Recent Headlines

Rosie O'Donnell is picking up where she left off.
Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied
Uzbek officer says Tashkent bombings falseflag
US Congressman Ed Markey gets a copy of 9/11 Nano Thermite Scientific report
Ex-ISI Chief Says Purpose of New Afghan Intelligence Agency RAMA Is ‘to destabilize Pakistan’
Taboo News and Corporate Media
Peter Phillips Of Project Censored Endorses NYC CAN
Polls show broad skepticism among Americans of official 9/11 narrative
New York Judge Dismisses Claim Negligent Construction Contributed To WTC 7 Collapse
Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US until 9/11
Drills successful planting bombs in 10 buildings, including DHS offices: GAO
Kevin R. Ryan: Demolition access to the WTC Towers
Naval "National Center for Energetics" Records Of Pre-9/11 Nano-Energetic Materials Development, Nonexistent Or Destroyed
Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?
29 Engineers: Only Explosives Can Explain 9/11 World Trade Center Destruction
David Chandler responds to Frank Greening
“Chief Engineer” Hyman Brown by Patrick Marks
Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York
Psychologists Weigh In On 9/11
New York Senator Gillibrand Supports New 9/11 Investigation
Much Of 9/11 Commission's Findings Cite Intelligence Garnered By Torture
AE911Truth in Washington DC July 14th-16th
Daniel Sunjata: Intellectual Dishonesty In The Age Of Universal Deceit...
Vice President Biden receives Thermitic Material paper
Pardon Our Dust, or, Why the World Trade Center Dust Matters
Marie-Paule Pileni (Bentham Open) and nano-technology
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

UL Truth Is Not a Matter of Popularity

Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.

“In fact, Underwriter Laboratories does not certify structural steel.”
David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics [1]

We now know that US Government scientists were not able to produce evidence for "widely dislodged" fireproofing within the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Because of this, the distinction between the fire-based hypothesis of collapse and the demolition hypothesis depends on, among other things, the answer to one important question. Were the steel assemblies used to construct those buildings tested for fire resistance as required by the New York City code?.

As I have stated many times in public, UL made it clear to me and others that they performed this testing. Of course I have their statements on the subject in writing, and I would have been a fool to have made such claims publicly without possessing such documentation. In contrast, Mr. Dunbar of Popular Mechanics does not seem to mind acting like an irresponsible fool in public, as his statement above indicates. His statement is foolish because it is widely known that UL does test and certify structural components for buildings such as the World Trade Center towers.

Even beginning students know that UL is one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119." [2] The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) itself made this point clear in their WTC report by saying "the UL Fire Resistance Directory ...is the major reference used by architects and engineers to select designs that meet the building code requirements for fire resistance ratings." [3]

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]

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.

Why would UL need to make this secondary claim of “no evidence” if they were never involved? Better yet, why would UL lie to the public at all, and how could they get away with it?

The “why” is easy enough to understand. UL is a tax-exempt organization (we pay their taxes for them), and requires good government relations to maintain this status. Additionally, given the fire-based explanation for collapse, whatever firm tested the WTC tower’s assemblies for fire resistance was at risk for a huge liability.

The question of how they could get away with such obvious lies is a matter of semantic deception. It is simply a cowardly distinction between “structural steel” and “steel assemblies used within a structure” that is behind these false remarks by UL and Popular Mechanics (PM). But these liars know that willing listeners, looking for easy answers that divert attention away from the painful evidence for the demolition hypothesis, will buy just about anything to avoid the truth.

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”. Of course that misleading statement could be used only if one resorted to deceptive semantics again. That is, UL tests for contaminants in the water, they don’t test the water itself.

Those lying to us about 9/11 may feel that they have no reason to fear retribution. For example, we can choose to buy Popular Mechanics’ lies or not buy them, depending on whether we are looking for easy answers or truthful ones. In choosing, we can guess at UL’s motivations for lying, and we know the Hearst Corporation (Popular Mechanics’ parent company) has a long history in the business of propaganda.

But we can’t choose whether or not we care to pay UL’s taxes for them. As long as UL remains in good standing with the government, the American public must dole out the corporate welfare that supports them.

My ongoing lawsuit against UL will not only hold them accountable for their responsibility to public safety, it will help determine the future of our country.[5] Can someone openly speak obvious truths, no matter how sensitive, in America today? We may soon find out. At the direction of the US Federal Court in Indianapolis, lawyers representing myself and UL have begun mapping out a case management plan. It is already clear that UL made a significant mistake in firing me, as indicated by the fact that they have hired several very large law firms to support them instead of handling this simple “water-tester” with the team of attorneys already on their payroll.

How about Democracy Now and Popular Mechanics? Will they allow me to defend myself against their libelous claims in a public forum? It is doubtful, but I will offer an open invitation to David Dunbar to publicly debate me on the merits of the official conspiracy theory, and the evidence for the demolition hypothesis, whenever he feels that he finally has his facts straight.. I’m sure that Democracy Now would be glad to put us on the air.

In the meantime, we should all remember that over two thousand Americans, and countless thousands of others, have died in the 9/11 Wars since I was fired for speaking out. And only the lies of cowards like UL and Popular Mechanics stand between an escalation of those wars and the chance to pursue a lasting peace.

For the victims of 9/11, the victims of the 9/11 Wars, and for future generations, I will continue fighting those lies. You can count on it.

1. Debate between editors of Popular Mechanics and the makers of the film Loose Change, Democracy Now, September 11, 2006 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
2. Samuel H. Marcus, Basics of Structural Steel (Reston, Va.: Reston Publishing 1977), 20
3. Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," May 2005, Appendix A
4. J. Thomas Chapin, General Mgr., Fire Protection Div.
Underwriters Laboratories, Letter to the editor entitled Fire Test is Sound, New York Times, April 15, 2002.
5. Legal Defense Fund for Kevin Ryan, http://www.ultruth.com/

Thank you

and best wishes.

BREAKING NEWS **DIGG THIS STORY***

WOW

Just WOW. Now read my signature.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Kerry: "Unaware of Steven

Kerry: "Unaware of Steven Jones' research" ? In 2007 ?

Where does he live, behind the moon ?

Thank you Kevin Ryan...

For your valuable insight and understanding of this important aspect of the cover-up.

Your in-depth knowledge of this deception has made this issue a major smoking gun.

I wish you well and the best of justice in your lawsuit against UL.

Thanks for everything you are doing and have done !!!

Best wishes

Hi Kevin...


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Thanks Kevin

this country needs more people like you.

Someone please forward this to the morons at SLC.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Yes Best wishes to you Kevin!

It's true. This case may change a lot of perceptions if it goes the wright way.

I'm a canadian. Here in Canada a person hwo speaks is mind about what is concerning his (her) own case may risk to encounter problem in court. Certain things may play against him

Is it the same in the US. I say that because maybe Kevin needs to be carefull. Is it the case.

Drummerboy
**********************************************************
You can't hide a lie for long. Truth shall come out.

Link to Kevin Ryan on Guns and Butter - KPFA

http://157.22.130.4:80//data/20060913-Wed1300.mp3

Sep 13, 2006
Lies About the World Trade Center by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
Interview with Kevin Ryan. Kevin Ryan is a former employee of Underwriters Laboratory which certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center. Ryan wrote a letter to Frank Gayle of NIST, questioning the incongruence between laboratory testing, and conclusions drawn in the official government NIST report. After Ryan's questions became public, he was terminated. First aired on June 14, 2006.

http://www.truthcult.com

Thanks!

sweet! thx 4 the link!

Go Kevin!

40:20ish into the interview...

makes sense to me, Kevin. Here's the original link to the audio if anyone wants it...
http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=132

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Another Canadian thanks you Kevin

Just wanted to add my gratitude to you Kevin for continuing to speak out in this and all your other writings. You exemplify a model of bravery and courage that inspires us all.

God Bless You!

Well

Well, no comments. So I guess there's no problem.

Drummerboy
**********************************************************
You can't hide a lie for long. Truth shall come out.

Keep it up, Kevin. Many

Keep it up, Kevin. Many more are joining you every day.

*Just a small complaint about a small detail*...

This statement:

"Because of this, the distinction between the fire-based hypothesis of collapse and the demolition hypothesis centers on one question. Were the steel assemblies used to construct those buildings tested for fire resistance as required by the New York City code?"

is not accurate. The "official" story Vs. demolition hypothesis DOES NOT center solely on that question. The nature of the collapses violates the laws of physics under any explanation other than controlled demolition. ...Or a minimum of three miracles in one day...

You might evevn want to modify that statement, as it could be very dangerous if taken out of context. Semantic tricks, remember?

Thanks for this Kevin. It's

Thanks for this Kevin. It's a good read in the face of the recent EPA decision.

People might want to add some criticisms to this page which mentions David Dunbar. I added one, but the whole thing needs more -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths#External_links

And a third Canadian sends thanks

It really defies all logic that those buildings could be built with untested steel. Keep fighting the good fight Kevin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hope doesn't come from calculating whether the good news is winning out over the bad. It's simply a choice to take action."
- Anna Lappe

New JFK quote

"...the high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of this plight."

- John F. Kennedy (November 12, 1963, Columbia U, 10 days before his assassination)

Taken from the Kennedy Library Homepage...

President Kennedy's supposed speech at Columbia University, November, 1963.

Many references to this fictitious speech exist in assassination theorist material. Supposedly, the President was discussing changes in the Federal Reserve and the gold standard, and this topic was somehow linked to his assassination. Others also claim he said, "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy American freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." But the simple fact is that President John F. Kennedy did not speak at Columbia University in November of 1963.

Those who believe in the "fact" of President Kennedy having made such a speech, either at Columbia or some other place, will simply deny this denial. At best, they will say that because "all or most records" have been destroyed, we simply don't know the truth; at worst, they will claim that there is a conspiracy to keep this issue silent. If someone chooses to believe in the existence of this speech, he or she does so as a matter of faith, which is fine, as long as that person realizes that it is religion and not history in which he or she is dealing.

links for viewing the debate

Here is a link of an earlier post that I've made about the Loose change debate:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7799

Here is another debate.

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

The film (LC)

has errors and speculative claims, unfortunately (for you) those errors and claims dont suddenly suspend the laws of physics for a day in september.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Superb

This is a great little article, Kevin. I hope you have lots of success with your lawsuit. Keep up the good work!

Kevin, debate

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Kevin would eat those putts alive...

and I'm sure they know it...

Take a look at the earlier debate

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

That's because...

... the LC guys were terrible debaters. Wieck could get away with stating e.g. that conspiracy folks are unwilling to debate NIST's findings. Of course, NIST has been thoroughly debunked, and their inability to even come up with a report on Seven speaks volumes.

Hello Vesa

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

John Gross

NIST Engineer, John Gross, Denies Reports About Molten Steel at the WTC
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104

In the video Gross states the following...

"Once the collapse initiated the video evidence is clear: it was not stopped by the floors below. So there was no calculation that we did to demonstrate [something that] is clear in the videos."

This is like saying "We know that the sun orbits the earth because all of us can see it moving across the sky - so it's not necessary to investigate further".

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of science should be appalled at the level of science that was used by NIST to investigate what happened to the World Trade Center -period

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

What was the goal of NIST investigation?

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

You people?

Do you put Dr. Frank Greening in the "you people" category too? Here's what he recently had to say re the NIST report:

"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!"

"In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying"

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace