FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7

reply to post by OrionStars


Wrong once again Orion. YOU mentioned that UL had tested the materials (including the steel) used in the construction of the WTC, not me....

From your post:

They test it under every adverse condition. UL was the lab testing the steel and other materials being used in the WTC. Electrical wiring, etc

NOW, as I said, no surprise that you dont want to discuss him and his BS claims.

OOPS I said it again.......im shaking in my boots............

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


That is correct, in relation to industry standands and nothing more. Stop turning it into what it was not just to be deliberatly argumentative.

reply to post by OrionStars


And the point still stands, UL had NOTHING to do with certifying the structural steel of the WTC.

It was a BS statement by a moron who worked in a WATER TESTING lab that was a part of UL.

Unfortunately, people like you have taken his lies as the gospel.......

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


They most certainly did. They test and certify construction materials throughout the industry, and have since they day they opened their labs. NIST sets the standards, by which all materials testing labs must comply to stay certified as testing labs.

reply to post by OrionStars


To use your refrain....

Where is your proof that UL certified the structural steel used in constructing the WTC???

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


The NIST reports specifically states UL tested the steel in the WTC complex. Didn't you bother to read the reports you defend?

Now drop it. Read the report. That is my validation on the only portion of UL testing I will discuss, and which is all I ever discussed in this discussion.

You keep up badgering on this, and you can talk to yourself or anyone wishing to converse with you in direct relation to same.

no, UL tested the steel as part of the NIST investigation AFTER the collapse.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Prove it.

Actually the burden of proof is on you. UL has stated more than once that they did not have anything to do with certifying the steel during the construction of the WTC.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Actually the burden of proof is on you. UL has stated more than once that they did not have anything to do with certifying the steel during the construction of the WTC.

You do know what the following citation of your own word means, don't you? In case you do not, it means prove it or drop it.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
no, UL tested the steel as part of the NIST investigation AFTER the collapse.

Im tired of having to explain to you, your own posts

Im tired of having to explain to you, your own posts

Here is from ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)

NIST Investigators Say WTC Steel Met Standards

A new report from the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) suggests that the steel beams inside the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers met or were stronger than design standard requirements. Officials have tested some of the 236 pieces of steel from the debris, and while they maintain the report is preliminary and more testing is planned, they are confident that these initial assessments will be confirmed. The steel beams used to build the WTC were typical of materials in the 1960s when the towers were erected.

www.astm.org...

Now, I don't know who certified steel back in the '60s but someone did.

Does it matter if it was UL or not?

Still looking into it though.




[edit on 1/17/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
Now, I don't know who certified steel back in the '60s but someone did.

Does it matter if it was UL or not?

Uh oh, now you're stepping outside of the debunker's textbook. Up until now it's been sufficient just to say "Kevin Ryan is a liar" and thereby imply the steel in the towers couldn't take two hours of fire. But even NIST has proven that much. I just wish some people could realize how ridiculous they come across repeating a bunch of irrelevant information and thinking that it somehow is relevant.

Do you know anything about the strength standards and all that for the 1960's steel compared to UL's standards?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Who is forcing you to believe you are even qualified to that? Not I, that is for certain. It is a sad reflection on the US educational system, when special needs children and adults have no problem with comprehending what I say, but you and others keep redundantly telling us you do.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Do you know anything about the strength standards and all that for the 1960's steel compared to UL's standards?

All I know at the moment is that A36 steel started it's production in the 60's. Before then, steel was called A9. It had a lot more sulfur in it and therefore wasn't as strong. I believe they refined the smelting process to start producing stronger steel.

If any of that is incorrect, please advise me.

UL history excerpt:

www.ul.com...

"1894
Founder William H. Merrill opens Underwriters’ Electrical Bureau, the Electrical Bureau of the National Board of Fire Underwriters.
First test is conducted on March 24, 1894 on a non-combustible insulation material for Mr. Shields. Test Record No. 1 under File No. E-1 is prepared for the first client (Mr. Shields).

1895
The laboratory staff conduct tests on products and issue 75 reports to clients on a budget of $3,000 with a staff of three employees.
Electrical Department is established.

1896
The laboratory staff conduct first tests on switches, wire, conduit, sockets and receptacles.

1897
The National Board of Fire Underwriters publishes the first “List of approved fittings and electrical devices” based on test reports published by the laboratory.

1898
The laboratory staff conduct first tests on distribution boards, fire alarm boxes, lightning arrestors and thermostats.
Merrill distributes bulletin to subscribers of acetylene gas machines with results of reexamination of products and changes required to be considered acceptable.

1899
Underwriters Electrical Bureau publishes index to first 1000 Laboratory Test Reports that include the following product categories; arc lamps, bushings, circuit breakers, cleats, conduit, fire alarm boxes, flexible cords, fuses, heaters, fixture insulation joints, junction boxes, lamp adjusters, rheostats, rosettes, sockets and receptacles, spark arrestors, switches, thermostats, transformers and wires.
Requirements for the first rosette are published. Rosettes are the classic single light bulb receptacle""

All people have to do is a pick a decade, any decade, to be informed of exactly what UL added to testing in manufacturing of products in compliance testing. UL is privately owned. NIST is paid for by the taxpayers, and sets all manufacturing material standards. UL is bound to comply with NIST standards when testing all manufactured materials.

Then most well-known name in private lab material compliance testing is UL.

TextDoes it matter if it was UL or not?

Griff, only when someone starts spouting off that lunatic's statements (the lunatic being Kevin Ryan) and pretending that the water tester would know anything about the subject of testing steel and whether or not his company had anything to do with the WTC construction.

TextDoes it matter if it was UL or not?

Griff, only when someone starts spouting off that lunatic's statements (the lunatic being Kevin Ryan) and pretending that the water tester would know anything about the subject of testing steel and whether or not his company had anything to do with the WTC construction.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Griff, only when someone starts spouting off that lunatic's statements

What makes him a "lunatic"? Because he disagrees with you, or because he's medically a nut? Do you think a mentally disabled person would ever be capable of obtaining his UL job? Depending on your definition, you may be a lunatic, too. In fact, you most certainly are.

Someone certified that steel and you can't possibly be certain that it was under the 2-hour fire rating. There is absolutely no evidence of that, and no reason at all for anyone to insinuate it.