The following is from a letter from whistleblower Kevin Ryan (http://www.ultruth.com/Kevin_Ryan.htm) to the National Institute for Safety Standards (NIST) on 11-Nov-04. He was sacked for having written that letter.

"... the company I work for (Underwriters Limited) certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.

"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.' ... 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.

"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." (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php)

See also "Three Years Later: Another Look At Three Claims from UL" at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070919215921873

The evidence that the spectacular structural failure could not have been caused by the fires was ignored in the NIST's report.

typical dagget,

when I show you are wrong, you just move on to some other rubbish. How about you're comments on the "PYROCLASTIC FLOWS"

No-one has attempted to "move on" in this discussion, Paul.L, except you.

I only saw your last post after I posted mine.

However I do hope we can "move on" from silly semantic discussions about what we label the huge clouds of dust that formed after the collapses of the Twin towers.

How about showing the promised link to promised rebuttal of Jim Hoffman? The link you provided was only to an addendum, hadn't you noticed?

Dagget,

The addendum contains the rebuttal of Hoffman’s stupidity. The article itself is much more open in scope and deals with the collapses themselves and not some half smart pseudo scientist’s rantings. In any case here is the full transcript in case in your paranoid little world you imagine I had some sinister motive for not providing the primary document.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

It is patently obvious that the duct clouds were NOT 700 degrees Celsius, or anywhere near that. Therefore the assumption made by Hoffman that all the air had to have come from within the building is clearly wrong. Indeed it was never a reasonable assumption to make in the first place.

The certified steel stuff has been so THOROUGHLY debunked it’s not funny.

There are a number of major problems with the material you have supplied above.

First >> “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."

This is just straight up LYING. The temperatures from jet fuel fires reached 1000 degrees Celsius in the twin towers. Whilst this is not hot enough to melt the steel, it is enough to reduce the strength of exposed steel to 1/10th its normal value. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Second >>"... the company I work for (Underwriters Limited) certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. “

NIST “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.” http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Third >> “The evidence that the spectacular structural failure could not have been caused by the fires was ignored in the NIST's report.”

Absolute unadulterated RUBBISH. Have a look at the NIST site. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/ULTestResults.pdf

Firstly, in regard, to http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf I would concede that this is, after all, a purported refutation of Jim Hoffman's "The North Tower's Dust Cloud ..." at http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

I was misled by the fact that the document was labelled an "addendum".

I have no doubt that further documents exist which would demolish this document, but I hope others will understand if I don't track them down immediately.

---

In regard to Kevin Ryan's claim that UL had indeed certified the steel used in the construction of the twin towers back in the 1970's, read the letter I have already provided link to at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070919215921873

"James Verhalen, chairman of the company that manufactured the fireproofing, United States Mineral Products, said that ''There is no reason for that product in a typical commercial environment to deteriorate,' because 'He said his product had been thoroughly tested and approved by Underwriters Laboratories.' [3]"

"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."

"UL's own Tom Chapin, the chemist and manager of their Fire Protection division, with whom I was in contact, admitted to UL's involvement in testing steel (i.e. that which allowed the towers to stand) for the WTC by writing -- 'The World Trade Center stood for almost an hour after withstanding conditions well beyond those experienced in any typical fire. In that time, thousands of people escaped with their lives. ASTM E-119 and UL's testing procedures helped make that possible.' [9]"

"... UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, made verbal statements to all staff at UL in South Bend on or about September 27, 2001. ..."

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

"... These statements included reference to UL having 'certified the steel used in the World Trade Center' and that, because of this, employees should be proud of how long the buildings stood.

"After being later asked for formal confirmation of such tests, Knoblauch repeated his statements again, this time in writing.[10]

"'We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully.'

"'As we do not do follow-up service on this kind of product, we can give an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated.'

"'We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met [the NYC code] requirements and exceeded them.'"

Whilst these statements (wrongly, in my view) imply that the subsequent structural failures of the twin towers were to be expected, they nevertheless show the claims by NIST that UL was not involved in the certification of the structural steel to have been false.

Why would NIST wish to mislead the public in this way?

It is clear that they do not want the tests concocted by UL in the 1970's to see the light of day, because it would show their explanations of the collapses to be the hogwash that they are.

Would Paul.L have us believe that he failed to read this evidence, even though I supplied the link?

How many other "Silent Lies" has Paul.L committed in this discussion?

----

I note Paul.L still refuses to acknowledge the simple point that the WTC7 collapse looked exactly like a conventional controlled demolition (whether or not he concedes that it was).

I also not Paul.L has not responded to my point, "If it could be explained, then we would have expected to see lucid computer simulations of all three collapses and not just that concocted simulation of the WTC7 collapse (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html) that only purports to show up to the start of the collapse."

(tobecontinued)