In post 67, I state that NIST's Frank Gayle, who led the 2004 investigation, is the one who was suggesting that steel temperatures were probably only exposed to temperatures of about 500F/250C.
In post
87, shaman_ disagrees with this assertion.
While I didn't believe it was the most important point, I really
wanted to find out who was right. In post
169, Headspin helped me in this regard. In it, he stated:
***************************************
Letter sent by site manager Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (UL certified
the wtc steel components) to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) investigating the wtc collapse:
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 above1100C (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://web.archive.org/web/20031128025514/http://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
-------------------
page 6
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
"Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature
T > 250 °C, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire on 13 panels"
page 12 : "Of the more than 170 areas examined on the exterior panels,
only
three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel may
have reached temperatures in excess of 250 ºC."
the conclusions of the report (that the steel softened and buckled) are not
supported by the temperature evidence of the samples.
***************************************