Reply #179: Underwriter's Lab report: steel components of WTC:NOT WEAK STEEL [View All]

[chomskysright]

This letter is also on the web:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: [e-mail]
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 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.

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