Well yes and no. For example, many metallurgists carry out failure investigations. In this scenario you go back to basics and you gather as much data about the part and it's history before you even start to do a full examination. Then you use your own eyes to have a general look
The rest of the procedure you outlined was never performed by NIST on the horseshoe I-beam in question. My point is simply that whatever method or instrument that can determine if that piece of steel was exposed to extreme temperatures should be done.
In the case of WTC steel these pieces were sectioned and mounted (sectioning) and then etched to bring out the structure. Optical microscopy (looking at the flat surface through a microscope) will then give you 95% of the information you want
To my knowledge this level of examination was only performed on 4 wtc core columns because they were identified as being situated within the fire and impact zone of wtc 1 + 2. NIST did section many pieces – “coupons” - but i havent read any follow up examinations like the one you discuss above.
When every post you come out with contains detailed explanations and highlights my lack of knowledge on the subject you were an obvious candidate.
Saying that an iron-worker or myself might be "in the know" isn't too bad a way of approaching things but one must be careful because both of us can make mistakes and one person's experience does not match anothers' even if they share a field such as iron working.
Understood however it does serve to point out the state of empirical ambguity in relation to the horseshoe I-beam and the question of whether it experienced extreme temperatures or not. That is why I love the empirical method because it can prove who is right and who is wrong.
Blacksmithing is an art. And since knowing him I came up with this notion:A blacksmith, a metallurgist does not make. A metallurgist, a blacksmith does not make. But both are possible!
Philosopher/poet now eh?
I agree with that. However, there has to be a reason for starting any investigation unfortunately thermite/government complicity etc is not going to be a good enough reason.
I outlined 8 reasons in the same post and not one of them included the aforementioned reasons above. If you consider any or all of my reasons invalid please state why and i will be happy to debate you.
Examination of the "meteorite" may indicate that there were no high temperatures involved.
Thats certainly a possibility. But we are going to have to examine it first.
By looking at the photographs of the object
I agree that the non-drooping rebar is not an indcation of extreme temperature but there are many sides to the “meteorites” that look fused, scorched, charred, with carbonized paper etc. In the following CBS report, hyberbole aside, heat was considered as being involved in its formation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14789146/
I'm more than happy to say,"yep, let's do a analysis on the meteorite, use a third party company etc", but I doubt that we are going to find anything extraordinary.
Glad to hear you’re onboard.
If we did then how would that point to the use of explosives/thermite/mate etc and a demolition give the rest of the material recovered?
Real simple. The presence of extreme temperatures [temperatures sufficient to melt steel] during the collapse cannot be explained in the context of the official collapse hypothesis but can be explained in a context of controlled demolition.
But while i have your attention. I would appreciate your response on the following.
Dr. Jones has recovered chunks, fragments, and microsphericules of previously molten iron. The melting point of iron is 1500c. This iron was determined not to originate from structural steel. When analysed the chemical signature of commercial thermite was found.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf
What was the source of this iron?
What was the source of the temperatures that melted it?
When did this melting occur: during wtc fire, during collapse, or in the rubble pile?
In your opinion what process or mechanism could account for this molten iron?
peace
Maybe the bold type will help. 
Thanks for the comic relief. 
