World Renowned Scientist Says Official Story For 9/11 is a Fraud

[Toro]

So what info was a lie? I didn't say ryan was an expert as I simply pointed out some of the silliness about the purdue animation. As for the wtc....are you that desperate to obfuscate? Lol. What else you got?

Did you not read the link? He misrepresented himself and his company.

On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology — the agency probing the collapse — challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., according to Ryan, "was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings."

Ryan wrote that last year, while "requesting information," UL's chief executive officer and fire protection business manager disagreed about key issues surrounding the collapse, "except for one thing — that the samples we certified met all requirements."

UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials. ...

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

Also

How does this matter? Since you have no problem casting dispersion on others by questioning their knowledge in an attempt to discredit them, surely you understand that a noted liar with an extreme political agenda may not exactly be the best source when making an "objective" critique about computer modeling simulation, especially considering that Ryan's expertise was testing water qualities, not computer simulations nor steel. Yet, you linked to him as a source on why Purdue is not "accurate." That's pretty funny - using an inaccurate "expert" to prove inaccuracy.

 

[eots]

Shouldn't our tax-exempt "Public Safety Guardian" give us the truth?

\

Message from Kevin

By all accounts, the unprecedented events of September 11th, 2001 “changed everything”. It is therefore critical that conscientious Americans, as well as all good people around the world, understand these events in detail. Unfortunately the official reports, including The 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST WTC Report, written by those working under the direction of the Bush Administration, fall far short of providing the explanations needed.

Both the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and my former employer, Underwriters Laboratories (UL), seem to have taken the stance that the public does not have a right to know what fire resistance tests were performed on the steel component assemblies used to build the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. But since NIST’s latest story for collapse of the WTC towers depends on the fire-induced failure of these steel components, there is little information that could be more important at this time.

When I worked there, top management at UL made clear to me that UL performed these required tests. They have since stated that there is “no evidence” that any firm tested the steel. Being tax-exempt, due to their status as a public safety-testing organization, UL should be held accountable for being honest and open with the public about the history of their testing.

To help ensure this accountability, my attorneys and have been pursuing legal actions against UL. We hope to gain more information about UL’s role in the testing of the WTC steel assemblies, and any other involvement UL has had with the WTC towers or the NIST investigation. We welcome any information or other support from the public as we attempt to provide this critical public service.

Thanks for your help. Kevin Ryan

Legal Defense Fund for Kevin Ryan

 

[eots]

i call you agent fizz because of you atta story stupid..and why are you lying again ?

so which is more moronic? Calling me an agent because i am on a message board and am not a paranoid lunatic or calling me an agent because i saw someone in a bar in the philippines?

whats more moronic is claiming these very clear and bold statements are somehow mischaracterized...actually

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

 

[Fizz]

Hi.

i am an asshole that never worked with the steel from the world trade center but i misrepresented myself to claim i did.

so now i need money for lawyers.

thank you very much, suckers...
kevin

 

[CurveLight]

So what info was a lie? I didn't say ryan was an expert as I simply pointed out some of the silliness about the purdue animation. As for the wtc....are you that desperate to obfuscate? Lol. What else you got?

Did you not read the link? He misrepresented himself and his company.

On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology — the agency probing the collapse — challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., according to Ryan, "was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings."

Ryan wrote that last year, while "requesting information," UL's chief executive officer and fire protection business manager disagreed about key issues surrounding the collapse, "except for one thing — that the samples we certified met all requirements."

UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials. ...

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

Also

How does this matter? Since you have no problem casting dispersion on others by questioning their knowledge in an attempt to discredit them, surely you understand that a noted liar with an extreme political agenda may not exactly be the best source when making an "objective" critique about computer modeling simulation, especially considering that Ryan's expertise was testing water qualities, not computer simulations nor steel. Yet, you linked to him as a source on why Purdue is not "accurate." That's pretty funny - using an inaccurate "expert" to prove inaccuracy.

When Ryan put out his letter people knew:

"While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses."


You're really too much of a 9E cherry to waste my time on. Ryan got fired because he went public with the challenge. The UL does have its stamp in several areas of skyscrapers and ding ding ding relies on government contracts for both domestic and foreign livelihood. As for the silverstein thing.....you dumbass.....there are a LOT of people who read the transcripts long before 06' that have given similar impressions. Personally, I don't give a fuck what silverstein meant because it doesn't mean anything one way or another.

Holy shit man. Don't waste my time and I'm sorry I quoted your ignorance about the pnac.

 

[Toro]

When Ryan put out his letter people knew:

"While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses."


You're really too much of a 9E cherry to waste my time on. Ryan got fired because he went public with the challenge. The UL does have its stamp in several areas of skyscrapers and ding ding ding relies on government contracts for both domestic and foreign livelihood. As for the silverstein thing.....you dumbass.....there are a LOT of people who read the transcripts long before 06' that have given similar impressions. Personally, I don't give a fuck what silverstein meant because it doesn't mean anything one way or another.

Holy shit man. Don't waste my time and I'm sorry I quoted your ignorance about the pnac.

Holy fuck you're stupid.

Do you work for a living? It's hard to believe that you do, unless you're one of these shrill hacks trying to flog 9/11 conspiracy books. Ryan misrepresented what his company did. Do you realize how serious that is, especially when it pertains to one of the worst acts of war against this nation? That makes him a liar or an idiot or both. Yet you seem to have no problem referencing him about something you clearly know fuck all about.

God you're a moron and a fraud. At least the other conspiracists here don't try to hide behind some cloak of objectivity. You're just another fucking twoofer, and a dishonest one at that.

Yeah, so tell us about global geo-political strategy, fraud.

 

[CurveLight]

When Ryan put out his letter people knew:

"While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses."


You're really too much of a 9E cherry to waste my time on. Ryan got fired because he went public with the challenge. The UL does have its stamp in several areas of skyscrapers and ding ding ding relies on government contracts for both domestic and foreign livelihood. As for the silverstein thing.....you dumbass.....there are a LOT of people who read the transcripts long before 06' that have given similar impressions. Personally, I don't give a fuck what silverstein meant because it doesn't mean anything one way or another.

Holy shit man. Don't waste my time and I'm sorry I quoted your ignorance about the pnac.

Holy fuck you're stupid.

Do you work for a living? It's hard to believe that you do, unless you're one of these shrill hacks trying to flog 9/11 conspiracy books. Ryan misrepresented what his company did. Do you realize how serious that is, especially when it pertains to one of the worst acts of war against this nation? That makes him a liar or an idiot or both. Yet you seem to have no problem referencing him about something you clearly know fuck all about.

God you're a moron and a fraud. At least the other conspiracists here don't try to hide behind some cloak of objectivity. You're just another fucking twoofer, and a dishonest one at that.

Yeah, so tell us about global geo-political strategy, fraud.

Looks to me like you don't know what ryan actually said and that you look at 9E through a screw loose lens, that is why you were ignorant of the fact the families are responsible for the truth movement. Ryan's point was the components (not the steel beams themselves) were rated to a certain code. I took the liberty of googling that code so you could choose which tech source fits your wheels the best.
ASTM E119 - Google Search

Oh, and I've never said I am anything but a twoofer. I've made that very clear several times on here but I guess that somehow slipped below your stellar detecting sherlock abilities.

 

[Liability]

Hi Creative:

Official Explanation for 9/11 is a Fraud

World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, * * * *

* * * *
GL,

Terral

What a fucking lying scumbag douche.

Making an unduly long post repeating the numerous lies you tell over and over again -- lies which have already been roundly and soundly and frequently and fully rebutted -- does nothing but take up space you dishonest piece of imbecile shit.

The "world renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis" is a fucking nothing in the field of study necessary to have anything remotely interesting to say on the actual topic.

Even where she does have some claim to expertise, she's established herself as a fucking nut.

But in the field of the "study" of what happened on 9/11/2001, she is a nothing, just like
Terral and id-eots, etc.

The plane that crashed in PA on 9/11/2001 did not completely disappear, you liar. It had a great deal of its component pieces recovered, buried deeply within the crater it left when it crashed.

ALL that can be said of your moronic reguritation post is that it is

long. But, like you are, it is mostly inaccurate and deliberately dishonest.

Fucking 9/11 Troofers are filthy lying scum.

Merry Christmas.

 

[CurveLight]

This document helps show Ryan's concerns were not exactly as far fetched as some wish.

"Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) will propose revisions to the UL 263 Standard

Technical Panel (STP) regarding loading requirements, deflection limits and time-

temperature curve."
untitled

Here's some more:

"These fire tests are applicable to assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls and partitions, columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies for floors and roofs. They are also applicable to other assemblies and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a finished building."
Scope for UL 263


Here is yet another link.

Unable to set browser cookie


Gee.....why would anyone think the UL has ANYTHING to do with fire ratings on the components of buildings?

Maybe if I'm called a twoofer 5 times while you click your heels 4 times you can make all of that information just disappear? Lol....the worst part is you dumbasses stomp around like you're educated when ten minutes of research will show the UL does play a role in fire testing building components.

 

[Toro]

Could you please show us anywhere in your links that suggests that UL tested components in the WTC before 9/11? From your own post.

This document helps show Ryan's concerns were not exactly as far fetched as some wish.

"Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) will propose revisions to the UL 263 Standard

Technical Panel (STP) regarding loading requirements, deflection limits and time-

temperature curve."
untitled

Now please tell us how proposing revisions in standards after 9/11 proves that they were testing components before 9/11? I mean, you did see the dates from you own links, right?

Here's some more:

"These fire tests are applicable to assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls and partitions, columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies for floors and roofs. They are also applicable to other assemblies and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a finished building."
Scope for UL 263

Yes, it confirms your first link, which deals with codes after 9/11.

Here is yet another link.

Unable to set browser cookie

So did you pay $564 for the report and read it, one that was dated April 4 2003, or are you just posting shit while having no idea what it says?

Gee.....why would anyone think the UL has ANYTHING to do with fire ratings on the components of buildings?

Gee, I wonder why anyone would think that these links above have ANYTHING to do with Ryan's allegation that

the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.

Kevin R. Ryan Terminated at Underwriters Laboratories: Area Man Stirs Debate on WTC Collapse: South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe JOHN DOBBERSTEIN / South Bend Tribune 22nov04

I mean, if you're going to play, at least try.

Maybe if I'm called a twoofer 5 times while you click your heels 4 times you can make all of that information just disappear? Lol....the worst part is you dumbasses stomp around like you're educated when ten minutes of research will show the UL does play a role in fire testing building components.

Hey twoofer, if this is your idea of "education," you are failing you classes bad. Perhaps you should take 10 minutes and do some more "research" you so quaintly proclaim and read up about the case, a case Ryan lost.

The letter sent by Plaintiff and posted on the Internet included no indication that it was merely his personal opinion being expressed. Instead, the letter clearly bore his company title and was from UL’s email system, thus identifying the author of the offensive letter as a UL employee. UL then terminated Plaintiff's employment because his letter clearly created the impression that the outrageous opinions contained therein were those of the company. ...

On November 11, 2004, Plaintiff composed a letter to NIST, Compl. ¶ 19, and sent the correspondence from his UL e-mail account. Compl. ¶ 30. As a result, the letter contained Plaintiff’s official company title. Compl. ¶ 30. This letter contained many false or unsubstantiated assertions by Plaintiff, including that UL had tested and certified the steel used in the WTC towers, Compl. ¶ 19(c), and that a “scientific analysis of the evidence” proved that the building had not collapsed from the jet fuel that burned following the impact of the hijacked airplanes. Compl. ¶ 19(e).

http://sites.google.com/site/enigmanwoliaison/ULBriefonMotiontoDismiss.pdf

There is no proof to Ryan's allegations, and your posts supposedly contending that there was something to it makes you look like a fool.

Sorry to pwn your ass so bad.

 

[CurveLight]

Could you please show us anywhere in your links that suggests that UL tested components in the WTC before 9/11? From your own post.

This document helps show Ryan's concerns were not exactly as far fetched as some wish.

"Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) will propose revisions to the UL 263 Standard

Technical Panel (STP) regarding loading requirements, deflection limits and time-

temperature curve."
untitled

Now please tell us how proposing revisions in standards after 9/11 proves that they were testing components before 9/11? I mean, you did see the dates from you own links, right?

Here's some more:

"These fire tests are applicable to assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls and partitions, columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies for floors and roofs. They are also applicable to other assemblies and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a finished building."
Scope for UL 263

Yes, it confirms your first link, which deals with codes after 9/11.



So did you pay $564 for the report and read it, one that was dated April 4 2003, or are you just posting shit while having no idea what it says?



Gee, I wonder why anyone would think that these links above have ANYTHING to do with Ryan's allegation that



Kevin R. Ryan Terminated at Underwriters Laboratories: Area Man Stirs Debate on WTC Collapse: South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe JOHN DOBBERSTEIN / South Bend Tribune 22nov04

I mean, if you're going to play, at least try.

Maybe if I'm called a twoofer 5 times while you click your heels 4 times you can make all of that information just disappear? Lol....the worst part is you dumbasses stomp around like you're educated when ten minutes of research will show the UL does play a role in fire testing building components.

Hey twoofer, if this is your idea of "education," you are failing you classes bad. Perhaps you should take 10 minutes and do some more "research" you so quaintly proclaim and read up about the case, a case Ryan lost.

The letter sent by Plaintiff and posted on the Internet included no indication that it was merely his personal opinion being expressed. Instead, the letter clearly bore his company title and was from UL’s email system, thus identifying the author of the offensive letter as a UL employee. UL then terminated Plaintiff's employment because his letter clearly created the impression that the outrageous opinions contained therein were those of the company. ...

On November 11, 2004, Plaintiff composed a letter to NIST, Compl. ¶ 19, and sent the correspondence from his UL e-mail account. Compl. ¶ 30. As a result, the letter contained Plaintiff’s official company title. Compl. ¶ 30. This letter contained many false or unsubstantiated assertions by Plaintiff, including that UL had tested and certified the steel used in the WTC towers, Compl. ¶ 19(c), and that a “scientific analysis of the evidence” proved that the building had not collapsed from the jet fuel that burned following the impact of the hijacked airplanes. Compl. ¶ 19(e).

http://sites.google.com/site/enigmanwoliaison/ULBriefonMotiontoDismiss.pdf

There is no proof to Ryan's allegations, and your posts supposedly contending that there was something to it makes you look like a fool.

Sorry to pwn your ass so bad.

You are pretty fucking slow. I didn't post the info to say he was 100% correct. I posted to show he wasn't AS FAR OFF as some pretend. Then you try to bring up as something as the date in one link? Here ya go.....

"The revisions adopted in 1970 have introduced, for

the first time in the history of the standard, the concept of

fire endurance classifications based on two conditions of

support: restrained and unrestrained. As a result, most

specimens will be fire tested in such a manner as to derive

these two classifications."
Isolations


Got any other strawmen you want to knock down you ignorant ****?

 

[Toro]

You are pretty fucking slow. I didn't post the info to say he was 100% correct. I posted to show he wasn't AS FAR OFF as some pretend. Then you try to bring up as something as the date in one link? Here ya go.....

"The revisions adopted in 1970 have introduced, for

the first time in the history of the standard, the concept of

fire endurance classifications based on two conditions of

support: restrained and unrestrained. As a result, most

specimens will be fire tested in such a manner as to derive

these two classifications."
Isolations


Got any other strawmen you want to knock down you ignorant ****?

I feel bad pwning a retarded person, even if you are a twoofer.

UL assisting in code revision has nothing to do with UL testing steel components in the WTC. Your links prove nothing, including your assertions that his allegations are not "as far off." If you are too dumb to understand this, I feel sorry for you.

Epic fail.

 

[eots]

and then there is this fact..

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[Fizz]

and then there is this fact..

although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.
OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

no evidence of the temperatures doesnt mean they didnt exist. it means there is no evidence.

well, other than the fact that the buildings collapsed, i guess...

 

[eots]

the building collapsing ..would be evidence of the building collapsing...not evidence of the cause of the collapse...don't be stupid

 

[Fizz]

the building collapsing ..would be evidence of the building collapsing...not evidence of the cause of the collapse...don't be stupid

hmmmm.... building on fire. (i'm fairly certain this is undisputed)

hmmmmm..... building collapses... (i'm fairly certain this is undisputed)


naaaaahhhhhhhhhhh one thing cant have anything to do with the other..... you think??

so where is your evidence of explosives again?

 

[Fizz]

where are the explosions?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc[/ame]

watch the corner of the building buckle with NO EXPLOSIONS.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8[/ame]

this is what REAL building demolitions sound like. do you hear any similarity at all?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ[/ame]

 

[CurveLight]

You are pretty fucking slow. I didn't post the info to say he was 100% correct. I posted to show he wasn't AS FAR OFF as some pretend. Then you try to bring up as something as the date in one link? Here ya go.....

"The revisions adopted in 1970 have introduced, for

the first time in the history of the standard, the concept of

fire endurance classifications based on two conditions of

support: restrained and unrestrained. As a result, most

specimens will be fire tested in such a manner as to derive

these two classifications."
Isolations


Got any other strawmen you want to knock down you ignorant ****?

I feel bad pwning a retarded person, even if you are a twoofer.

UL assisting in code revision has nothing to do with UL testing steel components in the WTC. Your links prove nothing, including your assertions that his allegations are not "as far off." If you are too dumb to understand this, I feel sorry for you.

Epic fail.

You're fucking stupid as they come. The UL has a history of fire ratings in numerous areas of components for buildings. Did ryan fuck up? Yes. Does that make everything else disappear? Only in your childish world. This has been nothing but a shitball redherring. The links all show the UL plays a role in ratings and structural components for buildings. As badly as you want to pretend ryan's fuck ups make that disappear, it doesn't.


More info:

"All four WTC floor system fire tests used the standard procedure known as ASTM E119 for rating the fire resistance of a building structural unit such as a floor system, column or beam under prescribed conditions. The tests were conducted as part of a NIST contract at two separate UL fire test laboratories to take advantage of the different capabilities available at these facilities."
http://firechief.com/news/nist-tests-wtc9835/

 

[Toro]

You're fucking stupid as they come. The UL has a history of fire ratings in numerous areas of components for buildings. Did ryan fuck up? Yes. Does that make everything else disappear? Only in your childish world. This has been nothing but a shitball redherring. The links all show the UL plays a role in ratings and structural components for buildings. As badly as you want to pretend ryan's fuck ups make that disappear, it doesn't.


More info:

"All four WTC floor system fire tests used the standard procedure known as ASTM E119 for rating the fire resistance of a building structural unit such as a floor system, column or beam under prescribed conditions. The tests were conducted as part of a NIST contract at two separate UL fire test laboratories to take advantage of the different capabilities available at these facilities."
NIST Tests Provide Fire Resistance Data on World Trade Center Floor Systems

To repeat

On November 11, 2004, Plaintiff composed a letter to NIST, Compl. ¶ 19, and sent the correspondence from his UL e-mail account. Compl. ¶ 30. As a result, the letter contained Plaintiff’s official company title. Compl. ¶ 30. This letter contained many false or unsubstantiated assertions by Plaintiff, including that UL had tested and certified the steel used in the WTC towers, Compl. ¶ 19(c), and that a “scientific analysis of the evidence” proved that the building had not collapsed from the jet fuel that burned following the impact of the hijacked airplanes. Compl. ¶ 19(e).

http://sites.google.com/site/enigmanwoliaison/ULBriefonMotiontoDismiss.pdf

In your link

Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the NIST WTC investigation, explained that the four laboratory tests provide only a means for evaluating the relative fire resistance rating of the floor systems under standard fire conditions and according to accepted test procedures. Sunder cautioned, “These tests alone cannot be used to determine the actual performance of the floor systems in the collapse of the WTC towers. However, they are already providing valuable insight into the role that the floors may have played in causing the inward bowing of the perimeter columns minutes before both buildings collapsed.”

You said

This document helps show Ryan's concerns were not exactly as far fetched as some wish.

I will make this simple for you.

A.) Ryan said the company tested the steel in the WTC "proving" that the steel did not melt from the jet fuel.
B.) The company in fact tested comparable floor systems of the WTC and made recommendations to the revisions of the code.

Even more simple

A.) Ryan - Tested WTC steel
B.) Company - Did not test WTC steel.

Oh yes, that is indeed "far fetched." How much more wrong do you want?

Its no wonder that you twoofer foilers make enormous leaps over the canyons of logic trying to tie series of events together. If you can believe that Ryan is not "far off," it is no surprise guys like you think that a PNAC document is "proof" of intent to instigate 9/11.

 

[CurveLight]

You're fucking stupid as they come. The UL has a history of fire ratings in numerous areas of components for buildings. Did ryan fuck up? Yes. Does that make everything else disappear? Only in your childish world. This has been nothing but a shitball redherring. The links all show the UL plays a role in ratings and structural components for buildings. As badly as you want to pretend ryan's fuck ups make that disappear, it doesn't.


More info:

"All four WTC floor system fire tests used the standard procedure known as ASTM E119 for rating the fire resistance of a building structural unit such as a floor system, column or beam under prescribed conditions. The tests were conducted as part of a NIST contract at two separate UL fire test laboratories to take advantage of the different capabilities available at these facilities."
NIST Tests Provide Fire Resistance Data on World Trade Center Floor Systems

To repeat

On November 11, 2004, Plaintiff composed a letter to NIST, Compl. ¶ 19, and sent the correspondence from his UL e-mail account. Compl. ¶ 30. As a result, the letter contained Plaintiff’s official company title. Compl. ¶ 30. This letter contained many false or unsubstantiated assertions by Plaintiff, including that UL had tested and certified the steel used in the WTC towers, Compl. ¶ 19(c), and that a “scientific analysis of the evidence” proved that the building had not collapsed from the jet fuel that burned following the impact of the hijacked airplanes. Compl. ¶ 19(e).

http://sites.google.com/site/enigmanwoliaison/ULBriefonMotiontoDismiss.pdf

In your link

Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the NIST WTC investigation, explained that the four laboratory tests provide only a means for evaluating the relative fire resistance rating of the floor systems under standard fire conditions and according to accepted test procedures. Sunder cautioned, “These tests alone cannot be used to determine the actual performance of the floor systems in the collapse of the WTC towers. However, they are already providing valuable insight into the role that the floors may have played in causing the inward bowing of the perimeter columns minutes before both buildings collapsed.”

You said

This document helps show Ryan's concerns were not exactly as far fetched as some wish.

I will make this simple for you.

A.) Ryan said the company tested the steel in the WTC "proving" that the steel did not melt from the jet fuel.
B.) The company in fact tested comparable floor systems of the WTC and made recommendations to the revisions of the code.

Even more simple

A.) Ryan - Tested WTC steel
B.) Company - Did not test WTC steel.

Oh yes, that is indeed "far fetched." How much more wrong do you want?

Its no wonder that you twoofer foilers make enormous leaps over the canyons of logic trying to tie series of events together. If you can believe that Ryan is not "far off," it is no surprise guys like you think that a PNAC document is "proof" of intent to instigate 9/11.

I'd say you are one dumb fuck but I don't feel like being complimentary. Instead of admitting there are legitimate connections you desperately search for anything to hold onto your bullshit. NIST contracted the UL to do the fucking fire testing you willfully blind shit tampon. Ryan has also pointed out rebuttles:

"We also know that UL consulted directly with the Port Authority’s WTC construction team, on fire resistance issues, as the towers were being built. This was described in the May 2003 NIST progress report that shows that the towers were built specifically to UL standards for fire resistance.[4] In this report NIST references a letter written in 1970 by UL management, on the subject of fire resistance of the towers, that was addressed directly to the Port Authority's construction manager (ref. 33)."

I'm guessing a dumb scrotum rag like yourself could easily (willfully) ignore the significance so please read it again you arrogant rat twat. Then there is:

"But the May 2003 NIST report says that, in 1970, UL actually tested a floor assembly that was "similar to the WTC floor system". It is important to note that the results produced in 1970 were the same as those from the August 2004 UL floor tests - only 3 inches of sagging after 120 minutes in the furnace."

Read that again you shit wad.

“The furnace tests, conducted at places like Underwriters Laboratories here, focus on the ability of separate building components -- a steel column or a concrete roof support -- to survive temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees.”

"UL's own Tom Chapin, the chemist and manager of their Fire Protection division, with whom I was in contact, admitted to UL's involvement in testing steel (i.e. that which allowed the towers to stand) for the WTC by writing -- "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." [9]"
Three Years Later: Another Look At Three Claims from UL - 911truth.org

No doubt you are on cognitive dissonance overload by now.