uhh.... i think you forgot about the physics professor from Brigham Young Univ who drafted a 25 page anaylsis detailing the absolute incredibility of the bush administrations cover-up that remains unchallenged to this day-- the truthseekers are the ones in lamoland when bush nation bootlickers try to refute physics with strawmen absurdities and fox talking points-- take off your blinders and step back-- the truth IS out there
************************************************************************
Posted Today, 03:03 PM StalingradK


also it is really getting annoying to hear kooks that were not there trying to irrationalize the beliefs of veteran firefighters who know more about burning buildings collapsing and what they sound like-- puh-lease
who wants seconds?

Its amazing Colmes, have you read "any" posted link in this thread???? Fruitcakes? Fruitcakes?!

• A Former 28 year Presidential Advisor/Cia Analyst (aka. Ray McGovern) is a fruitcake!?
  
  
• A Former German Defense Minister, Andres Von Buelow is a fruitcake??

• Former Mi5 Agent David Shayler is fruitcake?!

• FORMER BLAIR CABINET MEMBER: Michael Meacher is a god damn fruitcake for claiming the U.S government was behind 9/11?!

Ok your just willfully ignorant! OMFG, I cant even talk anymore.........Ive been out Foxed!

Make your own decision- Video

Yes, because we all know that every veteran fireman has had his fair share of collapsing high-rise skyscrappers. Think before you speak.

Its also amazing how people actually survived the initial plane impact.

Oh please, yes there was fire, but pockets of fire which firefighters were quoted as saying they could knock it out in 2 lines..... is this the serious raging inferno you guys are refering to? give me evidence of a ragings inferno? Give me a reason why there were survivers from the impact hole and other floors near the impact.

Surely if temperatures reached in excess of melting steel surely there wouldnt have been any survivers?

Does not make sense at all.

WAKE UP

Cheers

BZRK

The people who survived were in a well concealed staircase. And the raging infernos were just fires which were WELL CONTAINED but still did a lot of damage to the buildings' already crippled steel structure. I don't know who said the fires got as hot as to where they melted the steel because they didn't. They were hot enough to weaken the steel though.

Good one we going to believe such a ridiculous statement like that. The explosions they heard were the collapse of the buildings.... yeh right mate... and pigs grew wings over night......

Cheers

BZRK

lol, you think i'm trying to trick you? You've obviously never heard steel snap, concrete being compacted and exploding from the pressure built ontop of it, or better yet, when you drop a book on the ground flat- it makes a louder sound than it would if you dropped it on its side right? Well think of that book about 1,000 times bigger, picture it being made of sheetrock and steel, then slamming down on hard surface, the air escaping makes a big ass sound doesn't it?

the funny thing about you guys is that you never take the time to rationally think aside from the whole thing and have a centrist view. You should really try it some time, it's pretty helpful when it comes to logically thinking and politics. I actually believed this whole conspiracy at first, but after I saw the errors and flaws or its ways yeah...

Some people have obviously never been on a construction site, Stal...

Some people have obviously never lived in the real world either Mich

Hmmm...how tall was it? 100 stories or so?
Each floor pretty much air tight with sheetrock and tape and paint.
Have you ever squeezed a balloon until it popped?
Pretty loud huh?
So I would assume that when a 90 storie building collapses that there would be a HUGE noise sounding like an explosion.....but thats just me.

^ That's a pretty good analogy for the average person.

Thank you....thank you very much lol.

William Rodriguez found himself checking into work in an office on sub-level 1 when the north tower was hit, seemingly out of harms way. However, the sound and concussion of a massive explosion in the sub-levels right below his feet changed that.

"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office.

Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story.

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"

All these events occurred only seconds before and during the jetliner strike above. And through it all, he now asks a simple question everybody should be asking? How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man’s arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?

Now you will probably say he is dillusional right? Just like you guys think high credible people like cia agents are dillusional just like the 100's of witness's that heard the same thing "explosions" are dillusional.

I guess we are all dillusional right?

We are led to believe fire traveled 100+ floors down with enough force to rip this guys face to bits & the floors? come on give me a break seriously.

Cheers

BZRK

my mother had a ford pick-up truck that caught on fire in the driveway--it had 18 gallons of gasoline in it's fuel tank . it burned it to a crisp--it burned so hot the pistons evaporated , the steel around the engine compartment just became red-hot and wilted and warped under the heat . and get this--all that steel was supporting was the weight of a pick-up truck .

jet fuel has quite a bit more BTU than gasoline and there was say 9,000+ gallons of it . you have steel beams holding the building together--above the fire--heat goes up ! the beams didn't have to melt--all they had to do was get hot enough to fail. another thing--is the building it self--causes a up-draft--that adds more air to the inferno--making it hotter . and lastly--you have heavy parts of a jet--which blew apart--tearing all the fire insulation off the steel beams holding it together . well it is looking obvious to me the fire brought down the building . the building was hardened for fires--but not a 767 full of fuel and there was a engineering fault in that the building was built for a aircraft strike--but the fire problem resulting from a crash wasn't brought into it as a design consideration .

I would guess that when the JET hit the tower and went inside with a full tank of fuel traveling 400 mph and exploded.....fuel most likely as gravity would illustrate....some of it went down the elevator shafts and caused high intensity flash fires.....but I don't know everything.....I only have common sense.

BZRK...have you ever had a 200 year old tree fall just a few feet away from your house? It's happened to me several times in the last ten years and to tell you the truth the earth shook, the windows rattlled and I thought my house was going to come down on top of me.

Why do you think that a building that huge coming down wouldn't have an impact for miles around?

OMG your comparing steel from a car to that of SKYSCRAPER.....

This tells me you guys have no knowledge about basic engineering structures.

Please read the letter from the executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."


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/P3MechanicalandM...ysisofSteel.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


Cheers

BZRK

Ok.....now show me the reports hypothetically that a 767 plane at full speed tears into the building taking out 2 or 3 floors and supports...
The building was designed when it was built to withstand a 727 direct impact not filled with fuel...do you not understand structural damage?????????????
You are a pathetic fool

NOBODY, not even anyone from NIST or FEMA, is claiming that the jet fuel weakened (or melted) the steel. The jet fuel completely burned away within the first few minutes of plane impacts. Flogging a dead horse, as the saying goes.

I thought everybody knew that by now.....

You are so correct that the fuel burned fast.....but you fail to consider the damage to the structure when a plane traveling at 400 mph hits a building....even a one minute fuel fire could and did warp the supports that were left on the levels that were immediately hit.
Get a degree in engineering and come back to support your knowledge.

Some of the fuel went down the elevator shaft and caused a high intensity flash fire!? You wanna demostrate how it had enough energy to accomplish this?? You wanna show us how the fuel magically jumped into the elevator shaft and caused a big explosion in the lobby? There werent just explosions in the lobby, but on many floors, BEFORE the building even collapsed. I guess just like Arkan said it was exploding computer monitors and all sort of electronical stuff right? I guess I can jump off a damn cliff and not fall, only until I realized gravity kicks in.

Oh my God! Thanks Dr.Phil, that was such a life changing insight!

"Next up on our show, why Ray McGovern is 28 year CIA fearmongering Kook! And then we'll move on to 'The Little Highjacker That Could' starring Muhammed Atta".

It doesn't take magic to figure that jet fuel can fall down after impact....and did.
I won't flame you....but you are a disgrace to the U.S.
Your own country.

Like usual totally disregarding the facts and attacking others with immature and lame comments.

Its obvious with comments like yours you dont have the intelect nor the brain capacity to even understand the temperature needed to melt steel. Maybe you should stick to your nursing degree rather than attacking people with far more intelligence than yourself.

You totally disregard the letter of the executive (Kevin Ryan) of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center.

Cheers

BZRK

I never once said the steel melted.....clear your ears.
I said........................do you have no knowledge of a 400 mph impact of a commercial jet on the structural form taking out at least 3 floors worth of support.
Its not I that lacks intellect...its you

And can you demonstrate how this occured? Oh and you won't flame me but then you call me a disgrace to the U.S? Im not the one who believes 19 arabs highjacked 4 planes with box cutters hitting all but 1 of theyre targets on the same day Norad was having drills then only to have 911 be the pretext to get us into Iraq and Aftganistan!

Tell me, why do you "debunkers" IGNORE the governments own officials going public about 911 being an inside job? Wtf, are they crazy too? A 28 year Cia Analyst and presidential advisor Ray Mcgovern went on record in saying 911 was an inside job, he also went on to tell about how the bush administration "cherry picked" information and sold it to the American public so we could get into Iraq. Bush and his regime purposely link Saddam/Osama/911 end of story. Seems more like you're the conspiracy theorist Bish!!

I don't need to debunk something that needs no debunking...............and why do you not show links to these people that supposedly...according to you.....have proof????

The video of these people saying it themself! Better yet, watch the entire terrorstorm video.....

So if you never said the steel melted, then what caused the building to collapse?

Oh thats right you say it took out at least 3 floors worth of support....hmmmm...

The Windsor Building was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the building, and it burned at temperatures of 800ºC for more than 18 hours . The core of the building did not fail.

The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800ºC and was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building. WTC 1 collapsed after only 85 minutes, reportedly through core failure.

Don't you find this odd?

Okay, the core of WTC 1 was solid, but an airliner flew directly fly into it. Could this be the reason for the quick collapse you say?

"The aluminum wings and the planes' fuselage would have been almost instantly shredded into pieces the size of an adult's fist, said Tomasz Wierzbicki, director of the impact and crashworthiness laboratory at M.I.T. Engines and other heavy parts continued to the core, but by working out the amount of energy involved, Dr. Wierzbicki and a student, Liang Xue, determined that at most half the inner columns could have been broken or severely mangled. New York Times"

The above indicates that at least 50% of WTC core was intact after Flight 11 hit the building, and the fact that the building remained standing proves the intact core columns could support the weight of floors above the impact level without problems.

This leaves a quandary because we are told that the 800ºC temperatures which the Windsor Building's core columns withstood for 18 hours wrecked the intact core columns of WTC 1 in only 85 minutes.

Okay, let's assume that some of WTC 1's remaining core columns of were damaged by the plane impact, maybe this could account for the quick collapse of the building. Well, this might be plausible if an 800ºC fire burned at the airliner impact level, but these temperatures did not exist inside WTC 1.

When you add to the above the mysterious demise of the building's core you have to conclude that either a fundamental flaw existed in WTC 1's inner core construction, or a fundamental flaw exists in the official explanation of the building's collapse.

And what about Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, discusses the fact that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting, DeMartini was adament that the towers would not collapse. DeMartini died in the towers on 9/11, this interview clip was taken from video shot in January 2001.

You want a link here it is...Watch and Learn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVzQfa_V1jw...ted&search=

Cheers

BZRK

Where did you get the idea that some jet fuel "went down the elevator shafts and caused high intensity flash fires"? What about your evidence for "a one minute fuel fire" that warped the supports? Not from the FEMA report. Not from the NIST report.

Please support your claims with evidence. And no worries, I don't expect you to get an engineering degree before you come back.....

How can anybody believe that the american government would sanction such a fantastic plot against its own people. i mean George Bush would have to be the worlds biggest horses A** to think that he could get away with.............hang on a minute.... i think you might be on to something.

Uh....yeah, Bush is smart enough to pull a stunt like this off.

Oh yea, not only bush, but I juuuuuust cant concieve that our government would do anything to hurt us for its own gain.......on no not them. They're too incompitent mmmmm hmmmm.......

Stal and SG, valiant effort, but you're really wasting your time. The people you argue with are the most willfully ignorant people I have ever interacted with. No offense to turbonium, who I think might be the only CT-sider here who actually applies his brain. The others absolutely refuse to look at any evidence, much less consider how it might refute their ridiculous, disgraceful, dishonorable theories. Any drop of logic or insight you try to bring into the conversation will quickly be met with accusations of being a Bush-bot. The level of immaturity these people bring to the table is honestly beyond comprehension. Never before entering into these 9/11 debates had I witnessed people who were so absolutely willing to look stupid. Any hard evidence not supporting their cause is treated immediately like Kryptonite. They flee from it, screaming like schoolgirls. I used to think that every human was born with the capacity for common sense, but after arguing with these people for so long, I realize how wrong I was. I liken them to lemmings, who will fall off the cliff no matter how illogical it may be. Nothing will stop them from falling off the cliff - some people, I guess, are just pre-disposed to ignorance.

which is it? willfully ignorant or applying his brain? his conclusion is the same as ours
9/11 was an inside job! the same as ret Lt Col Robert Bowman(father of the star wars defense program),28 cia veteran Bill Christison,ret USAF Col. George Nelson(a 30 year veteran, aircraft accident investigator and expert in aircraft maintenance and aircraft identification),ret Maj Gen Albert Stubblebine,Col Don De Grand pre,republican insider Karl Schwartz(responsible for the rep takeover of congress during the clinton admin),professor of physics from BYU Steven Jones,prof of philosophy from the Univ of Minnesota dr James H Fetzer and prof of pyschology from the Univ of New Hampshire William Woodward-- now each of these individuals theories and beliefs vary slightly yet their conclusion is the same that 9/11 WA AN INSIDE JOB-- now explain to me how we are lemmings when it is you that refuses to acknowledge the evidence responsible for convincing all these people and it is YOU that is wearing blinders and focused intensly on g w bush's arse
link

No, I have found out that arguing with these people that they either have:
a. Short-Term memory loss
or
b. Total loss of all rational though
is pointless, I don't know why I get lured in every time.



You f***ing hypocrit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, you guys could actually learn something it you have a centrist view (bringing back this point again). Stop thinking about the government bringing down the buildings or stop thinking about terrorists from bringing down the buildings what ever you believe and look at every single aspect of the situation from both views. Someone describing a noise which sounded or felt like a bomb isn't uncommon.

How many times do we have to tell you that the steel didn't NEED TO MELT for the structure to lose support?

The building swayed 2 feet when the airplane hit. Take that, plus the fire, plus the loss of support on the inside, plus the loss of support on the outside, plus the fact that your alleged genius that said the building could take the impact of a plane hitting the building is DEAD because the building COULDN'T.

Anyway I'm done with you I really think you are just pretending to believe this because honestly, really my friend.......the steel MELTED?

An observation.
The impact on the buildings occured approximately one quarter to one third the way down the building. The strength of the buildings is (was) in a ring of steel columns forming a central core.
If the impact of the aircraft was to take out a certain number of these central columns, then effectively the remaining columns were trying to support up to a third of the rest of the floors above. With the fire burning around the remaining columns, the type of calapse witnessed was the most likely outcome.
As a matter interest I an architectural technician & have been for the last 23 years.

And Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Manager who also died on that day, is invaluable evidence to you?

You totally ignored what he said.



Oh Boy.....

Cheers

BZRK

Well he's dead right now so I guess he was wrong wasn't he?

Hey guess what??

The last time an alleged genius said something was indestructable we wound up getting a Celine Dion song out of the disaster.

The Titanic's builder said it could never sink as well!

OMG you really do have the intellect of a 2 year old.

Your comparing a disaster which happened in 1912 to the 2001 attacks. So technology hasnt changed since 1912?

So we dont have better testing capabilities than the year 1912?

Wow

Still waiting for you to debate me "live".

What are you afraid of? if your so right prove me wrong on a live discussion?

I sent you a PM, you sent me a reply "Send me the link so I can post it and we'll all come!"

I gave you my email address to add me to MSN Conference, but i have not heard back.

Cheers

BZRK

And here come the insults....par for the course.

Hmm there's two ways to look at this. One is the guy was wrong.

Two is the guy is God and it is impossible that he was wrong.

Yes technology has changed since the early 1900's but what hasn't changed is the fact that people can be wrong.

Insult, fox banner, all of that stuff just makes you look immature. If you stood by your arguments you wouldn't need distraction. You would simply present your argument. Since you can't you use all this.

Btw I don't need to debate you "live" you haven't made enough of an argument here for me to even waste my time.

A debate means that each side presents the argument and debates the points. Not dismisses the point and calls names when they can't make their case. Really, why even reply if you aren't going to say anthing of substance.

yes i'm comparing the burned truck to the tower--why?--because the truck was made of steel . the truck only had a limited amount of fuel to burn and the fuel also had a lower btu count .

the truck was also only supporting its own weight @ 4,000 lbs . the steel wilted and the frame buckled. and only 19 gallons of gasoline was involved in that fire.

now a skyscraper is also supported by steel beams. the insulation on the steel beams is blown off by the impact and you have around 10,000 gallons of jet A exploding through the building like a napalm bomb.

on top of all of this is 100,000s of tons of pressure from the gigantic weight of the building . the only mystery here is how it managed to stand for as long as it did .

the truth is that this crap about explosives and other wack job theories are of the same class as--the moon landing didn't happen. the nazi's didn't cause the holocaust. the president knew about the attack on pearl harbor and let it happen, the world is hollow . the NWO, ilumanati or whatever group of infidels are taking over the world .

the truth is this type of thinking is cause to see your mental health provider. if everybody is after you and you suffer from delusions of grandeur, your phone is tapped and the mailman is looking at you funny??- the CIA-KGB-FBI or whatever is keeping tabs on you?-it's likely in your head. if your on meds--get a check up--cause it is ever so obvious thay arn't working no more.

Correct par for the course

Well if i cant make an argument then debate me, surely it will be an easy "victory" for you right?

Sure debate means to engage in argument or discussion. So lets have an argument or discussion live...

I stay by my arguments 110% but if you stand by yours why you so afraid to debate me?

Oh hold on ive got it maybe your WRONG....

Cheers

BZRK

Science does not determine what theory is correct by "live debates". People like Kent Hovind use live debates to "win" the debate by shouting down the other side under an avalanche of claims that would take hours to refute. If your case is so solid you should have no trouble presenting it, and defending it, in this format where scientific methodology can be applied and the winner is determined by the facts and not by who can shout the loudest.

Yes the winner is determined by the facts quite correct and we are way ahead of your theories and so called "fox news" facts.

You have ignored facts people have brought forward here such as the fact that Urban Legend posted here about Muhammad Atta's Funding...

Why do you always avoid the issue?

Well ill tell you why, because we are on a forum but if it is a live debate you cannot ignore it nor can you change the subject.

Please if you are so right in your so called "scientific methodology" then please feel free to PM me and i will give you my MSN address to add.....

Please read the letter from the executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."


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/P3MechanicalandM...ysisofSteel.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


Im sure this is scientific enough for you.

Cheers

BZRK

ok for the last time.......the steel did not have to MELT to lose support.

Plus each one individually may not have been enough to cause the buildings to collapse but combined with several different things.

Frankly others here have called it before me but what difference is a "live debate" going to make? Why can't you just debate it here? You are a child if you think that the only reason I won't debate you "live" is cause I know I am wrong. Er no, this is an internet message board. I have three kids that needing attending to "live" so your silly demands are just well silly.

Again you have totally avoided my flat out question. WHY would the government do something at the maximum expense when they could have easily done it for far less money?

I'm going to keep this post short and to the point; if you want to debate this post, we can start a thread to discuss just this.

The UL does not certify steel. Any argument based upon this claim is starting from a false assumption.

Evidence? Evidence? Evidence?

Ok so he made it up? let me guess he is not really an executive? just a made up title name he is really a janitor of the company right?

Come on give me a break Arkan you arguments are pointless........

Cheers

BZRK

"if you want to debate this post, we can start a thread to discuss just this."

Avoid placing evidence to back up your comments

Post a new topic then.

Cheers

BZRK