Mark Embarrasses Kevin Ryan [Archive]

Civilized Worm

3rd May 2007, 04:31 PM

Popular Mechanics’ poor editorial practices and weak understanding of conformance testing are not the only reasons behind the false “UL does not certify structural steel” statement, however. UL made a similar statement themselves, shortly after firing me for speaking out and asking for clarification. They denied their own responsibility even after admitting publicly that their testing was related to the WTC tower’s performance. To make matters worse, UL exacerbated this denial with the additional claim that there was “no evidence” that any firm tested the steel.

I love that, not only are PM lying, UL are lying about what they do!

I often wonder what UL might have said if 3,000 people had died from water contamination on 9/11/01. If it had been clear that the water testing division I managed was responsible for the compliance testing required to avoid such a catastrophe, it’s likely that UL and PM would have said something like ”UL does not test water”.

It's more likely they would have said "UL's water tester is a useless moron".

~enigma~

3rd May 2007, 04:35 PM

You guys just wait till LashL posts the URLs to the latest docs from the lawsuit. waterboys own legal team admits that they have no facts yet they persist in this frivolous lawsuit. Sorry Mark but aquaman really is an easy target but the practice is good :)

The Doc

3rd May 2007, 04:35 PM

Pardalis

3rd May 2007, 04:40 PM

Undesired Walrus

3rd May 2007, 04:42 PM

Eh? All I get is a transcript from Kevin Ryan. Is there supposed to be a video?

Kent1

3rd May 2007, 04:47 PM

Well done Mark!!

pomeroo

3rd May 2007, 04:49 PM

Sometimes it's an inconvenience being French. I read the thread title too quickly and read: "Mark Embrasse Kevin Ryan" (Mark kisses Kevin Ryan)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886455aa11a65054.gif

This is one of those times when I start out with something I want to say and then I just decide not to say it.

Dog Town

3rd May 2007, 05:00 PM

Testing and certifying are completely unrelated. It's the same with molten metal and molten steel. Conspiracists often mix the two up mid sentence.

"UL claims they do not certify steel. However, in 2004 they tested the steel"
"Molten Steel cannot be found at ground zero. However, molten metal was found".

Annoying...

When confronted, they start crying, about us being sticklers on semantics! Yes, because words have meanings, for a reason. Reasons they will never understand.

Kent1

3rd May 2007, 05:37 PM

When confronted, they start crying, about us being sticklers on semantics! Yes, because words have meanings, for a reason. Reasons they will never understand.

I saw this in Ryan's paper
“In fact, Underwriter Laboratories does not certify structural steel.”

Additionally UL's own Tom Chapin, the Chemist and manager of their Fire Protection division, with whom I was in contact, admitted to UL's involvment in testing steel for the WTC in a letter to the New York Times editor published April 15, 2002. In this letter, Chapin said "The World Trade Center stood for almost an hour after withstanding conditions well beyond those experienced in any typical fire. In that time, thousands of people escaped with their lives. ASTM E-119 and UL's testing procedures helped make that possible." [4]

However in Ryan's other paper he makes it clear that Tom Chapin does not agree with Ryan, and in fact agrees with David Dunbar.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:9fsf52Ir-MUJ:www.physics911.net/kevinryan+Tom+Chapin+email+UL&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL’s Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the “leader in fire research testing,” but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel.

So even Tom has clearly told Ryan he is wrong. And Ryan KNOWS THIS!

PhantomWolf

3rd May 2007, 05:59 PM

Hmmm, I wonder if it's a coincidence that both Gravy's and Ref's posts to the blog have been set so they don't appear unless you open them.....

LashL

3rd May 2007, 06:08 PM

Hmmm, I wonder if it's a coincidence that both Gravy's and Ref's posts to the blog have been set so they don't appear unless you open them.....

Ron's posts always used to always show up that way, too, before he was banned there.

Cl1mh4224rd

3rd May 2007, 07:17 PM

Hmmm, I wonder if it's a coincidence that both Gravy's and Ref's posts to the blog have been set so they don't appear unless you open them.....

It looks like they have some kind of moderation system in place where other members can give a comment a +1 or -1, which adds up. A comment with a score below a certain number gets collapsed automatically.

No surprise that debunkers would be voted down by truthers on a truther website.

Bobert

3rd May 2007, 07:23 PM

Ron's posts always used to always show up that way, too, before he was banned there.

What is with that point system?
Do you get automatically banned after you have accumulated enough minus points?

pomeroo

3rd May 2007, 07:29 PM

What is with that point system?
Do you get automatically banned after you have accumulated enough minus points?

I really couldn't say. It is, I guess, possible that eventually your negatives get you booted. Mine must have been spectacular.

The lunatic Jenny Sparks imagines that I show up in various disguises to vote down the liars, but, frankly, I have never cast any votes at all. What would be the point?

~enigma~

3rd May 2007, 07:35 PM

I really couldn't say. It is, I guess, possible that eventually your negatives get you booted. Mine must have been spectacular.

The lunatic Jenny Sparks imagines that I show up in various disguises to vote down the liars, but, frankly, I have never cast any votes at all. What would be the point?
The point system sounds strangely like a government op to track people like dig does...damn PCT idiots :)

Unsecured Coins

3rd May 2007, 07:39 PM

you know who else uses a point system? COLLEGE FOOTBALL.

omg!!

Quad4_72

3rd May 2007, 07:40 PM

Honestly, Kevin Ryan embarrasses himself. Mark only amplifies it.

LashL

3rd May 2007, 07:41 PM

What is with that point system?
Do you get automatically banned after you have accumulated enough minus points?

It appears as though that might be the case from some of the comments I've read there, but I do not know. They are troofers, so they might also have some kind of sooper sekrit voting system about banning people after they reach X number of negative points, for all I know. I have never cared enough about that blog to look into its inner workings.

ETA: Apparently, yes, the negative votes does have to do with being banned there:

Update (12/08/2006): As of 11/10/2006 comment moderation is no longer in the hands of team members of this site, but rather in the hands of the community. Users should use the vote up/down widget to vote down comments which go against the basic guidelines listed above. Users who maintain an extreme case of continued low rated comments may have their commenting abilities removed.

In other words, rather than have legitimate moderation, they allow the lunatics to run the asylum.

Unsecured Coins

3rd May 2007, 07:42 PM

that's just bad research, Lash!

Bobert

3rd May 2007, 07:46 PM

It appears as though that might be the case from some of the comments I've read there, but I do not know. They are troofers, so they might also have some kind of sooper sekrit voting system about banning people after they reach X number of negative points, for all I know.

ETA: Apparently, yes, the negative votes does have to do with being banned there:

In other words, rather than have legitimate moderation, they allow the lunatics to run the asylum.

WOW!
Amazing!

LashL

3rd May 2007, 07:48 PM

that's just bad research, Lash!

:D

Yeah, as soon as I posted that, I figured I should actually look into it so I did (See my edit above)

Totovader

3rd May 2007, 10:51 PM

It appears as though that might be the case from some of the comments I've read there, but I do not know. They are troofers, so they might also have some kind of sooper sekrit voting system about banning people after they reach X number of negative points, for all I know. I have never cared enough about that blog to look into its inner workings.

ETA: Apparently, yes, the negative votes does have to do with being banned there:

In other words, rather than have legitimate moderation, they allow the lunatics to run the asylum.

[sarcasm]I've always thought that true scientific debate of such paramount importance should be more like the TV show Survivor...[sarcasm]

Minadin

3rd May 2007, 11:26 PM

Kevin Ryan is, apparently, an idiot.

UL doesn't certify steel members. It certifies fireproofing systems for steel members and assemblies. I have a 4,000 page UL Fire Resistance Directory sitting in my office right now, and in no place in that directory am I able to look up what the innate fire resistance is of a W14x48 steel beam, or a 7K20 steel bar joist, or any other piece of structure. What I can find out is how those members will perform once certain types of fire resisting material is applied to them under a certain specification.

The UL doesn't test steel that is used in construction. How could they? The very nature of the tests are destructive - you're trying to determine at what point the steel fails - and afterwards the pieces are unusable. At the very most, they could take samples of steel members from every building project ever and perform tests on them to cover the whole group, but this would be highly uneconomical, and frankly, stupid. We already know how raw steel will act in a fire condition.

The system they actually use - wherein they do much fewer tests and then publish the resuslts for everyone - is better by far. It allows me to specifically tell a contractor that the fireproofing needs to meet UL Certification #XYZ - which he can look up easily - and everyone knows what to expect. I don't have to draw a detail or perform expensive tests, and he doesn't have to waste a bunch of time and money trying to figure out exactly what I want and order custom parts.

I find it difficult to imagine that in his own experience at the UL, Mr. Ryan didn't experience a similar process to this. As far as I've been able to tell, the scientists and engineers who work there are pretty intelligent people. Was Water-Boy testing the water specifically to test the water? Was he monitoring the potable water supply to greater Chicago or something? Or, was he testing water to determine the effectiveness of various filtration systems designed to purify water under various conditions, so they could make a similar directory to the one that I use, which would tell people what to expect for individual filter assemblies?

If it's the latter, which I find much more plausible despite my lack of knowledge of UL's water-testing division, I can't help but consider that he's either being deliberately ignorant, obtuse, or outright lying.

~enigma~

3rd May 2007, 11:35 PM

Kevin Ryan is, apparently, an idiot.
Did you really want to leave the word between the commas out?

Minadin

3rd May 2007, 11:49 PM

To be honest, I considered it both ways, and I decided to leave it in, because I can't state without equivocation that he is an idiot, and not merely ignorant or deceitful. He does, after all, have an advanced degree in a valid scientific field. Since I can't do that, it's merely my opinion, and I wanted to make certain that I noted it as such so as to not take anything away from the fact-ful-ness of the rest of my post (minus the obivious speculation on my part at the end).

JamesB

3rd May 2007, 11:55 PM

Furcifer

4th May 2007, 12:14 AM

... he just has a BS in chemistry, from some university which he never mentions.

did you really mean to leave out the "c" in BSc

~enigma~

4th May 2007, 12:17 AM

did you really mean to leave out the "c" in BSc
Yes...why did you think it was wrong?

Furcifer

4th May 2007, 12:23 AM

lol, no, from what i gather the c was withheld appropriately :)

~enigma~

4th May 2007, 12:25 AM

lol, no, from what i gather the c was withheld appropriately :)
Would be more apt in this case if waterboy had a PhD which really would mean piled higher and deeper :)

ref

4th May 2007, 12:50 AM

Users should use the vote up/down widget to vote down comments which go against the basic guidelines listed above.

Which is funny, because the rules clearly state:

Do not post entries that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material, or resort to attacking other users
Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults
Try to respect others who may have differing opinions, posts which are purely abusive will be removedI broke no rules, as far as I know. Instead, all those above mentioned rules were constantly broken when I was attacked and voted into minus depths. Especially that last rule amuses me. What a load of total BS. That rule does not apply at all.

ETA: And Mark did a great job there, as I have mentioned before :)

JamesB

4th May 2007, 12:56 AM

Which is funny, because the rules clearly state:

Do not post entries that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material, or resort to attacking other users
Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults
Try to respect others who may have differing opinions, posts which are purely abusive will be removedI broke no rules, as far as I know. Instead, all those above mentioned rules were constantly broken when I was attacked and voted into minus depths. Especially that last rule amuses me. What a load of total BS. That rule does not apply at all.

ETA: And Mark did a great job there, as I have mentioned before :)

The voting thing on 911 blogger is pretty silly. You can post a news article, entirely without comment, that happens to contradict one of their theories and the next thing you know you will have a -8 vote.

~enigma~

4th May 2007, 01:02 AM

Which is funny, because the rules clearly state:

Do not post entries that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material, or resort to attacking other users
Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults
Try to respect others who may have differing opinions, posts which are purely abusive will be removedI broke no rules, as far as I know. Instead, all those above mentioned rules were constantly broken when I was attacked and voted into minus depths. Especially that last rule amuses me. What a load of total BS. That rule does not apply at all.

ETA: And Mark did a great job there, as I have mentioned before :)You did break #2. The information you posted wasn't useful because it proves their side wrong :)

ref

4th May 2007, 01:25 AM

The voting thing on 911 blogger is pretty silly. You can post a news article, entirely without comment, that happens to contradict one of their theories and the next thing you know you will have a -8 vote.

It's silly by all means. Imagine a group of "official theory" supporters flooding that site. In no time all the truthers would be banned by them. Then it would be an official story supporting site. Have they ever considered that?

skepticalcriticalguy

7th May 2007, 02:58 AM

Where is the smackdown? Did they debate?

Aggs

7th May 2007, 05:08 AM

ref

7th May 2007, 05:11 AM

Tsk tsk, you guys totally missed the smackdown that was given by Col. Jenny Sparks:

"What the hell time is it where you're at? And you're tag teaming Kevin not only in the middle of the bloody night, but HOURS after his posts? Possibly to avoid a REAL arguments?"

Sheesh, I was a fan of Gravy, but if he's not going to make his posts during normal business hours.....

Yes, you can forget all the debunking by Gravy, because he posts in late/early hours of the day :rolleyes:

Jenny has difficulty understanding that where I live, time is 7 hours ahead of US eastern time and 10 hours ahead of west coast.

Foolmewunz

7th May 2007, 05:22 AM

Where is the smackdown? Did they debate?

SCG - do you have a mouse on your computer, or are you still using that old Coleco Speak-N-Spell?

This is the second thread I've looked at in five minutes where you don't seem to be able to click on a link in an earlier post to see some information. Or are you one of those, "I don't have time to click my mouse, I'm too busy finding the truth" guys?

Cl1mh4224rd

7th May 2007, 08:20 AM

Tsk tsk, you guys totally missed the smackdown that was given by Col. Jenny Sparks:

"What the hell time is it where you're at? And you're tag teaming Kevin not only in the middle of the bloody night, but HOURS after his posts? Possibly to avoid a REAL arguments?"

Sheesh, I was a fan of Gravy, but if he's not going to make his posts during normal business hours.....

Well, Jenny doesn't seem to understand how the Internet works...

lisabob2

23rd December 2007, 08:46 AM

Mark's smackdown of the cowardly fraud Kevin Ryan deserves to be more widely circulated. Notice how the morons pay no attention whatever to the beating their hero is getting.

http://911blogger.com/node/8038?page=1
It is so weird how different people can look at samething and see 2 different results. Why is Mark Roberts not meeting for these debates? Having just watch Roberts & Fetzer. One huge issue is that Roberts produces evidence that cannot be verified and could easily be part of coverup. Then he says plane that hit Pentagon was destroyed, but then bodies were found inside strapped to seats. How did bodies survive when plane was destroyed? Why have no proof of this ever been produced? Why does Roberts try to avoid talking about the 47 core columns & 240 exterior columns? and why does Roberts think one witness view of incident is accurate? it is just a opinion. Why does Robert's think because he makes a statement it is fact? Every piece of evidence he produced could be fake.

TheRedWorm

23rd December 2007, 08:49 AM

So, you could also say that every piece of evidence the "truth movement" produces could be fake, could you not?

CHF

23rd December 2007, 11:23 AM

Why is Mark Roberts not meeting for these debates? Having just watch Roberts & Fetzer.

He's challenged Kevin Ryan and DR Griffin to debate.

Both of them are still running in the opposite direction.

Alareth

23rd December 2007, 11:57 AM

One huge issue is that Roberts produces evidence that cannot be verified and could easily be part of coverup.

You mean all the stuff that he has citation for source so you can easily go and see for yourself where it came from?

"There are none so blind as those that refuse to see"

A W Smith

23rd December 2007, 12:16 PM

I just now registered there simply to vote up the hidden posts.

jhunter1163

23rd December 2007, 03:35 PM

So, you could also say that every piece of evidence the "truth movement" produces could be fake, could you not?

Not only could you say it, you could prove it to be true in a significant proportion of cases.

TheRedWorm

23rd December 2007, 03:42 PM

Not only could you say it, you could prove it to be true in a significant proportion of cases.

Or at the very least dishonest. Kind of ironic behavior for the so called "truth movement."

MetalliSociety

23rd December 2007, 03:47 PM

If Mark gets turned down when he asks them to debate, why should he be kind enough to accept theirs?

Gravy

23rd December 2007, 03:50 PM

My latest stalker lisabob2 has made virtually the same incoherent post three times today, twice bumping ancient threads. Pure troll. Welcome to ignore, lisabob. Please seek help for your problems.

Gravy

23rd December 2007, 03:52 PM

If Mark gets turned down when he asks them to debate, why should he be kind enough to accept theirs?Whose?

beachnut

23rd December 2007, 03:57 PM

It is so weird how different people can look at samething and see 2 different results. Why is Mark Roberts not meeting for these debates? Having just watch Roberts & Fetzer. One huge issue is that Roberts produces evidence that cannot be verified and could easily be part of coverup. Then he says plane that hit Pentagon was destroyed, but then bodies were found inside strapped to seats. How did bodies survive when plane was destroyed? Why have no proof of this ever been produced? Why does Roberts try to avoid talking about the 47 core columns & 240 exterior columns? and why does Roberts think one witness view of incident is accurate? it is just a opinion. Why does Robert's think because he makes a statement it is fact? Every piece of evidence he produced could be fake.
Can you explain this post; you messed up everything. Why are you unable to understand 9/11? Better yet, why can't you provide facts and evidence to support the idiots you want mark to debate?

Yes, Ryan is an idiot on 9/11. He has not made one rational conclusion on 9/11, and you support him? I have yet to find someone who can support Ryan with facts and evidence. And you are proving it again. And Ryan, he is proving he is delusional on 9/11 topics. How can you support Ryan, and you must understand, there is no real debate with delusional people, they will rant on some made up topic. Like your posts, they make no sense and can not be debated, they are just obtuse fantasies of 9/11 tripe and you fail to even make a point or expose your own ideas on 9/11.

Did you even see the moronic support Ryan gets from the researched challenged 9/11 truth patsie followers?

Pure stupid how they hide the posts the morons vote down! Good job on that pathetic web site of woo tripe. Pure stupid. I hate wasting time reading when you have to click to read the rational posts!!! 9/11 truth web site, is full of morons. Who runs that web site for morons to hang out and post 9/11 crap?

Mince

23rd December 2007, 04:30 PM

Mark Embarrasses Kevin Ryan

Eh, I think for the most part, Ryan embarrasses himself. This guy is a professional scientist!?

Architect

23rd December 2007, 04:47 PM

Well not any more, it would appear.

Drudgewire

24th December 2007, 10:15 AM

It is so weird how different people can look at samething and see 2 different results.
It's the difference between seeing reality and seeing what you want to see. Your silly movement couldn't exist otherwise.

Jonnyclueless

24th December 2007, 12:09 PM

So if I understand correctly, Lisa is saying that if any part of a crashed plane is left over, that it can't be considered destroyed? I would like to see her definition of destroyed. Does this involve annihilation of matter?

"Hey bob, a couple seats with some people strapped in and some engine parts were found, should we take her for a spin next week?"

I guess the WTC wasn't destroyed either because some random pieces were found. Surprised people didn't go back to work there the next day.