search this site: search the web:
Report due? School work? boss yelling at you? Shirking is good for the soul. Play at Bestandworst.com!

EXPERTS AGREE THAT STEEL IN WTC TOWERS DID NOT COLLAPSE ON 9/11 DUE TO THERMAL STRESS. WILL THE GOVERNMENT EVER ADMIT TO THIS?

user ballots

crime : crime :

EXPERTS AGREE THAT STEEL IN WTC TOWERS DID NOT COLLAPSE ON 9/11 DUE TO THERMAL STRESS. WILL THE GOVERNMENT EVER ADMIT TO THIS?


[+] serious ballot by xxxxxxxx
created Fri Nov 19, 04

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, this week questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

In a letter dated Thursday, November 11th (excerpt below) UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) - 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."

Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, which is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant.

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".

No, I will continue to believe whatever the government decides to tell me
The truth will surface and the liars will be brought to justice
If this is true, it's unlikely that Big Media will ever report it
I never believed the official story anyway. It was a cover-up from day one
Engineering hasn't advanced as far as we think


Ballot #59233 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:









similiar ballots:
79457. Why did WTC 7 inexplicably collapse into it's own footprint 8 hours after the collapse of the twin towers?
119021. 9/11 ENQUIRY; How did the WTC towers collapse?
97225. Did Larry Silverstein benefit financially from the collapse of the WTC Towers?
74352. Michael Moore fans: I can admit some of what he says is TRUE, can you admit some of it ISNT?
112149. Best Way To Cope With Stress?
119414. Signs You're Under Too Much Stress?
50685. What is your Cure for Stress or Boredom?
124424. With Google, We Are All Automatic Experts on All Subjects
130889. What's your favorite stress management strategy?
74543. With the EU on the verge of collapse what do you think will become of them?


COMMENTS:
Apologies for the long intro. I wanted to post the whole letter, but I can provide a link for anyone who wants to read the whole text.
by xxxxxxxx on Fri Nov 19, 04 10:17am [+]

The government won't admit Bush played hookey from the National Guard ... why would they admit anything bigger? :-/
by Cathexis on Fri Nov 19, 04 10:25am [+]

This will never get any attention. Most Americans think that Saddam Hussein knocked down WTC #7 as well.
by _Beelzebubba on Fri Nov 19, 04 10:27am [+]

Can anyone suggest another reason for the buildings to fall besides melting steel?
by DirtDog on Fri Nov 19, 04 10:29am [+]

Either bombs were on the planes or explosives were planted in the buildings.

Also, Flights 93 was shot down. There's a good chance that the passengers regained control of the aircraft and if allowed to land safely, the whole jig would have been exposed.
by _Beelzebubba on Fri Nov 19, 04 10:42am [+]

Several firefighters are on record as saying they could smell explosives on the ground floor of the North tower before the building collapsed.
Eyewitnesses close to the towers also reported hearing explosions.
by xxxxxxxx on Fri Nov 19, 04 10:46am [+]

That are so many strange events on that day. WTC seven for example. Wasn't even damaged and only had a few localised fires burning. Yet all forty odd stories of it collapsed into its own footprint. Never before had sky scrapers collapsed because of fire. Yet three collapse in one day.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Fri Nov 19, 04 10:57am [+]

WTC 7 was deliberately imploded on the afternoon of 9/11 at the behest of NYC officials citing safety concerns. If you watch the footage of WTC7 going down, it's eerily similar to the way the North and South Towers fell a few hours earlier.
by xxxxxxxx on Fri Nov 19, 04 11:09am [+]

Most fires don't involve jet fuel.
by DirtDog on Fri Nov 19, 04 11:10am [+]

The WTC steel was certified to withstand temperatures of more than 3000F which was far higher than the heat from burning jet fuel, estimated to be 2000F on the five floors surrounding the points of impact.
by xxxxxxxx on Fri Nov 19, 04 11:27am [+]

If there is more to the WTC towers collapsing than impact, heat and weight of a jet... why wouldn't Osama release the details publicly? If he was trying to discredit Bush before the election, the deceit to the public would have been the tool to topple his administration!
by MO_ on Fri Nov 19, 04 11:36am [+]

I doubt he'd have access to the data, for one thing. He's either the fall guy here or he's in the employ of the CIA. (Don't forget those family connections!)
by xxxxxxxx on Fri Nov 19, 04 11:45am [+]

I'm only half-joking.
by xxxxxxxx on Fri Nov 19, 04 11:46am [+]

I thought the WTC was built to implode
by aya on Fri Nov 19, 04 11:59am [+]

I'm not an engineer (although I've picked some engineers' brains on this) and due to the WTC buildings' egg-crate 'redundant' design, plus the fact that the buildings were not solid, I'm told they were more likely to implode than stagger over and fall. I'm still intrigued as to why the governmental reports to date still cite the steel as being the principal cause of the collapse(s), though.
by xxxxxxxx on Fri Nov 19, 04 12:14pm [+]

humm, okay... I'm going to find Tad's and the warm and fuzzy ballots, : ).
by MO_ on Fri Nov 19, 04 12:31pm [+]

LMFAO! I'll probably see you there myself soon. :)
by xxxxxxxx on Fri Nov 19, 04 12:43pm [+]

Critics have pointed out that steel does not MELT at 1500 F, but it
does soften and lose its strength, enough to cause the towers to collapse.

http://www. icivilengineer.com /News/WTC/ structure.php
by WalterPeck_EPA on Fri Nov 19, 04 3:01pm [+]

I did visit that website, although I couldn't get to the link you gave me. The latest news on there re: WTC steel is the summary of the latest official N.I.S.T. findings which Dr. Gayle of N.I.S.T. and Kevin Ryan of UL were discussing in the above email.
by xxxxxxxx on Fri Nov 19, 04 5:14pm [+]

Or at least, the email in which Kevin Ryan was discussing (and refuting) the official findings.
by xxxxxxxx on Fri Nov 19, 04 5:16pm [+]

The experts: Osama bin Ladin and Jackie Chiraqi
by xxxxxxxx on Sun Nov 21, 04 1:41pm [+]

hahaha
by Republican_RightWing on Sun Nov 21, 04 2:00pm [+]

*LOL* that was funny
by jappy on Thu Nov 25, 04 4:19pm [+]

Some people find your ballots funny too, jappy. But that's all you have to refute the above facts. Ridicule. You ARE a really bad joke, jappy.
by cretin_slap on Fri Nov 26, 04 7:54am [+]

Critics have pointed out that steel does not MELT at 1500 F, but it
does soften and lose its strength, enough to cause the towers to collapse.

http://www. icivilengineer.com /News/WTC/ structure.php
by WalterPeck_EPA on Nov 19, 2004

Walter.
Those WTC towers were designed to withstand a plane crashing into them. And you are wrong to claim that 1500 degree temps can soften steel enough to cause a catastrophic failure.

Even television news reporters described what they thought were "secondary explosions" just before the towers came down, and they were in a helicopter right next to the towers. Obviously WlaterPeckEPA knows better than the designer of the WTC, the firemen who evacuated the buildings and brought the fires inside them completely under control, a plethora of technicians and engineers who know for a fact that planes crashing into them could never cause the buildings to collapse, eye-witness actually there who maintain that they saw and heard explosions coming from the buildings just before they fell, and just about anybody who disagrees with the American government's pitiful bullshit cover story. And her tone remains as insultingly dismissive as ever. Is that the best these Bush supporting truth deniers can do? Yes. They suck.
by cretin_slap on Fri Nov 26, 04 8:27am [+]

lets be serious here.. The impact of those airliners must have been rediculous.. and that combined with a jet feul explosion is going to do some damage.. its not like the fire was started from a cigarette and caused the towers to fall..
yea our own government decided to attack our own country.. that makes A LOT of sense people
by RawIron on Sat Nov 27, 04 2:11pm [+]

You should get used to the idea that the government is prepared to attack its own people, Raw Iron.
The fact is that the steel in the towers would have proved how they fell over, beyond any doubt. This steel was not examined.

Can anybody explain why this steel was not analysed in order to find out why the towers fell?

And no matter what anyone like WalterPeckEPA might say, there is video footage that shows explosions going off round the WTC towers. They were demolished.
by cretin_slap on Mon Nov 29, 04 6:48am [+]

Structural engineering was the weak link.

Not to cast blame, logically, who could ever have foreseen those terrible events coming.
by wazzup_wid_u_canada on Tue Feb 15, 05 3:15pm [+]

Okay I really don't know what to believe here -- this topic has been thoroughly debated on multiple ballots and I don't have a good grip on the science of it all, so I'm lost for the most part.

That said, here's a question: the next time I see footage of the towers falling, what should I look for? People have said that it looks like explosives were detonated in the towers, but I've never seen that; however, I never looked for it either.

And I read somewhere that explosives had been placed in the WTC a long time ago for when the towers would theoretically become obsolete, so the towers could be knocked down with as little damage as possible done. Is it possible that the impact of the airplanes and/or heat from the fires could have detonated the explosives? It seems unlikely that that would be possible, but I'm no scientist either -- I'm just throwing shit out.
by xxxxxxxx on Sat May 07, 05 2:17am [+]

There are some who make the excuse that there is only one kind of controlled demolition and that "top-down' demolitions don't exist

This is a top down demolition.

Controlled demolitions are not restricted to one technique only.


Looks the same doesn't it?
by Daughter_of_Khitai on Fri Aug 17, 07 9:33am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy |
© 2002-2008 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved