Molten Steel

[BenBurch]

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the on-going thermite reactions be rather bright and obvious?

OH YES. That much would have blinded half of NYC and nobody would be asking this question now.

 

[pomeroo]

Premise #1: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center.

REJECTED: the evidence for molten steel is nonexistent.

Premise #2: Assuming that NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission represent the official government position then there is no official explanation for the molten steel

REJECTED: the molten metal in the rubble pile has never been identified as steel.

Premise #3: Without determing what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed.

Conclusion: A New Independent Investigation Is Needed to determine whether what caused the molten steel had any relation to the question why World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were completely destroyed.

REJECTED: there is no reason to believe the tendentious fabrications of agenda-driven cranks. Your imaginary thermite could not keep steel in a molten state for several weeks. You have no idea of what you're alleging.

 

[Jontg]

God... I honestly can't believe I used to be one of these people. This sort of blatant intellectual dishonesty... TheWholeSoul, you don't even believe your own ********, do you? What the hell was I on, and how can I destroy the world's supply of it?

 

[~enigma~]

Didn't keep them.

I assumed you had a spherical shell that would contain the 7000 tons of Thermite and that all of the energy expended would be in that ball from the start. Then I assumed that it would harden only around its surface going inward like a planet does, and cool at the rate heat could leak out of that sphere (which was not that large due to the density) into ambient air and given those assumptions, there was ~ one ton of molten metal at the center in three weeks when I had about 7000 tons of molten metal to start with.

This was a best case; In the real site it would have been scattered and would have cooled a lot quicker.

In other words you did the old calculate in a shell trick...I learnt that from watching Get Smart

IOW, the only way for thermite to make molten metal weeks later would have been if a helicopter dumped thermite over ground zero hourly with an unlimited supply. Only thing is there is a pesky problem called reality that would prevent it.

 

[Alareth]

IOW, the only way for thermite to make molten metal weeks later would have been if a helicopter dumped thermite over ground zero hourly with an unlimited supply. Only thing is there is a pesky problem called reality that would prevent it.

Reality has never been a factor in any truth movement reasoning process.

 

[thewholesoul]

Unfortunately I cannot respond to all individually so I will focus only on the counter arguments directed at my three premises.

In premise one I state: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center. This evidence included (1) testimony (2) relics (3) thermal images.
In order to debunk my premise all the evidence had to be debunked because all the evidence proves independently that molten steel was present at GZ.

The most direct counter argument was the following:

the evidence for molten steel is nonexistent

. But this can be easily dismissed since it does not actually address the evidence I posted, nor does pomeroo provide any reason supporting his head-in-the-sand conjecture.

Next we have

The existence of the molten steel has not been unambiguously established, as it is purely anecdotal, and in particular involves no sampling and subsequent analysis of the material claimed to be molten steel

I recognise that no sampling and subsequent analysis was conducted indeed I am arguing that there should be. Anecdotal evidence is defined as evidence: “based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anecdotal but we do not need scientific analysis to know that steel melts at 1500c. Thermal images recorded temperatures in excess of 1500c.

Next we have the usual counter arguments against testimony. They were not qualified to distinguish between molten steel and molten metal. I specifically posted only the testimony where molten steel and not mloten metal is stated and some were qualified to recognizee the difference. In any case, thermal images prove that temperatures were sufficient to melt steel so whether some were unable to distinguish between molten steel and molten metal is a toothless argument that does not affect premise one.

In premise two I state: Assuming that NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission represent the official government position then there is no official explanation for the molten steel. The only logical counter argument would be to produce the official explanation of the molten steel. The only person to come anywhere near addressing this premise was the master poster boloboffin who posted a quote from NIST frequesntly asked questions that I had already included in my post #2 where I criticized the lack of ‘explanation’ in their cited explanation. It is perhaps my fault however, I should have stated more clearly in premise two that any official explanation must be proven. What NIST stated in the comment posted by boloboffin was a possible explanation and an empirical statement that has never been tested by NIST.

Next we have

Why, exactly, is the government required to have, or state, an official explanation of every phenomenon observed, ever?

This line of argument of course implicitly concedes the premise I wish to establish i.e. that there is no proven official explanation of the molten steel. It also fails to appreciate the point made in premise three. Besides the presence of molten steel is not just another run of the mill anomoly it was a unique event never before seen following a building collapse and it deserves closer attention for this reason alone.

In premise three I state: Without determining what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed. Now the only logical counter argument to this premise is to argue that in fact they can rule out any connection between the causes of total collapse and the presence of molten steel eventhough, as established in premise two, there is no proven official explanation as to the causes behind the molten steel. Predictably nobody makes this argument:

The post collapse states of the metals in the rubble piles were rendered such by the rubble pile fires, not by any mechanism inside the towers. We know this because of the lack of molten steel sightings prior to collapse.

They are ruled out as unrelated and nonrelevant because no sightings of molten steel were made prior to collapse, and all were post collapse. Therefore, any such sightings can be attributed to the fires in the rubble piles

This is an absurd line of argument. Assuming molten steel was produced prior to collapse it would have been produced during the collapse and would therefore not be sighted amid the massive dust clouds. We know that metal was melted during the collapse because various microsphericules were dsicovered in WTC dust samples, some were even partially evaporated source . Moreover we know that these dust samples were produced during the collapse and not before because the WTC Dust samples were compared with controls

Detailed charcaterization of WTC Dust revealed that it possessed a unique set of characteristics by which it could be identified and differentiated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainity from dust that had other origins.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060114...ignature.Composition+and+Morphology.Final.pdf

The presence of molten metal in the piles after the collapse is no indication of the state inside the towers prior to collapse, especially in the light of evidence showing the high temperatures in the rubble piles, once such piece of evidence you yourself quoted.

Hotspots were seen from space just two hours after the collapse, the first sighting of molten steel was seen on the 12th of september which indicates temperatures of 1500c and such temperatures are confirmed by further thermal images recorded from a helicopter. Yes temperatures in the rubble pile were sufficient to melt steel but the question is how could a smoldering rubble pile generate such temperatures to melt the steel in the first place? Prior to and since 911, rubble piles following a fire induced collapse have never produced temperatures sufficient to melt steel. Morerover rubble piles following conventional demolitions have never produced temperatures sufficient to melt steel. So how did the rubble pile generate these temperatures so hot and so soon? This explanation has not been provided by NIST, and like you, they assume that there is nothing unusual about a hydrocarbon fire generating sufficient temperatures to melt steel in the rubble pile but my point is that this assumption has never been tested or proven (see premise two). Until this assumption has been tested and proven it is impossible to rule out a connection between the presence of molten steel and why the towers collapsed the way they did.

So in conclusion neither premise one, two, or three were refuted. That means that my conclusion based on those premises remains hence a new and Independent investigation Is Needed to determine whether what caused the molten steel had any relation to the question why World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were completely destroyed.

That conclusion is irrelevant. Your logic train derails at the point you presume that the post-collapse observations indicate anything about the pre-collapse conditions. They do not

How do you know? Your making an empircal claim that a smoldering hydrocarbon rubble pile can produce hotspots from space, molten and evaporated steel, I'm saying prove it. Show me just one example when a rubble pile from a fire induced collapse generated temperatures sufficient to melt steel. Besides my conclusión was based on three premises and you have failed to refute any.

I would tend to agree subject to the proviso that a small university-based research project would be the appropriate level of investigation. There's probably one going on somewhere. However, I suspect that's not what you had in mind.

Its a step in the right direction Dave. But I was under the impression that NIST were responsible for determining why and how the towers collapsed. Since they obviously deny premise one i.e. that there was molten steel present in the rubble pile we need a new and independent investigation not conducted by these shameless liars. But i do welcome any tests even if it came in the form of universities. And no ElMondo, John Gross was not only discussing pre-collapse state go watch the video again specifically the part when he address the issue of eyewitness testimony of molten steel in the rubble pile. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY

Extras:

I wonder how the heavy equipment was able to reach into a furnace that was able to melt the ends of the steel column and not melt itself.

the heavy equipment extracted material from the top of the rubble pile not from the center of the rubble pile where temperatures were much hotter. If you however buried the heavy equipment beneath the rubble pile with temperatures exceeding 1500c then I can ssure you that it would become molten.

Actually, no. those quotes are hearsay from people who just repeated rumors without any basis in fact.

It is a fact that steel melts at 1500c
it is a fact that temperatures of 1500c were recorded at GZ
it is a fact that lots of steel was present at GZ
it is a fact that there had to be molten steel present at GZ
and the fact that people saw this molten steel is not hearsay based on rumors without any basis in fact

God... I honestly can't believe I used to be one of these people. This sort of blatant intellectual dishonesty... TheWholeSoul, you don't even believe your own ********, do you? What the hell was I on, and how can I destroy the world's supply of it?

are you going to bark all day or do you care to refute at least one of the three premises?

So basically, thewholesoul has been OWNED. Thanks for playing.

owned? not one debunker in this room has debunked a single premise. maybe you will have a stab at it. i am not sure what your defintion of owned is - but according to mine I am as free as a bird.

peace

 

[BenBurch]

No, son, don't lie. There was no molten steel there and you know it.

 

[Travis]

How in the world could molten steel, if there was any, after the collapse have any bearing on how the collapse happened? Are you contending that multiple electric arc blast furnaces were secretly installed in the WTC and were operating on 9/11 and they collapsed the building?

Can you hypothesize any cause of molten steel weeks after the collapse that would have also been the proximate cause of the collapse?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Its a step in the right direction Dave. But I was under the impression that NIST were responsible for determining why and how the towers collapsed. Since they obviously deny premise one i.e. that there was molten steel present in the rubble pile we need a new and independent investigation not conducted by these shameless liars.

Describing NIST as shameless liars is not exactly going to help here. You've claimed that molten steel was a unique event never seen before following a building collapse. Since there is no evidence of molten steel preceding the building collapse, even if your first premise were correct the entire question is still irrelevant. In considering how and why the towers collapsed, NIST were entirely reasonable in not considering the effects of the collapse as possible causes.

If, indeed, there were temperatures in the rubble pile even a couple of days after the collapses that could have liquefied steel, it has been shown over and over again that those temperatures must have been sustained by slow combustion in the rubble pile. Heat generated before or during the collapse would have dissipated over a matter of hours, so the only possible explanation of these high temperatures is that heat was being generated continuously in the rubble pile. This is not possible with a thermite reaction, which cannot be controlled because it contains its own oxygen supply. If sufficient heat was being generated to maintain temperatures this high, then it's trivial to determine that enough heat was being generated to achieve these temperatures in the first place. The existence of high temperatures days after the collapse is therefore its own evidence that no processes were necessary during the collapse to generate the heat needed to achieve these temperatures.

Since you have no evidence that unexpectedly high temperatures were generated before or during the collapse, NIST shouldn't be considering them as a possible cause. Conspiracy theorists have criticised NIST for considering possible causes of collapse for which there is far more evidence, on the basis that this evidence is insufficient; yet they insist NIST should have considered causes for which there is no evidence whatsoever. It's hypocritical and dishonest.

And yet you have the nerve to call NIST "shameless liars".

Dave

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This is an absurd line of argument. Assuming molten steel was produced prior to collapse it would have been produced during the collapse and would therefore not be sighted amid the massive dust clouds. We know that metal was melted during the collapse because various microsphericules were dsicovered in WTC dust samples, some were even partially evaporated source .

TWS, just an FYI that molybdenum is used in most grades of steel construction:

Source

"Molybdenum is used in all types of stainless steel to improve the corrosion resistance, particularly the pitting and crevice corrosion resistance in chloride containing solutions."

This bars all the other potential sources which members have discussed before, so I ask you, which are you focusing on? The presence of molybdenum itself, or the quantity to determine validity as evidence?

Hotspots were seen from space just two hours after the collapse, the first sighting of molten steel was seen on the 12th of september which indicates temperatures of 1500c and such temperatures are confirmed by further thermal images recorded from a helicopter. Yes temperatures in the rubble pile were sufficient to melt steel but the question is how could a smoldering rubble pile generate such temperatures to melt the steel in the first place? Prior to and since 911, rubble piles following a fire induced collapse have never produced temperatures sufficient to melt steel. Morerover rubble piles following conventional demolitions have never produced temperatures sufficient to melt steel. So how did the rubble pile generate these temperatures so hot and so soon? This explanation has not been provided by NIST, and like you, they assume that there is nothing unusual about a hydrocarbon fire generating sufficient temperatures to melt steel in the rubble pile but my point is that this assumption has never been tested or proven (see premise two). Until this assumption has been tested and proven it is impossible to rule out a connection between the presence of molten steel and why the towers collapsed the way they did.

Bolded... forgive my nitpicking but which category of building construction are you talking about? reinforced concrete? steel? wood?

We've discussed this before. How many controlled demolitions have ever used therm?te? Are there any precedents to verify what we should expect in a therm?te induced collapse?

Were any of the buildings in controlled demolitions ever on fire before they sat off their explosive charges? (This might be telling you something)

Was any physical evidence found and verified to be either explosives or incendiaries? Despite the impossibility of explosives or incendiaries being able to retain a coherent form after the collapse, there should have been some physical remains that should have been found in the last 7 years, if your claim has merit.

How do you know? Your making an empircal claim that a smoldering hydrocarbon rubble pile can produce hotspots from space, molten and evaporated steel, I'm saying prove it.

Conventional thermite has been ruled out in a post collapse situation, and you've since turned to claiming super/nano thermite instead, which is a claim which has neither been verified by Jones, nor by any independent third party. The burden of proof is on you to prove that incendiaries were responsible in the first place (in other words the evidence is useless). You've ignored the mass of evidence that contradicts the use of incendiary devices and hinge your premise on a single stream of sparks/molten metal which has not been definitively identified, semi-molten metal (metal that retains a solid but very malleable, being lifted by a tractor), and molybdenum particles which were a part of the steel work in the towers, among others

 

[Travis]

As rubble piles from 110 story buildings aren't exactly common I have to wonder what in the world is being used as basis of comparison? Have there ever been rubble piles from 110 story buildings that didn't have high temperature fires in them?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This is an absurd line of argument. Assuming molten steel was produced prior to collapse it would have been produced during the collapse and would therefore not be sighted amid the massive dust clouds. We know that metal was melted during the collapse because various microsphericules were dsicovered in WTC dust samples, some were even partially evaporated source . Moreover we know that these dust samples were produced during the collapse and not before because the WTC Dust samples were compared with controls

Various incorrect elements in that statement. First of all, no, the microspherules do not prove molten steel inside the WTC prior to collapse. Those microspheres could not be traced back to 9/11-specific events inside the WTC. You must consider the history of the World Trade Center to consider the microsphere findings. Iron rich microspheres can come from a variety of sources, including welding, diesel engines, brakes and other friction-based mechanisms where steel is involved, etc., and Steven Jones does not care to mention any of these other sources. Given the many years the towers were standing exposed to diesel emissions and brake dust, not to mention the welding that took place during construction, it is a stretch to say that the spherules definitively came from the fires on 9/11. Bottom line is that the spheres are not proof of any steel melting events during 9/11, especially in the light of the lack of any such evidence of melting in the recovered steel components themselves.

And while it's true that the WTC dust samples were compared with controls taken prior to collapse, it isn't right to say that this definitively limits the creation period of the microspheres to 9/11. Such a sampling doesn't take into account any of what I've mentioned; the buildup of emissions and other particles on the WTC would have taken place over years, and in the case of any spheres produced by welding, those particles would have been contained within the tower itself. So of course none of those sphere sources would matter in samples taken prior to 9/11; none of those microspheres would be released until the towers fell. The fact that the dust samples were contrasted with other samples taken prior to collapse does not tie the findings to events on 9/11 alone.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hotspots were seen from space just two hours after the collapse, the first sighting of molten steel was seen on the 12th of september which indicates temperatures of 1500c and such temperatures are confirmed by further thermal images recorded from a helicopter. Yes temperatures in the rubble pile were sufficient to melt steel but the question is how could a smoldering rubble pile generate such temperatures to melt the steel in the first place? Prior to and since 911, rubble piles following a fire induced collapse have never produced temperatures sufficient to melt steel. Morerover rubble piles following conventional demolitions have never produced temperatures sufficient to melt steel. So how did the rubble pile generate these temperatures so hot and so soon? This explanation has not been provided by NIST, and like you, they assume that there is nothing unusual about a hydrocarbon fire generating sufficient temperatures to melt steel in the rubble pile but my point is that this assumption has never been tested or proven (see premise two). Until this assumption has been tested and proven it is impossible to rule out a connection between the presence of molten steel and why the towers collapsed the way they did.

First, a nitpick: Rubble piles following conventional demolitions are normally not aflame to begin with. So it's a red herring to compare that to the events of 9/11.

Second, a correction: Helicopter measurements of the fire did indeed show areas reaching 2800 degrees F. But I don't recall any such measurements showing such temps on the 12th. The Bechtel SH&E team didn't arrive until the 13th, and while they do not provide dates and times of when they took such measurements, they obviously could not have done them until they arrived. So it is incorrect to combine the helicopter measurements of hot spots with the date of Sept. 12th.

As far as others measuring such temperatures: If you could provide sources for that claim, I'd appreciate it. But regardless, that still says nothing about the state of affairs inside the towers prior to collapse.


Anyway, to begin... It doesn't matter whether the exact mechanism for the temperatures in the rubble piles is unknown or not. What matters is that they were measured, and they were definitely capable of melting metals, including steel. And also, that such measurements were taken after the collapse. None of what you say in this paragraph proves anything about the state inside the towers was prior to collapse. None of it. Whether a "hydrocarbon fire" is capable of producing such temps underneath rubble is irrelevant, and not merely because office contents contain more than just "hydrocarbons" (you must be referring to the jet fuel when you say that, which burned off well before the collapse), but but also because the particular fuel doesn't matter. The temperatures were measured, and they were measured after the towers fell. Which proves nothing about what was happening in the towers before they fell. It doesn't matter that there have never been rubble pile fires prior to 9/11 that produced these temperatures. Nor does it matter that that these assumptions are "untested". The temperature was measured, and the heat generated by the rubble piles was sufficient to melt metals regardless of the exact mechanism of the fires, and the fact of the matter is, those temps had occurred in the piles themselves. And there's not a thing about that which proves anything about what happened in the towers before the collapse.

The point is this: You cannot use the state of the rubble pile and any molten metals sighted there to prove there was molten metal in the towers prior to collapse. Metal was obviously rendered molten after the collapse. You have to provide proof of molten steel prior to collapse to prove that it had anything to do with the collapse.

And no ElMondo, John Gross was not only discussing pre-collapse state go watch the video again specifically the part when he address the issue of eyewitness testimony of molten steel in the rubble pile. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY

Well, then, he wasn't discussing anything relevant to the collapse then, was he? Not if the sightings were of steel he was discussing were in the rubble piles, and not prior to collapse itself. As has been noted over and over, molten metals post collapse are to be expected given the rubble pile temperatures. That indicates nothing about what happened inside the towers prior to collapse. So he screwed that up? Oh well... it doesn't help the conspiracy fantasy any, since post collapse sightings of molten metals doesn't indicate anything about pre-collapse conditions.

 

[T.A.M.]

thewholesoul:

1. I would not be suprised that there was molten steel in the pile. It proves nothing, accept that the piles were very very hot, and there is evidence to prove this. Still, you have not provided any direct evidence of molten steel.

2. Please name which witnesses you feel were qualified enough to distinguish based on visual inspection ONLY, the difference between molten steel and molten copper, tin, aluminum, or glass. Please see the pictures I linked for you, and see if you can tell...I can't.

3. The only way to prove their was molten steel, is to provide a sample of steel from GZ, that had melted (and of course now recooled). If you have such, please share.

TAM

 

[Sunstealer]

FEMA metalurgical examination sample 1 and NIST’s sample K-16 photos (p312 and 317). Both FEMA smaple 1 and NIST sample K-16 are in fact the same steel sample.

I've read the first link, your second doesn't seem to work so I plugged some of it into the NIST site and read what I believe is your intended link. As a metallurgist who has experience of high temperature corrosion (RR jet engines) and who's final degree thesis was "High Temperature Corrosion of Engineering Ceramics" primarily to see the effects of oxidation, but more importantly corrosion due to combustion in an atmosphere using a burner rig containing jet fuel I see no evidence in those two reports of melted steel in either the macro or micro-photographs. There is heavy sulfidation and oxidation which has lead to large scale spalling of the outer surfaces exposed to the heat which reduces section thickness but no melting in the common sense. Spalling is due to the resulting oxide layer being brittle and incoherent with the parent material causing stress at the interface. Secondly there is sulphur ingress along grain boundaries that will potentially lead to liquation (melting of grain boundaries). I have seen this before due to overheating of Aluminiums during brazing so know what I'm looking for. This melting of grain boundaries is highly localised and in no way can it be mistaken to mean melting in the general sense and certainly not molten metal and definitely not that associated with eye-witness accounts. Secondly they talk of deep penetration of a liquid into the steel, however, this is incorrect. The penetration of grain boundary ingress is approximately 100 microns (using the scale provided) and this ingress is driven by diffusion of Sulphur and subsequent oxidation and not molten liquid penetrating the grain boundaries. The result is a lowering of the materials melting point and liquation. The report also states that

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

There is nothing unusual about this imho. It's exactly what I would expect a steel to exhibit after undergoing high temperatures in a non-ambient specifically high Sulphur environment. The source of the Sulphur is clear and unequivocal - Jet Fuel, approximately 350ppm. Sulphur is highly corrosive at high temperature, it's one of the reasons for the development of nickel based super alloys and thermal barrier coatings for turbine blades and combustion chambers in modern jet engines. Whilst the rate of corrosion isn't known exactly a good stab at it would be possible because you know the depth of attack and can estimate the time (time being the difficult one because assumptions would have to be made, but I'd bet on time from fire initiation to collapse). A comparison with other known rates of corrosion in similar steels could be performed assuming the rate law. I would agree that this started prior to collapse and helped weaken the structure by reduction in section thickness of the material involved. There is no need for a detailed study into the mechanisms because we know what those mechanisms are, sulfidation/oxidation follow Fick's diffusion laws and will either be described by a linear or parabolic rate law as derived from Fick's 2nd Law iirc.

 

[Kent1]

The only thing I would be interesting in learning more about, is the claim from Dr. Greening regarding 2800F.
Also from my understanding the thermal data didn't come in until the 16th and was cooler.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The only thing I would be interesting in learning more about, is the claim from Dr. Greening regarding 2800F.
Also from my understanding the thermal data didn't come in until the 16th and was cooler.

The figure comes from a magazine called "Professional Safety", the May 2002 edition, in an article titled "SH&E At Ground Zero".

I had a link to a reprint of that article, but I've since lost it. Sorry. If you have access to a university library, you might be able to find a copy. Barring that, I can always email you one, if you want.

 

[T.A.M.]

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm

There is a PDF of it around somewhere as well...check google scholar maybe.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

lol, maybe the "molten steel" was caused by this...

Good for a laugh.

http://itukusimajinnjya.cool.ne.jp/GZero_Report.pdf

TAM

 

[Seymour Butz]

There is nothing unusual about this imho. It's exactly what I would expect a steel to exhibit after undergoing high temperatures in a non-ambient specifically high Sulphur environment. The source of the Sulphur is clear and unequivocal - Jet Fuel, approximately 350ppm. Sulphur is highly corrosive at high temperature, it's one of the reasons for the development of nickel based super alloys and thermal barrier coatings for turbine blades and combustion chambers in modern jet engines. Whilst the rate of corrosion isn't known exactly a good stab at it would be possible because you know the depth of attack and can estimate the time (time being the difficult one because assumptions would have to be made, but I'd bet on time from fire initiation to collapse). A comparison with other known rates of corrosion in similar steels could be performed assuming the rate law. I would agree that this started prior to collapse and helped weaken the structure by reduction in section thickness of the material involved. There is no need for a detailed study into the mechanisms because we know what those mechanisms are, sulfidation/oxidation follow Fick's diffusion laws and will either be described by a linear or parabolic rate law as derived from Fick's 2nd Law iirc.

The K-16 column was identified as coming from roughly the 52nd floor. So the probability of jet fuel being the source of the sulfur is pretty slim. NIST gives some sources that have a higher probability of being the source in a rubble pile -carpet, plastics, etc.....

Some good info though on the scale involved regarding the sulfur intrusion.

I asked Apollo20 a couple of days ago if it would be possible to determine the source of the sulfur. His reply indicated that it COULD in the dust sample (I think), but he's neglected to answer my question if it could be determined what was the specific source of the sulfur that mixed with the steel.

Would you have any idea about the technical feasibility of this?