UL Says NO WAY WTC
Steel Could Melt At 2000 F
UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
911Truth.org
11-14-4
"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused
by pools of burning jet fuel."
From Kevin R. Ryan
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories
South Bend, Indiana
(Company site - www.ehl.cc)
A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
(Company site - www.ul.com)
To Frank Gayle
Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division
Material Science and Engineering Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NIST and the World Trade Center at wtc.nist.gov
Dr. Gayle biography wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle
From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To:
Date: 11/11/2004
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 above 1100C (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.html
2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php
5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg
11)
6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
[Note: The letter is followed in the e-mail by a standard UL message
footer]
-- 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.
November 12:
An executive of the company that certified the steel used in the
construction of the World Trade Center has questioned the common
theory that fuel fires caused its collapse, in a letter yesterday to
the head of the government team that has spent two years studying how
the trade center was built and why it fell.
The author of the letter, Kevin Ryan, is site manager at Environmental
Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a division of Underwriters
Laboratories, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL
certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, its
performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company.
Ryan sent his letter to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy
Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
He later forwarded it in an e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of the
New Pearl Harbor, and Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the
911Truth.org board.
Griffin asked for and received permission to forward the letter for
Web distribution. 911Truth.org called Ryan today to confirm his
authorship.
The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the steel in
the towers tested up to its certified standard (i.e., it should have
easily withstood the fuel fires without buckling).
A chemist by profession, Ryan said he is acting in the hope of
receiving a public response from Gayle. Given the impact of September
11 on events around the world, Ryan said, everyone needs to know the
full truth of what really happened on that day. He added that he
considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person.
A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapse is
due in January.
The New York Times reports today that the NIST team is planning to
hold some of its deliberations in secret. "The announcement has been
sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who
said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the
meetings to the public," the Times writes.
As the Times notes, the NIST investigation was started in 2002 after
lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an
organization created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of
whom lost family on September 11.
Gabrielle told the Times that NIST should have "one job, and one job
only - to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and
to report to the public about it. You don't owe industry, the Port
Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public - the
truth, no matter where it goes." (See www.nytimes.com)
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451 -
911Truth.org (nl)
Comment
From Andrea
11-14-4
On seeing this research from UL, I am pushing for transparent*, fully
public meetings/hearings on the structure/physical evidence related to
the deterioration of the towers into their foundations -these meetings
conducted by the NIST, the gov division under the DeptCommerce, under
the Executive Branch, aka - "The White House".
Rather than be immutable or mysterious about this research on the
(Bethlehem Steel produced) steel in the towers, I found this important
information to those who have the interest to understand the truth
about what happened at the WTC on 9/11/01.
I owned stock in Bethlehem Steel before it was driven into bankruptcy
and liquidated. I knew it had made the i-beams and girders for the
WTC, and found it annoying when the under-informed would attempt to
convince me that we dont/didnt even make steel strong enough to
support construction like the towers, and that steel strong enough for
construction like the WTC comes/came from Japan. Au contraire! A look
at the remaining steel while at the site also speaks otherwise.
This government is to answer to the American people. I see no reason
for secrecy when the people in the government are looking for
'transparency' from everything else. Our privacy is under invasion and
the government wants opaque secrecy?
.
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: No way WTC steel could melt at 2000F ? |
18 Nov 2004 05:58:27 AM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd3256f0.0411171119.55c1887a@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<cnf8gr$7jl$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd3256f0.0411161501.625bdfdc@posting.google.com...
Zak@home.ca wrote in message
news:<v0eep0ppebquqgudgdrfkmsct71nrgrfoo@4ax.com>...
UL Says NO WAY WTC
Steel Could Melt At 2000 F
UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
911Truth.org
No but the fittings could mr. Chumpy-dumty ;)
You really are an idiot. What "fittings" do you believe melted which the
caused the WTC collapse? I never have so many laughs than when you try
to
get all scientific.. want to explain how DU rounds work again? :-)
was this addressed to a fuckshit like ya? ;)
Do you understand what a "fitting" is? Fittings are things like door handle,
light sockets - decorative rather than structural in other words.
anyway,
nope already did, and it was from the US army website so I know I was
not wrong.
*ahem* Oh, please cite the link, and I'll happily tell them just how wrong
they were:
I'll do it with yuou post on the subject in the meantime:
Depleted Uranium is often referred to as a heat round
Mistake number 1. DU is NEVER referreed to as a heat round. HEAT means "High
Explosive anti tank". A DU shell contains no high explosive.
because of itspecial ability to penetrated hardened metals that otherwise
normal
rounds do not (Could not) penetrate. (reason it is referred to as a
heat round) The reason they are used is that when striking the outer
layer of the metal of the enemy vehicle the DU heats up to incredible
temperatures and melts the mettle allowing for the rest of the shell
body to penetrate the armor.
Mistake number 2 - DU does not "melt" it's way through the armour anymore
than a dart melts its way through a dartboard. It relies on kinetic energy
to penetrate, which is why DU is chosen in the first place. Greater density
= greater kinetic energy for the same velocity.
IOW you don't have a fucking clue..
But coming from you a fuckin' terrorist supporting
crapshit, I see your style is well laid up in their agenda by changing
the subject ;)
I predict you don't address the subject above in whatever obscenity-laden
post you follow this up with..
his is a piece of crap
and has to do with lawsuits and big pay-off money. Buildings that high
do not stand when jet liners sever them with full payloads of jet
fuel. ;)
Sheesh.. look up the word "payload" you gibbering simpleton, then
understand
why no one outside the Jet-A transportation industry would refer to fuel
as
a "payload".
From the terrorist perspective the weapons were the planes and
payloads (full tanks) have been used in context you fucking crap-*****
terrorist supporting *****-head; ;) but, you wouldn't know that being a
terrorist crap-***** worshiper would you ***** head?
Does anyone have a moron-English dictionary handy? Or is this just another
Mikey meltdown?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: No way WTC steel could melt at 2000F ? |
24 Nov 2004 03:46:55 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<cni2i7$l02$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
anyway,
nope already did, and it was from the US army website so I know I was
not wrong.
*ahem* Oh, please cite the link, and I'll happily tell them just how wrong
they were:
BWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAW AWAW AW AW AW A WA WA WA WAWA WAWA WA WA ;)
Kook ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: No way WTC steel could melt at 2000F ? |
25 Nov 2004 03:34:41 AM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd3256f0.0411241346.c37d8b2@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<cni2i7$l02$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
anyway,
nope already did, and it was from the US army website so I know I was
not wrong.
*ahem* Oh, please cite the link, and I'll happily tell them just how
wrong
they were:
BWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAW AWAW AW AW AW A WA WA WA WAWA WAWA WA WA ;)
Kook ;)
I'll do it with yuou post on the subject in the meantime:
Depleted Uranium is often referred to as a heat round
Mistake number 1. DU is NEVER referreed to as a heat round. HEAT means "High
Explosive anti tank". A DU shell contains no high explosive.
because of itspecial ability to penetrated hardened metals that otherwise
normal
rounds do not (Could not) penetrate. (reason it is referred to as a
heat round) The reason they are used is that when striking the outer
layer of the metal of the enemy vehicle the DU heats up to incredible
temperatures and melts the mettle allowing for the rest of the shell
body to penetrate the armor.
Mistake number 2 - DU does not "melt" it's way through the armour anymore
than a dart melts its way through a dartboard. It relies on kinetic energy
to penetrate, which is why DU is chosen in the first place. Greater density
= greater kinetic energy for the same velocity.
IOW you don't have a fucking clue..
But coming from you a fuckin' terrorist supporting
crapshit, I see your style is well laid up in their agenda by changing
the subject ;)
I predict you don't address the subject above in whatever obscenity-laden
post you follow this up with..
his is a piece of crap
and has to do with lawsuits and big pay-off money. Buildings that high
do not stand when jet liners sever them with full payloads of jet
fuel. ;)
Sheesh.. look up the word "payload" you gibbering simpleton, then
understand
why no one outside the Jet-A transportation industry would refer to fuel
as
a "payload".
From the terrorist perspective the weapons were the planes and
payloads (full tanks) have been used in context you fucking crap-*****
terrorist supporting *****-head; ;) but, you wouldn't know that being a
terrorist crap-***** worshiper would you ***** head?
Does anyone have a moron-English dictionary handy? Or is this just another
Mikey meltdown?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leigh_Bee" |
|
| Title: Re: No way WTC steel could melt at 2000F ? |
14 Nov 2004 05:05:59 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<v0eep0ppebquqgudgdrfkmsct71nrgrfoo@4ax.com>...
UL Says NO WAY WTC
Steel Could Melt At 2000 F
UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
911Truth.org
11-14-4
"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused
by pools of burning jet fuel."
This government is to answer to the American people. I see no
reason
for secrecy when the people in the government are looking for
'transparency' from everything else. Our privacy is under invasion and
the government wants opaque secrecy?
Perhaps you also consider the weight of the building, the 1000's of
litres of fuel and of course the shock of impact.
You saw it with your own eyes and twice!
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kim M" |
|
| Title: Re: No way WTC steel could melt at 2000F ? |
24 Nov 2004 12:04:45 AM |
|
|
Its interesting that you have picked up on this, Discovery Channel
Canada has mentioned on one of its documentaries of the "Fall Of The
World Trade Center" that although the 'steel' could withstand these
temperatures, the 'fuel' laden 'fire retardant' material on the Upper
Floors could not (due to changes in the Building Standards during the
construction of the building)!!!
Therefore "Burning at 2000 degrees" has to be considered a valid
interpretation.
My only question is what Quatrain stated "Burning at 2000 degrees"
???
--
Just A Thought !!!
Wait, I'm receiving another transmission from the great beyond.
Wouldn't you know it,
it was a 'Wrong Number' :-(
"Leigh_Bee" <leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:39cd5fe.0411141505.5ffb3139@posting.google.com...
Zak@home.ca wrote in message
news:<v0eep0ppebquqgudgdrfkmsct71nrgrfoo@4ax.com>...
UL Says NO WAY WTC
Steel Could Melt At 2000 F
UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
911Truth.org
11-14-4
"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress
caused
by pools of burning jet fuel."
This government is to answer to the American people. I see no
reason
for secrecy when the people in the government are looking for
'transparency' from everything else. Our privacy is under
invasion and
the government wants opaque secrecy?
Perhaps you also consider the weight of the building, the 1000's of
litres of fuel and of course the shock of impact.
You saw it with your own eyes and twice!
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Never anonymous Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: No way WTC steel could melt at 2000F ? |
24 Nov 2004 01:02:43 AM |
|
|
Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "Kim M" <MILLER#K,2@sympatico.ca> on Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:04:45 -0500 spoke:
Therefore "Burning at 2000 degrees" has to be considered a valid
interpretation.
Not of any quatrain.
My only question is what Quatrain stated "Burning at 2000 degrees"
???
Not a single one.
--
To reply by email, remove the XYZ.
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: No way WTC steel could melt at 2000F ? |
24 Nov 2004 07:13:57 AM |
|
|
Never anonymous Bud
wrote:
Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "Kim M" <MILLER#K,2@sympatico.ca>
on Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:04:45 -0500 spoke:
Therefore "Burning at 2000 degrees" >>has to be considered a valid
interpretation.
Not of any quatrain.
You need to direct this at your friends who NEVER post on topic.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: No way WTC steel could melt at 2000F ? |
14 Nov 2004 05:47:27 PM |
|
|
Leigh_Bee a écrit:
Zak@home.ca wrote in message news:<v0eep0ppebquqgudgdrfkmsct71nrgrfoo@4ax.com>...
UL Says NO WAY WTC
Steel Could Melt At 2000 F
UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
911Truth.org
11-14-4
"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused
by pools of burning jet fuel."
This government is to answer to the American people. I see no
reason
for secrecy when the people in the government are looking for
'transparency' from everything else. Our privacy is under invasion and
the government wants opaque secrecy?
Perhaps you also consider the weight of the building, the 1000's of
litres of fuel and of course the shock of impact.
You saw it with your own eyes and twice!
LB
Especially that it has been explained by engineers, that once the floors
started to fall one on each others it was unstoppable because of the
weight. Even though the culprit himself said he didn't expect this, he
was glad it happened that way, didn't question one second someone else
had anything to do with it. How could he anyway, no one else knew about
it. http://www.michelnostradamus.org/multimedia/osamatape.rm
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: No way WTC steel could melt at 2000F ? |
18 Nov 2004 02:32:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
UL Says NO WAY WTC
Steel Could Melt At 2000 F
UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
911Truth.org
11-14-4
Codswallop.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
