The 9/11 Forum

Is the hole seen just above the roof of the WFC and what appears as north of Deutchebank?

dadeets wrote: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.

The location is likely well outside the WTC2 footprint.

How is the thermal image timestamp confirmed ?

That location was being hosed.

I don't think it too surprising that a tentative week later that that location had cooled.

This is approximately the hotspot location "F"

Not a good location match.

There appears to be a puddle of water at the bottom of the debris-pit

Sure. It had been hosed for possibly up to a week.

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

I don't maintain ought about the thermal imaging validity (which requires careful interpretation as hinted at by OWE)...but...

It's not at location F. It's not in the WTC2 basement. It's a week or so later (tentatively).

I don't see too much of an issue.

femr2 wrote:It's a week or so later (tentatively).

I don't follow where this "week or so" comes from. The AVIRIS data is from Sept. 16, is it not? The photo image was taken Sept. 17 (with caption reading Sept. 18).

dadeets wrote:

femr2 wrote:It's a week or so later (tentatively).

I don't follow where this "week or so" comes from. The AVIRIS data is from Sept. 16, is it not? The photo image was taken Sept. 17 (with caption reading Sept. 18).

A week or so after the event, not the AVIRIS data.

Where was the date of the AVIRIS data confirmed ?

(And we haven't fully confirmed the dte of the photograph, but I'll accept it's near the EXIF timestamp)

Do you accept the other points...

It's not at location F.
It's not in the WTC2 basement.
It had been hosed for possibly up to a week.

femr2 wrote:Do you accept the other points...

It's not at location F.

Yes, I said, "approximately location F." I don't know how far away from location F a worker must be to not be affected by that extreme heat.

It's not in the WTC2 basement.

It looks to me like it boarders on WTC2 basement, extending from there to the edge of WTC4.

It had been hosed for possibly up to a week.

No argument there. Don't know what it has to do with anything, other than the hosing between 9/16 and 9/17.

AVIRIS image from September 16, 2001. Hot spots show as orange and yellow areas. Yellow is hotter than red (because of color mixing in the way the 3-color image was produced).



AVIRIS image from September 23, 2001. Only a couple of hot spots remain in view.



Hotspot 3 - 800C - Label F is cooler than that.


A few days later the F region is cool.

I'd put the photo in the region arount the red arrow...


I wouldn't expect that area to be especially hot.

Given the cooling in the other image I wouldn't see why there's an issue with the site cooling.

Stellar work (as usual), femr2. And fast.

Deep hole.

Some perspective

Let's move to another item of evidence. The grappler lifting the hot slag.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4509/hotslagil3.jpg

Those promoting the extreme temperatures cite it as evidence of molten metal.

Dr. Judy Wood cites it as evidence of the other kind. She argues the hydraulic cylinder on the arm of the equipment can not function above 82 deg C. (180 F) because seal compounds would be damage, leakage would occur, and viscosity of the hydraulic fluid become problematic.

I have questions myself of how to analyze the heat transfer up the load into the steel parts of the grappler.

dadeets wrote:Let's move to another item of evidence.

Do you accept that your first point has been shown to be inert ?

The grappler lifting the hot slag.

Slag ?

It's something hot. Very hot.

She argues the hydraulic cylinder on the arm of the equipment can not function above 82 deg C. (180 F) because seal compounds would be damage, leakage would occur, and viscosity of the hydraulic fluid become problematic.

Irrelevant. Whatever is being lifted is clearly above that temperature, therefore making whatever her point is moot.

I have questions myself of how to analyze the heat transfer up the load into the steel parts of the grappler.

Irrelevant. The object is clearly itself above 82C.

Next.

femr2 wrote:Do you accept that your first point has been shown to be inert ?

If this were the only item of evidence pertaining to the issue, I would agree the distance between the two locations is sufficient to make the argument unpersuasive. But there are several other items of evidence yet to consider. Taken together, they may not be inert.

Slag ?

It's something hot. Very hot.

That is the matter up for discussion. Was it very hot, or not? You would be correct to say it appears very yellow, or white.

dadeets wrote:I would agree the distance between the two locations is sufficient to make the argument unpersuasive. But there are several other items of evidence yet to consider. Taken together, they may not be inert.

...

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."

It's not 800F there, and not expected to be.
She's wrong about the location of the photo.
Her point about the temperature at that location using that photo is moot.


These are the specific elements you need to state acceptance of before we move on.

Slag ?

It's something hot. Very hot.

That is the matter up for discussion. Was it very hot, or not? You would be correct to say it appears very yellow, or white.

It's glowing. Even if it's very thin and not metal, it's above 82C.

The argument about the claw not being able to pick it up because of temperature range limitations is nonsense.

I suggest you move on.

femr2 wrote:
The argument about the claw not being able to pick it up because of temperature range limitations is nonsense.

Are you saying the hydraulic cylinder can operate above 82 C, or that the hydraulic cylinder is at a lower temperature than 82 C?

dadeets wrote:

femr2 wrote:
The argument about the claw not being able to pick it up because of temperature range limitations is nonsense.

Are you saying the hydraulic cylinder can operate above 82 C, or that the hydraulic cylinder is at a lower temperature than 82 C?

Either, or. Doesn't matter.

It's working.

The object being picked up is above 82C.

Either way her issue with such is moot.

There's little way to clarify what the glowing object is. Could be metal, could be very thin. Matters not.

The object is above 82C, and the grab hook is working.

I suggest moving on. So far I'm less than impressed.

Bits of ground zero were hot. Bits were cooler. I have heaps of pre-release trace data for you to trawl through so that you can learn what motion the buildings experienced prior to them coming down.

Your *next point of evidence* ?

Make it a good one ?