Which is completely understandable considering where the samples came from! They did look at the steel from those areas. I have shown you Astaneh commenting on steel which he believed was softened by the extreme heat. He estimated that the steel had to be approximately 2000F to produce what he saw. You have posted a quote of his where he was discussing the same subject. The investigation teams believed that they had plenty of evidence of high temperatures. This is a the contradictory nature of the many claims (Not necessarily addressing you Tony). Truthers repeatedly point to evidence of high temperatures when they think it confirms an incendiary while at the same time claim the evidence points to no high temperatures. They were able to identify where every single piece came from so they probably chose pieces in the best possible condition. Those would be the pieces unaffected by the fire. As I have conceded several times now it is disappointing that these were the pieces that received the metallurgical microanalysis. If you want to make a point of the biased or flawed selection then that is fine. But you don't do that. You present that 229 pieces were analyzed with none showing temperatures over 600C knowing full well that very few were from the area actually expected to experience high temperatures. That is what I take issue with. If it were implausible for fires to get hot enough to weaken steel to the point of such a collapse then perhaps I would be more suspicious of these results. However it is completely reasonable that the steel reached those temperatures and is entirely consistent with previous examples of building fires, several fire tests, observed bowing(testimony not the photographs), computer simulations, reports from the scrapyards ect ect. I have been skeptical of your claims as they are in direct contradiction to those of Astaneh, who has experience investigating buildings affected by fires, natural disaster and terrorist attacks. I'm at work and I won’t challenge you on it at this stage.