Political Crossfire Forums

[Bull]

This is an excerpt from Steven Jones's paper...it about a whistleblower named Kevin Ryan who came forward from Underwater Laboratories...

Quote: Analysis by Whistleblower Ryan

Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included:

-"To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for WTC 7]).

How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of similarly unlikely events [no interception of hijacked planes by the military on 9/11, etc.], gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of oil and natural gas…” (Ryan, 2005).

Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission) even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).

So where does that leave us? I strongly agree with Kevin Ryan when he says,

This [“official”] story just does not add up…. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans…. 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. (Ryan, 2004; emphasis added.)

EDIT: More...

Quote: Inconsistencies in “Official” Models

Finally, and by way of review, we consider the variations and inconsistencies in the fire/damaged-caused collapse models with time. The earliest model, promoted by various media sources, was that the fires in the towers were sufficiently hot to actually melt the steel in the buildings, thus causing their collapse. For example, Chris Wise in a BBC piece spouted out false notions with great gusto,

-“It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning… The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of the other.” (quoted in Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 25)

But as we have seen from later serious studies, most of the jet fuel burned out within minutes following impact. And recall the statement of expert Dr. Gayle refuting the notion that fires in the WTC buildings were sufficiently hot to melt the steel supports:

-Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added)

Then we have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the majority of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to reach sustained temperatures of 800oC and buckle (not melt) – at the same time. But as we’ve seen, such temperatures are very difficult to reach while burning office materials, in these connected steel structures where the heat is wicked away by heat transport. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26) And then to undergo failure at the same time for straight down collapse, well, no, this scenario is far too improbable.

That approach was, understandably, abandoned in the next effort, that by FEMA (FEMA, 2002). The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eagar (Eagar and Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA presentation “Why the Towers Fell” (NOVA, 2002). Eagar expresses the view that "the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001) Instead of having the columns fail simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers warp due to fires, and the floor connections to the vertical beams break, and these floor pans then fall down onto the floor pans below, initiating “progressive collapse” or pancaking of one floor pan on another. Very simple. But not so fast – what happens to the enormous core columns to which the floors were firmly attached? Why don’t these remain standing like a spindle with the floor pans falling down around them, since the connections are presumed to have broken away? This interconnected steel core is founded on bedrock (Manhattan schist). FEMA does not totally ignore the core:

-As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased [no mention of the huge central core anymore!], they buckled at the bolted column splice connections and also collapsed.” (FEMA. 2002; emphasis added)

This approach finally fails to account for the observed collapse of the 47 interconnected core columns which are massive and designed to bear the weight of the buildings, and it has the striking weakness of evidently requiring the connections of the floor pans to the vertical columns to break, both at the core and at the perimeter columns, more or less simultaneously.

That didn’t work out, so NIST goes back to the drawing board. They require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model -- but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse. (See above for details.)

We are left without a compelling fire/impact-damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. NIST did not even do the routinely-used visualizations to validate their finite-element analysis model (point 13 above). And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) – namely the rapid and nearly-symmetrical and complete collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit – particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers and the yellow-white hot molten metal seen flowing from the South Tower just prior to its collapse?

Remarkably, the controlled demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives/incendiaries, near-simultaneously, along with cutting charges detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus near-symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs -- really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermate (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel columns readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles as well as the sulfidation observed in steel from both the WTC 7 and Towers rubble piles (points 1 and 2 above).

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable actually than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond that which I have been able to outline in this treatise.

[redhed718]

Patriot911 wrote: For the umpteenth time, the jet fuel probably all burned up within the first 10 - 20 minutes. The issue is it started the rest of the fuel (desks, walls, paper and other flammables) on fire.

So what kind of expert are you on fires, their temperatures and the effects of these temperatures on building structures? My guess is probably not a very good one. NOAA estimated from computer models of the smoke that internal temperatures ranged from 800 to 1800 degrees inside the towers. Are you aware that steel loses half it's strength at 800 degrees F and rapidly loses the rest at temperatures higher than that? Or that a temperature difference of only 300 degrees from one side of an I beam to the other will cause an I beam to warp or buckle? So how are you able to say with absolute certaintly that the fires couldn't bring down the building when the world's leading structural engineers, including the structural engineer for the WTC, says the fires plus the structural damage were more than enough to bring down the buildings?

Sorry. I am going to believe the experts over your supposed expertise in this area.

Well if your going to believe the experts than you better learn to believe the experts say the WTC Steel was certified to burn at 2000 degrees for at least 6 hours before weakening in the least certified to ASTM E119 specification. Proven by Kevin Ryan @ Underwriter Labs.

[JohnM]

Bull, is it possible for you to be any thicker? You lack an understanding of physics which even the most basic high school course would give you, yet you still try to argue with the rebuttals and conveniently ignore the facts. How many times do you have to be proven wrong?

[JohnM]

redhed718 wrote: Patriot911 wrote: For the umpteenth time, the jet fuel probably all burned up within the first 10 - 20 minutes. The issue is it started the rest of the fuel (desks, walls, paper and other flammables) on fire.

So what kind of expert are you on fires, their temperatures and the effects of these temperatures on building structures? My guess is probably not a very good one. NOAA estimated from computer models of the smoke that internal temperatures ranged from 800 to 1800 degrees inside the towers. Are you aware that steel loses half it's strength at 800 degrees F and rapidly loses the rest at temperatures higher than that? Or that a temperature difference of only 300 degrees from one side of an I beam to the other will cause an I beam to warp or buckle? So how are you able to say with absolute certaintly that the fires couldn't bring down the building when the world's leading structural engineers, including the structural engineer for the WTC, says the fires plus the structural damage were more than enough to bring down the buildings?

Sorry. I am going to believe the experts over your supposed expertise in this area.

Well if your going to believe the experts than you better learn to believe the experts say the WTC Steel was certified to burn at 2000 degrees for at least 6 hours before weakening in the least certified to ASTM E119 specification. Proven by Kevin Ryan @ Underwriter Labs.
Link please.

[redhed718]

JohnM wrote: redhed718 wrote: Patriot911 wrote: For the umpteenth time, the jet fuel probably all burned up within the first 10 - 20 minutes. The issue is it started the rest of the fuel (desks, walls, paper and other flammables) on fire.

So what kind of expert are you on fires, their temperatures and the effects of these temperatures on building structures? My guess is probably not a very good one. NOAA estimated from computer models of the smoke that internal temperatures ranged from 800 to 1800 degrees inside the towers. Are you aware that steel loses half it's strength at 800 degrees F and rapidly loses the rest at temperatures higher than that? Or that a temperature difference of only 300 degrees from one side of an I beam to the other will cause an I beam to warp or buckle? So how are you able to say with absolute certaintly that the fires couldn't bring down the building when the world's leading structural engineers, including the structural engineer for the WTC, says the fires plus the structural damage were more than enough to bring down the buildings?

Sorry. I am going to believe the experts over your supposed expertise in this area.

Well if your going to believe the experts than you better learn to believe the experts say the WTC Steel was certified to burn at 2000 degrees for at least 6 hours before weakening in the least certified to ASTM E119 specification. Proven by Kevin Ryan @ Underwriter Labs.
Link please.



sorry
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
official Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11:

[NOTES: Kevin R. Ryan is Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana (company site at www.ehl.cc). EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (company site at www.ul.com). Frank Gayle is Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Gayle heads the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project, see wtc.nist.gov. Dr. Gayle's biography is at wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle. The following text is taken from an e-mail forward, from Ryan to David Ray Griffin. Emphases are ours. - 911Truth.org]

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. 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
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

South Bend

[Bull]

JohnM wrote: Bull, is it possible for you to be any thicker? You lack an understanding of physics which even the most basic high school course would give you, yet you still try to argue with the rebuttals and conveniently ignore the facts. How many times do you have to be proven wrong?

I haven't been proven wrong. Oh, and thanks Redhed for that link.

[JohnM]

Bull wrote: JohnM wrote: Bull, is it possible for you to be any thicker? You lack an understanding of physics which even the most basic high school course would give you, yet you still try to argue with the rebuttals and conveniently ignore the facts. How many times do you have to be proven wrong?

I haven't been proven wrong. Oh, and thanks Redhed for that link.
Each and every thing you post is consistently proven wrong.

[redhed718]

JohnM wrote: Bull wrote: JohnM wrote: Bull, is it possible for you to be any thicker? You lack an understanding of physics which even the most basic high school course would give you, yet you still try to argue with the rebuttals and conveniently ignore the facts. How many times do you have to be proven wrong?

I haven't been proven wrong. Oh, and thanks Redhed for that link.
Each and every thing you post is consistently proven wrong.

and i can see by that single unsubstantiated claim..youve done alot to prove that.

[JohnM]

redhed718 wrote: JohnM wrote: Bull wrote: JohnM wrote: Bull, is it possible for you to be any thicker? You lack an understanding of physics which even the most basic high school course would give you, yet you still try to argue with the rebuttals and conveniently ignore the facts. How many times do you have to be proven wrong?

I haven't been proven wrong. Oh, and thanks Redhed for that link.
Each and every thing you post is consistently proven wrong.

and i can see by that single unsubstantiated claim..youve done alot to prove that.
So now I have to prove that he has been proven wrong before? :???:

[redhed718]

well
telling him hes wrong and telling all of us how often youve done it doenst exactly serve either one of us. Its off topic and sounds like flamethrowing . BTW...take a look @ this. i wrote this topic for another forum as well.Same topic word for word. But in this forum,the good little neocon admins have locked the forum and threatenied to ban me for some alternative thinking.Thread was closed and all. The thought crime police are here ladies and gentleman. 400 views in 48 hours. No...nobody wants to see what i have to say...no

http://www.starsiege2845.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13689

Fibrosys..the author is me

[JohnM]

redhed718 wrote: well
telling him hes wrong and telling all of us how often youve done it doenst exactly serve either one of us. Its off topic and sounds like flamethrowing . BTW...take a look @ this. i wrote this topic for another forum as well.Same topic word for word. But in this forum,the good little neocon admins have locked the forum and threatenied to ban me for some alternative thinking.Thread was closed and all. The thought crime police are here ladies and gentleman. 400 views in 48 hours. No...nobody wants to see what i have to say...no

http://www.starsiege2845.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13689

Fibrosys..the author is me
That is a consp...errhhmm, alternative theory, for another thread. I mean, they lock one of your threads, so they must work for the government eh? Couldn't be the fact that you ramble on and on and on could it? Anyways, I would hardly consider globalresearch.ca a reliable source. In that article, they provided exactly zero evidence, and appear to ramble almost as much as you. Might I refer you to a more reliable news source for you to reference in the future? Even in the forum you linked us to, you appear to be flailing about wildly trying to defend yourself against logic. I leave you with this quote.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

[JohnM]

Oh, man, just reading through some of the other headlines on globalresearch.ca. There are some real gems there.
*Ken Lay is still alive!
*The Ethnic Cleansing in New Orleans
*The US GULAG System

Man, glad you linked us to such a reliable and unbiased source!

[Patriot911]

:rofl: Yeah, those sites have lots and lots of credibility. Sort of like the guy from UL that these guys claim is an expert. Turns out he isn't. He doesn't work with metal, although he did work at a very unrelated part of UL. Turns out he made it sound like UL was making the claim about the metal so he got himself canned. This just added fuel to the conspiracy theories of course. Personally, I think it serves him right. I've done work for several big name (Fortune 50) corporations and they ALL have a very strict policy about saying ANYTHING that might even be remotely construed as an official company statement. I would have to look back, but I am pretty sure firing was mentioned as a very likely possibility in every case.

As for the steel, it has already been proven that the fire proofing can be knocked off by hand. It doesn't take much. Not only that, but a beam that has only half the fireproofing knocked off is much more vulnerable to warping and buckling due to the temperature difference between the two parts. It only takes 300F temperature difference to make an I-beam buckle.