READ BEFORE POSTING! World Trade Center Terror Attack?

[LAK]

Warbow,

Could be. But I have seen no footage or stills that indicate significant winds at the tower levels - the smoke and fumes from the impact points tending to travel more or less staright up.

Just thinking though; isn't there a news documentary film called "America Remembers" or something like that available. Have to track down a copy.

[Warbow]

[Al Norris]

Anybody care to comment on how fast the wind would have to be blowing to cause an almost horizontal smoke plume? (Thanks Warbow!)

Also, anyone care to guess at how hot that fire was being fanned by that 30-35mph "breeze?" Please remember that this is aviation fuel... A pure kerosene fuel (commercial Jet-A1 - similar to military JP-8) that has a flash point of 120F and burns between 550F - 1300F, depending upon oxygenation.

Another point: Both aircraft attacked the buildings from the upwind side, indicating the pilots knew the windspeed and direction to maximize the effects of the firestorm.

[LAK]

Antipitas,

The smoke and fumes I saw rising were in closeups of the building; what happened higher up is another matter (see photo below). A meteorological report for that location at intervals of 15 minutes would help; as the sun gets higher the solar heat tends to stir up more rising thermals etc. If the aircrafts' entry into the building was on the windward side that may have caused increased oxygenation, but all the footage and stills I have seen at or near the level of entry do not show a hot fire, and plenty of dark smoke.

The people standing in at least one of these openings in a casual manner prove beyond any doubt that the fire could not have been very hot. Anyone who has ever been near to a major fire should know this. According to Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the tests they did indicated a fire in the lower temperature range. And to quote his letter to Dr. Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology;

Quote: "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."

And speaking of what "the pilots knew", they also knew how to perform some rather spectacular flying feats. According to the government (and please take careful note of those three words), the second 767 to hit one of the towers was moving at an estimated 586 mph.

That is about 850 feet per second. Hitting a 200 ft wide bullseye with no marker, moving at that speed is more than difficult - doing it in a banking turn is extraordinary. The first plane struck at an estimated 494 mph, about 725 feet per second, and another impressive stunt - striking the building almost dead center.

[Warbow]

The smoke and fumes I saw rising were in closeups of the building; what happened higher up is another matter (see photo below).

It's called the Coanda effect. It doesn't mean there wasn't a strong wind, which there obviously was.

According to Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the tests they did indicated a fire in the lower temperature range. And to quote his letter to Dr. Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology;

Quote: "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."

Kevin "Fired by UL because He's Full of Crap" Ryan.

From the South Bend Tribune, "Area man stirs debate on WTC collapse."

By JOHN DOBBERSTEIN
Tribune Staff Writer

SOUTH BEND -- The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

Kevin R. Ryan was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing giant.

On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- the agency probing the collapse -- challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., according to Ryan, "was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings."

Ryan wrote that last year, while "requesting information," UL's chief executive officer and fire protection business manager disagreed about key issues surrounding the collapse, "except for one thing -- that the samples we certified met all requirements."

UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is conducting a $16 million, two-year investigation of the collapse of the twin towers. The agency expects to issue a draft report in January, and UL has played a limited role in the investigation.

Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "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."

He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees) 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."

Ryan declined to comment about his letter Thursday when reached at his South Bend home.

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

"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.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

Seeking to head off controversy just months before its report is released, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued its own statement Thursday.

Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires.

The institute believes impact from the jets dislodged fireproofing surrounding some of the steel, and the higher temperatures led to the buckling of the towers' core columns.

Wrangling on the Web

Ryan's statements have generated interest on many Web sites, including some advocating sharp scrutiny of the federal government's WTC probe.

Ryan copied his e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of "The New Pearl Harbor," and to Catherine Austin Fitts, a board member of 911Truth.org -- a Web site organized by citizens who believe the government is covering up the true cause of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

One day later, Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties.

An official from 911Truth.org called Ryan to confirm his authorship. They said Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but that others at UL were aware of his action.

The letter was published Nov. 11 on the Web site septembereleventh.org, site of the 9/11 Visibility Project. On Tuesday, organizers of the 911Truth.org Web site noted Ryan had been fired.

In his letter, Ryan appeared confident in his statements about the WTC's fire protection levels.

"You may know that there are a number of current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth," he told the institute's Gayle. "Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

UL moved immediately to discredit Ryan.

The company said Ryan "was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with UL's Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request."

The company said it "fully supports NIST's ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryan's letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victims' families and their friends."

"We prefer to base our conclusions, and NIST would say the same, on science rather than speculation," Baker said. "We anxiously await the outcome of the NIST investigation."

Organizers of 911Truth.org came to Ryan's defense Thursday, although they couldn't persuade him to speak publicly.

"He just saw too many contradictions, and it set off his sense of what was the right thing to do," said David Kubiak, 911Truth.org's executive director. "It's unfortunate for the country, and it's particularly tragic for him, but inspiring as hell."

"The way things are working in the country right now," Kubiak added, "it's only going to be citizens like this who take their professional knowledge and sense of personal integrity, and put it ahead of the strange status quo, that we will see truth and justice out of the system."

[LAK]

There is also something known as windsheer; which means that the wind speed and direction may not be the same at 1,400 feet - as it is at 800 - or any other altitude. The Coanda effect applies to curved surfaces.

SOUTH BEND -- The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001

Well gee, Ryan was "only" a Lab director - seeing as the article is member access only you might like to post the whole thing so we can read the rest of the story. So who did Ryan work for, and who fired him for this crime of "attempting to cast doubt" on the party line?

Not uncommon for an organization to distance itself from any naysayers under such circumstances; there is not a single large institution that is going to stand up and openly refute what the party has decreed on these events when all is said and done.

What UL's Mr Baker does not comment on is the estimated temperatures arrived at by Dr. Gayle of NIST as a result of his NIST tests.

I am sure that Mr. Baker doesn't want to wind up like Carlos Ghigliotti.

[Warbow]

The Coanda effect applies to curved surfaces.

It also applies to flat surfaces.

Well gee, Ryan was "only" a Lab director - seeing as the article is member access only you might like to post the whole thing so we can read the rest of the story. So who did Ryan work for, and who fired him for this crime of "attempting to cast doubt" on the party line?

Check my previous post -- I will edit it to include the full story.

What UL's Mr Baker does not comment on is the estimated temperatures arrived at by Dr. Gayle of NIST as a result of his NIST tests.

Show me the temperatures arrived at by Gayle, not the temperatures Kevin Ryan says Gayle arrived at.

[LAK]

It also applies to flat surfaces.

I see. And on a flat surface - which direction does the gas or liquid flow to indicate that it is the Coanda effect?

The Coanda effect is where a gas or liquid follows a curved surface. It can not be accurately applied to a flat surface, as on a flat surface there is no reference to apply it.

Heated air, smoke and fumes from a fire running up the side of a building can create a rising current of their own. But that is not the Coanda effect.

Show me the temperatures arrived at by Gayle, not the temperatures Kevin Ryan says Gayle arrived at.

Indeed, MR BAKER, show us all the test results and the entire NIST report in the public domain.

[ARTICLE]Some steel recovered from the WTC was exposed to fires of only 400 to 600 degrees, the institute said, but computer modeling has shown higher temperatures of 1,100 to 1,300 degrees or greater were "likely" experienced by steel in regions directly affected by the fires.

"Some"? What tempreature was "the rest" exposed to?

"Computer models"? Speculation your Honor; a computer model relies on subjective input. Whereas steel and other material samples properly tested would yield the simple truth. Now; the Bush adminstration officials who had oversight in this matter did make sure there was adequate physical evidence collected and tested ... didn't they?

Or did they dispose of it instead?

But there is your answer - from the horse's mouth.

[Warbow]

I see. And on a flat surface - which direction does the gas or liquid flow to indicate that it is the Coanda effect?

The Coanda effect is where a gas or liquid follows a curved surface. It can not be accurately applied to a flat surface, as on a flat surface there is no reference to apply it.

It flows, surprisingly enough, along the surface of the flat object in the general direction in which the fluid had momentum before it encountered the object. The Coanda effect is caused by friction between the fluid and the surface it's "sticking" to, not by a curve. Go to your kitchen sink and turn the faucet on, get something flat and put its underside in contact with the stream at a slight angle and see for yourself.


http://wtc.nist.gov

There's the best information available on what happened to the WTC structurally on 9/11/2001. If you don't think so, I don't care. You can continue with your fun by posting quotes from discredited people who don't know what they're talking about and ignoring the thousands of qualified people who do who were and are part of the detailed investigations.

Be careful though. I wouldn't want you to be targeted for elimination by the perpetrators because you knew too much about what really happened.

I'm done with this thread.

[LAK]

Warbow

It flows, surprisingly enough, along the surface of the flat object in the general direction in which the fluid had momentum before it encountered the object.

I can buy that, but that is a fairly universal principle with liquids. The Coanda effect is best illustrated when a glass or other round vessle is inverted under a faucet and the water will follow around the curve as opposed to straight down with gravity and momentum.

There's the best information available on what happened to the WTC structurally on 9/11/2001. If you don't think so, I don't care. You can continue with your fun by posting quotes from discredited people who don't know what they're talking about and ignoring the thousands of qualified people who do who were and are part of the detailed investigations.

Yep, and according to their tests the temperature of the fire was averaging about 500 Farenheit - just like the "discredited" Kevin Ryan stated.

Be careful though. I wouldn't want you to be targeted for elimination by the perpetrators because you knew too much about what really happened.

You mean like Mr. Ghigliotti? If I worked for the NIST and I publicly opposed their findings I'd be alittle concerned. But as it is, I sleep like the proverbial log most of the time.

[Rich Lucibella]

LAK-
I've backed off to the sidelines in amusement. But I have to note something:
With each factual repudiation of your hints and whiffs of government conspiracy, you dig ever-deeper for ever-more technical info of which you have ever-decreasing knowledge. Others here, with obviously greater technical expertise then factually repudiate those new hints and whiffs. And the hole gets deeper and deeper.

How 'bout we take Gburner's advice and award this debate to you, while repectfully requesting that you cease continued actions which, for the vast majority of us, are an insult to the memories of innocent victims, passenger-heroes and brave cops and firefighters that should be amongst us today.

This original intent of this thread has been savaged by your frothed, yet veiled, accusations and we're all a bit tired of it. I'm going to say this just once: You Win (as the common sense and factual nature of your posts here so obviously demonstrate). Drop it.

OK? OK? OK?
Rich Lucibella

ps: Others- Please ignore further attacks on the original intent of this thread.

[LAK]

Rich,

No one has repudiated what I have pointed out here - and much of the evidence is on film and straight from the horses' mouths.

I don't need patronizing concessions from anyone like gburner. There is a pile of evidence by some very credible people that the party line is a total fraud; that their story is a technical and practical fairytale. They have followed a pattern that can be applied to many infamous events affecting this country.

It really boils down to what you perceive with your own eyes and ears - and ultimately who else you want to believe. I do not believe people with a history of lying, other deceptive practices and omissions - and who have a vested interest in maintaining the current status quo. Who have made it their business to subvert this country on a political and economic level by the support those who openly seek these goals. Who steal from their own citizens in one form or another and pass on the spoils to openly criminal political elements both foreign and domestic.

Let's close this one, it has certainly already consumed alot of bandwidth and those who have argued here to the contrary are not going to be convinced by consuming some more.

CUI BONO

[novus collectus]

Let's close this one,

With these four words I think you have finally said something that we can all agree with.

[Spot77]

Wow. I started reading the very first posts in this thread (dated early a.m., 9-11-01) and it brought back some INTENSE emotions.

I still remember EVERYTHING I did that day; everywhere I went, and who I went there with.