YA 9/11 Thread, but this time with new stuff

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,503
20,105
146
Putting an end to the "UL certified steel" nonsense:

Kevin R. Ryan Terminated at Underwriters Laboratories
Area Man Stirs Debate on WTC Collapse:
South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe
JOHN DOBBERSTEIN / South Bend Tribune 22nov04


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.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., according to Ryan, "was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings."

Ryan wrote that last year, while "requesting information," UL's chief executive officer and fire protection business manager disagreed about key issues surrounding the collapse, "except for one thing ? that the samples we certified met all requirements."

UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is conducting a $16 million, two-year investigation of the collapse of the twin towers. The agency expects to issue a draft report in January, and UL has played a limited role in the investigation.

Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees ? only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "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."

He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees) 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."

Ryan declined to comment about his letter Thursday when reached at his South Bend home.

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

Seeking to head off controversy just months before its report is released, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued its own statement Thursday.

Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires.

The institute believes impact from the jets dislodged fireproofing surrounding some of the steel, and the higher temperatures led to the buckling of the towers' core columns.

Wrangling on the Web

Ryan's statements have generated interest on many Web sites, including some advocating sharp scrutiny of the federal government's WTC probe.

Ryan copied his e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of "The New Pearl Harbor," and to Catherine Austin Fitts, a board member of 911Truth.org ? a Web site organized by citizens who believe the government is covering up the true cause of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

One day later, Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties.

An official from 911Truth.org called Ryan to confirm his authorship. They said Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but that others at UL were aware of his action.

The letter was published Nov. 11 on the Web site septembereleventh.org, site of the 9/11 Visibility Project. On Tuesday, organizers of the 911Truth.org Web site noted Ryan had been fired.

In his letter, Ryan appeared confident in his statements about the WTC's fire protection levels.

"You may know that there are a number of current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth," he told the institute's Gayle. "Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

UL moved immediately to discredit Ryan.

The company said Ryan "was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with UL's Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request."

The company said it "fully supports NIST's ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryan's letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victims' families and their friends."

"We prefer to base our conclusions, and NIST would say the same, on science rather than speculation," Baker said. "We anxiously await the outcome of the NIST investigation."

Organizers of 911Truth.org came to Ryan's defense Thursday, although they couldn't persuade him to speak publicly.

"He just saw too many contradictions, and it set off his sense of what was the right thing to do," said David Kubiak, 911Truth.org's executive director. "It's unfortunate for the country, and it's particularly tragic for him, but inspiring as hell."

"The way things are working in the country right now," Kubiak added, "it's only going to be citizens like this who take their professional knowledge and sense of personal integrity, and put it ahead of the strange status quo, that we will see truth and justice out of the system."

Staff writer John Dobberstein: jdobberstein@sbtinfo.com (574) 235-6187

source: http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories...0041122-sbt-FULL-A1-Area_man_stirs.sto 26nov04
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,503
20,105
146
Let's debunk the "melted steel" nonsense that so many CT's base their arguments on from a real expert:

"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat."

What happens when you lose 50-90% of the strength in structural support beams with 12-30 floors above them? Total collapse.

To argue otherwise is shear lunacy.

Now, let's look at REAL experiments done with actual materials used in the WTC and conditions repeated:

http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/co...display.cfm/seqnumber_content/1753.htm

As we can see here, the recreated floors began to sag after only one hour... and this is with fireproofing still intact.
 

Cygnus X1

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
812
0
71
Better get rid of your wood burning stoves if fire is now melting steel.:roll: Take the time to open your mind. The official story is one big CT and people in fear will allways attack the messenger. Don't be affraid. :)
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Big difference between melting and softening.

Stress has a big factor on the result.
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Better get rid of your wood burning stoves if fire is now melting steel.:roll: Take the time to open your mind. The official story is one big CT and people in fear will allways attack the messenger. Don't be affraid. :)
You are so dense.
 

Cygnus X1

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
812
0
71
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Better get rid of your wood burning stoves if fire is now melting steel.:roll: Take the time to open your mind. The official story is one big CT and people in fear will allways attack the messenger. Don't be affraid. :)
You are so dense.

That's what im talking about. Stop getting angry at us truthers and debate us.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Better get rid of your wood burning stoves if fire is now melting steel.:roll: Take the time to open your mind. The official story is one big CT and people in fear will allways attack the messenger. Don't be affraid. :)
You are so dense.

That's what im talking about. Stop getting angry at us truthers and debate us.

I don't get angry. I just laugh at you.

Big difference between a wood burning stove that probably doesn't even reach 200 degrees and the structure of the WTC that was damaged by a 757 hitting it at 500+ mph and had a fire raging in 1000-2000 degree temps inside.

Your comparison is laughable on its face.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Better get rid of your wood burning stoves if fire is now melting steel.:roll: Take the time to open your mind. The official story is one big CT and people in fear will allways attack the messenger. Don't be affraid. :)
You are so dense.

That's what im talking about. Stop getting angry at us truthers and debate us.

I don't get angry. I just laugh at you.

Big difference between a wood burning stove that probably doesn't even reach 200 degrees and the structure of the WTC that was damaged by a 757 hitting it at 500+ mph and had a fire raging in 1000-2000 degree temps inside.

Your comparison is laughable on its face.

a wood burning stove will reach more than 200 but no where near 1000, hell maybe more like 400 max.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Better get rid of your wood burning stoves if fire is now melting steel.:roll: Take the time to open your mind. The official story is one big CT and people in fear will allways attack the messenger. Don't be affraid. :)
You are so dense.

That's what im talking about. Stop getting angry at us truthers and debate us.

I don't get angry. I just laugh at you.

Big difference between a wood burning stove that probably doesn't even reach 200 degrees and the structure of the WTC that was damaged by a 757 hitting it at 500+ mph and had a fire raging in 1000-2000 degree temps inside.

Your comparison is laughable on its face.

a wood burning stove will reach more than 200 but no where near 1000, hell maybe more like 400 max.

Yeah you're right. I'm not big into cooking. :) Gas/Electric stoves get up to 400-450 so wood burning stoves probably get up around there. Still...no where near the conditions inside the WTC towers.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Better get rid of your wood burning stoves if fire is now melting steel.:roll: Take the time to open your mind. The official story is one big CT and people in fear will allways attack the messenger. Don't be affraid. :)

It didnt melt it, you're stupid for claiming that any agency officially claimed it did. The steel was softened enough to cause a progressive collapse.
 

murban135

Platinum Member
Apr 7, 2003
2,747
0
0
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Better get rid of your wood burning stoves if fire is now melting steel.:roll: Take the time to open your mind. The official story is one big CT and people in fear will allways attack the messenger. Don't be affraid. :)
You are so dense.

That's what im talking about. Stop getting angry at us truthers and debate us.

OK, debate this:

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Better get rid of your wood burning stoves if fire is now melting steel.:roll: Take the time to open your mind. The official story is one big CT and people in fear will allways attack the messenger. Don't be affraid. :)

The problem is you are simplistic and idealistic without knowing anything about 'research'. You are going after so called 'research' that is half assed and written by children.
You already made up your mind. Then you call us close minded. The same close minded people that believe in expert witnesses, real scholars that have an expertise in the subject, and real math.

You aren't doing anything to help. Chiming in on a thread and saying "be open minded", but don't look at these facts.
Can you refute anything said in the topic? I understand you know nothing about aircraft, structures, physics.
How can you possibly plead for someone else to read what you agree with? When you know nothing about it? Especially for something this serious.
C'mon. Every single one of you guys point out the b25 crash some years ago. If you knew what MTOW was and how it differed from a cheeseburger, you might think twice about bringing stupid things up.
The wood stove analogy? uneducated at the very best.
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Better get rid of your wood burning stoves if fire is now melting steel.:roll: Take the time to open your mind. The official story is one big CT and people in fear will allways attack the messenger. Don't be affraid. :)

The problem is you are simplistic and idealistic without knowing anything about 'research'. You are going after so called 'research' that is half assed and written by children.
You already made up your mind. Then you call us close minded. The same close minded people that believe in expert witnesses, real scholars that have an expertise in the subject, and real math.

You aren't doing anything to help. Chiming in on a thread and saying "be open minded", but don't look at these facts.
Can you refute anything said in the topic? I understand you know nothing about aircraft, structures, physics.
How can you possibly plead for someone else to read what you agree with? When you know nothing about it? Especially for something this serious.
C'mon. Every single one of you guys point out the b25 crash some years ago. If you knew what MTOW was and how it differed from a cheeseburger, you might think twice about bringing stupid things up.
The wood stove analogy? uneducated at the very best.
Thank you for taking the time and posting my answer.

Like I said, dense. You cannot have a discussion with those who refuse to listen and then accuse you of being close-minded. You have metallurgist and engineering professors who work with it daily and argue that a philosophy major is the expert and those goes are lying. I watched the video on the guys going through every bit of scrap in NJ looking for the pieces that failed. They found them and NO, it was not from some planted explosive.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,503
20,105
146
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
Better get rid of your wood burning stoves if fire is now melting steel.:roll: Take the time to open your mind. The official story is one big CT and people in fear will allways attack the messenger. Don't be affraid. :)

Reread my post, you idiot:

"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat."

Can you understand now?

Ask yourself this: Why would it be industry practice and safety code regulation to apply fireproofing to steal beams and trusses if fire did not weaken steal and cause collapse?

OOPS!

As the expert said, at 1100 degrees, steal loses half it's strength. At 1800 degrees it loses 90% of it's strength.

THIS IS WHY FIRE CODES DICTATE THAT FIREPROOFING BE APPLIED TO STEEL SUPPORT BEAMS AND TRUSSES.

Get it now?
 

Cygnus X1

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
812
0
71
So what pulverized all the concrete into dust? Why if the fire just needed to reach steel weakening temps did pools of molten steel boil in the ground for up to 6 weeks? Why was all the steel rushed away to asia? the list goes on and on and on.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
So what pulverized all the concrete into dust? Why if the fire just needed to reach steel weakening temps did pools of molten steel boil in the ground for up to 6 weeks? Why was all the steel rushed away to asia? the list goes on and on and on.

You tell us.
 

murban135

Platinum Member
Apr 7, 2003
2,747
0
0
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
So what pulverized all the concrete into dust? Why if the fire just needed to reach steel weakening temps did pools of molten steel boil in the ground for up to 6 weeks? Why was all the steel rushed away to asia? the list goes on and on and on.


110 stories of concrete and steel collapsing will crush some of that concrete into very small, yes, even dust size pieces.

Molten steel? I thought from your previous post that the fires were not even hot enough to weaken steel, let alone melt it.

The steel was recycled. Some of it is even used to produce a warship:

Link

The list of foolish questions goes on and on.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,503
20,105
146
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
So what pulverized all the concrete into dust?

Kinetic energy. For some reason you seem not able to fathom just how enormous the WTC towers were, or how much energy they released as they fell.

Why if the fire just needed to reach steel weakening temps did pools of molten steel boil in the ground for up to 6 weeks?

There were no pools of molten steel. Aluminum, yeah. Steel, no.

Why was all the steel rushed away to asia? the list goes on and on and on.

All the debris was taken to Staten Island. It was processed for human remains and other signifigant items, then sold as scrap. The steel was studied by many people before it was sold.

It was sold to a few of the world's largest steel recycling mills. One of which happens to be in China. Why? Because they were the highest bidders.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm

Nothing mysterious about this at all.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
So what pulverized all the concrete into dust?

Kinetic energy. For some reason you seem not able to fathom just how enormous the WTC towers were, or how much energy they released as they fell.

Why if the fire just needed to reach steel weakening temps did pools of molten steel boil in the ground for up to 6 weeks?

There were no pools of molten steel. Aluminum, yeah. Steel, no.

Why was all the steel rushed away to asia? the list goes on and on and on.

All the debris was taken to Staten Island. It was processed for human remains and other signifigant items, then sold as scrap. The steel was studied by many people before it was sold.

It was sold to a few of the world's largest steel recycling mills. One of which happens to be in China. Why? Because they were the highest bidders.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm

Nothing mysterious about this at all.

Man....why didn't y'all let Cygnus give his reasons on what happened with the concrete and steel before pre-emptively debunking him? I needed a good laugh.
 

Cygnus X1

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
812
0
71
But the main problem with the 9/11 debate is that there has not really been a debate. Instead, we have had a report from a political commission run by a Bush administration insider, Philip Zelikow. In place of a real independent investigation, we have a collection of Washington players reassuring the public by defending the government?s story line.

Studies, such as those referred to by the Popular Mechanics editors, are in fact not forensic studies of evidence but what the editor-in- chief of ?Fire Engineering? called ?paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.?

The explanation that the three WTC buildings collapsed as a result of damage and fire is a mere assertion. The assertion is not backed up with scientific calculation to demonstrate that the energy from the airliners, fire, and gravity were sufficient to collapse the buildings. A number of independent authorities believe that there is a very large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the buildings. Until this issue is resolved, the official explanation is merely an assertion no matter who believes it.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,503
20,105
146
Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
But the main problem with the 9/11 debate is that there has not really been a debate. Instead, we have had a report from a political commission run by a Bush administration insider, Philip Zelikow. In place of a real independent investigation, we have a collection of Washington players reassuring the public by defending the government?s story line.

Studies, such as those referred to by the Popular Mechanics editors, are in fact not forensic studies of evidence but what the editor-in- chief of ?Fire Engineering? called ?paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.?

The explanation that the three WTC buildings collapsed as a result of damage and fire is a mere assertion. The assertion is not backed up with scientific calculation to demonstrate that the energy from the airliners, fire, and gravity were sufficient to collapse the buildings. A number of independent authorities believe that there is a very large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the buildings. Until this issue is resolved, the official explanation is merely an assertion no matter who believes it.

You know what? Fine. No number of experts telling you how it happened will ever be enough. No number of studies done will ever be enough.

That's the problem with conspiracy theorists. They dismiss the overwhelming bulk of evidence and cling to what ever tiny shred supports their theory... even if they have to make it up.

NO "independent authorities" believe any such thing. A few random nutballs do, and because they claim authority, a lot of gullible people like you fall for it.

No real authority or structural engineers believe this crap. Only a list of random nutballs who, shockingly enough are experts in fields that have nothing to do with engineering. And the majority of them have one thing in common: They believe and promote almost every fruitcake conspiracy theory that is out there, from JFK, to fluoride mind control.