Wrong again, Natufian. Do you never tire of making yourself look silly? All it takes is a brief search on your part to avoid such embarrassment:
"Schweitzer then duplicated her findings with at least three other well-preserved dinosaur specimens, one 80-million-year-old hadrosaur and two 65-million-year-old tyrannosaurs. All of these specimens preserved vessels, cell-like structures, or flexible matrix that resembled bone collagen from modern specimens."
As for the muscles, see the "organically preserved muscle tissue" in the supposedly 18 mya salamander find mentioned in the OP. And if you object because the scientists refer to the salamander as a fossil, keep in mind that the scientists who found the soft tissue, proteins and blood vessels in the T. rex and Hydrosaur referred to them as fossils as well.
Don´t be ridiculous. If they had to hand actual muscle tissue they´d be able to do more than discover just...
“...a total of eight collagen peptides and 149 amino acids”
and only after the sample was *demineralized*, subjected to mass spectrometry and the results analyzed using spectral comparison algorithims, statistical evaluation.
What do you think is the reason that the pickings from this supposedly intact soft tissue are so slim?