...
You're right triforcharity, I admit that I can NOT identify molten metal by photos alone. You got me, da twoofie is vanquished....or maybe not so much.
That was easy, wasn't it? Why did it take your 4 months of evasion?
However, in person, as the firefighters were, there are other factors: smell is one, dross formation and appearance is another, the available fuel, availible oxygen, ambient conditions (light, wind, temperature), spatter, smoothness, flow rate, coalescence, radiance and so forth all factor in.
Tell us more of these factors. Is that something that firefighters or other responders are taught in their professions?
Are these methods reliable in the conditions of a huge, stinking, burning, fuming trashpile?
Can you show that any of your witnesses actually used any of the factors or methods you hint at?
The hard part for me to understand is the coalescence of the metals TFK-Tom landed on (lead, aluminum and tin). Not much mental strain is needed to rule out lead and tin, therefore the coalescence of molten aluminum is your best argument.
Did the firefighters really see "molten aluminum" as Tom suggests they might have?
Most of your witnesses have not seen anything molten at all. Most are second hand.
In some reports, it can even be doubted that whatever they saw was molten.
This is the only reasonable alternative theory from their repeated "molten steel" statement, and it is worthy of futher discussion.
You'd have to have a concentration of aluminum for this coalescence, not to mention just the right light and dross for this mistaken identification. The aluminum in buildings is pretty scattered and distributed in a manner that is not highly amenable to easy coalescence.
This is of course not true for the twin towers, whose entire facades were clad in aluminium, and who had received planes with tons of aluminium right in the core of the burning inferno.
You may be right, I admit that, but given the tiny fraction of aluminum of this structure (compared to steel), not to mention the unlikely coalescence, ... This is why I asked the question: please give me the metal fractions of WTC 7. This leads the twoofie-slayers down a very dark alley as well.
Uhm - do you have one (1) confirmed first-hand witness for molten metal in the WTC7 pile?
However, if we assume, for the sake of argument, that some reports of molten steel are true.
We then need to look at WHEN that molten steel was observed, and where. That would generally be at some time T after the collapses.
If T is > 2 hours, say, you'd have to explain how steel that melted during or before the collapse, and thus can be suspected of having been a contributing factor to the collapses, could have stayed molten for so long.
If T > 1 day or even 1 week, that problem becomes more and more problematic, obviously.
In other words: You guys need to spell out a theory that would both provide a scenario for intentional collapse, and explain the presence of STILL molten steel hours, days, weeks or even months after the collapses.
Without even a technically viable hypothesis here, there really is no point to even discuss this molten steel issue.
(Disclaimer: Do not construe the preceding paragraphs as admitting to a significant probability that molten steel was indeed found. I maintain that you have zero evidence for molten steel, as there is no hard evidence, and as you can't show that a valid method to identify steel was both available to and used by the few genuine witnesses who reported "molten steel" first hand. We know already that it can't be done by sight alone, as you finally admitted. The witnesses only said that they "saw" molten steel, not that they smelled it or assed dross formation. So for all we know, all witnesses employed an invalid method)
