FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7

Does anyone have a quote from UL that they did not certify the steel? I haven't come across anything yet.

What I mean about "does it matter?" is that someone had to certify that steel or Rockefeller is big trouble for building those buildings with shoddy construction material.

Either way, there's a conspiracy.

If it wasn't certified: Rockefellers using their "pull" to get out of trouble.

Certified: Why did the steel fail before 2 hours if it was certified?

reply to post by bsbray11


What makes him a lunatic? Lets see, he works in a water testing lab and sees fit to speak out in his "official" capacity that something is wrong because his company certified the steel. Neverminding the fact that the steel used to construct the WTC was used long before he was even a water tester at UL. Sorry, but thats nuts to me.

Certified: Why did the steel fail before 2 hours if it was certified?

Because it wasnt certified to withstand the stresses imposed on it after the impact AND fire.

And before you break out the calculations, no one will EVER know just exactly how much damage occured within the towers.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Because it wasnt certified to withstand the stresses imposed on it after the impact AND fire.

They've done fire tests with steel that are at the point of failure. So, yes, they would have fire rated steel that covers the new stresses AND fire. This is nothing new to the construction industry. If you think steel hasn't been thoroughly tested for fire at or near it's ultimate strength, then you are niave.

And yes, any steel that remained standing after impact would be LESS than the ultimate strength capacity. Therefore, yes, it would have been tested and certified under those conditions.

Please provide proof if I'm incorrect. Not just "nah, uh".

I was not going to engage in this until I read the continuing saga of "Some people telling everyone everything they do not know about science."

Kevin Ryan was director of UL labs until he was fired for being a whistleblower. He was not a "lunatic". He was quite lucid, because people behaving as "lunatics" do not become the director of labs responsible for testing products that can kill people, when not kept within safety standards. Not if a company prefers to avoid civil law suits and criminal charges for professional negligence or worse.

Until 9/11/2001, Kevin Ryan was highly respected as the director of a subsidiary of UL labs. But let the Bush administration write some report suspending all laws of physics and quantum mechanics, which defies nature and UL's own certification of steel, and Kevin Ryan, the ethical whistleblower, became a target of vicious malice of forethought by the Bush administration. Plus, a target of people, in this forum and others across the Internet, telling us everything they do not know about science, finance, and industry.

Kevin Ryan was fired for being an ethical whistleblower not for being incompetent at his job. He was not not lying. Steel does not soften or melt from jet fuel fire, because jet fuel fires cannot provide enough thermal energy to do that. It is for certain smoke from jet fuel fires is not going to soften or melt steel. Anyone thinking either can does not comprehend the second law of thermodynamics. That becomes self-evident when they start running their fingers over keyboards telling everyone else everything they do not know about science, particularly physical science.

www.wanttoknow.info...

The second law of thermodynamics:

www.panspermia.org...

If people still wonder why whistleblowers do not come forward, here are three reasons: The vicious malice directed at people, such as Kevin Ryan, Morgan Reynolds, and Sybil Edmonds.

Others have come forward anonymously, but anonymous will not cut it in court or a formal hearing, when there is refusal to testify, directly due to proof of the way ethical whistleblowers are treated, by the likes of those in the Bush administration, specificially Karl Rove and his murderous slander machine.

The innocent never have to bury the truth. The guilty always do with whatever it takes to get the job done. That is fact not fancy, whether people chose to face up to physical reality or not.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Certified: Why did the steel fail before 2 hours if it was certified?

Because it wasnt certified to withstand the stresses imposed on it after the impact AND fire.

And before you break out the calculations, no one will EVER know just exactly how much damage occured within the towers.

Well, isn't that convenient for you. You just took our argument, of your lack of knowledge in science, and agreed with us your opposition.

However, what real scientists, not pseudo-scientists, do know is which fire sources compromise steel and which do not. On that count, you and others have successfully continued losing your points of argument, by contradicting the second law of thermodynamics. If the plural you undersood it, you would not have spent so much time contradicting that and the first law.

One problem with carbon based fuels and secondary carbon based sources is, they cannot produce enough thermal energy to begin to compromise steel, much less heat it enough all the way to the center, from all sides, to begin to bend steel. They spend too much time burning themselves out, and making massive toxic clouds of dense black smoke.

I have stated that well-known scientific fact often enough in various discussions. Yet, those refusing to make the effort to study it themselves do no more, than continue to tell us everything they do not know about science, including the science of the first and second law of theromdynamics.

reply to post by Griff


Griff, where shall we start in discussing "tested, engineered" metals that FAIL? We have 163 F-15s currently grounded, because of cracks, that should NOT have happened due to the engineering and testing put into the structural members of the F-15s. The hull plates of the Titanic were tested, and engineered...and failed in spectactular fashion....the elevated walkways of the Hyatt in Kansas City were engineered..and failed...the Tacoma Narrows bridge, designed, engineered, tested...and failed...

Quite frankly, we STILL do not know everything about chemistry or physics and it is the ultimate in human arrogance to assume we do.

The facts are, on 9/11/01, two fully fueled airliners crashed at high speed into the WTC. The towers failed and collapsed due to the damage sustained and the fires. Will we ever know every little thing that went on? No, and even if we spent 30 years testing each piece of wreckage, we STILL wouldnt know everything.

which defies nature and UL's own certification of steel, and Kevin Ryan, the ethical whistleblower, became a target of vicious malice of forethought by the Bush administration.

And Kevin Ryan the WATER TESTER, with absolutely no connection to the construction materials division, took it upon himself to say that something was wrong because his company certified the steel........

He took it upon himself to become the spokesperson for his company, for an event that his company had nothing to do with. The dipstick deserved to get fired.

And the idea that the Bush Administration gives a hoot about him is hilarious.

One problem with carbon based fuels and secondary carbon based sources is, they cannot produce enough thermal energy to begin to compromise steel, much less heat it enough all the way to the center, from all sides, to begin to bend steel

ROTFLMAO....the engine shop guys in my squadron would LOVE to talk to you about that one. It took them five minutes to quit laughing. JP-8 burns hot enough to MELT steel, it is only the design of jet engines which uses bypass intake air to insulate the steel of the combustion chamber from the burning fuel.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

which defies nature and UL's own certification of steel, and Kevin Ryan, the ethical whistleblower, became a target of vicious malice of forethought by the Bush administration.

And Kevin Ryan the WATER TESTER, with absolutely no connection to the construction materials division, took it upon himself to say that something was wrong because his company certified the steel........

Now the onus is on you to prove it. Are you going to do that? Or take the sage action, and finally drop what never should have been entered into discussion? All you have done is take the disreputable opportunity of viciously malign an individual you know nothing about. What is in it for you to continue doing that?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


ROTFLMAO....the engine shop guys in my squadron would LOVE to talk to you about that one. It took them five minutes to quit laughing. JP-8 burns hot enough to MELT steel, it is only the design of jet engines which uses bypass intake air to insulate the steel of the combustion chamber from the burning fuel.

Now if it was directly applied to thin gauge steel and any aluminum for some length of time, you might be on to something. But not structural steel. No way. The topic is structural steel. Did you miss that fact? Did you bother sharing that fact with "......the engine shop guys in my squadron..."? Did you even pass it by anyone at all?

I fail to believe everyone in the military is as much of a science neophyte as you project yourself to be in these discussions, including ""......the engine shop guys in my squadron..."

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
We have 163 F-15s currently grounded, because of cracks, that should NOT have happened due to the engineering and testing put into the structural members of the F-15s.

Fatigue cracks are a KNOWN phenomenon. It is natural and we know that it happens. Nothing "new" there.

The hull plates of the Titanic were tested, and engineered...and failed in spectactular fashion.

Where they tested against shear failure?

The steel used to build the Titanic was not as "impact-resistant" as modern steel, according to Dr. H.P. Leighly, a professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at UMR. But it was the best steel available at the time, says Leighly, who studied some 200 pounds of steel from the wreckage.

Inferior steel wasn't the only reason the luxury ocean liner Titanic sank in the early morning hours of April 15, 1912. Other factors -- such as flaws in the ship's design, the crew's negligence and the lack of lifeboats -- also contributed to the disaster, Leighly says.

www.sciencedaily.com...

To blame the Titanic disaster totally on the engineering, testing of the steel and steel itself is disengenious.

...the elevated walkways of the Hyatt in Kansas City were engineered..and failed...the Tacoma Narrows bridge, designed, engineered, tested...and failed...

Fatigue/corrosion/galvanic corrosion etc. are ALL known. Again. Nothing new there.

Quite frankly, we STILL do not know everything about chemistry or physics and it is the ultimate in human arrogance to assume we do.

Agreed.

The facts are.....The towers failed and collapsed due to the damage sustained and the fires.

That is theory...not FACT.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
JP-8 burns hot enough to MELT steel,

Source please. Laugh your ass off all you want because I have found NOTHING saying that JP-8 can melt steel.

Outside of powering aircraft, JP-8 is used as a fuel for heaters, stoves, tanks, internal combustion engine powered electrical generators (as a replacement for diesel fuel), and other military vehicles, and serves as a coolant in engines and some other aircraft components.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah, it melts steel.

it is only the design of jet engines which uses bypass intake air to insulate the steel of the combustion chamber from the burning fuel.

Oh...did I mention. JP-8 fuel is also used as a COOLANT in engines?

Originally posted by OrionStars
I fail to believe everyone in the military is as much of a science neophyte as you project yourself to be in these discussions, including ""......the engine shop guys in my squadron..."

Yeah, I bet they know their chemistry and physics.

No offense, but it is usually the uneducated who join the armed forces. Again, I mean no offense to anyone in the armed forces. They have earned my respect in more ways than one. But, scientists, they are not.

Jet A-1 is similar to JP-8

JET A-1
Flash point: 38 °C
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C
Freezing point: −47 °C (−40 °C for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 260–315 °C (500–599 °F)
Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C (1796 °F)
Density at 15 °C (60 °F): 0.775–0.840 kg/L

en.wikipedia.org...

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

education.jlab.org...

Come again about JP-8 melting steel.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
What makes him a lunatic? Lets see, he works in a water testing lab and sees fit to speak out in his "official" capacity that something is wrong because his company certified the steel. Neverminding the fact that the steel used to construct the WTC was used long before he was even a water tester at UL. Sorry, but thats nuts to me.

That doesn't even make sense. He's a lunatic because he said the steel was certified by UL before he worked there? And that's supposed to be a reason? You must not know what the word "lunatic" means, or else you never got past that 2nd-grade phase of name-calling.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Because it wasnt certified to withstand the stresses imposed on it after the impact AND fire.

Not all structural members were exposed to impact damages.

The impacts did not destroy enough columns to fail either building. Not even close, by even loose standards for building strengths.

Therefore, the fire would have to fail the remainder. It did so in less than 2 hours in both cases. This is the problem. Does it make sense yet?


Maybe in your head you somehow think "fire AND impact damages" together sum to be more than both of them taken individually. Is this the case? If so can you explain exactly how that would be possible?

And before you mention fireproofing, remember we're not talking about fireproofed steel, and even if we were, there was fireproofing still attached to the very perimeter columns that were severed during impact, only a few feet below the sever. So NIST's shot-gun tests and assertions that all the fireproofing would have been knocked off needs more than a little additional testing.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And before you break out the calculations, no one will EVER know just exactly how much damage occured within the towers.

Certainly you can agree to an upper limit of the possibilities. Are you afraid to? Even NIST has thrown out figures from modeling for the maximum amount of core damage possible from an impact, even changing Flight 175's impact angle to do so. Ok? I want you to really think about that. NIST was not being conservative in their figures. Why can't we use those? What's wrong with them besides that they probably assume more damage than was ACTUALLY there?

[edit on 18-1-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by Griff


Griff, I realize the standards have drastically declined. However, there are many bright people joining the military at base level, just to earn money to go to college. They cannot afford it otherwise. When they did it, they were not expecting to be lied into war.

Now, concerning the national guard, I cannot be as generous in giving benefit of the doubt as to their desire to be educated. There was a time the regular military referred to them as week-end warriors at the base level. They joined the national guard to stay out of Vietnam.

reply to post by Griff



Uneducated huh? I tell you what go grab any 100 people off the street, and I will grab 100 members of the military. Guaranteed there will be more college graduates among the military members. Not to mention their IQ scores will most likely be higher than the civilians. The idea that the military is full of "uneducated" people is the biggest bunch of BS around. (and usually put forth by extremely arrogant and misinformed people)

JP-8, as a liquid, can indeed be circulated as a coolant....until it enters the combustion chamber.......

The SR-71, used its jet fuel this way it was circulated to various places in the airframe to cool it...again, until it was routed into the combustion chamber.

reply to post by bsbray11


Im going to have to dumb down my posts I guess....

For someone in a department, not even connected to the department he chooses to speak for....is CRAZY. He has no experience testing construction materials, he did not have ANY files concerning construction materials, he wasnt an employee at the time of the construction of the WTC and yet he choose to speak out AS a representative of his company....now, either he is a moron or he is nuts or he is seeking to make money.