AE911Truth Watch

[LashL]

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]

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]

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 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.

I missed this post earlier. Nice catch, R.Mackey. Very nice, indeed.

 

[LashL]

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]

Ryan should grow a brain....

 

[Dave_46]

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]

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 management

I 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]

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 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C could cause the core columns to collapse.

 

[uk_dave]

NIST did not explain how 250 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]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]

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 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]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]

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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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]

NIST did not explain how 250 [/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]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]

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]

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.

Dave

Where does it say that?

 

[uk_dave]

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.

 

[Stupid]

Now, feel free to spin any of the words I have used above to imply something different from this post.

HERE:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y177/Midiot/pinned2post.jpg


=S=

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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]

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, 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]

Ohio couple awarded 550K judgement againt AE911 member

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]

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 desperately recruiting more people in order to get their 1000 members (also remember that Hard Evidence Letter). Prepare yourselves for a complete failure and fiasco.