if the steel had ONLY softened he would have ONLY said "softened", a description of partially melted steel would have included "melted", "melting", and "SOFTENING". You are seeing ONLY what you want to see. if a block of ice sits in a pool of water, we can saying it is "melting"!! I have given you the exact quote and linked to the article a myriad of times, but you can't resist calling me a LIAR over melted/melting. If your argument rests on a distinction between "melted" and "melting", then your argument is fucked. I am not interested in your interpretations anymore, it is clear you prefer word puzzles over logic and evidence. a bridge is a different structure, would it have survived a hurricane as the towers were designed to withstand? many bridges just collapse with poor maintenance, there have been a few recent examples. do you have the answer to 4-across and 10-down? He had little to work with - 90% of the steel was never inspected and the blueprints were withheld by silverstein until leaked to Steven Jones in 2007. This is what Astaneh says - "TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS - The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents". If you understand science, you'll understand that a Hypothesis is not a definitive conclusion, that is why he titles his paper "A HYPOTHESIS FOR WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED". "tentative conclusions", "A hypothesis", "most likely," does that sound like a very clear definitive set-in-stone gospel to you? only a politician or a lawyer or a priest would put it to bed there, a scientist would not. Once more you make a bastard of logic and evidence with your interpretation "he has made it...very clear that the fires alone caused the collapse". and "came to the conclusion that the fires alone caused the collapse."