Originally Posted by scott3x
Ryan was wrong. He was a lab manager at Underwriters Laboratories. His area was environmental testing, not structural certification or fire engineering. It doesn’t matter how many more times you post this letter over and over, he is still wrong.
When he was fired, he had been promoted to the top management job in his division, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. I'm not sure if his division dealt with steel, but what I -do- know is that what you know isn't necessarily a part of your job description; what happened on 9/11 captivated the attention of many people and seeing as how the company he worked for had certified the steel, the issue of how the steel held up was of a more then a passing interest to him. He explains his learning of the subject in the years following 9/11 in his article "Propping Up the War on Terror":...
So instead of conceding or at least demonstrating that you are aware of the discussion taking place you just spam another link from a conspiracy site.....
Originally Posted by scott3x
What is the point of that site? You are recording your words but exclude the posts which completely discredit them.
Actually I think it's clear that in the site it's I who debunk a lot of official story beliefs. It's a work in progress and clearly hasn't yet incorporated everything that's been written here, but it includes a fair amount. If you feel that any part of it is flawed, by all means, point it out to me and I'll have a look.
Didn’t you read my comment? You seem to be trying to record the discussion being had here except without the rebuttals which expose your posts for what they are. That part is a little flawed.
Sounds good, but it seems that enough is known already to make that bit of knowledge unnecessary. I say this because I have never heard Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin or anyone else in the truth movement aside from you mention the issue of not knowing the precise amount of steel involved.
Apparently Kevin Ryan did feel it was important enough to mention certain aspects of the steel and concrete in combination, however. From his article Propping up the War on Terror, he mentions that each floor had "1,000 tons of concrete and steel", although he doesn't specificy in what proportions.
Sounds good, but it seems that enough is known already to make that bit of knowledge unnecessary. I say this because I have never heard Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin or anyone else in the truth movement aside from you mention the issue of not knowing the precise amount of steel involved.
No one else built a model showing that the behavior of the towers in response to impact would change on the basis of mass and distribution of mass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q
If you had asked me SEVEN YEARS ago if people would be arguing about this for so long I would have told you, "No way!"
But why haven't those people managed to persuade the majority?
Why is there so much silence from our engineering schools?
I haven't seen anyone else suggest that thought experiment of eliminating levels and computing the effect either.
I don't understand what it takes to settle this since I can't comprehend people believing a plane could do that in that time. Someone would have to PROVE it to me and I would laugh at them if they couldn't supply that information.
I am currently video editing my second demonstration of a collapse which shows that the mass makes a difference.
Apparently Kevin Ryan did feel it was important enough to mention certain aspects of the steel and concrete in combination, however. From his article Propping up the War on Terror, he mentions that each floor had "1,000 tons of concrete and steel", although he doesn't specificy in what proportions.
The problem with that is that it doesn't show how the towers had to be heavier and stronger toward the bottom. Therefore how can it be more likely to convince people that the top could not crush everything below. In less than 18 seconds to be sure.
but it sounds to me like you are judging on the basis of who says what rather than understanding the physics yourself.
Forget BELIEVING people just understand the grade school physics and figure out the obvious.
A skyscraper must support its own weight so it must be stronger and therefore heavier toward the bottom and it had to be documented to be constructed so why can't EXPERTS like the NIST tell everyone things so simple in a 10,000 page report that took 3 years and cost $20,000,000.
They only use the term "center of mass" four times and "center of gravity" six times in 10,000 pages. How did they expect to explain anything? What happened with that "center of mass" of that tilted top of the south tower? We don't know. It ain't there.
So why the bloody hell do you keep posting his letter from years ago?I suppose I could say that you want to believe the official story as well. Why don't we just say that you and he both simply believe what you do and not put a desire to it? By the way, Kevin Ryan may have believed that the temperatures got no higher then 250 at the time, but he certainly doesn't think so now.
His opinion is completely irrelevant.Ofcourse, he believes explosives were the ones that brought the temperatures so high, not fire.
So why do we have to keep going through this? Are you thinking about the links you are spamming?I believe they only did one on the WTC buildings in 2004...
I am indeed repeating what Kevin Ryan said Frank Gayle was suggesting. One need not be 'mindless' to repeat something that's noteworthy, despite your apparent belief that this must be so. However, as I have mentioned, at present, neither Kevin Ryan or I feel that that's as high a temperature as the steel got.
Who cares? He is not qualified to be an expert on such matters.Even in his 2004 letter, he did address the 2000F fire temperature claim. He clearly didn't believe it at the time,
Brown was wrong. The official story has never mentioned melting steel. You should know that. Move on.but he not only mentions it, but states that even if it were the case, it could not have melted the steel, as Dr. Hyman Brown mentioned. It may be that the only reason Kevin Ryan mentions Dr. Hyman Brown at all is because his story came out in a newspaper and said that his findings were supported by NIST's preliminary findings. Here's a quote from Kevin Ryan's letter to Frank Gayle:
*******************************
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.
*******************************,
Read his damn report. Ryan has latched onto the results of the paint samples. Only three of these samples reached temperatures over 250C. However it has been made clear that very few of these came from the impact zone. You will not stop clinging to them though. They are irrelevant, there is more valuable evidence than those.Kevin Ryan believed that NIST's Frank Gayle was not one who initially felt this way. If you can show me evidence that this was not, in fact, the case,
Which no one believes. Next.I would be happy to see it. Kevin Ryan addressed the fact that someone -outside- of NIST did see it this way, but still made it clear that even if that had been so, the fires couldn't have melted the steel, which is what Dr. Hyman Brown was claiming at the time.
No he wasn’t.Just to make sure that we're arguing about the same thing, here's the relevant excerpt of Kevin Ryan's letter to NIST's Frank Gayle:
"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."
He is claiming 2 things:
1- NIST's Frank Gayle, who led the 2004 investigation, is the one who was suggesting that steel temperatures were probably only exposed to temperatures of about 500F/250C. .
No it isn’t. The jet fuel alone is three times that temperature.2- That this is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. If he's claiming this,
I’m trying to get through to you why that quote is totally irrelevant to the discussion but instead of actually computing what I write you keep spamming the quote as a response!!Agreed; if you don't understand my argument, I must find other ways to try to get you to understand it if I want a discussion on its merits to take place.
Even after so much of what they say has been demonstrated to be utter crap.Sorry, but I trust Jim Hoffman's 9/11 research site more then your word on the matter.
Link to where you have pointed it out then.
I’m barely keeping my taunts in check at the moment. You post some mindless rubbish from your conspiracy sites, I take the time to point out to you what the problems with it are, eventually you move on or don’t respond at all, then triumphantly you post the same crap a few days later as the definitive proof. When I say we have been through that you respond with “what? when? Point out to me where..” You being intellectual dishonest, obtuse and constant spamming is more provoking than me occasionally using the word “stupid”.Just responding to a person makes it necessary to use one's mind. In regards to responding to you, I frequently find that the most difficult aspect, actually, is keeping cool while you go on with your taunts.
It played a critical role. Saying “almost no role” is no less wrong.He said 'almost no role' and I find that your metaphor to be unhelpful to your arguments.
Argh the paint samples again! We have been through the other points there such as the flashover claim.Discredited here:
Imagined Heat
That was from my head. Many debunkers have mentioned it. Instead of trying to attack my source, verify it for yourself.I admit I haven't heard evidence for the above before- who's your source, Ryan Mackey?
Okay but he wasn’t suggesting that either.I claim that Kevin Ryan claimed that Frank Gayle was suggesting that the -steel- never went beyond 500F back in the 2004 interim NIST report, not the fires.
Two different fire tests produced results consistent with those seen in the other examples of steel structures collapsing as well as the simulations. Yes a complete coincidence. Are you really trying to imply that different offices might produce temperatures 750C lower? lolAh, I see; all office fires are the same eh? .
No the workstation tests.You mean the tests the Underwriter Laboratories did for NIST?
Were we discussing pancaking?You may remember Kevin Ryan, who had the top management job in his division of Underwriters Laboratories, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions before he was fired, allegedly because a single letter sent to NIST's Frank Gayle? He wrote quote a good article concerning many things concerning 911. In regards to tests, his company was actually part of a very important one carried out for NIST's 2004 report:
******************************
NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15
******************************
Or do you mean that they did another test, to make up for the fact that this one didn't support their pancaking theory?
The towers lasted twice as long as the Mcormick place and those fires were started with thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Just saying ‘oh but it was a tall steel structure’ doesn’t change the fact that it was vulnerable to fire just as the others were.Yes, but it is a -subset- of the possible steel structures, one that is much more robust then a steel warehouse, as 9/11 Research made clear.
The steel part of the Madrid Tower did collapse due to fire! You have decided to avoid reality.I'm trying to make the case that it's extremely unlikely that -any- steel framed high rise would completely collapse due to fire, plane initiated or not.
They are ill informed, gullible or dim-witted. The evidence is overwhelming.On 9/11, 3 steel framed high rises completely collapsed. The government would like us to believe that fires did the trick every time, but many don't buy it.
I’m using analogies because it is so hard to get through to you and I feel I need them illustrate my point.I find the analogies you're making to be misleading.
Read the FAQ.How about you simply consider this excerpt from the article above:
**********************
Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse. Moreover, the alleged failure of the Towers floor trusses has lost relevance with NIST's endorsing the column failure theory to the exclusion of the truss failure theory.
**********************
In other words, the argument probably had its high times with the original FEMA report, before NIST discredited it.
That's not why he was wrong. He was wrong because the steel temperatures did go over 250C! NIST estimated early on the the temperatures were near 1000C!You stated that Kevin Ryan was 'wrong'.
You justify this belief by saying that his job description didn't include structural certification or fire engineering. That's not evidence, that's a conjecture.
Evidence from ill-qualified sources which has already been debunked many times over.Personally, however, I like providing evidence.
He is not an authority on the matter. In fact NIST say that UL did not even certify the steel in the first place.So I presented you with evidence that demonstrated that he -did- know what he was talking about, providing a long excerpt wherein he details his knowledge of the steel tests that Underwriter Laboratories was performing on behalf of NIST.
can you state what you mean by "the temperatures were near 1000C!"That's not why he was wrong. He was wrong because the steel temperatures did go over 250C! NIST estimated early on the the temperatures were near 1000C!
Evidence from ill-qualified sources which has already been debunked many times over.
I think you are confusing fascism with science.He is not an authority on the matter
<groan> UL certified the steel floor assemblies!In fact NIST say that UL did not even certify the steel in the first place.
I am generalizing a little here but there are two things to consider. 1. I am refuting Scott’s confusing claims that NIST did not think the fire (or the steel) went over 250C.can you state what you mean by "the temperatures were near 1000C!"
Your arguments are unconvincing because you are being too general with the data.
I don’t know if the data exists to be that accurate when discussing WTC. Keep in mind though that the fires were across many floors.You need to distinguish between atmospheric fire temperatures and steel temperatures. You also need to distinguish between column and floor temperatures, the hottest part in a building fire is likely to be at the top of the ceiling, which the cardington tests show.
The columns in the Cardington structure were insulated and did not have the long-span construction of WTC.You cannot equate a ceiling/floor temperature to a column temperature, even the cardington fire tests show these to be wildly different with the column temperatures much lower than the floor temperatures (col temps in the low hundreds). Just saying "1000C" is misleading because it looks like you are trying to convince people that the core columns reached those temperatures which won't help your argument. You are exagerating the temperatures from a test which actually showed the floor systems did not fail!
I didn’t notice that. I assume it is a mistake. A mistake that 911research also made when they reported temperatures of 7500C!You are also quoting mackey saying 1600C?? where did that come from? does he mean Fahrenheit, or is this anomalous data, flashover termperature? again simply throwing out a number without context is pseudoscience.
I don’t know much about this one and am only reading up on it as I type this. I think the comment that the steel was certified by UL would still be incorrect though. Scott did say that on page 3.<groan> UL certified the steel floor assemblies!
surely you see the misleading nature of the statement "UL did not certify the steel" ?
The steel is a component of the steel floor assemblies!!
To quote Ryan himself "This is a bit like saying we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car."
Oh come on he was a chemist who worked in environmental testing. Scott keeps referring to his opinions on the temperatures of the fire. It is a confused appeal to authority.I think you are confusing fascism with science.
What temperature did the columns reach in the cardington tests?2. I have spend a bit of time in the other thread referencing the Cardington fire tests (I believe Kenny linked to some others) where the temperature of unprotected steel was only marginally below that of the atmospheric temperature.Originally Posted by Headspin
You cannot equate a ceiling/floor temperature to a column temperature, even the cardington fire tests show these to be wildly different with the column temperatures much lower than the floor temperatures (col temps in the low hundreds). Just saying "1000C" is misleading because it looks like you are trying to convince people that the core columns reached those temperatures which won't help your argument. You are exagerating the temperatures from a test which actually showed the floor systems did not fail!
I don’t know if the data exists to be that accurate when discussing WTC. Keep in mind though that the fires were across many floors.
In the Cardington test 4 there is no fireproofing or insulation on either beams or columns. if i am incorrect on this then please show your proof. I don't know the significance of the "long span" construction of the wtc, i would suggest that would weaken your argument, rather than strengthen it.The columns in the Cardington structure were insulated and did not have the long-span construction of WTC.
you can listen directly to Kevin Ryan on the subject, it is covered in the first few minutes:I don’t know much about this one and am only reading up on it as I type this. I think the comment that the steel was certified by UL would still be incorrect though.
NIST experiments firing a shotgun at fireproofed steel actually did not damage the fireproofing. So Mackey repeats NISTs assumption. There is no argument that it was not damaged - of course it would have been damaged to an extent, but the relevent question is was it damaged enough to significantly to affect the fire rating of the structure. Moot point anyway if we are looking at test data with zero fireproofing which assumes conditions as favourable to your argument as possible.Mackey makes a few points about this. One of them is worth noting.
The fire rating only applies to the complete structural system, which includes, in particular, undamaged fireproofing material. Therefore, after an aircraft impact which damaged the fireproofing, the rating is no longer valid.
The argument is whether UL certified the steel assemblies and the fire rating of the assemblies, which NIST say they did not (obviously they did not want the test data revelaved which would have contradicted their own report), and Kevin Ryan said they did certify the steel and the fireproofing. The argument is is not about Kevin Ryan's credentials, but if you bring it up make sure you get it right - he worked as a lab manager for many years, which is a pretty senior and experienced position, and had scientific training in chemistry.Oh come on he was a chemist who worked in environmental testing. Scott keeps referring to his opinions on the temperatures of the fire. It is a confused appeal to authority.
People still argue about whether Pearl Harbor was an inside job (I believe it was). The argument may go on for a very long time.
People still argue about whether Pearl Harbor was an inside job (I believe it was). The argument may go on for a very long time.
Not a valid comparison. :shrug:
There was nothing about Pearl Harbor that had to violate any laws of physics in order for the official story to be true. That was only a case of possibly secretive human behavior and probably something that can never be proven with 100% certainty. There just happens to be A LOT of suspicious circumstantial evidence.
Some minimum of steel had to be on every level of the WTC for it to stand and withstand the wind for 28 years. The Empire State Building is proof that this is an area of knowledge where there has to be sufficient expertise. How many people were thinking about landing on the moon when the ESB was completed, 38 years before the actual landing? Now we can't solve something this simple 39 years after the landing.
They are both Newtonian physics problems. This is PATHETIC!.
psik
Many of the scientists involved in the investigation were asked to examine ancillary issues, like escape routes and other emergency response factors. But those few who attempted to explain what really needed explaining, the unique events of fire-induced collapse, appear to have engaged in what can only be called anti-science.
If we are talking about the same tests you are incorrect.What temperature did the columns reach in the cardington tests?
if you don't know the data off the top of your head, you can find it by clicking here and follow the column links: 4D,4E,4F,3E
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...trucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRETest/page47.htm
In the Cardington test 4 there is no fireproofing or insulation on either beams or columns. if i am incorrect on this then please show your proof.
The theory is that the long span trusses are more susceptible for fire.I don't know the significance of the "long span" construction of the wtc, i would suggest that would weaken your argument, rather than strengthen it.
I read that there was some damage. The argument was regarding the extent.you can listen directly to Kevin Ryan on the subject, it is covered in the first few minutes:
http://mp3.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0805/20080526_Mon_Brouillet1.mp3
NIST experiments firing a shotgun at fireproofed steel actually did not damage the fireproofing.
There was much steel recovered which was stripped of it’s fireproofing but there is always the problem of determining if it happened before or after collapse. I believe the photographs of the impact areas gave indication of stripped fireproofing.So Mackey repeats NISTs assumption. There is no argument that it was not damaged - of course it would have been damaged to an extent, but the relevent question is was it damaged enough to significantly to affect the fire rating of the structure.
Scott has repeatedly mentioned Ryan’s opinion on the temperatures of the fires (or was it steel). I am just trying to make it clear that Ryan’s opinion is not evidence.Moot point anyway if we are looking at test data with zero fireproofing which assumes conditions as favourable to your argument as possible.
The argument is whether UL certified the steel assemblies and the fire rating of the assemblies, which NIST say they did not (obviously they did not want the test data revelaved which would have contradicted their own report), and Kevin Ryan said they did certify the steel and the fireproofing. The argument is is not about Kevin Ryan's credentials,
Yes I know, I have mentioned that before.but if you bring it up make sure you get it right - he worked as a lab manager
for many years
.. and that makes him an expert on fires in high rise office buildings?, which is a pretty senior and experienced position, and had scientific training in chemistry.
http://mp3.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0805/...Brouillet1.mp3
Originally Posted by Headspin
...which is a pretty senior and experienced position, and had scientific training in chemistry.
..and that makes him an expert on fires in high rise office buildings?
He did not even work in the area which tested the assemblies. He was in environmental testing, on water I believe.
Originally Posted by scott3x
...WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane at all. It did fall in the classic demolition manner, however, from the bottom up.
WTC was hit by debris from one of the tallest buildings in the world.
The fires burned for seven hours. As demonstrated, fire is capable of collapsing steel structures.
That’s what a building looks like when the bottom floors fail.
The collapse started near the bottom but not quite at the bottom.
If you watch controlled demolitions you will hear the charges going off before the collapse starts.
It also didn’t collapse perfectly as it damaged nearby buildings when it fell. So no it wasn't the same as a controlled demolition.
But you are ignoring that a controlled demolition takes a lot of time and planning to pull off...
the fires burnt for many hours not affecting the supposed explosives
and what is pretty much the final nail - that the firefighters all cleared out because they thought it was going to collapse due to the damage it had received. There is no mystery here.
Well you haven't answered one of the questions which disproves the entire story of demolitions in the towers. There was no bulls eye on the tower.
You see, the explosives were, in your arguement, placed in the direct area where the airplane hit. Nowhere else, because than if the explosives were, lets say 10 stories lower, it would be incredibly obvious that the planes didn't take out the tower, the explosives did. The only way for the explosives to have been as subtle as possible is for the plane to hit the exact spot.
A normal passenger plane is moving at around 400 mph, around the area of 600 feet per second, that's pretty fast wouldn't you say so? If the pilot and co pilot had above average sight abilities they would be able to accurately count the number of floors at a range of around 100-300 feet away from the tower. Now if the plane is moving at around 600 feet per second than that means that the pilot or co pilot have around 1/2 to 1/6 of a second to not only count the number of stories on the building, but to also redirect and change the altitude to hit them.
On top of that these guys probably poured on full throttle for maximum impact meaning the plane could realistically be going around the area of 550 miles per hour or more, which translates to 775+ feet per second. Meaning that realistically speaking the pilots had even less time to perform this feat.
So in effect it would be impossible for the pilots to not only count that many levels of the building but to change the altitude of the plane.
But you are ignoring that a controlled demolition takes a lot of time and planning to pull off
the fires burnt for many hours not affecting the supposed explosives