"No melted girders"
where? Did you even look at the
link? No, you didn't.
Yes I read it, you however only read one sentence.
Its written in the quote you posted, I even
bolded it in
RED for you.
He is explaining to the interviewer that the steel likely reached 1,000 to 1,500 degrees and this was sufficient to collapse them. He then says that the word "melting" should
NOT be used for girders
BECAUSE he says that
"there was no melting of girders".
His interviewer then askes him... "
But they got soft, though, didn't they?". He is asking...
So they did not melt, but they got soft, right? Then Astaneh says yes, when steel reaches 1,000 degrees it looses its strength. So even the interviewer knows that he was saying that no steel melted. Whoever transcribed this interview did not write the last sentence correctly and forgot to include the word "no" ie. It should have read...
"I saw [no] melting of girders in World Trade Center." If not, then the entire point makes
NO SENSE AT ALL.
He cant be saying that there was no melting girders and that there was melting girders at the same time.
The whole quote, please actually
read it this time.
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
SPENCER MICHELS: But they got soft, though, didn't they?
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Yes. When steel gets to 1,000 degrees, it loses its strength.
What you're trying to use as evidence is an obvious and simple typo. We also know he doesnt agree with you. He cant be an expert one second and an idiot incompetent the next just because you want him to say things he never said.