• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mark Embarrasses Kevin Ryan

I've got this one bookmarked :)

Kevin doesn't know what to do.
 
Popular Mechanics’ poor editorial practices and weak understanding of conformance testing are not the only reasons behind the false “UL does not certify structural steel” statement, however. UL made a similar statement themselves, shortly after firing me for speaking out and asking for clarification. They denied their own responsibility even after admitting publicly that their testing was related to the WTC tower’s performance. To make matters worse, UL exacerbated this denial with the additional claim that there was “no evidence” that any firm tested the steel.
Click to expand...


I love that, not only are PM lying, UL are lying about what they do!


I often wonder what UL might have said if 3,000 people had died from water contamination on 9/11/01. If it had been clear that the water testing division I managed was responsible for the compliance testing required to avoid such a catastrophe, it’s likely that UL and PM would have said something like ”UL does not test water”.
Click to expand...


It's more likely they would have said "UL's water tester is a useless moron".
 
Last edited:
You guys just wait till LashL posts the URLs to the latest docs from the lawsuit. waterboys own legal team admits that they have no facts yet they persist in this frivolous lawsuit. Sorry Mark but aquaman really is an easy target but the practice is good :)
 
Testing and certifying are completely unrelated. It's the same with molten metal and molten steel. Conspiracists often mix the two up mid sentence.

"UL claims they do not certify steel. However, in 2004 they tested the steel"
"Molten Steel cannot be found at ground zero. However, molten metal was found".

Annoying...
 
Sometimes it's an inconvenience being French. I read the thread title too quickly and read: "Mark Embrasse Kevin Ryan" (Mark kisses Kevin Ryan)

8886455aa11a65054.gif
 
The Doc said:
Testing and certifying are completely unrelated. It's the same with molten metal and molten steel. Conspiracists often mix the two up mid sentence.

"UL claims they do not certify steel. However, in 2004 they tested the steel"
"Molten Steel cannot be found at ground zero. However, molten metal was found".

Annoying...
Click to expand...

When confronted, they start crying, about us being sticklers on semantics! Yes, because words have meanings, for a reason. Reasons they will never understand.
 
Dog Town said:
When confronted, they start crying, about us being sticklers on semantics! Yes, because words have meanings, for a reason. Reasons they will never understand.
Click to expand...

I saw this in Ryan's paper
“In fact, Underwriter Laboratories does not certify structural steel.”

Additionally UL's own Tom Chapin, the Chemist and manager of their Fire Protection division, with whom I was in contact, admitted to UL's involvment in testing steel for the WTC in a letter to the New York Times editor published April 15, 2002. In this letter, Chapin said "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." [4]

However in Ryan's other paper he makes it clear that Tom Chapin does not agree with Ryan, and in fact agrees with David Dunbar.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...+Tom+Chapin+email+UL&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us


This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL’s Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the “leader in fire research testing,” but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel.

So even Tom has clearly told Ryan he is wrong. And Ryan KNOWS THIS!
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, I wonder if it's a coincidence that both Gravy's and Ref's posts to the blog have been set so they don't appear unless you open them.....
 
PhantomWolf said:
Hmmm, I wonder if it's a coincidence that both Gravy's and Ref's posts to the blog have been set so they don't appear unless you open them.....
Click to expand...

Ron's posts always used to always show up that way, too, before he was banned there.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Hmmm, I wonder if it's a coincidence that both Gravy's and Ref's posts to the blog have been set so they don't appear unless you open them.....
Click to expand...

It looks like they have some kind of moderation system in place where other members can give a comment a +1 or -1, which adds up. A comment with a score below a certain number gets collapsed automatically.

No surprise that debunkers would be voted down by truthers on a truther website.
 
LashL said:
Ron's posts always used to always show up that way, too, before he was banned there.
Click to expand...

What is with that point system?
Do you get automatically banned after you have accumulated enough minus points?
 
Bobert said:
What is with that point system?
Do you get automatically banned after you have accumulated enough minus points?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I really couldn't say. It is, I guess, possible that eventually your negatives get you booted. Mine must have been spectacular.

The lunatic Jenny Sparks imagines that I show up in various disguises to vote down the liars, but, frankly, I have never cast any votes at all. What would be the point?
 
pomeroo said:
I really couldn't say. It is, I guess, possible that eventually your negatives get you booted. Mine must have been spectacular.

The lunatic Jenny Sparks imagines that I show up in various disguises to vote down the liars, but, frankly, I have never cast any votes at all. What would be the point?
Click to expand...
The point system sounds strangely like a government op to track people like dig does...damn PCT idiots :)
 
Bobert said:
What is with that point system?
Do you get automatically banned after you have accumulated enough minus points?
Click to expand...

It appears as though that might be the case from some of the comments I've read there, but I do not know. They are troofers, so they might also have some kind of sooper sekrit voting system about banning people after they reach X number of negative points, for all I know. I have never cared enough about that blog to look into its inner workings.

ETA: Apparently, yes, the negative votes does have to do with being banned there:

troofer blog said:
Update (12/08/2006): As of 11/10/2006 comment moderation is no longer in the hands of team members of this site, but rather in the hands of the community. Users should use the vote up/down widget to vote down comments which go against the basic guidelines listed above. Users who maintain an extreme case of continued low rated comments may have their commenting abilities removed.
Click to expand...

In other words, rather than have legitimate moderation, they allow the lunatics to run the asylum.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom