Just because claims are made doesn't mean they are true..
There was reports of "molten metal" in the basements of some of the buildings after 9/11, but the composition of the metal was never determined. Some spectrometer readings taken shortly after showed temperatures near the surface of 1375F, enough to melt aluminum.
Explosives don't produce pools of molten metal, and thermite burns out quickly, it doesn't burn for the weeks that some people say molten metal was found afterwards. Another source of fuel was available though; the contents of the buildings.
WTC7 didn't have "very little fire", it was fully engulfed and there was smoke coming from every floor. It was significantly damaged from debris from the other towers. It burned for a long time before finally coming down.
According to NY city code, all steel-framed buildings must have a fire resistant coating applied to their structural steel. Why is that? Maybe because they know that even fires not hot enough to melt steel can still compromise its structural integrity.
Quote:
|
Unprotected steel can be expected to fail in as little as 15 minutes in a serious fire.
|
http://www.firehouse.com/magazine/ar...r/tactics.html
Buildings around the WTC site had damage from debris and fires fuled by office contents only and had structural members that buckled. 130 Liberty Street had only minor fires but has enough structural damage it still has to be torn down.
And WTC7 did not come down in it's own footprint. The pictures of the debris are anything but in it's own footprint; the building to the north (30 West Broadway) is being torn down due to damage from WTC7's collapse.
I'm not saying it wasn't an inside job, I'm just saying if you're going to believe things to support your view, be prepared to question your view if those things are shown to be false.