Kevin Ryan Spoke at Conference

Here is a video although it is poor quality. They are working on a new one which will be out soon, but this is all that is available now. I also have a link to a Guns and Butter interview which is great quality and chock full of shockers involving NIST and the dishonesty of their report.
For those of you that don't remember Kevin Ryan is a chemist who was a manager at UL who tested the steel at the WTC. He wrote a letter to Frank Gayle from NIST because Gayle put incorrect information in the report about the temperature at which the steel would fail. He said that it failed at a lower temperature than it actually did. I didn't take notes this time so I can't be very exact, I will listen to it again and post my notes for those of you who don't have time to listen. Kevin was fired for his letter, which ended up on the internet after he had given a copy to David Griffin and told him he could share it. He spent the next year researching 9-11 and has come out to talk again. He also says there are several engineers at NIST who worked on this report who also worked on the Oklahaoma City bombing and put false info into that. He says the government uses these guys when they need false reports for terrorist acts, basically. He also mentions a lawsuit from a group of scholars (not 911 scholars for truth, these are nobel laureates & others) against the Bush administration for "bad science", where BushCo hires people to make false scientific reports to support their policies.
Kevin ryan is extremely credible and this is very damning.

VIDEO:

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/presentation-by-kevin-ryan-from.html

AUDIO ONLY INTERVIEW (better quality):

http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php

I am going to listen now.

I don't know enough to question what he says, but, to me, he makes a pretty convincing case against NIST.

What I found really interesting is the reaction of the audience to the WTC7 collapse at the end of the lecture. They turned the lights down so they could view it better, and they were exclaiming at the squibs that they saw.

I am going to watch it again as there was a lot of info for someone with no engineering knowledge to digest.

:hi:

Basically: the temperatures were NOT hot enough to damage the steel IN ANY WAY. Here is a link with excerpts.
Keep it kicked, cuz those who are against the truth are trying to keep the distractions on top.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
...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.
...
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 above 1100C (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...."

and, it appears that there was no question about the steel being sub-standard in those buildings. Was he fired immediately after he sent that email?

even Ryan was able to figure that out.

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.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

I sort of feel sorry for the guy. He thought he was raising legitimate questions. But as an employee of UL he should not have made them public as he did, especially after it is clear his comments are waaaaay outside of his expertize and misrepresent that the NIST reports said.

That's why he was fired.

I meant the steel was not sub-standard...there was no question.

Do you have a link that states that he was fired because he was wrong?

Thanks in advance.

based on reading his letter and reading the NIST reports. He either misunderstood what he read or misrepresented it.

As he is a chemist, I would tend to believe he knows the characteristics of the steel his company manufactured.

I appreciate there are alternative opinions, however.

Underwriters Laboratory (former employer of Mr. Ryan) does not manufacture steel. Among the many services it provides, one is testing services to validate if an specimen complies with the specification. http://www.ul.com/

As a chemist it would be unusual for him to be overly familiar with the characteristics of steel unless he worked in the industry. If memory serves me correctly he worked in a water testing division, so steel chemistry is unlikely to be his forte. Probably a reason he got himself in trouble.

Actually, UL tested the steel in the WTC.

As far as your other point, I think we are in disagreement as to how knowledgeable Kevin Ryan is.

Did you take the time to watch the film? He says a lot more in the film than he does in his short letter.

misrepresent or misread it?

His presentation at Chicago was brilliant. He does not need to be a metals
expert. He is a scientist, and can recognize faulty framing of an experiment
when he sees it. His criticisms of the NIST report are devastating.


The investigation was deceptive and unscientific:
essential documents were missing
eyewitness testimony was ignored
physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions
were downplayed or ignored
The entire theory is built on fudged and inaccessible
computer simulations

i highly recommend listening to "An Act of State" in the Guns and Butter archive.
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php

The site is not coming up for me at the moment.

Had to fiddle a bit to get the mp3's going. But it's all working fine now.

Taking the opportunity to again recommend "Guns and Butter":

Indira Singh testimony and interviews
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=344x4