Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Loose Screw #3--Kevin Ryan of Underwriter's Laboratories

Kevin Ryan of Underwriters' Laboratories gets highlighted from 37:14 to 38:20. He apparently wrote a letter disputing the claim that the fires had weakened the steel, causing the World Trade Center Towers to collapse.

This appears to be the letter referenced in the film, although of course I have no way of vouching for its authenticity, and it was found on a 9-11 Conspiracy website, so you should definitely approach it with some skepticism. Here are the paragraphs that Loose Change highlights:

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.

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.

This all sounds very scientific, and so when Avery says, "Days after writing this letter, Kevin Ryan was fired from his position", it sure sounds like he got canned for whistle-blowing.

However, the next two paragraphs of Ryan's letter, which Avery does not show, may give us something of a hint as to why he was terminated:

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.

Global peace and justice? Sure sounds to me like Ryan's the one trying to make a political point here. Note that the letter is written over 2 years after 9-11--after the Iraq invasion and also following Bush's victory over John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election.

This article indicates that Ryan was fired for lying about key facts in the letter.

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.


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."

James suggested I check out the Wikipedia entry on Ryan. Guess what his area of expertise was at Underwriters Laboratories?

Kevin Ryan is a former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs(UL) responsible for water testing.

Steel, water, what's the difference? James also points out that Ryan's argument about steel melting in the fire is a straw man, since that is not what the experts concluded:

"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.


At 24 November, 2006 02:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do yourself the favor of reading Kevin Ryan's version:
1. Kevin Ryan «What is 9/11 Truth» at
2. «Propping Up the War on Terror -
Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories»
3. Kevin Ryan «Responses to NIST's FAQs» you’ll find on

At 02 January, 2007 14:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, and see also this critique of the NIST report:

Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century -- NIST's Report evades the very question it purported to investigate: what caused the total destruction of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers?

At 21 April, 2007 18:59, Blogger ncdave4life said...

No structural engineer in the entire world believes the conspiracy nuts' controlled demolition theories. Not even one, anywhere in the world. Kevin Ryan is a certifiable nutcase.

-Dave Burton
dave at burtonsys dot com

At 22 May, 2007 17:07, Blogger Chris said...

Anyone who can watch the video footage of those towers coming down and then truly believe that it was fire that did it is a completely delusional nut case. I really don't think that the exact mechanics of how it happened is that important.

Just watching the video of the Windsor Building Fire BBC Report and similar videos on youtube should convince any reasonable person that fire cannot cause a complete structural failure of a steel framed building.

At 31 March, 2008 13:28, Blogger Unknown said...

So we are supposed to believe that not just one but both of these towers due to WHATEVER reason fell prefectly strait down. That defies all laws of probability!! The fires and heat could not and were not even across the whole floor. Which goes to say that would give out in one point before any other and would fall in a sideways manner. Think of it as chopping down a tree, you weaken on side more than another thats the way its going to go. Even IF one building fell in on its self there is no-way it would happen twice.

At 10 May, 2008 09:32, Blogger Unknown said...

Dave (21 April 2007), who claims to know what every structural engineer in the entire world believes, goes on to call Kevin Ryan a "certifiable nutcase". I ask you, who is the nut here? Just look at the basic physics of what happened and the truth is obviously different from the "official" story. The laws of nature are what they are. They don't lie, so we better look deeper at what really happened.

At 29 June, 2008 02:08, Blogger Chuck Boldwyn said...

It has been repeatedly reported in 911 books and internet articles that the strength of the WTC steel could support 2000% of it's normal gravity load. This mean that you could stack 19 additional WTC buildings on top of the original WTC building before it might collapse. That would be an additional
(110 x 19 = 2,090) additional WTC stories vertically on top of the original WTC skyscraper. Therefore how could 15 stories from the South Tower or 30 stories from the North Tower gain enough acceleration and momentum to initiate total collapse of the remaining, basically unblemished, majority of the building below it.
The Physics 'Normal' Force Vector upwards is the supporting force for the lower undamaged portion of the WTC. The upward supporting force vector for the South Tower is calculated to be 46 times greater that the downwards Gravitational Force Vector of the 30 stories of the upper portion.
The upward supporting force vector for the North Tower is calculated to be 127 times greater than the downwards Gravitational Force Vector of the 15 stories of it's upper portion.
The case for Impossibility of Collapse rests there.
The basic laws of Physics cannot be broken. Newton's 3 laws of motion and the Conservation of Momentum Law and the Conservation of Energy Law simply cannot be broken because the Government and the Government supporting Media propagandize to the contrary.
I believe a person needs a Physics background, who is able to apply the Laws of Physics, theoretically and/or mathematically, to truly understand what is going on with the mechanism of collapse. Only very powerful high temperature steel-cutting explosives can come close to explaining the total collapse of the WTC 1 and WTC 2.
If this conclusion is wrong, please add your comments to explain how and why it may be wrong. The collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were both initiated by explosives and were followed by hundreds of additional explosions moving floor by floor downwards until total collapse was accomplished...
Chuck Boldwyn, Retired Physics and Chemistry Teacher...9-29-08
It appears that a lot of part-time Government scientists will turn out to be labled "Quacks" or incompetents and will have destroyed thier credibility as Scientists. These scientists who support the "original Conspiracy Theory" of the Government have lost thier scientific face with the 911 Truth Movement Scientific community and other non-biased Scients throughout the world...

At 30 December, 2008 22:56, Blogger RealEstateGuy said...

Idiots. It was not the vertical beams / support columns that failed. It was the plates attachments between the horizontal beams and the vertical beams that failed. They had a safety factor of 5 to 10. Which is plenty in most situations. But then 30 stories dropped 10+ feet on to them, then --- well gee whiz. Those connections popped like --- Well like Mr. Baldwins brains when he deals with any logic more complex than a single double negative.

At 08 April, 2009 22:08, Blogger kimbies said...

OK, RealEstateGuy!! Chuck BOLDWYN (you even managed to misspell his name) just explained his point using very sound reasoning. Why do you feel it is necessary to insult people to make YOUR point? About your point, excuse me sir, If it was only the plates that collapsed... WHY WEREN'T THE VERTICAL CENTRAL SUPPORT COLUMNS LEFT STANDING???

At 09 July, 2009 19:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 03 August, 2009 00:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 11 September, 2009 00:20, Blogger Unknown said...

why don't you post some scienific evidence on the post to dismiss Ryan's quote? If his information is not scientifically sound, surely there has been research done to refute the information that he provided. Please get back to us @ cyber_eric2102(at) as my daughter is writing a paper on the topic.

At 14 September, 2009 01:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 05 February, 2011 21:11, Blogger Pat said...

The vertical central support columns were left standing at first; Google "WTC spire".

At 22 March, 2011 21:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Same as for building 7, if the jet fuel heated the steel ( enough to weaken it), why didn't the building fall side ways?

Further more, how long does a jet fuel fire have to burn to " weaken the steel"? I watched the video, and it looks like most of the fuel was burn on impact. Any NIST math on that?

What about this Nano Thermat (?) crap? What’s up with Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones?

Here a have some more conspiracy on them.

At 23 April, 2011 17:34, Blogger Unknown said...

comment by Dave Burton: "No structural engineer in the entire world believes the conspiracy nuts' controlled demolition theories."

1400 Architects and Engineers beg to differ with you.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a nut-case? You, the author of this article, and many others on here, have shown yourselves to be idiots.(based on your deriding others for having differing views from you)

Either you all are brainwashed sheep, or you're disinformation agents.


Post a Comment

<< Home