Why was there no rescue helicopters?

reply to post by CaptainObvious


WOW !! Where to begin?

I am not sure of the advisability of jumping feet first into a discussion where I don't know where the 'owners' are 'coming from', but based upon what I have read so far, I have to assume that most people here do not let 'facts' get in the way of misguided opinion.

I retired with 30 years as a Navy Pilot in the Reserves and almost 30 years as a Commercial Pilot with a company that is a household name.

I have an ATP (Airline Transport Pilot = Phd in aviation) and 'ratings' in many different aircraft, too numerous to mention. Of my 29,000+ total flight hours, more than 5,500 are military, where I flew everything from Huey Cobras to supersonic fighters over 30 years. I have nearly 500 hours in an aircraft (CH-53) mentioned several times here.

A previous poster mentioned the "Sea Dragon"; essentially a derivative of the Sikorsky CH-53, which has been in the Navy inventory since 1966, when I picked them up new from the factory in Bridgeport, CT. Just the mention of this aircraft proved to me this poster knew very little of what he spoke. He said it could carry 100 civilians, which is laughable.

The "Sea Dragon" is specifically configured for anti-mine warfare and full of permanently installed equipment, which would preclude it from carrying many passengers. A stripped out Marine Corps CH-53 can carry up to 55 troops, so possibly you could pack 60-65 civilians in one of those. But the closest base where there would be one of those is in New River, NC. I will bet others who made comments about 'availability' of military helos on THAT particular day have NO idea where such hardware is based.

BUT all of everything everyone with no real knowledge or facts has said are moot points. Something EVERY pilot knows about is "Density Altitude" . .this is ESPECIALLY true of helicopter pilots. Your LIFE depends upon your awareness of Density Altitude. To start with, the towers were in excess of 1360' tall . .NOT COUNTING "Density Altitude" that day. The 'thinner' the air, the more difficult to hover.

It has also been pointed out by the more sensible on here that there was no place to land. TRUE! The rotor diameter of the CH-53 is 79 feet and it is 99.5 feet long! There was NO place to set down even a smaller craft on the roofs of these towers. They were too tall (Density Altitude) to have helos landing on them as a practical matter of course, so they were designed to have raido & TV towers and other clutter.

The person who said the 'military could have 'blown up the obstacles' has NO concept of the complexity of planning and execution of such a mission would have involved. NOT enough time in the window of the first jet striking and the collapse. This and many other, like minded conspiracy individuals would be said, in the military, to have their heads up their butts -and locked.

On a 'normal' day, skyscrapers make their own wind, turbulence and weather. This day was NOT normal. The thick smoke and cascading heat from the jet fuel driven fire created an almost impossible situation vis a vis the concept of roof top rescue via helicopter.

I just wonder sometimes if all the whack-jobs on this matter missed the open and blatant claim of responsibility for the events of the day by Osama and the Al Quaida folks.

For every 'theory' there is cold, hard fact that y'all just conveniently ignore. You just have to feel sorry for someone going through life dragging this burden along with them. It 'is' what it is, folks! The facts abound. But, I can tell by a lot of the commentary that the 'theorist' has no facts of their own, just feelings and conjecture and attaching themself to the coat tails of another whack-job who sounds like they know what they are talking about. Some of you folks are REALLY offensive in your FAR out comments.

Give it a break.

Originally posted by captain_drew
reply to post by CaptainObvious

 

I retired with 30 years as a Navy Pilot in the Reserves and almost 30 years as a Commercial Pilot with a company that is a household name.

I flew everything from Huey Cobras to supersonic fighters over 30 years. I have nearly 500 hours in an aircraft (CH-53) mentioned several times here.

To start with, the towers were in excess of 1360' tall . .NOT COUNTING "Density Altitude" that day. The 'thinner' the air, the more difficult to hover.

They were too tall (Density Altitude) to have helos landing on them...

NOT enough time in the window of the first jet striking and the collapse.

This is a possible example of where ‘ideology’ (or agenda?) gets in the way of a person’s thinking. How else can one explain that someone with 30 years (!) of piloting experience believes that ‘Al Qaida’ flew planes into buildings on 9-11. The physical impossibilities aside — I guess 30 years of aviation know-how doesn’t mean a whole lot if a rag-tag bunch of fanatic wannabe-martyr misfit kids can pick up commercial and ace fighter pilot flying skills after a few hours on a flight simulator.

O. K., now back to the helicopter discussion. Why is it laughable that a CH-53 could carry 100 civilians? Are we worried about the passengers comfort level here? Or would it be too much to expect that — in a life or death situation — they could have sat on each others’ laps for a minute five minute period instead of jumping from the buildings. The big Sikorskys can haul 30,000 lbs plus of cargo. So the weight of 100 passengers wouldn’t have been an issue. And the (crazy) concern that heights of 1,360 ft above sea level are too high for helicopters to hover or land, well, I believe the retort for that is self-explanatory.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods


This is a possible example of where ‘ideology’ (or agenda?) gets in the way of a person’s thinking.

Oh my God... Where do I start with this? A man comes in here and explains things without a doubt and you get a post like this.

Comfort levels are not an issued i would assume... i think it would be weight!

I have flown on "puddle jumpers" (small airplanes) from ISland to island and the flight crew is often forced to move passengers from one side to another just to level out the weight on the plane.

This is a possible example of where ‘ideology’ (or agenda?) gets in the way of a person’s thinking.

Please explain yourself because at the moment you seem to be insulting someone who served in the US military to protect freedom around the world. Believe what you want about the US government but it's soldiers (current and ex) should always have your appreciation and respect.

How else can one explain that someone with 30 years (!) of piloting experience believes that ‘Al Qaida’ flew planes into buildings on 9-11.

Here's how you explain it.
The terrorist group known as Al Qaida is responsible for the WTC destruction as they have admitted to. DUH!!!!!!
And for those who actually have logic skills, you can view mountains of evidence to back this up.

The physical impossibilities aside

What physical impossibilities are you talking about??? The planes really flew into the towers so it was possible.

— I guess 30 years of aviation know-how doesn’t mean a whole lot if a rag-tag bunch of fanatic wannabe-martyr misfit kids can pick up commercial and ace fighter pilot flying skills after a few hours on a flight simulator.

So why do you find it necessary to belittle his achievements?? Have you done anything near what he has accomplished??
The terrorists had more then a few hours of training and remember, they had to know how to fly the plane into a building. They didn't need to know how to land or anything else.

If you don't believe a "rag tag group" could have pulled it off, I suggest you look at other terrorist attacks. For example, have you ever heard of the Oklahoma City bombing? Timothy McVeigh was no rocket scientist but he managed to pull off the 2nd deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

O. K., now back to the helicopter discussion. Why is it laughable that a CH-53 could carry 100 civilians? Are we worried about the passengers comfort level here?

Instead of speculating, why don't you show evidence to prove he's wrong. I admit I don't know much about CH-53's but I do know they have a weight limit and you can't stack humans like cord wood.

Or would it be too much to expect that — in a life or death situation — they could have sat on each others’ laps for a minute five minute period instead of jumping from the buildings.

5 minutes?? are you kidding?? So lets say the helicopters could have reached the building and got people off the roof, where could they take them in 5 minutes flight time and landing?? Notice the big city around the WTC??

The big Sikorskys can haul 30,000 lbs plus of cargo. So the weight of 100 passengers wouldn’t have been an issue. And the (crazy) concern that heights of 1,360 ft above sea level are too high for helicopters to hover or land, well, I believe the retort for that is self-explanatory.

Well it's not self explanatory. Show us proof as to what you're saying.

How do you know anything you are saying is correct? Do you have even a similar amount of experience as Captain_Drew that would give you the credibility to counter his information???

Now let me ask you this:
Don't you think that if helicopters could have gotten in to take out survivors, they would have? Assuming there were any near the situation that had emergency baskets, etc.

And what would their motivation be for not doing it, if they could???

i dont even know where to begin here, the ignorance abounds.

let me start...

I just wonder sometimes if all the whack-jobs on this matter missed the open and blatant claim of responsibility for the events of the day by Osama and the Al Quaida folks.
how many people have 'confessed', been sent to the chair, and later been proven innocent by DNA? at least a dozen in the state of texas for starters. A 'Palistinian' group also took responsibility, first i might add.

For every 'theory' there is cold, hard fact that y'all just conveniently ignore.
Not one single 'official' accounts can explain how the towers fell using physics. anyone who supports those 'theories' follows the same MO.
You just have to feel sorry for someone going through life dragging this burden along with them. It 'is' what it is, folks! The facts abound. But, I can tell by a lot of the commentary that the 'theorist' has no facts of their own,
again, you have no facts backed by physics. you're preaching to the pope.
just feelings and conjecture and attaching themself to the coat tails of another whack-job who sounds like they know what they are talking about. Some of you folks are REALLY offensive in your FAR out comments.

Give it a break.

i will when the rather large group of conspiracy theorists prove their story that 2 planes brought down the towers and a plane hit the pentagon.

Please explain yourself because at the moment you seem to be insulting someone who served in the US military to protect freedom around the world.

he wasnt directly insulting anyone, and your inference about why he/she joined the military is absurd.

And for those who actually have logic skills, you can view mountains of evidence to back this up.

then show the physics behind the collapse. so far, no one in the world has. if you dont have numbers you are using fuzzy logic, fuzzy logic sucks.

What physical impossibilities are you talking about???

newtons laws. although he (wizard) may have been incorrect about the deployment of the helicopters, physics cant be debunked.

So why do you find it necessary to belittle his achievements?? Have you done anything near what he has accomplished??
The terrorists had more then a few hours of training and remember, they had to know how to fly the plane into a building. They didn't need to know how to land or anything else.

the 'official' story of the pentagon crash does not support anything less than a pilot who could literally hit an object without seeing it. if you can explain that i would like to hear it.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by jprophet420]

the 'official' story of the pentagon crash does not support anything less than a pilot who could literally hit an object without seeing it. if you can explain that i would like to hear it.

LUCK. Lotto winners experience this all the time.

Let me break this down
BIG plane hit tall building.
Caused massive structural damage.
Fire additional weakened structure.
Building collapsed.

NO CONSPIRACY.

WTC conspiracies are as bad as the flat earth and moon landing conspiracies .

reply to post by jfj123

im sorry then you dont understand the word 'conspiracy'

a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act

[edit on 15-9-2007 by jprophet420]

since some people still insist that the US government caused 9/11, maybe Bill Maher can knock some sense into you.

Watch the video please

rawstory.com...

Actually, I understand the word conspiracy just fine. Thanks for asking though. Regarding the WTC terrorist attacks, there was no conspiracy and I defy you to prove otherwise.

The operative word here is PROVE.

So once again, thanks for telling me what I do and don't understand but I do not need your assistance regarding definitions of words.

thats nice.

i just realized if i had one wish for all time what it would be.

i would bring back bill hicks.

rest in peace brother.

Folks, this thread is for questioning why there were no helicopter rescues on that fateful day. which was readily explained by A. the pilots of that day with in cockpit video and interviews(please see video posted page 2) and B. by multiple members that do know flight dynamics explaining to the members that have no idea what they are talking about.

If you want to debate why and how 9-11 happened, please go to one of the other hundreds of threads and discuss it there.

This question has been answered in numerous ways with both proof and facts. It should be closed IMO.

reply to post by jfj123


Dear jfj123:

I was actually trying to allow Captain_Drew to keep some of his credibility by surmising that he/she might have an agenda or an ideology which prevents the accepting of reality. How else can one explain that with all his 30 years of experience and expertise he insists that ‘terrorist’ flight students — and poorly doing ones to boot — flew large planes on 9-11. When the consensus among so many pilots is that the maneuvers were impossibly difficult. Our ATS in-house aviation expert and conspiracy master John Lear has gone through great lengths to explain this.

Their (chopper pilots) 'motivation' for not showing up on the twin tower rooftops, for not even trying, can only be that they were ORDERED not to. This is the only plausible explanation. Alternative reasons such as updrafts or smoke obstruction cannot make sense, unless we are expected to ueber-cynically believe that NO ONE SINGLE Helicopter pilot would have gotten up to do something — even as reports of people jumping to their deaths rolled in. Nobody (almost nobody) knew the towers would collapse. So why didn’t helicopters show, even if only at the ‘eleventh hour’? That makes no sense whatsoever, unless…there was a ‘stand down order’ for rescue missions too.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods
This is an important thread, so Mods, don’t even think about closing it down!
It’s interesting how the members that ‘do know flight dynamics’, are the ones who believe that failing foreign flight students flew loops and loop-de-loops in large commercial airliners. And that they are also those doing all the ‘explaining’ to the members who have ‘no idea what they are talking about’.


[edit on 9/15/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

I post this video AGAIN in hopes that other posters will embrace the sites motto of deny ignorance. Cuz there sure is alot of ignorance going on in this thread. Take 9 freakin minutes out of your life and watch it so you can understand that there were choppers on scene. If you had watched this video you would even know that in 1993 people were actually rescued off the roof of the WTC when the basement was on fire. BUT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE ON 9-11. Watch the in cockpit video from the hovering NYPD chopper from that day. Listen to the actual pilot flying around the buildings that day.



I just dont understand how you can continue to ask the same questions that actually get answered in that video. And no Wizard, I am not debating the flying of the aircraft into the buildings, that is for all the other threads, i am trying to educate the OP and others on the main posts question asked. Why were there no helicopters on 9-11. Like i said, if you want to debate the aircraft, do it on another thread.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by S1LV3R4D0]

reply to post by S1LV3R4D0


We’re asking these same questions over and over again because there is obviously something rotten in Denmark.

So now we are to believe that it was up to the local authorities — a NYPD chopper — to decide what to do, whether or not rescue missions might have been doable?

Something’s ‘not right’ here. Wouldn’t a normal reaction have been to call in more resources? People were leaping from the buildings. A normal pilot wouldn’t hover without brainstorming out loud, without searching for ideas of ways to do something, without asking for help. Supposedly 9-11 was the worst ‘attack’ on American ground ever, along with Pearl Harbor. Where were our MILITARY RESCUE HELICOPTERS? The Coastguard? And no, the we-were-caught-off-guard objection does not fly, since we should have seen SOME TYPE of response after a long hour and a half.

Again, this (no rooftop rescues on 9-11) reeks of another one of many indicators that 9-11 was a self-orchestrated false flag event.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Hello wizard.


SIlverado, sorry I haven't had a chance to view the video. I apologize for that, I been busy in school making a documentary on veterans. it's a student documentary for my own personal gains.


On topic. look I understand the dynamics. I know it was dangerous for someone to try a rescue attempt. I know that, But having watched the live footage of the terror, I was shocked to see the people waving their hands for help and no one showed up. Now, i've seen numerous of other videos of great rescues from windows, rooftops and other places. mostly on those television hour shows that shows videos of rescues. Humans can do great things. The fire departments have some really good ways to save people, air beds, nets, ladders, etc. they are very resourceful. but during the attack I didn't see anyone try anything of the type. perhaps because I haven't seen the video.

I understand, it was a risk to land on the rooftops..are there no heroes left? does it all have to be policy? I would have been happy to see at least one pilot land there and try to rescue someone from a window below. leave the laws of gravity behind and risk your life for something you believe. one person would have been enough even if you risk your life. so much could have been done, like how about just tossing a rope to the guy on a window before he makes a jump? throw parachutes down, send paperclips, I mean DO something! you know what I mean? at least try, like wizard has said numerous times.

Our ATS in-house aviation expert and conspiracy master John Lear has gone through great lengths to explain this.

Oh, you mean the guy that thinks there is air on the moon and most of the planets in our solar system are colonized??? Even the gas giants??? which according to him aren't really gas giants???

Sorry but if this is the same guy, he's about as credible as a full diaper.

reply to post by jfj123


Look, John Lears’ outer-space views might seem spacey (eccentric). But that’s merely a question of perspective. Most of the world still believes we landed on the Moon in 1969. And nothing’s more ridiculous than that to anyone who as has even half-heartedly studied said scenario. So maybe the conventional viewpoints are the ones that are wrong, and the off-the-wall ones the truth.

Regardless, we’re discussing earthly matters. And John Lear is — undisputedly so — an aviation expert. When he talks really technical I sometimes haven’t a clue what he’s saying. But he always does a rock-solid job explaining the ‘big picture’ of airplane issues. So I see no single reason to question his expertise.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 9/16/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

1. we did land on the moon in 1969 and a few other times. The russians also sent probes to the moon. Proof abounds.

2. I brought up his eccentric views because it goes towards his credibility.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Most of the world still believes we landed on the Moon in 1969. And nothing’s more ridiculous than that to anyone who as has even half-heartedly studied said scenario.

One old movie line comes to mind when I read your twisted rantings. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". . alluding to another whacked out "wizard".

What the hell you been smoking out there in those woods? Pretty potent stuff, eh?

I thought I would 'give it a rest' after initially discussing a few of my views, but your obscenely objectionable slam against my long time neighbor and fellow Naval Aviator (until his recent passing) Wally Schirra and the other early heroes of our space program is just too much for me to tolerate.

You are a sad, sick person, sir. HOW, exactly, does one become so twisted. My guess is that you just don't know what you don't know.

I don't have your exact quote at hand, but you don't offend me or the many years and tens of thousands of flight hours in military and civilian aircraft by intimating that a bunch of rag-tag, ill equipped (intelligence) middle eastern men could have done what they did with those aircraft.

Your 10 year old nephew or 80 year old grandma could have done the exact same thing with a few hours of simulator training. Hell, acne infested teenagers conduct dogfights under military conditions in Microsoft Flight Simulator every hour of every day.

My guess is that you have never even had a peek into the cockpit of a modern jet transport. All those craft were flying on autopilot at the time those monsters took over the cockpit. And before some dimbulb pipes up and says 'real pilots would never have let those rag heads take their airplanes away from them' I have to insist that sentiment shows the total ignorance of the world BEFORE 9-11. We ALL were trained to 'cooperate' with a hijacker. Fly them where they want to go. . get it on the ground. . .and let the 'authorities' handle it from there. That ALL changed, effective 9-11!

On autopilot, it is a simple 'two finger' operation . .thumb and forefinger . .. is how you fly the jet . .or more correctly. .how "George" flies it, with your gentle input. ANY idiot (with a minimum of training) could have flown those jets from the point of 'take over' to impact. Two fingers . .up . .down . .left . . right . .the only other varible is speed and that is controled with thrust levers. Modern jet transports go on autopilot shortly after take off and many of them even land in autopilot . .especially in marginal weather.

I got paid the big bucks and earned the Air Medals for the 'other stuff' that happens when the auto pilot is off. .that these guys did NOT get trained in. Flying and talking to ATC . .knowing the 'rules' and being at the altitude and on airspeed I am assigned. The engine fire warning light illuminates. .lose pressurization . .the weather that goes below minimums and now you have to fly to your 'alternate'.

I don't know why you don't understand that anyone who has ever used a joy stick could have done what those monsters did. Simple!

NOW . .as to the CH-53 having a capacity to haul 30,000#s. Real easy to look this stuff up on GOOGLE, but you couldn't find your butt in the dark with both hands.

I have ferried them around with 3 'aux' fuel tanks strapped down inside. Don't remember the empty weight of the tanks but they were likely 2000# each = 6000#. Each tank held 650 gallons of Jet A fuel at 6.84 pounds x 1,950 = 13,338 + 6,000 =total payload 19,338. THIS is WELL below the max payload you noted . .and I will tell you from personal experience that you CANNOT take of or land in a hover with anywhere near this payload!

This helicopter was designed to do 'rolling' take offs and landing, like an airplane, because it was necessary to have the additional 'aerodynamic' lift of the 'headwind' generated by the forward motion. You simply don't know what you don't know!

reply to post by captain_drew


I’m not sure if “captain drew” is for real or not. But if he is, then he is a prime example of a how easily people are manipulated. Having “tens of thousands of flight hours” he still insists anybody could have flown those 9-11 planes. And do what those “monsters” did (to us). I’m certain John Lear would disagree.

Is this guy a loose cannon or what? It’s a given that captain drew thinks we need to go after “those monsters” with all we’ve got (in our military arsenal). Might as well glass the countries they came from. Ooops, no we can’t quite do that. Most the ‘highjackers’ were Saudi. None were Iraqi. Never mind the details. But someone’s gotta pay for what was done to ‘us’ on 9-11! Charlie Daniels says so too, in his song “this ain’t no rag”.

It is not my intent to insult anyone in our armed forces. My grandfather’s brother was a medic at Omaha beach on D-day. But I have a real problem with us going after (killing) people who didn’t do anything. If 9-11 is false flag event, then WE are the monsters!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods