I know the emergency services in NY have helicopters. Just shortly after the first strike (I saw the whole thing on TV virtually as it happened) the commentator wondered why the emergency services didn't have any helicopters up there. I have never heard the question raised since.
Yes, I know that heat rises, and before too long the heat and lack of visibility would have made helicopter use very problematic. But I've seen helicopters waterbombing fires in California from little more than tree height, so why wasn't the attempt made at least at the start?
The crews might witness ugly scenes as people fought to get on, but that never stopped them in Saigon in 1975.
2007-01-08 19:48:20 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Neither of the Twin Towers had a place on the roof where a helicopter could have safely been landed.
One tower didn't even have a means of access to the roof available to the public.
I think this was discussed in the 9/11 Commission Report--I have seen it discussed somewhere.
In the waterbombing the helicopters were moving, which is easier flight than hovering, which would be necessary to do a rooftop rescue.
It is certainly something to be considered in design of future skyscrapers. At best it would have saved some of the people who died that day, which is better than nothing.
2007-01-08 19:58:41 · answer #1 · answered by Warren D 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think the problem would be that fights would break out on top of the building. Everyone would want on the chopper. Can you imagine?
I'm sure that there was no shortage of brave pilots willing to "give it a go".
I also think that ALL air traffic was suspended apart from the military at that time.
Finally, the heat and smoke can adversely affect helicopter turbines. Big changes in the oxygen content of the air will make a helicopter's engines unpredictable.
But this is a very good question, because look at what was achieved by helicopters at the Chernobyl fire.
2007-01-09 03:53:56 · answer #2 · answered by Not Ecky Boy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You have to remember that at the time, everything was grounded. For the first time in US history all flights were told to land. Due to security concerns no one wanted to risk further attacks with airplanes or helicopters.
I do believe there would also be an issue that the helicopters would have to fly very close to a building that is on fire and giving off a LOT of smoke.
2007-01-09 04:02:51 · answer #3 · answered by dattskool 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
- The smoke from the building meant that the could not get close enough.
- Risk of helecopter fuel being ignited by the heat
- Risk of too many people trying to board the helecopter at the same time, causing it to crash through weight.
- Issue with trying to scramble helicopters to the site.
You mentioned the water bombing helecopters, well they are specially designed for forest / mountainous regions so would be no where near WTC, they would not have gotten theri in time, and even if they did the amount of water they carried would not have helped.
2007-01-09 03:58:19 · answer #4 · answered by David 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Too much smoke.
I always get a chuckle when I read some of these questions and especially the answers because it simply amazes me how much people forget in a couple of years. For example, there would not have been fights if a helocopter went to the top of the building because at the time, virtually NOBODY thought the buildings would fall. People would have waited patiently for their turn on the helocopter. Secondly, aircraft were not grounded until AFTER the WTC buildings collapsed.
2007-01-09 03:55:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ironically, because of the threat of terrorism both towers had anti-helicopter fittings to the roof to prevent helicopters from landing.
2007-01-09 04:03:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
at the time, i don't think anyone imagined the entire building would collapse and probably reasoned the best approach was to put out the fire and have the people walk or get carried out, i don't think the details of the situation were all that clear at first, it was a chaotic situation and major events were happening very quickly....
2007-01-09 03:57:23 · answer #7 · answered by Paulie Paul 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The turbulence caused by the fire would have been another factor, exploding helicopters crashing to the ground or into other buildings wouldn't have helped things.
2007-01-09 04:02:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have to say that if they could've done they would've done, let 9/11 go for chrissakes. Jeez when you see the film of all that smoke clouding upwards how the hell would the pilots have been able to see anything.
2007-01-09 07:20:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
"Dunno actually. Good question, but it might be because the helicopters couldn't get close enough without their propellors hitting the side of the building. Not very practical."
- Neo and Trinity did it in the matrix.
2007-01-09 04:02:01 · answer #10 · answered by Jimmy F 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋