Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

There is a thread with the information on Metabunk on the breakdown of AE membership.

Vice versa, is there a similar breakdown on Metabunk members you look up to? No.

What leading “discovery” have they produced that isn’t based on pseudoscience or innuendo that stood the test of time?

Facts in absence of WTC7 girder shear studs and Free fall or non-access to data analysis?

a reply to: democracydemo

Really

Facts in absence of WTC7 girder shear studs and Free fall or non-access to data analysis?

Shear studs? How does that stop failures from thermal stress and expansion? Do buildings just need shear studs and not fire insulation for the steel? How many millions could be saved doing away with fire insulation!

Is it false WTC 5 had floor connection failures not related to being hit by debris? Did WTC 5 have shear studs



WTC 7 free fall. How long from the first downward movement of the penthouse until total collapse of WTC 7?

SUMMARY OF EARLY WTC7 MOVEMENT

sharpprintinginc.com...

As was shown in section 2.5, features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse
2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse
3) Ejections and overpressurizations
4) Collapse of the East Penthouse
5) Collective core failure
6) Perimeter response
7) Acceleration downward

You know WTC 7 facade accelerated faster than what is explains by gravity? Is that false? How do you explain the acceleration if the interior of WTC 7 did not collapse before the facade?

Access to data? Did NIST have access to drawings and video for their modeling that Hulsey did not have access to? Your angry because you don’t have access from data from the modeling of a software program that is now over 10 years old? What original program are you still using unchanged from 10 years ago? When the collapse of the actual building is on video accessible to the public?

a reply to: neutronflux

Shear studs? How does that stop failures from thermal stress and expansion? Do buildings just need shear studs and not fire insulation for the steel? How many millions could be saved doing away with fire insulation!

The absence of shear studs in the NIST analysis.

WTC5 jadijadija...

WTC5 is not 7.

You know WTC 7 facade accelerated faster than what is explains by gravity? Is that false? How do you explain the acceleration if the interior of WTC 7 did not collapse before the facade?

Your link goes into this, read on. (not a spring system btw)

Access to data? Did NIST have access to drawings and video for their modeling that Hulsey did not have access to? Your angry because you don’t have access from data from the modeling of a software program that is now over 10 years old? What original program are you still using unchanged from 10 years ago? When the collapse of the actual building is on video accessible to the public?

My workputer is still on Windows 7, reason being none of the 10+ year sofware fuction on the newer ones.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

The absence of shear studs in the NIST analysis

Ok.

This was the inquiry? In the context if enough floor connections along the height of a WTC 7 column failed due to thermal expansion, thermal contraction, thermal stress as witnessed in WTC 5, that column would buckle and start an internal progressive collapse.

Shear studs? How does that stop failures from thermal stress and expansion? Do buildings just need shear studs and not fire insulation for the steel? How many millions could be saved doing away with fire insulation!

Is it false WTC 5 had floor connection failures not related to being hit by debris? Did WTC 5 have shear studs



I find this particular picture of a WTC 5 column interesting.

It’s column buckling to do with nothing related to shear studs?

You

Your link goes into this, read on. (not a spring system btw)

Then quote where the source is more supportive of your stance.

Is it false WTC 7 was undergoing an internal progressive collapse from one side of the building to the other before the facade movement?

Is it false as a whole, WTC 7 fell slower than the rate of free fall?

Is it false more accurate measurements of facade movement showed the facade moved at rates that are not explained by gravity, as in the facade was in a bind from the internal collapse.

You

My workputer is still on Windows 7, reason being none of the 10+ year sofware fuction on the newer ones.

How often does Windows 7 update? With there being at least one major service pack for Windows 7. Windows 7 was released in 2009. Windows 7 mainstream end of life was 2015. Windows 7 extended support for those willing to pay will end this year in 2020.

I hope where you work is still getting security updates for Windows 7? And swaps to newer computers by 2021.

What software was the NIST Model created on? What is the industrial standard for modeling now?

And you didn’t answer my inquiry

Access to data? Did NIST have access to drawings and video for their modeling that Hulsey did not have access to? Your angry because you don’t have access from data from the modeling of a software program that is now over 10 years old? What original program are you still using unchanged from 10 years ago? When the collapse of the actual building is on video accessible to the public?

a reply to: democracydemo

Is it false the steel framing in WTC 5 was similar to WTC 7?

Is it true WTC 7 had more oddities than WTC 5 that would make WTC 7 more susceptible to failures? Like WTC 7 having more extreme angles in its floor connections due to the trapezoid shape of WTC 7. The lobby was at least three stories tall with no lateral support from floor connections. WTC 7 being built above a power station.

How can Hulsey rule out fire related failures as an impossible factor when fire related failures are clearly seen in WTC 5?

I thought this was interesting?

5.5.4 Sequence of WTC 7 Collapse
Approximately 7 hours after fires initiated in WTC 7, the building collapsed. The start of a timed collapse sequence was based on 17:20:33, the time registered by seismic recordings described in Table 1.1 (in Chapter 1). The time difference between each of the figures was approximated from time given on the videotape. Figures 5-20 to 5-25 illustrate the observed sequence of events related to the collapse.
~5:20:33 p.m. WTC 7 begins to collapse. Note the two mechanical penthouses at the roof on the east and west sides in Figure 5-20.
~5:21:03 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to “disappear” completely.
~5:21:08 p.m. Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC 7.
~5:21:09 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south “kink” or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).
~5:21:10 p.m. WTC 7 collapses completely after burning for approximately 7 hours (Figure 5-25). The collapse appeared to initiate at the lower floors, allowing the upper portion of the structure to fall.

www.fema.gov...

I find it interesting Hulsey claims the WTC 7 collapse was only triggered by a instantaneous event. When seismic/video evidence clearly shows the collapse started at 17:20:33, the first penthouses move at 17:21:03, and the collapse was completed around 17:21:10.

a reply to: neutronflux

Then quote where the source is more supportive of your stance.

You provided the link now read it fully.

WTC5...

Can you find any pictures and/or detailed (gorgeous) drawings of failed WTC7 columns to compare with?

a reply to: democracydemo

You want to play the innuendo game and refer to fabricated mythology?

Or you want to address my inquiries based on cited fact and real evidence?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You

The absence of shear studs in the NIST analysis

Ok.

This was the inquiry? In the context if enough floor connections along the height of a WTC 7 column failed due to thermal expansion, thermal contraction, thermal stress as witnessed in WTC 5, that column would buckle and start an internal progressive collapse.

Shear studs? How does that stop failures from thermal stress and expansion? Do buildings just need shear studs and not fire insulation for the steel? How many millions could be saved doing away with fire insulation!

Is it false WTC 5 had floor connection failures not related to being hit by debris? Did WTC 5 have shear studs



I find this particular picture of a WTC 5 column interesting.

It’s column buckling to do with nothing related to shear studs?

You

Your link goes into this, read on. (not a spring system btw)

Then quote where the source is more supportive of your stance.

Is it false WTC 7 was undergoing an internal progressive collapse from one side of the building to the other before the facade movement?

Is it false as a whole, WTC 7 fell slower than the rate of free fall?

Is it false more accurate measurements of facade movement showed the facade moved at rates that are not explained by gravity, as in the facade was in a bind from the internal collapse.

You

My workputer is still on Windows 7, reason being none of the 10+ year sofware fuction on the newer ones.

How often does Windows 7 update? With there being at least one major service pack for Windows 7. Windows 7 was released in 2009. Windows 7 mainstream end of life was 2015. Windows 7 extended support for those willing to pay will end this year in 2020.

I hope where you work is still getting security updates for Windows 7? And swaps to newer computers by 2021.

What software was the NIST Model created on? What is the industrial standard for modeling now?

And you didn’t answer my inquiry

Access to data? Did NIST have access to drawings and video for their modeling that Hulsey did not have access to? Your angry because you don’t have access from data from the modeling of a software program that is now over 10 years old? What original program are you still using unchanged from 10 years ago? When the collapse of the actual building is on video accessible to the public?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Is it false the steel framing in WTC 5 was similar to WTC 7?

Is it true WTC 7 had more oddities than WTC 5 that would make WTC 7 more susceptible to failures? Like WTC 7 having more extreme angles in its floor connections due to the trapezoid shape of WTC 7. The lobby was at least three stories tall with no lateral support from floor connections. WTC 7 being built above a power station.

How can Hulsey rule out fire related failures as an impossible factor when fire related failures are clearly seen in WTC 5?

I thought this was interesting?

5.5.4 Sequence of WTC 7 Collapse
Approximately 7 hours after fires initiated in WTC 7, the building collapsed. The start of a timed collapse sequence was based on 17:20:33, the time registered by seismic recordings described in Table 1.1 (in Chapter 1). The time difference between each of the figures was approximated from time given on the videotape. Figures 5-20 to 5-25 illustrate the observed sequence of events related to the collapse.
~5:20:33 p.m. WTC 7 begins to collapse. Note the two mechanical penthouses at the roof on the east and west sides in Figure 5-20.
~5:21:03 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to “disappear” completely.
~5:21:08 p.m. Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC 7.
~5:21:09 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south “kink” or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).
~5:21:10 p.m. WTC 7 collapses completely after burning for approximately 7 hours (Figure 5-25). The collapse appeared to initiate at the lower floors, allowing the upper portion of the structure to fall.

www.fema.gov...

I find it interesting Hulsey claims the WTC 7 collapse was only triggered by a instantaneous event. When seismic/video evidence clearly shows the collapse started at 17:20:33, the first penthouses move at 17:21:03, and the collapse was completed around 17:21:10.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

There is a thread with the information on Metabunk on the breakdown of AE membership.


You

You announcing all as pseudoscience and innuendo leads me to ask; where was this judment made? Depths of Metabunk.org or other anonymous forums?
AE911 with the 3200 Architects and Engineers signed are known-not anonymous. Is this false?

So? You cited 320O with no cited source, with no understanding of its actual composition or what it is actually comprised of? While ignoring the AIA has found no credible evidence from Architects and Engineers to reopen a WTC investigation? I think Richard Gage / AE has tried to get AIA delegates to reopen the WTC investigation on several AIA conferences, and has been voted down every time.

Oh look. A little research to our things in perspective.

Resolution 17-5: Investigation of the Total Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, sponsored by Daniel Barnum, FAIA, and 50 Members of the Institute, failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions). The resolution’s sponsors questioned the conclusions offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2008 about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. They argued that the Institute should support “a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC7.”

www.aia.org...

Now....

This was the question.

Architects and Engineers are the leading “truth” group? Is that false? What leading “discovery” have they produced that isn’t based on pseudoscience or innuendo that stood the test of time?

You still going strong with disinformation.
You still forget facts: FEMA came upon a new phenomenon in the debris. You ignore nobody has ever proved how WTC7 steel could have melted in the debris at 1000c when it was merely at 500c a few days after 9/11.

The entire narrative falls apart based on the revelations that are out there for last 18 years.

FEMA discovered only one chemical- sulfur. That means the entire process occurred was mainly to a blast of very high heat.

Fact is debunkers have never shown a solid test where sulfur 1000c would start corroding and melting the WTC7 steel in days, even weeks.

Then the discovery of micro sized red/gray thermatic chips in dust- AE911 theory about how the buildings came down it not crazy after all.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

By the way. The AIA has 94,000 members.
www.aia.org...

Vs your cite 3200? With you having no understanding what professions make up your cited 3200?

Why think that is?
I tell you. They're not conscious of the revelations that AE911 found.
Most architects and engineers are presumably not even aware there was melted steel in the rubble. 
NIST denied that!  Even though FEMA maintained a hot liquid of Iron and Sulfur mixed when the melting and softening stage commenced in the hot environment.
Debunkers still to this day claim steel never melted, and this incorrect. 

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: Salander

Beyond maybe in my mind. In the video Lynn Spencer says

high ranking FAA officials and airport managers told her that during a search of United flight 23, box cutters and Al-Qaeda documents were found in unclaimed bags.

This changes everything. The fact the FBI nor 911 Commission report would not touch the matter does not rule out there are official records to be found.

Don't know whether FBI 9/11 Review Commission Lawsuit sheds light on it or not. If not, a more targeted lawsuit might.

Richard Clarke evidence in my point of view discloses the corruption and treason inside the CIA. It's really shame he formed an excuse for the coverup, by asserting the CIA was trying to recruit the 9/11 hijackers inside America to be double agents ( just his theory) Fact is the evidence suggests at very least individuals inside the government authorized the attack to happen and my view brought down the buildings down for their own perverse purposes on 9/11.

Richard Clark least was sincere, when he spoke he believed there was a cover-up and that there may be alternative reasons as to why the CIA covered the 9/11 hijacker tracks!

Still is one of the most important 9/11 videos online.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Your back? After totally getting wrong how the WTC 7 sprinklers activated? Why should I find you credible again.

Again...


originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
neutronflux Can you read the second slide? They confirm melting.

Thats why the elementary sulfur is crucial for this theory to work.

Read what? That steel was liquified by a chemical and corrosive attack?

Your afraid of stating another blatant falsehood?

Again. The whole argument

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You show how 500c heat caused the steel to melt outside the building?

You don’t even have proof of melted steel.

The whole argument

This is the argument

What is the melting point of steel?

You keep talking about melted steel. You have not posted evidence that the pile reached temperatures to melt steel.

You keep posting evidence of corrosions that occurred at temperatures less these the melting point of steel.

What temperature does you source cited state the corrosion occurred. What is the melting point of steel?

Note. Added on. Please cite where frozen pools of melted steel were found at the WTC?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Your claiming melted steel.

Look at the pictures you posted.



A corrosion attack thinned the metal. That is not melting. Look at how thin the chemical attack made the steel in areas. Despite the thinning, that thin steel is maintaining the geometry that piece was formed into when it was manufactured. If the piece reached its melting point, the remaining thin metal would not have held its shape. The steel is wasted from chemical attack. The piece is not deformed be cause the steel reached its melting point. Huge difference

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What’s that short list of blatant falsehoods by you?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Let’s start with this blatant falsehood you posted and tried to blame was it Jones for?

Stop repeating things I have previously answered.
Harrit chips were analyzed in inert atmosphere.

Let’s add this one in..,

Or like you posted the below picture as proof of thermite when it was obviously cut and sooted up by a cutting torch?

You

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
For me this evidence of cut steel by nanothermite.
Same steel piece- and exposed to high heat.

Why would I trust anything you post at this point?

So? There is no evidence of cut columns? So you fabricated your own mythology? Sad.

And this blatant falsehood by you

Basille were independent scentists who contacted Steve Jones for samples to test. They confirmed the chips had thermitic properties.

Really. Shame. Another blatant falsehood.

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
We skipped August.

66 months now.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Basile never published results of testing that confirmed Harrit’s results.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You the one playing the looks like game. Looks like has nothing to with having the ability to support a thermite reaction.

Back to the MEK test huh.


You

They did three investigations to confirm Aluminum was present. A DSC test, a XED test and MEK test all three confirmed elemental AI and Iron oxide.

You

MEK test

Please post the procedure that is used to show free elemental aluminum in a”MEK test”

In fact, please post the procedure for the “ DSC test“ to find elemental aluminum?

I don’t know about elemental aluminum, but

By Oystein

The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes "high-tech nano-stuff" an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Was two more of your blatant falsehoods document and added to you list.

When you going to ever answer these simple true or false questions?

You use XED by comparing the peaks from known samples. Is that false? The Harrit peaks are close or dead on for industrial coatings, not aluminum iron oxide thermite. Is that false?

Only person printing lies is you.
FEMA clearly recorded what they believed happened 1000c high heat + sulfur melted the WTC7 steel flange!
A theory never tested till this day. 
The thermal graph show only temps of 500c at WTC7, a few days after 9/11. 
You have basic problem, the lack of  500c temp (to round it off to 1000c)   not there, to even begin the corrision you believed happened in the rubble pile!
Steel A36 grade can't drop below the melt point 1450c or 1500. 

FEMA knew this, this is why they assumed the sulfur was relevant to start the melting. FEMA is well aware office fires can not reach temps, of 1500c, you need incendries, explosives or fuel combustiles to get anywhere near this. 

neutronflux There no melted steel really?

Quote from the FEMA study, read, instead of posting false opinions

Liquid Iron= Melted steel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
neutronflux There no melted steel really?

Quote from the FEMA study, read, instead of posting false opinions

Liquid Iron= Melted steel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, you might want to actual quote what it says with context. Not post a butchered screenshot.

And quote where the temperatures at WTC 7 were hot enough to melt structural steel? Didn’t you say yourself the fires at WTC 7 were never hotter than 1000C? So how would structural steel melt? Structural steel melting? No. The corrosion products from chemical attacks with lower melting points melting? Yes.

Your confusing chemical wasting with melting.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
neutronflux There no melted steel really?

Quote from the FEMA study, read, instead of posting false opinions

Liquid Iron= Melted steel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, you might want to actual quote what it says with context. Not post a butchered screenshot.

And quote where the temperatures at WTC 7 were hot enough to melt structural steel? Didn’t you say yourself the fires at WTC 7 were never hotter than 1000C? So how would structural steel melt? Structural steel melting? No. The corrosion products from chemical attacks with lower melting points melting? Yes.

Your confusing chemical wasting with melting.

The study here for you to read.
www.fema.gov...

The liquid mixture cooled, therefore they're no evidence today we have in a bottle. FEMA could see Iron had melted in the deep boundaries of the steel, after cooling. Look at their images.

This is their theory.


With no sulfur, the melting could not have started.
FEMA never did a recorded test to show the sulfur would drop the temp required from 1500c to 1000c!
Yes, there was a liquid of sulfur, but that doesn't mean it dropped the melting point down by 500c.
FEMA did even know where the sulfur came from- no theory in the report.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.
When steel cools below the eutectic temperature, the liquid of eutectic composition transforms to two phases, iron oxide, FeO, and iron sulfide, FeS. The product of this eutectic reaction is a characteristic geometrical arrangement that is unique and is readily visible even in the unetched microstructure of the steel. Figures C-4 and C-5 present typical near-surface regions showing the microstructural changes that occur due to this corrosion attack.

www.fema.gov...

FEMA is not saying structural steel melted. Chemicals that created a eutectic mixture melted.

A eutectic system (/juːˈtɛktɪk/ yoo-TEK-tik)[1] from the Greek "εύ" (eu = well) and "τήξις" (tēxis = melting) is a homogeneous mixture of substances that melts or solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting point of either of the constituents.[2]

The eutectic temperature is the lowest possible melting temperature over all of the mixing ratios for the involved component species.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

You invoked “ Limited Metallurgical Examination”

Now quote from it where temperatures reached 1,130 °C (2,070 °F) to melt structural steel? Quote where it states actual structural steel melted, not a “ eutectic mixture “.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You don’t understand science? Or what a reduced melting point is?

You

With no sulfur, the melting could not have started.
FEMA never did a recorded test to show the sulfur would drop the temp required from 1500c to 1000c!

Melting point of iron sulfate “ 680 °C (1,256 °F; 953 K) ”
en.m.wikipedia.org...(II)_sulfate

And you are referring to limited areas, not a wide spread phenomenon.

It’s doesn’t take a genius to see something like a emergency stairwell light that had sulfuric acid and chlorides from the plastic housing would attack steel making a eutectic mixture that created corrosion product with a lower melting point than structural steel.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.
When steel cools below the eutectic temperature, the liquid of eutectic composition transforms to two phases, iron oxide, FeO, and iron sulfide, FeS. The product of this eutectic reaction is a characteristic geometrical arrangement that is unique and is readily visible even in the unetched microstructure of the steel. Figures C-4 and C-5 present typical near-surface regions showing the microstructural changes that occur due to this corrosion attack.

www.fema.gov...

FEMA is not saying structural steel melted. Chemicals that created a eutectic mixture melted.

A eutectic system (/juːˈtɛktɪk/ yoo-TEK-tik)[1] from the Greek "εύ" (eu = well) and "τήξις" (tēxis = melting) is a homogeneous mixture of substances that melts or solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting point of either of the constituents.[2]

The eutectic temperature is the lowest possible melting temperature over all of the mixing ratios for the involved component species.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

You invoked “ Limited Metallurgical Examination”

Now quote from it where temperatures reached 1,130 °C (2,070 °F) to melt structural steel? Quote where it states actual structural steel melted, not a “ eutectic mixture “.

Read properly! FEMA words it funny.
The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

FEMA claiming it was a liquid of Iron that formed.

Liquid of Iron- means the steel melted. FEMA language doesn't change that.

Their theory is 1000c heat+ the sulfur reduced the melting point of steel.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You said it yourself?

eutectic temperature! Which is a “ is a homogeneous mixture of substances that melts or solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting point of either of the constituents.”

That “ approached 1,000 °C” which is not the melting point of structural steel, but the melting point of the eutectic mixture.

You are taking a FEMA document that states the steel was attacked by corrosion and created a strange eutectic mixture that melted below 1000C. Nowhere did it state unmolested steel free of chemical attack melted because structural steel reached its melting point of 1,130 °C (2,070 °F).

Is it a fact, one way of identifying substances is by melting point. The melting point of structural steel is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F) . That is scientific fact. If a substance melted before 1000C, then it did not have the composition of structural steel. It was something more like iron sulfate that has a lower melting point than structural steel.