Tweet
Re: Pentagon Attack on 911
Lamb Boy is this the lecture?
Lamb Boy is this the lecture?
-
Last edited by skhara; 09-08-2006, 05:24 PM. -
Re: Pentagon Attack on 911
The collapse of the WTC
by Kevin Ryan
Underwriters Laboratories
Thursday, Nov 11, 2004
The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.
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...overstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3Mechanic...sisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCS...101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters LaboratoriesComment
-
Re: Pentagon Attack on 911
Totally Skhara!!! Thnx very much! Imo this guy, although dry in delivery, really puts the evidence to the utmost scientific scrutiny. The WTC section of the lecture just blows my mind. I also like how he suggests that these acts could have been carried out by a relatively small group of individuals instead of the thousands ppl assume.Originally posted by skhara
I thought that what the company who provided the steel really put the "official reporters" in their place when they sent out their statement in order to show how jet fuel, unless sustained for a good amount of time, would not be able to damage the steel to a point that the structural integrity of the building would become an issue. They stated that even weakened steel would have been able to handle the burden of the weights they were required to hold. meh Some ppl failed chemistry and physics!!
Then there is the whole vaporized steel elements they found that would require a temp of something around 2300C which jet fuel gets no where near ….
If you hate the Loose Change documentary then I suggest watching this as it is less presumptuous and more empirical. We seriously owe it to the ppl who died and ourselves to get to the bottom of this issue …
Thanks again!
Oh and awsome article and links!!Comment
-
Re: Pentagon Attack on 911
If the FACT that Larry said we brought the building 7 down does not spark a light in one's mind who still believes the "official" story...I don't think anything else would...Comment
-
Re: Pentagon Attack on 911
You know when I confronted my Mom with this material she stated simply that she wasn't surprised. I want to talk to my Dad about this as he was a Major in the USAF and flew KC-135 Stratotankers logging over 25,000 hours in his career and eventually flying for Continental. While in the USAF he was the chief safety officer for the base he was stationed at and thus investigated anything bad that happened there including crashes. I want to know what he thinks about the lack of wreckage at the Pentagon and in general what the overall picture tells him. It will be sort of a baited discussion but I already know what he'll tell me as long as he is being intellectually honest with me and himself.
One last thing, just out curiosity I asked my Mom how long after the JFK assassination did the "conspiracy theory" (once again this title/label makes no sense as even if Oswald were capable of performing the act it's still a conspiracy ... could any assassination be anything other?) surface and she said ...
"Years ..."
So I imagine this will be a really, really long road ...
HEY!! I EDITED THIS IN!! THERE IS A SPECIAL ON DISCOVERY RIGHT NOW COVERING THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD TRADE TOWERS INCLUDING INTERVIEWS WITH ARCHITECTS!! Bring on the ignorance and lies ...
It sux ...Last edited by Lamb Boy; 09-08-2006, 07:00 PM.Comment
-
Re: Pentagon Attack on 911
Does anyone how much was paid to lease the WTC for 99 years? I just want to compare how much he paid to how much he made from insurance. It's billions.Originally posted by FedayeenComment
-
Re: Pentagon Attack on 911
Funny you say that...because just hour ago on History channel it was showing about how we should attack Iran before they attack us....and they had Isrealis talking about itOriginally posted by Lamb Boy
blah blah blah and all that good stuff bullxxxx...and mostly showing American flag being burned...lol
I say another major attack before the end of this year
Comment
-
Re: Pentagon Attack on 911
Here's the NIST faq concerning the various problematic points.
The don't mension molten metal under building 7 or sulphur under all buildings.
Did anyone read the full NIST report?Comment
-
Re: Pentagon Attack on 911
Larry “Lucky Larry” Silverstein
BY:
[email protected]
Date Published: 2006-09-06
You’ve got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million
Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership.
Mr. Silverstein’s first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines — two key players in the 9/11 attacks.
The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.
Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.
Another little “coincidence” -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against “terrorist attacks”.
Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion — a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million.
There’s more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.
The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!
In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.
WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed — exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.
How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:
"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, “Pull” is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history — including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building’s tenants:
US Secret Service
NSA
CIA
IRS
BATF
SEC
NAIC Securities
Salomon Smith Barney
American Express Bank International
Standard Chartered Bank
Provident Financial Management
ITT Hartford Insurance Group
Federal Home Loan Bank
The Securities and Exchange Commission has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed by the collapse of WTC 7. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."
Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.
Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.
What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.
Incidentally, it’s worth noting that one of Lucky Larry’s closest friends — a person with whom it’s said he speaks almost daily by phone — is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Comment
-
Re: Pentagon Attack on 911
Just watched the Bill Maher show on HBO and they were talking about the new documentary that is going to air on ABC and how it blames 9-11 on Bill Clinton. In passing Bill M. mentioned that 35% of Americans now believe that 9-11 was an inside job. The audience and guest just had to digest that one for a second before Bill diminished the entire concept by stating that "Such scholars like Charlie Sheen are supporters..." and then the editor of Salon.com stated something about THE conspiracy theorists in an effort to make the train of thought laughable. Thank God the lead singer for Matchbox 20 was there (did I really just say that!! lol) and then interjected that the official story is ALSO a conspiracy theory. When you really think about it what else could it be?
"Uhhh a devious plan to destroy the WTC buildings using hijacked planes??"
Then the Salon editor made herself look incredibly stupid by stating that our inept government would have NEVER been able to pull that off ... oh but a bunch of cave dwellers who used recycled playground equipment to train on COULD??? What an i___t
Thinking along these lines is insanely dangerous. The second you underestimate the powers that be the more power you ultimately give them to control certain aspects of our lives.Comment
Comment