I was typing up a response to you, Keeper, but my computer froze. Now my post will be briefer.
Although your post seems well thought out, it is full of unsupported statements and inaccuracies. I'll just bust them all out here.
First, Glorfindel did fall during his duel with the Balrog.
Why do you say Glamdring slew Durin's Bane? I don't remember reading that.
Where do you get the idea of blades melting or dissolving when fighting a Balrog?
Why is it that, since Glamdring was used in battling a Balrog, Orcrist must have been as well?
How do we know that Ecthelion had a Gondolin-made blade?
Where is your evidence that the Balrogs must be weakened to be killed by a long fall?
Why would stabbing alone not work?
Where does it say that Gothmog drowned?
Why do you assume that Gothmog's chest wound was not mortal?
The argument has been made also that Gandalf had slain Durin's Bane first, and then it fell, rather than the fall causing its defeat.
Why must we assume that Balrogs are special and that there are very few ways to 'smite' them, as you say?
Why would poison be ineffective, exactly? If they could be drowned, as you claim, why would they be invulnerable to poison?
Why would 'mere weapons' be ineffective, exactly?
At one point in your post, you 'deduce' something by comparing two completely different duels. You say, 'If Gandalf's Balrog had enough time to pull him off the bridge, why couldn't Glorfindel's?' This is like saying, If Merry could stab the Witch-King in the leg on the Pelennor, why couldn't Pippin have done the same at Weathertop? Two different battles, two different sets of circumstances.
|