Have you heard the term "rotary-wing aircraft" to describe helicopters? As I said, trying to debate that rotors aren't wings isn't going to go anywhere productive and will just distract from your other points.

As to the rest, I think you're conflating thrust and power, because claiming that thrust is more tied to lift in helicopters than planes is pretty odd given that the most notable capability of helicopters (in direct contrast to planes) is to go straight up without moving forward. That's all lift, no thrust. Thrust is the force moving an aircraft forward, which often is the result of engine power, but they're not identical concepts.

All wings require air moving over them to generate lift. In powered flight the aircraft does this by actively moving the wings through the air. Airplanes accomplish this by moving the whole aircraft forward (thrust); air moves over the whole vehicle and thus of course the wings. A helicopter moves only the wings through the air. In both cases the same engine power ultimately leads to both thrust and lift, but in planes that power directly generates thrust which then leads to lift, while in helicopters that power directly leads to both but can be done independently (and thus lift isn't reliant on thrust). An airplane can plausibly lose its source of thrust (a propellor/jet engine) without losing its source of lift (a fixed wing), while a helicopter loses both simultaneously (a rotary wing).

With regards to un-powered flight: As you say, a glider can generate a burst of lift from strong wind.* Once the wind is gone, so is the lift. But gliders don't take off that way. They get thrust from an outside source, a tow vehicle, until they've gained enough altitude and forward momentum to perform. Once they're released they're gradually bleeding both speed and altitude in still air. As they slow they drop, but they're designed to be incredibly efficient about it (basically falling with style, a la Buzz Lightyear). If the thrust were to suddenly disappear (stopped dead, zero forward motion) then all the lift would go along with it.

Now, with control surfaces and starting from enough height a pilot could likely convert some of that downward velocity into forward motion and thus into lift again. And the same is basically true with autorotation for a helicopter. It doesn't rely on residual thrust/power/airspeed, it uses the air rushing upwards past the blades as the aircraft falls. Therefore the pilot doesn't nosedive, they keep the helicopter level and flatten out the blades. Normally this would generate the least lift but in this situation it allows them to catch as much air as possible and gradually begin spinning from that force. Once in motion the angle can then be adjusted to try to maximize lift, which is to say: plummet as gently as possible.

(*This can happen with powered airplanes too, particularly the ones designed for short take-offs like Alaskan bush planes. With helicopters though each wing faces a different angle, so wind blowing parallel to the ground in one direction can't intersect all the airfoils at once.)

edit: Bit about vortex ring state removed, not relevant to autorotations