Kevin Ryan's Claims about UL certifying steel components for the WTC

John Smith

Banned
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:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.

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

Oxymoron

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

http://www.ultruth.com/Kevin_Ryan.htm
Kevin Ryan is the former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST.
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.ultruth.com/Kevin_Ryan.htm
Kevin Ryan is the former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST.
Content from External Source

Yeah, he managed a small lab that tested water. He's just some guy who happens to be a truther.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So he is not a chemist?

What was he analysing water for?

Was it not part of the process of testing the steel?

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

Environmental Health Laboratories is a company, which offers laboratory facilities for chemical and microbiological analyses of drinking water. It helps public water supplies comply with Safe Drinking Water Act regulations and assists environmental professionals in understanding changes in the industry.
Content from External Source
And no, nothing to do with steel.
 

Oxymoron

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

Environmental Health Laboratories is a company, which offers laboratory facilities for chemical and microbiological analyses of drinking water. It helps public water supplies comply with Safe Drinking Water Act regulations and assists environmental professionals in understanding changes in the industry.
Content from External Source
And no, nothing to do with steel.

But the letter states that UL certified the steel. Is that false as you previously stated?
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
Friday, November 12, 2004(911Truth.org news service -- updated 11/13, 11/14)
An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

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. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel's performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.
Content from External Source
And a chemist is a scientist and it states he was an executive.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But the letter states that UL certified the steel. Is that false as you previously stated?
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
Friday, November 12, 2004(911Truth.org news service -- updated 11/13, 11/14)
An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

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. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel's performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.
Content from External Source
And a chemist is a scientist and it states he was an executive.

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.
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
Can you debunk that with evidence Mick?

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;

Environmental Health Laboratories is a company, which offers laboratory facilities for chemical and microbiological analyses of drinking water. It helps public water supplies comply with Safe Drinking Water Act regulations and assists environmental professionals in understanding changes in the industry.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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;
This tells a different story:

http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html
By 2003, all of this information was available to anyone who cared. The details were, without a doubt, difficult to reconcile with testimony from officials, reporters, and scientists who were supporting the official story. But in November of that year, I felt that answers from UL were needed. If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.

Knoblauch's written response contained several points. He wrote: "We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them." He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down). But he did give a better explanation of UL's involvement in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. "We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on," he wrote, "and it did beautifully."19

This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the "leader in fire research testing," but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car." In any case, Chapin suggested that we be patient and wait for the report from NIST, because the investigation into the "collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7" was an ongoing process and that "UL is right in the middle of these activities."21
Content from External Source
So compare the NIST FAQ

16. Was the steel in the WTC towers certified by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit) as some have claimed?

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.
Content from External Source
Against the U.L statement


He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car."

Content from External Source
Sound a bit disingenuous?
 
Last edited:

ColtCabana

Senior Member
This tells a different story:

http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html
By 2003, all of this information was available to anyone who cared. The details were, without a doubt, difficult to reconcile with testimony from officials, reporters, and scientists who were supporting the official story. But in November of that year, I felt that answers from UL were needed. If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.

Knoblauch's written response contained several points. He wrote: "We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them." He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down). But he did give a better explanation of UL's involvement in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. "We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on," he wrote, "and it did beautifully."19

This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the "leader in fire research testing," but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car." In any case, Chapin suggested that we be patient and wait for the report from NIST, because the investigation into the "collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7" was an ongoing process and that "UL is right in the middle of these activities."21
Content from External Source

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

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Does Mr. Ryan have copies of the original e-mail correspondence?
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
[19] Underwriters Laboratories email correspondence, December 1, 2003.
Content from External Source
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:

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.
 

Oxymoron

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

Boston

Active 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.

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.

Cheers
B
 

MikeC

Closed Account
This tells a different story:



So compare the NIST FAQ

16. Was the steel in the WTC towers certified by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit) as some have claimed?

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.
Content from External Source
Against the U.L statement


He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car."

Content from External Source
Sound a bit disingenuous?

???

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:

1.1 The test methods described in this fire-test-response standard are applicable to assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls and partitions, columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies for floors and roofs. They are also applicable to other assemblies and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a finished building.
Content from External Source
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....)
 

gerrycan

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

MikeC

Closed Account
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 !

reference?


Hardly science.

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

ColtCabana

Senior Member
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
[19] Underwriters Laboratories email correspondence, December 1, 2003.
Content from External Source
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"

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?
 

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.

See
http://www.astm.org/Standards/A992.htm

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.

see
http://www.aisc.org/DynamicQuestion.aspx?GrpId=6&QueId=1052&ste=_Preview&id=2100

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

11.2.3. How does a fire impact steel connections? Does it affect connections differently than the members themselves?

The connections usually contain more material (additional plates, bolts, etc.) than the connected members. Also, connections often have less exposure to heat and higher capacity for heat dissipation because of their proximity to other members. Therefore, temperatures are likely to develop faster in members than in connections, making connections less critical for fire-protection design.

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.

11.2.7. Compared to regular steel framing, how do steel joists, channels, tees or castellated beams perform in a fire? Are there any special procedures required to fire-protect them effectively?

Open web steel joists and castellated beams are proprietary system designs. For many of them, fire resistance ratings are listed in the UL fire resistance directory (and other similar directories).

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:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
As for floor assemblies, those who have been following the NIST investigation, and various explanations, know that the current claim is that the floor assemblies used in the WTC were never tested for fire resistance. But the May 2003 NIST report says that, in 1970, UL actually tested a floor assembly that was “similar to the WTC floor system”. It is important to note that the results produced in 1970 were the same as those from the August 2004 UL floor tests – only 3 inches of sagging after 120 minutes in the furnace.

In this 2003 progress report, NIST goes on to say that they intended to perform fire resistance tests not only on the floor models, as part of the WTC investigation, but also on “individual steel members”. The latter results were never reported, and no reason was ever given. But this progress report, like NIST‘s final report, focuses more on the floor assembly fire resistance, and conspicuously fails to mention the originally required fire resistance tests on steel assemblies or where these tests were performed.

UL’s second claim

Statement number two above is clearly false for several reasons. First, UL is known to be one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they “produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119.” [5]

In fact, even today you can go to UL‘s website and order fire-resistance testing for building components such as “floors, roofs, walls, beams and columns.” [6]

Additionally, the WTC report from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) said “the UL Fire Resistance Directory …is the major reference used by architects and engineers to select designs that meet the building code requirements for fire resistance ratings.” [7]

Not only that, a New York Times article about the WTC reported in April 8, 2002 that “a furnace procedure called ASTM E-119” is used to “determine if building materials will survive out-of-control blazes.” The Times went on to report “The furnace tests, conducted at places like Underwriters Laboratories here, focus on the ability of separate building components — a steel column or a concrete roof support — to survive temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees.”

This article was critical of the tests performed as they related to the WTC, but certainly didn’t deny that they were performed, and made it clear who it was that performed them by saying –“At the Underwriters Laboratory campus in this northern Chicago suburb, where workers carry out those blazing tests…”. [8]
Content from External Source
http://www.911truth.org/three-years-later-another-look-at-three-claims-from-ul/
 

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?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
A floor assembly with the weight of many floors on it was fire-tested, or a floor assembly was tested by itself?
According to statements made by U.L:
http://www.911truth.org/three-years-later-another-look-at-three-claims-from-ul/

  1. UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials.
  2. 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.
  3. The company told The Tribune “there is no evidence” that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.
Content from External Source
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:

Ronald Wieck

New Member
According to statements made by U.L:
http://www.911truth.org/three-years-later-another-look-at-three-claims-from-ul/

  1. UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials.
  2. 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.
  3. The company told The Tribune “there is no evidence” that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.
Content from External Source
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.


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."

http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
 

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
29
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.
 

econ41

Senior 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:

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
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:
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.
 

trevor

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:

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.
 

Oystein

Senior 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).
 
Yeah, he managed a small lab that tested water. He's just some guy who happens to be a truther.

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?
 

Ronald Wieck

New Member

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.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

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.
 

Oystein

Senior 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?
His profile at AE911Truth (which he filled out himself many years ago) claims:
Kevin Ryan, BS Chem – Certified Quality Engineer. Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories.
Content from External Source
(They take the "Certified Quality Engineer" title to list him in the "Engineering Professionals (Degreed only)" section, despite him not having an engineering degree).
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/xml/supporters/U/KevinRyanBloomingtonINUS.xml.txt

At the "Journal of 9/11 Studies", there is a bit more info:
http://journalof911studies.com/styled-2/index.html
Kevin Ryan earned a B.S. in Chemistry from Indiana University and has worked as a chemistry laboratory manager for many years. As a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) he began, in 2003, to question the World Trade Center investigation being conducted by UL and the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Ryan lost his position at UL for making his questions public and, in the summer of 2006, joined the new journal as co-editor.
Content from External Source
I find nothing more specific. You could perhaps ask Ryan himself? Try email:
kncryan@msn.com
or
info@anothernineteen.com
or
info@journalof911studies.com
 
Top