Mr. Ryan,
True, you did invite me to participate in the "national" debate – after you declined MY challenge to debate. I had offered to let you choose the time, place, moderators, and subjects to be discussed. Remember? It happened on your blog. You won't find more generous debate terms than that. Your lack of confidence in your claims couldn't be more obvious.
I had said that I would gladly participate in the "national" debate if they could state the format, moderators, and journalist panelists that they promised. They could not, in two tries over 6 months. The fact that half of the "truther" team that had signed up began promoting no-plane, directed energy insanity, surely didn't help.
In the other "debates" you mention, why weren't people like myself, who are known debunkers of 9/11 myths, invited? Sending an email to campus faculty isn't exactly going out of your way to find opponents. Again, you lack the confidence to defend your claims.
You said, "Mark and Mr. Wick [it's Wieck] base all of their beliefs on the book that Mr. Wick picks up and sells midway through their debate with DA and JB (in the clip you provided). It turns out that all defenders of the official story fall back to this one source of information. So instead of preparing for any more debates where the OCT defenders can’t be found, I’ll wait for the ring leaders at Popular Mechanics to back up their false claims in public."
That's another lie, Mr. Ryan. I've been debunking 9/11 myths for a year. I read part of the Popular Mechanics book FOR THE FIRST TIME two weeks ago. I have never once "fallen back to this one source of information."
You continue to promote the false claim that UL certified WTC structural steel. Go ahead and prove me wrong: provide the evidence of such certification.
Now, Mr. Ryan, what happened when UL did fire testing on 17-and 35-foot replica tower floor assemblies after 9/11? That's right: one of the 35-foot assemblies, – which was undamaged by an airliner strike and which had intact, newly-applied 1/2-inch SFRM (per contemporary NYC code) – failed the test.
Remember, that failed assembly was 35 feet long. Where did the inward bowing of the exterior walls occur in both towers? On sides that had 60-foot floor sections, on floors that had been hit by airliners traveling at high speed.
You quoted UL's Tom Chapin:
"The World Trade Center stood for almost an hour after withstanding conditions well beyond those experienced in any typical fire. In that time, thousands of people escaped with their lives. ASTM E-119 and UL's testing procedures helped make that possible."
Being a more than a bit misleading there, aren't you? Chapin is referring to a comparative standard that's used in building codes. He does not say, or suggest, that UL certified WTC steel.
Do you agree with me, or do I need to ask him?
Did UL, or anyone, ever fire-test WTC tower floor assemblies prior to 9/11? No.
NIST: "The building designers carried out no tests on the floor system used in the WTC to establish a fire endurance rating."
Excerpt from "Fire Testing Is Questioned In Findings On Towers" New York Times, August 26, 2004:
The debate over the sufficiency of the fireproofing on the World Trade Center's lightweight floors -- essentially metal and concrete decks supported underneath by a series of inch-thick zigzagging rods -- intensified in May 2003 when federal investigators concluded that the Port Authority, back in the late 1960's, apparently never performed the formal laboratory fire test on the design.
That meant there was no way for the Port Authority to say for sure that the towers' floors would hold up against an extremely intense two-hour fire, as was required then under the New York City building code. The Port Authority, when the towers were built, said it was committed to meeting or exceeding the city code, even though as an agency created by the two states, it was not required to do so.
...It was the different results that surfaced when the longer pieces of floor -- the ones that more accurately reflected floor sections used in the trade center -- were tested that have provoked concerns about the legitimacy of the widely accepted furnace tests. One of the larger pieces of floor -- the one that was set up to simulate the restraint applied by a real-life building -- failed in a fire test.
These results left investigators with a disturbing reality: in the test in which they used the equivalent of a scale-model toy car, the results suggested that the fireproofing was sufficient. But when they used what would have been the equivalent of a real car, the fireproofing failed."
Stop lying, misrepresenting, and misleading, Mr. Ryan, and you'll be on the road to dignity.
I look forward to your response, although I'm sure you're busy "peer-reviewing" yet more conspiracist fish wrapper.
I should start writing these as sql queries just to mix it up a bit.
