Re: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I had a discussion with a friend about this. She said that someone must be censoring what airs on tv very carefully, because of course there must be bodies and body parts in the rubble, and I haven't seen ANY of that since this started. - >> I wonder about the bodies. There was a TV interview with an air quality expert who explained that were some isolated cases of asbestos, but that most of the clouds of debris were analyzed as gypsum from wall board, powdered concrete, or powdered steel. This makes the collapse a giant rock crusher, pulverizing concrete and steel to dust. What can we expect of the bodies of those souls trapped in the collapse? Sad for the families, Bob S. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Vs: Vs: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
Sure - they "can be a couple of hundred miles per hour" - but were they? No attempt was made, no measurements either. Result: none we rescued. How much experience do you have about helicopters? Actually there were a couple of small helicopters flying around but they seemed to belong to the media. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Tom Rittenhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 14. syyskuuta 2001 23:40 Aihe: Re: Vs: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters? >Hate to burst anyones bubble, but the updrafts in a fire like that can be a couple of >hundred miles >per hour. No helicopter could operate in those, it would be blown about like a leaf. >--graywolf > > >Chris Brogden wrote: >> >> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Raimo Korhonen wrote: >> >> > I thought that there was a helicopter platform on top of one of the >> > towers. And it would have been good to see that something was even >> > tried to save these people. >> >> I think in the aftermath of this disaster a lot of people are going to be >> second-guessing the actions of the rescuers. Just keep in mind that what >> seems logical now is not always so obvious in the heat of the moment, >> which is probably the main reason all those rescue workers lost their >> lives when someone should have known that the building was due to >> collapse. >> >> That being said, I'm surprised that there weren't more measures in place >> to rescue people from skyscrapers quickly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but >> they were able to do virtually nothing, right? Seems to me that with all >> our current technology we should be able to come up with some methods that >> may save lives in the future. How about a helicopter carrying a long >> cable with a large cage attached to it? Give the cage a nice padded floor >> and a large opening and see how close you can get it to the window. Or >> something smaller than a parachute that would slow people's fall to the >> ground to survivable levels? Make it like an inflatable helium air bag >> with a basic hand strap and belt clip and it could be very small. Or if >> that won't work, they should be able to make emergency parachutes pretty >> compact by now. I'm not saying that these are great ideas, just that we >> need something done to help people in the future. Boats have lifeboats; >> why don't skyscrapers have anything other than stairs and an elevator? >> >> And does concrete really insulate the steel against heat better than, say, >> those ceramic panels used on space shuttles for re-entry? That material >> can't be too expensive... they make casserole dishes out of them, after >> all. :) >> > >-- >Tom Rittenhouse >Graywolf Photo >Charlotte, NC, USA - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Vs: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
Thanks for a well reasoned and cogent response, Mark. Sounds like you have the experience such that you know of what you speak. There was an incredible image in the Toronto Star yesterday showing at least 4 or 5 poor souls plummetting to their deaths at the same time. All were falling head-first. It was sickening. I'm sure that many on this list saw it. I guess that it's just so heartbreakingly frustrating to see such images, that one has to think that there must be some solution or other... regards, frank "Mark D." wrote: > > > Hate to break it you fellas, but jumping with parachutes is a bad idea. As a > former skydiver, I can tell you that it takes great skill to jump from a > building. Even with almost 200 logged skydives, I barely have the skill to > leap with the proper body attitude to clear the building, manage the > turbulence, and have sufficient altitude to deploy. Then there's managing a > safe landing with the parachute. Furthermore, the parachutes would most > likely not deploy on time given the low altitude and complete lack of > experience of the building employees. What you would likely see are people > jumping and not deploying their parachutes on time, people deploying too > early and smashing right back into the building (off-heading openings is a > common way BASE jumpers die), and many canopy collisions/entanglements which > cause parachutes to collapse. > This is simply not one of the solutions : ( > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Vs: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
Somehow I keep thinking we shouldn't build those buildings in the first place. Although it is a magnificent look, the danger is built into it. They are supposed to withstand earthquakes as well, but I don't feel comfortable in them. Frits Wüthrich > > Chris Brogden wrote, regarding possible options for lifesaving procedures: > > Seems to me that with all our current technology we should be able to > > come up with some methods that may save lives in the future. How > > about a helicopter carrying a long cable with a large cage attached to > it?... > > [A]n inflatable helium air bag [E]mergency parachutes > > All good ideas, Chris. I remember something even more low-tech (read that > "fool-proof and robust") that I did as sort of a game at a summer camp I > went to as a child. We had a cable stretched taut from the roof of one of > the buildings at the camp -- maybe the third floor? We then had a bracket > that went over the cable, and we held onto both ends of the bracket as we > slid down. I seem to remember that the Space Shuttle astronauts have some > sort of escape device like this, to be used in case of a launchpad fire. > Periodic testing of this escape device is apparently dangerous. > I guess in > the assessment of any device envisioned for escape from skyscrapers, one > would have to weigh the benefits of quicker evacuation speed (vs. stairs) > against the risk of a deadly fall from hundreds of feet above the ground. > Perhaps some small part of the tens of billions that will be spent in the > aftermath of this week's events might be earmarked for exactly > this kind of > engineering research. I hope there are lots of scientists and > engineers at > NIST, NASA, etc. who are thinking creatively about solutions of > the kind you > discuss. > > Bill Peifer > Rochester, NY - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Vs: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
Chris wrote: > That being said, I'm surprised that there weren't more measures in place > to rescue people from skyscrapers quickly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but > they were able to do virtually nothing, right? Seems to me that with all > our current technology we should be able to come up with some methods that > may save lives in the future. How about a helicopter carrying a long > cable with a large cage attached to it? Give the cage a nice padded floor > and a large opening and see how close you can get it to the window. Or > something smaller than a parachute that would slow people's fall to the > ground to survivable levels? Make it like an inflatable helium air bag > with a basic hand strap and belt clip and it could be very small. Or if > that won't work, they should be able to make emergency parachutes pretty > compact by now. I'm not saying that these are great ideas Oh, they are, at least in theory... :) I was thinking along similar lines. Some sort of emergency "hoses" which would allow people to slide down into one of those huge helicopters... It seems so obvious now, that any workplace on these levels and heights should have means for workers and visitors just to get out of it in case a fire below blocks evacuation. Imaging seeing hundreds and hundreds of people slowly swaying down to their rescue in those colorful parachutes or gliders, instead of those absolutely horrible sights of people falling to their deaths... >just that we > need something done to help people in the future. Boats have lifeboats; > why don't skyscrapers have anything other than stairs and an elevator? Agreed. > And does concrete really insulate the steel against heat better than, say, > those ceramic panels used on space shuttles for re-entry? That material > can't be too expensive... they make casserole dishes out of them, after > all. :) Maybe the thought of a full load of jet fuel on fire at those temperatures was a too far fetched a thought. Lasse - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Vs: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
Chris Brogden wrote, regarding possible options for lifesaving procedures: > Seems to me that with all our current technology we should be able to > come up with some methods that may save lives in the future. How > about a helicopter carrying a long cable with a large cage attached to it?... > [A]n inflatable helium air bag [E]mergency parachutes All good ideas, Chris. I remember something even more low-tech (read that "fool-proof and robust") that I did as sort of a game at a summer camp I went to as a child. We had a cable stretched taut from the roof of one of the buildings at the camp -- maybe the third floor? We then had a bracket that went over the cable, and we held onto both ends of the bracket as we slid down. I seem to remember that the Space Shuttle astronauts have some sort of escape device like this, to be used in case of a launchpad fire. Periodic testing of this escape device is apparently dangerous. I guess in the assessment of any device envisioned for escape from skyscrapers, one would have to weigh the benefits of quicker evacuation speed (vs. stairs) against the risk of a deadly fall from hundreds of feet above the ground. Perhaps some small part of the tens of billions that will be spent in the aftermath of this week's events might be earmarked for exactly this kind of engineering research. I hope there are lots of scientists and engineers at NIST, NASA, etc. who are thinking creatively about solutions of the kind you discuss. An on a related note, I just realized yesterday how strange it is not to see aircraft in the skies around my town -- yet. It was a welcome sight to see three military helicopters flying in formation over Kodak Park this afternoon. Hopefully the commercial aircraft will be up there again soon too. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
Annsan said, > The Helicopters would blow stuff all around, and there > isn't enough room for them down there, Lasse. It would be > very dangerous - that is my guess. > > ann And I'm sure there were other reasons, too. This definitely isn't a game for armchair quarterbacks. The guys on the scene call the plays as they see them. Being a DoD employee, I already have friends involved deeply at the Pentagon, and friends of friends that were on the planes involved. I pray a lot lately. Len --- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
Well, I didn't think't they'd go down anywhere. Just help lifting and moving away some of the heavy stuff in a faster manner. Some of them can lift tons, and they could organize shuttle service. I had expected some rails, temporary constructions for easier access to those piles of rubbles, seeing more people called in. Last night they were missing volunteer steel workers. I'd expected they'd be called in within 24 hours of the collapse. Maybe it's just the reporting that makes it looks like they depend on volunteers. Why wasn't the national guard there before the first nightfall? However, I guess the CNN doesn't really show a true picture of the rescue work. To me it looks like... well it raises questions about it all. I guess it is more professional than it looks, and that I'm missing things on the magnitude and other aspects. There are some feature reports I'd like to see done on this. I guess I don't have access to the right TV-channels. Anybody knows under what/whose command and organisation this work is being done? Federal, state or city, like...? Lasse - Original Message - From: "Ann Sanfedele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:34 PM Subject: Re: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters? > The Helicopters would blow stuff all around, and there > isn't enough room for them down there, Lasse. It would be > very dangerous - that is my guess. > > ann > > Lasse Karlsson wrote: > > > > Those of you who might know more than me. > > When the towers were hit, I never saw any helicopters even trying to make any >rescue efforts. > > >From the beginning it was obvious that people were trapped. And it was not >altogether obvious that the towers would collapse. > > Would such an operation be deemed impossible already from the start? > > Or is it not part of any emergency plans? > > > > Also, now as the rescue workers have so much time consuming trouble with getting >rid of the heavy metal rubbles, why do we not see helicopters trying to lift off part >of this? Some helicopter have incredible lifting capacities. > > What aspects have I missed? > > > > Lasse - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
The Helicopters would blow stuff all around, and there isn't enough room for them down there, Lasse. It would be very dangerous - that is my guess. ann Lasse Karlsson wrote: > > Those of you who might know more than me. > When the towers were hit, I never saw any helicopters even trying to make any rescue >efforts. > >From the beginning it was obvious that people were trapped. And it was not >altogether obvious that the towers would collapse. > Would such an operation be deemed impossible already from the start? > Or is it not part of any emergency plans? > > Also, now as the rescue workers have so much time consuming trouble with getting rid >of the heavy metal rubbles, why do we not see helicopters trying to lift off part of >this? Some helicopter have incredible lifting capacities. > What aspects have I missed? > > Lasse > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Vs: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
Hate to burst anyones bubble, but the updrafts in a fire like that can be a couple of hundred miles per hour. No helicopter could operate in those, it would be blown about like a leaf. --graywolf Chris Brogden wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Raimo Korhonen wrote: > > > I thought that there was a helicopter platform on top of one of the > > towers. And it would have been good to see that something was even > > tried to save these people. > > I think in the aftermath of this disaster a lot of people are going to be > second-guessing the actions of the rescuers. Just keep in mind that what > seems logical now is not always so obvious in the heat of the moment, > which is probably the main reason all those rescue workers lost their > lives when someone should have known that the building was due to > collapse. > > That being said, I'm surprised that there weren't more measures in place > to rescue people from skyscrapers quickly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but > they were able to do virtually nothing, right? Seems to me that with all > our current technology we should be able to come up with some methods that > may save lives in the future. How about a helicopter carrying a long > cable with a large cage attached to it? Give the cage a nice padded floor > and a large opening and see how close you can get it to the window. Or > something smaller than a parachute that would slow people's fall to the > ground to survivable levels? Make it like an inflatable helium air bag > with a basic hand strap and belt clip and it could be very small. Or if > that won't work, they should be able to make emergency parachutes pretty > compact by now. I'm not saying that these are great ideas, just that we > need something done to help people in the future. Boats have lifeboats; > why don't skyscrapers have anything other than stairs and an elevator? > > And does concrete really insulate the steel against heat better than, say, > those ceramic panels used on space shuttles for re-entry? That material > can't be too expensive... they make casserole dishes out of them, after > all. :) > -- Tom Rittenhouse Graywolf Photo Charlotte, NC, USA - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Vs: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Raimo Korhonen wrote: > I thought that there was a helicopter platform on top of one of the > towers. And it would have been good to see that something was even > tried to save these people. I think in the aftermath of this disaster a lot of people are going to be second-guessing the actions of the rescuers. Just keep in mind that what seems logical now is not always so obvious in the heat of the moment, which is probably the main reason all those rescue workers lost their lives when someone should have known that the building was due to collapse. That being said, I'm surprised that there weren't more measures in place to rescue people from skyscrapers quickly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they were able to do virtually nothing, right? Seems to me that with all our current technology we should be able to come up with some methods that may save lives in the future. How about a helicopter carrying a long cable with a large cage attached to it? Give the cage a nice padded floor and a large opening and see how close you can get it to the window. Or something smaller than a parachute that would slow people's fall to the ground to survivable levels? Make it like an inflatable helium air bag with a basic hand strap and belt clip and it could be very small. Or if that won't work, they should be able to make emergency parachutes pretty compact by now. I'm not saying that these are great ideas, just that we need something done to help people in the future. Boats have lifeboats; why don't skyscrapers have anything other than stairs and an elevator? And does concrete really insulate the steel against heat better than, say, those ceramic panels used on space shuttles for re-entry? That material can't be too expensive... they make casserole dishes out of them, after all. :) Just venting some steam chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Vs: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
I thought that there was a helicopter platform on top of one of the towers. And it would have been good to see that something was even tried to save these people. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Michel Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 14. syyskuuta 2001 18:30 Aihe: RE: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters? >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lasse Karlsson >Sent: Friday, 14 September, 2001 08:26 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: OT. WTC - Why no helicopters? > > >> Those of you who might know more than me. >>When the towers were hit, I never saw any helicopters even trying to make >any rescue efforts. >>>From the beginning it was obvious that people were trapped. And it was not >altogether obvious >> that the towers would collapse. >> Would such an operation be deemed impossible already from the start? >> Or is it not part of any emergency plans? > >>Also, now as the rescue workers have so much time consuming trouble with >getting rid of the heavy metal >> rubbles, why do we not see helicopters trying to lift off part of this? >> Some helicopter have incredible lifting capacities. >> What aspects have I missed? > >> Lasse > > >In no particular order, and not inclusive by any means: > >Really tall buildings all around... >Wind patterns around really tall buildings... >Smoke still being a factor... >Etc Etc ... > >Have you ever notice the wind at certain intersections, in relation to the >buildings? It almost becomes a wind tunnel sometime. > >I would think that at this very moment, there are engineering firms redoing >or planning to redo calculations/simulations of wind conditions for the adjacent >buildings, >especially those that were >built after the WTC was put up. > >See the following URL for the big picture: > >http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/sat.photo.html > >The Pentagon one is at: > >http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/sat.pent.photo.html > > >Michel - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT. WTC - Why no helicopters?
Those of you who might know more than me. When the towers were hit, I never saw any helicopters even trying to make any rescue efforts. >From the beginning it was obvious that people were trapped. And it was not altogether >obvious that the towers would collapse. Would such an operation be deemed impossible already from the start? Or is it not part of any emergency plans? Also, now as the rescue workers have so much time consuming trouble with getting rid of the heavy metal rubbles, why do we not see helicopters trying to lift off part of this? Some helicopter have incredible lifting capacities. What aspects have I missed? Lasse - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
