The 9/11 Forum

femr2 wrote:The object being picked up is above 82C.

I will take this as an assumption.

I will also take as an assumption that the Hutchison Effect wasn't at play, in particular, the characteristic of Metal Luminance Without Heat.

dadeets wrote:

femr2 wrote:The object being picked up is above 82C.

I will take this as an assumption.

Probably a pretty good one.

I will also take as an assumption that the Hutchison Effect wasn't at play, in particular, the characteristic of Metal Luminance Without Heat.

A characteristic which, as best as I can tell, resides only in the imagination of those promoting this effect. I'd never heard of it - except in relation to Judy Wood which meant I was not interested - so I decided to look it up and, within two clicks, found myself at Judy Wood's site. Eager to find information explaining this effect and the notion of metal luminance without heat, I looked. What I found was "Cheeto" picture (luminance without heat). Which is simply two versions of the same picture we're discussing here, an apparently ripped off reference to the 82 degree limitation of the hydraulics (also mentioned here), and two pictures of another scene taken at slightly different times.

Needless to say, hardly the explanation I sought!

The last two pictures are this one (Figure 33) which bears the caption "Why isn't the paper on fire?" and another which shows the same scene in closer detail (Figure 34). Now, this is kind of funny because the second picture shows what is burning in both pictures - PAPER! So, to make it perfectly clear, the answer to the question "Why isn't the paper on fire?" is...

...get ready for this...

The paper IS on fire.

Wow.

So, how about the caption for the second picture? "Why is this firefighter choosing to walk though the fire instead of around it? Isn't he concerned with catching his pants on fire or getting something hot poking up into him?"

Well, first off, I think there are more parsimonious explanations than the flames you see with your own lying eyes are not flames. Dr. Wood actually doesn't offer an explanation, best as I can tell, but I have to assume this is the notion being suggested (damn lying eyes, that is). Far simpler explanations are:

- the firefighter is stupid
- the firefighter is crazy
and my favorite, of course...
- the firefighter is NOT walking through the fire!

He has one foot directly adjacent to flames, yes. But he most certainly is not walking through the fire, nor does it appear his chosen path will take him through it.

"Isn't he concerned with catching his pants on fire..."

Those would be flame retardant pants so probably not.

"...or getting something hot poking up into him?"

That's just salacious. Frankly I wouldn't be concerned walking the same path with regular street clothes, unless they were soaked in gasoline. There's nothing hot to "poke up into him", there is a small PAPER fire burning next to one foot.

The major problem here is not that, once again, the displayed observational skills are extremely poor. The problem is there is absolutely no case made for why these photos show anything other than what they appear to show, and no explanation for why an outlandish set of theories is being invoked to explain the mundane. No explanation of luminance without heat. It is as if the pictures offered are the only proof of the phenomena, here or anywhere.

Perhaps you can point me to something independent of these pictures to support the notion that such an effect actually exists, then we could discuss whether it applies to the glowing object being picked up by the machinery.

As to the 82 degree figure, I don't think anyone questions why the mechanism would fail if operated above its design temperature limits. But nothing has been done to establish that an extremely hot piece picked up in the jaws would necessarily result in the hydraulic fluid being heated to the point of failing seals. Surely, if the machine were picking up pieces like that for an extended time, the fluid would be heated and might eventually reach failure temperatures. Perhaps it did fail. Perhaps it failed shortly after the picture was taken. Guess we don't know the answer to that, do we?

Talk about assumptions.

Hi dadeets,

Googling "excavator burning materials" pulls up tons of pages that describe the necessity of a hydraulic excavator in firefighting and in handling burning materials in controlled fires. Here is a how-to guide from the U.S. government on tire fires that gives a lot of details on how to use an excavator to pick up burning materials, etc. http://sageauthoring.com/nfa/hazmat/tr093.pdf

None of these links say anything about the 82C temperature or even suggest failure of the hydraulic mechanism when used to pick up burning things.

Also hydraulic equipment is used in foundries (via google). So why would we assume that an apparently working excavator with an apparently hot thing shouldn't be working and thus not a hot thing?

I'm sorry to adopt this brusque, debunker-like tone in discussing this subject, it's just that I find it hard not to. I mean, my god, the paper is on fire!

How many wrong-as-wrong-can-be examples need to be trotted out before the point is taken?

Besides, there is a matter of many CTers hovering around the idea that the piles exhibited anomalous heating. At this stage, I've seen no convincing argument that this is true. It's not like the mouthpieces of officialdom are saying it was "unusually hot" though there are plenty of accounts indicating that it was indeed hot on and in the pile. You don't suppose one or more firefighters noticed that there were flames about but no heat emanating from them?

Goodness, look at the picture of the mechanical claw again; notice all the smoke and/or steam rising all around the environment? Could that be from... heat? Notice how far away the "exposed hydraulics" are from the "Cheeto" which has just been lifted from the debris? How long it would take at that distance to heat the hydraulics to failure via radiative heating I don't know, but it might actually never happen if the claw was working all day with that stuff.

It's like I said in the other thread where Judy Wood came up: she is a tool for the suppression of legitimate inquiry. People who suspect or believe a conspiracy is afoot do themselves a profound disservice by being snookered by this stuff.

Edit: with Melville's post, I see there is also some doubt as to whether 82 C is a meaningful operating limit after all. Melville's final question puts the rubber to the pavement.

So far I'm seven pages into this 31 page PDF which promises to be a gushingly positive report on John Hutchison and his work. So far, nada about the alleged subject matter. The author is much more keen on talking about himself than Hutchison.

Life's too short. If the main topic can't even be approached vaguely within the first 20% of a document (I still don't know WTF the Hutchison effect is), the clock has run out. No more time for madness.

OneWhiteEye wrote: Edit: with Melville's post, I see there is also some doubt as to whether 82 C is a meaningful operating limit after all. Melville's final question puts the rubber to the pavement.

Also, just for the record, we don't know what happened right after that picture was taken. Even it were true that excavators can't handle very hot material, it is possible that right after moment the hydraulics gave out. I doubt it, though, "The paper is on fire"--I think the situation is what it appears to be.

I also tried reading that pdf late last night--and couldn't really glean what the "classic Hutchison effect" is all about either before falling asleep.

femr2 wrote: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.

I'm puzzled by the lat-long values of Location F. Table 1 of http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html gives:

N Latitude 40d 42m 40.58s (40.711272)
W Longitude 74d 00m 46.70s (74.012972)
(my conversions to decimal format.)

This figure shows that location on today's Google Earth. It is to the north of where the WTC 2 base outline is located. This is approximately the same distance north of WTC 2 as the hole in question.

I take part of that back. The hole in question is about the same distance to the east of WTC 2 as Location F is to the north of WTC 2.

Dwain, you could have asked Justin, he knows a lot about the thermal images.

AFAIK, the NASA data reflects surface temperatures. Why is Judy looking for evidence of surface temperatures in the basement?

"Because AVIRIS measures reflected sunlight, it generally cannot detect materials deeper than can be seen with the human eye. For most solid materials this optical penetration is measured in millimeters."

ACS 919, pg. 68