked roof doors.

FYI: The only Fire Department regulations or codes are contained in Title 3 of the Rules of the City of New York. All other "Fire Department" regulations are actually Building Department regualtions.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by craig732]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
The fireball that hit it was supposed to have come down the elevaor shaft I think I recall and just popped out there. I found it odd.

And so you should find it "odd" as the firemen reported the elevator door on floor 22 was blown into the shaft, indicative of some type of event on floor 22.

Craig you would need to contact either SCOT J. PALTROW or QUEENA SOOK KIM of The Wall Street Journal, they provided that information which they wrote on October 23, 2001.

Info on the 1993 WTC helicopter rescue:
www.nycop.com...

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 why.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 2/24/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

1. Of course there were planes, thousands of people saw them not to mention video, cameras, etc...
2. Don't even mention the word hologram as that has been debunked to death
3. Ever hear of updrafts?
4. Everything was grounded.

I could go on but hopefully that is enough to dissuade you from continuing.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

1. They could not land.

— Why specifically couldn’t they land?

And where on top of the WTC towers would they land?

2. The doors to the roof were locked

— They sure were! And knocking them down was not an option?
Well since they couldn't land, they couldn't have got heavy equipment to the rooftops to break down the STEEL, RE-ENFORCED FIRE DOORS.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
It shouldn’t require pixel-by-pixel accuracy research to see that there isn’t a whole lot going on in terms of chemical ‘fires’ in the “impact hole” in the above pictures. Sometimes one single piece of evidence is all it takes.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

So just to be clear....You are saying, you have the ability to chemically analyze the "impact hole" based on you looking at a photo.

Hmmm.. I'm going to post a few pics so you can chemically analyze them for me and we'll see how you do

Originally posted by esdad71
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.

Whoa, I never heard of the towers tilting before. If this is true, then even more reason that it makes absolutely no sense that they fell straight down. If either building was visibly tilting, then the entire thing would have had the angular momentum to fall a great distance from it's own footprint. This is a nice oddity.