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

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
but I am claiming some type of planes did indeed hit the towers.

We know planes hit the towers but what planes.

Originally posted by jfj123
tezzajw stated that since I could not positively identify exactly what planes hit the towers, they don't exist???? I simply cannot understand that logic.

Originally posted by jfj123
Thank you for agreeing with me.
I do agree that we at citizens should ask questions of our government. It helps make sure they stay honest.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

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

Whether even a few of those lives could have been saved by a roof rescue isn't clear. Climbing staircases rapidly filling with smoke could have been tough. The plane's impact might have knocked stairway doors out of alignment, making them impassible, regardless of whether they were locked. The intense smoke and forest of rooftop antennas made landing a helicopter impossible. Rescuers also could have had trouble if a crowd of workers turned into a desperate mob, competing to get off the roof.

But Mr. Semendinger says the wind that morning did leave a corner of the tower relatively clear of smoke, almost until the building collapsed. Using a hoist with folding seats, rescuers could have saved as many as a few dozen people, he estimates.

NYPD Deputy Commissioner Thomas Antenen, a spokesman for the department, confirms that the police helicopters were on the scene. But he says whether they could have rescued anyone "is a moot issue."

Helicopters couldn't have saved anyone from the top of the south tower, NYPD pilots say. That building's roof was completely obscured by a 100-foot layer of dense smoke blown from the north tower by wind from the northwest.

Port Authority and fire officials, reeling from the combined loss of 417 people from their own ranks, understandably bristle at any suggestion that decisions made years ago prevented a helicopter rescue that might have saved lives.
"The people who were trapped above this fire were trapped," says Frank Gribbon, the department's spokesman. "Perhaps their only recourse might have been to get to the roof, but it might not have been likely that they [would make] it either," because of smoke and other dangers.

Mr. Gribbon says the fire department did the right thing by following its general policy of getting occupants of tall buildings to move quickly down stairways. He notes that an estimated 25,000 people from the two towers got out and lived.

The FDNY's aversion to helicopter rescues is the mainstream approach around the country. Fire experts concluded long ago that if fires erupt in tall buildings, and evacuation is necessary, it is always best to send people down the stairs, not to the roof. Smoke and flames tend to rise, and people can get trapped at the top if weather or smoke conditions make a helicopter approach impossible.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
tezzajw stated that since I could not positively identify exactly what planes hit the towers, they don't exist???? I simply cannot understand that logic.

Please refrain from making errors. I never stated this. I can understand that you have made an error, so I'll let it pass.

Perhaps, instead of making false claims, you should concentrate on the evidence that you have at hand, which can be used to identify the alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers. So, please, present it for me.

the alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Thank you for agreeing with me.
I do agree that we at citizens should ask questions of our government. It helps make sure they stay honest.

So you agree that it is impprtant to know what planes hit the Pentagon, that we do need a proper investigation?

Well why aren't you dong more to find the truth?

Originally posted by jfj123
2. I'm taking a different tact. I'm looking at what happened and checking to see if the governments conclusions are plausible or not.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
2. I'm taking a different tact. I'm looking at what happened and checking to see if the governments conclusions are plausible or not.

What have you done to check the government conclusions?

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Specifically, I'm breaking down each claim and checking to see if it's reasonable based on physics, construction, etc...
I'm also doing this with "truther" claims.

Have you filed any FOIA request or e-mailed anyone to get information?