|
 17 Nov 2004 @ 23:30, by Flemming Funch
Until two days ago Kevin Ryan was head of the Environmental Health Laboratory Div. of Underwriter's Laboratory. That is the lab that originally had certified the steel that the World Trade Center was built with. He had recently written a memo to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology questioning that the steel had failed in the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses due to the burning jet fuel. I'll include his memo below. He simply points out that the information doesn't match what his lab knew about the steel, and that the official reports are based on ideas that have nothing to do with the known laws of physics. I.e. the possible temperatures of burning fuel and the temperatures at which steel might possibly be softened. That has been mentioned before, of course, but experts in the right positions have stayed strangely quiet. So I guess this guy needed to be shut up too. Doesn't sound like he'll be very quiet, though.
Various comments and info here and an article here
From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov
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. [link]
2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
3. [link]
4. [link]
5. [link] (pg 11)
6. [link]
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
South Bend
|
|
Category: Housing, Building, Architecture
8 comments
18 Nov 2004 @ 00:38 by mmmark : Bolts
The PBS documentary revealed that the use of 3/4" bolts hold the steel joists in place were up to the task even of the steel was up to code.
18 Nov 2004 @ 03:04 by ming : Bolts
That the bolts were *not* up to code, even if the steel itself were?
See, that's the kind of thing that might actually explain it, without conspiracies. But not as long as the official explanation still is that the heat from burning fuel melted the supporting beams.
18 Nov 2004 @ 03:30 by bushman : Another Therory not talked about.
Is, that under the WTC's towers was the subway system, also the towers were built around a central core suport system, the central core was basicly hollow fuel ran down the core, and acted like a blast furnace in a way, like the flu of a chiminey, the fire could of been hot enough to melt the steel. If they had drop down doors at the subway platforms, that sealed off air flow from the bottom, the fires would of starved and never got hot enough.
18 Nov 2004 @ 11:20 by ming : Fire
That just doesn't fit with the physics of burning fuel. Yes, one found, several months later, a lot of molten steel in the foundation. Which couldn't really have been caused by burning fuel, however much oxygen it had.
But if nobody had thought about the bolts that held the whole thing together, and the bolts melted at a different temperature, that could be a reasonable explanation. I haven't seen anything on that.
The buildings were built to high standards of being able to withstand even extreme events. It could entirely be possible that the standards were wrong, and one had discovered conditions that would be catastrophic. But the very suspicious thing is that they didn't. If the norms were wrong, somebody should be rewriting the text books. Just like when a bridge unexpectedly fell down because it started swinging at a certain frequency in certain types of wind. One had to revise the rules of building bridges, and the mistake wouldn't have to be made again. So far nobody has pointed out any mistake in the construction of the WTC that would add up to revising the methods it was constructed with.
18 Nov 2004 @ 18:31 by Chris Hagglund @64.26.167.173 : Thermite
One thing that will melt steel like that and smolder with white smoke like the remains did is something called thermite. It is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum dust, and it burns hot like hell. If this material had been strategically placed on the supports of the building it would have resulted in their collapse. This stuff also doesnt ignite easily, but burning jet fuel would probably set it off. Scary stuff, but it fits with what has been observed. This page is themed along these lines: [link]
28 Nov 2004 @ 19:24 by bushman : Explosions,
in the lower levels below the street. I found this today.
[link]
16 Aug 2006 @ 09:45 by Bill Heimiller @72.193.202.86 : WTF on WTC steel letter...
WTF???:
'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". '
Maybe this guy's letter should get him fired.
Why didn't he just email Gayle with his questions instead of suggesting so much? He goes on about emotions and 9/11, and suggests Gayle may be spreading disinformation. Ryan's points/questions seem valid, which make his letter that much more tragically nulled, to an extent. Maybe he should've kept it short, AND consulted his boss before he sent it.
Maybe Ryan felt responsible himself, as his company certified the steel that the NIST said failed.
One thing is sure though, the NIST should provide an acceptable answer to Ryan's questions.
16 Dec 2006 @ 22:16 by Gregg Roberts @66.69.204.254 : Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?
If you’ve ever wondered why there aren’t (or don’t seem to be) more whistleblowers — particularly, ANY with true inside-the-plot knowledge — I have written a scholarly essay about it:
[link]
Gregg Roberts
Associate Editor
[link]
[link]
Other entries in Housing, Building, Architecture
13 Jun 2006 @ 10:37: Roofs and Ceilings
16 May 2006 @ 10:35: American Architecture
23 Feb 2006 @ 11:11: Ionic Equation
31 Jan 2006 @ 13:08: The Wearable Home
1 Nov 2005 @ 15:52: Buy an underground city
25 Oct 2005 @ 23:03: New Orleans Arcology
15 Apr 2003 @ 04:07: ideas please
29 Jan 2002 @ 12:52: Transparent concrete
6 Oct 2001 @ 05:02: Underground Living
|
