There were no other metals in enough quantity to account for the molten metal found under all three buildings.
If the temperatures were hot enough to melt steel then where's all of the molten concrete as well? Iron melts at near 1500oC, but the same is true for many of the silicate minerals used in concrete, and a mix of these minerals could melt at lower temperatures than the individual components, and the fine partical size of the pulverized material would only facilitate that. If we assumed your contention is correct -- including the unrealistically high amounts of molten steel you propose -- then why aren't there huge pools of molten concrete as well in both the WTC 7 pile and the WTC 1 & 2 pile?
Furthermore, aluminum would be liquid at these temperatures.
This line is just random... All I can say to this is...... duh? Alimuminum
does have a significantly lower melting point than steel, but how does this relate to what you're arguing? The temperatures required for melting aluminum were very easily attainable by the rubble fires...
No
Free fall can only occur if there is NO resistance. ALL the supports have to fail on 8 floors. This can happen 1 floor at a time but supporting columns on all 8 floors have to fail in 2.25 seconds.
See, this line of argument has always been weird... whether a building's support members are intentionally removed to facilitate collapse or the structural members fail because they are damaged to the point that they can no longer sustain their loads, when they fall the collapse is always governed by gravity. Even if you could miraculously remove the first five floors or the first half of the building from below, the upper floors will only fall as fast a gravity is able to accelerate it. Once the structure begins to collapse, why in the hell does anyone need to do anything to make it faster? Gravity has a proficient record for pulling things down
Wrong!
The exposure is good, the colors are close, obviously shot by a pro. He/she has adjusted for the light.
You are in denial grasping for a reason.
Without having the original picture from which this was taken, it is impossible to professionally determine that the camera settings are optimal for analyzing it with reasonable accuracy. Certainly the picture is crisp, but the clarity says nothing about the accuracy of the colors compared to what the human eye would see in real time. In short, your opinion based on the clarity of the image is irrelevant. I downloaded the picture and imported it into Lighroom to see if I
could get the camera settings, but of course with copies that have been altered in a multitude of ways obtaining this information usually contained in the RAW file is not possible, and I cannot therefore verify the arperture settings, or exposure rate.
Something kept it molten for weeks.
So you've changed your position on this again? Just a few months ago you were telling me that molten steel being found weeks later impossible for thermite to do was "reverse logic." That
nothing could have produced this molten metal
except for thermite. You were quite set on on this logic. What made you change your mind?
)
