Reply #20: Kevin Ryan was wrong. [View All]

[AZCat]

That is the essence of his situation.

My peers have a nice habit of only wanting to voice opinions about issues that they are familiar with. Richard Feynman once made the point that an opinion expressed by a scientist out of his area of expertise is no more valuable than the opinion of any other layman. Perhaps you have read all the technical articles related to the collapse of the WTC and can comment on any particulars, such as where the various collapse mechanisms (or other issues) are discussed and verified (or invalidated)? I have read articles myself that have disagreed with the NIST report, and am fairly certain you are not familiar with the body of work that relates to the WTC collapses, else why would you be making statements that are contrary to what is actually out there? Now do those articles make sweeping statements? Generally not, because that isn't how the engineering community works. If you are looking for a blanket refutation of the NIST WTC study you won't find it - various individuals look at separate pieces and produce reports full of qualifiers but no-one is going to spend the time to verify or refute the whole thing until there is a preponderance of analysis. Sure, it isn't newsworthy (at least to laypeople) but it has the benefit of being right.