Comment: No doubt the NIST Report is full of errors. That, however does

(See in situ)

fireant's picture

No doubt the NIST Report is full of errors. That, however does

not mean Ryan is being truthful. He is not. He is convinced the buildings were demoed and contorts his arguments to fit his story. That is not the mark of science, but a mark of demagoguery.
He propagates the false comparison of "no buildings ever collapsing due to fire". First of all, the statement is false on it's face. There have been many collapses of steel framed buildings due to fire alone. He also cites Windsor Tower in Madrid as an example, but he omits critical facts which make his analogy fail. A major portion of the tower DID collapse. It was the portion which was raw steel and not yet encased in concrete. Why would Ryan omit this crucial fact?
Secondly, the "No steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire" canard is just that; a canard. It purposefully discounts any damage caused by the airplanes. Why would an objective "scientist" resort to such trickery?
Ryan, Gage, and Jones are also parties to numerous other lies. Here are some:
-Small office fires in building 7
-Insignificant damage to 7 from 1 collapse
-7 fell straight down
Those are just some of the outright lies, and they are adding up.
They also conveniently leave out vital information left and right. A scientist would already have scoured the debris fields and found physical structural evidence of demolition in order to offer nail in the coffin proof. They haven't. Do you know why? It isn't there. All the evidence says the buildings came apart at their connections. True architects and engineers would already have explained to you the "mystery" of the leaning tops (a major clue). Why haven't they? It doesn't support their theory.
They also fail to point out the oven effect of the tops, likely a major factor which again, does not support their theory.
They failed to point out the twisting motion of 7 as it began to fall. An architect just sort of missed that? It just so happens to be another major clue which does not support their theory.
Sorry Tuskeegee, relying on Ryan for facts is unreliable, and that's being kind.

Undo what Wilson did