2006-09-10 20:53:06 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
would you have been sat in one above the blazing towers?? I dont think given the choice you would have. Typically though it was far too late tobe able to do anything. It wouldn't have prevented those people who died. I think they relented for pure safety.
2006-09-10 20:55:42 · answer #1 · answered by Scatty 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Being no aerial fire fighting expert I dont know for sure, but even if a squadron of C130's were standing by at the nearest airport they dont have the right design to fight a 'point' fire.
When the forests are attacked the planes discharge their loads in a wide spread (no point discharging 40 ? tonnes of water in one big blob) so if the towers were to be approached that way then they would not recieve a significant quantity to make much differance. Also, as mentioned above it would be no point discharging from above - the planes would have to fly the same path as the commercial jets did, done a rapid release and banked away in the hope of not hitting the buildings themselves!.
If the discharge design was such that the whole tonnage could have been released with pin point accuracy then you may also have had the problem of a collosal weight travelling at 100MPH hit an already fragile structure laterally - which could perhaps have instigated a demolition scenario a lot quicker than what eventually happened and maybe with a slanting collapse rather than a vertical one - which would have taken out so many other adjacent buildings as well.
2006-09-11 04:40:11 · answer #2 · answered by Jon H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Water planes and helicopters are generally used on forest/bush fires burning over a large area. They are therefore stationed in areas where this type of fire occurs. New York is not such an area. Even if there had been suitable equipment within a reasonable range, it's unlikely there would have been crew on standby.
In any event, both only drop water on a relatively wide area. They would not be effective against a building fire partly because of accuracy, but mostly because buildings are designed to be resistant to water falling from above. It would have been a complete waste of time using them on a fire such as the WTC - none of the water would have got to the actual fire.
2006-09-11 04:04:00 · answer #3 · answered by Graham I 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would sa that most of the damage had alread been done & if I worked for the fire rescue people & the asked me to fly above it, the answer would have been "Hell no". All it would have done is flush out dead bodies a bit quicker than searching.
No-one knew what was going on so it would have been a bit sill to ask soomeone else to go up in a plane at that time.
There were enough innocent lives lost, I'm sure the government wouldn't have wanted to risk anone elses.
My thoughts are with everone who lost, fought & attempted to rescue (& those remembering today).
2006-09-11 04:03:05 · answer #4 · answered by MISS B.ITCH 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Possibly for the same reason that they didn't intercept the 'hijacked' planes before they hit the towers - there were too many 'Vigilant Guardian' exercises going on that day. Although, it would have taken a lot of helicopters to carry anything like enough water or fire-suppressant foam to have made a difference.
2006-09-14 19:54:18 · answer #5 · answered by Gazza Bear 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
- Happened too fast, not enough time to organise.
- Helecopter / plane would not be able to carry the amount of water to make any effect.
- Most of the fire was deep inside the building and spreading internally through shafts & ducts.
- I think (not 100% sure) that a no-fly zone was put into force while it was going on.
- Possible danger to aircraft if got too close.
2006-09-11 10:01:31 · answer #6 · answered by David 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fire was mid way down. Aerial drops are straight down. They would have needed a water canon in a helicopter, which has limited ability to carry a lot of weight. Forest fires are not common in New York so I doubt they have many such equipped planes or helicopters there.
2006-09-11 04:02:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Burning jet fuel is way too hot to put out that way, also dropping a ton of water down the side of the building would have probably knocked people who were in the windows out. A good idea, but just not viable in that situation.
2006-09-11 03:59:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can only be prepared for so much. Who would have thought we'd ever need it? It's logistics. Who knows where any of that equipment would be at the time we needed it? You can bet there is more than enough equipment on stand by now!
Most people couldn't believe their eyes when they stood there looking up at two skyscrapers burning.
2006-09-11 03:56:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the blaze was accentuated with the high octane fuel from the plane and you cannot pour water on a petroleum so it would have served no purpose sadly
2006-09-11 11:19:41 · answer #10 · answered by srracvuee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋