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: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   

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.



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.
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.




posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

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.



Have you ever found yourself standing outside and felt a feeling that I think science calls wind?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


You came to your conclusion without simply calling someone in the helicopter field? Such as a pilot or maybe a mechanic or even your local police department probably has a helicopter.
I guess not.
That would ruin your fantasy!!
OH WOW IN 2 SECONDS WITH GOOGLE I FOUND THE ANSWER!!!!!!
Hate to ruin your fantasy bud
www.fpp.co.uk...
This article relates that the doors to the roof were locked BUT even had they not been other factors prevented air rescue



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.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
same reason they started to evac everyone from 10 blocks around the towers an hour before it even collapsed. They KNEW it was coming down..

same reason they didn't call in ANY national guard/military within 4 hours hours of the towers collapsing....they waited....



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

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.



That's funny. You just said it again.

the alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers
. You're stating that possibly NO planes hit the towers. You contradicted yourself. So as you can see, I haven't made any errors but you, once again, have indeed made an error and got caught AGAIN. Stop trolling.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

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?



1. Of course it's important to know everything we can about what happened for many reasons. The first reason is that it will help many people find closure. The second reason is that it's important to question our government to keep them honest.
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.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   

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?



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.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
So we can now add to the general inflation of the conspiracy:


  1. The NYFD
  2. The pilots flying the helicopters
  3. Whomever locked the doors
  4. Whomever knew the doors were chained shut, but yet did nothing to stop 'them'
  5. The NYPD
  6. The Hologram operators. Honest to God I can not fathom how this nonsense (I know, I know...I am either on of 'them' or I don't 'get it') can be taken seriously!!



[edit on 18-9-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
If I were in one of the Twin Towers and heard that there were helicopters on the roof to take people safely away, I may actually try to run up the stairs in a crowded stairwell against the flow of people. Many people might do that. and in all the confusion noone would go anywhere ( should we go up or down? there telling us to go straight down but there are helipoters on the roof!)

Maybe they took this into consideration and stuck with one plan to simplify things. Just a thought. Never hurts to ask questions and relay opinions, thats what I enjoy about these forums.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

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?



For example:
check the plausibility of the physics of the towers falling.
Check to see kinetic energy released from the impact of flight 93.
etc...
also,
confirm or debunk hypothesis' brought forth by "truthers" such as the hologram idea (debunked), nuclear bomb in the WTC towers (debunked), etc...



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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?



No need to. Filing a FOIA request doesn't change physics or reality in general. And filing FOIA requests is an exercise in futility when it comes to 9/11.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 18-9-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Check to see kinetic energy released from the impact of flight 93.


What does checking the kinetic energy from flight 93's impact have to do with if it was shot down or not?



[edit on 18-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Check to see kinetic energy released from the impact of flight 93.


What does checking the kinetic energy from flight 93's impact have to do with if it was shot down or not?



[edit on 18-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I'm sorry, did I say it did? Could you please point out where I said that???



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm sorry, did I say it did? Could you please point out where I said that???


Well isn't that the main point to be looking at flight 93?

Why else would you be checking it out?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm sorry, did I say it did? Could you please point out where I said that???


Well isn't that the main point to be looking at flight 93?

Why else would you be checking it out?



Of course it's not the main point.
Some people want to know if what impacted was actually flight 93 or something else such as a missile or different type of plane.
Others think that nothing crashed in shanksville.
Others think that debris traveled too far from the crash site based on the energy released from the crash.
etc....



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Check to see kinetic energy released from the impact of flight 93.


What does checking the kinetic energy from flight 93's impact have to do with if it was shot down or not?

[edit on 18-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Now to answer this question specifically. If the plane was hit by a missile while in flight, it would lose mass from the explosion prior to impact. Less mass, less kinetic energy released. Less kinetic energy released=smaller explosion/less damage upon impact.




top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join