Support 911Blogger


UL Truth Is Not a Matter of Popularity

“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

Show "Here is another debate." by ref

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!

Show "Kevin, debate" by ref

Kevin would eat those putts alive...

and I'm sure they know it...

Show "Take a look at the earlier debate" by ref

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.

Show "Hello Vesa" by ref

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

Show "What was the goal of NIST investigation?" by ref

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

Well.

Dr. Greening did his interesting visit on JREF forum recently. Have you read the entire threads instead of copying a one isolated quote?

And he stated clearly the following statements:

"I also believe it wasn't pre-installed explosives or incendiaries that brought down the towers."

"I have done calculations that convince me that a gravity driven collapse, once initiated by the descent of an upper section through one floor height, WAS POSSIBLE without the help of explosives. And I have done calculations that convince me that the observed degree of pulverization of the concrete WAS POSSIBLE without the help of explosives. And I have shown that there were plenty of "natural" sources of sulfur in the WTC. And I have shown that molten aluminum is capable of very violent reactions."

Why did you leave out the rest of his quote?

"And I have shown that molten aluminum is capable of very violent reactions. But these studies are not PROOF that explosives were NOT used. And Occam's Razor is merely a dictum, not a universal law""

&

"I also believe it wasn't pre-installed explosives or incendiaries that brought down the towers.

I am only trying to make the point that a calculation cannot rule out explosives, it can only show you if something was possible. A gravitational collapse was theoretically possible without explosives."

You mined BOTH Greening quotes!

You're quite the little deceptive bastard, aren't you, ref?!

_______________
"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

You miss the point again.

A truther accusing me of quote mining. That's a new one.

I showed his beliefs. He does not believe explosives were used.

I addition to that, I showed he has shown, that all the events were possible without explosives.

THOSE were the points I was making.

Yes, you can add his entire posts if you wish. That doesn't change anything.

I'm sure you and I understand, that calculations can't rule out explosives. Mr. Greening is saying, that mere calculations do not rule out explosives. But other evidence takes care of that.

You know, you also broke the rules with your ad hominem attack, didn't you?

Show "Prove it." by Mark Roberts

Yes,

Mr. Wick claims you possess an "encyclopedic knowledge of fallacies" , although he may have been thinking about a phallic knowledge of encycolpedias. It's not clear from his blathering bravado.

And all this after only one year of study!

Don't worry Mark, we'll get around to you one way or another. Read up first though, as it is clear you are wrong about so many things at this point that it will take many hours just to get you to a baseline of knowledge. And remind me again why you were afraid of the National 9/11 Debate. Don't want to scare you off when the time comes.

After Mr. Dunbar is dispatched, I'll look you up.

Why do you lie?

Mark was not afraid, read his post where he sets this issue very straight.

You claim he is wrong, yet you do not provide one single response to any of his points. Where is he wrong and why?

It seems that you are afraid of Mark, not the other way around.

"Why do you lie?"

That sounds familliar. Hmmm--the next thing you're going to say is something about "conspiracy liars" and "fantasy-ists".

Go on, you know you want to....

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Is Kevin Ryan lying again?

Let's find out. He says I'm "wrong about so many things," yet he names none.

Well, no one knows how to make empty claims better than Kevin Ryan. Go ahead, Mr. Ryan: demonstrate how any of my claims in this blog are wrong.

I await your reply.

Hang about...

What the hell time is it where you're at? And you're tag teaming Kevin not only in the middle of the bloody night, but HOURS after his posts?

Possibly to avoid a REAL arguments?

So, tell me, Mark--what's your feeling about fellow debunkers who "fight the twoof" by making blogs that call for a 911activists murder? For it? Against it? Would you blame a "twoofer" for doing it to make you lot look bad--without any evidence? Would you cheer on the witchhunt and FAIL UTTERLY to follow through with your social responsibility to flag the blog in question, email the host site and denouce it utterly?

Don't like this tangent? Well I do. When ever you want to talk about lying truthers, I'll be happy to list chicken-shit, cowardly debunkers...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

So why don't you respond to Ronnie'e emails anymore?

or have you kissed and made up?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Interesting comment...

Recently, I debated at the University of Michigan. Unfortunately, we were unable to get anyone from the UM schools of Science or Engineering to defend the official story. That left those of us who showed up debating each other, by alternately taking sides between the truth and the official version.

Additionally, I volunteered for the National 9/11 Debate (twice actually) but that didn’t happen either because we couldn’t find enough folks with the courage to defend the official conspiracy theory. I personally invited (Pastor?) Mark Roberts to join us in this debate, but he declined.

And just last weekend I was scheduled to debate in Columbus, OH. But guess what? Again there was no one able to support the NIST WTC report.

(Pastor?) Mark and Mr. Wick 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.

Surely David Dunbar has the courage to debate me.

simply

classic.

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

Show "Correction" by ref
Show "Correction on Mark Roberts" by ref

Debunkers in love embrace with Loose Change boys and Uncle Fetz

Why does this not shock me one bit? Is Mark Cuban cutting you in on the Lo0se Changout Final Cuban DVD as has been reported?

Don't tell me--you guys have also destroyed Judy Wood in a debate--well gee, I guess debunkers and (real) truthers do have something in common!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Debate is debate

Anyone is welcome to debate. I just asked if Mr. Ryan is sometimes willling to debate. You can bring Griffin or anybody. It doesn't matter. Pick your guys.

Show "Mr. Ryan, are you unwilling or unable to stop lying?" by Mark Roberts

Mark

Do you know the expression "give 'em enough rope"?

Show "Mr. Ryan" by Mark Roberts

Once again

Once again, Mark Roberts is in full commands of the facts while you slither away, Kevin, in full knowledge that you would lose in any debate with Mark.

Remember what we learned about the 9/11 Truth Movement many years ago: http://tinyurl.com/2974sa

Excellent

Another fantastic article by a true American patriot. The cabal that has stolen our Constitution cannot hide much longer behind this quickly disintegrating lie. Soon, Kevin and the rest of the 911 Truth Movement will expose them for the murders of thousands. What a victory that will be for FREEDOM! Read this and weep Straussian neo-cons.

Politics have nothing to do with structural engineering.

You forgot one key fact in all of this:

http://tinyurl.com/2974sa

Oh…?

Popular Mechanics says on FOX and other similar shows that they have a huge staff of researchers yet, David Dunbar makes an ignorant statement like that? Somebody in the media must make this known…shout it from the roof, “the executive editor of Popular Mechanics is absolutely wrong!”

Let us remember...

One of the more amusing smack-downs of the traitors at NIST, by Kevin...

A NEW STANDARD FOR DECEPTION
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032

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

UL Truth

Kevin, we're out here, pulling for you and others who fight in the spirit of Patrick Henry, the Minutemen, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, some of whom faced terrible persecution under British occupation. You are brave, and a worthy companion of those I have listed. Do not doubt, when the battle is won, your name and those of other Truthers who risked all will be listed, and remembered, as heroes and true patriots.

"The weak have one weapon: the errors of those who think they are strong."
Georges Bidault, French resistance leader WWII

QUestion

Kevin says "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)."

I think that most reasonable people would understand that there is a huge difference between the two terms. After all, one can not just drop a pile of "strucutral steel" in a big heep and expect it to function as a building, can you?

Don't they build the same basic trusse designs out of wood s well as out of steel? certainly that would indicate that the material is a secondary important as the design itself?

Lawsuit

Kevin Wrote: "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."

So how's that lawsuit going these days?

"Popular Mechanics’ poor

"Popular Mechanics’ poor editorial practices"

Can you post and example of this poor editorial practice?