Kevin Ryan debunks the official reports "explaining" the Wortd Trade Center collapses.

[StrictlyRockers]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8660308704125489090&hl=en

Does anyone smell a rat? Yes Kevin, very many of us do.

SR

[LARED]

1. Posting Kevin Ryan Spam; How ironic (n/t)

[StrictlyRockers]

2. You call an hour-long presentation by a serious scientist spam?

This guy was the manager of Underwriter's Labratory. He is not spam. He is credible.

He is credible here until you can post something more substantial than "he is spam".

"D" for effort on this one LARED. No points awarded. Try harder please.

SR

[LARED]

3. Ryan is a serious water chemistry guy

He has repeatedly shown his lack of knowledge about other areas of science and engineering.

He is the last guy that has credibility about the collapse.

Apparently you are impressed that he has a science degree. I suggest the next time you have a medical problem give Ryan a call to get a diagnosis. He is a scientist after all. Good luck. Although if you have a pool problem he is your man.

[jberryhill]

5. He keeps getting promoted...

So now he's "the manager of Underwriter's Laboratory"?

Dang, that's quite a leap. Last time around, he was a site manager at a water purification testing plant owned by a subsidiary of UL.

[StrictlyRockers]

7. Now you are demoting him?

He was the head of a division, THE manager of UL's water testing division. He was the head of the division in charge of conducting very serious tests for Underwriter's Labratories, and he DOES know what is and is not good science. "Bush science" is not good science. This guy has some SERIOUS credentials. And I do find him convincing.

I have yet to see anyone here attempt to refute A SINGLE ONE of the verifiable points that he makes. If anyone could actually do that, even refute one point, then perhaps I would find him less convincing.

So as far as I am concerned you are all just spitting in the wind until you can come up with something to refute his very serious and well-founded concerns here.

SR

[salvorhardin]

8. No. That's not true.

Kevin Ryan, according to his signature on the e-mail that got him fired, was a site manager at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana.
Copy of Ryan's e-mail: http://web.archive.org/web/20041114031500/http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

SOUTH BEND (AP) — A laboratory director was fired after he wrote a letter to a federal official challenging the theory of how the World Trade Center’s twin towers collapsed.

Kevin R. Ryan was fired last week from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a South Bend-based subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories, an independent organization that certifies safety for consumer products.

Ryan wrote a letter dated Nov. 11 to an official of the National Institute of Standards and Technology — the federal agency probing the collapse of the buildings after the 2001 attacks — and also posted on a Web site claiming a cover-up of details about the attacks.

Ryan’s letter said Underwriters Laboratories certified the steel used in the World Trade Center buildings. He questioned whether the fires in those buildings reached the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel.

Underwriters Laboratories denied it ever certified the steel in the World Trade Center buildings and said Ryan wrote the letter “without UL’s knowledge or authorization.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20050107001300/http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/local/10254678.htm

From EHL's old website...

Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) is the most certified drinking water testing laboratory in America. Certified in 48 states, EHL provides comprehensive testing domestically and worldwide.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041205045919/http://www.ehl.cc

Oh, and according to EHL's website just prior to his getting fired, his official designation was Section Manager II, and his only degree certification was a BS in chemistry.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041021072754/www.ehl.cc/QualificationPages/Organiz.html

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Serious science.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

Kevin Ryan is a LIAR.

[StrictlyRockers]

6. That's a seriously damning intro they wrote.

The destruction of the World Trade Center
WTC on September
11, 2001 was not only the largest mass murder in U.S. history but
also a big surprise for the structural engineering profession, perhaps
the biggest since the collapse of the Tacoma Bridge in 1940.
No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected
the WTC towers to collapse. No skyscraper has ever before collapsed
due to fire.

Yup, not just a big surprise to structural engineers, but absolutely totally amazing to everyone with no precedents whatsoever! Defies easy explanations like the attempts made in this paper, for sure. They set themselves up for skepticism for it with that intro...

SR

[Bolo Boffin]

9. You call the explanation in that paper an "easy" one?

It is but to bwa.

[StrictlyRockers]

10. The fact remains, whether or not "Easy" is proper diction, that they admit it is unexplainable.

Check that bwa.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO PRECIDENT for this event according to them. So they admit at the outset that they are setting out to prove the unprovable. Then, surprise, surprise, they try to prove the unprovable with this highly suspect paper. There is no plausable conventional explanation for the collapses. They admit this, then they FAIL to disprove this given hypothesis.

SR

[Bolo Boffin]

11. No, they do not admit it is unexplainable!

After that paragraph, they say that it is explainable - they have page after page explaining it!

Highly suspect = SimplyRockers speak for "it's too HAAAAAAAAARD!"

[William Seger]

12. Many structural engineers

... have said they expected the towers to collapse, but of course there's no way to tell if that's 20/20 hindsight. Perhaps Bazant didn't know any structural engineers who expected the collapse, but that's not particularly relevant to the issue, which is: By now, the collapse is pretty well understood, and no laws of physics were violated.