Special Interest

Note: Links to other sites will open in a new window.
About Us About Us
Advertising Advertising
Archive Archive
Art & Literature Art & Literature
Classifieds Classifieds
Commentary Commentary
Contact Us Contact Us
Guestbook Guestbook
Guest Forum Guest Forum
Headline News Headline News
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Opinion Poll Opinion Poll
Our Links Our Links
Quotations Quotations
Trading Post Trading Post
Home Home

Recommend This Website

UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
Nov. 14, 2004

"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."

From Kevin R. Ryan
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories
South Bend, Indiana
(Company site)
A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (Company site)

To Frank Gayle
Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division
Material Science and Engineering Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NIST and the World Trade Center at
Dr. Gayle biography

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
Nov. 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. Link
  2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
  3. Link
  4. Link
  5. Link (pg 11)
  6. Link

Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories

[Note: The letter is followed in the e-mail by a standard UL message footer] Kevin Ryan of UL FIRED FOR QUESTIONING GOVERNMENT COLLAPSE STORY COVERUP!!! I just got off the phone with Paul Baker in Media Relations at UL in Northbrook, IL. (847-664-1001) Paul confirmed that Kevin R. Ryan, the head of the Environmental Health Laboratory Div. of Underwriter´s Laboratory (UL) was fired today.

He promised to give me a copy of UL´s statement on the termination by e-mail as soon as it is available. He said the memo thing "needs to be cleared up."

OK..I reached Kevin R. Ryan at home. He confirmed the firing and that it was over his willingness to challenge the official collapse story put out by the US government.

He was willing for me to give his phone number to both Alex Jones and to, and I have done so.

He sounds quite shaken, but otherwise well. I asked him if he was OK financially and he said for now he´d be OK.

What a great patriot! I wish more people had Kevin´s courage! Kevin Ryan has since been sacked from his job.Link

-- For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global markets, please access our web sites at and, or contact your local sales representative. November 12: An executive of the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused its collapse, in a letter yesterday to the head of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell. The author of the letter, Kevin Ryan, is site manager at Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, its performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. Ryan sent his letter to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He later forwarded it in an e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the board. Griffin asked for and received permission to forward the letter for Web distribution. called Ryan today to confirm his authorship. The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the steel in the towers tested up to its certified standard (i.e., it should have easily withstood the fuel fires without buckling). A chemist by profession, Ryan said he is acting in the hope of receiving a public response from Gayle. Given the impact of September 11 on events around the world, Ryan said, everyone needs to know the full truth of what really happened on that day. He added that he considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person. A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapse is due in January. The New York Times reports today that the NIST team is planning to hold some of its deliberations in secret. "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," the Times writes. As the Times notes, the NIST investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family on September 11. Gabrielle told the Times that NIST should 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. 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." (See (nl)

Comment From Andrea
Nov. 14, 2004
On seeing this research from UL, I am pushing for transparent*, fully public meetings/hearings on the structure/physical evidence related to the deterioration of the towers into their foundations -these meetings conducted by the NIST, the gov division under the DeptCommerce, under the Executive Branch, aka - "The White House". Rather than be immutable or mysterious about this research on the (Bethlehem Steel produced) steel in the towers, I found this important information to those who have the interest to understand the truth about what happened at the WTC on 9/11/01. I owned stock in Bethlehem Steel before it was driven into bankruptcy and liquidated. I knew it had made the i-beams and girders for the WTC, and found it annoying when the under-informed would attempt to convince me that we dont/didnt even make steel strong enough to support construction like the towers, and that steel strong enough for construction like the WTC comes/came from Japan. Au contraire! A look at the remaining steel while at the site also speaks otherwise. This government is to answer to the American people. I see no reason for secrecy when the people in the government are looking for 'transparency' from everything else. Our privacy is under invasion and the government wants opaque secrecy?

Mark Andrews
Nov. 6, 2004

On the morning of September 11, 2001, there were $167 billion dollars in gold bars in Federal Reserve vaults in the basement of the World Trade Center.

Since the destruction of the twin towers, there has been much speculation as to what might have become of all of the gold.

A female caller to the Bill Bochiers radio program on WLW, Cincinnati (11-06-04) told of a report from her friend who worked at the WTC. The friend said that on the morning of 9-11 she was on her way to her job at the World Trade Center, along the route she normally took. As she turned a corner at the base of the Center, she saw two large flat bed trucks parked at one of the entrances. One of the trucks had already been loaded and had its contents covered by a large tarp. The second truck was in the process of having its bed loaded with stacks of solid gold bars.

Both sides of the street were lined by black uniformed troops with machine guns who kept an eye on the operation and on the surrounding area.

The bewildered woman kept a distance from the activity and watched as the second truck was loaded, and its contents covered with a tarp. The two trucks were then driven away with the soldiers traveling along as escort.

The woman was so stunned by what she had seen that she turned around and did not report to work that morning, which, as it turned out, most probably saved her life when the towers were attacked and destroyed only about an hour later.


Nov. 15, 2004

For three plus years, families of those murdered on September 11, 2001, and survivors of that horrible day have been raising legitimate, valid questions about what really happened. They have done so, along with more and more Americans, because there are unanswered questions that have been met with silence and stonewalling. Because upon closer scrutiny, there are more holes in the official version than a mountain range of Swiss cheese. Yet, other Americans, primarily those who describe themselves as Christian conservatives, call anyone who raises questions about 9-11 traitors, wackos, off the wall and so forth.

These are people who haven't looked into the matter any deeper than what they saw on the news that day. These are people who listen to popular "conservative" pundits on TV and radio who tell their listeners and viewers not to pay any attention to all these wackos. People who have family serving in the military who are deployed in the Middle East and are terrified that this whole "war on terrorism" just might have been built on a mountain of lies, an unbearable thing to contemplate.

My last column on Christmas for our troops brought a half dozen pieces of hate mail because I stated my opposition to the unconstitutional invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. One man said, "You are DISGUSTING.......REAL AMERICANS will support our troops AND their Pres." I guess he was implying that I'm a fake American. Spoken like a true slave. Another lady wrote, "My son is being deployed to Baghdad December 21st. He and 41 other brave men from his base VOLUNTEERED knowing they would miss Christmas with their families. My son will also be missing our granddaughters 4th birthday. This Thanksgiving we will be most thankful to the 59 million people in this great country who re-elected George Bush to a second term. While I will worry about our son and every other service person in harms way, I am relieved that the traitor J. Kerry will NOT be being sworn in in January."

Teddy Roosevelt, Twenty-sixth President of these united States of America said this: "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."

Blind loyalty is a very dangerous path to follow. Who knows who actually won the election earlier this month? The vote fraud is massive. There are some incredibly dedicated people out there compiling the evidence and perhaps a year down the road, we'll get a good accounting. I have never supported John Kerry nor did I vote for Bush; I voted for Michael Peroutka. I have never once said I don't support our troops. What I have said is that what Bush is doing is an unconstitutional use of our military. His phony 'nation building' will never bring "democracy to Iraq," even if that were a desirable form of government, which it is not.

Nation building is and always has been a loser. Over the past decade, Clinton and Bush have unconstitutionally deployed our military and unconstitutionally spent hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars for "nation building." Every single one of these forays, driven by lust for power and to cement a one world order, has met with dismal failure. There has been no stable self-sustaining nations come out of Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan or Iraq and there never will be. Right now over in Iraq, the cry is the same old one, "Yankee go home."

Forty 9/11 victims family members, and over 100 prominent U.S. leaders, have filed a demand with the Attorney General of the State of New York, demanding a criminal investigation into allegations of Bush Administration complicity in the attacks of 9/11/2001.

Join actor Ed Asner and presidential candidates of three national parties, as well as, Daniel Ellsberg, John Gray (author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus), Richie Havens, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Mimi Kennedy (actress: Dharma & Greg), Ray McGovern (former CIA analyst), GA Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Edward L. Peck (former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism), William Rodriguez (9/11 rescue effort hero), Firefighter Kevin Shea (FDNY), Michelle Shocked (singer/songwriter), Howard Zinn, professor, historian, author, and many others in DEMANDING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO 9/11.

"Half of New Yorkers believe high government officials deliberately allowed the attacks of 9/11 to occur."
-- Zogby International Poll of New York residents.

Visit and to learn more about how you can help save American Democracy through standing with 9/11 family members to demand the truth about 9/11. Urge every organization you know to sign off on this petition and to share it with their membership. Post it, and email it everywhere you can.

“When we remain silent about things that matter . . . our lives begin to end.”
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has recieved 6,536,630 hits in the few months since the site's launch. Americans are hungry for truth. SHARE THIS MESSAGE WIDELY!! This criminal complaint mentioned above has been covered by media worldwide including the Washington Post and The New York Times.
s7.jpg - 26257 Bytes

Back to Specials Page

(Enhanced for Netscape)

Proud to be Alaskan
Web Alaska Copyright © 2004. All Rights Reserved