AE911Truth Watch

[Minadin]

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]

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]

<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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

It seems the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Christopher7]

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]

Yes he DID.

 

[LashL]

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
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]

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]

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

Hear, hear.

 

[LashL]

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.

 

[DavidJames]

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]

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]

It was more of a bulldozer than a technicality.

 

[uk_dave]

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]

I want to address this as well as the cherry-picked quote that you used a few times above

I 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]

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.