WTC Melting Steel Refuted: Kevin Ryan

[teryang]

The Collapse of the WTC on 9/11:
The Melting of Steel Components Refuted
by Kevin Ryan
http://www.septembereleventh.org/ 11 November 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 6 November 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA411A.html



<...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.<snip>


<...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.<snip>


<...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...<snip>

Interesting correspondence about WTC steel. The whole piece is worth a read.

[gristy]

1. oh, please...

Not again.

2. THIS is more interesting--

http://www.ideamouth.com/politics/

[teryang]

3. I agree the put options coverup is a smoking gun

I had corresponded with Ruppert soon after 911 about this very point. However, I will have study your chart to understand it completely.

I put this post up because the author appears to have credentials.

I was hoping that someone would comment on that aspect or on the scientific assertions.

I'm not making the argument, the expert is.

My observations are simpler. Saw a controlled demolition on film the other day. It looked like the WTC collapse complete with the blow out of lower floor windows. I've seen scores of these and don't really see any appreciable difference. This is exactly what the demolition expert interviewed live on the network directly after the WTC collapse said, "It was a demolition."

Oh, please! He forgot to add, "get over it."

[FannySS]

8. Can you explain this?

I do not understand the upper chart.

As far as I understand, the lower chart (Volatility Index) shows the activity on put- and call-options. Right?

Does it show the averarge of all US-Options, or just one special option? Or all options worldwide?

I think the "peak" before the attacks isn´t too suspiciously, it could be coincidentally.

But I´m not sure about all of this...

Fanny

[madrchsod]

4. OK someone rigged the buildings to explode the

nano second the planes flew into these buildings at x miles an hour with tanks of jet fuel..i guess the energy and resulting heat of such a collision would not be enough to weaken a building enough to collapse..sounds like you maybe on to something..i`ll forget my 20 some years in the steel working industry and go with the someone blew up the building theory guess that solves that problem...

[RyomaSakamoto]

5. actually

they didn't get pulled till well after the crash.

just like wtc7...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

[WoodrowFan]

7. more crap

as has been explained here time and again the "pull" command for WTC 7 was the command to pull the firemen OUT of the building because it was beyond saving.

bye bye

[NecessaryOnslaught]

9. Yep, more crap

Fireman never went in WTC 7.

[vincent_vega_lives]

10. "pulled"

Interesting usage :D

[DulceDecorum]

6. The buildings were made of steel, glass and concrete.

Nobody is defending the glass.

So either the steel failed,
or the concrete failed
or BOTH.

If it was simply the steel,
the concrete would have fallen in chunks.
But the concrete turned into fine fine powder
and the STEEL fell down in chunks
which were swiftly carted away.

Why did the concrete turn into fine fine powder?

[vincent_vega_lives]

11. "Why did the concrete turn into fine fine powder?"

The vast amount of concrete was in the floors, not a facade, and was shown to be a particularly brittle type. So why wouldn't it?

[Blue_Tires]

12. Ryan has been fired from the university

there was a big thread posted in GD...sorry i don't have a link