Ignoring the fact that this question has already been answered several times, I would point out that you need only ask one of your own, EdX, who has spent the last ten pages arguing that there was no molten steel because there couldn't possibly be.
I never said that. 
Why do you always try and claim people say something they specifically told you earlier that they aren't saying?
I specifically told you that it is
unlikely that there was melted steel. That's what everyone here has said. However, under certain conditions it is conceivable that steel could have melted in the WTC rubble pile fire. A furnace effect, if you will, because after all what is a furnace but simply a well insulated fire. This thread is asking -
hypothetically - that even if it did, how does this necessarily point to thermite, rather than some kind of furnace effect and why is thermite more likely than some kind of furnace effect.
What I am saying to you is that the reports of melted steel on 911 is
not special or remarkable and can be found in
hundreds of other fires. The only thing that
is new at the WTC is the eutectic reaction in certain pieces of steel, but truthers don't seem to understand that this is not "melting" the way truthers think of it, due to steel melting temperatures, but rather a
chemical process lower than the melting point of steel.
The fact remains that melted metals are
COMMON in hundreds of other fires. Firefighters are taught, as I showed you, what metals melt in fires and that steel can appear melted when it hasn't. They are also taught that it should not be assumed that just becuase there is melted metals that there was necessarily an accelerant present. I have also showed you that even though they are taught this, fire experts have still in the past not only said that steel melted in fires when it probably did not, but they also said that fire melted it. I have proved to you that people refer to melted steel when they really meant softened, because that is literally what they went on to say. I have shown you that people and experts casually say that fire melted steel as if its a common occurrence.
The people on 911 that you say saw steel melting has ever even implied that they believe it points to anything suspicious or points to something like thermite. Why not? You claim they are experts, yet don't seem to care that they don't share your interpretation, something you feel any unqualified guy on the internet can understand easily yet they do not. So then they can't be much of an expert in what metals melt in fires, can they? Maybe they don't mean what you think they meant when they said melted steel, just like all those other people. That we have people saying the same exact things on 911 is not remarkable, it is entirely expected, Much like when truthrs show reports of explosions. This is extremely common in even more examples than can be found for melted steel and melted metal observations. Its so common that if no one said they heard explosions on 911, that would be quite remarkable!
What you folks need to decide is whether you believe the reports and the visual evidence or not. And if you don't, why not? What are your reasons for not believing it?
Several of the same people saying that there was melted steel also say fire melted the steel and say that as if this happens all the time, but since you think this is nonsense, then by your own logic these people cannot be experts enough to say whether there was melted steel or not. Are they experts, or are they incompetent? And if they are incompetent, why does what they say matter at all?
