Underwriters' Labs Slam WTC-collapse
As Fairy Tale
The collapse of the WTC
by Kevin Ryan
Thursday, Nov 11, 2004
The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters
Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified
the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center
towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.
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 above1100C (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.
2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)
Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A
Division of Underwriters Laboratories