Posted on 11/22/2004 9:04:04 AM PST by hoosierboy
South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe.
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."
Staff writer John Dobberstein:
jdobberstein@sbtinfo.com
(574) 235-6187
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
I don't know enough to comment on this specific case, but I've said for several years now that the untold story of 9/11 is the abysmal structural "performance" of the Twin Towers after they were hit by the airliners. You'll never see that kind of assessment in print, though -- because the impact on the real estate industry (especially in New York) would be devastating.
You stepped up to the plate by posting this, so let's see how well you can bat.
I've seen the beams stored at NIST's campus in Gaithersburg, MD. (Possibly still have my cellphone photos somewhere.) Very sobering...
Of course it wasn't the jet fuel that caused the towers to collapse. Some of us know that it was really those rays shot from alien space craft that were responsible so now let's just move on...
And...I did stay at a Holiday Express Inn last nite!
Tinfoil hat PING!!!
it was clearly a UFO piloted by John Titor and Bigfoot.
You're wrong on all counts, and I'll tell you why:
First off, the towers held up remarkably well in that the load-bearing of the structure was not the interior, but the exterior shell. The WTC was not built in box compartments like the Empire State Building (which was hit by a plane in the 1940s and survived).
When constructed, the WTC was built to survive a direct impact of the largest plane of the day. As it turned out, the biggest plane of 2001 was significantly larger, and was much heavier, considering that it was loaded with fuel. When the planes hit the towers, it was remarkable that the compromised exterior shells held up as long as they did.
So, in short, the claim that the towers failed abysmally is utterly wrong. The towers strained to stay upright even though fatally compromised. Had the towers actually been an abysmal failure, they would have collapsed shortly after impact.
Secondly, you won't see your assessment in print because there are no other buildings in New York City that are constructed in the tube fashion that the WTC Twin Towers were built. So you scratch that conspiracy theory.
I understand the issue is about steel not aluminum but just showing how hot even a small fire can be.Look at a car fire to see the damage done to the various metal components.
"area man" straight from The Onion!
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that exploding jet fuel would easily create a fire well in excess of 500 degrees.
It's arguable that the Empire State building could have survived a similar impact. It was built "heavy", like a fortress, relying on the compressive strength of concrete, while the towers were made to be light and flexible, thanks to their vertical steel skeletons.
Except mainstream opinion doesn't have the expertise to make educated conclusions on these technical matters.
Just as if I would post an article about men on mars, or the chinese army on the mexican border, or even black helicopters.
Except he wasn't saying anything that's remotely in that category. He was only suggesting that the beams in the WTC weren't as safe as they'd been reputed to be. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but there's certainly nothing "supernatural" about his assertion.
Is that the backside of Gary Locke in your last photo? Sure looks like him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.