9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained

[Ace Acme]

144. OK, I read it again. It was as I said.

They did not identify the source of the sulfur. They suggested maybe rubber or plastic, but they did no tests to show that burning rubber or plastic on steel would result in a high-temperature sulfidation attack on the steel producing the intergranular melting showed in FEMA Appendix C. They could not determine whether the "corrosion" was the result of solid, liquid, or gaseous attack.

They claimed they lacked information about the circumstances under which the material was recovered (why didn't they just ask the WPI investigators?) They do not know what was the source of the corroding element, how long the process took, or the temperature at which it occurred.

They assumed that the steel was in a "prone" position when this occurred. They stated that the temperatures were actually much higher than the 700 C to 800 C range estimated in the FEMA report.

They claimed that the corrosion of the steel took place after the tower fell, that it played no part in the tower falling, and thus implicitly justified their failure to do tests that might answer the questions they did not answer.

They did not identify the source of the sulfur. They did not demonstrate that the sulfidation mechanism they propose can happen. If it could, you'd think it would happen pretty commonly in fires.