Question about WTC emergency response?

Question

I've always wanted to ask this question..I know that amongst other things one of the first thoughts of millions of people across the world on 9/11 was ''how the hell are we gonna put out this raging fire 100+ stories up?''the answer shot back in alot of our minds as we flashedback to images of those huge aircrafts that fly over forest fires on the west coast and dump tons of water on them.
After watching replays of the attacks,I can see how both towers succumbed.They remind me of two matchsticks feeding off of one anothers heat.We all know that the north tower burned for 1hr. and 42 min. before collapsing!!!
My question is why didn't Gulliani,or Pataki,or whoever else was in a position of power attempt to extinguish the blaze in the same fashion as those forest fires?Conspiracy theory aside I believe the towers could have been saved as well as many lives if the above mentioned rescue tactic been executed.Am I wrong in this assessment?If not ,then was this action considerd?

Answer 1

1. The fire was inside the buildings. Spraying water on the roofs would have done very little. This, in addition to the fact that fire-fighting helicopters and planes are not to be found in the NYC metro area, but closer to national parks and wilderness areas, mainly -- as you suggested -- out west
2. Burning airplane fuel cannot be extinguished the way one would put out a burning forest. Dumping water on such a fire is useless.
3. Those helicopters (including local radio and television traffic helicopters) that attempted to land on the WTC roofs to rescue people gathered there found the air above the towers too hot and smoky and had to withdraw.

Answer 2

right off the top of my head i would think it might be difficult for a helicopter to fly in a metropolitan city with buildings as tall as nyc has,anytime you see those helicopters doing dousing work its in open spaces