1. John Smith

    John Smith New Member Banned

    Let's see what those who were actually INVOLVED with certifying the steel and construction think.
    "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." - Kevin Ryan

    Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. This is directly from the UL which certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 9, 2013
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The steel is not certified by UL, and Kevin Ryan is a water quality analysis.
  3. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, he managed a small lab that tested water. He's just some guy who happens to be a truther.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    So he is not a chemist?

    What was he analysing water for?

    Was it not part of the process of testing the steel?
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They test drinking water, to see if you can drink it. He has a BS in chemistry.

    And no, nothing to do with steel.
  7. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    But the letter states that UL certified the steel. Is that false as you previously stated?
    And a chemist is a scientist and it states he was an executive.
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Quite, but it's all wrong. UL did not test the steel. Ryan was not an UL executive. He was just some guy who at best managed a UL small water quality testing lab.
  9. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Can you debunk that with evidence Mick?
  10. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    NIST says that UL did not certify the steel. Question 16.

    Also, in the original letter, which can be found here, Mr. Ryan ends his letter with "Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories." Now, according to a company overview courtesy of Bloomberg Businessweek, it says the following concerning the Environmental Health Laboratories;

  11. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    This tells a different story:

    So compare the NIST FAQ

    Against the U.L statement

    Sound a bit disingenuous?
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  12. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    Does Mr. Ryan have copies of the original e-mail correspondence?
  13. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I would imagine if he could not back up what he says he would find himself in big trouble so I guess he does. Note the quotation marks.

    Edit: Yes he does
    Anyway, NIST uses the same device to avoid the subject; referring to 'assemblies'.

    NB Does this dialogue not appear to be strange, if as Mick states, "he is just a water tester, testing drinking water"
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2013
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Ryan's claims are all rather irrelevant, as the fireproofing was stripped off. So even if it was certified, then it would be meaningless.
  15. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    A striking change of tack Mick. And again that is not the case as only parts were stripped away (in the impact zones of 1 & 2) and avery small amount in 7 which mostly had perfect fireproofing, especially in the alleged prime areas of collapse around columns 79.
  16. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    Actually I find this to be extremely relevant, we have the question of NIST directly contradicting UL. I have no opinion on this as I've never looked into this exact contradiction but I will continue reading with interest as I'm inclined to believe UL before I'd believe NIST, and it would be most curious if once again NIST is found to be in error, they are after all developing quite a list of errors concerning specifics surrounding 9/11

    Just how strong the steel was and under what conditions it was tested as well as what results were obtained is extremely relevant to our overall discussion.

    Well done Oxy, not sure if you are right or not, but I do appreciate the tenacity with which you are investigating. Oh and this isn't over till the fat Nist secretary sings :D so please Oxy provide all references just like you did in that last, for all UL claims and compare them to the NIST releases. You could be onto something here.

  17. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account


    not to me - it looks like they are saying the same thing.

    You would not "fire test" steel - what would be the point? the temperature properties of steel are fixed and defined by the chemical makeup of it.

    However assemblies can behave in all sorts of different ways - and when you add fire protection you get a whole different ballgame and testing the fire-resistance becomes a valid possibility.

    You can download ASTM E119 in various formats from here - the scope is for:

    My understanding of "composite" in this context is that it refers to structures built of multiple smaller parts - so a beam might consist of lengths of steel or concrete or wood joined together by various methods (bolts, welds, glue, rivets....)
  18. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Do you realise how they replicated the jet impact in their tests. They fired a shotgun at a bit of fireproofed steel. Their bench tests showed around 4 inches of sag, and that was after they doubled the load and doubled the time, and they said it was 42 ! Hardly science.
    Kevin Ryan is a patriot for calling UL out on this. You can bet that if UL could turn back time, they would not have angered him further by sacking him. It made him all the more determined to expose their dry labbing of the tests that they did.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account


    Indeed...but I think we might be talking about 2 different things......
  20. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    What about actual screenshots of the conversation? It's easy to claim the conversation happened, but if there isn't solid evidence besides "trust me" then it's not a reliable source. Understanding his bias, I wouldn't put making up this conversation to fit his agenda past Mr. Ryan. He's not afraid of talking outside of his specialty, so why not?
  21. Boston

    Boston Active Member

    OK well what I've found so far is that UL does test the connectors but isn't the body that certifies steel to meet certain standards, they may however at least at the time of the writing of the quoted section below, have tested certain beams and shapes used in proprietary systems. Although the national standard is established I think by ASTM which I'm pretty sure was adopted as the national standard in the IBC ( would have been the UBC east at the time of WTC construction ) as I recall these guys been around forever, like since some time in the late 1800s. I knew I remembered some stamp at the top of all the tables and graphs I used to have to use.


    For something that doesn't cost $40 or $50 bucks to go look up you might want to try this one that lists some standards and expectations of steel sold as structural.


    From that last site I found a few tid bits that I thought deserved an honorable mention

    which leads us back to why cantenary suspension is such an important thing to understand, course thats on another thread.

    and this one which I found of particular interest.

    So again the question is yet to be adequately answered, however I think we can agree that connections have been listed by UL and that "some" proprietary systems ( like monolithic floor systems ;-). have also been tested. So I see some ambiguities in the NIST response. Specific language maybe ? Not sure, but I think this warrants more investigation.

    It would seem that at least some of the steel in the WTC center would have been tested by UL, but probably not all of it. So again I think we have a somewhat disingenuous statement from NIST. Although I'd also have to say accuracy was lacking on both teems.
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2013
  22. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

  23. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    A floor assembly with the weight of many floors on it was fire-tested, or a floor assembly was tested by itself?
  24. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    According to statements made by U.L:
    Do these official statements by the company make any sense at all?

    Do you believe these statements?

    If you believe these statements why discuss whether a floor assembly was fire tested 'on it's own', or 'with the weight of many floors above'?

    If I confirmed they were tested with many floors above, would you then say, 'did they fly an aircraft into them and was it an exact replica of the WTC's'?

    But this thread is about WTC7, which had no planes hit it only minor damage on one side, (as admitted by NIST) and office fires which burned out and moved on in 20 minutes or so.

    If you do not believe that the 'materials were not fire tested', then 'someone' must have tested them. This would make 3 above a lie.

    So what do you think so far? Tested? Not tested? If tested, then by whom? What were the results and why are they not freely available?

    Let's have some proper discussion on it instead of throwing up 'was this satisfied and was that different' etc because we all know that even if we could rebuild the WTC's to the exact specifications and fly the same type of plane into it at the same spot or inflict the same damage as received by WTC7 and it didn't collapse, it could be said 'Oh this and that were different and that is why it didn't collapse on this occasion, i.e. 'each billiard break is different scenario'.

    What we should be looking at here is whether or not NIST did a proper scientific evaluation, whether they deliberately mislead, whether they lied? These are the questions.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013
  25. Ronald Wieck

    Ronald Wieck New Member

    NASA aerospace scientist Ryan Mackey wrote a white paper dissecting the errors and falsehoods in David Ray Griffin's section on the NIST reports in his book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking."

  26. Ronald Wieck

    Ronald Wieck New Member

    On pp.28-9 Mackey wrote:
    The overall fire simulation results are perhaps best seen in Figures 12-1, 12-2, 12-4, and
    12-5 of NCSTAR1-5G, which show the relative column temperatures and resultant
    remaining strength for the four fire cases tested (two per tower). Few of the core
    columns are actually predicted to exceed 400 degrees Celsius. Just as the NIST Report
    does not require exceptionally hot fires, the NIST hypothesis does not require massive
    volumes of steel heated to extremely high temperatures. The heating that is required for
    structural collapse is much smaller than Dr. Griffin believes, and therefore his argument
    that the fires were too small, too cold, or too brief are simply incorrect.
    Following this section, Dr. Griffin echoes an oft-repeated claim originating from Kevin
    Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories. A lengthy retelling of Ryan’s legal
    troubles with UL is outside the scope of this paper, having nothing to do with the NIST
    Report proper, and will be left to Appendix A. We will, however, examine the claim
    itself, stated by Dr. Griffin as follows:
    Since . . . the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800o Fahrenheit and Underwriters
    Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000o Fahrenheit for six hours, how
    could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
    To rebut the premise of this question, NIST wrote: “UL did not certify any steel as suggested. . . .
    That the steel was ‘certified . . . to 2000o Fahrenheit for six hours’ is simply not true.”
    NIST’s statement is technically correct but again deceptive. It is technically correct because
    Underwriters Laboratories, as Kevin Ryan has pointed out, certified the steel to 2,000oF (1,093oC)
    only for the times stipulated by the New York City code at the time, “which required fire
    resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors.” [48]
    The full quote by NIST regarding the UL certification, contained in the NIST FAQ [49],
    is as follows:
    UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all;
    rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard
    procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000
    degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
    Had Dr. Griffin read NCSTAR1-6B, he would have understood NIST’s statement.
    NCSTAR1-6B describes an ASTM E 119 test of the floor assemblies, carried out by
    Underwriters Laboratories as part of the investigation. From the abstract on page iii:
    However, NIST found no evidence that fire resistance tests of the WTC floor system were ever
    conducted. As a result, NIST conducted a series of four standard fire resistance tests (ASTM E
    119). In this series of tests, the effects of three factors were studied: (1) thickness of sprayed fire-
    resistive material (SFRM), (2) test restraint conditions, and (3) scale of the test. The tests were
    conducted by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. under a NIST contract and represented both full-
    scale (35 ft span) and reduced-scale (17 ft span) floor assemblies constructed to represent the
    original design as closely as practical. … The restrained full-scale floor system obtained a fire
    resistance rating of 1 . h, while the unrestrained floor system achieved a 2 h rating. For the
    unrestrained test condition, specimens protected with . in. thick sprayed fire resistive material
    were able to sustain the maximum design load for approximately 2 h without collapsing; in the
    unrestrained test, the load was maintained without collapsing for 3. h.
    The test conducted here is precisely the test that would have been conducted (except
    perhaps larger in scale), possibly by UL, prior to the Towers’ construction. It
    demonstrates several points that conflict with Dr. Griffin’s statements:
     The fire rating only applies to the complete structural system, which includes, in

    particular, undamaged fireproofing material. Therefore, after an aircraft impact
    which damaged the fireproofing, the rating is no longer valid.
     The fire rating is only an approximate measure of the actual time an assembly can

    be expected to withstand a fire – each rating level has its own specific test
    requirements, which may or may not be representative of any individual fire.
     Fire rating is not, as Dr. Griffin claims, to any particular temperature. The “2000
    oF” temperature he cites refers to the maximum furnace temperature, not the

    temperature observed in the steel itself. As an example, Figure 6-1 shows the
    furnace temperature measurement against the ASTM E 119 standard, which only
    reaches 2000 oF at the end of the test, over 200 minutes after test start.

    While other assemblies in the Towers would have had different constructions and
    different rating requirements, the overall conditions of any test would be similar. In
    particular, the temperature is an approximate maximum furnace temperature and has no
    direct relationship with the temperature reached by the steel, and the rating achieved is
    invalid if fireproofing is dislodged. This demonstrates that the answer given in the NIST
    FAQ is entirely correct, and Dr. Griffin’s claim that it is “misleading” is nonsense.
  27. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    We seem to be unclear as to what claim we are discussing.

    This was the OP statement - reference to a comment by Kevin Ryan:

    So an assertion by Ryan put into a context of certifying steel.

    In the context of WTC collapses:
    A) Ryan's statement is an implied strawman claim that the buildings DID NOT withstand "...the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." The buildings were not subjected to pools of burning jet fuel either alone or as part of a broader scenario. So strawman.

    B) HOWEVER Ryan's statement is probably a true assertion - IF the buildings had been subjected to "...the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." ALONE there can be little doubt that they would have survived.

    So a typical scenario of truther false claims made by innuendo.

    Given that the truth or falsity of the assertions can be determined without reference to qualifications this final paragraph is irrelevant to any argument currently before us:
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. trevor

    trevor Active Member

    Again, they NEVER talk about the other burning materials in the buildings such as computers, couches, curtains, rugs, office materials, desks etc...."Only Jet Fuel". i have still to this day, not seen kevin ryan talk about "Other burning materials", and still insists that jet fuel was the "Only" thing burning. I don't know if that qualifies as "Strawman", but thats definitely leaving important information out...probably "Intentianally" too if i may add.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Kevin Ryan implied another invalid claim:

    That IF steel or a steel assembly was certified by UL (or anyone) to meet certain code requirements (i.e. perform as expected within the design envelop), THEN a larger assembly of the certified materials and assemblies could and would NOT fail when subjected to stresses outside of the design envelop.
    I, the non-engineer, spot at least two, perhaps three points where this claim is not logical:
    1. The obvious, which I already marked in italics: Nothing was certified for the real situation that eventuated on 9/11
    2. The other obvious which I already hinted at: The confluence of stacking and mounting sub-assemblies can give rise to circumstances where the entire structure fails even within the envelop when each of its certified sub-assemblies would not have.
    3. The codes and testing procedures may be insufficient to predict and prevent collapse within the envelop (i.e. codes and envelops are in need to constant improvement).
  30. Dragomir Urosevic

    Dragomir Urosevic New Member

    I'm trying to find something official about his degree and (lack of) qualifications but am not really finding anything.

    Specifically about his BS in Chemistry and if it was focused.

    Anyone have something?
  31. Ronald Wieck

    Ronald Wieck New Member

    Details on Kevin Ryan are, as might be expected, sketchy.

    I found this link to an e-book, but it tells us little we didn't already know:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=x... theorist Kevin Ryan's qualifications&f=false
  32. trevor

    trevor Active Member

    that's the #1 trend for 9/11 truth. These guys have been known for using Water Engineers to talk about building structure.


    that journal has over 70 studies and is published and peer reviewed by steven jones (because nobody else would take them) and of course, out of the 70 or so articles, only about 3 or 4 of them were written by guys who actually qualify to talk about that topic...How interesting, right? Im a journalist who knows nothing about building structure. I am now going to create a journal and submit it to steven jones. Lets see if it gets published.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  33. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    His profile at AE911Truth (which he filled out himself many years ago) claims:
    (They take the "Certified Quality Engineer" title to list him in the "Engineering Professionals (Degreed only)" section, despite him not having an engineering degree).

    At the "Journal of 9/11 Studies", there is a bit more info:
    I find nothing more specific. You could perhaps ask Ryan himself? Try email: