it still doesnt make a bit of difference to his observation. he thinks it burned first and then buckled as it was attached to the building, not as it lay in the debris pile. sisson cant prove that it occured in the debris pile.
and again from the article from the berkeleyan:
For example, valuable information could come from analysis of th
e blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said. He and others suspect that the buildings collapsed because the intense heat of the jet-fuel-fed fire softened the steel to the point that the columns no longer could support the weight of the floors above. As the top 10 or so stories fell, they collapsed the floors below in a cascade of pancaking concrete floor slabs.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html
its funny how astaneh was so impressed with the steel that showed extreme steel wastage days after 911. now he is like....those arent my quotes....those are false.
so why did astaneh bring up steel flanges that had been reduced from an inch to paper thin when speaking about the floors engulfed in flames?