That's a perceptive question, tmod. Some people have suggested that frictional interactions during the collapses could have created sufficient heat to melt some of the steel. I'm not aware that any of them ever ran any numbers. Of course this is why it would have been nice if they had retained the steel for scientific examination instead of shipping it off to China lickety split.
The NIST FAQs address the melted steel issue.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wt...
The statement, as do many of the FAQ statements, contains some very weasely language.
First they say the investigators and experts "found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse." Well, duh. Jet fuel does not melt steel. Did they find evidence supporting the melting of steel outside of the context of jet fuel? They don't say.
Then they plead that melted steel, if any, "was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."
If NIST were to restrict themselves to "conclusive" evidence, they wouldn't have any report at all. They frame their analysis of the towers' failure as a "Probable Collapse Sequence". Their REPORT is not conclusive.
Then they claim that "under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed." Unfortunately they can not be bothered to specify the circumstances under which this could happen. AFAIK the report makes no such claim--only the FAQs.
Finally they claim that "high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile" could have melted the steel. This is a satisfying argument intuitively. Unfortunately it is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which provides that it is impossible for a heated object to exceed the temperature of its heat source no matter how long it is heated. (The apparent exception is a refrigerator, but it functions only by putting energy into the system to run a compressor so the energies of evaporation and condensation can be exploited to move the heat.)
NIST's report was in 2005. The FEMA report, Appendix C, (2002) discusses steel samples that the NYT called "evaporated" and "vaporized". http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
The PhD scientists concluded that the steel suffered a "sulfidation attack" that caused "intergranular melting" of the steel. They recommended that further studies be done to try to find the source of the sulfur. NIST did not undertake such studies.
It has been suggested that powdered drywall could have been the sulfur source, but this is not possible. Drywall (CaSO4) is already fully oxidized, so it is chemically inert. That's why it's used for fireproofing. Jonathan Cole burned steel in a fire for several days in the presence of diesel fuel, aluminum, and drywall and no damage to the steel was produced.