AE911Truth Watch [Archive] - Page 3

funk de fino

29th March 2008, 05:30 AM

Quite the contrary, thank you and LashL for the URL's
Thomas Chapin PhD General Manager, Fire and Construction SBU - UL Inc. to Kevin Ryan – 12-1-03
UL does not certify structural steel. Structural steel meeting the appropriate ASTM designations are* used as * component in assemblies tested by UL. The assemblies consist of a structural component protected with some type of fire resistant material.
i.e. an ‘assembly’ is a [singular] structural component protected with some type of fire resistant material.

Ryan used the word ‘components’ rather than the word ‘assemblies’ in his first sentence.
You ignored the qualifying statement later in the paragraph and called him a liar.

*incorrect word/phrase, should be: “Structural steel ……. is used as a component in assemblies”

For those of you with reading impairments;

“the samples we certified” modifies and clarifies the statement;

“the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.”

************************************************** *

Kevin Ryan to Dr. Gayle, 11-11-04
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.

Loring Knoblauch, CEO of UL, to Ryan 11-15-04
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did fine.”

It’s perfectly clear that Ryan and Knoblauch were referring to the steel samples/assemblies that UL tested.

quick revert to type and miss out stuff you cannot answer and pick out semantics again

well done C7, at least you are consistent

this is worse than the 10 storey thread

Christopher7

29th March 2008, 05:36 AM

Anyway, back to the actual OP of this thread for an announcement:

Richard Gage has changed the slideshow available at his website AGAIN.

This is the third version, if you're keeping count. Several mistakes he had corrected in the second version, he has jumped back on board with in the third (most notably the "small fires in WTC 7").[1] I'm trying to make my way through the slideshow quickly, but the videos are being stored in a remarkably buggy way. Any video slide forces you to watch the entire video before proceeding.

So due to life and the various shenanigans at AE911Truth, a complete slide-by-slide debunking may prove to be impossible. I will move forward as I can. The slides I've done so far will still apply to the new slideshow. But when I get this thing finished is anybody's guess. I imagine we'll get three more slideshows before the end of the year at this rate.Thank you for getting back to the subject of this thread.
I started thru the slide show [it's really long] and found several things that i think should be changed. But unlike you, i'm not getting my shorts in a knot about it.

For starters, .... well let's start at the beginning and proceed until we get to the end.
I did not find any problems in the first 28 pages, did you?

On pg 29 they say there were fires on eight floors.
In the AIE[Area of the Initiating Event] there were fires on five floors. [7,8,11,12 and 13]

At the south west corner there were fires on nine floors [6,7,8,10[or11]19,21,22,29 and 30]

In all, there were fires on Eleven, count them

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7812/sesamestreetcountdraculfp2.jpg

Eleven floors!

How could he be so wrong!
What was he thinking?

It's been a long day.
Have you ever replaced the water bag inside a 65 gallon pressure tank for a well? [and then have nearly every barb/clamp fitting leak?]

Mañana

Christopher7

29th March 2008, 05:54 AM

quick revert to type and miss out stuff you cannot answer and pick out semantics againOriginally Posted by Minadin
He's an ignorant, lying, liar. And what makes him a liar is that he knows that he's lying when he makes these ridiculous statements to Dr. Gayle.

It was Minadin the Merciless who used semantics to call Mr. Ryan a LIAR!

Very bad form.

I felt it necessary to clear up his misread and set the record straight before moving on to:

Kevin to Dr. Gayle 11-11-04
“They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year.
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.

UL to Kevin 11-15-04
“ Sunder cautioned that NIST’s results were preliminary,but said

if those findings continue in further testing, that would rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.”

I will address the other points later.

Confuseling

29th March 2008, 06:03 AM

Please will you explain the answer Christopher?

You claim that there are only a few brave experts in America willing to speak out.

Most are too ideologically blinkered, or scared for their jobs or families. Or perhaps the journals just won't touch the truth with a barge pole.

Why does this apply to Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela?

Do you really believe the USA could convincingly threaten China into silence if they could prove this?

Do you really think it wouldn't be in China's interests to sing it from the rooftops, if it were true?

WildCat

29th March 2008, 07:21 AM

If it is published in a proper 'journal' it is acceptable, and if not, it's bunk.
I don't know about you, but when people create their own journal specifically because they know thier "scientific" papers don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting published in a real journal my BS meter pegs. How about you?

What 'journal' or 'journals' would you consider acceptable?
One that includes peer review by scientists who are recognized experts in the relevant fields. Hint: these rarely include theologians, physics professors, and ecomomists as their "experts" in, say, an engineering paper.

WildCat

29th March 2008, 07:26 AM

Kevin to Dr. Gayle 11-11-04
“They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year.
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.
You think jet fuel was the only thing burning in the towers? You wouldn't mind then if I splashed a quart of kerosene in your living room and threw a match on it? After all, surely a quart of kerosene doesn't have enough energy to destroy a house... :rolleyes:

UL to Kevin 11-15-04
“ Sunder cautioned that NIST’s results were preliminary,but said

if those findings continue in further testing, that would rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.”
I don't think you understand what that sentence means.

boloboffin

29th March 2008, 07:50 AM

Does anyone else have trouble bringing up the AE911Truth PowerPoint today?

I go to the front page: http://www.ae911truth.org , click on the PowerPoint link, and get nothing. Perhaps they noticed what a craptacular experience it is now to follow that thing. Video slides force you to watch the entire clip before advancing. If you click the HiDef button, you can be arbitrarily thrown back to the first slide. There is no way to advance to different sections because you can't link to specific slides. It's a hopeless mess.

Yes, Christopher7, I found lots of problems in the first 28 slides. As I recall from yesterday, they are essentially unchanged from 2.0, and mostly unchanged from 1.0. Therefore, most mistakes already found still apply.

Check out my site, http://ae911truth.info , for more information.

Minadin

29th March 2008, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Minadin
He's an ignorant, lying, liar. And what makes him a liar is that he knows that he's lying when he makes these ridiculous statements to Dr. Gayle.

It was Minadin the Merciless who used semantics to call Mr. Ryan a LIAR!

Very bad form.

I think it's quite clear that Mr. Chapin is talking about steel testing that UL did at the request of the NIST for the purposes of their investigation, which was quite obviously post-collapse. Mr. Ryan's suggestion that the UL certified steel that went into the towers has nothing to do with that whatsoever, and is in fact in direct contradiction with the statement he received from the head of the building safety and fire testing department.

It's not semantics. As I've said before, I don't think you're being completely honest with yourself when you perform these complicated mental gymnastics to resolve the two statements in an attempt to make Mr. Ryan's statement look like it might be correct at all.

In addition to being completely inappropriate, professionally, Kevin Ryan's letter to Dr. Gayle is wrong, factually. Based on the e-mail he had received, he should have known better. However, in order to not appear completely "merciless", I'll allow that there are a couple of additional options, mostly based on the fact that Kevin Ryan himself submitted the letter from Chapin into the court record:

1. Kevin Ryan is a liar.
2. Kevin Ryan is an idiot.
3. Kevin Ryan is both a liar and an idiot.

AZCat

29th March 2008, 11:15 AM

AZCat

29th March 2008, 11:16 AM

1. Kevin Ryan is a liar.
2. Kevin Ryan is an idiot.
3. Kevin Ryan is both a liar and an idiot.

Hmmm. I think I'm going to have to go with #3.

Blender Head

29th March 2008, 12:06 PM

It's a hopeless mess.

Their Powerpoint slide in particular, or their organization in general? :p

AZCat

29th March 2008, 12:22 PM

Does anyone else have trouble bringing up the AE911Truth PowerPoint today?

I go to the front page: http://www.ae911truth.org , click on the PowerPoint link, and get nothing.

It worked for me. :confused:

R.Mackey

29th March 2008, 01:24 PM

I read somewhere that he had 2 PhD's. If he only has 1, it does not lessen his experience, expertise or credibility.
No one here is qualified to refute Prof. Jones or his findings.
but
Personal incredulity won't let you accept what any 'twoofer' expert says.
i.e. No matter how qualified or how many experts question the official story, I will NOT believe that Bush & Cheney are lying about 9/11 and the War on Terror.

Total garbage. I for one am qualified to refute Dr. Jones -- I've peer-reveiwed several papers for real journals, and been on both ends of peer-review in many other settings. Dr. Jones refuses to participate, or even to appear at conferences.

His productions are mere whitepapers. Not all whitepapers are wrong, but his are.

We've found technical problems with his whitepapers. Nobody here is arguing from incredulity. This isn't a question of us not believing him because we don't want to, it's us not believing him because he's demonstrably and objectively wrong.

Pick a paper of his, any paper, and I'll destroy it for you. Odds are very high it's been done here already.

So
Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both say:

“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”

It appears that the someone [the administration?] did not approve of the post because they took it down.
How many of the structural engineering faculty and administrators besides Steve and Rick signed on to this post?

So you're suggesting "the administration" actually supports Dr. Jones? That's quite a stretch.

Bottom line, you're arguing Dr. Jones's case from authority alone. The fact that the BYU structural engineering department rejected his ideas in toto is an argument to authority of equal or greater strength. Unless you want to tell me that they are "not qualified" or have a "credibility gap," then you have to accept their argument as equally persuasive as your own. If you do tell me that, you're a liar.

Soon the elves will join us and then you will be so screwed.

I'll keep an eye out for Gil-Galad and Círdan if you like, but you should be aware that they will never come, and the Truth Movement will never amount to anything.

Christopher7

29th March 2008, 02:31 PM

You think jet fuel was the only thing burning in the towers? No

UL to Kevin 11-15-04
“ Sunder cautioned that NIST’s results were preliminary,but said

if those findings continue in further testing, that would rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.”

I don't think you understand what that sentence means.The results of tests done by NIST rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse so they called them 'preliminary'.

Framing members from the area of the airplane impact show maximum temperatures of 250° C.

AZCat

29th March 2008, 03:15 PM

Framing members from the area of the airplane impact show maximum temperatures of 250° C.

What do you mean by "framing members"? Because if you're referring to exterior panels, you're wrong; and if you're referring to core columns, you're wrong. Reference the NIST report (I assume you know where to find that).

boloboffin

29th March 2008, 05:03 PM

It worked for me. :confused:

Ah. I surf with Firefox. Firefox hated it and won't display it anymore.

IE is doing OK, but at one point, it took a long time to load a slide, and I was able to jot down the actual address of the slide JPGs.

Result: I've downloaded all the small ones to my computer. The count is 348 slides now, which is an addition of 110 from version 2.0 (238 slides), and 70 from version 1.0 (278 slides).

So if you thought the :rule10 was interminable before...

Oddly enough, I didn't see any notable addition of material to warrant that many new slides.

At this rate, I may finish this debunking about the time I pay off my student loans.

Christopher7

29th March 2008, 05:18 PM

What do you mean by "framing members"? Because if you're referring to exterior panels, you're wrong; and if you're referring to core columns, you're wrong. Reference the NIST report (I assume you know where to find that).I mean the framing members that Mr. Sunder was referring to, probably the trusses.
The point that you are avoiding is:

The tests Mr Sunder was referring to,
rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.

If you want to know specifically what framing members were tested, look it up yourself. It will not change the results.

applecorped

29th March 2008, 05:21 PM

You're right. it won't change the results.

Christopher7

29th March 2008, 05:28 PM

At this rate, I may finish this debunking about the time I pay off my student loans.What have you debunked so far?

applecorped

29th March 2008, 05:30 PM

everything.

boloboffin

29th March 2008, 05:49 PM

What have you debunked so far?

I got all the way through the WTC 7 section of 1.0. I made it through the introduction of 2.0. It's all at the website, see link below.

It will be a while before I get to the end of the new WTC 7 section. About halfway through, he does the entire Molten Steel/Stephen Jones Thermite/Microspheres charade. That used to be at the end of the Towers section. Dry, dry, dry.

funk de fino

30th March 2008, 08:46 AM

The tests Mr Sunder was referring to,
rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.

Exactly what do you think that sentence means Chris?

DGM

30th March 2008, 08:59 AM

Exactly what do you think that sentence means Chris?
Thanks for asking that funk de fino, for the life of me I can't figure this out. I see this as the steel met design specs.

Is the meaning deeper than my (I think is logical) understanding?

AZCat

30th March 2008, 12:28 PM

Thanks for asking that funk de fino, for the life of me I can't figure this out. I see this as the steel met design specs.

Is the meaning deeper than my (I think is logical) understanding?

That's how I read it also. I think C7 is interpreting this as "steel weakened by heat".

WildCat

30th March 2008, 12:42 PM

The results of tests done by NIST rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse
Like I said, that does not mean what you think it does.

Minadin

30th March 2008, 11:53 PM

Weak, as opposed to weakened by heat from fires. Next.

Dave Rogers

31st March 2008, 03:03 AM

An anonymous poster claims to be an expert and says the Professor of 20 years with 2 PhD's is wrong about everything.

There's a bit of a credibility gap here.

Says the anonymous poster who claims to be an expert on steel failure because he's a carpenter. How big's the mote in your own eye?

Anyway, personal credibility is irrelevant here. Jones's statements are verifiably wrong, whether I'm a professional physicist with a Ph.D and over 20 years of industrial experience or a 17-year-old checkout girl in Sainsbury's. Give me an example of how Jones says the collapses violated the laws of physics and I'll give you an objective explanation of why he's wrong, and you can check it for yourself.

Dave

Dave Rogers

31st March 2008, 03:07 AM

Soon the elves will join us and then you will be so screwed.

Nah, we've got the hobbits on our side. They're good at bringing down towers.

Dave

Minadin

1st April 2008, 12:35 AM

Well, the CT folks have dropped this thread like a hot potato, seemingly.

Christopher7

6th April 2008, 12:58 AM

Nah, we've got the hobbits on our side. They're good at bringing down towers.

DaveAre you saying the Hobbits brought down the towers?

Christopher7

6th April 2008, 01:00 AM

What have you debunked so far?

everything.Could you be a little more specific?

Drs_Res

6th April 2008, 01:26 AM

Could you be a little more specific?

Why?

ref

6th April 2008, 01:50 AM

boloboffin

6th April 2008, 03:21 AM

ref, come on. Haven't you heard of the theory of the 400th A&E?

ref

6th April 2008, 04:16 AM

ref, come on. Haven't you heard of the theory of the 400th A&E?

Oh, please educate me :cool:

boloboffin

6th April 2008, 05:53 AM

LOL, it's kinda like the 100th Monkey.

Once 400 A&E's sign up to Gage's website, their knowledge will mysteriously transmit itself to other A&E's, and a wave of 9/11 Truth will spread through all those disciplines. Why, even if it takes until July to hit 400, in two months they'll be at over 5,000!

Back to being serious, do you count people who haven't sent in their credentials to be verified yet? By my count a couple of days ago, there were about 50 who are "pending hardcopy or other verification."

deep

6th April 2008, 06:03 AM

To return to the original topic, I still occasionally follow their growth, so they cannot exaggerate their popularity.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1363947f8803b53828.jpg

By now it's quite safe to say, they will not reach their goal of 1000 A&E's by September 11th, 2008. Their current count is 304.

Yes, but it looks like they would hit 1,000 A&Es in early- to mid-2009 (or late 2009 - too hard to tell), assuming linear growth. That's an important milestone, even if it doesn't happen by 9/11/2008.

So let me ask you this - in your opinion, where/when will it stop? 1,000? 2,000?

boloboffin

6th April 2008, 06:34 AM

They should concentrate more on acquiring rational arguments and verified facts instead of converts.

ref

6th April 2008, 07:19 AM

Back to being serious, do you count people who haven't sent in their credentials to be verified yet? By my count a couple of days ago, there were about 50 who are "pending hardcopy or other verification."

I use the member figure given on their front page. I guess that includes the unverified members.

ref

6th April 2008, 07:31 AM

Yes, but it looks like they would hit 1,000 A&Es in early- to mid-2009 (or late 2009 - too hard to tell), assuming linear growth. That's an important milestone, even if it doesn't happen by 9/11/2008.

So let me ask you this - in your opinion, where/when will it stop? 1,000? 2,000?

Their rate since December has been 0,72 new members per day. Assuming similar growth continues, it will take them (1000-304)/0,72 = 967 days to reach 1000 members. That's approx. 2,65 years and late 2010.

My personal opinion is, they will never reach 1000. Their organization will cease to exist as it is before that milestone. But if they did reach 1000, it doesn't change anything. They would still be believing in false theories.

boloboffin

6th April 2008, 07:31 AM

I use the member figure given on their front page. I guess that includes the unverified members.

Which is funny, because on the front page, it says that names won't be listed until they get verification, and then on the members pages, they go ahead and list them with asterisks.

6th April 2008, 09:58 AM

I use the member figure given on their front page. I guess that includes the unverified members.

Do they remove members who want out or were faked to begin with yet?
I think that might affect the actual numbers.

Drs_Res

6th April 2008, 06:59 PM

;3595601']Do they remove members who want out or were faked to begin with yet?
I think that might affect the actual numbers.

No.

ref

6th April 2008, 11:29 PM

;3595601']Do they remove members who want out or were faked to begin with yet?
I think that might affect the actual numbers.

Yes they do, but that always seems to take a looooong time. Plus they do not (want to) recognize the fakes, until they are pointed out to them. Sometimes not even then.

ETA: Since December I have noticed their member count drop on three occasions. So they sometimes really do remove members.

Drs_Res

6th April 2008, 11:41 PM

Yes they do, but that always seems to take a looooong time. Plus they do not (want to) recognize the fakes, until they are pointed out to them. Sometimes not even then.

ETA: Since December I have noticed their member count drop on three occasions. So they sometimes really do remove members.

Then I stand corrected. Thank you.

beachnut

7th April 2008, 12:37 AM

Yes, but it looks like they would hit 1,000 A&Es in early- to mid-2009 (or late 2009 - too hard to tell), assuming linear growth. That's an important milestone, even if it doesn't happen by 9/11/2008.

So let me ask you this - in your opinion, where/when will it stop? 1,000? 2,000?
That is scary, so many so called professionals are lacking rational thought and logic, skipped knowledge and facts and evidence to believe dumb ideas of 9/11 truth. Why are they not smart enough to see Gage lacks evidence? Are people really sending him money? A sucker is born every second.

Jonnyclueless

7th April 2008, 12:57 AM

Christopher7

7th April 2008, 02:13 PM

Weak, as opposed to weakened by heat from fires. Next.Correct, my bad.

Christopher7

7th April 2008, 04:03 PM

I think it's quite clear that Mr. Chapin is talking about steel testing that UL did at the request of the NIST for the purposes of their investigation, which was quite obviously post-collapse.Wrong

Loring Knoblauch, CEO of UL, to Ryan 11-15-04
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did fine.”

UL tested components/samples/assemblies with all the required fireproofing, before the Trade Towers were built.
There were NO samples from the Trade Towers.
Where does it say that UL had done any testing post 9/11 ?

Kevin Ryan to Dr. Gayle, 11-11-04
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.

Ryan is clearly talking about the samples UL tested before the Trade Towers were built.

Ryan is simply lying when he says that the UL certifies structural steel. He's an ignorant, lying, liar.Mr. Ryan's suggestion that the UL certified steel that went into the towers has nothing to do with that whatsoever, and is in fact in direct contradiction with the statement he received from the head of the building safety and fire testing department. For those of you with reading impairments;

“the samples we certified” modifies and clarifies the statement;

“the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.”

Christopher7

7th April 2008, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by C7
What have you debunked so far?

Originally Posted by applecorped
everything.

Originally Posted by C7
Could you be a little more specific?
Why?I did not find any problems in the first 28 pages, did you?

thebestodb

7th April 2008, 05:37 PM

Minadin

7th April 2008, 05:47 PM

Ryan is clearly talking about the samples UL tested before the Trade Towers were built.

I know, that's what makes him a LIAR.

thebestodb

7th April 2008, 05:50 PM

If we can get an Idea for how big that piece might have been, I might be able to do this experiment myself.

DGM

7th April 2008, 05:54 PM

I have a question in regards to the 45 degree angle cut.
Is it not possible to get a large beam and see if it's possible to make that cut with a torch on the bottom. I would imagine it would need to be bent and then cut.
Certainly this can be duplicated or attempted.
You can angle the cut in from the sides and get most of the way through. If the column has any height to it at all gravity would bend it over with no trouble. We do this sort of thing all the time. Go visit a demolition site you'll see plenty of examples.

PS I'm an iron worker. (mostly retired to running the company now)

Cl1mh4224rd

7th April 2008, 05:58 PM

Are you saying the Hobbits brought down the towers?

They did it once before...

WildCat

7th April 2008, 06:15 PM

thebestodb

7th April 2008, 06:25 PM

yeah, maybe we can do better than that obviously poor video quality. Lets GO HIGH DEF.

Drs_Res

7th April 2008, 06:34 PM

Tell you what, let's worry about the content. You have a clean up worker talking about 45 or so degree angle cuts used to remove the steel.

thebestodb

7th April 2008, 06:41 PM

I didn't realize you wanted the thread to never end. hah, I'm done with my stupid input.

ktesibios

7th April 2008, 06:56 PM

Wrong

Loring Knoblauch, CEO of UL, to Ryan 11-15-04
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did fine.”

UL tested components/samples/assemblies with all the required fireproofing, before the Trade Towers were built.
There were NO samples from the Trade Towers.
Where does it say that UL had done any testing post 9/11 ?

Read NISTNCSTAR 1-6 pp. 39-56. The ASTM E119 fire resistance rating tests NIST had performed on floor assemblies built as in the WTC towers (because NIST could find no documentation of such tests being performed prior to the construction of the towers) were done at the UL furnace facility in Toronto.

Christopher7

7th April 2008, 07:41 PM

Read NISTNCSTAR 1-6 pp. 39-56. The ASTM E119 fire resistance rating tests NIST had performed on floor assemblies built as in the WTC towers (because NIST could find no documentation of such tests being performed prior to the construction of the towers) were done at the UL furnace facility in Toronto.You are right.
Ryan and Knoblauch were talking about the testing done post 9/11.

Ryan: 11/11/04
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04 . . . . .
. . . . the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. . . . the samples we certified met all requirements.

Knoblauch: 11/15/04
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did fine.”

Christopher7

7th April 2008, 08:00 PM

Nist 10-19-04

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf

Christopher7

7th April 2008, 08:19 PM

This thread is about AE 911 Truth and the so called "debunking".

Originally Posted by C7
What have you debunked so far?

Originally Posted by applecorped
everything.

Originally Posted by C7
Could you be a little more specific?

Originally Posted by Drs_Res
Why?

I did not find any problems in the first 28 pages, did you?

beachnut

7th April 2008, 10:54 PM

A&E are debunked. They have not come up with anything new, have they? No, they use old worn out false information.

Why are they even a group? Who is so lacking in knowledge about 9/11 who would join a group with no evidence to support anything they claim?

Gage's only goal is to get more people so he can get more money. He found that some people will suspend rational thought, not think for themselves and donate him money on the internet. He is the old snake oil salesmen bit now on the worldwide web; making money. Did an infomercial guy set up Gage to earn money online?

Christopher7

9th April 2008, 11:05 PM

A&E are debunked.Blanket denial is meaningless.

What specific errors did you find in the first 30 pages?

Arus808

10th April 2008, 12:59 AM

boloboffin

10th April 2008, 03:45 AM

Sigh.

The first 28 pages of the slideshow as it now stands (the third iteration) includes a section from 911 Mysteries and most of the This Is An Orange short, which purports to tell the entire story of Building 7 based on visual identification. The errors in these two film clips are legion.

It also includes this key slide:

http://ae911truth.info/img/3Slide025.jpg

Which is about as full of :rule10 as possible. The most amusing thing about this is that Gage will never use this slide again. He changes this so that it will apply to WTC 7 (eliminating squibs and adding "pools of molten iron"), and then changes it even further to apply it to the Towers. He used to put the exact slide he uses for WTC 7 here, but now he has three separate lists of characteristic features of controlled demolition.

None of them are complete. All of them contain superfluous and non-exclusive elements. And Gage will do a :rule10 job of applying them to the buildings.

Christopher7

11th April 2008, 03:01 AM

you mean what specific errors can be found in the first statement on their website? " Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

309 architectural and engineering professionals
and 1277 other supporters including A/E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation."

Theirlist isn't of 309 architectural and engineering professionals.

if they can't even get their count right (and confirm that his membership is only architectural and engineering professionals) why should we believe anything on that site?Now there's a good reason to write the whole thing off.

The exact count is of no real consequence to anyone but a nitpicker looking for a reason to deny the facts presented at ae91truth.

Get real and dispute the facts presented in the first 30 pages.

Christopher7

11th April 2008, 03:07 AM

Sigh.

The first 28 pages of the slideshow as it now stands (the third iteration) includes a section from 911 Mysteries and most of the This Is An Orange short, which purports to tell the entire story of Building 7 based on visual identification. The errors in these two film clips are legion.Please point out the errors.

It also includes this key slide:

http://ae911truth.info/img/3Slide025.jpg

Which is about as full of :rule10 as possible. The most amusing thing about this is that Gage will never use this slide again. He changes this so that it will apply to WTC 7 (eliminating squibs and adding "pools of molten iron"), and then changes it even further to apply it to the Towers. He used to put the exact slide he uses for WTC 7 here, but now he has three separate lists of characteristic features of controlled demolition.

None of them are complete. All of them contain superfluous and non-exclusive elements. And Gage will do a :rule10 job of applying them to the buildings.You keep talking in generalities and site structure.
Please point out specific mistakes.

Christopher7

11th April 2008, 03:10 AM

BTW:

Ryan DID NOT LIE !

Ryan and Knoblauch were talking about the testing done post 9/11.

Ryan: 11/11/04
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04 . . . . .
. . . . the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. . . . the samples we certified met all requirements.

Knoblauch: 11/15/04
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did fine.”

boloboffin

11th April 2008, 04:09 AM

Please point out the errors.

You keep talking in generalities and site structure.
Please point out specific mistakes.

I see. You're here trying to waste as much time as possible for a few laughs. Go to my website - the link is below - and you will find specifics galore. Bring back any you think you can dispute.

funk de fino

11th April 2008, 04:23 AM

BTW:
Ryan DID NOT LIE !

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

The above statement is a lie. Yes or No, Chris?

funk de fino

11th April 2008, 04:26 AM

Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

Did Dr Brown say the steel would have melted at 2000 deg f ?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit)

Christopher7

11th April 2008, 06:01 AM

Ryan
"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"

The above statement is a lie. Yes or No, Chris?No, if the steel did not get above 250°C, then it should not have failed and therefore something is amiss.
That is his opinion.

The false claim was that Ryan lied:
Minadin (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/member.php?u=12532) [the merciless]
"Ryan is simply lying when he says that the UL certifies structural steel.

Ryan never said that.
He used the word "components" instead of "assemblies" and later clarifies by using the word "samples".
Since he was referring to the report of 10/19/04, it's clear that he is talking about the post 9/11 testing UL did at the request if NIST.

Ryan was fired because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL." (Paul Baker, UL spokesman)That's a damn lie!

Ryan was perfectly clear that he was speaking for himself.

"Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, [B]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."

fullflavormenthol

11th April 2008, 06:09 AM

C7>

Ryan was perfectly clear that he was speaking for himself.

"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."

I went ahead an color coded the specific examples of him expressing what individuals in the company said and thought. So yeah, he spoke out of line.

funk de fino

11th April 2008, 06:41 AM

"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"

No, if the steel did not get above 250°C, then it should not have failed and therefore something is amiss.
That is his opinion.

Who suggested the the steel failed at 250 deg c? Not NIST. Ryan has lied when he says anyone contended that the steel failed at 250 deg C.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

He is lying.

If he was not lying then he would have won his court case, no?

Minadin

11th April 2008, 07:09 AM

He is lying. The only way he's not actively lying is if he is a complete idiot. The emails he shared with people in the know directly refute things he was writing 10 months later. But it's entertaining to watch you do these insane aerobatics in your mind to attempt to reconcile his statements with anything resembling reality.

Let's break this down very simply:

1. Ryan made statements which were demonstrably false.
2. There is ample evidence that Ryan should have known that these statements were false.
3. Falseness + awareness of falsity = Lie

If you remove the awareness of falsity you may change the assumption from "lie" to "ignorant idiocy". It's your choice.

jhunter1163

11th April 2008, 05:42 PM

Bumpez-vous.

LashL

11th April 2008, 06:16 PM

That's a damn lie!

No, it isn't.

Ryan was perfectly clear that he was speaking for himself.

No, he most certainly was not.

Christopher7

11th April 2008, 06:20 PM

C7>

"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."
I went ahead an color coded the specific examples of him expressing what individuals in the company said and thought. So yeah, he spoke out of line.He did NOT lie about the steel samples.

He did NOT say WHAT the CEO and FP business mgr. said, only that they did not agree on essential aspects of the story.
That is why he decided to "contact you directly" [man to man].

Key point here is:
The CEO and the FP business mgr. had differing views on the official story.
Ryan was not the only one to question the official story.

Christopher7

11th April 2008, 06:36 PM

He is lying.He did NOT lie about the steel samples. You misinterpreted what he said so you could call him a liar.

The only way he's not actively lying is if he is a complete idiot. IYO

The emails he shared with people in the know directly refute things he was writing 10 months later.? ? ?

It's entertaining to watch you do these insane aerobatics in your mind in an attempt to call him a liar.

Let's break this down very simply:
1. Ryan made statements which were demonstrably false.IYO. Name one.

2. There is ample evidence that Ryan should have known that these statements were false.IYO

3. Falseness + awareness of falsity = Lie
Misinterpretation and double talk.

You may not agree with what he said but that does not make him a liar.

Again i challenge you, point out 1 lie. Not d difference of opinion.

Blender Head

11th April 2008, 09:48 PM

Rerailing the thread to discuss AE911Truth, I emailed them about a "CD Characteristic" on their homepage in regards to the Tower collapses:

On this site's homepage it suggests that "molten
metal" is a characteristic of a controlled
demolition using explosives. Could this
organization provide an example of such a
phenomena?

Thanks,
TSJ

And a reply from a "Judy Shelton":

Can you point me to the section you're referring to, so I can look at it?

To which I reiterated:

It is on the front page, number 13 of the list of CD characteristics:

"Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)"

These people are either idiots or completely blind.

Jonnyclueless

11th April 2008, 09:50 PM

Oh you gotta post the response to that if you even get one.

Blender Head

11th April 2008, 09:55 PM

Oh you gotta post the response to that if you even get one.

There should be a betting pool people can contribute to, to see when pertinent questions are ever answered by these people.

Minadin

12th April 2008, 11:16 AM

He did NOT lie about the steel samples. You misinterpreted what he said so you could call him a liar.

IYO

? ? ?

It's entertaining to watch you do these insane aerobatics in your mind in an attempt to call him a liar.

IYO. Name one.

IYO

Misinterpretation and double talk.

You may not agree with what he said but that does not make him a liar.

Again i challenge you, point out 1 lie. Not d difference of opinion.

Stating that "a lie" is defined by both the false-ness of the statement, and the speaker's knowledge of such false-ness, is "Misinterpretation and double talk" in your world? What an interesting time you must have in this fantasy land. In the real world, words have definitions. It's actually the entire basis for language - people agree on what words mean. There's a consensus.

As far as how Kevin Ryan is lying, let's start with his letter to Frank Gayle and go from there.

Here's his letter:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.

This is a false statement, for a number of reasons. UL doesn't certify steel. But when they do tests on fireproofing, those tests are destructive and the steel pieces of the assembly are rendered unusable for construction. He's very clearly talking about prior testing here when he says they certified the components which were used in the construction of the World Trade Center.

I can back my statement up, and I don't even have to use any links that haven't been provided you in this thread already.

Does UL certify steel components and if not, should Kevin Ryan have known that?

No, they do not, and Yes, he should have -

In an email which Kevin Ryan (idiotic liar) submitted himself to his infamously laughable lawsuit (http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/home), the head of the Building and Fire Safety division of the UL explicitly states that the UL does not certify structural steel:

UL does not certify structural steel. Structural steel meeting the appropriate ASTM designations are used as a component in assemblies tested by UL. The assemblies consist of a structural component protected by some type of fire resistant material (i.e. spray applied fire resistive materials, wallboard) and are tested in accordance with ASTM E119/UL 263. The results of the tests are published in our Fire Resistance Directory.

. . .

The floor assembly in the World Trade Center was not a UL tested assembly.
http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/55-5ExhibitCExcerptsfromemailcorresp.pdf
I think that he's being very clear that it is the fireproofing which is being tested, and not the steel. Even so, he explicitly states to Kevin Ryan (idiot savant) that the assemblies USED IN the WTC weren't tested at all by UL. He goes on to say that they will be conducting tests in the future on floor assemblies that represent the ones used in the WTC. But he's still talking about the fireproofing, and not the steel.

Of course, if Kevin Ryan (nitwit) were talking about these later tests in his letter to Frank Gayle (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php) or his ridiculous lawsuit (http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/home), you might have a point, that either he miscommunicated or the reader misinterpreted his statement. However, you don't have a point there, because he's clearly talking about prior testing, as he argued in his wrongful termination suit:

a) UL had a role historically in testing and certifying steel components used to construct the WTC, and based on the information available to Mr. Ryan, UL had certified the steel properly as capable of withstanding temperatures from hotter and longer lasting fires than those on Sept. 11, 2001,
http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/complaint.pdf

He seems to be failing at convincing me that he's talking about some later testing when he uses words like the ones I've bolded. But I'm not sure, let's check some more:

c)UL had tested and certified the steel components used to construct the WTC tower
http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/Ryannewresponse.pdf

Still sounds like he's talking about prior testing. The court found that he was talking about prior testing of steel used in the WTC in his court case, as is evidenced by the dismissal order:

However, even if Mr. Ryan has offered evidence that UL had tested the steel components used in the World Trade Center buildings prior to the Towers' collapse,2 he has not shown that either his declaration or Exhibits A, B or C constitutes "newly discovered evidence".

http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/59Order.pdf

So, there we go. One sentence into his letter to Frank Gayle, two lies.

Facts:
1. UL doesn't certify steel.
2. UL didn't do any tests on the materials that went into the WTC.

Both of these things were explicitly stated to Kevin Ryan (dunce) prior to his correspondence with Mr. Gayle and the entire internet, and that makes his later statements to the opposite lies.

funk de fino

13th April 2008, 11:32 AM

Minadin

13th April 2008, 05:06 PM

I predict more tap dancing from Chris on this. No way will he admit Ryan is a liar although it has been shown in the last post and also in court.

How stubborn do you have to be to carry this one on.............

In related news - a google search (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=kevin+ryan+liar) for "Kevin Ryan liar" turns up a ScrewLooseChange blog post as the number 1 hit (go go Pat and James!) but this thread, thanks to Chris7's persistence, is now on the first page of links (#9 overall).

Christopher7

14th April 2008, 04:00 PM

Stating that "a lie" is defined by both the false-ness of the statement, and the speaker's knowledge of such false-ness, is "Misinterpretation and double talk" in your world?The "Misinterpretation and double talk" is yours.

Here's his letter:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

This is a false statement, for a number of reasons. UL doesn't certify steel. But when they do tests on fireproofing, those tests are destructive and the steel pieces of the assembly are rendered unusable for construction. He's very clearly talking about prior testing here when he says they certified the components which were used in the construction of the World Trade Center.You added the words "which were".
That is a lie.

Ryan DID NOT say that UL certifies steel!

He used the word 'components' instead of 'assemblies' in his first sentence.
The assemblies consist of a [singular] structural component with some type of fireproofing.

He clarifies 'component' in the same paragraph with the praise "the samples we certified".

You intentionally ignore the qualifier "the samples we certified", deliberately misinterpret what he said and maliciously call him a liar.

"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."

In his reply, 4 days later, Knoblauch refers to the testing that UL did for NIST post 9/11.
Since UL did not test components/assemblies prior to 9/11, Ryan and Knoblauch were talking about the samples we [UL] certified post 9/11.

pomeroo

14th April 2008, 04:06 PM

Now there's a good reason to write the whole thing off.

The exact count is of no real consequence to anyone but a nitpicker looking for a reason to deny the facts presented at ae91truth.

Get real and dispute the facts presented in the first 30 pages.

That claim about the "chemical evidence of cutter charges"--as there is absolutely no--zero--evidence, chemical or otherwise, of cutter charges, wouldn't that qualify as a lie told by the bogus "engineers and architects"?

Just asking questions, of course.

Jonnyclueless

14th April 2008, 04:49 PM

So UL DID certify the steel components used in the WTC?

AZCat

14th April 2008, 05:58 PM

This is pointless. C7 will never admit that his hero is at fault. Ryan is either a world-class idiot, or a liar. That is clear to anyone else other than C7. Engaging him further is only adding to the already lengthy list of excuses the "truth movement" makes to obscure the simple fact that they are wrong.

LashL

14th April 2008, 06:29 PM

The "Misinterpretation and double talk" is yours.

You added the words "which were".
That is a lie.

No, it is not Minadin who is misinterpreting or lying. You REALLY should read the documents that Kevin Ryan filed in his ill-fated lawsuit because you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, Chris, and it's not pretty.

Since UL did not test components/assemblies prior to 9/11, Ryan and Knoblauch were talking about the samples we [UL]certified post 9/11.

Here: if you read nothing else, read this one:

http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/49-2RyanSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf

Pay particular attention to the parts where Kevin Ryan specifically alleges that UL certified the very components that were intended to be used in the construction of the WTC towers.

Pay particular attention to the parts where Kevin Ryan specifically alleges that UL tested the steel and components PRIOR to the construction of the WTC towers.

Kevin Ryan based his entire "conflict of interest" argument on the "fact" that UL certified the steel components pre-construction. It is as plain as day that he alleged, repeatedly, that UL certified the steel components prior to 9/11, and that is simply not true, as even you have acknowledged in your post above.

When you're done reading and digesting that document, you should apologize to Minadin, and you should stop believing (and especially stop PEDDLING) the nonsense that idiots and liars like Kevin Ryan and other members of the "truth" movement are feeding you.

Blender Head

14th April 2008, 10:02 PM

So "Judy" replied back to me:

Blender Head, you touched off a raging debate among AE Team members! Good work, you drew our attention to something we need to fix. Here's the outcome of all the back and forth:

"It might be easier to demonstrate that various aspects of the destruction of these buildings are incompatible with the official story than to demonstrate that they are aspects of a controlled demolition."

So that's probably what we're going to do in the future.

Sincerely,
Judy Shelton

Bobbin' and a-weavin' they do go...

LashL

14th April 2008, 10:16 PM

So "Judy" replied back to me:

Bobbin' and a-weavin' they do go...

Oh, my. If that's legit, it's pretty much an admission that the membership at ae hasn't a clue about what they've been promoting thusfar, and pretty much an admission that ae is only interested in promoting a particular political stance rather than looking for truth, facts, or reality (entirely contrary to their advertising).

So, please be sure to save the entirety of that message and all of the headers that show where and when it came from, Blenderhead.

Blender Head

14th April 2008, 10:20 PM

Oh, my. That's pretty much an admission that they haven't a clue about what they've been promoting thusfar, and pretty much an admission that they are only interested in promoting a particular political stance rather than looking for truth, facts, or reality (entirely contrary to their advertising).

So, please be sure to save the entirety of that message and all of the headers that show where and when it came from, Blenderhead.

The e-mail has been archived in Gmail. :cool:

MetalliSociety

14th April 2008, 10:41 PM

So "Judy" replied back to me:

Bobbin' and a-weavin' they do go...

LOL. So they basically said they can't prove that it was a controlled demolition. But since certain things don't match identically, then it MUST be a controled demolition. That. is. HILARIOUS.

Minadin

14th April 2008, 10:41 PM

The "Misinterpretation and double talk" is yours.

You added the words "which were".
That is a lie.

Ryan DID NOT say that UL certifies steel!

He used the word 'components' instead of 'assemblies' in his first sentence.
The assemblies consist of a [singular] structural component with some type of fireproofing.

He clarifies 'component' in the same paragraph with the praise "the samples we certified".

You intentionally ignore the qualifier "the samples we certified", deliberately misinterpret what he said and maliciously call him a liar.

"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."

In his reply, 4 days later, Knoblauch refers to the testing that UL did for NIST post 9/11.
Since UL did not test components/assemblies prior to 9/11, Ryan and Knoblauch were talking about the samples we [UL] certified post 9/11.

Well, damn. You're still demonstrably wrong. The wild mental gymnastics in the airs above the earth did not help.

20. The fact that UL had performed fire resistance certification testing for the steel
components used in the construction of the WTC towers and buildings created an
organizational conflict of interest for UL in performing contract work for NIST as part of
NIST's investigation of the causes of the collapse of the WTC buildings. If UL had been
negligent in its prior testing, or had engaged in fraud during that prior testing, UL would
have a clear motive to skew its tests and findings for NIST away from any direction that might point to its own fault or liability in the collapse of the WTC towers which caused
the death of thousands of people.

Apologies via PM are fine if you don't feel comfortable issuing them publicly.

Kevin Ryan was talking about certification of steel components that were used in the construction of the World Trade Center. He's both an idiot and a liar. You are, at best, an apologist for such. Please admit that you're wrong here to maintain some semblance of dignity.

BillyRayValentine

14th April 2008, 10:50 PM

So "Judy" replied back to me:

Bobbin' and a-weavin' they do go...

Does that mean their home page will be scrubbed for references to controlled demolition?

On the bright side, their web hosting bill should go down.

JamesB

14th April 2008, 10:54 PM

So "Judy" replied back to me:

Bobbin' and a-weavin' they do go...

Well that is basically the David Ray Griffin approach, do everything possible to avoid making a hypothesis, because that will only give people an opportunity to point out the inconsistencies in your argument.

Sporanox

14th April 2008, 10:55 PM

Perhaps C7 is highlighting the difference between components and assemblies?

In this case, it would be worth noting that both the components and assemblies discussed consist of steel...therefore Ryan is still talking about certification of steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center...therefore...hmmmm :mad:

Minadin

14th April 2008, 10:57 PM

Kevin Ryan is a Liar. Ok, I shouldn't be so harsh. He might be an idiot. Based on everything I've seen, he's most likely both.

Minadin

15th April 2008, 01:14 AM

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Kevin+Ryan+idiot

Now works as well as the former query. Yay.

Christopher7

15th April 2008, 03:12 AM

Disbelief

15th April 2008, 05:44 AM

Source?

You're kidding right? Did you miss LashL's post? It is spelled out for you by Lash, but will you read and comprehend?

Minadin

15th April 2008, 07:59 AM

Source?

Source. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3619965#post3619965)

Minadin

15th April 2008, 08:37 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125324805666e22dd3.gif

Blender Head

15th April 2008, 09:48 PM

Jonnyclueless

15th April 2008, 09:58 PM

I think that's technically true. I don't see any official types of explanation for it. Though I guess it could just be considered common sense.

Minadin

16th April 2008, 11:44 AM

I asked what they'll change as a result of my inquiry, and they replied:

Well, that's something at least.

Christopher7

17th April 2008, 09:33 PM

No, it is not Minadin who is misinterpreting or lying. You REALLY should read the documents that Kevin Ryan filed in his ill-fated lawsuit.

Here: if you read nothing else, read this one:

http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/49-2RyanSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf

Pay particular attention to the parts where Kevin Ryan specifically alleges that UL certified the very components that were intended to be used in the construction of the WTC towers.

Pay particular attention to the parts where Kevin Ryan specifically alleges that UL tested the steel and components PRIOR to the construction of the WTC towers.Thank you for your list of documents.
http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/kevinryanv.ullitigation

07 08 25 Second amended complaint
Pg 14
14. Some of this UL contract work for NIST was performed during the period of time in 2004 when Mr. Ryan reported certain material facts to and raised concerns and questions in writing externally with NIST. Mr. Ryan reported in writing to NIST during November of 2004 the material fact that UL had in the past conducted fire resistance testing of steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings,

Ryan is referring to steel components used in the construction of the WTC that UL had tested to verify code requirements for New York City, and the current testing for NIST.
The change from used to construct to used in the construction was a mistake by Ryan's lawyer but it does not change the fact that Ryan is referring to historical testing as is noted in Exhibit C.

Exhibit C: Knoblauch to Ryan 04 11 15
"We test to the code requirements, and the steel [components/assemblies] clearly met those requirements and exceeded them.
In practice the steel lasted longer than expected. In the case of this steel, a major factor was the fireproofing sprayed on the outside."

Knoblauch was referring to historical testing on steel components, with the required fireproofing, done for NYC. Ryan is referring to those tests and the current testing.
Ryan did NOT say that UL tested and certified the steel used in the WTC.
UL, the judge and Minadin, misquoted and misinterpreted what Ryan said.

06 11 16 Complaint
Pg 3
a) UL had a role historically in testing and certifying the steel components used to construct the WTC,
Pg 5
UL had tested and certified the steel components used to construct the WTC tower;

************************************************** *******
07 01 16 Defendant’s motion to dismiss
Pg 3
This letter contained many false or unsubstantiated assertions by Plaintiff, including that UL had tested and certified the steel used in the WTC towers,

************************************************** *******
07 02 05 Ryan response in opposition to dismiss
Pg 8
2. Defendant asserts that this [November 11, 2004] letter [to NIST] contained “many false or unsubstantiated assertions” by Plaintiff, including that UL had tested and certified the steel used in the WTC towers,

************************************************** *******
07 05 14 Ryan first amended complaint
Pg 6
c) UL had tested and certified the steel components used to construct the WTC towers;

************************************************** ******************

07 06 01 Brief on motion to dismiss first amended complaint
Pg 2
Plaintiff represented that UL had tested and certified the steel used in the WTC towers

************************************************** *******

07 08 08 Reason for dismissal
Pg 1
He also suggested that UL had tested and certified steel used in the buildings

Ryan uses the phrase “steel components used to construct”
UL and the judge misquote him using the phrase “steel used in”.

The judge then renders to point moot when he writes:
Pg 2
UL describes Mr. Ryan’s claims of alleged flaws in the official explanation for the
World Trade Center collapses as the product of “outrageous conspiracy theories.”
However, the substance of his allegations is not presently an issue.
Pg 8
There are two main issues before the court. The first is whether Indiana’s whistle blower statute, Ind. Code § 22-5-3-3, protects the sort of activities that allegedly led to Mr. Ryan’s firing. The second is whether Indiana’s public policy exception to the doctrine of at-will employee applies to the sort of rights and duties he was allegedly exercising prior to his dismissal.

In their dismissal notice, UL did not mention Ryan’s remarks about
“steel used in the WTC towers” or “outrageous conspiracy theories”.

Those were excuses they used after they fired him.

In their dismissal notice, UL said Ryan’s letter created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL.

The judge disagrees:
Pg 11
In writing to UL and NIST, he was attempting only to making them aware of
his theories and conclusions, not of particular problems with any UL conduct.

The judgment had nothing to do with what Ryan wrote to NIST or UL’s reasons for firing him.

Pg 24
The rights that Mr. Ryan was exercising and the duties that he was fulfilling
do not give rise to a public policy exception allowing a lawsuit for wrongful discharge. The court therefore GRANTS UL’s motion to dismiss this claim.

Christopher7

17th April 2008, 09:49 PM

I asked what they'll change as a result of my inquiry, and they replied:I think we're going to have to stop claiming that molten metal is one of the hallmarks of explosive demolition. It's more accurate to say that the molten metal is not explained by the official theory of how the WTC buildings came down.

Judy Shelton

AE 911 Truth is ready to change it's statements when errors are logically presented.
In this case it can also be said that the molten metal is evidence of Thermate because there is no other known explanation for the molten metal under all 3 buildings.

Jonnyclueless

17th April 2008, 09:53 PM

I think we're going to have to stop claiming that molten metal is one of the hallmarks of explosive demolition. It's more accurate to say that the molten metal is not explained by the official theory of how the WTC buildings came down.

Judy Shelton

AE 911 Truth is ready to change it's statements when errors are logically presented.
In this case it can also be said that the molten metal is evidence of Thermate because there is no other known explanation for the molten metal under all 3 buildings.

Change it's statements? Then how do you explain on the front of the website:

"Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)" under the list of things that can only be explained by explosive demolitions?

And no Thermate IS NOT a known explanation for molten metal. The molten metal is evidence that there was NO thermate used.

BillyRayValentine

17th April 2008, 11:04 PM

In their dismissal notice, UL said Ryan’s letter created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL.

The judge disagrees:
Pg 11
In writing to UL and NIST, he was attempting only to making them aware of
his theories and conclusions, not of particular problems with any UL conduct.

[B][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial]The judgment had nothing to do with what Ryan wrote to NIST or UL’s reasons for firing him.

You are hopelessly lost. Almost none of your points make a lick of sense. The one above is particularly dim.

The judge was explaining why the whistleblower statute didn't apply. Your interpretation of him "disagreeing" with the dismissal claims is pure fantasy.

Snap out of it. Wake up.

Minadin

17th April 2008, 11:42 PM

20. The fact that UL had performed fire resistance certification testing for the steel
components used in the construction of the WTC towers and buildings created an
organizational conflict of interest for UL in performing contract work for NIST as part of
NIST's investigation of the causes of the collapse of the WTC buildings. If UL had been
negligent in its prior testing, or had engaged in fraud during that prior testing, UL would
have a clear motive to skew its tests and findings for NIST away from any direction that might point to its own fault or liability in the collapse of the WTC towers which caused
the death of thousands of people.

What the hell is your point, Chris? You're demonstrably wrong. Kevin Ryan is demonstrably wrong. By this point both of you should know better, but you're clinging to the same falsehoods like they're some life-raft. Let it go. It's better to find out that you were wrong and change your mind than to not realize that you are wrong and continue being so.

LashL

18th April 2008, 12:08 AM

<Snipped moronic nonsense and there was nothing left of your post, Christopher7>

Hello? McFly?

Nice quote mining, as usual. You're good at that, but you're not very good at actually making any rational, logical, evidence-based posts. Terrific job at entirely misrepresenting the documents. Excellent job at utterly failing to comprehend the documents. In other words, you managed a 3 for 3 failure of epic proportions. How unsurprising.

But how on earth did you manage to entirely miss the integral point, which is that Kevin Ryan's entire conflict of interest argument was based, necessarily, on his unfounded, unsupported and untrue assertion that UL had done testing of the steel - components or otherwise - prior to construction? As you know, and as you have previously acknowledged, UL did not do any prior testing.

You are way out of your depth here and you don't even seem to realize how pathetically wrong you are with your assertions in support of Kevin Ryan's lies. Here's a hint: not even your ridiculous quote mining helps you in the least, because it entirely misses the point, and entirely misinterprets the documents, the law, and the court's rulings.

All of this is blatantly apparent to anyone with the intellectual capacity above that of a six year old.

Bottom line: Ryan is a liar and a fraud. You are peddling his lies and doing all manner of mental gymnastics trying, unsuccessfully, to avoid that fact. And you still owe Minadin an apology.

Your complete and utter failure to educate yourself, to comprehend the documents, and to understand Ryan's fallacious assertions, are inexcusable.

ETA: Oh, and your *cough* interpretations of the court's rulings are entirely wrong, by the way. You really, really, ought not even pretend that you have a clue about the law. You're only embarrassing yourself.

Christopher7

18th April 2008, 12:43 AM

You are hopelessly lost. Almost none of your points make a lick of sense. The one above is particularly dim.

The judge was explaining why the whistleblower statute didn't apply. Your interpretation of him "disagreeing" with the dismissal claims is pure fantasy.The problem is your reading comprehension ability.

Statement
In their dismissal notice, UL said Ryan’s letter created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL.

Statement
The judge disagrees:
Proof
Pg 11
In writing to UL and NIST, he was attempting only to making them aware of
his theories and conclusions, not of particular problems with any UL conduct.

Statement
The judgment had nothing to do with what Ryan wrote to NIST or UL’s reasons for firing him.

Proof
Pg 24
The rights that Mr. Ryan was exercising and the duties that he was fulfilling
do not give rise to a public policy exception allowing a lawsuit for wrongful discharge. The court therefore GRANTS UL’s motion to dismiss this claim.

Christopher7

18th April 2008, 01:17 AM

uk_dave

18th April 2008, 01:22 AM

UL, the judge and Minadin, misquoted and misinterpreted what Ryan said.

Wow all those eminent people (well...excepting Minadin, of course :D) couldn't understand what only Ryan and Christopher7 can. Maybe it's a conspiracy!!!

Tell me Chris, what was Ryan's job before he was fired?

Why was he commenting on a subject beyond his job description and experience and using UL email stationary to do so?

Minadin

18th April 2008, 01:25 AM

I know what steel components are. Do you? Please Refer to LashL's previous 2-3 posts in this thread, and / or any of mine.

Christopher7

18th April 2008, 03:00 AM

Kevin Ryan's entire conflict of interest argument was based, necessarily, on his unfounded, unsupported and untrue assertion that UL had done testing of the steel - components or otherwise - prior to construction? As you know, and as you have previously acknowledged, UL did not do any prior testing.Wrong, Wrong.

Ryan is referring to steel components used in the construction of the WTC that UL had tested to verify code requirements for New York City.
Ryan is referring to this historical testing as is noted in Exhibit C.

Exhibit C: Chapin to Ryan 03 12 01
UL does not certify structural steel. Structural steel meeting the appropriate ATSM designations are used as a component in assemblies tested by UL. The assemblies consist of a structural component protected with some type of fire resistant material.
The results of the tests are published in our Fire Resistance Directory

Exhibit C: Knoblauch to Ryan 03 12 01
The New York City code decides how much temperature the steel must withstand, for how long a time, and indeed the exact temperature profile the steel must withstand. We test to the code requirements, and the steel [components/assemblies] clearly met those requirements and exceeded them.
In practice the steel lasted longer than expected. In the case of this steel, a major factor was the fireproofing sprayed on the outside.

BillyRayValentine

18th April 2008, 10:05 AM

The problem is your reading comprehension ability.

Statement
In their dismissal notice, UL said Ryan’s letter created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL.

Statement
The judge disagrees:
Proof
Pg 11
In writing to UL and NIST, he was attempting only to making them aware of
his theories and conclusions[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial], not of particular problems with any UL conduct.

Sigh. I'll try to explain this one more time, but I doubt you'll get it. I've almost lost all hope for you.

The judge's statement in no way "disagrees" with the proposition that Ryan "created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL." His statement specifically addresses whether the purpose of Ryan's letter was to report improper conduct by UL, and thus whether the whistleblower statute had any relevance. He said no, again, since the purpose of Ryan's letter was to "make them aware of his theories and conclusions, not of particular problems with any UL conduct."

You then leap to "no allegations of improper conduct" = "not giving the impression of speaking for UL"? How ridiculous. Newsflash. Whether you're saying something good, bad or neutral about your employer has no bearing on the question of whether you're improperly creating the impression of speaking as a representative for said employer. The two are completely unrelated. Which is why the judge's ruling had nothing to do with the dismissal allegations.

Pleaase consider giving up now. You're becoming (more) incoherent.

Jonnyclueless

18th April 2008, 10:19 AM

The court case wasn't to find out if he was being misleading it was to determine if he could use whistleblower status about being fired.

Him being fired was based on his dishonesty and deception. The court determined his whitleblower status was not legit because he was legitimately fired.

AZCat

18th April 2008, 11:11 AM

Pleaase consider giving up now. You're becoming (more) incoherent.

His posts are starting to remind me of Francis E. Dec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Dec).

Christopher7

18th April 2008, 12:49 PM

The judge's statement in no way "disagrees" with the proposition that Ryan "created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL." Is English your first language?

In their dismissal notice, UL said Ryan’s letter created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL.

The judge disagrees:
In writing to UL and NIST, he was attempting only to making them aware of
his theories and conclusions.

his: indicates something belonging to or relating to a man

Ryan was clearly speaking for himself when he said "I felt the need to contact you directly".

He did NOT create a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL

LashL

18th April 2008, 12:56 PM

Wrong, Wrong.

Yes, you are wrong.

Ryan asserts that UL certified the steel components that were used to build the WTC towers prior to its construction.

Ryan is lying when he makes that assertion.

And you are perpetuating his lies when you continue to misconstrue the documents that have been provided to you.

And you still owe Minadin an apology.

Please consider giving up now. You're becoming (more) incoherent.

Indeed.

Christopher7

18th April 2008, 01:00 PM

Wow all those eminent people (well...excepting Minadin, of course :D) The judge joins the defendant in misquoting the plaintiff and suggesting that the plaintiff lied.

Ryan uses the phrase “steel components used to construct”
UL and the judge misquote him using the phrase “steel used in”.

That is prejudicial.

06 11 16 Complaint
Pg 3
a) UL had a role historically in testing and certifying the steel components used to construct the WTC,
Pg 5
UL had tested and certified the steel components used to construct the WTC tower;
************************************************** *******
07 01 16 Defendant’s motion to dismiss
Pg 3
This letter contained many false or unsubstantiated assertions by Plaintiff, including that UL had tested and certified the steel used in the WTC towers,

************************************************** *******
07 02 05 Ryan response in opposition to dismiss
Pg 82.
Defendant asserts that this [November 11, 2004] letter [to NIST] contained“many false or unsubstantiated assertions” by Plaintiff, including that UL had tested and certified the steel used in the WTC towers,
************************************************** *******
07 05 14 Ryan first amended complaint
Pg 6
c) UL had tested and certified the steel components used to construct the WTC towers;

************************************************** *******

07 06 01 Brief on motion to dismiss first amended complaint
Pg 2
Plaintiff represented that UL had tested and certified the steel used in the WTC towers

************************************************** *******

07 08 08 Reason for dismissal
Pg 1
He also suggested that UL had tested and certified steel used in the buildings

Christopher7

18th April 2008, 01:04 PM

Ryan asserts that UL certified the steel components that were used to build the WTC towers prior to its construction.Where does he say that?

Not here:
"the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. . . . . . . the samples we certified met all requirements."

Ryan is referring to steel components used in the construction of the WTC that UL had tested to verify code requirements for New York City, and the current testing for NIST

You insist on misinterpreting his statement so you can call him a liar.
He clarified his statement is his second amended complaint.

"Mr. Ryan reported in writing to NIST during November of 2004 the material fact that UL had in the past conducted fire resistance testing of steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings, a fact that Mr. Ryan had obtained from his inquiries with UL officials including the CEO."

DGM

18th April 2008, 01:17 PM

Chris:
Why did Ryan lose? Are they all "in on it"?

LashL

18th April 2008, 01:41 PM

http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/49-2RyanSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf

Pay particular attention to the parts where Kevin Ryan specifically alleges that Mr. Knoblauch wrote to him that UL had, in fact, certified the steel components that were intended to be used to construct the WTC towers.

This simply cannot be read any way but retrospectively.

Kevin Ryan based his entire "conflict of interest" argument on the "fact" that UL certified the steel components pre-construction, and that is simply not true.

And you still owe Minadin an apology.

SpitfireIX

18th April 2008, 01:50 PM

funk de fino

18th April 2008, 01:59 PM

This is a pathetic tap dance even for C7.

Ryan is a liar, if not he would still have a job and the court would have upheld his complaint.

Minadin

18th April 2008, 02:19 PM

Where does he say that?

Chris7, the cognitive dissonance you're displaying is amazing. If you're going to refer to his second amended complaint, how do you ignore statements like the one I've quoted above, or this one:

32. This UL organizational conflict of interest and appearance of a conflict made UL ineligible and disqualified for any contracts involving the investigation of the collapse of the WTC buildings because given UL's prior involvement in fire testing of the materials used to construct the WTC buildings, UL could not be objective and unbiased in investigating the causes of the collapse of the WTC buildings for the government because the evidence discovered in the investigation might point to some flaw in the fire resistance of the materials used to construct the WTC or the fire resistance testing of same. Such a finding would have serious repercussions for UL regarding its reputation and potential liability. Such an outcome could be devastating for a company such as UL's that makes its living by doing safety related testing.

His claim is quite clearly that they did testing of WTC items prior to collapse. Otherwise, how could there be a conflict of interest immediately post collapse? There are statements like this one littered all over his second amended complaint:

http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/49-2RyanSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf

Specifically, complaint items which mention testing materials used in the construction of the WTC, prior testing (to the collapse), etc are found in #'s 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23a, 24, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36c, 36d, 48, 53, 54, 63, 64, 65, 66.

I left out those items wherein Kevin Ryan (prevaricator) & counsel merely referred to the prior testing (their word!) as "the conflict of interest", as I did not wish to overdo it here and appear to be "piling on". Suffice it to say that their entire argument was based on the claim that the UL had engaged in testing the materials at some time prior to the collapse, presumably at the time of construction*.

They still lost.

*The phrase "used in the construction" is found throughout, along with the term "historically", which is not typically a word used to describe recent events.

boloboffin

18th April 2008, 03:01 PM

Minadin

18th April 2008, 03:18 PM

They didn't just lose. They had their behinds tossed out of court and were told never to come back in there with that trash.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/LOLcats/funny-pictures-cat-talk-to-the-hand.jpg

Well, if you want to call "having your case dismissed with prejudice and yourself and entire legal team threatened with sanctions" that . . . yeah, I would be inclined to agree.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91879

Christopher7

18th April 2008, 05:26 PM

Christopher7

18th April 2008, 05:38 PM

Please explain, if you would, Christopher7, why a reasonable person would believe that Ryan was not communicating in his capacity as an employee of UL.Ask the judge, he [and any reasonable person] can easily see that, although Ryan identified himself as an employee of UL, he was speaking for himself.

The judge is quite clear:
In writing to UL and NIST, he was attempting only to making them aware of
his theories and conclusions.

LashL

18th April 2008, 07:46 PM

20. The fact that UL had performed fire resistance certification testing for the steel components* used in the construction of the WTC towers and buildings created an organizational conflict of interest for UL in performing contract work for NIST as part of NIST's investigation of the causes of the collapse of the WTC buildings. If UL had been negligent in its prior testing**, or had engaged in fraud during that prior testing**, UL would have a clear motive to skew its tests and findings for NIST away from any direction that might point to its own fault or liability in the collapse of the WTC towers which caused the death of thousands of people.

The point is:

Ryan is referring to steel components used in the construction of the WTC that UL had tested** to verify code requirements for New York City, and the current testing for NIST.
The change from components used to construct to components used in the construction was a mistake by Ryan's lawyer but it does not change the fact that Ryan is referring to historical testing as is noted in Exhibit C.

Exhibit C: Knoblauch to Ryan 04 11 15
"We test to the code requirements, and the steel [components/assemblies] clearly met those requirements and exceeded them.
In practice the steel lasted longer than expected. In the case of this steel, a major factor was the fireproofing sprayed on the outside."

Knoblauch was referring to historical testing on steel components, with the required fireproofing, done for NYC. Ryan is referring to those tests and the current testing.
Ryan did NOT say that UL tested and certified the steel used in the WTC.
UL, the judge and Minadin, misquoted and misinterpreted what Ryan said.

Christopher7,

Although I suspect that you are deliberately obfuscating and deliberately misconstruing the documents, on the off chance that you sincerely do not understand this, I will attempt once more to respond to patiently explain where and how you are getting things wrong.

1) Mr. Chapin of UL, apparently in late 2003, told Kevin Ryan - in response to his questions - that UL
(a) does not certify structural steel;
(b) structural steel meeting the appropriate ASTM designations is used as a component in the assemblies that UL tests;
(c) the assemblies that UL tests consist of a structural component protected with fire resistant material;
(d) when UL conducts tests on assemblies, it publishes the results in its Fire Resistance Directory;
(e) the authority having jurisdiction specifies the hourly rating that is needed for the type of construction (in the case of the WTC, that authority would be the PANYNJ);
(f) the architect usually will then specify a design that is published in the Fire Resistance Directory that meets the code requirement; and
(g) that the floor assembly in the WTC was not a UL tested assembly.

Note that the process is clearly related to pre-construction, and pay particular attention to items (d) through (g).

Ergo, the evidence is that UL did not test the floor assemblies pre-construction; UL did not test the floor assemblies for compliance with the PANYNJ requirements or the NY building code, and Kevin Ryan was advised specifically of those facts in 2003.

If, as you suggest, the "historical testing" and "prior testing" that Kevin Ryan repeatedly alleges was not in reference to pre-construction, then what time period does it refer to? When did this alleged "historical testing" and "prior testing" occur?

It would have been a trivial matter for Kevin Ryan to say in his complaint(s) something to the effect of: "UL performed fire resistance testing on steel components used in the _______ assemblies of the WTC during the period from 19__ through 19__."

And yet, he did no such thing, even after being given a road map by the judge as to what had to be done to save his complaint from being dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.

Why do you suppose he didn't do that?

It would have been a trivial matter for Kevin Ryan to produce UL's published Fire Resistance Directories to prove that UL had done any "historical testing" or "prior testing" any time prior to September 11, 2001, in fact.

Why do you suppose he didn't do that?

It would also have been a trivial matter for Kevin Ryan to produce the written confirmations that he claimed to have, but he didn't. Instead, he produced only a weirdly excerpted portion of an e-mail communication that failed entirely to identify the participants, the dates, or the actual correspondence in any meaningful fashion, so as to render it utterly useless from an evidentiary perspective.

Why do you suppose he did that? Especially when he had more than $1.3 million riding on his wrongful dismissal claim, not to mention the prospect of blowing the entire 9/11 "conspiracy" wide open, becoming the most famous - and possibly the wealthiest - man on the planet?

2) UL was granted the contract to perform fire resistance testing on floor assemblies in Indiana and Toronto in the summer of 2003.

3) UL did, indeed, conduct such tests, which were completed in late 2003 and/or early 2004.

4) It seems obvious to me from the excerpts of the e-mail that Kevin Ryan appended as an Exhibit to his proposed Second Amended Complaint that Mr. Knoblauch (if, in fact, that portion of the e-mail is from Mr. Knoblauch - given the oddly incomplete, undated and unidentifiable excerpt) was talking about testing being done pursuant to its contract with NIST as part of the investigation post 9/11.

It seems obvious because Mr. Knoblauch (again, if that portion of the excerpt is his writing) refers specifically to this being AFTER the contract was awarded to UL by NIST since he refers to the contract specifically.

Ergo, it seems quite apparent that when he said, "We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did beautifully," he is talking about the 2003-2004 tests, and not any alleged "prior testing" or any alleged "historical testing". Those phrases are Kevin Ryan's alone, and they are unfounded. Kevin Ryan has alleged that UL conducted historical testing and prior testing, but there is no evidence to support his allegations.

I have no idea where you get the idea that:

Knoblauch was referring to historical testing done on steel components with the required fireproofing, done for NYC.

There is, as noted above, no evidence whatsoever that UL did any historical testing for NYC. That e-mail excerpt certainly doesn't say any such thing.

You are badly misinterpreting the e-mail, and that may well be what Kevin Ryan intended when he excerpted it in such a bizarre way. Fortunately, he didn't fool anyone other than those predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories, and those who have little, if any, rational, critical or analytical thinking skills.

5) The court, in its summary ruling on Kevin Ryan's attempt to belatedly amend his complaint for a second time specifically said:

The proposed Second Amended Complaint rested on Mr. Ryan's assertion of federal and state whistleblower claims arising from a conflict of interest resulting from UL's alleged prior testing of steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center buildings, but he did not provide any evidence of this prior testing, such as an alleged written acknowledgment from UL's chief executive officer. The court said such evidence would be helpful, if not necessary, to a plaintiff who seeks permission to amend a complaint and who must persuade the court that the new claim is not being brought "in a desperate effort to protract the litigation and complicate the defense. (Italic emphasis in original, bolding emphasis is mine)

The court did not misinterpret Kevin Ryan's allegations at all. Neither did Minadin, whom you still owe an apology.

With respect to your post #626 in which you claim that "the judge disagrees" that Kevin Ryan was purporting to act on behalf of UL with his letter to NIST, I will respond to that separately, as it is a purely legal matter and has nothing to do with Kevin Ryan's unsupported allegations that UL conducted any "historical testing" or "prior testing" on steel components used in the construction of the WTC. But you are quite wrong in that post, as well, and again, in case you are sincerely confused rather than being deliberately obtuse, I will attempt to explain it to you.

LashL

18th April 2008, 07:58 PM

Point made, my bad, my apologies to Minadin.

I had not seen this post while I was composing my last post, so I will retract my call for your apology to Minadin in that post, since you have now done so.

But I will leave the post as it is, since it took me so damned long to write, and because I hope that it may still serve a useful purpose. I hope that you will read it in its entirety, because I think that it explains fairly well where and how you went wrong.

NIST did conduct tests for NYC but those tests were of generalized components/assemblies, NOT specifically the components used in the construction of the WTC.

NIST may well have done so, but what does that have to do with the tests conducted by UL that are the current subject matter?

Minadin

18th April 2008, 08:27 PM

Point made, my bad, my apologies to Minadin.

NIST did conduct tests for NYC but those tests were of generalized components/assemblies, NOT specifically the components used in the construction of the WTC.

Your apology is accepted.

However, in the interests of being as factually accurate as possible, I think that you might be swinging too far to the other side of the argument, in your second statement.

(I am assuming you meant the UL performed tests for the NIST; don't know of the NIST performing any tests for NYC)

As far as I am aware, the tests conducted by UL at the behest of the NIST as part of their WTC 1/2 collapse investigation were of assemblies built to the specifications of the ones which were used in the construction of the Twin Towers. It would make sense, of course, that they would want the test to be as true to reality as possible, so they should have used the same arrangement of components as what actually did go into the buildings. Which is, by the way, what they normally do, and they're very good at it.

I know that you have dropped the point, but I do think that it's important to clarify what the various different terms are in relation to these tests, how they perform them, what they are testing, and how they evaluate the performance of certain materials and applications.

The steel components are, of course, the structural members that are being protected by the fire insulative material. It might be a bar joist, a steel stud, a column or wide flange beam. These are usually standard building materials that are more or less mass-produced, and we know what their properties are supposed to be, unless there is some material or manufacturing flaw, or some sort of physical damage.

The assemblies are a combination of one or more steel components, put together in the manner that they would be found in finished construction, with the fireproofing material(s) and other items, such as finishes or hardware. Various assemblies will be built completely differently from each other. For instance, one example might be a section of standard office partition wall, with 3-5/8" metal studs separating 5/8" drywall on each side, with sound batt (Pink Panther style) insulation in between. Another assembly, such as the ones that I believe UL tested for NIST, would be to have a section of 3-1/2" poured concrete over a corrugated steel deck, with 29K12 (2'-5" deep, chord size 12) steel bar joists attached to the underside, with spray-on fire insulation coating both the bottom of the steel deck and the bar joists. This is what Architect typically refers to as a composite floor system.

The tests are done by subjecting the entire assembly to heat / fire in a controlled environment such as a furnace, for a specified amount of time and / or temperature, or until the assembly fails, in some cases. It depends on the requirements of the test, and those can vary based on what they are looking for specifically.

Even though the entire component is subjected to the test, what they are actually testing is the effectiveness, durability and fire resistance of the materials applied to the structural components in a given design. The best way to discern this is by evaluating the one known in the experiment, which is the steel component(s). So, when you hear about how such-and-such steel performed in the testing of an assembly, keep in mind that they were not so much testing the steel, but the materials applied to it, and are referring to the steel as a benchmark to gauge how effective those applied materials were able to protect it.

BillyRayValentine

18th April 2008, 08:36 PM

Is English your first language?

In their dismissal notice, UL said Ryan’s letter created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL.

The judge disagrees:
In writing to UL and NIST, he was attempting only to making them aware of
his theories and conclusions.

his: indicates something belonging to or relating to a man

Ryan was clearly speaking for himself when he said "I felt the need to contact you directly".

He did NOT create a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL

In the spirit of detente that has suddenly appeared on this thread, I will patiently do my best to set your mind right...

Of course Ryan's theory was his own...but the point is, he presented his theory by 1) representing (falsely) that UL had tested steel (or components or assemblies or whatever, the distinction being irrelevant - a point you refuse to grasp for some reason) used in the construction of the wtc, 2) presenting the "opinions" of UL senior officers as if he had any basis or approval to do so, and 3) writing the whole damn thing on UL stationary and signing it in his capacity as a UL employee.

I sincerely hope that helps. Quite franky, this entire issue is not even worthy of debate. But I sense from your last few posts that, just maybe, you really are open to reason...

P.S. To any lawyers out there, a quick question. In reading one of the versions of Ryan's complaint (I haven't studied them by any means - too ridiculous), I think I saw that one of his attorneys was with Winston Strawn out of Chicago. Could this be true? They're a respected firm in Chitown - I've worked with atty's there on some fairly large transactions - so I'm surprised to see their name within a mile of this disaster. Any thoughts, or am I missing something?

SpitfireIX

18th April 2008, 09:32 PM

<snip>

P.S. To any lawyers out there, a quick question. In reading one of the versions of Ryan's complaint (I haven't studied them by any means - too ridiculous), I think I saw that one of his attorneys was with Winston Strawn out of Chicago. Could this be true? They're a respected firm in Chitown - I've worked with atty's there on some fairly large transactions - so I'm surprised to see their name within a mile of this disaster. Any thoughts, or am I missing something?

Winston & Strawn represented UL, not Ryan.

SpitfireIX

18th April 2008, 09:57 PM

Ask the judge, he [and any reasonable person] can easily see that, although Ryan identified himself as an employee of UL, he was speaking for himself.

No. One does not print one's job title and employer underneath one's signature when not communicating in one's official capacity. You seem to have latched onto Ryan's use of the first-person singular as if that somehow precludes his speaking for UL. It does not. To reiterate, the use of his title and the company name underneath his signature imply that he is communicating as an employee of UL.

The judge is quite clear:
In writing to UL and NIST, he was attempting only to making them aware of
his theories and conclusions.

And again, the job title and company name after his signature imply that he is communicating those theories and conclusions in his capacity as an employee of UL.

BillyRayValentine

18th April 2008, 10:29 PM

Winston & Strawn represented UL, not Ryan.

Thanks. I only glanced at the doc. Guess I could have re-opened it, but the stupid burned my eyes.

Christopher7

24th April 2008, 08:05 AM

NIST may well have done so, but what does that have to do with the tests conducted by UL that are the current subject matter?Nothing, i was agreeing with you.

Christopher7

24th April 2008, 08:29 AM

Of course Ryan's theory was his own...but the point is, he presented his theory by 1) representing (falsely) that UL had tested steel (or components or assemblies or whatever,We are discussing the reason UL gave for firing him in their termination notice which was:
Ryan "created the misleading impression that he was speaking as representative of UL".
Ryan identified himself as an employee of UL.
The judge, and any reasonable person, can easily see that Ryan made it clear that he was speaking for himself.

funk de fino

24th April 2008, 08:40 AM

So can we put this one to bed as Ryan is a liar?

It seems the evidence is overwhelming.

Christopher7

24th April 2008, 08:54 AM

And again, the job title and company name after his signature imply that he is communicating those theories and conclusions in his capacity as an employee of UL.The reason UL gave for firing him in their termination notice was:
Ryan "created the misleading impression that he was speaking as representative of UL. In fact, as you know, your letter did not represent the views of UL.

Ryan did NOT indicate that he was representing the views of UL.

There is nothing wrong with Ryan identifying himself as an employee of UL.

Jonnyclueless

24th April 2008, 09:55 AM

Yes he DID.

LashL

24th April 2008, 11:41 AM

The judge, and any reasonable person, can easily see that Ryan made it clear that he was speaking for himself.

I want to address this as well as the cherry-picked quote that you used a few times above, which is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

Several times, you have "quoted" this:

Originally Posted by Christopher7 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2grey/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3632204#post3632204)
The judge is quite clear:
In writing to UL and NIST, he was attempting only to making them aware of
his theories and conclusions.

You have cherry-picked this - and changed it, in fact - to try to ascribe to it a meaning that it does not have.

First, let's deal with the context and then let's deal with the actual quote from which you cited only the few words that you, apparently, believe amount to a finding by the judge that Kevin Ryan was speaking for himself and was not purporting to speak on behalf of UL.

The judgment from which you quoted is the order dismissing Ryan's Amended Complaint for failure to state a legally sufficient cause of action, pursuant to UL's motion to dismiss. It is not an adjudication on the merits of Ryan's wrongful dismissal claims, nor is it an adjudication on whether or not Ryan's letter could be construed as him purporting to present the views of UL. In fact, UL had not even filed its answer to Ryan's complaint - because it did not have to unless its motion to dismiss was unsuccessful - so the issue was not even before the judge.

Rather, the judgment is a finding that Ryan's complaints did not meet even the very low threshold of merely having to state a legally sufficient claim, despite being given ample opportunity to correct the deficiencies, and despite the fact that on a motion to dismiss, the court must give the pleading the reading most favourable to the plaintiff, has to accept all of the factual allegations made by the plaintiff as true, and has to draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the plaintiff.

Even still, Ryan couldn't manage to survive the motion to dismiss.

Now, as to that quote that you cherry picked.

Here's what it actually says:

Thus the Amended Complaint strongly suggests that Mr. Ryan possessed no more knowledge about UL's public contracts than any like-minded citizen of similar background and training, and that in writing to UL and NIST, he was attempting only to make them aware of his theories and conclusions, not of particular problems with any UL conduct.

This is in no way, shape or form a finding of fact by the judge on the issue of whether or not Kevin Ryan's letter to NIST could or would be interpreted as him purporting to put forward his own views as that of UL. As I said above, that issue was not before the court, and would not be until the matter went to trial.

Rather, the judge was saying that Ryan's complaint - which the court had to accept as true for purposes of the motion - suggested that Ryan was attempting to make UL and NIST aware of his theories, etc. In no way whatsoever is this the judge being "quite clear" that the letter was not, could not or would not be interpreted in the manner that UL suggests had the matter gone to trial.

By cherry picking and changing that quote, you have tried to give a very false impression of what the judge actually said. That is dishonest.

As for whether or not a court would find that Ryan's letter was such that it could be interpreted to purport to speak for UL rather than in his personal capacity separate and apart from UL, if it went to trial, well, we will never know for sure now that Ryan's lawsuit has been dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. However, there is certainly plenty in it that would support UL's position from a legal standpoint.

uk_dave

24th April 2008, 12:18 PM

I wonder if Chris is getting his 'spun' version of this case from Ryan himself and that it's Ryan who is telling lies in order to save some semblance of face from this court debacle.

You gotta hand it to Chris, he is tenacious in his defence of both AE911truth and Kevin Ryan, despite them sending him out with falsehoods and spin.

Maybe one day Chris might apply this laudable devotion to something more worthy.

boloboffin

24th April 2008, 03:11 PM

Maybe one day Chris might apply this laudable devotion to something more worthy.

Hear, hear.

LashL

24th April 2008, 05:11 PM

DavidJames

24th April 2008, 11:30 PM

I believe, as they say, this quote requires to explanation.
...
and remember i can make assumptions i dont have to backup. and when you dont agree with it you have to prove my assumption wrong.

uk_dave

24th April 2008, 11:34 PM

Oh, and one more thing, Christopher7, in case you still do not understand the court documents, the court process, the motion for dismissal procedures or the court's rulings.

Here is the number one, slam dunk, reason that you can be 100% certain that the judge did not make any findings of fact whatsoever regarding whether Ryan's letter to NIST purported to be presenting UL's position rather than his own personal position in the ruling dismissing Ryan's complaint: not only was the issue not before the court on the motion to dismiss, the letter had not even been filed with the court.

I wonder if it was a deliberate ploy. Get the motion dismissed without the claims ever being properly considered by the judge and then go around telling anyone gullible enough to believe him that he didn't lose, it was just a legal technicality which the system used to silence his claims and deny him his day in court.

Minadin

24th April 2008, 11:42 PM

It was more of a bulldozer than a technicality.

uk_dave

24th April 2008, 11:55 PM

It was more of a bulldozer than a technicality.

Yeah, but so long as the 'truth' believers don't bother to do real research (no change there then) it can be sold to them as yet another example of 'the man' keeping them from having their day in court.

Christopher7

27th April 2008, 02:28 PM

I want to address this as well as the cherry-picked quote that you used a few times aboveI reviewed the document and the judge did not endorse that statement.
I retract my statement and apologize for the error.

I still hold the position that Ryan made it clear that he was speaking for himself.

"I felt the need to contact you directly. . . . . 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,"

Ryan identified himself as the Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories.
It is obvious that the Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories does not speak for the the entire company or the CEO of UL.
His following statement is obviously NOT the position of UL.

To claim that Ryan was representing his opinion as the position of UL is a lie.

LashL

27th April 2008, 04:27 PM

I reviewed the document and the judge did not endorse that statement.

The judge did not even make the statement that you claimed - several times - he made.

I retract my statement and apologize for the error.

Error? You mean your deliberate cherry picking and changing of the written judgment? Or did you just copy and paste the cherry picked and altered words from some other "truth seeker" without verifying it for yourself?

I still hold the position that Ryan made it clear that he was speaking for himself.

You can hold that position all you like, but that doesn't make it accurate. And I trust that you will now stop claiming that the judge agreed with you.

To claim that Ryan was representing his opinion as the position of UL is a lie.

I, for one, have not claimed that Ryan was representing his opinion as the position of UL. I have said that there is plenty in Ryan's letter to NIST upon which such a finding could be made - because there is.

In any event, it is not a lie for someone to express an opinion that Ryan wrote his letter in such a way as to convey that he was expressing the views of his employer. (Obviously, UL viewed it that way, and that is not an unreasonable interpretation from their point of view.) Rather, it is an opinion, and one that is reasonably founded upon the evidence.

That you hold a contrary opinion does not make the opinion of someone who disagrees with you a lie.

Christopher7

27th April 2008, 05:35 PM

I, for one, have not claimed that Ryan was representing his opinion as the position of UL. I have said that there is plenty in Ryan's letter to NIST upon which such a finding could be made - because there is.The first reason given for Ryan's termination in the "Termination of Employment" notice was:
"Your letter created the misleading impression that you were speaking as a representative of UL. In fact, as you know, your letter did not represent the views of UL"

If you read Ryan's entire email to Mr Gayle, it is obvious that he is expressing his own views and they were obviously NOT the views of UL.

In any event, it is not a lie for someone to express an opinion that Ryan wrote his letter in such a way as to convey that he was expressing the views of his employer. (Obviously, UL viewed it that way, and that is not an unreasonable interpretation from their point of view.) Rather, it is an opinion, and one that is reasonably founded upon the evidence.What evidence? Ryan's views were obviously his own.

If you are going to call Ryan a liar for misinterpreting the response from Mr. Knoblauch [exhibit C], then you must hold UL to the same standard and call them liars for misinterpreting Ryan's email to Mr. Gayle.

That you hold a contrary opinion does not make the opinion of someone who disagrees with you a lie.I agree. I wish people here would adhere to that principle.

LashL

27th April 2008, 07:07 PM

It's interesting to see the points that you chose to respond to, and those that you studiously avoided.

The first reason given for Ryan's termination in the "Termination of Employment" notice was:
"Your letter created the misleading impression that you were speaking as a representative of UL. In fact, as you know, your letter did not represent the views of UL"

Yes. Exactly as I said above, UL's impression of Kevin Ryan's letter to NIST is that he was purporting to speak on behalf of his employer. Their interpretation of his letter is not at all unreasonable.

If you read Ryan's entire email to Mr Gayle, it is obvious that he is expressing his own views and they were obviously NOT the views of UL.

I have read it several times. You are somewhat of a Johnny-come-lately to the Kevin Ryan matter here, but there are several old threads about it that you could easily locate and read to educate yourself.

And, no, it is not "obvious" that Ryan was merely expressing his own views and not purporting to be speaking on behalf of his employer in that letter. That's rather the point.

What evidence? Ryan's views were obviously his own.

Not "obvious" at all. See above. The evidence: see the prior threads on the matter, in which the numerous references to "we", "our", "us", etc. in Ryan's letter are noted, and see the letter itself. You really should get yourself up to speed on this stuff if you're going to attempt to argue it. So far, you are failing miserably.

If you are going to call Ryan a liar for misinterpreting the response from Mr. Knoblauch [exhibit C], then you must hold UL to the same standard and call them liars for misinterpreting Ryan's email to Mr. Gayle.

Are you completely incapable of reading for comprehension? It sure appears so.

It appears that you are conceding that Ryan has misinterpreted the cherry picked e-mail exchange that he belatedly attached to his Second Amended Complaint, and it appears that you are conceding that the conclusions he drew from it were wrong, if not deliberately dishonest. That's a start.

But you seem to be suggesting that I have called Ryan a liar for misinterpreting something, when I have done no such thing. I have not called Kevin Ryan a liar for misinterpreting the (cherry picked and grossly incomplete 'exhibit c') email exchange to which you allude. If and when I call Kevin Ryan a liar, it is because he knowingly tells lies, repeatedly (and long after the time for him to acknowledge his misinterpretation and refrain from repeating it has passed).

Further, I have seen no evidence that UL has misinterpreted Ryan's letter to NIST, nor any evidence that UL has lied about it, so your false premise is rejected.

(As an aside, don't you even wonder why Kevin Ryan cherry picked that email exchange and refused to provide it in its entirety when the whole of his case depended on it? If not, you should.)

I agree. I wish people here would adhere to that principle.

You should start with yourself. You repeatedly accuse others of lying because they disagree with you. You should stop doing that.

Unsecured Coins

27th April 2008, 07:26 PM

pwned.

SpitfireIX

28th April 2008, 08:07 AM

pwned.

Seconded.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1706047b98b7c27615.jpg

Christopher7

28th April 2008, 07:45 PM

Not "obvious" at all. See above. The evidence: see the prior threads on the matter, in which the numerous references to "we", "our", "us", etc. in Ryan's letter are noted, and see the letter itself. The termination letter said Ryan “signed the letter as Site Manager, Environmental Health Laboratories” as if that was creating a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative* of UL.
*representative: someone who speaks for others

As for the letter itself,
Here are all the places where Ryan uses the words "we", "our" and "us".

"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.”
Right or wrong, Ryan is relaying his view based on his communications with Mr. Knoblauch and Mr. Chapin .
He does not say or indicate he is was speaking for UL.

In this letter, Ryan is speaking to Mr. Gayle.
If you look at this set of statements as a whole, the “we” and “us” includes Mr. Gayle.

"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119"

"And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications"

"I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind"
His own opinion

“I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F”

“I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind”

“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.”

With the exception of “And as we all agree,” Ryan was clearly expressing his own views.
Viewing the letter as a whole, it is obvious that Ryan was not creating a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL.

UL was working closely with NIST.
NIST was well aware of UL’s views on the subject.
It was obvious to all that Ryan’s views were not those of UL
and therefore it is obvious that he was not speaking for UL.

Ryan was fired for questioning the unsubstantiated Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory.

LashL

28th April 2008, 09:57 PM

The termination letter said Ryan “signed the letter as Site Manager, Environmental Health Laboratories” as if that was creating a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative* of UL.
*representative: someone who speaks for others

The letter said much more that, as you well know. Why not be honest and link to the termination letter (http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/55-3ExhibitATerminationLetter.pdf) itself instead of just cherry picking the parts that you think support your feeble interpretation of it?

Specifically, the termination letter from UL says that Ryan's letter:
a) made reference to his work for UL;
b) was signed using his work title;
c) created the misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL;
d) did not represent the views of UL;
e) was not authorized by UL;
f) did not refer to matters within Ryan's area of employment;
g) highly inappropriately commented on tests UL had done for its client;
h) exhibited extremely poor judgement;
i) caused harm to UL's reputation; and
j) caused harm to UL's relationship with its client.

It also suggests that Ryan's statements were deceptive and misleading , and advises him that UL expects him not to do so in the future and expects him to abide by confidentiality obligations.

You really should stop your dishonest cherry picking. You've done it numerous times and it only demonstrates how feeble your arguments and unfounded allegations are.

As for the letter itself,
Here are all the places where Ryan uses the words "we", "our" and "us".

No, those are not all the places where Ryan uses the words "we", "our" and "us". Once again, why not be honest and link to Ryan's letter (http://pages.google.com/edit/resipsa2006/55-4ExhibitBRyanslettertoNIST.pdf) itself instead of just cherry picking the parts that you think support your interpretation of it?

For instance, who do you suppose Kevin Ryan was referring to in the first full paragraph when he refers to - and which you did not cite - "our CEO and Fire Protection business manager" and says "they suggested "we all" be patient and understand ..." ? Sure sounds like he's talking about multiple people at UL, doesn't it? Is that why you deliberately left those references out?

Right or wrong, Ryan is relaying his view based on his communications with Mr. Knoblauch and Mr. Chapin .

That is merely your opinion based upon your obviously biased interpretation of yet another cherry picked presentation. As I said previously, your opinion is only that. Others disagree with your opinion, for very good reasons.

And I remind you that Ryan chose not to provide the court with his alleged e-mail exchange with Mr. Knoblauch and/or Mr. Chapin in support of his ill-fated complaint, and chose not to provide even the oddly-disjointed and evidentiary-valueless excerpts of same that he eventually provided until it was much too late. Why do you suppose that is?

He does not say or indicate he is was speaking for UL.

Of course, he does not say he was speaking for UL, as he had no authority to do so, as a water tester at a subsidiary of UL. However, as has been pointed out several times already, by his choice of language, by writing the letter at work, by using his UL position in his signature (and the further references to UL in the signature line in the original, by the way, that do not appear in the online versions), by sending the letter from his workplace, and by repeated references to "us", "we", "our", etc., he most certainly insinuates that he is not writing as a private individual alone. The letter as a whole gives rise to a reasonable inference that he was trying to appear as though he was speaking from a position of authority within UL on behalf of others for whom he had no right to speak.

That's why he was fired.

In this letter, Ryan is speaking to Mr. Gayle.
If you look at this set of statements as a whole, the “we” and “us” includes Mr. Gayle.

And who else? That is rather the point.

Ryan is an idiot for writing that letter in the manner he did, and it is no wonder that he got fired for it.

His own opinion

In your opinion.

With the exception of “And as we all agree,” Ryan was clearly expressing his own views.

No, it is not "clear" at all. See above.

It would have been very, very easy to write the letter in a manner that could not be interpreted as anything other than a private individual sending his personal concerns to NIST, even mentioning his employment and why and how he came to his (unsupported) assertions. Instead, Ryan chose to play word games, chose to use his work e-mail to do so, chose to use his position at a subsidiary of UL to get NIST's attention, chose to pretend that he had more knowledge and information than he actually had, chose to pretend to be a "whistleblower" when he was no such thing, chose to pretend to have closer ties to UL than he did, chose to let his delusions and his idiocy get the better of him, and it blew up in his face.

He lost his job as a result of his own stupidity and his own actions, and it is nobody's fault but his own.

Viewing the letter as a whole, it is obvious that Ryan was not creating a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL.

No, it is not "obvious" at all. Again, that is the point. See above.

It was obvious to all that Ryan's views were not those of U/L and therefore it is obvious that he was not speaking for UL.

Nonsense. See above.

Ryan was fired for questioning the unsubstantiated Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory.

Really? The evidence suggests that he was fired for writing a letter from his workplace, using his work e-mail, using his work credentials that:

a) made reference to his work for UL;
b) was signed using his work title;
c) created the misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL;
d) did not represent the views of UL;
e) was not authorized by UL;
f) did not refer to matters within Ryan's area of employment;
g) inappropriately commented on tests UL had done for its client;
h) exhibited extremely poor judgement;
i) caused harm to UL's reputation;
j) caused harm to UL's relationship with its client; and
k) made deceptive and misleading statements.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, now would be a good time to present it.

Oh, and please educate yourself about the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory, while you're at it.

Jonnyclueless

29th April 2008, 12:32 AM

l) All of the above.

Christopher7

29th April 2008, 12:41 AM

Specifically, the termination letter from UL says that Ryan's letter:
a) made reference to his work for UL; true
b) was signed using his work title; true
c) created the misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL; false
d) did not represent the views of UL; obviously
e) was not authorized by UL; whistle blowers are not authorized
f) did not refer to matters within Ryan's area of employment; true
g) highly inappropriately commented on tests UL had done for its client; opinion
h) exhibited extremely poor judgement; opinion
i) caused harm to UL's reputation; and opinion
j) caused harm to UL's relationship with its client. opinion

It also suggests that Ryan's statements were deceptive and misleading , and advises him that UL expects him not to do so in the future and expects him to abide by confidentiality obligations.UL has a right to their opinion and the judge ruled in their favor. So be it.
I like to focus on one thing at a time. You call this cherry picking.
No worries.

UL falsely stated that Ryan "created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative* of UL."
*representative: someone who speaks for others

Created a misleading impression on who?
Everyone knew that Ryan's views were not the views of UL.

No, those are not all the places where Ryan uses the words "we", "our" and "us".
For instance, who do you suppose Kevin Ryan was referring to in the first full paragraph when he refers to - and which you did not cite - "our CEO and Fire Protection business manager" and says "they suggested "we all" be patient and understand ..." ? Sure sounds like he's talking about multiple people at UL, doesn't it? Now who's cherry picking?
I did include "our CEO and Fire Protection business manager" to show that it in no way indicated that Ryan was speaking for UL, but i left out the "they suggested "we all" because Knoblauch and Chapin saying "be patient" is irrelevant to the point.

Of course, he does not say he was speaking for UL, as he had no authority to do so, as a water tester at a subsidiary of UL. true

However, as has been pointed out several times already, by his choice of language, by writing the letter at work, by using his UL position in his signature (and the further references to UL in the signature line in the original, by the way, that do not appear in the online versions), by sending the letter from his workplace,and by repeated references to "us", "we", "our", etc., he most certainly insinuates that he is not writing as a private individual alone.
The letter as a whole gives rise to a reasonable inference that he was trying to appear as though he was speaking from a position of authority within UL on behalf of others for whom he had no right to speak.
false, as i pointed out in post 665

The Site Manager, Environmental Health Laboratories, does not speak for the company, the CEO does.
He did use his position to get a reply but he did not say or represent that he was speaking for UL.
UL was working closely with NIST and NIST was aware of UL's views.
Ryan's views were obviously NOT the views of UL.

Originally Posted by Christopher7
In this letter, Ryan is speaking to Mr. Gayle.
If you look at this set of statements as a whole, the “we” and “us” includes Mr. Gayle.And who else? That is rather the point.The point is:
"We" and "us" included Mr. Gayle and therefore Ryan was NOT creating the misleading impression that he was speaking for UL.
He was stating points of agreement [including Mr. Gayle] and points of possible agreement [including Mr. Gayle].

The over all point is:
If you are going to call Ryan a liar for misinterpreting the response from Mr. Knoblauch [exhibit C], then you must hold UL to the same standard and call them liars for misinterpreting Ryan's letter to Mr. Gayle.

He lost his job as a result of his own . . . . actions, and it is nobody's fault but his own.
I have to agree with you here. Ryan screwed up, soup to nuts.
He is a still patriot imo and unpatriotic iyo.

funk de fino

29th April 2008, 01:04 AM

He is a still patriot imo and unpatriotic iyo.

He is a very stupid liar.

Jonnyclueless

29th April 2008, 01:32 AM

"Everyone knew that Ryan's views were not the views of UL."

it doesn't get any more wrong than that....

lapman

29th April 2008, 11:46 AM

uk_dave

29th April 2008, 11:56 AM

Let's face it, Ryan could have avoided these problems had he contacted NIST using his own email address and in his own time. But then they might have wondered what the hell a water tester had to do with fire testing steel components.

adoucette

29th April 2008, 12:38 PM

The Site Manager, Environmental Health Laboratories, does not speak for the company, the CEO does.

So, according to you the marketing and sales folks at a company can write letters and say whatever they want since ONLY communications from the CEO of a company are to be considered as indicative of the company's position on any matter?

Here's a hint:

If you work for a company and send out a letter using their letterhead (or from the company email system) and/or sign it with your name and your title at that company, the company WILL hold you fully responsible for its contents.

Christopher7

29th April 2008, 12:46 PM

Wrong in every sense of the word. By signing it using his title and using UL stationary, he IS speaking on behalf of UL, therefore creating the impression that he is representing the views of UL. Just because we "know" that he was speaking for himself is irrelevant to the lawsuit* and the dismissal**. By using UL's name, logo and his title, he is writing as a representative of UL and not as an individual citizen.It does not follow that identifying himself as an employee of UL creates a misleading impression that he was speaking for UL. Ryan did not claim to be speaking for UL and Mr. Gayle knew that Ryan's views were not those of UL. Ryan's letter did not give the impression he was speaking for UL.
So who got the impression that Ryan was speaking for UL?
Nobody.

*The judge ruled that the whistle blower statute did not apply.
The reasons for termination were not an issue in his decision.
**It was the primary reason for dismissal and it was demonstratively not true.

lapman

29th April 2008, 01:36 PM

It does not follow that identifying himself as an employee of UL creates a misleading impression that he was speaking for UL.
Wrong again. When you put your title as part of your signature and use company stationary, you can give the impression that you are representing the views of the company. Period. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this? Any reasonable adult would.
Ryan did not claim to be speaking for UL and Mr. Gayle knew that Ryan's views were not those of UL. Ryan's letter did not give the impression he was speaking for UL.Irrelevant. The fact that Ryan put us title on his signature and use the company stationary can signify that you are writing on behalf of the company.

So who got the impression that Ryan was speaking for UL?
Nobody.Wrong again. The fact is that the "Truth Movement" is using Ryan's statements as statements from UL (http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm).

Christopher7

30th April 2008, 12:00 AM

Wrong again. When you put your title as part of your signature and use company stationary, you can give the impression that you are representing the views of the company. Period.In this instance, that was not the case. Mr. Gayle knew that Ryan was not speaking for UL.

Wrong again. The fact is that the "Truth Movement" is using Ryan's statements as statements from UL (http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm).Rense misinterpreted and overstated what 911Truth had posted.

Friday, November 12, 2004
(911Truth.org news service -- updated 11/13, 11/14)
An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.
<snip>
911Truth.org called Ryan Friday to confirm his authorship[B]. Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but others at UL are aware of his action.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

lapman

30th April 2008, 10:01 AM

In this instance, that was not the case. Mr. Gayle knew that Ryan was not speaking for UL.
Wrong again. There is nothing in the letter that states that he was speaking only on his behalf. As a matter of fact the statement:
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. would indicate that he is including both the CEO and the Fire Protection business manager.

Rense misinterpreted and overstated what 911Truth had posted. No. Rense is stating what the letter is representing

Friday, November 12, 2004
(911Truth.org news service -- updated 11/13, 11/14)
An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.
<snip>
911Truth.org called Ryan Friday to confirm his authorship[B]. Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but others at UL are aware of his action.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451That was stated to 911Truth and not to Mr. Gayle in the letter.

Christopher7

30th April 2008, 01:06 PM

There is nothing in the letter that states that he was speaking only on his behalf.There was nothing in the letter to indicate Ryan was speaking for UL.

As a matter of fact the statement:
"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."
would indicate that he is including both the CEO and the Fire Protection business manager.Ryan was relating what he had learned in his communications with the CEO and Fire Protection business manager. He did not indicate he was speaking for them.
Mr. Gayle was working closely with UL and he knew UL's views.
It was obvious that Ryan was not speaking for UL.

No. Rense is stating what the letter is representing911Truth posted the letter with the disclaimer:
Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company,
The disclaimer is clear and unequivocal.
Rense ignored this disclaimer.

Mr. Gayle knew that Ryan was NOT speaking for UL.
The public was informed that Ryan was speaking for himself.

Ryan did NOT create a misleading impression that he was speaking for UL, publicly or privately.

lapman

30th April 2008, 01:24 PM

There was nothing in the letter to indicate Ryan was speaking for UL.
Citing his title and it being on UL stationary is that indication. Period

Ryan was relating what he had learned in his communications with the CEO and Fire Protection business manager. He did not indicate he was speaking for them.By including it in this letter can indicate that he is speaking FOR them.

Mr. Gayle was working closely with UL and he knew UL's views.Irrelevant. The letter could indicate that UL had changed their views.

It was obvious that Ryan was not speaking for UL.
Wrong. The use of his UL title and UL stationary can easily be taken that he is speaking for UL.

911Truth posted the letter with the disclaimer:
Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company,
The disclaimer is clear and unequivocal.
Rense ignored this disclaimer.The disclaimer is 911Truths disclaimer to its readers and not Ryan's disclaimer to Mr. Gayle or UL. Learn the difference.

Mr. Gayle knew that Ryan was NOT speaking for UL.This is shown where?

The public was informed that Ryan was speaking for himself.
911Truth.org is not exactly a mainstream publication that the general public would read
Ryan did NOT create a misleading impression that he was speaking for UL, publicly or privately.Wrong again. By using his UL title, UL stationary and UL personnel contacts, it can create the misleading impression that he is speaking for UL. Just because we know differently is irrelevant. The possibility that someone could interpret the letter as being a UL statement is what the ruling is about.

Drs_Res

30th April 2008, 02:03 PM

funk de fino

30th April 2008, 02:04 PM

C7

You have had have had your ass handed to you big time in this thread, the time is ripe to walk away and learn from it and come back stronger with better arguments.

Ryan is a liar and a moron. If he was not, he would still have a job with his employers, would have receieved compensation and would have won his case.

When you try to defend the fools mentioned in the OP it weakens you and you make mistakes and have to eat large slices of humble pie.

Its getting embarrassing to read. Let it lie. Get back to what you do best. Bumping the 10 storey hole thread every now and again.

LashL

30th April 2008, 07:57 PM

UL has a right to their opinion and the judge ruled in their favor. So be it.
I like to focus on one thing at a time. You call this cherry picking.

It is cherry picking when you take only one portion of a sentence out of context, change it, and pretend that it supports your claim (in this case, that the judge concluded that Ryan was speaking only on his own behalf) when it does not support your claim at all. Selectively picking and changing words in order to ascribe to them a meaning that they do not have, and to try to advance your unsupported position is cherry picking, and it is dishonest.

UL falsely stated that Ryan "created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative* of UL."
*representative: someone who speaks for others

Created a misleading impression on who?
Everyone knew that Ryan's views were not the views of UL.

You cannot seriously expect to be anyone to simply accept your unsupported accusation against UL and your unsupported allegation that "everyone" knew that Ryan was not purporting to put forward his views as a representative of UL.

That might be acceptable at the twoofer sites you frequent, but it is not sufficient here among rational, critical and analytical thinkers. We prefer to look at things like facts and evidence and draw conclusions in accordance with same.

Now who's cherry picking?
I did include "our CEO and Fire Protection business manager" to show that it in no way indicated that Ryan was speaking for UL, but i left out the "they suggested "we all" because Knoblauch and Chapin saying "be patient" is irrelevant to the point.

Irrelevant? Hardly. It was entirely relevant because it reads as Ryan purporting to be writing on behalf of other members of UL and not just himself. I.e., that "our" (their) CEO and FP business manager suggested that "we all" (they) be patient. It is one of the strongest damning points against Ryan wrt the letter as it gives the distinct impression that he is referring to others ("we all") at UL.

false, as i pointed out in post 665

No, it is not false. I said that in the letter, Ryan insinuates that he is not writing as a private individual alone and that the letter as a whole gives rise to a reasonable inference that Ryan was purporting to write as a representative of UL because, from a legal standpoint, it certainly does.

The fact that your opinion may differ from mine and that of others, does not make your assertion correct or factual and it does not in any way, shape or form make what I said false. Further, your post #665 does not in any way illustrate that is it is false, as pointed out in post #666.

The over all point is:
If you are going to call Ryan a liar for misinterpreting the response from Mr. Knoblauch [exhibit C], then you must hold UL to the same standard and call them liars for misinterpreting Ryan's letter to Mr. Gayle.

I addressed this the last time you said it, and responded specifically to it in post #662. You must have missed it. Here is what I wrote:

It appears that you are conceding that Ryan has misinterpreted the cherry picked e-mail exchange that he belatedly attached to his Second Amended Complaint, and it appears that you are conceding that the conclusions he drew from it were wrong, if not deliberately dishonest. That's a start.

But you seem to be suggesting that I have called Ryan a liar for misinterpreting something, when I have done no such thing. I have not called Kevin Ryan a liar for misinterpreting the (cherry picked and grossly incomplete 'exhibit c') email exchange to which you allude. If and when I call Kevin Ryan a liar, it is because he knowingly tells lies, repeatedly (and long after the time for him to acknowledge his misinterpretation and refrain from repeating it has passed).

Further, I have seen no evidence that UL has misinterpreted Ryan's letter to NIST, nor any evidence that UL has lied about it, so your false premise is rejected.

(As an aside, don't you even wonder why Kevin Ryan cherry picked that email exchange and refused to provide it in its entirety when the whole of his case depended on it? If not, you should.)

He is a still patriot imo and unpatriotic iyo.

WTF? Patriotism has nothing at all to do with this. Moreover, please refrain from purporting to tell me what my opinion of Ryan's "patriotism" is. Doing so only makes you look foolish. Even more foolish than Ryan.

Lastly, as I said above, the evidence suggests that Ryan was fired for writing a letter from his workplace, using his work e-mail, using his work credentials that:

a) made reference to his work for UL;
b) was signed using his work title;
c) created the misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL;
d) did not represent the views of UL;
e) was not authorized by UL;
f) did not refer to matters within Ryan's area of employment;
g) inappropriately commented on tests UL had done for its client;
h) exhibited extremely poor judgement;
i) caused harm to UL's reputation;
j) caused harm to UL's relationship with its client; and
k) made deceptive and misleading statements.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, now would be a good time to present it.

Christopher7

30th April 2008, 10:11 PM

It is cherry picking when you take only one portion of a sentence out of context, change it, and pretend that it supports your claimThe cherry in question is:
UL falsely stated that Ryan "created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative* of UL."
*representative: someone who speaks for others

Created a misleading impression on who?
Mr. Gayle knew that Ryan's views were not the views of UL.

You cannot seriously expect to be anyone to simply accept your unsupported accusation against UL and your unsupported allegation that "everyone" knew that Ryan was not purporting to put forward his views as a representative of UL. UL stated that Ryan's letter did not represent the views of UL, so they knew. UL had been working closely with NIST, so they also knew.
Do you think Mr. Gayle was not aware of UL's views?
Do you seriously think Mr. Gayle thought Ryan was speaking for UL?
Did Mr. Gayle ever say he thought Ryan was speaking for UL?

Remember, the "views" not shared by UL include:
"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."

and
"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."

and
"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."

Irrelevant? Hardly. It was entirely relevant because it reads as Ryan purporting to be writing on behalf of other members of UL and not just himself.
I.e., that "our" (their) CEO and FP business manager suggested that "we all" (they) be patient. It is one of the strongest damning points against Ryan wrt the letter as it gives the distinct impression that he is referring to others ("we all") at UL. Please.
Relaying what someone said is NOT speaking for them.
Referring to others is NOT speaking for them.

No, it is not false. I said that in the letter, Ryan insinuates that he is not writing as a private individual alone and that the letter as a whole gives rise to a reasonable inference that Ryan was purporting to write as a representative of UL because, from a legal standpoint, it certainly does.
IYO
Other than the first paragraph, where Ryan was relating what he had heard, "We" and "us" included Mr. Gayle and therefore Ryan was NOT creating the misleading impression that he was speaking for UL.
He was stating points of agreement [including Mr. Gayle] and points of possible agreement [including Mr. Gayle].

The fact that your opinion may differ from mine and that of others, does not make your assertion correct or factual and it does not in any way, shape or form make what I said false.The same is true in reverse.

more later

Arus808

30th April 2008, 10:13 PM

there goes c7 , repeating the same thing over and over again, despite being proven wrong over and over again. you do know what we call people who repeat things , hoping for a different answer... insane.

SpitfireIX

30th April 2008, 10:21 PM

The cherry in question is:
UL falsely stated that Ryan "created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative* of UL."
*representative: someone who speaks for others

Created a misleading impression on who?
Mr. Gayle knew that Ryan's views were not the views of UL.

UL stated that Ryan's letter did not represent the views of UL, so they knew. UL had been working closely with NIST, so they also knew.
Do you think Mr. Gayle was not aware of UL's views?
Do you seriously think Mr. Gayle thought Ryan was speaking for UL?
Did Mr. Gayle ever say he thought Ryan was speaking for UL?

Remember, the "views" not shared by UL include:
"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."

and
"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."

and
"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."

Please.
Relaying what someone said is NOT speaking for them.
Referring to others is NOT speaking for them.

IYO
Other than the first paragraph, where Ryan was relating what he had heard, "We" and "us" included Mr. Gayle and therefore Ryan was NOT creating the misleading impression that he was speaking for UL.
He was stating points of agreement [including Mr. Gayle] and points of possible agreement [including Mr. Gayle].

The same is true in reverse.

more later

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604796803f95b43.jpg

LashL

1st May 2008, 12:20 AM

Once again, it is interesting to see the points that you chose to respond to, and those that you have studiously avoided. Readers can and will draw their own conclusions from that, once again.

The cherry in question is:
UL falsely stated that Ryan "created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative* of UL."
*representative: someone who speaks for others

Nice try but no, the cherry picking in question was yours. You know, when you deliberately misquoted and changed the judge's words in an effort to pretend that the judge said something that he did not say, and in an effort to pretend that the judge agreed with your interpretation when he did no such thing.

Oh, and your recent attempts to insert your own definition of "representative" as if that is the only definition attributable to the word - in order to try to reframe the discussion - are also disingenuous, albeit unsurprising.

Created a misleading impression on who?

You really don't understand this whole law thing, do you? Why not just admit it?

more nonsensical blather, snipped

See above.

IYO

Yes, that is my educated, informed, and professional opinion about the legal issues raised, based on years of relevant education, information and legal experience, as opposed to your uneducated, uninformed, and non-professional opinion based on nothing but a faith-based desire to cling to an unfounded, unsupported conspiracy theory. I've never suggested otherwise, and your lame attempts to suggest that I have are just silly, and blatantly apparent to readers.

Your refusal to address the issues raised with anything but your own misguided, uninformed, and uneducated opinion is also quite apparent to readers.

Other than the first paragraph, where Ryan was relating what he had heard, "We" and "us" included Mr. Gayle and therefore Ryan was NOT creating the misleading impression that he was speaking for UL. He was stating points of agreement [including Mr. Gayle] and points of possible agreement [including Mr. Gayle].

Nonsense, as set out more fully in prior posts. Why do you continue to ignore the actual issues and arguments raised? You are not fooling anyone but yourself, you know.

The same is true in reverse.

See above.

more later

No rush. I strongly suspect that you will proffer nothing but the same old nonsense that you've proffered thusfar. The world can certainly wait for that non-event.

Lastly, as I have said at least a couple of times previously, the evidence suggests that Ryan was fired for writing a letter from his workplace, using his work e-mail, using his work credentials that:

a) made reference to his work for UL;
b) was signed using his work title;
c) created the misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL;
d) did not represent the views of UL;
e) was not authorized by UL;
f) did not refer to matters within Ryan's area of employment;
g) inappropriately commented on tests UL had done for its client;
h) exhibited extremely poor judgement;
i) caused harm to UL's reputation;
j) caused harm to UL's relationship with its client; and
k) made deceptive and misleading statements.

Once again, if you have any evidence to the contrary, now would be a good time to present it. So far, you've been remarkably and obviously reluctant to do so.

Spitfire, Arus, funk de fino, and jonnyclueless, immediately above, are right, as are several others, including Minadin, BillyRayValentine, Disbelief, AZCat, ukdave, et al further above.

And Kevin Ryan remains a liar and a fraud.

Arus808

1st May 2008, 01:05 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604796803f95b43.jpg

aww.w this makes me miss my two macaws, and my lorikeet (my two parrots, died at the old age of 62 and 64)

SpitfireIX

1st May 2008, 06:18 AM

You really don't understand this whole law thing, do you? Why not just admit it?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1706047dcfe501a50a.jpg

Yes, that is my educated, informed, and professional opinion about the legal issues raised, based on years of relevant education, information and legal experience, as opposed to your uneducated, uninformed, and non-professional opinion based on nothing but a faith-based desire to cling to an unfounded, unsupported conspiracy theory. I've never suggested otherwise, and your lame attempts to suggest that I have are just silly, and blatantly apparent to readers.

Your refusal to address the issues raised with anything but your own misguided, uninformed, and uneducated opinion is also quite apparent to readers.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1706047dcfe29ca912.jpg

And Kevin Ryan remains a liar and a fraud.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604807f6db0f936.jpg

Still dead. :rolleyes:

Stupid

1st May 2008, 06:55 AM

I wrote a letter to my former employers, listing the stupid mistakes they made by restructuring their company.
I made certain to state in the letter that the opinions I expressed were my solely my own, and that they (former employers) were the first persons to read it.

I'm just a construction shop worker, but it seemed a bit more than obvious to include my disclaimer....to not only protect myself and other former workers, but to make my position/opinions more clear. A no-brainer, right?

=S=

funk de fino

1st May 2008, 07:12 AM

If Ryan is writing with his own opinions, to Frank Gayle, why does he use the bolded words below?

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.

"we can all agree"? Who is this all? ryan and gayle? If it is a letter to gayle and it is a personal letter expressing personal opinions then why did he not write.

If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can both agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.

Who is the rest of his all? Other employees of UL he had talked to? Other members of the NIST team?

Also here

And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications

Why not

And as we can both agree, the steel applied met those specifications

Give it up Chris, Ryan is a stupid liar and you look foolish defending him

Christopher7

5th May 2008, 02:27 AM

. . your recent attempts to insert your own definition of "representative" as if that is the only definition attributable to the word Representative: somebody who speaks for others; acting on somebody's behalf
Encarta Dictionary [Windows]

Is there another definition?

Other than the first paragraph, where Ryan was relating what he had heard, "We" and "us" included Mr. Gayle and therefore Ryan was NOT creating the misleading impression that he was speaking for UL. He was stating points of agreement and points of possible agreement [including Mr. Gayle].
NonsenseAre you saying that the "we" in these statements does not include Mr.Gayle?

Remember, this is a letter from Ryan to Gayle.

"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119"
"And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications"
"I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind"
“I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F”
“I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind”

Lastly, as I have said at least a couple of times previously, the evidence suggests that Ryan was fired for writing a letter from his workplace, using his work e-mail, using his work credentials that:

a) made reference to his work for UL; [I][true]
b) was signed using his work title; [true]

c) created the misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL; [FALSE]

d) did not represent the views of UL; [True]
e) was not authorized by UL; [true]
f) did not refer to matters within Ryan's area of employment; [true]
g) inappropriately commented on tests UL had done for its client; [opinion]
h) exhibited extremely poor judgment; [opinion]
i) caused harm to UL's reputation; [opinion]
j) caused harm to UL's relationship with its client; [opinion] and
k) made deceptive and misleading statements. [opinion]

Once again, if you have any evidence to the contrary, now would be a good time to present it. So far, you've been remarkably and obviously reluctant to do so.See above and:
Writing from his workplace and identifying himself as an employee of UL does NOT indicate he was speaking for UL.
The site manager of a environmental lab does NOT speak for the management. Mr. Gayle knew this. He also knew Ryan's views were NOT those of UL.
Ryan's letter did NOT give Mr. Gayle the misleading impression that Ryan was speaking for UL.

SpitfireIX

5th May 2008, 06:16 AM

Representative: somebody who speaks for others; acting on somebody's behalf
Encarta Dictionary [Windows]

Is there another definition?

You keep parroting this definition; how is it even relevant to the issue?

Remember, this is a letter from Ryan to Gayle.

"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119"
"And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications"
"I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind"
“I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F”
“I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind”

Who is "we all" in the above statements?

Writing from his workplace and identifying himself as an employee of UL does NOT indicate he was speaking for UL.

Ryan didn't just "identify himself as an employee of UL." He placed his job title and employer's name underneath his signature. Do you feel that it is at all common for people to do this in personal correspondence? I'm not saying it never happens, but those cases are undoubtedly few and far between, and mostly arise from a person's acting self-important or being facetious.

The site manager of a environmental lab does NOT speak for the management.

Are you saying that corporations never allow the heads of divisions or departments to make public statements??

Mr. Gayle knew this. He also knew Ryan's views were NOT those of UL.
Ryan's letter did NOT give Mr. Gayle the misleading impression that Ryan was speaking for UL.

How do you know this? Have you spoken with Mr. Gayle? Are you a mind reader? Perhaps you should apply for the million dollar prize. :rolleyes:

boloboffin

5th May 2008, 10:38 AM

Gage has changed the PowerPoint AGAIN.

This is the fourth version, for those of you keeping track at home.

Dave_46

5th May 2008, 11:20 AM

Here is a question I don't have an answer for.

Does UL have an internal policy for it's employees that states that the official UL letterhead is to be used in official communications only?

If it does, than that alone would be enough to show that Ryan was "creating a misleading impression that he was speaking for UL".

I have worked (in the UK) for testing/certifying organisations, including fire-resistance testing. Whether my employers had that sort of policy I don't know (can't remember), but it would never have occurred to me to put out anything that was not official on the company letterhead.

It would have been a totally unprofessional thing to do.

Dave

Christopher7

5th May 2008, 02:15 PM

You keep parroting this definition; how is it even relevant to the issue?The issue is: UL said Ryan's letter created a misleading impression that he was representing [speaking for] UL. He was not. He was expressing his opinions.

"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119"
"And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications"
"I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind"
“I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F”
“I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind”
Who is "we all" in the above statements?Ryan, Knoblauch, Chapin and Gayle. Ryan was stating the points where he thought everyone was in agreement and points he thought they could agree on. Ryan was speaking to Mr. Gayle, not for him, nor was he speaking for Knoblauch and Chapin. Stating points where he thought there was or could be agreement is obviously his opinion.

Ryan didn't just "identify himself as an employee of UL." He placed his job title and employer's name underneath his signature. Do you feel that it is at all common for people to do this in personal correspondence? I'm not saying it never happens, but those cases are undoubtedly few and far between, and mostly arise from a person's acting self-important or being facetious.Ryan did use his position at UL to get Mr. Gayle's attention.
Ryan said he contacted management and they told him to be patient. After reading the NIST report he had questions that management did not address so he felt the need to contact Mr. Gayle directly. He did not say or indicate he was speaking for UL but rather he was stating his own concerns.

Are you saying that corporations never allow the heads of divisions or departments to make public statements??
Only in their area of expertise. The manager of a water testing facility would not speak for the company on the issue of testing steel assemblies.

How do you know this? Have you spoken with Mr. Gayle? Are you a mind reader? Perhaps you should apply for the million dollar prize. :rolleyes:Do you really think Mr. Gayle thought the manager of a water testing facility was speaking for the company on the issue of testing steel assemblies? :confused:

Christopher7

5th May 2008, 02:35 PM

double post

Christopher7

5th May 2008, 03:17 PM

Gage has changed the PowerPoint AGAIN.

This is the fourth version, for those of you keeping track at home.AE 911 Truth appreciates input pointing out the errors in their presentation, as Judy Shelton noted:
"Blender Head, you touched off a raging debate among AE Team members! Good work, you drew our attention to something we need to fix. Here's the outcome of all the back and forth:"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3620559#post3620559

They take the time to discuss what the change should be before changing the PowerPoint.
If you think their revised statement is incorrect, state your reason or question as Blender Head did.

lapman

5th May 2008, 03:47 PM

The issue is: UL said Ryan's letter created a misleading impression that he was representing [speaking for] UL. He was not. He was expressing his opinions.

"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119"
"And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications"
"I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind"
“I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F”
“I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind”If that were true, "we" would never have been a part of it at all.

Ryan, Knoblauch, Chapin and Gayle. Ryan was stating the points where he thought everyone was in agreement and points he thought they could agree on. Ryan was speaking to Mr. Gayle, not for him, nor was he speaking for Knoblauch and Chapin. Stating points where he thought there was or could be agreement is obviously his opinion.No, he would be asking for their agreement and not stating it as if they already agreed. By using "we," you are creating the impression of speaking for the group and not just yourself. At least, that is what most adults do.

Ryan did use his position to get Mr. Gayle's attention.
Ryan said he contacted management and they told him to be patient. After reading the NIST report he had questions that management did not address so he felt the need to contact Mr. Gayle directly. He did not say or indicate he was speaking for UL but rather he was stating his own concerns.Again, by stating his position and using the UL name and stationary, he is speaking as a representative of the company and not as an individual.

Only in their area of expertise. The manager of a water testing facility would not speak for the company on the issue of testing steel assemblies.

Do you really think Mr. Gayle thought the manager of a water testing facility was speaking for the company on the issue of testing steel assemblies? :confused:Whether or not Mr. Gayle thought that is immaterial. The Rense article is irrefutable proof that it can be misconstrued as speaking for the company.

Disbelief

5th May 2008, 04:35 PM

C7, I work for a large corporation, and we are expressly forbidden from communicating personal opinion on company letterheads. It is in fact, a fireable offense. If it is forbidden at UL, like it is at most companies, they had every right to fire.

Wolrab

5th May 2008, 05:08 PM

double post

I count about twenty repetitive posts.

boloboffin

5th May 2008, 05:51 PM

AE 911 Truth appreciates input pointing out the errors in their presentation, as Judy Shelton noted:
"Blender Head, you touched off a raging debate among AE Team members! Good work, you drew our attention to something we need to fix. Here's the outcome of all the back and forth:"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3620559#post3620559

They take the time to discuss what the change should be before changing the PowerPoint.
If you think their revised statement is incorrect, state your reason or question as Blender Head did.

My reasons and questions can be found at http://ae911truth.info .

Someone from Vancouver wrote me recently and said that he gave the address of my website at one of Gage's lectures there. Gage said that he was aware of my website and it was only assassinating his character.

If you have Mr. Gage's ear, please inform him that the only way I am assassinating his character is by showing what shoddy logic and research he foists upon any audience that will have him. If he thinks I'm assassinating his character, then he should stop saying such character-revealing things in public.

LashL

6th May 2008, 09:21 PM

<snipped>

Note: I've snipped the entirety of your post, Christopher7, because it is simply repetitive nonsense with no substance. If all you are going to do is continue to parrot the same nonsense over and over again, without ever providing anything but your uneducated opinion on the matters under discussion, I see no reason to put any more effort into my responses to you, so I will simply repeat

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3648192&postcount=651
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3656174&postcount=662
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3659170&postcount=666
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3665546&postcount=682
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3666042&postcount=686

Those cover your numerous errors, omissions, deliberate cherry picking, dishonest "quoting" in which you rewrote words to suit your purposes, and your various and sundry other nonsensical unsupported allegations viz Kevin Ryan (the liar and fraud).

Further,

Lastly, as I have said at least a couple of times previously, the evidence suggests that Ryan was fired for writing a letter from his workplace, using his work e-mail, using his work credentials that:

a) made reference to his work for UL;
b) was signed using his work title;
c) created the misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL;
d) did not represent the views of UL;
e) was not authorized by UL;
f) did not refer to matters within Ryan's area of employment;
g) inappropriately commented on tests UL had done for its client;
h) exhibited extremely poor judgement;
i) caused harm to UL's reputation;
j) caused harm to UL's relationship with its client; and
k) made deceptive and misleading statements.

Once again, if you have any evidence to the contrary, now would be a good time to present it. So far, you've been remarkably and obviously reluctant to do so.

Spitfire, Arus, funk de fino, and jonnyclueless, immediately above, are right, as are several others, including Minadin, BillyRayValentine, Disbelief, AZCat, ukdave, et al further above.

And Kevin Ryan remains a liar and a fraud.
Also, you have repeatedly glossed over/ignored my queries relating to your apparent concession in your previous posts that Kevin Ryan misinterpreted the cherry picked e-mail exchange that he belatedly attached to his Second Amended Complaint, and your apparent concession that the conclusions he drew from it were wrong, if not deliberately dishonest.

Please address that point directly.

Lastly, Kevin Ryan continues to tout himself as a "whistleblower" even though the court has found decisively that he was no such thing, and he continues to solicit money from people to fund his fight against UL even though his lawsuit was dismissed many months ago and has no hope in hell of ever being reconstituted.

What are your thoughts about those particular matters of fact?

Christopher7

7th May 2008, 01:24 PM

If that were true, "we" would never have been a part of it at all.Do you agree that the "we" includes Mr. Gayle? [remember, he is speaking to Mr. Gayle]

No, he would be asking for their agreement and not stating it as if they already agreed. By using "we," you are creating the impression of speaking for the group and not just yourself. At least, that is what most adults do.
You are referring to the first two statements. the other three are obviously Ryan's opinion. "I'm sure we can all agree . . . " "I think we can all agree . . . '
Do you agree?

Again, by stating his position and using the UL name and stationary, he is speaking as a representative of the company and not as an individual.
Whether or not Mr. Gayle thought that is immaterial. The Rense article is irrefutable proof that it can be misconstrued as speaking for the company.You are side stepping the point and refusing to answer the question:
Do you think Mr. Gayle was mislead into thinking Ryan was speaking for UL?

Minadin

7th May 2008, 01:30 PM

I think he was probably utterly confused as to why he was getting such a correspondence from someone inside UL and gave either Mr. Knoblach or Mr. Chapin a ring to see what the heck was going on.

lapman

7th May 2008, 03:05 PM

Christopher7

7th May 2008, 05:28 PM

Note: I've snipped the entirety of your postand gave your opinions about me. ICCL

Please address this point directly:

In these three sentences, is Ryan expressing his own opinion?
Does "we" include Mr. Gayle?

"I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind"
“I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F”
“I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind”

Please address that point directly.Ryan says Mr. Knoblauch came to South Bend in 2001 and told the entire staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings.
http://www.physics911.net/kevinryan

Knoblauch misstated UL's certification of sample assemblies.

Knoblauch to Ryan

1. . . . . We test to the code requirements. and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them. In practice the steel stood longer than expected.

2. In the case of this steel, a major factor is the fireproofing sprayed on the outside. We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did beautifully.
. . . . . . . . we can give an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated.

Knoblauch is still saying the steel rather than using the correct terminology; assemblies.

Furthermore, Knoblauch is saying the steel sample UL tested met the code requirements and in practice the steel [in the Trade Towers] stood longer than expected.

i.e. the test sample was an assembly made to the specifications of whatever stood longer than expected in the Trade Towers.

If you interpret this differently, please state your reason.

Lastly, Kevin Ryan continues to tout himself as a "whistleblower" even though the court has found decisively that he was no such thing, and he continues to solicit money* from people to fund his fight against UL even though his lawsuit was dismissed many months ago and has no hope in hell of ever being reconstituted. As a matter of law, Ryan is not a whistleblower. I respectfully disagree with the Judge's narrow interpretation of the law.
*Source? I read somewhere that Ryan was no longer accepting donations.

R.Mackey

7th May 2008, 07:06 PM

and gave your opinions about me. ICCL

Please address this point directly:

In these three sentences, is Ryan expressing his own opinion?
Does "we" include Mr. Gayle?

"I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind"
“I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F”
“I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind”

There is a fatal irony in your post, one of which you are probably unaware, and that is that Mr. Ryan cannot be using the word "we" in the manner you expect.

We know this because Mr. Ryan criticized my use of the "editorial we" in my whitepaper on Dr. Griffin and the scientific method, as seen in this letter (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf) in the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies. In the letter, Mr. Ryan betrays his ignorance of this usage, and reveals that there are only two uses of "we" that he understands:
"We" referring to a group of individuals, in expressing a collective opinion, and
they "Royal We," which is a presumptive special case of the above.
We (that is to say, you and I) should agree that Mr. Ryan cannot have been using the "Royal We" in his letter to Mr. Gayle, therefore he must have been using the former interpretation. Thus, Mr. Ryan cannot have been expressing only his own opinion.

Instead, Mr. Ryan must have been referring to a group. And his letter was sent on corporate letterhead. It does indeed appear that Mr. Ryan was attempting to present his opinions as though they represented an official, considered corporate viewpoint.

However, regardless of his intent, the simple fact is that he expressed his opinions in a manner that could reasonably have been interpreted as coming from his employer. That's a dismissable offense at every corporation I know of.

Don't use corporate letterhead unless you know what you're doing. End of story.

SpitfireIX

7th May 2008, 08:53 PM

As a matter of law, Ryan is not a whistleblower. I respectfully disagree with the Judge's narrow interpretation of the law.

From the judge's ruling (http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/ReasonsforDismissal.pdf) dismissing Ryan's suit:

There are two main issues before the court. The first is whether Indiana’s whistle blower statute, Ind. Code § 22-5-3-3 (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title22/ar5/ch3.html), protects the sort of activities that allegedly led to Mr. Ryan’s firing. The second is whether Indiana’s public policy exception to the doctrine of at-will employee applies to the sort of rights and duties he was allegedly exercising prior to his dismissal. . . .

In cases involving private employers under public contract, Indiana’s private employer whistle blower statute, Indiana Code § 22-5-3-3, protects the employee from discharge or other disciplinary action for having reported “in writing” a violation of federal, state, or local law or regulation, or a misuse of public resources. Id. . . .

The key issue is whether, considering all of the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint, the court can infer that is not merely conceivable but plausible that his letters contained the sort of information that would qualify them as protected reports under the statute. That is, did the written reports allege a violation of federal, state, or local laws or regulations, or a misuse of public resources, regarding UL’s execution of its contract with NIST?

In a claim under Indiana’s private employer whistle blower statute the existence of a violation or misuse of public resources is nearly as much at the center of a wrongful discharge claim as the existence of a conspiracy charge is to an antitrust claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act. See Bell Atlantic (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1126.ZS.html), 127 S.Ct. at 1964. . . .

The whistle blower statute is not aimed at protecting plaintiffs who believe that their employer’s conduct needs to be investigated because a thorough inquiry might reveal violations of law or regulation or misuse or public resources. Rather it seeks to protect employees who report that, in their employer’s execution of a public contract, a law or regulation has been broken or public resources misused. At a minimum, a claim under the whistle blower statute must provide some grounds for inferring (1) that such conduct occurred and (2) that this conduct was reported. Bell Atlantic requires this much. . . .

In short, the letters [Ryan] sent to NIST and UL state his concerns about the adequacy of NIST’s investigation and, by extension, UL’s. However, UL’s competence is irrelevant to a whistle blower claim.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has concluded that a misuse of public resources under the private whistle blower statute “contemplates a direct expenditure or use of public funds, property, or resources for a purpose other than that contemplated by the contract in question.” Coutee v. Lafayette Neighborhood Housing Servs., Inc. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=in&vol=app\08050302.jsk&invol=2), 792 N.E.2d 907, 914 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). In this respect, misuse would include the spending of funds for personal use or for any purpose not allowable under the contract, “whether legitimate or not.” Id. However, it would not include the waste of money through mismanagement or incompetence. So even if UL’s failure to investigate Mr. Ryan’s concerns about terrorist attacks or arrive at his conclusions could be termed a waste of money, as Mr. Ryan so evidently believes it was, its conduct was not the sort of wrongdoing, the report of which the private employer whistle blower statute is aimed to protect. In short, Mr. Ryan has not alleged a statutory claim. The Amended Complaint provides no reasonable basis for inferring that UL broke any laws or federal regulations, or spent public resources on an unallowed purpose. . . . Even under the most favorable reading of the Amended Complaint, in which the court accepts all of his factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor, Mr. Ryan’s right to relief under Indiana’s private employer whistle blower statute is speculative at best. . . .

Only earlier this year, the Indiana Supreme Court reaffirmed the narrowness of the public policy exception. Meyers v. Meyers (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02210701bd.pdf), 861 N.E.2d 704, 706 (Ind. 2007). The court noted that the Frampton exception was based on express statutory language prohibiting employers from evading the obligations of the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act. Id. The Act provided that “no rule, regulation, or other device” shall relieve an employer from its obligations, and the Frampton court had found the threat of discharge to be such a device. Id. (quoting Frampton, 297 N.E.2d at 427-28). The McClanahan exception was based on the recognition that the absence of a remedy would encourage criminal conduct. Id.

Following the Indiana Supreme Court’s lead, the Indiana Court of Appeals has generally allowed the public policy exception only in cases involving worker’s compensation claims or in cases in which a plaintiff was “allegedly terminated in retaliation for refusing to violate a legal obligation that carried penal consequences.” Id. at 707 (citing McGarrity v. Berlin Metals, 774 N.E.2d 71, 78-79 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (refusal to file fraudulent tax return); Haas Carriage, Inc. v. Berna, 651 N.E.2d 284, 288 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (refusing to haul unlawful road); Call v. Scott Brass, Inc., 553 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (refusing to disregard jury summons)).

Likewise, in keeping with this narrow view of the public policy exception, Indiana appellate courts have not allowed wrongful discharge lawsuits based on alleged retaliation for filing an unemployment claim, Lawson v Haven Hubbard Homes, Inc., 551 N.E.2d 855, 860 (Ind. Ct App. 1990), for refusing to submit to a polygraph examination, Hamblen v. Danners, Inc., 478 N.E.2d 926, 929 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), for internally reporting misconduct affecting the validity of a drug company’s federal drug safety reports, Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Co., 413 N.E.2d 1054, 1061-62 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980), and for reporting to a company official a supervisor’s alleged illegal kickbacks, Martin v. Platt, 386 N.E.2d 1026, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). (Aside from Lawson, these cases were decided prior to McClanahan. However, in Meyers, the Indiana Supreme Court cited all four as examples of the decisions establishing that the public policy exception is “quite a limited exception.” Meyers, 861 N.E.2d at 707.)[bolding mine; footnotes omitted]

Please explain, if you would, Christopher7, exactly how you feel that the judge misinterpreted the law and/or misapplied precedent in his ruling. For your convenience I've linked the relevant code and cases.

Christopher7

8th May 2008, 02:01 AM

There is a fatal irony in your post, one of which you are probably unaware, and that is that Mr. Ryan cannot be using the word "we" in the manner you expect.

We know this because Mr. Ryan criticized my use of the "editorial we" in my whitepaper on Dr. Griffin and the scientific method, as seen in this letter (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf) in the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies. In the letter, Mr. Ryan betrays his ignorance of this usage, and reveals that there are only two uses of "we" that he understands:Ryan said: "It is not clear weather this use of "we" means . . . ""We" referring to a group of individuals, in expressing a collective opinion, and [or]
the "Royal We," which is a presumptive special case of the above.
He did not say these were the only two uses of "we".

It's a moot point anyway because the key words here are:
"I'm sure" - personal opinion
"I think" - not sure
and "we can all agree" - a possibility; does not mean "we do agree"

Ryan is definitely NOT speaking for UL in these three statements.

However, regardless of his intent, the simple fact is that he expressed his opinions in a manner that could reasonably have been interpreted as coming from his employer.There is some merit to this argument.
However
Ryan used the UL letterhead and identified himself as the manager of a UL environmental lab. [someone with a vested interest in UL's reputation]
Mr. Gayle knows that the manager of an environmental lab does not speak for the CEO and the Fire Protection business manager.
Furthermore, Mr. Gayle was working closely with UL and knew their views.

"I felt the need to contact you directly."[go around management] indicates that Ryan was speaking as an employee of UL who was not satisfied with the response from management and was concerned for the reputation of the company.

He states his primary concern thusly:
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.

and ends:
Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

Christopher7

8th May 2008, 02:03 AM

Please explain, if you would, Christopher7, exactly how you feel that the judge misinterpreted the law and/or misapplied precedent in his ruling.I'm going to leave it at "Respectfully disagree".

Arus808

8th May 2008, 02:08 AM

respectfully disagree with what? Spifire as you how you feel that the judge misinterpreted the law? and you respectfully disagree?

Chris, you are a a legal disadvantage. you're repeating of statements over and over again, only proves you do not know what you are talking abut. The fact that you want to argue legal jargon with a lawyer, shows that you are ill prepared to understand what the judge ruled.

SpitfireIX

8th May 2008, 06:13 AM

I'm going to leave it at "Respectfully disagree".

In other words, you feel that the judge should have ignored several recent precedents from the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Indiana Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court, merely because you wish the case had been decided differently. :rolleyes: To quote LashL, "You really don't understand this law thing, do you?"

Christopher7

9th May 2008, 01:20 AM

Do you agree that the "we" includes Mr. Gayle? [remember, he is speaking to Mr. Gayle]
It could or it could not. It could mean the company as a whole.

You are referring to the first two statements. the other three are obviously Ryan's opinion. "I'm sure we can all agree . . . " "I think we can all agree . . . '
Do you agree?
Yes, I can agree to thatThank you.
That leaves:
"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119"
"And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications"

He is stating a points of agreement. This could be interpreted as Ryan expressing his opinion or speaking for UL
Since the other 3 statements are clearly not Ryan speaking for UL, the reader should not assume Ryan was speaking for UL in the first 2 statements.
Ryan opened his letter with "I felt the need to contact you directly."
[go around management] indicating that he was speaking for himself.
As a whole, the letter did not give the impression that Ryan was speaking for UL.

but it's still irrelevant to the court case.

Whether or not Mr. Gayle thought that is irrelevant to the court case.The fact is that someone could and did misrepresent Kevin's statements as UL statements as I have already shown. That is the basis for that part of the court case.You just said this is irrelevant to the court case. Make up your mind. :boggled:
We're debating weather or not Ryan created a misleading impression that he was speaking for UL. That is part of the court case but played no part in the ruling.

Just because someone somewhere ignored the disclaimer "Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company" and got it wrong, it doesn't mean the letter was misleading.
It means that person was being misleading.

Disbelief

9th May 2008, 05:25 AM

Just because someone somewhere ignored the disclaimer "Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company" and got it wrong, it doesn't mean the letter was misleading.
It means that person was being misleading.

You're right, Kevin Ryan was being misleading because he wrote an opinion on UL letterhead. This is, of course, a fireable offense since it gives the impression that he is stating an opinion for the company as its representative.

Christopher7

10th May 2008, 03:09 AM

You're right, Kevin Ryan was being misleading because he wrote an opinion on UL letterhead. This is, of course, a fireable offense since it gives the impression that he is stating an opinion for the company as its representative.No
911 Truth contacted Ryan to verify the authenticity of the letter and posted it with the disclaimer "Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company".
It could not be more clear.
Ryan and 911 Truth did not mislead anyone.

SpitfireIX

10th May 2008, 07:44 AM

No
911 Truth contacted Ryan to verify the authenticity of the letter and posted it with the disclaimer "Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company".
It could not be more clear.
Ryan and 911 Truth did not mislead anyone.

No. Ryan's email was in fact first posted on septembereleventh.org. Here (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php) is the site's news archive page for November 11, 2004.

Rather than any sort of disclaimer, the only editorial comment that appears is:

The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

911truth.org posted Ryan's email the following day (having taken time to confirm its authenticity). 911T's editorial comments (see here (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451)) are much more extensive; several paragraphs before the disclaimer you cite, the following passage appears:

While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, [b]it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses. [bolding mine]

Further, Ryan's email was parroted on several other sites and forums, with no disclaimer whatsoever, and in some cases with little or no comment.

So please explain, if you would, Christopher7, how Ryan didn't create a misleading impression that he was speaking for UL, or that UL disagreed with NIST.

Disbelief

10th May 2008, 09:30 AM

SpitfireIX

10th May 2008, 12:19 PM

Chris, do you or have you ever worked for a large corporation? Do you know that most companies have a strict policy against using company letterheads for personal correspondence of any type? Can you figure out why this may be? It absolutely does not matter what kind of disclaimer Ryan puts in, it is a fireable offense. Once you figure out why it is against the rules, you can figure out why he deservedly got fired.

Do you think Ryan knew this policy? I have known about it for the 12 years I have worked at a large company, so there would be an expectation that he would know. So, if Ryan knew this policy, why would he have written on the company letter unless he had the intention to deceive?

Just to clarify: Although Ryan's communication is often referred to as a "letter," it was actually an email. From UL's initial brief (http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/ULBriefonMotiontoDismiss.pdf) supporting the company's motion to dismiss Ryan's suit:

Because the letter was sent by Plaintiff using UL’s e-mail system, it bore his company title and thus clearly identified Plaintiff as a UL employee.

I've read somewhere that Ryan claims his title was added automatically by the company's email system; likely this was simply his .sig file appended at the end.

Even granting that, however, what Ryan did was still the electronic equivalent of using company letterhead, and thus was no less of a firing offense.

LashL

10th May 2008, 12:34 PM

Ryan says Mr. Knoblauch came to South Bend in 2001 and told the entire staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings

Yes, Ryan says that. But Ryan is a known liar and fraud so I do not take anything he says at face value. Corroborating evidence is required. Got any?

As a matter of law, Ryan is not a whistleblower. I respectfully disagree with the Judge's narrow interpretation of the law.

You can "respectfully disagree" all you like but the judge correctly intepreted the law, in my educated, informed and professional opinion, based on years of relevant education, information and legal experience - as opposed to your uneducated, uninformed, and non-professional opinion based on nothing but a faith-based desire to cling to an unfounded, unsupported conspiracy theory.

Spitfire very kindly pointed out the salient portions of the judgment for you and invited you to specify what you think the judge got wrong, and you refuse to do so.

Unless you can articulate a legally sound, cogent argument in support of a different conclusion, your "disagreement" with the judge's decision means absolutely nothing, and you must accept the reality that Ryan is not a "whistleblower" at all.

His continued self-description as such, and your continued description of him as such, is dishonest.

*Source? I read somewhere that Ryan was no longer accepting donations.

Ryan's request for donations for his "legal defense fund" for his failed litigation against UL and the Paypal link to it remain operational at his website, which is linked no fewer than three times on the "scholars" for truth and justice website. It is also still actively linked via numerous other websites, mostly those of other conspiracy fantasists like AE911, Hufschmid's site, nutjob Kevin Barrett's site, etc. A quick Google search on ultruth.com will quickly show you that.

The front page of his site is titled "Legal Defense Fund for Kevin Ryan" in which he requests donations to fund his litigation against UL. The second (and only other) page of his site - which has been updated as recently as April 2008, by the way - prominently features a link back to "Legal Defense Fund" page and his request for donations.

I don't know where you read that he was no longer accepting donations but it seems quite obvious to me that that is not the case.

Christopher7

10th May 2008, 10:25 PM

No. Ryan's email was in fact first posted on septembereleventh.org. Here (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php) is the site's news archive page for November 11, 2004. Point made.

Ryan should have included the disclaimer with his letter and he should have corrected those who implied he was speaking for UL.

LashL

10th May 2008, 10:59 PM

Ryan should have included the disclaimer with his letter and he should have corrected those who implied he was speaking for UL.

Oh, please. Ryan has nobody to blame but himself for his ill-advised actions. It wasn't others who implied that he was purporting to speak on behalf of UL, it was Ryan himself.

Ryan should not have written his e-mail to NIST from his work address; he should not have used the language that he did to imply that he was speaking on behalf of anyone but himself; he should not have overstated and misrepresented his communications with UL personnel; he should not have engaged in the intellectual dishonesty that he engaged in via that e-mail and which he continues to engage in to date; he should not have presented to the court a grossly and obviously edited e-mail exchange that only showed him up as the dishonest prevaricator that he is (why do you think that 2 of his 3 lawyers refused to put their names on the Seconded Amended Complaint to which he appended it?); he should stop touting himself as a "whistleblower" because he is no such thing, as has been definitively ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction; he should stop soliciting donations to fund his failed lawsuit that ended more than 8 months ago (which he never appealed, by the way); and you should stop playing the role of his sycophantic little errand boy.

Christopher7

10th May 2008, 11:00 PM

Yes, Ryan says that. But Ryan is a known liar and fraud so I do not take anything he says at face value. Corroborating evidence is required. Got any?You ignored it.

Ryan says Mr. Knoblauch came to South Bend in 2001 and told the entire staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings.
http://www.physics911.net/kevinryan

Knoblauch misstated UL's certification of sample assemblies.

Knoblauch to Ryan

1. . . . . We test to the code requirements. and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them. In practice the steel stood longer than expected.

2. In the case of this steel, a major factor is the fireproofing sprayed on the outside. We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did beautifully.
. . . . . . . . we can give an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated.

Knoblauch is still saying the steel rather than using the correct terminology; assemblies.

Furthermore, Knoblauch is saying the steel sample UL tested met the code requirements and in practice the steel [in the Trade Towers] stood longer than expected.

i.e. the test sample was an assembly made to the specifications of whatever stood longer than expected in the Trade Towers.

If you interpret this differently, please state your reason.

LashL

10th May 2008, 11:08 PM

LashL

11th May 2008, 12:09 AM

You ignored it.

I am ignoring your attempts to go off on tangents and your attempts to change the subject, in an effort to get you to actually respond meaningfully to previous posts, yes. Because you seem to continuously obfuscate, gloss over things, and try to change the subject in order to avoid legitimate discussion and legitimate queries when you've got yourself in over your head.

Ryan says Mr. Knoblauch came to South Bend in 2001 and told the entire staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings.

As I said above, yes, Ryan says that. But Ryan is a known liar and fraud so I do not take anything he says at face value. Corroborating evidence is required. Got any?

Knoblauch to Ryan

How do you know?

Ryan only provided, quite belatedly, a badly edited hackjob of an e-mail exchange that does not even come close to identifying the parties to it or the timing of it. Don't you even wonder why he didn't provide the complete exchange, with proper identifiers or context for the exchange when his entire lawsuit depended upon him doing so?

It doesn't take much to draw an adverse inference from Ryan's deliberate obscuring (and bizarre editing) of the e-mail exchange. The adverse inference, in this case, being that Ryan did not provide the unaltered exchange because doing so would undermine, rather than support, his allegations. Search any decent caselaw database for "adverse inference" if you don't understand this particular legal principle or its application.

<snipped repetitive nonsense that has nothing to do with the issues currently under discussion>

As I mentioned above, I am not going to play your "change the subject, go off on tangents" game.

So, please address the issues currently under discussion: i.e., please present a legally sound, cogent argument in support of your "disagreement" with the judge's decision that Ryan is not a whistleblower (or concede that you cannot do so and that neither you nor Ryan should be referring to him as such); please address Ryan's continuing request for donations to his "legal defense fund" for his long-defunct and failed lawsuit; please address your prior concessions that Ryan misinterpreted what he was allegedly told by UL management; and please address Ryan's choice of words that cannot rationally be interpreted in any way other than Ryan alleging that a group of UL employees were told to "be patient" by UL management.

Then, we'll move on to the matters you've raise in your tangents and attempts to change the subject and your attempts to gloss over the items that you are studiously avoiding, okay?

Jonnyclueless

11th May 2008, 12:29 AM

Ryan should grow a brain....

Dave_46

11th May 2008, 02:48 AM

Point made.

Ryan should have included the disclaimer with his letter and he should have corrected those who implied he was speaking for UL.

Ryan should have sent his Email from a private account, not his UL account. Then he should not have needed to "have included the disclaimer with his letter", or to "have corrected those who implied he was speaking for UL".

Dave

ETA. By sending from a private account I also include making NO reference to his UL position.

Christopher7

11th May 2008, 03:30 AM

I am ignoring your attempts to go off on tangents and your attempts to change the subject

Knoblauch to Ryan
How do you know? UL did not deny Knoblauch wrote the email to Ryan as presented in exhibit C [9-7-07]. If he hadn't, UL would have said so in their motion filed 9-18-07.

As I mentioned above, I am not going to play your "change the subject, go off on tangents" game.

So, please address the issues currently under discussion: i.e., please present a legally sound, cogent argument in support of your "disagreement" with the judge's decision that Ryan is not a whistleblower (or concede that you cannot do so)I cannot do so.

and that neither you nor Ryan should be referring to him as such Indiana law may not say so but I believe he is.
However, since your approval is so important to me, I won't call Ryan a whistle blower while in Indiana.

please address Ryan's continuing request for donations to his "legal defense fund" for his long-defunct and failed lawsuit;He may be planning other legal action to get records released.

please address your prior concessions that Ryan misinterpreted what he was allegedly told by UL managementI have since withdrawn that concession for reasons noted below.

Then, we'll move on to the matters you've raise in your tangents and attempts to change the subject and your attempts to gloss over the items that you are studiously avoiding, okay?OK, now please respond to this:

Knoblauch to Ryan
1. . . . . We test to the code requirements. and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them. In practice the steel stood longer than expected.

2. In the case of this steel, a major factor is the fireproofing sprayed on the outside. We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did beautifully.
. . . . . . . . we can give an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated.

Knoblauch is still saying the steel rather than using the correct terminology; assemblies.

Furthermore, Knoblauch is saying the steel sample UL tested met the code requirements and in practice the steel [in the Trade Towers] stood longer than expected.

i.e. the test sample was an assembly made to the specifications, and representing, whatever stood longer than expected in the Trade Towers.

If you interpret this differently, please state your reason.

Christopher7

11th May 2008, 04:08 AM

Ryan should have sent his Email from a private account, not his UL account. Then he should not have needed to "have included the disclaimer with his letter", or to "have corrected those who implied he was speaking for UL".

Dave

ETA. By sending from a private account I also include making NO reference to his UL position.Yes on the first point, no on the second.

In a private email account, Ryan could say:
I am the Manager of a UL environmental lab in Indiana and i am concerned about the credibility of our long establish company.
I have contacted the management of UL and i am not satisfied with their responses, so i felt the need to contact you directly.
I'm aware of UL's involvement, 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 burning jet fuel and office building contents.

We have discussed what Ryan did wrong at length, now let's address what he said about the tests showing that the floor assemblies did not fail under realistic conditions.
Furthermore
NIST did not explain how 250 °C could cause the core columns to collapse.

uk_dave

11th May 2008, 06:51 AM

NIST did not explain how 250 °C could cause the core columns to collapse.

Because they didn't need to because the core columns were not caused to fail by excessive temperature and any 'professional' who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

Dave_46

11th May 2008, 08:33 AM

Yes on the first point, no on the second.

In a private email account, Ryan could say:
(1) I am the Manager of a UL environmental lab in Indiana and i am concerned about the credibility of our long establish company.
I have contacted the management of UL and i am not satisfied with their responses, so i felt the need to contact you directly.
I'm aware of UL's involvement, 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 burning jet fuel and office building contents.

(2) We have discussed what Ryan did wrong at length, now let's address what he said about the tests showing that the floor assemblies did not fail under realistic conditions.
Furthermore
NIST did not explain how 250 °C could cause the core columns to collapse.

I have bolded and numbered two items.

(1) If my employers (when I was employed in the fire testing and certification business) found that I had written something like this, even in a private communication, I would expect to be OUT so fast that my feet wouldn't touch the floor.

(2) We have not discussed this at length. You may have been discussing it with others. While you continue to try and defend the indefensible, I reserve the right to point it out.

I don't know why you have mentioned the 250°C temperature in a reply to me. What makes you think that temperature is important. I thought it was just the highest temperature that could be verified by paint discolouration. Where the steel had reached higher temperatures these temperartures could not be ascertained because the temperature was too high to leave any paint on the steel.

Dave

Minadin

11th May 2008, 10:47 AM

You ignored it.

Ryan says Mr. Knoblauch came to South Bend in 2001 and told the entire staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings.
http://www.physics911.net/kevinryan

Knoblauch misstated UL's certification of sample assemblies.

Knoblauch to Ryan

1. . . . . We test to the code requirements. and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them. In practice the steel stood longer than expected.

2. In the case of this steel, a major factor is the fireproofing sprayed on the outside. We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did beautifully.
. . . . . . . . we can give an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated.

Knoblauch is still saying the steel rather than using the correct terminology; assemblies.

Furthermore, Knoblauch is saying the steel sample UL tested met the code requirements and in practice the steel [in the Trade Towers] stood longer than expected.

i.e. the test sample was an assembly made to the specifications of whatever stood longer than expected in the Trade Towers.

If you interpret this differently, please state your reason.

Chris7,

I find it rather disconcerting that you're still attempting to argue these points. I thought we had laid the issue to rest several pages ago. Kevin Ryan is either a lying fraud, an idiotic incompetent, or, most likely, both. You should not be so quick to hop onto his bandwagon, or at least be a lot quicker to get back off of it.

As to Mr. Knoblach's alleged statements regarding the testing, it's quite clear that you still have no idea how these tests are performed or what they measure. I tried to clear this up for you at the top of Page 17, and I refer you back to that post now:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3632667#post3632667

So, when you hear about how such-and-such steel performed in the testing of an assembly, keep in mind that they were not so much testing the steel, but the materials applied to it, and are referring to the steel as a benchmark to gauge how effective those applied materials were able to protect it.

Jonnyclueless

11th May 2008, 10:56 AM

NIST did not explain how 250 [/FONT][/COLOR]°C could cause the core columns to collapse.

That's because they were too busy explaining what initiated the collapse of the building and things that actually happened.

Christopher7

11th May 2008, 12:47 PM

Because they didn't need to because the core columns were not caused to fail by excessive temperature and any 'professional' who thinks otherwise is an idiot.If not excessive temperature, then what did NIST say caused the failure of the core columns?

Christopher7

11th May 2008, 01:07 PM

I don't know why you have mentioned the 250°C temperature in a reply to me. What makes you think that temperature is important.That's what supposedly caused the collapse.

I thought it was just the highest temperature that could be verified by paint discolouration.It was just the highest temperature that could be verified in any of the core columns period.

Where the steel had reached higher temperatures these temperartures could not be ascertained because the temperature was too high to leave any paint on the steel.

DaveWhere does it say that?

uk_dave

11th May 2008, 01:12 PM

If not excessive temperature, then what did NIST say caused the failure of the core columns?

Read the report.

Understand, the wtc towers were engineered structures. This means that the various elements of the structure all play a part in keeping it up.

Draw an analogy with one of the wtc floor trusses. They are basically beams which have been designed to be constructed from many smaller elements. They are not a solid piece of steel hot rolled from a foundry, they are small lightweight steel sections which are used in tension and compression to mimic the performance of a larger, heavier solid steel section. But take away enough of those individual elements (the struts and braces) and you can cause the truss to fail.

The steels which made up the core were perfectly happy minding their own business so long as they were braced in position by the floor trusses and that those trusses were transmitting their loads in the vertical rather than horizontal plane.

Take away the floors or apply an excessive horizontal loading and you begin to exceed the design parameters for the columns.

The fire undoubtedly did not help - fire never does. The fire effected the truss assemblies more that the larger column sections and one of the reasons for this was the damage to the fireproofing which could not have been expected to survive an impact such as the one inflicted on 9-11.

The floor trusses stressed the vertical columns of the core and the perimeter by applying a horizontal load to them due to the sagging of the trusses. When this load exceeded the ability of the columns to resist, their connections failed and we saw the perimeter columns break apart.

The core was then left like a group of tall, slender 'sticks', fastened only at their base but unrestrained at higher levels (think of a tall antennae and the cables which are used to restrain it).

But the core columns were not a continuous piece of steel, they were made up of many sections bolted or welded together. In terms of magnitude, since those connections were pretty much only there to locate the individual members one above the other (rather than provide massive resistance against horizontal movement) think of them as tall slender blocks of wood placed one on top of another end on. You wont get very high before they move out of alignment and come back down to earth. Well the same happened to the core columns.

Now, feel free to spin any of the words I have used above to imply something different from this post.:D

Stupid

11th May 2008, 10:22 PM

Now, feel free to spin any of the words I have used above to imply something different from this post.:D

HERE:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y177/Midiot/pinned2post.jpg

=S=

Jonnyclueless

11th May 2008, 10:37 PM

That's what supposedly caused the collapse.

It was just the highest temperature that could be verified in any of the core columns period.

Where does it say that?

Absolutely astounding.....

LashL

12th May 2008, 08:54 PM

UL did not deny Knoblauch wrote the email to Ryan as presented in exhibit C [9-7-07]. If he hadn't, UL would have said so in their motion filed 9-18-07.

While it is all well and good to provide your uninformed, uneducated, unsupported speculation about legal issues that you continue to demonstrate you do not understand, you really ought not to present them as pronouncements of fact. They are not.

Exhibit C was attached to Ryan's Motion to Amend after his lawsuit was dismissed. UL's Opposition to that motion (it was not a motion by UL as you stated above) did not address the hacked up e-mail exchange except in footnote #1 on a point of law as UL – correctly – addressed in its Opposition, the legal matters at issue relating to Ryan's Motion to Amend, as it was required to do.

It was not necessary (nor would it have been appropriate) for UL to “deny Knoblauch wrote the email” in its Opposition to Ryan’s motion because that was not the purpose or function of the responding pleading. It was not necessary because Ryan's Motion did not properly put the e-mail exchange before the court and it would not, in those circumstances, be appropriate because doing so would amount to UL “pleading evidence” in a responding pleading which calls for pleading law and in which pleading evidence is not permitted. In order to “deny Knoblauch wrote the email”, UL would have had to submit affidavit evidence on a matter of evidence which is not even properly before the court, and that is not the purpose or function of an Opposition to a Motion to Amend.

So, kindly refrain from making assertions of "fact" about legal matters, and stop purporting to draw conclusions on behalf of UL (i.e. “If he hadn’t, UL would have said so in their motion Opposition…) when you do not understand the legal process, the purpose and function of pleadings, or the rules of pleadings.

I am willing to help you to understand, but you have to be willing to learn, and so far you have not demonstrated that you are.

I cannot do so.

Thank you for admitting that.

Indiana law may not say so but I believe he is.

Unfortunately for you, reality will not conform to your beliefs. Your beliefs ought to conform to reality.

He may be planning other legal action to get records released.

Hang on, here. You said that you "read somewhere" that Ryan was no longer accepting donations. I pointed you to sources that indicate otherwise. I asked you what you thought about him continuing to solicit donations to fund a lawsuit that ended in failure last year and this is all you have to say? That he may be planning some other legal action?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that there is any other action in the works? And even if there is, does that somehow make it all right that he is still soliciting donations on his website and refers only to his long-defunct lawsuit without mentioning - ever - on his site that the lawsuit is deader than a doornail and cannot ever be revived?

Frankly, you appear to be desperately grasping at straws here to defend a charlatan - for what reason? Seriously, Christopher7, why?

I have since withdrawn that concession for reasons noted below.

OK, now please respond to this:

See Minadin’s response above (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3694329&postcount=731), which addresses this quite nicely. You should re-concede that Ryan misinterpreted what he was told.

Also, you have once again dodged the last question:

and please address Ryan's choice of words that cannot rationally be interpreted in any way other than Ryan alleging that a group of UL employees were told to "be patient" by UL management.

And also, this:

Ryan says Mr. Knoblauch came to South Bend in 2001 and told the entire staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings.

As I said above, yes, Ryan says that. But Ryan is a known liar and fraud so I do not take anything he says at face value. Corroborating evidence is required. Got any?

A W Smith

14th May 2008, 03:52 PM

This Guy, Ted Elden
http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=997466

Was sued for stalking and harassment

http://www.wvrecord.com/news/204911-family-gets-550000-verdict-for-harassment-by-photographer

ref

23rd July 2008, 04:19 AM

Just a short return to this topic.

I have not kept a close count of their member figures for a while anymore. I just occasionally check the latest numbers out of interest.

They growth seems to have come to a complete halt. April 6th they had 304 members. May 29th they had 395 members. Now, July 23rd they have 410 members, and have maintained this number for a week.

Now, they had a bit of a spurt in April-May (almost 100 new members), but how about that whopping growth of 15 members in a similar timespan of 2 months since May! I would call that a serious problem for ae911truth, and a serious victory for common sense.

Remember, their goal was 1000 members come September 11th. One and a half months and 590 members to go. Yet they still try to achieve that insane goal they set almost a year ago. Only last week they posted appeals at 9/11 blogger (http://www.911blogger.com/node/16708) desperately recruiting more people in order to get their 1000 members (also remember that Hard Evidence Letter (http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/hard_evidence_letter.pdf)). Prepare yourselves for a complete failure and fiasco.

boloboffin

23rd July 2008, 07:03 AM

It is my prediction that Gage is still flogging 1,000 members by 11 September 2008 as a way to blame the truth movement for his moving on with his life on 12 September 2008.

Blender Head

23rd July 2008, 04:26 PM

It is my prediction that Gage is still flogging 1,000 members by 11 September 2008 as a way to blame the truth movement for his moving on with his life on 12 September 2008.

That's just crazy enough to work.

boloboffin

23rd July 2008, 07:27 PM

LOL! I'm probably wrong. Gage has a whirlwind tour of Europe planned in October. Perhaps he'll hang on for the vacation time and then turn in his notice.

ref

1st August 2008, 02:10 AM

Gage doesn't stop. He just keeps adding to his story. This is his letter to congressman Robert Wexler.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/31

Now, he has tried this tactic before:
AE911Truth.org operates an increasingly popular website

Really?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/136394892c331b6104.jpg

Last year he was claiming their growth was exponential. Busted that time too.

I hadn't heard him make this claim before:

Why were most windows within 400 feet of each tower blown out?

Has he ever took time to look at any photos?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/136394892c3318c51a.jpg

That is WFC 3. How many windows are blown out again? Of course, many windows close around were blown out by falling debris, DUH!

Then, first he says this:
Given the asymmetrical structural and fire damage and the tendency of any disorder to grow over time (as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the falling building sections should have "rolled off" of the intact sections below, resulting in only partial collapses.

Then this:
We have the technical expertise to support your own research into the collapses of the 3 World Trade Center high-rise "collapses" on 9/11, and we offer ourselves in service to you.

Nothing new in Gageland. Wild accusations, zero knowledge.

Jonnyclueless

1st August 2008, 02:18 AM

That's the kind of web traffic increase that will catapult a site.....into a wall.

ref

1st August 2008, 02:28 AM

One more hilarious thing I forgot to mention :D

From that letter:

Just over a year ago, I heard on a radio program new facts and compelling arguments regarding the terrible events at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. I was stunned.

Well, he has mentioned numerous times on his website and in his presentation, that he heard David Ray Griffin on the radio March, 2006 and that changed his 9/11 views completely.

Either I suck in maths, or 2008 - 2006 is 2 years :D

Is he so out there he doesn't even remember his own history anymore? Just over a year ago he was already running his website.

boloboffin

1st August 2008, 10:34 AM

The slideshow has changed AGAIN.

Not too much this time. Strictly a 5.1 iteration. A few dozen slides were added, making the total 583 now.

I'm about halfway through and here's my list of the changes so far:

New Title Page (fitting the new design of the website)

"Fire Progression" Slides (return to pretending picture taken between tower collapses is after collapse of WTC 1)

"The Center of the Pile Is In Center Of Building" using picture taken days later during cleanup (with palpable damage to Fiterman still visible)

Pyroclastic Like (89) - this is a cute one. One key slide for his pyroclastic clouds now reads Pyroclastic Like Clouds. Ah, the comedy.

New Hot spots picture added (showing hot spots a few days after collapse. Hot Spots are seen under 1, 2, 7... and 3, 4, 6, WFC, and Deutsche Bank Building. Are they all leftover thermite?)

Mark Loizeaux letter re: molten steel (compacted burning debris pile!) - Mark tried to straighten them out about where molten steel was found, under the compacted/burning debris pile. They push the quotes they want and put the quotes they don't into tiny print. Nice try, Mr. Loizeaux!

156 and 159 - Thermite cut through steel? from "This is what you expect..." on 149 and 151 (Another goalpost moving. The slides did say "This is what you expect from thermite cutting steel," showing pictures of structural steel from the memorials. Now they say "Thermite cut through steel?" A retreat from a statement of fact to JAQing off.

Added some shots of NISTAR participants (minor stuff, plays into their "same people showing up" argument)

CNN 10:45 announcement - this one is new. I need to listen to the videoclip they have

So mostly more of the same. Retreating from statements of fact they can't prove, a return to chicanery of the past, and OMG, CNN said this at 10:45!!!!