Re: [Marxism] WTC collapse

["bob" <bobo926@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Les

I understand that you choose to believe the NIST report. For others, a few 
things need to be considered. First, the NIST draft seems to contradict the 
final report. (see for example 
http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php ) Second, the 
investigators at the Underwriters Laboratories that did the research on the 
steel beams  contradicted the NIST report.

Here's a letter written by an investigator at the insurance industry's 
Underwriters' Laboratories. This is the organization that the insurance 
industry uses regarding research involving safety and the impact on insurance 
risks.

The following letter was sent 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 components 
used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. 

Mr. Ryan is a whistleblower. As such, he suffered the consequences.

One thing that my 35 years as an activist tells me is that given a choice of 
believing the US government's official version of anything vs. that of a 
whistleblower, I'll choose the whistleblower just about every time, especially 
if they can back up their claims with science. Another is that honest people in 
the governmental bureaucracy often analyze things in one way and then when the 
report gets looked at by the political people at the top, they change the 
findings to suit their politics. Thus the often wide discrepancy between draft 
reports and final reports.


=======================================

Thursday, Nov 11, 2004 
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 above 1100C (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/102104/coverstory.html 
2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 
4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php
5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 
6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters 
Laboratories


So what happened to Mr. Ryan? He was fired a few weeks later. 
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

There is a rather large movement of people doing work around 911. The left 
seems to have generally dismissed their work, possibly because some of the 
people involved come from a libertarian type perspective. And so, even many 
Marxists dismiss the 911 work as conspiracy mongering. It wasn't always so. The 
world communist movement was forced to take a look at the conspiracy regarding 
the Reichstag fire which was used by Hitler to convince the German people to 
accept the repression that followed. Likewise the conspiracy used to justify 
the Vietnam war which was eventually uncovered and disclosed with the 
publication of the Pentagon Papers.

bob



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Les Schaffer" <schaffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Marxmail" <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 3:32 PM
Subject: [Marxism] WTC collapse


according to a just released study -- yes, by the bourgeous National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a group whose guidelines i 
often work with -- the WTC towers collapsed because of heat from fire 
weakening the structural steel:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/nyregion/05cnd-wtc.html
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm

What's interesting in this final report is the claim that it was 
furniture on fire that caused most of the steel weakening. according to 
this report the jet fuel was simply responsible for primary ignition of 
flammables in the buildings. the furniture fire, along with the fact 
that steel fireproofing that had been stripped by jet impact, was the 
ultimate cause of collapse.

what is not touched in the story as reported above is to what extent 
failure by building contractors to supply adequate fireproofing on steel 
supports was an additional or main contributor to the collapse. this was 
discussed early on after 9/11, and i suspect we will see more commotion 
on this should various law suits against the Port Authority proceed.

[cue conspiracy theorists ;-) ]

les schaffer

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism