AE911Truth Watch

[LashL]

That's a damn lie!

No, it isn't.

Ryan was perfectly clear that he was speaking for himself.

No, he most certainly was not.

 

[Christopher7]

C7>

"[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. 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, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements." [/FONT][/FONT]
I went ahead an color coded the specific examples of him expressing what individuals in the company said and thought. So yeah, he spoke out of line.

He did NOT lie about the steel samples.

He did NOT say WHAT the CEO and FP business mgr. said, only that they did not agree on essential aspects of the story.
That is why he decided to "[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]contact you directly" [man[/FONT][/FONT] to man].

Key point here is:
The CEO and the FP business mgr. had differing views on the official story.
Ryan was not the only one to question the official story.

 

[Christopher7]

He is lying.

He did NOT lie about the steel samples. You misinterpreted what he said so you could call him a liar.

The only way he's not actively lying is if he is a complete idiot.

IYO

The emails he shared with people in the know directly refute things he was writing 10 months later.

? ? ?

It's entertaining to watch you do these insane aerobatics in your mind in an attempt to call him a liar.

Let's break this down very simply:
1. Ryan made statements which were demonstrably false.

IYO. Name one.

2. There is ample evidence that Ryan should have known that these statements were false.

IYO

3. Falseness + awareness of falsity = Lie

Misinterpretation and double talk.

You may not agree with what he said but that does not make him a liar.

Again i challenge you, point out 1 lie. Not d difference of opinion.

 

[Blender Head]

Rerailing the thread to discuss AE911Truth, I emailed them about a "CD Characteristic" on their homepage in regards to the Tower collapses:

On this site's homepage it suggests that "molten
metal" is a characteristic of a controlled
demolition using explosives. Could this
organization provide an example of such a
phenomena?

Thanks,
TSJ

And a reply from a "Judy Shelton":

Can you point me to the section you're referring to, so I can look at it?

To which I reiterated:

It is on the front page, number 13 of the list of CD characteristics:

"Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)"

These people are either idiots or completely blind.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh you gotta post the response to that if you even get one.

 

[Blender Head]

Oh you gotta post the response to that if you even get one.

There should be a betting pool people can contribute to, to see when pertinent questions are ever answered by these people.

 

[Minadin]

He did NOT lie about the steel samples. You misinterpreted what he said so you could call him a liar.

IYO

? ? ?

It's entertaining to watch you do these insane aerobatics in your mind in an attempt to call him a liar.

IYO. Name one.

IYO

Misinterpretation and double talk.

You may not agree with what he said but that does not make him a liar.

Again i challenge you, point out 1 lie. Not d difference of opinion.

Stating that "a lie" is defined by both the false-ness of the statement, and the speaker's knowledge of such false-ness, is "Misinterpretation and double talk" in your world? What an interesting time you must have in this fantasy land. In the real world, words have definitions. It's actually the entire basis for language - people agree on what words mean. There's a consensus.


As far as how Kevin Ryan is lying, let's start with his letter to Frank Gayle and go from there.

Here's his letter:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.

This is a false statement, for a number of reasons. UL doesn't certify steel. But when they do tests on fireproofing, those tests are destructive and the steel pieces of the assembly are rendered unusable for construction. He's very clearly talking about prior testing here when he says they certified the components which were used in the construction of the World Trade Center.

I can back my statement up, and I don't even have to use any links that haven't been provided you in this thread already.

Does UL certify steel components and if not, should Kevin Ryan have known that?

No, they do not, and Yes, he should have -

In an email which Kevin Ryan (idiotic liar) submitted himself to his infamously laughable lawsuit, the head of the Building and Fire Safety division of the UL explicitly states that the UL does not certify structural steel:

UL does not certify structural steel. Structural steel meeting the appropriate ASTM designations are used as a component in assemblies tested by UL. The assemblies consist of a structural component protected by some type of fire resistant material (i.e. spray applied fire resistive materials, wallboard) and are tested in accordance with ASTM E119/UL 263. The results of the tests are published in our Fire Resistance Directory.

. . .

The floor assembly in the World Trade Center was not a UL tested assembly.

http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/55-5ExhibitCExcerptsfromemailcorresp.pdf
I think that he's being very clear that it is the fireproofing which is being tested, and not the steel. Even so, he explicitly states to Kevin Ryan (idiot savant) that the assemblies USED IN the WTC weren't tested at all by UL. He goes on to say that they will be conducting tests in the future on floor assemblies that represent the ones used in the WTC. But he's still talking about the fireproofing, and not the steel.

Of course, if Kevin Ryan (nitwit) were talking about these later tests in his letter to Frank Gayle or his ridiculous lawsuit, you might have a point, that either he miscommunicated or the reader misinterpreted his statement. However, you don't have a point there, because he's clearly talking about prior testing, as he argued in his wrongful termination suit:

a) UL had a role historically in testing and certifying steel components used to construct the WTC, and based on the information available to Mr. Ryan, UL had certified the steel properly as capable of withstanding temperatures from hotter and longer lasting fires than those on Sept. 11, 2001,

http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/complaint.pdf

He seems to be failing at convincing me that he's talking about some later testing when he uses words like the ones I've bolded. But I'm not sure, let's check some more:

c)UL had tested and certified the steel components used to construct the WTC tower

http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/Ryannewresponse.pdf

Still sounds like he's talking about prior testing. The court found that he was talking about prior testing of steel used in the WTC in his court case, as is evidenced by the dismissal order:

However, even if Mr. Ryan has offered evidence that UL had tested the steel components used in the World Trade Center buildings prior to the Towers' collapse,² he has not shown that either his declaration or Exhibits A, B or C constitutes "newly discovered evidence".

http://enigmanwoliaison.googlepages.com/59Order.pdf

So, there we go. One sentence into his letter to Frank Gayle, two lies.

Facts:
1. UL doesn't certify steel.
2. UL didn't do any tests on the materials that went into the WTC.

Both of these things were explicitly stated to Kevin Ryan (dunce) prior to his correspondence with Mr. Gayle and the entire internet, and that makes his later statements to the opposite lies.

 

[funk de fino]

I predict more tap dancing from Chris on this. No way will he admit Ryan is a liar although it has been shown in the last post and also in court.

How stubborn do you have to be to carry this one on.............

 

[Minadin]

I predict more tap dancing from Chris on this. No way will he admit Ryan is a liar although it has been shown in the last post and also in court.

How stubborn do you have to be to carry this one on.............

In related news - a google search for "Kevin Ryan liar" turns up a ScrewLooseChange blog post as the number 1 hit (go go Pat and James!) but this thread, thanks to Chris7's persistence, is now on the first page of links (#9 overall).

 

[Christopher7]

Stating that "a lie" is defined by both the false-ness of the statement, and the speaker's knowledge of such false-ness, is "Misinterpretation and double talk" in your world?

The "Misinterpretation and double talk" is yours.

Here's his letter:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

This is a false statement, for a number of reasons. UL doesn't certify steel. But when they do tests on fireproofing, those tests are destructive and the steel pieces of the assembly are rendered unusable for construction. He's very clearly talking about prior testing here when he says they certified the components which were used in the construction of the World Trade Center.

You added the words "which were".
That is a lie.

Ryan DID NOT say that UL certifies steel!

He used the word 'components' instead of 'assemblies' in his first sentence.
The assemblies consist of a [singular] structural component with some type of fireproofing.

He clarifies 'component' in the same paragraph with the praise "the samples we certified".

You intentionally ignore the qualifier "the samples we certified", deliberately misinterpret what he said and maliciously call him a liar.

"As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. 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, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements."

In his reply, 4 days later, Knoblauch refers to the testing that UL did for NIST post 9/11.
Since UL did not test components/assemblies prior to 9/11, Ryan and Knoblauch were talking about the samples we [UL] certified post 9/11.

 

[pomeroo]

Now there's a good reason to write the whole thing off.

The exact count is of no real consequence to anyone but a nitpicker looking for a reason to deny the facts presented at ae91truth.

Get real and dispute the facts presented in the first 30 pages.

That claim about the "chemical evidence of cutter charges"--as there is absolutely no--zero--evidence, chemical or otherwise, of cutter charges, wouldn't that qualify as a lie told by the bogus "engineers and architects"?

Just asking questions, of course.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So UL DID certify the steel components used in the WTC?

 

[AZCat]

This is pointless. C7 will never admit that his hero is at fault. Ryan is either a world-class idiot, or a liar. That is clear to anyone else other than C7. Engaging him further is only adding to the already lengthy list of excuses the "truth movement" makes to obscure the simple fact that they are wrong.

 

[LashL]

The "Misinterpretation and double talk" is yours.

You added the words "which were".
That is a lie.

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 because you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, Chris, and it's not pretty.

Since UL did not test components/assemblies prior to 9/11, Ryan and Knoblauch were talking about the samples we [UL]certified post 9/11.

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.

Kevin Ryan based his entire "conflict of interest" argument on the "fact" that UL certified the steel components pre-construction. It is as plain as day that he alleged, repeatedly, that UL certified the steel components prior to 9/11, and that is simply not true, as even you have acknowledged in your post above.

When you're done reading and digesting that document, you should apologize to Minadin, and you should stop believing (and especially stop PEDDLING) the nonsense that idiots and liars like Kevin Ryan and other members of the "truth" movement are feeding you.

 

[Blender Head]

So "Judy" replied back to me:

Blender Head, you touched off a raging debate among AE Team members! Good work, you drew our attention to something we need to fix. Here's the outcome of all the back and forth:

"It might be easier to demonstrate that various aspects of the destruction of these buildings are incompatible with the official story than to demonstrate that they are aspects of a controlled demolition."

So that's probably what we're going to do in the future.

Sincerely,
Judy Shelton

Bobbin' and a-weavin' they do go...

 

[LashL]

So "Judy" replied back to me:



Bobbin' and a-weavin' they do go...

Oh, my. If that's legit, it's pretty much an admission that the membership at ae hasn't a clue about what they've been promoting thusfar, and pretty much an admission that ae is only interested in promoting a particular political stance rather than looking for truth, facts, or reality (entirely contrary to their advertising).

So, please be sure to save the entirety of that message and all of the headers that show where and when it came from, Blenderhead.

 

[Blender Head]

Oh, my. That's pretty much an admission that they haven't a clue about what they've been promoting thusfar, and pretty much an admission that they are only interested in promoting a particular political stance rather than looking for truth, facts, or reality (entirely contrary to their advertising).

So, please be sure to save the entirety of that message and all of the headers that show where and when it came from, Blenderhead.

The e-mail has been archived in Gmail.

 

[MetalliSociety]

So "Judy" replied back to me:



Bobbin' and a-weavin' they do go...

LOL. So they basically said they can't prove that it was a controlled demolition. But since certain things don't match identically, then it MUST be a controled demolition. That. is. HILARIOUS.

 

[Minadin]

The "Misinterpretation and double talk" is yours.

You added the words "which were".
That is a lie.

Ryan DID NOT say that UL certifies steel!

He used the word 'components' instead of 'assemblies' in his first sentence.
The assemblies consist of a [singular] structural component with some type of fireproofing.

He clarifies 'component' in the same paragraph with the praise "the samples we certified".

You intentionally ignore the qualifier "the samples we certified", deliberately misinterpret what he said and maliciously call him a liar.

"As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. 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, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements."

In his reply, 4 days later, Knoblauch refers to the testing that UL did for NIST post 9/11.
Since UL did not test components/assemblies prior to 9/11, Ryan and Knoblauch were talking about the samples we [UL] certified post 9/11.

Well, damn. You're still demonstrably wrong. The wild mental gymnastics in the airs above the earth did not help.

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.

Apologies via PM are fine if you don't feel comfortable issuing them publicly.

Kevin Ryan was talking about certification of steel components that were used in the construction of the World Trade Center. He's both an idiot and a liar. You are, at best, an apologist for such. Please admit that you're wrong here to maintain some semblance of dignity.​

​

 

[BillyRayValentine]

So "Judy" replied back to me:

Bobbin' and a-weavin' they do go...

Does that mean their home page will be scrubbed for references to controlled demolition?

On the bright side, their web hosting bill should go down.