Mark Embarrasses Kevin Ryan

[pomeroo]

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

[The Doc]

I've got this one bookmarked

Kevin doesn't know what to do.

[Civilized Worm]

Quote:

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!

Quote:

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~]

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]

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...

[Pardalis]

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

[Undesired Walrus]

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

[Kent1]

Well done Mark!!

[pomeroo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pardalis

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...aa11a65054.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]

Originally Posted by The Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Dog Town

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:...lnk&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]

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]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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]

Originally Posted by LashL

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobert

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~]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

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]

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

omg!!

[Quad4_72]

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

[LashL]

Originally Posted by Bobert

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:

Originally Posted by troofer blog

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]

that's just bad research, Lash!

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by LashL

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]

Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins

that's just bad research, Lash!

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

[Totovader]

Originally Posted by LashL

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]

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~]

Originally Posted by Minadin

Kevin Ryan is, apparently, an idiot.

Did you really want to leave the word between the commas out?

[Minadin]

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]

Originally Posted by Minadin

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).

He does not have an advanced degree, he just has a BS in chemistry, from some university which he never mentions.

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by JamesB

... 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~]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

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

Yes...why did you think it was wrong?

[Furcifer]

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

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem

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]

Originally Posted by 9/11 Blogger

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 removed

I 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]

Originally Posted by ref

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 removed

I 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~]

Originally Posted by ref

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 removed

I 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]

Originally Posted by JamesB

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]

Where is the smackdown? Did they debate?

[Aggs]

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.....

[ref]

Originally Posted by Aggs

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

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]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

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?