It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Underwriters Laboratories Scientist doubts WTC collapse.

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:00 AM
Very interesting story comming out of South Bend's Underwriters Laboratories.

Report states, fire from jet fuel did not get hot enough to effect WTC steel frame.

We all saw the planes hit the towers.
We watched the smoke and flames rise from the twin towers.
We assumed that the jets were fully fueled for the long flight across the country, and this was the cause of the intense fire in the towers.

I wonder if the scientist figured in the flammable materials in the towers like paper, furniture, carpet and items like these.

These items once burning would add to the overall heat of the fire?

Hmmm, I will have to wait and see if anything comes from this report.

Nov. 22, 2004
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.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:19 AM

Please, please please please....

why won't it die, why can't we just accept the fact that it was a terrorist attack, the buildings fell down, people died, yes it's tragic, sad and very upsetting...

but why so many arguements about it...

arghhhh I'm taking a vacation from ATS and the world... see you guys in a week or so...

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 12:06 PM
deny deny deny deny deny till your head explodes...
seems to me that the official story is crumbling as fast as the towers did.
good luck, deny ignorance

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 12:29 PM
I am a building services consultant working in the UK, I also have some background in civil engineering and structural engineering.

I can tell you that the type of steel commonly found in reinforced concrete and other structural components such as beams columns trusses etc will not melt at a temperature of 500 degrees celcius. It will however lose approximately half of its loadbearing capacity at that temperature.

I'd say that its entirely plausible that the trade centre tower collapeses were caused by a failure within the steelwork, the resultant weight of the material above the failure points being enough to start a catastrophic collapse.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 12:38 PM
You know its funny: I never once considered that anything BUT planes struck these buildings until I started to read these forums. And I will say that I still think they were just planes. Now having said that, I will admit there are A LOT of curious things that people could construe as conspiracy regarding the attacks. Or at least hint at conspiracy.

I think the problem is that there are so many open ended conclusions. I.e. things that are just presumed due to the actual data and facts not filling in all the holes. But not just presumed based on lack of evidence, but presumed because we dont know for a fact and conventional logic indicates that it must have happened that way considering all the other known data.

So in effect all the missing data (or non disclosed data) is the reason there is room for these conspiracy theories to grow. Throw in a little bit of politics, a bit of timing, emotions, and some data still classified and you are ripe for conspiracies.

A great example is this guy who sent the letter challenging that the jet fuel was enough to cause the damage required for the buildings to fall. A complete and valid POINT OF VIEW. But the cold hard truth of the matter is we simply dont know. The steel COULD have failed at a lower temperature or the temperature was a great deal higher than thought possible. We just dont know. But there is plenty here to fuel all theories. Lots of questions and few answers. We know how the steel SHOULD have reacted, but we have zero data on how it actually reacted and the exact conditions it happened under.

In the end we only know a few things for an absolute fact:
- The buildings DID fall down
- Something impacted the buildings
- Many people died as a result
- Usama Bin Laden admitted involvement.

We know very little beyond this as absolute fact. And as long as there are holes in the data and classified material (Pentagon Video) still out there, 100% of the facts will never be known. And without 100% of the facts how could you possibly know 100% of the truth?

This has all the ingredients for some classic conspiracy theories and they arent disappointing us with them! In the end the truth is still presumed, and which truth are you presuming?

(I will say that I will keep my eye on the alternate theories just incaseyou never know)

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 03:13 PM
I tell you a possible why, suppose at the time those towers were erected, Jimmy Hoffa like mob of subcontractors were still running the unions and maybe squeezed a few tens of millions out of the project, using substandard material?

[edit on 24-11-2004 by Countermeasures]

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 03:32 PM
I'm still waiting for a logical reason for the WTC7 building's collapse. Which was not hit by planes.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 03:38 PM
Perhaps it collapsed because two massive buildings came down right next to it causing massive structural damage?

And maybe this guy got fired because it's not his job to figure out the "real" reason the towers collapsed?

Just a though...just a thought...

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 04:03 PM
Perhaps a more insightful question would be to wonder what possible purpose "collapsing" WTC7 would serve. What need was there to knock it down also?

Wasn't WTC1 and WTC2 more than enough in terms of "dramatic effect"?

Deny paranoia...

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 04:29 PM
I remember watching a documentary on german TV about WTC collapse, and there was this guy, he was a firefighter, who said that they knocked WTC7 down on purpose. People were dying, firefighters, their friends were dying, panic everywhere. WTC7 caught fire, it was difficult to assess the total damage in that building. They didn't want to risk more lives to save the building so they decided to get the demolition team down to the site.
There was no need for big planing, the area was evacuated already.
At that point it seemed like a reasonable decision, so he said.

One german expert said that it is possible WTC1&2 collapsed because of planes, due to very unique way the whole building was built (I do not remember the details, it had something to do with how the steel construction was connected, the connections were made of different material then the rest of steel construction for some reason).

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 04:41 PM
why for god sake im from the uk and id like to piont out how fast where these planes flying and how much did they wae and how much force did they create on impact added with the fact they where fueled and the fact bin ladden said he done it and all the animosity the middle east and uneducated musilim population have broadcasted againsnt the west

let the dead rest in peace plz september 11 will always be remembered and shall not be forgotten

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 05:02 PM
Well, for us americans, we have a vested interest in discovering the real truth about 9/11. If everything the government told us about it matched up to the evidence, I don't think anyone would have questioned the official story. But the big problem is, the evidence simply contradicts their story. And not only that, the tremendous coverup of the evidence, along with internal gag orders, and so, so much more makes the official story the real conspiracy here. And what's worse, is the evidence points to governmental COMPLICITY in the attacks. That's more than most americans can handle, and it's why it's such a heated topic of debate around the world, not just here.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 05:08 PM
On this subject I have no doubt what so ever that there is a conspiracy at work.

Under no circumstances should an entire building collapse that easily. The question is was it a poor design, was it poor workmanship, did they cut corners on materials, or were they boobytrapped with explosives to topple as some have speculated.

I don't have a clue, but I would think there's enough material left to check for explosive residue or substandard materials & structural engineers should be able to figure out if it was a bad design. This is one conspiracy that we should be able to answer.

At the very least we need to redesign our buildings. I would like to have a discussion with building designers & get some professional opinions on the matter.

[edit on 24-11-2004 by outsider]

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 05:50 PM
Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? That's exactly the same thing. If you read the official report, you know what I am talking about. Moreover, what if the inquiry finds out that the WTC had inherent engineering defects, which hastened its downfall? What if they find out that the material or the workmanship was poor? What if they find out that it took more than the burning JP4 to bend/cut the steel?

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 07:01 PM
Has anybody considered the fact that the impact from the planes may have weakened the frame a lot. It's possible that the impact may have shattred parts of the plane. Add in the fire too weaken the steal and that could cause the collapse. Personally I don't care how the towers went down. All that matters is that each tower was hit by an airplane and they collapsed, then lot's of people died. The details of why the towers collapsed don't matter, they fell like any building would after being hit by an airplane.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 07:22 PM
Two factors have not been address.
1). Fire suppression systems were more than likely rendered useless with the lines broken on several floors.
2). A study was done that showed that the fuel may have only started the fire but all of the office equipment, paper, personal effects, luggage and other flammable contents from the planes provided the fuel. I don't think all of the black smoke was jet fuel. Another factor, the openings in the structures at that altitude allowed the norterly wind to fan the flames high enough to warp steel. Any flaws in construction just made it happen quicker.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 08:17 PM

you do realize that it takes weeks to set all the charges that are necessary to demolish a building don't you?

That would mean that WTC7 was pre-set for demolition possibly weeks ahead of time.

If that were true it would mean the whole event of 911 was pre-planned.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 08:42 PM
Before I even read this, I would not hold to high a bar to UL, they suck.

They are a joke and I KNOW this, because it is my profession to know. They are a regualtory body that often needs help to get thier own stamp on things.

As for WTC 1&2 , the 70th floor and above had substandard fire coatings on the building steel, below they used Asbestos (Great stuff) but the bas side had come out by then and a substitute was used. The Fire Coating failed, plain and simple.

[edit on 24-11-2004 by edsinger]

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:06 PM
You know I have been reading thread after thread on this subject and the only aspect of 9-11 that seems sketchy to me is the fact that just days after the attack we had the whole thing figured out. I can belive that combinations of jet fuel, office supplies/furniture, and high winds severly weakened the towers causing them to collapse. I can believe that a plane hit the Pentagon because I have talked to someone that watched the plane fly over his head. I can even believe the circumstances that brought down flight 93 exactly as they claim. I have trouble, though, beliveing that we solved one of the most complex and devestating crimes in history in a matter of days. I just seems a little far fetched that we had this whole thing figured out down to the identity of all the individual high jackers in that short of a time. I guess you could claim that this disaster would have had so many people working on it that it could be possible but it seems to me that they could have spent a little more time investigating. Just a thought.

posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 02:09 AM

Originally posted by slank

you do realize that it takes weeks to set all the charges that are necessary to demolish a building don't you?

Under normal circumstances, yes. When you have to do all the paperwork, official plans, timing, evacuation of buildings around it, etc, etc.
But this was different. Two buildings have already collapsed, dozens of firefighters died, the area was already evacuated, it was an extraordinary situation. I think that to actually set the charges doesn't take long, an experienced team could do it in few hours.

I am not saying that there is no cover-up at all regarding 9/11, there are a lot of questions and inconsistencies regarding the official version (the very fast identification of the hijackers was very strange for example, or the flight 93, or the lack of any clear footage of Pentagon, etc, etc), but some things might have a non-conspiracy related explanation.
Put yourself in a position of people who were in charge on that day. And I don't mean the mayor or president, I mean the firefighters and police on site, ordinary people in extraordinary situation.

top topics


log in