Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WTC collapse : Not caused by melting steel says U.L.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
evilqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 04:44 PM
Original message
WTC collapse : Not caused by melting steel says U.L.
The collapse of the WTC
by Kevin Ryan
Underwriters Laboratories

Thursday, Nov 11, 2004

Link to Original

The following letter was sent today (Nov. 11, 2004) by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory....
2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofS...
4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php
5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB... (pg 11)
6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

-- For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and http://www.ulc.ca, or contact your local sales representative.
---------

Hmmm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bri_in_austin Donating Member (141 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't get it...
Why would the guy who works for the steel makers send such a complex scientific analysis of the steel in the WTC and then change the subject and start talking about the "real" driving force of the global war on terror. I'm a bit skeptical of this letter.

I am against the war and also am cynical about what really happened on 9/11 and beforehand, but I am more cynical of this letter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. easy answer


The author has made it pretty clear: "My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux."

So, after doing a detailed scientific analysis, he hints at the breathtaking consequences. What's wrong with that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emily Jane Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wow this is scary!
WTF really happened then???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DenverDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thermal physics have never scientifically supported the "official" story.
The temperature of burning aviation fuel does not reach the melting point of structural steel, and would not have burned for long enough to create the kinds of structural failure that occurred, anyway.

Further, the symmetrical collapse of both buildings would not have been achieved by the random impacts of the airplanes and the subsequent fireballs that occurred.

And what explains the symmetrical collapse of WTC 4, a building that was not impacted by an airplane?

Simple logic exposes the massive fallacy of the "offficial" prevarication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. Steel vs Concrete
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, Im sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11...

OK, Mr. Kevin Ryan
you have just pissed off the cement and concrete crowd.
And I hear that their product is frequently used in manufacture of shoes and overcoats for swimmers in the East River.

Their product is the real reason why the Twin Towers were failing in the first place.
HAC (High Alumina Cement) is very very strong -- for a few weeks.
Then heat and humidity and pollution cause it to fall apart.
HAC comes apart when exposed to temperatures of about 300 degrees and water -- from the sprinklers, causes it to disintegrate.

The concrete in the Twin towers was failing
as ALL concrete in the Us is failing.
And somebody had to bring those babies down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Still beating that dead horse?
DD, there was almost no concrete used in the construction of the WTC.

The floors and the stairs (I think) had concrete in them. The building were almost entirely steel above grade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I asked you a question in another thread about this...
I understand if you missed it - it was right before the great "forum lockdown" where we weren't able to post. The thread was Leading Hypotheses for the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and my post is number 30


I am reposting here because I would like to know what I am missing.
repost
In your post (post 29 here), you state that:
<quote>
The steel reinforcement inside concrete is prone to rust.
This reaction is caused by acid rain and ordinary rain
seeping inward via cracks in the outer concrete.
The alumina (or magnesia) in HAC has been known to react with this rust
to cause a thermite reaction.
</quote>
I looked for information about a reaction between alumina and rust, but all I could find was a previous DU thread that had a similar discussion. Everything I found about the thermite reaction has alumina as a product, not a reactant. Where can I find information either on the reaction in question (rust + alumina) or studies about this phenomenon?
end repost


Thanks,
AZCat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
__Inanna__ Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thank you so much for this topic
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 07:12 PM by __Inanna__
It's only in the past week I have had to come to terms with more information I have discovered.

There are a number of things that don't add up about 911. Not only is there the issue of the original post, but there is SO much more. The collapse of WTC7 (which I don't even remember hearing about), the standdown of NORAD, the alleged cell phone calls, and the insider trading which occurred the week before, not to mention the mystery surrounding flight 77. The best site I have found on this is:

http://www.911review.org/index.shtml

In addition, I have listened to two interviews with "experts," one of whom is former military and has written three books on the subject. I have done cross-references on these individuals, as I couldn't believe what I was hearing. One is a former top German military guy (who worked in intelligence for 25 years) and the other is a whistle blower within our own military. If anyone is interested, let me know and I will dig up the links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
__Inanna__ Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. This blows my mind, but I will share it
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 07:15 PM by __Inanna__
Stanley G. Hilton has filed a class action lawsuit in Federal court in Northern California against against high officials in the current Bush administration (including the federal government, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Mueller, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft), for complicity in aiding and abetting and facilitating the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks.

http://www.911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtm...

P.S. This guy is Bob Dole's former chief of staff and a lawyer out of SF.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. oh please not Hilton again
Hilton was a staffer for Dole for a couple years two decades ago. He's hardly a big "Washington Insider."


May I interest you in a bridge???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RebelYell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Please read this about Hilton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
10. I can only draw two conclusions after reading this letter
and the NIST materials it references.

1. The author is clueless about what he is reading.

or

2 The author purposefully misrepresents the information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-04 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
13. Fired?
Edited on Wed Nov-17-04 04:43 AM by John Doe II
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impe Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-04 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. They certainly


didn't waste anytime. I wonder what chumped up charges they'll come up with against him. Using UL letterhead probably. This man is a hero....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaLynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-23-04 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Yep, he was fired ...
Here's a link to the article that appeared in my local newspaper. I can't believe they even reported on it because it's such a conservative newspaper.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2004/11/22/loca...

Area man stirs debate on WTC collapse

South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe

SOUTH BEND -- The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

Kevin R. Ryan was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing giant.

On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- the agency probing the collapse -- challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.

<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC