What temperature can steel melt at again?

[POA]

link

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: <a href="mailto:[e-mail]" target="_new">[e-mail]</a>
Date: 11/11/2004

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 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.

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. <a href="www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html" target="_blank" target="_new">http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html</a>

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. <a href="wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf" target="_blank" target="_new">http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf</a>

4. <a href="www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php" target="_blank" target="_new">http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php</a>

5. <a href="wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf" target="_blank" target="_new">http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf</a> (pg 11)

6. <a href="www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf" target="_blank" target="_new">http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf</a>

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

South Bend

[Moses]

Unit Plans Closed Hearings on Collapse of the Towers

November 12, 2004 By JIM DWYER

New York Times

The federal agency investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center said this week that some of its deliberations would take place in secret, including discussions on possible changes to national building codes and standards.

The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public.

For more than two years, the agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has been studying how the trade center was built and why it fell. A draft of its final report is due in January.

In an e-mail notice sent earlier this week, the institute said that its construction advisory committee, a group of experts overseeing the investigation, would meet for 10 hours on Nov. 22 at its headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md., but that only the first 2 hours would be public.

The remainder will be closed because of the agency's concerns that discussions about changes in construction codes could prematurely influence the building industry and the people who write the codes, said Mat Heyman, the institute's chief of staff.

"We are still literally formulating our possible recommendations regarding improvements in standards, codes and practices," Mr. Heyman said.

Monica Gabrielle, whose husband Richard was killed when the south tower collapsed 57 minutes after it was hit by one of the hijacked jets, vehemently objected to the decision.

"You have one job, and one job only - to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it," she said yesterday in an interview. "You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public - the truth, no matter where it goes."

The investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Ms. Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, a firefighter who died. A lawyer for the campaign, Norman Siegel, said he was studying the possibility of a lawsuit.

While the investigation has not received anything like the wide public attention given to the 9/11 commission, the agency's work has been closely followed by the building and real estate industries, and by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The agency does not have the power to enact new codes, but its findings on design issues - including the number of escape staircases needed in skyscrapers, the strength of the materials, the quality of fireproofing - are expected to influence structural requirements for new buildings.

"There has been considerable pressure on us to come out with our final recommendations," Mr. Heyman said. "We do not want in any way, shape or form to influence any recommendations until they at least have had the benefit of advisory committee review."

Mr. Heyman said the agency has been aggressive about sharing information with the public throughout the investigation. Thousands of pages of documents have already been published on its Internet site. He said draft proposals would be issued for public comment before the final report is written.

Ms. Regenhard said it was not clear how the agency had reached some of the findings it has already released. "We have had no access to the process by which those conclusions are reached," she said.

www.nytimes.com/2004/11/12/nyregion/12trade.html?ex=1101264789&ei=1&en=d817270cd1e701ac


------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Moses]

Comment
From Tom Gordon
Systems Engineer
11-19-4

World Trade Center 'Bombing,'

An Unwitting Participant Asks; "WHY?"

_____________

In 1988, I moved to NYC., seeking architectural photography assignments from various key architects. Before moving there, I asked for help from my prior clients in Denver. One good friend and close ally, Herb Roth, suggested I contact his friends at "Emery-Roth Architects," (No relation) After the usual portfolio review and pricing discussions, Barry Roth, AIA, asked me to cover the "World Trade Center." This assignment, I thought, would be one of the greatest opportunities of my career!

It was widely known that "Ezra Stoller and Associates" and "Norman McGrath" had laboriously photographed the World Trade Center for a period of over one year. They created some of the finest known images of the towers, the most memorable ones are at twilight, with the Statue of
Liberty in the foreground. They informed me that Ezra had actually photographed it routinely for something like 6 years.

I was allowed to analyze the firm's existing 'photo files' before I began my coverage. I asked a lot of questions which is how I learned most of the background information I'm about to cover. The 'librarian' at Emery's offices was actually the main corporate secretary, who's demeanor was
more like someone you would expect to work under at the Metropolitan Museum, -totally reserved and humorless. This was my first challenge, and frankly a cause for alarm.

Not long after the buildings were built, the WTC owners retained the architect of record, and their photographer, and several principal engineers from the original consulting firm- "to establish the safety of the twin towers." Each of their staff members worked on this project on a 'full-time' contract basis, most of them for a period of about 10 years.

By 1989, it was very late in the process, but there were still about 15 current participants involved in all. (I found all these 'facts' to be highly unusual, but perhaps simply beyond my 10+ years
experience-level.)

I disagreeignment was to: "apply my Julius Schulman -technique," to photograph both of the towers in their contextual situation. "Not just the buildings, but especially how they 'fit' with the neighborhood.

After a month and a half, I had exhausted my interest in the street vantage-points, so I decided to go up in the towers early one morning, to see which adjacent rooftops could offer the most suitable additional views.

It was still too cold to shoot those views. This was between May 9th and May 13, 1989.

Carrying just my light-weight 35mm gear, I was singled-out from the regular building patrons by the lobby guards, which totally surprised me. I explained the nature of my business with a moderate degree of assurance, but was shocked when they reacted as though I had been expected, very
matter-of-factly!. One of them phoned upstairs, while another insisted he was sending a guard with me, "to insure that I would arrive at the engineering office in time for our meeting." The suite was labeled: Skilling & Jackson, P.C.. -whom I had knowledge of, but no prior relations with.

Had this been the leasing office, I would have understood the mix-up perfectly. Clearly, this was NOT a situation that could pertain to me in any way. I was not aware that Roth had an office in the building at all, but, like a true 'rookie,' I was feeling keen to discuss my abilities with their 'big guns,' since any contact with such people here could have lead me to major future assignments!

When we arrived at the door to this suite, I was 'very shocked' to see the actual sign on their 'main office door.' The door and jamb itself were of completly service-grade materials, like an ordinary 'back door' at any other suite. The sign was brand new and simply said: Skilling
Associates, P.C.. (This was a small engraved laminated sign from an ordinary office supply store.) I thought to myself: Humm, these people have been hereover 10 years?

"Everyone sit down and be quiet." "Who's this?," the orator said loudly, starring at me. I said: "I 'm the official photographer from Roth."

{...like who are you and what's it to you buddy, haven't you heard of me? }

Unflinching, somber and businesslike, he said without drawing a breath:

Then, you are to be included, who sent you here?

I said; "Barry Roth- I just got a message from his secretary."

(Which was almost completely true, but she hadn't called about this, to my knowledge! )

He nodded and addressed the full group, then reading from a 4x5 file-card, acknowledged some absentee members and confirmed their knowledge and prior'agreements of compliance.' He said to the few of us in this special group:

"Listen carefully, nobody gets out of this!"

"Each of you were called here to sign an affidavit of non-disclosure. None of the information from our project can find it's way into the public-eye. Absolutely nothing that we have learned from this project can be revealed to the public because it is potentially damaging to our client. Some of you have enjoyed 10 years of service on this project for our client. Each of the team leaders have recently received raises and additional benefits. { someone } -has already received a new assignment
and he will be getting a healthy raise at his new location, {undisclosed}."

"I know this transition will take you by surprise, but there was no other way to handle it. You are all terminated from this project effective immediately! This means you need to clear your desks and surrender all of your files by the end of the day.

I will assist you in getting these papers into the archive cabinets so we can give them to the owners for safekeeping."

"After you have signed these forms, we will have a short recess. You may go to the Cafe, or to 'Windows' for lunch, but don't leave the buildings! I want you all to know that I am sad to have to break this news. Your work will not go unnoticed, each of you has provided an invaluable service
and we are all grateful. Do not think that this action shows any reflection on the exceptional quality of your individual work!"

This was like a military operation, yet no one in the room knew I didn't work for their firm!

So, we went to "lunch," at around 10:15am. where I was able to visit with 3, or 4 of the lesser engineers, without oversight from their 'head honchos.' I played it really cool considering my total ignorance. Each of them were furious. I said things like -"Shame we have to dis-band, I was looking forward to being here for at least a few months." "What do you suppose we've done wrong?" ...Each in turn revealed:

"The fact is, we all know that the buildings can't stand safely for over 40 to 60 years. It's not the sub-soil, that's granite. They must have received the completed demolition report, which we all knew to expect. It was supposed to be finished months ago. Clearly it looks bad. Well, I'm sure we all know the real implication- that the owners can't get their money back. That's what we all learned today. -Thanks _X_, f*** you!"

I asked: -"Why, what do you mean?"

It will cost $____ Billion to erect the two scaffolds to surround both buildings, that's the only known way to take these baby's down. We'll literally have to re-build them, then un-build them, twice! Now it's obvious, bottom-line is that the developer will have to sell them soon, or take a serious bath. (I forget the actual figure)

-"Why are they worried now? They still seem really stable architecturally."

They are much too big. It's a piece-by-piece problem. They simply can't be imploded, we know of no other way. Why do you think they hired me for 10 years to find other solutions? I'm not a structural specialist, just an architect!

- "I thought Barry said you guys were about to find a solution."

(I could see that was the wrong thing to say.) A slight look of concern spread over their faces, until I said-"What's a few more Flying Buttresses going to cost?" It was a lame jab, but they bought it and everyone relaxed as I pretended to be contemplating my next job interview.

I learned that 'none of them were allowed to be holding other jobs,' as long as they held these 'titles,' a contract-stipulation had occurred at least 4 years prior. They all griped about the "pathetic" lunch; "This is horrible, I can't eat here!" No one was very relaxed. The more I
learned, the more scared I was as I listened for more fascinating inside news.

-Finally, pushing my luck, I prodded again: "So tell me about the electrolytic issues."

Everyone went quiet, but realised they were in deep. They began a patent narritive which was clearly not about to go anywhere, since I think they knew that I knew as much as each of them about the composition and arrangements of these metals. I had effectively blown my cover.

[Moses]

Suddenly, just short of our hour, a man came to escort us back to their desks which had been mostly riffled through, or completely boxed and removed.

"Again, son, tell me who you are?" -One of the senior associates asked. "You guys walk ahead, he said, using firm body-lauguage to physically indicate that he would be in a position to restrain me at any time.

"I'm T.S. Gordon the official photographer. They were tired of paying Stoller." "Who's Stoller, I only know of McGrath?" "Are you saying you are not with Mr. McGrath's firm?"

I said; "Ezra Stoller, the world's greatest at shooting tall buildings. Haven't you seen all the great shots up at Emery Roth? McGrath has shot what, 6 or 8 great photos in 4 years!," (-I sarcastically mused, until I began to feel that he might arrest me. By the way, Norman's shot's were great too, but I felt I had to assert a strong opinion.)

"You go by; Tom, Thomas, or T.S.?" -He asked, looking again at my drivers license.

"TS- I was called in to cover the site, not just the buildings. I didn't even need to come in here again for I disagreeignment!" - I said, carefully back-stepping, like I could find my way to the elevator. He grabbed my arm and we proceeded rapidly through the corridors behind the others.
"No, you were called in because everyone had to sign off on their part in this entire assignment. You say you work for Barry__ who?"

I responded with the proper name and added, "He's the one that cuts my checks and I give him ALL the film." (An exaggeration, but I knew Barry was a former project manager and he would be at lunch if they tried to call.)

"You are not to tell anyone about your employment here, ever!" -he said.

"Wait here by the window, all of you with outside affiliations." A couple of guys took their seats by the North window, but I was nervous and I stood with my back to them as I starred down on the un-finished looking iron-work of building #7, which had just been 'topped-out' with a ceremony the
day before.

"What are you studying?" someone asked. "I can't believe that building is so tall and skinny," and I really couldn't. ( I had toured #7, so I was quite curious about this viewing angle.) He stood up, evidently really angry, and said quite unpleasantly; "Yeah good old #7, the building that never
should have been built!"

The room went silent. His tone was immediately received as a threat by the boss. He separated the three of us and called my contact at Emery-Roth who then acknowledged that I was hired to shoot the building. Neither discussed any details, so I was off the hook in a way. He dismissed me and said I was not to talk to any of the other participants on the way out, not ever again. An armed guard escorted me down to the street.

Within a few days I called Ezra Stoller, in White Plains, who, speaking about WTC, innocently revealed that he; "Wasn't allowed to shoot any more pictures of it." That was a very funny thing to hear him say. No one ever "doesn't allow" a photographer to get a better shot. I didn't say what had happened to me, only that it was very exciting for me to get to follow in his shoes. I thanked him for the friendly phone visit and promised to show him the prints if I got any really great shots. He was very polite and understood my admiration.

_____________

Based on a true life experience I had at the World Trade Center, I offer this document now, to those who may be searching for " key potential motives" behind the actions that led to the 9/11 attacks. I do not intend to imply that any of the parties that I will mention here were directly
involved in the coordinated effort to destroy the building.

However, it is clearer to me, over time, that this information would have provided a pre-eminent, and utterly untraceable 'blue-print' to the group that finally engineered the 9/11 attack.

This document was originally released in 2003, and was ammended for accuracy, on: 1/18/2004.

This information is entirely true and this is its first public release. My explanation does not intend to add substantially in any way to the factual information that is contained in the actual documentation that I have described.-TSG


Supporting Facts, Assumptions and Curious Questions:

I would speculate that in 1989 through 1993, as the downtown real estate market was falling, there were perhaps reasons to suspect that the WTC owners might have contemplated the first bombing. After Battery Park attracted their biggest tenants, the property quickly lost it's viability. (At the time, Geoff Parker reported that a friend of his was given a whole floor in the South tower to use as a drumming studio, for free!) By 1996, the internet had decentralized the financial industry,
further diminishing the lease/return opportunities of this property. (I don't know the actual math, maybe it was going up again.)

The building cost about $1.5B to build and was worth about $4. to 5.B at its peak. But, it would have cost about $20B to un-build it in 2010 dollars, or as it neared its 1/2 'safe' life. Obviously it HAD to be imploded and there was never going to be a 'break-even' point for the owners.

The first attempted attack was evidently planned to kill all of us, or at least scatter the group's paperwork. Building #7 was actually a protective scaffold, designed to catch the debris as the North building fell. Why did they plan it so only this building would fall, particularly northward?
Would they receive the insurance then appeal for a government bail-out to de-construct the main tower, sometime later?

Minoru Yamasaki was working for the Saudi's when he took on this project. After its completion in 1973, he returned to Saudi Arabia to consult on other projects. Eventually, in 1986, he did the Saudi Financial Center. Noteworthy, if I remember, because of its triangular super-rigid looking
tower, also attributed to S.O.M. In interviews he appears to be a gracious and spiritually honest man. We certainly felt his pain when he was interviewed on TV.

Minoru befriended Richard Roth Sr., while working for Brown & Root in Chicago. Roth was noted for his contribution on the "Columbia Exposition" Project. They shared many arts & crafts stylistic attitudes. Richard Roth Jr. was in charge of his dad's firm when he retired. He is friends with
lots of conservatives. (Carnegie Mellon group, like his dad.) He is friends with Saul Steinberg, Stephen Roth, Jeffrey Levine, lots of famous Jewish folks with dubious Israeli connections.

When the building was sold to Silversteen, Stephen Roth, (with Vernado Realty) worked to take the bid as high as possible, offering $750,M more than the next lower bidder. Did he even have the money? Two months before the official auction, he withdrew the ridiculous bid. Could this have been a mistake on his part?

Isn't this the same Stephen Roth who runs the "Anti-defamation League" in Israel. They track all persons who threaten the sovereignty of Israel. Interestingly enough it was established in 1991! Suddenly, after that, there were lots of reported 'neo-nazi' groups springing up in Germany and the
UK. His group gave rise to the importance of stopping these 'Right- wing terrorists' at all costs, and he may serve as the eyes and ears for the CIA, or Massoud. Either way, he's got to be an insider with Sharon.

Tom-Scott Gordon
Architectural Photographer/currently A/V Systems Integrator
[e-mail]



Comment
From Tom-Scott Gordon
1-19-4

Hi Jeff -

You may remember the transcript that I sent you about a pre-existing 'demolition plan' for the Twin Trade Towers. I have been actively pursuing the development of that set of documents into a 'corroborated' story. I have received help from Michael @ From the Wilderness and Jeff King, another important 9-11 cover-up researcher. I think you should have one of them on your program immediately!

I would like for you to 'add this comment' to the end of your story, something that I believe to be just as important as Mr. Silverstein's 'smoking gun,' -itself. This appears in the context of my tedious
narrative, and in some ways 'certifies,' these events. I will highlight the quote now, but my full story will not be ready to send to the commission for days.

It's more than a smoking gun. In my 25+ years exposure to all sorts of architects, I have never heard such a damaging comment as the one I'm about to tell you. Not to the design process, the people, nor the conflicts involved in achieving our profession's crowning achievements. It was
like seeing a mother with her newborn child, as she quietly ends it's precious life!

"There I was, fantastically excited to be looking down on the steel framing, as Building #7 was finally 'topped out.' To my right, stood one of the project architects, who said; (then turned, and left the room without looking any of us in the eye): "Building seven. -The building that never should have been built."