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.