[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: U.L. Truth Is Not a Matter of Popularity UL Truth Is Not a Matter of Popularity Submitted by Kevin Ryan on Sun, 04/22/2007 - 6:45pm. Kevin Ryan “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 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?. 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
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#0)
Dr. Griffin's new book is going to make royal fools out of "Popular Mechanics."
You mean that article written by Michael Chertoff's cousin? Wasn't it funny how they pretended they were not related at first?
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Michael Chertoff of Reichland Security was behind the Popular Mechanics article.
I hadn't read your note before posting mine. Yes, his 25 year old cousin. I think Chertoff is another American who is more loyal to Israel than this country.
BAC uses this deceptive word play all the time.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||