AE911Truth Watch

[JamesB]

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]

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

 

[Minadin]

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]

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

Now works as well as the former query. Yay.

 

[Christopher7]

20. The fact that UL had performed fire resistance certification testing for the steelcomponents used in the construction of the WTC towers and buildings created anorganizational 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.

Source?

 

[Disbelief]

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]

Source?

Source.

 

[Minadin]

 

[Blender Head]

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

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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]

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

Well, that's something at least.

 

[Christopher7]

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.
[FONT=&quot]http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/kevinryanv.ullitigation

[/FONT]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,

[FONT=&quot] Ryan is referring to [/FONT]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."

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

<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]

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]

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?

The point is:

[FONT=&quot] Ryan is referring to [/FONT]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."

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
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.

 

[uk_dave]

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

Wow all those eminent people (well...excepting Minadin, of course ) 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?