Well the molten iron did melt away like you said ,thats why the steel had swiss cheese like holes through it.The iron oxide sulfide is the eutectic mixture which residue was left on the surface after the majority of the thermate had already reacted.
Most of the steel was shipped away ,fema did not conduct an extensive search for deformed steel ,a few volunteers managed to find these two peice of sulphidized steel one from 7 the other from 1,2.
Fema also says that the sulphidization came from highly concentrated sulpur ,this is unlike Acid Rain and your other exuses.
As for the Iron spheres ...
Multiple tests of the dust show 5-6% iron sphericles.This is far more than the .04% iron sphericles in normal office buildings.Normal office buildings have steel ,and we can assume they had steel welders too.They also have printers.
They also have fly ash from distant coal plants and in concrete too.Another source is micrometeriotes which are constantly hitting the ground.
5-6% of the wtc dust equates to Tonnes of Molten iron . I dont beleive that Tonnes of molten iron sphericles came from the steel cutting operations + the Lack of Oxygen in the XEDS in rj lee report show that it cant be from Oxycatelene torches.
The tests also showed molten molybdenum which requires 2623degrees.
Also seen was vapourised alumino silicates which require 2760 degrees.
To form FE-O -S =1000 degrees
To form molten iron =1538 dg
to vapourise lead = 1740 dg
to melt molbdenum= 2623
to vapourise aluminosilicates=2760 degress
>The maximum temperatures of WTC fires 1000 degrees...
When Nist was asked Did you test the Steel for Thermite Arson ? the answer was no.
First of all, you need to understand what a eutectic is, because it's obvious that your fallacy is based on the thought that it demonstrates melting. R.Mackey gives a good explanation
here, and I suggest you read it to disabuse yourself of the notion that the steel actually melted. In sum, the "swiss cheese" appearance did not come from any steel melting, but from the eutectic reaction, which does not require the steel to melt in order to get the erosion noted by Astaneh-Asl, Sisson, Biederman, and others.
The sources for sulfur in the towers is myriad, and listing them is useless. As I've said many times in the past, any attempt to prove thermite use through chemical analysis is useless, as many of these items already exist and are expected to be found in the towers wreckage. The thesis fails on the lack of gross physical evidence. And no, erosion in isolated pieces of steel does not rise to that level, unless you posit that a single section out of tower 7, and those two pieces from the main towers were the only ones affected by thermite, since no other pieces that I'm aware of displayed the chemical erosion. At
that point, you'd need to explain how the main towers collapsed through the thermite cutting of only two pieces. But that's starting to get into speculation here; the fact is that the eroded examples are not indicative of the state of all the recovered steel. Those were isolated cases.
And that still doesn't rebut the issue that any of the steel recovered was sitting in the rubble pile and experiencing the thermo- and chemical stew that was occuring in the rubble fires. The erosion could have happened post collapse, and nothing the conspiracy peddlers have presented proves that it didn't.
Regarding the microspheres: You cannot blithely take the ratio of microspheres in the dust and compare them against buildings of unspecified construction or percentages of material. On top of that, you're obviously relying on the RJ Lee report, page 24, for your figures; that's where they set out the amount of iron spheres found in the dust post collapse vs. background. Read that again: The amount of iron spheres found in the dust post collapse (i.e. liberated from a collapsed building) vs. background (i.e. just normal dust recovered from standing buildings, without fires or structural collapse involved). You're comparing an event which liberated much material into the air with the background figure, in which no building is even on fire, let alone destroyed. Of course the WTC analysis would show more spherules! As well as a host of other materials! A more valid figure to have used would have been a comparison of WTC dust with other buildings that have combusted and/or collapsed. But even then a researcher would have to account for the differences in relative amounts of steel used, and it's a moot point anyway because you're not even getting to that point.
The molybdenum and aluminosilicates did not necessarily mean that the WTC fires burned hotter, because you cannot isolate their origin to the fires or September 11th. Jones, being the only one who's tried to use that angle, has not presented any evidence that pegs the genesis of the particles he cites to have been on that date. Anything he presents could have been the result of construction processes, or the result of manufacture of the materials used. Or, post collapse, of the chemical reactions occuring in the rubble pile fires. But he tries to peg them to the tower fires without any evidence, and that's just sloppy reasoning.
No, NIST did not test for thermite. As has been noted countless times in the past, testing for thermite components would be useless, because the main constituents of thermite - aluminum, and other metal oxides - would be fully expected regardless of the presence of thermite, because aluminum in the form of the facade, and metal oxides in the form of rust is just naturally present. When no consideration is taken of the lack of indicative physical characteristics - molten end points, where the steel beams would have been separated by these proposed thermite "cutting charges" - then any chemical analysis is moot.
The thermite hypothesis is a dead, lifeless one, with no new findings around to reanimate it. Just let it rest in peace.
