There were many sources. They were found because they were looking for them, as they expected to find them. This has been covered numerous times.
science looks for data, maybe develops a hypothesis if there is enough of it, and then tests that hypothesis, sometimes we end up with a working theory and sometimes not. But the search for that data is not the basis for the hypothesis, its the exploration phase of the scientific method. How are we supposed to learn anything unless we collect some data in the first place.
Suggesting the science was biased in the case of 9/11 is a highly polished two edged sword
Numerous people studied samples from WTC and numerous people found sphericals, as well as other molten fragments. And not in just a few samples either, pretty much every sample showed evidence of molten materials.
This link is a gold mine containing hundreds if not thousands of references in support of molten or near molten steel found at WTC
While I'd be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if there were only one bit of data showing evidence of high temperatures, but when there's hundreds if not thousands of data points, the conclusion becomes more and more obvious. Clearly there were very high temps at WTC and clearly this data was ignored by multiple gubment investigations. Question becomes why. What are they trying to hide ?
[Off topic discussion removed]
Last edited by a moderator: