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: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Remember the plane the hit the south tower went in at an angle through the side of the building. Also the aluminum airframe is shreded by the steel not causing a lot of damage.

Also NIST report states building withstood the planes impacts.


Watch the video.

Also, just because the building did not immediately fall from the impacts doesn't mean there wasn't massive structural damage.

If there were really a cover up, why would the NIST report the buildings withstood the damage? That phrase has obviously led to alot of misunderstandings.




posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Watch the video.

Also, just because the building did not immediately fall from the impacts doesn't mean there wasn't massive structural damage.

If there were really a cover up, why would the NIST report the buildings withstood the damage? That phrase has obviously led to alot of misunderstandings.


I have watched the video, and the video does not show that the plane hitting the south tower went in at an angle through the side of the building not causing as much damage. Also watching the video you will notice the aluminum airframe being shreded by the steel beams.

Also the NIST, FEMA and most other reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.

What cover up, did i say anything about a cover up ?

[edit on 23-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
1. Notice how the video shows the internal structural components being damaged/destroyed?

2. Did the NIST say that the building fell due to multiple reasons? Obviously if they said it would continue standing after the plane impact, then it would have. What caused it to fall then?



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
1. Notice how the video shows the internal structural components being damaged/destroyed?

2. Did the NIST say that the building fell due to multiple reasons? Obviously if they said it would continue standing after the plane impact, then it would have. What caused it to fall then?


1. What about the plane that hit the South tower theat went in through the side at an angle ? Also notice how the plane has been shreded as soon as it enters the building.


Just a few reports that state it was the fires alone that casued the buildings to collapse.

1. Well according to the FEMA report it was the fires alone that caused the collapse.

www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.


2. 9/11 commission report states fires alone melted the steel in the buildings.

www.9-11commission.gov...

The Twin Towers didn't collapse because of the impact of the jets crashing into them. The intense heat of the burning jet fuel snuffed out the buildings' fire control systems before they could do any good, and then the structural steel melted. We need new Federal standards for building materials and design.





[edit on 23-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 23-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Wow so much for the close scrutiny. This thread got derailed right into a topic that had nothing to do with helicopter rescues on that day. Which most 9-11 threads usually do. Guys please go debate your aircraft and structure arguments on one of the other hundreds of threads about 9-11.

Thanx in advance

Silver


Now everyone back to the topic at hand.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
It’s the nature of the beast to drift off topic in 9-11 discussions. But that’s alright. Because all 9-11 issues are interrelated.

To be a nuisance, I’ll recap my position versus the apparent mainstream opinion. I suggest there were no rescues because they categorically weren’t allowed — the 9-11 planners were adamant about hiding something. Most others’ opinion is that there were none — not even attempted ones — since they weren’t technically possible.

I say it’s in our American spirit, to try things no matter how challenging, or especially if. Some helicopter pilots would have shown up at the roofs of the WTC’s no matter what. But none did. Which to me means they would have had to have been strictly denied permission and/or threatened not to fly.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

It’s the nature of the beast to drift off topic in 9-11 discussions. But that’s alright. Because all 9-11 issues are interrelated.
To be a nuisance, I’ll recap my position versus the apparent mainstream opinion. I suggest there were no rescues because they categorically weren’t allowed — the 9-11 planners were adamant about hiding something. Most others’ opinion is that there were none — not even attempted ones — since they weren’t technically possible.
I say it’s in our American spirit, to try things no matter how challenging, or especially if. Some helicopter pilots would have shown up at the roofs of the WTC’s no matter what. But none did. Which to me means they would have had to have been strictly denied permission and/or threatened not to fly.


I don't believe there was a conspiracy to not rescue people from the towers.

If there were a conspiracy, no rescue workers would have entered the towers from the ground.

It doesn't make sense to not attempt rescues from the air because of a conspiracy but to still attempt rescues on the ground. What would be accomplished by that?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Helicoptors are for filming it not for rescuieng! duh you dont make any $$$ of being a hero!



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Excellent point JFJ. Very nicely put. Why would you send all those people in from the ground but not risk such a small few from the air. Man that is the best response ive seen to this Non-conspiracy yet. If WATS was still around you would get one from me with that question.

And infamous, if you cant add anything to discussion, dont add anything at all.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
It would have been much, MUCH more difficult to ‘forbid’ hundreds of firemen from entering the buildings on their own two feet (imagine their protests), than denying a much more select group of helicopter pilots the right to fly.

Furthermore, the 9-11 planners knew full and well it would take the rescue personnel A LONG TIME to reach the upper floors on foot, without the use of elevators and walking against a stream of evacuees in narrow stairwells. Obviously it DID require an hour for chief Oreo Palmer to reach the 78th floor of the south tower even AFTER he rigged an elevator to get to the 40th floor. And when he did, surprise, surprise, the tower blew up. But perhaps this way lives were spared. Had a helicopter dropped official personnel off on the rooftops early on, well then the buildings would have been demolished much sooner also. The 9-11 cabal under no circumstances could allow outsiders to report directly from the upper floors’ impact scenes.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

It would have been much, MUCH more difficult to ‘forbid’ hundreds of firemen from entering the buildings on their own two feet (imagine their protests), than denying a much more select group of helicopter pilots the right to fly.

Here are a few questions to ask:
1. How many helicopter pilots were in the area?
2. How many RESCUE helicopters were in the area?
3. Which helicopter pilots were told they could not attempt a rescue?
4. Were all non-military aircraft grounded around the entire country?


Furthermore, the 9-11 planners knew full and well it would take the rescue personnel A LONG TIME to reach the upper floors on foot, without the use of elevators and walking against a stream of evacuees in narrow stairwells. Obviously it DID require an hour for chief Oreo Palmer to reach the 78th floor of the south tower even AFTER he rigged an elevator to get to the 40th floor. And when he did, surprise, surprise, the tower blew up. But perhaps this way lives were spared. Had a helicopter dropped official personnel off on the rooftops early on, well then the buildings would have been demolished much sooner also. The 9-11 cabal under no circumstances could allow outsiders to report directly from the upper floors’ impact scenes.

I assume what you are saying here is that the government didn't want rescuers to get to the floors that were impacted by the plane.

Those floors were heavily damaged from impact and fire with heavy smoke. What could they see to report? Everyone has seen the videos of incredibly thick black smoke pouring from the buildings. The thick, black smoke came from the inside out so there would have been either zero or close to zero visibility. Can't see anything, can't report anything.

As for whether or not they wanted to spare lives assuming a conspiracy with caring people.... All they needed to do is say a plane is going to hit the building in minutes, please get the "F" out as fast as you can.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Those floors were heavily damaged from impact and fire with heavy smoke. What could they see to report? Everyone has seen the videos of incredibly thick black smoke pouring from the buildings. The thick, black smoke came from the inside out so there would have been either zero or close to zero visibility. Can't see anything, can't report anything.


Well for one thing the firemen that did make it to the 78th floor of the South tower reported only isolated fires, not the jet fuel running down and causing the big inferno of the official story.

Also the black smoke was the fires burning out well before the buildings collapsed, so how did the fires cause the buildings to collapse?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Also the black smoke was the fires burning out well before the buildings collapsed, so how did the fires cause the buildings to collapse?


Well the impact did cause structural damage. For example, you see the plane hit the building, you see fire, you see fire blow out the other side of the building along with debris.

To answer your question. Heat/fire and structural damage.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well the impact did cause structural damage. For example, you see the plane hit the building, you see fire, you see fire blow out the other side of the building along with debris.

To answer your question. Heat/fire and structural damage.


Well according to the NIST and FEMA reports, along with other reports, the impacts did not cause very much damage. Aluminum airframes were shreded by the steel beams.

Most of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion, not causing any structural damage. The fuel that was left burned off quickly.

The plane that hit the south tower went in at an angle through the side of the building not causing much damage.

Also the NIST, FEMA and other reports have stated the fires did not get hot enough or burn long enough to cause the steel to weaken.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

The plane that hit the south tower went in at an angle through the side of the building not causing much damage.


Please watch this video

www.youtube.com...

Notice how the plane hits the building and debris comes flying out the other side of the building.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Notice how the plane hits the building and debris comes flying out the other side of the building.


Yes, most of the debris is the shreded aluminum airframe.

This Purdue animation you can see the planes being shreded as it enthers the building and even states that plane debris came out the other side of the building.

video.google.com...




[edit on 29-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   
regarding the video:
At
1m 34s they discuss the important damage sustained by some of the core columns.

1m 48s you can actually see a column being torn from the building.

1m 54s The right engine titanium shaft goes through the building virtually intact.

2m 07s The plane debris exits the building. Notice how the debris is clumped close together still? If debris just deflected off core supports, it would be scattered over a much larger area and the exit damage would be less round and more random.

2m 42s The video explains the damage done to the core columns. Near the end of the core column simulation, you can see where the wings damaged core columns.

When the core columns are damaged, the dead load of the building must shift to all remaining supports massively increasing weight/stress on those supports.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I just saw an interesting Mythbusters. At one point in the episode, they heated up a gun barrel to 1750 degrees F using only charcoal, lighter fluid and a fan.

Steel melts at 2750 degrees F.

Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

So steel loses 90 percent of it's strength at 1800 degrees F and the mythbusters were able to get a fire to 1750 using the above described method.

So between heat and physical damage, I can see why the towers collapsed.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So between heat and physical damage, I can see why the towers collapsed.


But we have several reports from NIST and others that the buildings survived the planes impacts and the fires.

wtc.nist.gov...

A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers. The NIST inventory included pieces from the impact and fire regions, perimeter columns, core columns, floor trusses, and other pieces such as truss seats and wind dampers.

The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance.

...

Of the 31 core floor truss connectors (core seats) recovered, about 90 percent were still intact, although many were extensively damaged. Only two were completely torn from the channel.

...

A coating on the SFRM prevented the loss of the SFRM in some locations on the perimeter columns. This coating appeared as a band of white features on the SFRM wherever two aluminum panels met on the exterior columns of the buildings, becoming visible when the panels were dislodged. This may be a coating applied to protect the SFRM from moisture infiltration at the aluminum panel joints, acting to preserve the SFRM even when the SFRM was knocked off both above and below those locations.

...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.



Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
fahim.sadek@nist.gov
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004


The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

But we have several reports from NIST and others that the buildings survived the planes impacts and the fires.


So then what is their explanation as to why the buildings collapsed?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join