FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7

reply to post by Griff


And again, your statement is not germaine to the issue that Orion and I were arguing over.

reply to post by OrionStars


And that is what his lawsuit is, frivilous. He used his position to speak his personal beliefs about something he had no direct knowledge or evidence of, and got canned for the headaches he caused UL.

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

www.mindfully.org...


There's one....will work on the other posts after dinner

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Says you. You have every right to your opinion. You have no right to wrong with facts. I seriously doubt you have any standing in the legal community. Therefore, all you have is layperson biased opinion and nothing more.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Griff

 

And again, your statement is not germaine to the issue that Orion and I were arguing over.

It most certainly is. Obviously, you have no idea about what you argue. You simply argue to argue and personally attack. That is self-evident to us.

You continue to take this discussion far and away off topic, without being correct. You are not even correct in your own tangent. That is about as pathetic as it can get for people relying on red herring and ad hominem to make argument for them.

First of all. Thank you Swampfox.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

Someone had to certify the steel produced by the company (whomever it was) that sold the steel to Rockefeller for the construction of the towers. Maybe not the exact steel used in the construction of the towers but the steel produced by said company. Either that or we might as well be living in a third world country that has no governance on construction materials. What do we pay ASTM, NIST, UL etc. for then?

Which is it?

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

This is true to the best of my knowledge. UL certifies fire ratings and other things.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

I can agree with this if that is how it happened. I know I wouldn't put the name of the company I work for on anything like this. But, then again, why should we be scared to question authority?

There's one....will work on the other posts after dinner

No need. One was sufficient.

Questioning authority when the need arises can be a good thing, provided its done for valid reasons.

I dont believe that there was any negligence in the construction of the towers (WTC7 may be another issue), I fully believe the architects, and builders did their jobs the right way. I just believe that on 9/11/01 those buildings were subjected to something that was so far outside the range of normal that it was never seriously considered. How many engineers have said, that yes, we did think about an airplane colliding with the towers, but we never considered a massive fire to go with it? Of course, when they thought about an airplane, they used the idea that that plane would be flying level and at slow speed....not at high speed and at an angle....

Remember, the tower hit by the straight and level plane stayed standing longer than the tower hit by an airliner in a bank.....

As for WTC7, I dont think anyone ever considered large pieces of Tower 1 ripping into it either.......

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


It could not do it from the sides or rear. There was no evidence of that on the front of the building facing the WTC complex. Any clear shots of the roof for what you suggest?

Pertaining to WTC7. Why don't we have film of how much damage from some of those helicoptors? They would have been flying around surveying the damage, correct? Police, NEWS, FEMA etc.

reply to post by Griff



There is some footage taken of wtc 7, however, it is off to the side of the building and isnt the greatest. You can however see some of the damage, but not really much of the 20 story hole as reported by NYPD and NYFD from the angle. Due to the heat/smoke/dust rising from the tower pile, helicopters werent authorized to fly where they could get the best angle, not that they would have been able to see through all the smoke/dust. I will try to find those videos and post a link later.

Originally posted by Griff

Someone had to certify the steel produced by the company (whomever it was) that sold the steel to Rockefeller for the construction of the towers. Maybe not the exact steel used in the construction of the towers but the steel produced by said company. Either that or we might as well be living in a third world country that has no governance on construction materials. What do we pay ASTM, NIST, UL etc. for then?

Which is it?

I don't think that the steel was tested beforehand. Steel manufacturers were given a set of specifications for the steel to be used, and the steel mills produced mill reports that gave an analysis of the steel being supplied for the project. NIST states this in one of their reports. But since this went up 35 yrs prior, only limited records are still available.

I would assume that this is common practice?

After effect. The following photos at the site are stated to be damage from the south side. Very misleading when viewing the photos expecting to see the building still standing and was not. There is no way to tell how much damage WTC 7 encountered prior to pull. When viewing WTC 7 as it was pulled, there was no obvious damage to that side of the building to warrant pulling it.

Larry Silverstein said they pulled it. Silverstein owned WTC 7, and if anyone would know for certain, it would be him. Then, prior to 9/11/2001, he leased the rest of the complex for pennies on the taxpayer dollar held in trust by the Port Authority. 61 days prior to 9/11/2001, he bought billions of dollars worth of terrorism insurance on the complex. Eventually, through court battles, he received a portion of the billions he bought at face value on the policies.

I have previously stated, from the looks of the way the roofline was pulled, WTC 7 was a sloppy pull job. I had no idea how sloppy until I viewed the photos at the website. The rubble may be reality, but photos leading up to what may be reality are bogus in visual claims.

www.debunking911.com...

A black pyroclastic blast. What a novelty. No building falls by controlled demolitions or naturally throwing off black pyroclastic blast - ever. That website is definitely bogus in what it is telling anyone about 9/11/2001. If people have to mislead others to make a case, they have no credible case - ever.

Quite frankly, when WTC 7 was pulled and in seen in videos across the Internet as being pulled, there is no evidence of any black pyroclastic blast on any video I have viewed on the Internet, of WTC 7 being pulled. What is coming off, as the building is pulled, is greyish white smoke expected during controlled demolitions (primarily concrete and drywall dust being crushed), and no pyroclastic blast of black or anything else, as witnessed on 1 and 2. It was different type of pull for WTC 1 and 2 than 7.

Black smoke only comes from buring off carbon. Implosions nor explosions burn off carbon. Fire does. Whoever did that pull job intended to give false impressions. Whoever made those photos intended to give off false impressions. They certainly did to people who do not know any better, concerning controlled demolitions, particularly those normally legally used in tight urban areas such as WTC 7 was placed.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I just believe that on 9/11/01 those buildings were subjected to something that was so far outside the range of normal that it was never seriously considered.

Can you explain the technical details of this to us? We can look at the maximum damages NIST was able to do to the core, and look at the severed perimeter columns (take them also at their max possible value), imagine whatever trusses are already missing, and assume safety factors for the columns that is typical of commercial housing. That can be our starting point for considering what the fires would then have to do. Does that work? If not, will you offer a revision that suits you?

reply to post by Richard Gizinu


UL labs perform metallurgical testing. UL has several subsidiary labs testing for specific factors in material specs. That means they test for safety when the steel is used for construction. Something can test high (above normal) for fire resistance. But if the steel is too weak for structural use, it becomes a public safety hazard. NIST sets the standards for and by which all labs will test for certification, including UL.

NIST has their own metallurgical labs when something potentially goes wrong with testing by other labs. That normally happens in structural steel collapses. UL cannot certify unless it completes all the standards set by NIST. NIST stated in their report the WTC steel was above standards, including fire resistance standards.

Again, the fight between UL and Kevin Ryan was never about whether or not UL tested the steel for the WTC complex. It was regarding whether or not UL certified for higher standard in fire resistance testing. Kevin Ryan states they did. UL says they did not. Now Kevin Ryan has sued UL for wrongful termination, and I strongly suspect Kevin Ryan did a CYA before being wrongfully terminated by UL. Every whistleblower has to before they blow the whistle, or will go down in metaphorical flames themselves. It is foolish to blow the whistle without CYA.

Short video of a fireman that day.

911myths.com...

News videos...

911myths.com...

Videos taken by somebody on the scene...

911myths.com...

As far as I have been able to find, these videos were the closest anyone got with video/camera that day. In some of the videos, it appears as if someone took a scapel and neatly cut a section out right down the middle (no telling how deep into the building it went) in addition to the rest of damage that can be easily seen.

Some of the videos also show quite a bit of fire. The fireman in the one video talks about how they could see the building leaning to one side (the side facing the towers) and how they cannot go in to fight the fires.

Can you explain the technical details of this to us? We can look at the maximum damages NIST was able to do to the core, and look at the severed perimeter columns (take them also at their max possible value), imagine whatever trusses are already missing, and assume safety factors for the columns that is typical of commercial housing. That can be our starting point for considering what the fires would then have to do. Does that work? If not, will you offer a revision that suits you?

Two problems with the above statement, imagine and assume. You imagine and assume that the damage to the building. Myself, based on the videos, pictures, and the testimony of the firemen who stood next to WTC 7, imagine that the damage was fatal and assume that the people there that day knew what they were talking about.

No one knows just how badly WTC 7 was damaged and just how bad the fires inside it were that day. Everything "scientific" in regards to figure out the collapse, is a "best" guess.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
As far as I have been able to find, these videos were the closest anyone got with video/camera that day. In some of the videos, it appears as if someone took a scapel and neatly cut a section out right down the middle (no telling how deep into the building it went) in addition to the rest of damage that can be easily seen.

"There's no telling how much damage there was" isn't really an explanation for why a building fell, is it?

I mean it's not like Godzilla stepped on it and totally destroyed it beforehand. It had only been hit by a few pieces of debris, just like most of the other buildings bordering the complex. Where is the actual explanation you have for why this building fell?

Originally posted by OrionStars

UL labs perform metallurgical testing.


Again, the fight between UL and Kevin Ryan was never about whether or not UL tested the steel for the WTC complex. It was regarding whether or not UL certified for higher standard in fire resistance testing. Kevin Ryan states they did. UL says they did not.

Absolutely, UL can test steel. But UL tested the floor/truss assemblies and their response to fires, WITH the fire proofing intact. It passed the test. I believe they also tested some steel from the impact areas for compliance with the steel specs. This passed also.

But Kevin Ryan stated that the building should have stood, since it passed this test, saying that UL tested the steel's resistance to fire effects, when in reality the only thing tested for fire effects were the floors/trusses. This is incorrect and gives the impression that UL says the building should have stood. He was wrong to speak for UL. That's why he's gone.

reply to post by Richard Gizinu


Kevin Ryan is correct. Carbon based fuel fire does not give off enough thermal energy to begin to compromise structural steel, much less completely compromise it. That included the trusses. The belly of each floor was not just trusses spaced apart. There was other steel running adjacent to the trusses also supporting the floors. That is something NIST never mentioned to anyone. If they had, their entire report would have have been easily seen as the cover-up for UL it was. NIST was not covering for the Bush administration. NIST was covering for UL because of the Bush administration not in spite of it.

If people remember the recent bridge collapse, information has come out on that. The gusset plates were not dense enough to stand the stress, or so the general public is now told. So now structural steel is being questioned, not the fact they did not maintain the bridge as should have been done. Safety of steel in construction is what labs test to certify, including fire rating when necessary inside buildings.

There is more to commercial buildings than floor trusses. There are the primary load bearers definitely needing testing for all safety factors. They normally spot test. After testing a prototype, the forging is then tested at labs owned by companies doing the forging. Or sent out if the company has no lab. They send samples of each piece of steel forged or spot check samples of various pieces forged. They do all that to avoid law suits and criminal charges. It is far less expensive to test before using steel than face court action later.