WTC-7 Was NOT A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[eots]

when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.

So this is part of the quote from NIST?!

How the hell did you get the following out of the above quote?!?!?

I believe nist claims at temperatures of 1800f the steel in question would lose 10% of its room temperature strength

How the hell did you get this information so wrong? Are you that stupid? Obviously you are.

BIG Mistake. It's not "The steel would lose 10% of it's strength (taking it to 90% of it's room temperature strength), it is reduced to 10% (meaning it loses 90% of it's strength to 10% of it's original room temperature strength).

What a moron. Is this the kind of information the truthers are pushing? Incorrect information? I've already found a ton of lies and mistakes in Terral's theory. Same with Christophera's. Now YOUR information is shown to be incorrect.

You guys are hysterical. Let's post stuff that debunks your own claims.



I also believe that the question to you was "at what temperature" does steel START to lose it's strength.

hey dickwad I said.. I belive...I heard it in some bullshit NIST video once and that was my best memory of it..but then I found the best quote I could on the subject according to NIST claims (as nist is not clear and evasive on the issue } and I posted it...??...i really don't get your point...lol..lol...lol...fucking moron...SO FUCK FACE
according to NIST at what temperature does steel START to lose its strength ??

 

[eots]

when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions




although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

hey ! cuntycorn how is it going

 

[Gamolon]

when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.

So this is part of the quote from NIST?!

How the hell did you get the following out of the above quote?!?!?

I believe nist claims at temperatures of 1800f the steel in question would lose 10% of its room temperature strength

How the hell did you get this information so wrong? Are you that stupid? Obviously you are.

BIG Mistake. It's not "The steel would lose 10% of it's strength (taking it to 90% of it's room temperature strength), it is reduced to 10% (meaning it loses 90% of it's strength to 10% of it's original room temperature strength).

What a moron. Is this the kind of information the truthers are pushing? Incorrect information? I've already found a ton of lies and mistakes in Terral's theory. Same with Christophera's. Now YOUR information is shown to be incorrect.

You guys are hysterical. Let's post stuff that debunks your own claims.



I also believe that the question to you was "at what temperature" does steel START to lose it's strength.

hey dickwad I said.. I belive...I heard it in some bullshit NIST video once and that was my best memory of it..but then I found the best quote I could on the subject according to NIST claims (as nist is not clear and evasive on the issue } and I posted it...??..

The point is asshole, is that you are spreading INCORRECT information and you can't comprehend what you read.

I don't don't give a rat's ass what you "believe". You posted that information as support to your idiotic claims and it was COMPLETELY wrong. Makes one wonder how much shit you "BELIEVE" to be correct, when in reality, it's completely wrong.

My point is that you stated NIST said steel loses only 10% of it's strength at 1800F. What was really said was that steel loses 90% of it's strength at 1800F. That's what REDUCED TO 10% means. I made that extra big bolded text in relation to how friggin' stupid you made yourself look.

You can't read can you? You're nothing more than a biased suckhole who perpetuates incorrect information and lies.

Above is the proof.

If you just "believed" or "kind of remembered" what NIST said, why didn't you go research it to make sure instead of making yourself look like a friggin' idiot?

.i really don't get your point...lol..lol...lol...fucking moron...SO FUCK FACE
according to NIST at what temperature does steel START to lose its strength ??

That much is obvious. It's taken quite a few posts to get you to understand the difference between something LOSING 10% of it's strength and being REDUCED TO 10% of it's strength and you STILL don't get it.

 

[Gamolon]

SO FUCK FACE
according to NIST at what temperature does steel START to lose its strength ??

It's not a NIST standard dipshit. Here is a link information on fire and how it affects different substances.

The Effects of Fire on Structural Systems | ASHI Reporter

Here is an excerpt from the above link.

The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less. Because of its high thermal conductivity, the temperature of unprotected internal steelwork normally will vary little from that of the fire. Structural steelwork is, therefore, usually insulated.

So at 550C (or 1022F), steel LOSES 50% of it's strength. What do you think would happen to a structure that loses HALF it's strength? Use your head for once.

Notice also the remark that I bolded and enlarged about the thermal conductivity which Terral uses to get people to believe that the heat in steel "RACES" throughout the web of the steel structure, away from the heat source and thus the steel member in question never gets hot enough to be affected in any way.

Go look up railroad tracks and heat expansion. I told you about steam piping and expansion loops. I've seen welded supports sheared because of improperly placed thermal expansion loops. Why do they have expansion connections in bridges? Why do streets and sidewalks have those "cracks" or "separations" in them? Everything expands or contracts due to higher/lower temperatures.

Terral's thinking is complete bullshit. Heat from office fires is exactly why contractors INSULATE steel columns and beams in the first place. It's because office fires DO affect steel beams and columns. Terral is a freakin' joke. No wonder he doesn't do construction work anymore.

Here's another excerpt for you eots.

Apart from losing practically all of its load-bearing capacity, unprotected steelwork can undergo considerable expansion when sufficiently heated. The coefficient of expansion is 10-5 per degree Celsius. Young’s modulus does not decrease with temperature as rapidly as does yield strength

You guys have a lot to learn.

 

[Gamolon]

yet there is ZERO evidence fire temperatures required to weaken steel were reached and the crime scene was hastily destroyed

really?
at what temp does steel start to weaken?

" A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings "

You're full of shit. If you would have read further, you would understand. Here is another quote from the same page you linked above written by Mr. Quintiere.

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

What Mr. Quintiere is saying is that he does not agree with NIST's conculsion the fire WEAKENED the columns. He says that there is sufficient evidence that fire WEAKENED the steel truss supports. Why do you never quote that stuff?

What a dishonest jackass.

 

[candycorn]

when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions




although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

hey ! how is it going

 

[DiveCon]

really?
at what temp does steel start to weaken?

" A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings "

You're full of shit. If you would have read further, you would understand. Here is another quote from the same page you linked above written by Mr. Quintiere.

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

What Mr. Quintiere is saying is that he does not agree with NIST's conculsion the fire WEAKENED the columns. He says that there is sufficient evidence that fire WEAKENED the steel truss supports. Why do you never quote that stuff?

What a dishonest jackass.

just more proof that troofer LIE

 

[eots]

really?
at what temp does steel start to weaken?

" A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings "

You're full of shit. If you would have read further, you would understand. Here is another quote from the same page you linked above written by Mr. Quintiere.

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

What Mr. Quintiere is saying is that he does not agree with NIST's conculsion the fire WEAKENED the columns. He says that there is sufficient evidence that fire WEAKENED the steel truss supports. Why do you never quote that stuff?

What a dishonest jackass.

those quotes are not connected you are either a mad man or dishonest the lack of evidence for temperatures required to weaken steel is not confined to one collapse theory vs another and do not appear on the same page ....so fucktard can you answer the question or not

 

[eots]

So this is part of the quote from NIST?!

How the hell did you get the following out of the above quote?!?!?



How the hell did you get this information so wrong? Are you that stupid? Obviously you are.

BIG Mistake. It's not "The steel would lose 10% of it's strength (taking it to 90% of it's room temperature strength), it is reduced to 10% (meaning it loses 90% of it's strength to 10% of it's original room temperature strength).

What a moron. Is this the kind of information the truthers are pushing? Incorrect information? I've already found a ton of lies and mistakes in Terral's theory. Same with Christophera's. Now YOUR information is shown to be incorrect.

You guys are hysterical. Let's post stuff that debunks your own claims.



I also believe that the question to you was "at what temperature" does steel START to lose it's strength.

hey dickwad I said.. I belive...I heard it in some bullshit NIST video once and that was my best memory of it..but then I found the best quote I could on the subject according to NIST claims (as nist is not clear and evasive on the issue } and I posted it...??..

The point is asshole, is that you are spreading INCORRECT information and you can't comprehend what you read.

I don't don't give a rat's ass what you "believe". You posted that information as support to your idiotic claims and it was COMPLETELY wrong. Makes one wonder how much shit you "BELIEVE" to be correct, when in reality, it's completely wrong.

My point is that you stated NIST said steel loses only 10% of it's strength at 1800F. What was really said was that steel loses 90% of it's strength at 1800F. That's what REDUCED TO 10% means. I made that extra big bolded text in relation to how friggin' stupid you made yourself look.

You can't read can you? You're nothing more than a biased suckhole who perpetuates incorrect information and lies.

Above is the proof.

If you just "believed" or "kind of remembered" what NIST said, why didn't you go research it to make sure instead of making yourself look like a friggin' idiot?

.i really don't get your point...lol..lol...lol...fucking moron...SO FUCK FACE
according to NIST at what temperature does steel START to lose its strength ??

That much is obvious. It's taken quite a few posts to get you to understand the difference between something LOSING 10% of it's strength and being REDUCED TO 10% of it's strength and you STILL don't get it.

no moron I told divecon what i belived it was...then checked it and posted the correct information highlighting the numbers...you dont get it loser...

 

[Gamolon]

hey dickwad I said.. I belive...I heard it in some bullshit NIST video once and that was my best memory of it..but then I found the best quote I could on the subject according to NIST claims (as nist is not clear and evasive on the issue } and I posted it...??..

The point is asshole, is that you are spreading INCORRECT information and you can't comprehend what you read.

I don't don't give a rat's ass what you "believe". You posted that information as support to your idiotic claims and it was COMPLETELY wrong. Makes one wonder how much shit you "BELIEVE" to be correct, when in reality, it's completely wrong.

My point is that you stated NIST said steel loses only 10% of it's strength at 1800F. What was really said was that steel loses 90% of it's strength at 1800F. That's what REDUCED TO 10% means. I made that extra big bolded text in relation to how friggin' stupid you made yourself look.

You can't read can you? You're nothing more than a biased suckhole who perpetuates incorrect information and lies.

Above is the proof.

If you just "believed" or "kind of remembered" what NIST said, why didn't you go research it to make sure instead of making yourself look like a friggin' idiot?

.i really don't get your point...lol..lol...lol...fucking moron...SO FUCK FACE
according to NIST at what temperature does steel START to lose its strength ??

That much is obvious. It's taken quite a few posts to get you to understand the difference between something LOSING 10% of it's strength and being REDUCED TO 10% of it's strength and you STILL don't get it.

no moron I told divecon what i belived it was...then checked it and posted the correct information highlighting the numbers...you dont get it loser...

Right. And what you BELIEVED turned out to be completely fucking wrong which makes your argument wrong.

Do you get it yet twat?

 

[Gamolon]

" A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings "

You're full of shit. If you would have read further, you would understand. Here is another quote from the same page you linked above written by Mr. Quintiere.

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

What Mr. Quintiere is saying is that he does not agree with NIST's conculsion the fire WEAKENED the columns. He says that there is sufficient evidence that fire WEAKENED the steel truss supports. Why do you never quote that stuff?

What a dishonest jackass.

those quotes are not connected you are either a mad man or dishonest the lack of evidence for temperatures required to weaken steel is not confined to one collapse theory vs another and do not appear on the same page ....so fucktard can you answer the question or not

Yes they are. They're from the same damn link you posted.

 

[eots]

You're full of shit. If you would have read further, you would understand. Here is another quote from the same page you linked above written by Mr. Quintiere.


What Mr. Quintiere is saying is that he does not agree with NIST's conculsion the fire WEAKENED the columns. He says that there is sufficient evidence that fire WEAKENED the steel truss supports. Why do you never quote that stuff?

What a dishonest jackass.

those quotes are not connected you are either a mad man or dishonest the lack of evidence for temperatures required to weaken steel is not confined to one collapse theory vs another and do not appear on the same page ....so fucktard can you answer the question or not

Yes they are. They're from the same damn link you posted.

no... same link ..different section...different context and only someone being willfully ignorant could not see that.. so at what temperature does steel START to weaken ?

 

[eots]

The point is asshole, is that you are spreading INCORRECT information and you can't comprehend what you read.

I don't don't give a rat's ass what you "believe". You posted that information as support to your idiotic claims and it was COMPLETELY wrong. Makes one wonder how much shit you "BELIEVE" to be correct, when in reality, it's completely wrong.

My point is that you stated NIST said steel loses only 10% of it's strength at 1800F. What was really said was that steel loses 90% of it's strength at 1800F. That's what REDUCED TO 10% means. I made that extra big bolded text in relation to how friggin' stupid you made yourself look.

You can't read can you? You're nothing more than a biased suckhole who perpetuates incorrect information and lies.


Above is the proof.

If you just "believed" or "kind of remembered" what NIST said, why didn't you go research it to make sure instead of making yourself look like a friggin' idiot?



That much is obvious. It's taken quite a few posts to get you to understand the difference between something LOSING 10% of it's strength and being REDUCED TO 10% of it's strength and you STILL don't get it.

no moron I told divecon what i belived it was...then checked it and posted the correct information highlighting the numbers...you dont get it loser...

Right. And what you BELIEVED turned out to be completely fucking wrong which makes your argument wrong.

Do you get it yet twat?

LOOK FUCKWAD... the argument is not based on what tempature NIST claims steel starts to weaken..I did my best to recall what I had heard said by NIST spokesmen and then looked it up to confirm it and then
I posted the correct information...do you get that twat

 

[DiveCon]

no moron I told divecon what i belived it was...then checked it and posted the correct information highlighting the numbers...you dont get it loser...

Right. And what you BELIEVED turned out to be completely fucking wrong which makes your argument wrong.

Do you get it yet twat?

LOOK FUCKWAD... the argument is not based on what tempature NIST claims steel starts to weaken..I did my best to recall what I had heard said by NIST spokesmen and then looked it up to confirm it and then
I posted the correct information...do you get that twat

it isnt what NIST claims, its what the FACTS are

 

[eots]

Right. And what you BELIEVED turned out to be completely fucking wrong which makes your argument wrong.

Do you get it yet twat?

LOOK FUCKWAD... the argument is not based on what tempature NIST claims steel starts to weaken..I did my best to recall what I had heard said by NIST spokesmen and then looked it up to confirm it and then
I posted the correct information...do you get that twat

it isnt what NIST claims, its what the FACTS are

really what do you corroborate their claim with ?

 

[Gamolon]

LOOK FUCKWAD... the argument is not based on what tempature NIST claims steel starts to weaken..

Wow. You really ARE fucking stupid aren't you? The whole argument here is whether steel structures can be affected by office fires to a point of failure. I am trying to explain to that it IS possible in that there are two ways.

One is thermal expansion. I've already explained this two you and have given you the math showing how much steel expands per degree F. I have seen welded steel supports below a steam pipe that were welded to the steel support beam below sheared off form the beam because of improper design. Steel pipe lengthen when heated and contract when they cool. If an expanding pipe can shear a welded support, what do you think an expanding beam would do it's bolted/welded connections at end? It would shear the bolts.

When you start failing connections within a structural design, you start to lose it's integrity. Other connections have to take up the slack and at times surpass their design loads and fail.

Now add to that the fact the steel starts to lose it's load bearing strength at at temps of about 750F. That's why they insulate steel beams/columns.

So not only does steel expand and can shear bolts/connections/welds, but now you have it losing it's ability to support things as it gets heated.

Here's a photo from the Cowell building fire. Go look it up.

See the steel columns/beams inside? Twisted like pretzels. You think that was from thermite? Here's another.

Here's a link for you to educate yourself with facts instead of just "BELIEVING" things you think are correct. Read the section about Fire Resistance. And is you believe that the folks who do the fireproofing get the ENTIRE steel structure coated evenly INCLUDING the connections between columns and beams, you have another thing coming. I have SEEN otherwise.
Wood vs. Steel | Oregon Truss :: Roof Trusses :: Salem, Bend, Portland, Oregon

Why you and everyone else keeps stating that steel needs to melt in order to fail is beyond me. You people (truthers) are the only people on this planet who don't get the fact that steel weakens AND expands and can cause structures to fail.

Even your man Mr. Quintiere agrees with me in that he thinks that truss connections failed due to fire. You lose all the way around this argument. Your forum wife Terral claims all this evidence he has proves it was thermite that collapsed WTC7, but debunks himself when he presented his annotated picture that says even HE can't find burnt columns or melted steel. What a dipshit. The minute he is asked tto provide just one picture of his "shitload" of thermite signature proof he claims he has, he balks and starts spewing the "Gam needs to provide his own theory about office fires" crap.

What a telling turn of events. When you get caught in lies and wrong information, divert everyone's attention to another topic.

I asked you how the steel part of this building collapsed and you won't answer because you know it proves my point.

I did my best to recall what I had heard said by NIST spokesmen and then looked it up to confirm it and then
I posted the correct information...do you get that twat

That's it? You did your best? Your "best" is providing incorrect information as evidence to support your claim based on what you THINK you remember?

That's really fucking sad. You are accusing people of murdering thousands of people and you provide evidence that not only were you not sure of, but was completely wrong. Then you turn around and post the correct information that is 180 degrees from what you "BELIEVED" to be correct. How does that change your argument now? It has been proven that office CAN affect steel structures.

 

[Gamolon]

those quotes are not connected you are either a mad man or dishonest the lack of evidence for temperatures required to weaken steel is not confined to one collapse theory vs another and do not appear on the same page ....so fucktard can you answer the question or not

Yes they are. They're from the same damn link you posted.

no... same link ..different section...different context and only someone being willfully ignorant could not see that.. so at what temperature does steel START to weaken ?

Wow. Reading comprehension for $1000 Alex...



How can Mr. Quintiere's quotes be in a different context when he clearly states on more then one quote that his alternate theory is that the trusses failed due to fire. It's all over the place. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you other then that you are a moron.

As far as your question, I'll help you out. Since you can't seem to research yourself and only quote incorrect information anyways.

Steel starts to weaken at about 750F-800F.

 

[Terral]

Hi Gam:

Wow. You really ARE fucking stupid aren't you? The whole argument here is whether steel structures can be affected by office fires to a point of failure. I am trying to explain to that it IS possible in that there are two ways.

One is thermal expansion ....

No, and I 'do' (#3) know that Gam is LYING through his teeth. The 2800-degree steel girders, columns and beams (like these) are MUCH too large . . .

. . . 'and' part of a 'MUCH-TOO-LARGE' steel-frame network (pic), to 'fail' from 'thermal expansion' from building fires!!! Thermal Expansion has NOTHING to do with the catastrophic failure of massive steel girders that measure 9 feet tall!!!

The problem with the Thermal Expansion Theory is that heat energy passes back and forth within the steel-frame networks from hotter to cooler areas, which spreads the energy out evenly to 'all' areas. There was simply NOT nearly enough building fire energy to even begin expanding the entire steel-frame network to do this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]This Is Controlled Demolition!![/ame]

Gam's 'stupid' Thermal Expansion Explanation cuckoo makes no provision for the missing 47 concrete slabs! Go right ahead and start explaining how Thermal Expansion from a few building fires caused 47 massive concrete slabs to vanish into thin air confused!

What building fires??? How did this massive skyscraper collapse into this neat little pile . . .

. . . and without damaging the surrounding buildings??? Controlled Demolition (my Topic + AE911Truth.org) is the ONLY ANSWER that makes 'any' sense whatsoever. Why? Thank you for asking: Thermal Expansion does NOT allow for the 'cutting' of all primary and secondary supports at the 'very same time' for creating a 'symmetrical collapse' straight down into the skyscraper footprint! We are talking about thousands and thousands and thousands of lineal feet of massive red-iron girders, columns, beams and bar-joists, so that everything implodes into a little pile; which can NEVER happen spontaneously from building fires in a kabillion years.

Gam is pushing the Official Bush/Obama Govt Cover Story, because that is what DoD Ops/Assets do. Gam = Govt Stooge cool: = How To Spot DoD Disinfo Agent). Period. And he helps to prove my hypothesis (#9) every day . . .

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo"]WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Explained[/ame]

GL,

Terral

 

[eots]

Wow. You really ARE fucking stupid aren't you? The whole argument here is whether steel structures can be affected by office fires to a point of failure. I am trying to explain to that it IS possible in that there are two ways

.

the question dickhead was at what temperature does steel start to weaken and when it starts to weaken is not relevant what is relevant is at what temperature is steel weakened enough to initiate a collapse...stupid...

Why you and everyone else keeps stating that steel needs to melt in order to fail is beyond me. You people (truthers) are the only people on this planet who don't get the fact that steel weakens AND expands and can cause structures to fail

no one said it had to melt stupid..the claim is there was molten metal present at the wtc

this building is still standing chump

That's it? You did your best? Your "best" is providing incorrect information as evidence to support your claim based on what you THINK you remember?

yes and two mins later i found and posted the correct information....moron

 

[Terral]

Hi Eots:

yes and two mins later i found and posted the correct information....moron

Gam confused: = Govt Op/Asset) has no "Building Fires Did It" Case at all. Zip, zero, nada and NONE. Anyone led to believe that building fires can do this . .

. . . 'is' STUPID cuckoo 'and' worthy of utter destruction (#9).

Yes. The Sheeple 'are' this STUPID . . . and the deadly H1N1 'Second Wave' is just what the Rothschild/Rockefeller Eugenics Doctors ordered (my recent warning post) . . .

GL,

Terral