The 9/11 Forum

This pertains to the question: Were the temperatures extremely hot at Ground Zero for many weeks afterwards, or were they not unusually hot, as posited by Dr. Judy Wood?

Dr. Wood posits the temperatures were not unusually high? Is there a page or article where this is stated? I would be interested in the reasoning and evidence behind it as it runs counter to more frequent claims that the temperature was unusually high. There is, of course, some difficulty in ascertaining what would be usual for this sort of unusual event but that would come later.

First case at point: Dr. Wood directs us to a photo of the basement of WTC2 two days after the thermal imaging of Sept. 16, 2001. See http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photod ... /3946.jkpg.

This is approximately the hotspot location "F" with a surface temperature of 801 deg F. She says on pate 272 of her book, "There appears to be a puddle of water at the bottom of the debris-pit., and the people walking through it are obviously not cooked. It simply cannot be 800 deg. F at this location."

What is the response to this from those who maintain the thermal imaging data is correct?

Bad link. Should be http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photod ... l/3946.jpg

Dwain,

Where was the photo taken... the site is 17 acres and the supposed hot spot was under one area of the core in both buildings. If it was 800° and it was localized certainly one could be in the sub basements at WTC 6 and not feel the heat.

The entire pile was smoldering and hot.. melting boots and so forth, but we don't know how hot and for how long and for how large an area.

One photo with no date, time or location is not evidence of much about "heat".

How is the timestamp and location of the image determined ?

ETA: Snap !

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photolibrary.fema.gov%2Fphotodata%2Foriginal%2F3946.jpg

New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Firefighters descend into tons of rubble from the collapsed World Trade Center to continue their search for survivors.

Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo

September 17, 2001 7:16:47PM (timezone not specified)

Location ?

dadeets wrote:This is approximately the hotspot location "F" with a surface temperature of 801 deg F.

Thank you. For reference, this image depicts location "F".

She says on pate 272 of her book, "There appears to be a puddle of water at the bottom of the debris-pit., and the people walking through it are obviously not cooked. It simply cannot be 800 deg. F at this location."

I would agree it is not 800 degrees.

What is the response to this from those who maintain the thermal imaging data is correct?

I would want to be sure that the locations are indeed the same. At this point, I'd have to take Dr. Wood's word for it and I freely admit that I'd rather not if it contradicts the thermal imaging. Of course, any additional information which could convincingly place the photo in the midst of the hotspot very close to the time the image was taken would flip my position.

Addendum after femr2's post: I see the date has been established and it is close to the alleged imaging date. So now it is down to location.

And: location includes depth.

OneWhiteEye wrote:For reference, this image depicts location "F".

SE corner of WTC2 then.

Shouldn't be too hard to find what perimeter elements were left over, and when they were removed.

WTC2 SE Corner visible...


The two long core columns look in similar arrangement, but I don't see the deep hole. Could be the right location, but then I'd seriously question the timestamp.

Inconclusive. More checks required.

Figure 50(b) on http:www.drjudywood.com/articles/jj/jj4.html shows what Dr. Wood calls zone 2, the location of the hole.

Yes, exactly the photo femr2 posted above. Spectral-savvy people, isn't 800 fahrenheit a dull, dark red?

Ah, never mind, depends on emissivity of course.

So, there is the surface rubble and a surface measurement, and an adjacent cavity. The smoke is emanating from the rubble pile. The cavity is not so hot 1 to 2 days after. Perhaps the rubble pile was still smoldering at that time. More specific location is required.

Wood is so sloppy with her photos you can't trust her. She shows one on her site

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/ ... g_1479.jpg

and labels it Fulton Street, bit it's the intersection of John and Nassau 2 very short blocks east (800 feet) of the site looking taken looking west toward the site. The dust there appears to be a over 1" thick based on some tire tracks. The location can be verified using Google maps and she's close by off by a block and she certainly could have labeled the exact location.... if she wasn't so lazy and sloopy.

These may help...




This certainly should...


Location: New York, New York Photographer: Michael Rieger
Photo Date: 09/18/2001 ID: 3952
Original filename: ny_wtc_075.jpg

EXIF Data: September 17, 2001 7:04:30PM (timezone not specified)


Given the same camera was used, the two photo's are 12m17s apart.

I'd tentatively put the hole in the shaded region...


Outside the footprint of WTC2.

In the hole seen here (top right)...


When were the thermal images taken ?


Datestamps could still be significantly out.