Text of E-mail Letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle
- The text copied here is taken from an e-mail forward,
from Kevin R. Ryan to David Ray Griffin,
and reported by 911Truth.org.
- Kevin Ryan was Site Manager
of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana
at the time he wrote the letter.
He was fired shortly after writing the letter.
- EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
- Frank Gayle is Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division,
Material Science and Engineering Laboratory,
at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST). Gayle heads the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project.
- Dr. Gayle's biography is at
Kevin Ryan has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against UL.
To support this efort, contribute to the
Legal Defense Fund for Kevin Ryan.
From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
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
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
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
2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories