[Shadow_Group] Fw: UL Says NO WAY WTC

[shadowgroup-l at lists.resist.ca]

rense.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." 
  
>From Kevin R. Ryan 
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories 
South Bend, Indiana 
(Company site - www.ehl.cc<http://www.ehl.cc/>) 
  
A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. 
(Company site - www.ul.com<http://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: frank.gayle at nist.gov<mailto:frank.gayle at 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. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html<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<http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf> 
  
4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php<http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php> 
  
5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf<http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf> (pg 11) 
  
6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf<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<http://www.ul.com/> and http://www.ulc.ca<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.nytimes.com/>) 
  
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451<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?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/shadowgroup-l/attachments/20041115/a44ac392/attachment.html>