AE911Truth Watch

[Minadin]

I know what steel components are. Do you? Please Refer to LashL's previous 2-3 posts in this thread, and / or any of mine.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

Wrong, Wrong.

[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.
Ryan is referring to this historical testing as is noted in Exhibit C.

Exhibit C: Chapin to Ryan 03 12 01
UL does not certify structural steel. Structural steel meeting the appropriate ATSM designations are used as a component in assemblies tested by UL. The assemblies consist of a structural component protected with some type of fire resistant material.
The results of the tests are published in our Fire Resistance Directory

Exhibit C: Knoblauch to Ryan 03 12 01
The New York City code decides how much temperature the steel must withstand, for how long a time, and indeed the exact temperature profile the steel must withstand. 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.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

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.

Sigh. I'll try to explain this one more time, but I doubt you'll get it. I've almost lost all hope for you.

The judge's statement in no way "disagrees" with the proposition that Ryan "created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL." His statement specifically addresses whether the purpose of Ryan's letter was to report improper conduct by UL, and thus whether the whistleblower statute had any relevance. He said no, again, since the purpose of Ryan's letter was to "make them aware of his theories and conclusions, not of particular problems with any UL conduct."

You then leap to "no allegations of improper conduct" = "not giving the impression of speaking for UL"? How ridiculous. Newsflash. Whether you're saying something good, bad or neutral about your employer has no bearing on the question of whether you're improperly creating the impression of speaking as a representative for said employer. The two are completely unrelated. Which is why the judge's ruling had nothing to do with the dismissal allegations.

Pleaase consider giving up now. You're becoming (more) incoherent.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The court case wasn't to find out if he was being misleading it was to determine if he could use whistleblower status about being fired.

Him being fired was based on his dishonesty and deception. The court determined his whitleblower status was not legit because he was legitimately fired.

 

[AZCat]

Pleaase consider giving up now. You're becoming (more) incoherent.

His posts are starting to remind me of Francis E. Dec.

 

[Christopher7]

The judge's statement in no way "disagrees" with the proposition that Ryan "created a misleading impression that he was speaking as a representative of UL."

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

 

[LashL]

Wrong, Wrong.

Yes, you are wrong.

Ryan asserts that UL certified the steel components that were used to build the WTC towers prior to its construction.

Ryan is lying when he makes that assertion.

And you are perpetuating his lies when you continue to misconstrue the documents that have been provided to you.

And you still owe Minadin an apology.

Please consider giving up now. You're becoming (more) incoherent.

Indeed.

 

[Christopher7]

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

The judge joins the defendant in misquoting the plaintiff and suggesting that the plaintiff lied.

Ryan uses the phrase “steel components used to construct”
UL and the judge misquote him using the phrase “steel used in”.

That is prejudicial.

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 82.
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

 

[Christopher7]

Ryan asserts that UL certified the steel components that were used to build the WTC towers prior to its construction.

Where does he say that?

Not here:
"the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. . . . . . . the samples we certified met all requirements."

[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

You insist on misinterpreting his statement so you can call him a liar.
He clarified his statement is his second amended complaint.

"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, a fact that Mr. Ryan had obtained from his inquiries with UL officials including the CEO."

 

[DGM]

Chris:
Why did Ryan lose? Are they all "in on it"?

 

[LashL]

http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/49-2RyanSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf


Pay particular attention to the parts where Kevin Ryan specifically alleges that Mr. Knoblauch wrote to him that UL had, in fact, certified the steel components that were intended to be used to construct the WTC towers.

This simply cannot be read any way but retrospectively.

Kevin Ryan based his entire "conflict of interest" argument on the "fact" that UL certified the steel components pre-construction, and that is simply not true.

And you still owe Minadin an apology.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

Last six lines of Ryan's email, from a truther web site:

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

South Bend

Please explain, if you would, Christopher7, why a reasonable person would believe that Ryan was not communicating in his capacity as an employee of UL.

 

[funk de fino]

This is a pathetic tap dance even for C7.

Ryan is a liar, if not he would still have a job and the court would have upheld his complaint.

 

[Minadin]

Where does he say that?

Chris7, the cognitive dissonance you're displaying is amazing. If you're going to refer to his second amended complaint, how do you ignore statements like the one I've quoted above, or this one:

32. This UL organizational conflict of interest and appearance of a conflict made UL ineligible and disqualified for any contracts involving the investigation of the collapse of the WTC buildings because given UL's prior involvement in fire testing of the materials used to construct the WTC buildings, UL could not be objective and unbiased in investigating the causes of the collapse of the WTC buildings for the government because the evidence discovered in the investigation might point to some flaw in the fire resistance of the materials used to construct the WTC or the fire resistance testing of same. Such a finding would have serious repercussions for UL regarding its reputation and potential liability. Such an outcome could be devastating for a company such as UL's that makes its living by doing safety related testing.

His claim is quite clearly that they did testing of WTC items prior to collapse. Otherwise, how could there be a conflict of interest immediately post collapse? There are statements like this one littered all over his second amended complaint:

http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/49-2RyanSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf

Specifically, complaint items which mention testing materials used in the construction of the WTC, prior testing (to the collapse), etc are found in #'s 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23a, 24, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36c, 36d, 48, 53, 54, 63, 64, 65, 66.

I left out those items wherein Kevin Ryan (prevaricator) & counsel merely referred to the prior testing (their word!) as "the conflict of interest", as I did not wish to overdo it here and appear to be "piling on". Suffice it to say that their entire argument was based on the claim that the UL had engaged in testing the materials at some time prior to the collapse, presumably at the time of construction*.

They still lost.



*The phrase "used in the construction" is found throughout, along with the term "historically", which is not typically a word used to describe recent events.​

​

 

[boloboffin]

They didn't just lose. They had their behinds tossed out of court and were told never to come back in there with that trash.

 

[Minadin]

They didn't just lose. They had their behinds tossed out of court and were told never to come back in there with that trash.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/LOLcats/funny-pictures-cat-talk-to-the-hand.jpg

Well, if you want to call "having your case dismissed with prejudice and yourself and entire legal team threatened with sanctions" that . . . yeah, I would be inclined to agree.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91879

 

[Christopher7]

http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/49-2RyanSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf


Pay particular attention to the parts where Kevin Ryan specifically alleges that Mr. Knoblauch wrote to him that UL had, in fact, certified the steel components that were intended to be used to construct the WTC towers.

This simply cannot be read any way but retrospectively.

Kevin Ryan based his entire "conflict of interest" argument on the "fact" that UL certified the steel components pre-construction, and that is simply not true.

And you still owe Minadin an apology.

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.

 

[Christopher7]

Please explain, if you would, Christopher7, why a reasonable person would believe that Ryan was not communicating in his capacity as an employee of UL.

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.

The judge is quite clear:
In writing to UL and NIST, he was attempting only to making them aware of
his theories and conclusions.

 

[LashL]

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.

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.

Christopher7,

Although I suspect that you are deliberately obfuscating and deliberately misconstruing the documents, on the off chance that you sincerely do not understand this, I will attempt once more to respond to patiently explain where and how you are getting things wrong.

1) Mr. Chapin of UL, apparently in late 2003, told Kevin Ryan - in response to his questions - that UL
(a) does not certify structural steel;
(b) structural steel meeting the appropriate ASTM designations is used as a component in the assemblies that UL tests;
(c) the assemblies that UL tests consist of a structural component protected with fire resistant material;
(d) when UL conducts tests on assemblies, it publishes the results in its Fire Resistance Directory;
(e) the authority having jurisdiction specifies the hourly rating that is needed for the type of construction (in the case of the WTC, that authority would be the PANYNJ);
(f) the architect usually will then specify a design that is published in the Fire Resistance Directory that meets the code requirement; and
(g) that the floor assembly in the WTC was not a UL tested assembly.

Note that the process is clearly related to pre-construction, and pay particular attention to items (d) through (g).

Ergo, the evidence is that UL did not test the floor assemblies pre-construction; UL did not test the floor assemblies for compliance with the PANYNJ requirements or the NY building code, and Kevin Ryan was advised specifically of those facts in 2003.

If, as you suggest, the "historical testing" and "prior testing" that Kevin Ryan repeatedly alleges was not in reference to pre-construction, then what time period does it refer to? When did this alleged "historical testing" and "prior testing" occur?

It would have been a trivial matter for Kevin Ryan to say in his complaint(s) something to the effect of: "UL performed fire resistance testing on steel components used in the _______ assemblies of the WTC during the period from 19__ through 19__."

And yet, he did no such thing, even after being given a road map by the judge as to what had to be done to save his complaint from being dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.

Why do you suppose he didn't do that?

It would have been a trivial matter for Kevin Ryan to produce UL's published Fire Resistance Directories to prove that UL had done any "historical testing" or "prior testing" any time prior to September 11, 2001, in fact.

Why do you suppose he didn't do that?

It would also have been a trivial matter for Kevin Ryan to produce the written confirmations that he claimed to have, but he didn't. Instead, he produced only a weirdly excerpted portion of an e-mail communication that failed entirely to identify the participants, the dates, or the actual correspondence in any meaningful fashion, so as to render it utterly useless from an evidentiary perspective.

Why do you suppose he did that? Especially when he had more than $1.3 million riding on his wrongful dismissal claim, not to mention the prospect of blowing the entire 9/11 "conspiracy" wide open, becoming the most famous - and possibly the wealthiest - man on the planet?

2) UL was granted the contract to perform fire resistance testing on floor assemblies in Indiana and Toronto in the summer of 2003.

3) UL did, indeed, conduct such tests, which were completed in late 2003 and/or early 2004.

4) It seems obvious to me from the excerpts of the e-mail that Kevin Ryan appended as an Exhibit to his proposed Second Amended Complaint that Mr. Knoblauch (if, in fact, that portion of the e-mail is from Mr. Knoblauch - given the oddly incomplete, undated and unidentifiable excerpt) was talking about testing being done pursuant to its contract with NIST as part of the investigation post 9/11.

It seems obvious because Mr. Knoblauch (again, if that portion of the excerpt is his writing) refers specifically to this being AFTER the contract was awarded to UL by NIST since he refers to the contract specifically.

Ergo, it seems quite apparent that when he said, "We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did beautifully," he is talking about the 2003-2004 tests, and not any alleged "prior testing" or any alleged "historical testing". Those phrases are Kevin Ryan's alone, and they are unfounded. Kevin Ryan has alleged that UL conducted historical testing and prior testing, but there is no evidence to support his allegations.

I have no idea where you get the idea that:

Knoblauch was referring to historical testing done on steel components with the required fireproofing, done for NYC.

There is, as noted above, no evidence whatsoever that UL did any historical testing for NYC. That e-mail excerpt certainly doesn't say any such thing.

You are badly misinterpreting the e-mail, and that may well be what Kevin Ryan intended when he excerpted it in such a bizarre way. Fortunately, he didn't fool anyone other than those predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories, and those who have little, if any, rational, critical or analytical thinking skills.


5) The court, in its summary ruling on Kevin Ryan's attempt to belatedly amend his complaint for a second time specifically said:

The proposed Second Amended Complaint rested on Mr. Ryan's assertion of federal and state whistleblower claims arising from a conflict of interest resulting from UL's alleged prior testing of steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center buildings, but he did not provide any evidence of this prior testing, such as an alleged written acknowledgment from UL's chief executive officer. The court said such evidence would be helpful, if not necessary, to a plaintiff who seeks permission to amend a complaint and who must persuade the court that the new claim is not being brought "in a desperate effort to protract the litigation and complicate the defense.

(Italic emphasis in original, bolding emphasis is mine)


The court did not misinterpret Kevin Ryan's allegations at all. Neither did Minadin, whom you still owe an apology.

With respect to your post #626 in which you claim that "the judge disagrees" that Kevin Ryan was purporting to act on behalf of UL with his letter to NIST, I will respond to that separately, as it is a purely legal matter and has nothing to do with Kevin Ryan's unsupported allegations that UL conducted any "historical testing" or "prior testing" on steel components used in the construction of the WTC. But you are quite wrong in that post, as well, and again, in case you are sincerely confused rather than being deliberately obtuse, I will attempt to explain it to you.

 

[LashL]

Point made, my bad, my apologies to Minadin.

I had not seen this post while I was composing my last post, so I will retract my call for your apology to Minadin in that post, since you have now done so.

But I will leave the post as it is, since it took me so damned long to write, and because I hope that it may still serve a useful purpose. I hope that you will read it in its entirety, because I think that it explains fairly well where and how you went wrong.

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.

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?