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 was there no rescue helicopters?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



Wizard....... how many helicopter rescues have you seen roof top from a burning skyscraper?

Thanks in advance for your cooperation




posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
New York City just happens to be on the northeastern seaboard where most of our military hardware is stationed. On 9-11 there were plenty of military helicopters nearby — land and sea-based — which could have helped. Sikorsky seadragons for example can carry a hundred civilians or so at a time.


I am always amused by folks who think that the military used to have their crews sleep in their equipment, fueled, loaded, and ready to go. You do know it takes time to prep an aircraft for a mission, minimum of an hour, most likely several hours. The same holds true for fighter aircraft, if they are not sitting there on stand-by already, then they have several hours worth of work to do getting them fueled and armed. Getting the flight teams ready, prepped, briefed, and into the aircraft takes time as well.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



Wizard....... how many helicopter rescues have you seen roof top from a burning skyscraper?

Thanks in advance for your cooperation


None. Why? Is that a requirement?

The downward escape routes were ‘blocked off’ with smoke. People were leaning out the windows. Some were jumping out the windows. It is such a stretch of the imagination to assume that our leaders would naturally conclude that the only possible way to save those trapped in the twin towers would be via the rooftops? Don’t we Americans pride ourselves about our ingenuity? Isn’t it the ‘American’ way to come up with ad hoc solutions? And, yes at any given moment in time, in that part of the country there are ALWAYS choppers, chock-full with fuel, either in the air or ready to fly.

Yes, I know some of you claim our officials aren’t the brightest candles in the box. Sorry, but that defense is not plausible. It would have been a natural, innate reflex to order-in helicopters as a conceivable means of rescue. No one would have been stupid enough not to. It had to have been a pre-calculated decision.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 9/4/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by CaptainObvious



Wizard....... how many helicopter rescues have you seen roof top from a burning skyscraper?



None. Why? Is that a requirement?



I don't need to say anymore. Thanks for your honest response Wizard



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   


Yes, I know some of you claim our officials aren’t the brightest candles in the box. Sorry, but that defense is not plausible. It would have been a natural, innate reflex to order-in helicopters as a conceivable means of rescue. No one would have been stupid enough not to. It had to have been a pre-calculated decision.


Apparently you missed my earlier post where the NYPD aviation division
attempted land on the roof of first the North Tower and later the South
They attempted several landings startingonly 5 minutes after first
plane impact and continued for next hour. Heat and smoke from fires
prevented pilots from approaching building. Again you missed my
earlier post where I pointed out that the roofs of WTC were covered
with antennas, machinery and ringed by anti suicide fences. The NYPD
considering having a EMERGENCY SERVICE Team try to rappel down
from a helicopter, but again conditions made it impossible. It wasn't
that helicopter rescue were not tried - it was that conditions mase it
too dangerous to try. The NYPD had enough problems without ading
a helicopter crash into a building.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
and apparently you missed the wizards statement that


New York City just happens to be on the northeastern seaboard where most of our military hardware is stationed. On 9-11 there were plenty of military helicopters nearby — land and sea-based — which could have helped. Sikorsky seadragons for example can carry a hundred civilians or so at a time.

From the very beginning (after the first tower was smoking) a national crisis was proclaimed. Which means if true, if this had been a ‘real’ terrorist attack, our military would have gotten involved immediately.


What exactly does that have to do with the NYPD?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Am I speculating too far if I say that our military trains precisely for such situations, i.e. having to land under difficult circumstances, such as having first to remove obstacles. Heck, they probably have some version of a ‘bobcat’ bulldozer specifically for such a task. Yes, they could have dropped some of those on the roof to first clear the ‘terrain’. This would have been a picnic in the park, a trip to grandma’s house compared to landing in enemy territory under flak.

The point is, ‘they’ didn’t even try. That’s what’s so telltale about 9-11. OCT-ers keep claiming we were ‘caught off guard’. So what. After one and a half hours, someone should have shown up on those rooftops to help. But no one did. Instead an all-out active effort was made to keep outsiders away from the smoking towers. E.g. news reporter helicopters were told/ordered/barked at to immediately ‘clear’ the airspace.

What I’m postulating is that the 9-11 organizers were fiercely trying to hide the true nature of the damages to the twin towers, i.e. that the gashes weren’t caused by airplanes.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
thank you wizard in the woods. you are making a lot of good sense. I mean if choppers could land and pick up troops during vietnam while getting shot at, why couldn't they land there..someone said it was dangerous..ok, so you are going to let people die because it's dangerous? I mean come on, the military should be ready to go in 10 or less minutes in occassions like these. and what if they were antennaes or other things on the roofs. take them down..can all be done in 10 mins. like you said, they didn't even try.


who posted a picture of a helicopter flying around? that was a news craft. the news have more balls than our own military?


jedimiller.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Ok jedimiller and others. I present to you a video by abcnews report talking to nypd and nyfd pilots and some excellent footage of the roofs that day from the actual rescue helicopters. It shows and they say exactly what we have been saying. It was virtually impossible for them to land or attempt roof grabs that day. I hope this helps you understand why rooftop rescues did not happen on 9-11.




posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Silverado I appreciate trying to show me that video. unfortunately, I cannot watch it on this computer. youtube is blocked here for obvious reasons. but if you post a link to a normal website I would be happy to examine it.

but it has been said over and over..that they didn't even try and I agree with that comment 100%



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I dont know what "obvious" reasons youtube is blocked at your PC location. But i suggest you goto a cybercafe or borrow a friends pc or laptop and watch that video. NYPD and NYFD Pilots that were in the air around the WTC buildings on that fateful day, explain and show you from in cockpit video why it was impossible to do rooftop landings or rescues that day. As i originally stated, there is also explanations of the massive heat rising and what it does to helicopter flight dynamics. No pilot is going to knowingly kill himself and his passengers attempting a rescue. Pilots that are hired by EMS services have many hours of flight time and know their equipment very well. Please do some research on the dynamics of helicopter piloting and its limitations in a situation such as the WTC. It was a unique situation and a sad one at that. EMS Personnel will gladly give their lives to save others but will not give their lives and the lives of others in a lose lose situation. An attempted rescue would have been just that, attempted. More lives would have been lost with the destruction of the choppers also. Please don't degrade the pilots because you dont know how helos fly and the situation of that day. In the video they discuss how tragic it was to not be able to help and show you actual video as they flew around the blazing towers. I highly suggest you get somewhere that you can see it. That way you can see exactly what we have been trying to tell you.

You can agree with the comments all you want but without the information that directly refutes that, you are denying yourself the proper info to make an educated decision. Ive searched for a transcript of that video and found none. Do with it what you will.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I actually remember hearing somewhere that the doors to the roof were locked and/or impossible to get through? Anyone else hear this?



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Secondary explosions going off all over the Towers!! That is what the pilot says on the video above. THAT was the main reason that they did not attempt a rescue. Here are several others: The rooftop doors were LOCKED and NO ONE could get to the roof. The reason for that? Here it is: The perps knew that the plan was to blow the core supports ( that is what caused the huge antenna to drop before the rest of the building ) and they did not want any more attention drawn to the roof than necessary. They could NOT allow anyone on the roof at all.

The Navy copter that was a part of the scam spent quite a while ducking in and out of heavy smoke and yet was able to do its dirty job and leave the scene ..the pilots were wearing masks for breathing, just like any pilot could if rescues were really desired.

The TV tower was turned OFF that morning ( never explained ) and the doors locked on purpose. The neocon murderers that set this up did NOT want any rooftop attention and they did NOT want any resues from above. That would cause them even more scrutiny later ..Had they attempted rescues from above, there would have been a lot more witnesses to the felling of the antenna before the rest of the strructure and that would mean even more incredulity from the scientific community..not that they had to worry much about that anyway!!

So the whole event was planned from the start as an exercise in death and destruction supposed to be seen from below and NOT above. The NAVY helicopter that was helping direct the planes into the Towers was seen and photographed but never talked about by the govt. Funny, huh?

Sure, there was smoke around the buildings; but with appropriate gear that posed no problems for a crew in a helicopter with training. Are they saying that if soldiers on a battlefield were surrounded by smoke they would just leave them there to die from enemy fire? No way!! In wars from Vietnam to now the copter pilots make rescues in all sorts of conditions and mere smoke is NOT a reason to never attempt even one rescue. But WHO was there to rescue? No one, because the doors were locked!! No one could get up there to be rescued.

So what were all of the secondary explosions that the pilots were talking about? The Fox News bunch never talks about those, do they? Neither does any other main stream media outlet. But the p[ilots knew, and the firemen knew, and anyone within blocks of the event knew..and we know. It seems the only people who do not know about massive explosions and numerous secondary explosions are the NIST crowd and the supporters of the Official lie. It was EXPLOSIONS and NOT smoke that sent the copters packing...that and the fact that no people were allowed on the roof. It was a plan and worked quite well, unless you ignore the HUNDREDS of anomalies that surround this controlled demo.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
there is another thread in here that states that the towers were locked....

it started about how the roof was closed on 9-10....and showed a ticket and stuff...then the discussion evolved from there......



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   


they probably have some version of a ‘bobcat’ bulldozer specifically for such a task. Yes, they could have dropped some of those on the roof to first clear the ‘terrain’. This would have been a picnic in the park, a trip to grandma’s house compared to landing in enemy territory under flak.


Dropping bulldozer on a roof!!!????

I don't what you are smoking, but I suggest you stop it - its messing
your head up!


As for the other clown....

The TV tower on roof of North tower was not as you claim shut down as
part of some evil plot. It was knocked off the air by the impact of the
plane into the building and subsequent fires. The techicians manning
it were trapped and all of them were killed in the building collapse.
Something you should remember



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Yep. A bulldozer, or other equipment, could have been used to clear — if even necessary — a landing site for helicopters on the WTC towers. That’s exactly what this here clown — me — is saying.

What? Why do you have a problem with that suggestion? Do you think the twin towers were covered with tar paper over oriented strand board, held together with horsehairs and drywall screws and couldn’t support the ‘weight’ or something to that effect? This continuous barrage of protests that the doors were locked and the roofs were too cluttered with obstructions to allow access for rescues is what deserves all the ‘!!!?????’.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
One hazard with large building helicopter rescues is UPDRAFTS. If you've ever stood on the roof of a 2 or more story building, you know what I mean.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:52 AM
link   
The military could have blown up those barricades on the roof and tried to rescue people from the roof. if they are trying to enter using the base of the building it only makes sense that they would enter from the roof right? how can a few sticks and fences stop a rescue unit? i thought they trained for situations like this? but I could be wrong..About the videos, i'm sorry there is absolutely no way I can watch them now. I will try to watch them at school, but then again I think they block youtube at schools and libraries for some reason. To this day, I still don't know why there was no rescue attempt.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Well unfortunately you will never know why if you cant take the word of other posters that know flight dynamics and that have also posted video proof and interview proof that you "cant" watch. Like i suggested earlier, goto your local cybercafe and rent a computer for 15mins to watch that video or goto a library that has computers for use. Your mind will be changed.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
again UPDRAFTING is a problem.

Also,
Notice all the smoke coming out of the top of the building? The pilots couldn't see to perform a rescue.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join