World Aero Data
Aviation discussion. 
Home | Older Messages

Search the Database


Current Page: 5 of 10
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Adam ()
Date: January 13, 2013 12:35AM

To the people saying we are disrespecting the families of 9/11, you do realize they agree with us right? They too, are furious, and calling out for an official unbiased investigation, but are denied. If anything THAT is disrespectfull. Wouldn't you want an official investigation of what happened to your loved one istead of hearing, "Oh well we have no evidence, but it was these guys".

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: sebastianmc3 ()
Date: January 14, 2013 12:56AM

My uncle is vp of tishman construction, the company that built the towers. Ive had conversatios with him many times. the buildings were designed to fall straight down instead of over to minimize damage to other buildings

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Wassamattaforu ()
Date: January 20, 2013 03:48AM

Yes, exactly you are a student, perhaps you were turned out by our fine public school system, and accordingly you are exactly wrong and your facts are wrong.

Go BACK to the books and find that Jet A open air burn is around 600 degrees F

Steel "melts" at about 1400 degrees F

Save the mis-information for another site

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: mimi ()
Date: January 24, 2013 12:25AM

excuse me but, how did the whole WTC building collapsed if there was only a few offices set on fire, and no plane 'apparently' hit the building? how did the whole building collapse into a neat pile if there was not fire at the top nor the bottom of the building??

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: paulschober ()
Date: March 02, 2013 01:02AM

How many people are going to keep saying the building fell "straight down into its footprint"? Am I the only one who saw the huge chunks peel off the side and smash into building 7 a hundred yards away?

What's wrong with you people?

And for the people who saw pools of molten metal? There was about 70 tons of ALUMINUM from the plane's fuselage that likely all melted in the kerosene fire.

And you can't soften steel enough with kerosene fires? How the heck do blacksmiths get steel to turn soft enough to turn red and bend with a hammer using just coal and wood fires?

And the landing gears were made of tons of magnesium. Magnesium auto-ignites at around 450C, and burns in air at about 5000F, which is easily hot enough to COMPLETELY melt even the strongest steel. THERE are your unexplained melted pools of steel!

But this is just science. Truthers can never get past the STAGGERING logistics of planning and carrying out this without anyone blowing the whistle, and WHY not simply do it all with a truck bomb in the basement, or put a bomb on the planes to "finish off" the buildings? (if you think it was required).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Eric ()
Date: March 02, 2013 09:14PM

Thank you for questioning the conspirators and not just believing everything they say. That was my thought the first time I hear jet fuel can't melt steel. Even wood fires can drop steel's integrity enough to cause issues.

Other points:
You don't need to melt concrete for it to lose integrity. Slamming a (how many TONs?) passenger jet into it at ~500 mph should do the trick.

Dripping molten metal: There was tons (literally) of aluminum from the jet, and aluminum can melt easily at the temperatures that would likely have been up there. Some of the dripping I saw in one video just looked like burning/melting plastic. Another crashed airliner's entire hull pretty much dissappeared after a low crash.

Witnesses: Ok, I didn't see it, but plenty of people saw the planes hit. And, no, there is no psychological technique good enough to convince thousands of people they didn't see a missle. That's science.

No investigation: They probably didn't think there needed to be one, and all that scrap has to go somewhere. It was a crime witnessed by thousands.

Bush's slipped words: Really? This guy could barely get a sentance out without fuddling it, and small human errors are far more likely and common than conspiracies kept silent amongst thousands of people. (Manhattan project was way different. Don't even.). The fact that there are so many slightly varied interpretations of things happening actually works AGAINST conspiracy theories. If everyone had the exact same story, that would seem preplanned. Just listen to the witnesses interviewed in almost every accident, they almost always have slightly different stories.

Expert opinions: I'm not dismissing experts; but, unfortunately, 'experts' are humans with agendas like everyone else and can be really wrong. This happens a lot with theories. Seriously, brilliant people have their theories turn out incorrect very often. At face value all a diploma says is that you met the minimum requirements to pass. I've seen plenty of students graduate with A's that are just good at getting A's, but are dumb as a bag of bricks. The 'experts' that support the theory are mostly non-peer reviewed people from mediochre places.

One could draw plenty of conclusions. For instance, there's no evidence that aliens didn't cause the incident. And they might have high-tech mind-controlling devices. But, when I'm faced with multiple explainations, I pick the most likely event that requires the most known common occurances.

That's just a few things. Think for yourself people. Just because someone isn't mainstream does not mean they are right, unbiased, motiveless, or being suppressed by higher powers. Sometimes those people with the taboo or counter culture theories are just unintelligent or are failures that need some sense of being right so they feel like they matter in this world.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Brad Adams ()
Date: March 15, 2013 04:11AM

To the fact that metal would have melted is insane. The building was designed to take a hit from a plane. Why are there no upright still showing if the floors just broke free from the uprights?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I need some advice from people who believe it was a conspiracy and that it wasnt
Posted by: Gregory Graves ()
Date: March 16, 2013 09:47PM

Hi all,
I am writing my history thesis on the attacks of september 11th, 2001. I am arguing that it was not in fact a conspiracy or acts of terror against "this great nation" but rather Muslims who were radicalized by Anglo-American intervention into the Muslim world, the atrocities they committed to inflame the Arab world, and just the general hypocritical nature of our foreign policy( under Republican and Democratic Admins). At first I wasnt even going to entertain the idea of this being a conspiracy. But there is enough solid evidence to make a credible case for it. So for that reason I have to engage this line of thinking.
I believe the Bush Administration wasn't maliciously trying to kill American citizens, he was just to inept to handle the crisis properly from the get go. What I want to know( from people who either have a phd or at least a masters, to all the people who have no legit university qualifications I dont need ur emotional reaction to this....this is a masters dissertation I am writing) if it is at all possible for the combustion of jet fuel plus the electrical fire that would also ensue( a boeing 757 has almost 200 km of electrical wiring in the plane) that it could produce enough heat to weaken the central column of the towers enough to release the potential energy and create an insane rate of free fall.
I understand the properties of thermite to some degrees and i Know what its capable of doing. Ive heard the argument that the construction crew who worked on the towers a few weeks before the attacks, placed thermite explosives around the same floors where the planes would strike( somewhere between the 60-70s floors roughly). But my next question is even if there had been explosives placed there that could have melted iron and produced droplets of iron ore at ground zero would that have made the buildings collapse in the manner that they did? If those kinds of grenades more or less melt metal into metal there wouldnt the top part of the WTC, above the location of the supposed grenades, have just like slid off?
Again please I want opinions from both sides. But educated ones. Excuse my ignorance, I am a historian not a scientist. Thanks

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: CW ()
Date: March 20, 2013 06:59PM

Except the steel clearly melted. No question. You can see it on the beams at ground zero. You can see it on beams planted at ground level, hundreds of feet below impact. How did they melt?
Second, so jet fuel, which would completely burn up upon impact and only burns in open air around 600 degrees (about the same as a lighter flame) weakened ALL the steel in BOTH buildings to create a free-fall of the buildings, with no impediment or deflection of material? The future engineer(ing major) completely missed the discipline of physics, and lacks understanding of the composition of the materials in question. That's the problem with a little knowledge, you end up focusing on one aspect and miss the whole picture entirely. No, the jet fuel did not weaken the steel, that theory has already been proven false.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: B.Sunday ()
Date: March 20, 2013 10:49PM

you're pretty much full of it , vertical SHEARING WOULD NEVER TAKE PLACE UNDER THE SILLY EXCUSE YOU MAKE !

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Simmo ()
Date: March 26, 2013 03:39AM

And what about the third building that came down in a controlled manner that wasnt even near the hit buildings and was NOT hit. I mean without putting to fine a point on this the audacity of this being done and blamed on someone else is mindboggling.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Vargoth ()
Date: April 01, 2013 11:37AM

First of all, I am not commenting on any conspiracy but injecting some fact and simple logic.

Yes jet fuel can burn at temperatures of over 900 Celsius however it can only reach this temperature when being force fed compressed air such as only made possible (for all practical purposes) by a fully functioning jet engine operating at peak performance. This is part of the genius of the jet engine; the way it compresses and rams this air into the combustion chamber which allows the fuel to burn so hot. Outside of this extremely specific condition, and in the open air, jet fuel burns at less than 320 Celsius.

"The maximum temperature Jet Fuel (JET A-1) burns at, which requires a controlled, high-pressure burn is 980°C (1796 °F)

HOWEVER, the OPEN-AIR temperature, also termed 'dirty burn', is the temperature a fuel burns at in an unpressurised and uncontrolled burn, and for JET A-1 is:

260-315°C (500-599°F)".

Also see: []

Further, keep in mind jet engines are made of steel and some aluminum/titanium and derivative super alloys. An engine designed to burn jet fuel, especially at the extremely high temperatures possible if using compressed air, would be doomed to fail, and no person would ever agree to ride in any jet aircraft, if it was made of materials that could not withstand even the lowest of these temperatures. Jet engines overcome this problem of heat by using steel and these heat resistant alloys for the parts that are exposed to the most intense heat (turbine fans and fuel nozzles) and by using a good portion of the air the engine sucks in for cooling.

Steel melts and changes form at various temperatures depending on what kind of steel it is. However, it is safe to say that even the weakest Steel retains it's full strength until about 700 Celsius which is when it begins to weaken until about 1100 Celsius which is when it begins to melt.

Conclusion: It is impossible for jet fuel to burn, outside of a perfectly working jet engine, at a temperature that is even half as hot it would need to be to so much as weaken steel in the slightest, let alone melt it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: aljaz ()
Date: April 06, 2013 12:57PM


I am amazed by quality of arguments in this forum. One of the best and most informative things about 9/11 structural inconsistencies ifound so far. And as always there is plenty of seeming "proves" for both sides. For all people seeking for truth, i advice you to double check all the claims, check numbers in books, do your own calculations and deiced what you want to believe.
For all anti truthers: worst thing you can do is disprove one of false claims generalize it on all their claims and then start to accuse all the truthers that they hate America.
Sure some of "conspiracy theories" are absurd, but so are some of offical NIST reports. And attack that happened on that day was a conspiracy, being orchestrated by bunch of mucslims in a cave in Afganistav, bunch administration or Mossad. It was preplanned by group of bad people thus it is conspiracy. And yes it made you go to war against Afganistan and later Iraq, by doing that even more Americans people died, along with countles innocent people in middle east. Lots of naive US youth went to army to "serve their nation" not knowing that by doing this they support corporate America and partly same people who orchestarted 9/11. My guess is that 9/11 was organized by Israelis and done by Mossad. Similar Mossad operation was done in London on 7/7 to convince UK people to invade Iraq. False flag operations like this ware proven to be planned by Mossad few times in history. Most military officials would agree with me.


Most numbers I have seen in this thread are correct. If not they are corrected in next posts. Kerosine burns at relatively low temperature. Office fires are hotter.
Pools of molten steel weeks after could be aluminum, I havent seen any proves that it was actually steel.

Boeing 767: Operating empty weight: 198,440 lb (90,010 kg); Maximum takeoff weight 412,000 lb (186,880 kg)
WTC Facades were also aluminum alloy, along with lots of inner aluminum (air shafts). So there was quite alot of aluminum on the site.

At paulschober: Magnesium in landing gear is in alloy form mixed with other metals (aluminum) and DOES NOT CATCH FIRE at 450°C. Your data is for pure Magnesium. I am sure that at aircraft design they use noncombustible magnesium alloys. Here is more about that : []

I have seen many vague claims about quantity of fuel. Here is what I found: Flight 11 and Flight 175 were respectively carrying only approximately 36% and 31% of full fuel capacity. The NIST reports offer varying estimates of the amount of jet fuel that was on the airplanes.One passage states that on impact Flight 11 “likely contained about 10,000 gallons (38 000 l) of Jet A fuel (66,700 pounds, 30 000 kg)” Another passage states that Flight 175 contained “about 9,100 gal(62,000 lb)”
Roughly 20 percent of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireballs that were observed outside of the buildings within seconds of impact. The authors of the FEMA report suggested that half of the fuel not consumed in the fireballs could have flowed away, presumably down the elevator shafts and stairwells based on eyewitness accounts.

About temperatures that were reached in towers:

TLDR: I think that people responsible for 9/11 and 7/7 attacks are Israeli Zionists and Mossad. Reason for attacks was to convince US citizens to go to war in middle east and help Israel on middle east.
Why WTC1 and WTC2 fell? IMO series of unlucky events and unconvenient construction. Damage made by plane and due to OFFICE fires (kerosine had minor role). Started tragic series of events. If building would be build like true 3D mesh complete collapse would probably not happen.

Main vertical support was in core columns and outer shell, Safety factor was 3 I think, outer shell had some holes in it lowering safety factor to 2. Due to temperature differences and expansion of beams connecting shell with core columns it started to buckle. That bending outwards caused it to loose its vertical resistance. Upper floors felt into that shell throwing outer shell outwards. Inner columns kept building centered so floors felt to footprint. As someone said it was designed to selfdestruct that way in case of structural failure.

What caused Building 7 to fall? I have no fucking clue! Official report said that fuel tanks in building (it stored 90 000l of diesel for emergecy generators) did not explode or catch fire, becasue they found most of the fuel in debris. I didnt see any good pictures of that side of the building that had most damage. On satellite image done one week after attack it can be seen that debris pile at wtc7 is just as hot as debris piles at wtc1 and 2 730°C,1346°F.

Afterall if whoever did this was able to hijack 4 planes, he was also bale to drive few trucks with explosive in underground garages. (i am not sure if there were garages unde wtc7). Another questions: Did they found the gold stored in vaults under WTC1 and WTC2?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: ArkaelDren ()
Date: April 07, 2013 07:05AM

Wow, what a great read in some ways. Not to say that I like the subject matter, but its going to be part of several points.

So the first thing that comes to my mind is what a complete bunch of Morons you “ALL” are. Now wait, don’t dismiss my small book just yet. One of the worst behaviors in all of humanity is what’s happening right here. We have 2 sides of a very heated position and discussion, and like always, neither of the two sides is willing to concede one bit of truth or relevancy to the others view or theory/opinion.

Have you ever sat down with a loved one and tried to explain that you are telling them the truth, that it is imperative that they hear you, and believe you. You tell them countless times…”Listen to me please, this is important and I am really trying to help”? That you plead with them to see your point? Really, take a bit of time to digest this and apply it to this serious discussion, with examples within your life?

There is some serious evidence that is on the side of the “Conspiracy” theory. Even as well as the amount of evidence on the side of caution. Do none of you see this as a possibility? What’s important here is truly not the actual event, for this I apologize.

What is important is the very real possibility that the US authority, what ever that might be, knew about this, and could have had a hand in it. Can you all find common ground that this is a possibility? I can agree, that it is possible, it was an honest tragedy brought on by anger, hatred and a real type of inhumane behavior. But to sit back and ignore the History of humanity, over the hundreds of years we have to reflect upon, is complete IGNORANCE…. That is not debatable.

I have come to my own conclusion about this horrible act, it was derived from within my own professional life. I will not go into much detail, but my job is a professional deception consultant. I studied under Paul Ekman, PhD, an emeritus psychology professor at the University of California Medical School. Do your research to his validity. I have watched hundreds of videos about the NIST investigations. The rate of deception is staggering. As for the amount of questionable opinions from logical PHD’s Masters degree holders and just plain experts within their fields, I am left with the conclusion it was a deliberate attack from with in our own Governmental/Authoritarian structure.

You see I took the time to consider the facts within the broad scope in its entirety. Not blindly choose a side. Its to bad some of you, that clearly posses a good deal of intellect, wont investigate this with an open mind remembering humanities history.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Obvious ()
Date: April 07, 2013 06:34PM

The towers vaporied in mid-air.. why are you all arguing over this? Watch all the collapse videos, 1million tons of building never hit the floor and broke the dike, it turned into dust. The truth IS out there if you really open your eyes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Sevs ()
Date: April 14, 2013 06:05PM

Temperature is and average measurement of kinetic energy. The higher beams may have weakened, but the lower iron beams would still maintain their integrity...the tower would topple over, not fall at demolition speed. I have tempered steel and agree with the different degrees of iron's atomic structure vs. heat. But that shit was totally a systematic explosion. Also, can you explain the stream of molten thermite in the basement?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Sic ()
Date: April 16, 2013 03:05PM

Oh ok take it from the student..... Ok so jet fuel makes a building collapse on its self, the Empire State Building was hit by a jet in fog conditions, and it only suffered minor damage. And does jet fuel produce THERMITE, which a positively identified in the rubble

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: John Doe ()
Date: April 26, 2013 02:39AM

You make it sound so easy for a limited amount of jet fuel to take down 2 extremely massive buildings full of steel and made them fall straight down into its own footprint. Don't you think demolition crews would use the same method, seeing as how easy and effective is was. Screw explosives or thermite, the trick is add a little jet fuel. Brilliant.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: B.looking ()
Date: April 30, 2013 06:37AM


Just wondered what people think about this new find?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: jim ()
Date: May 09, 2013 04:54PM

To all who believe what the mainstream media is telling you about the twin towers, your all a bunch of sheeple who believe anything that comes out of the TV.
How about the thousands of engineers and arcitects that say it was impossible.
A pancake theory whould show blocks of concrete, not pulvorized dust.
First responders heard expolsions, molten steel found still burning after 3 months far underground.
Wake up Sheeple, we the people......
I'll bet you still believe Oswald shot kennedy....
8 guys with boxcutters,lol.
You probably believe a plane hit the pentagon making that little hole, or how about the one that crashed in PA? No wreckage? No luggage? No bodys? Oh yea thats right it went underground.....wake up for gods sake.
Help us Jesus to see the truth behing the evil curtain, I pray.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: I need some advice from people who believe it was a conspiracy and that it wasnt
Posted by: cosmologist ()
Date: May 11, 2013 05:44AM

I think a more important question would be, how does one coordinate an attack using airplanes that would be able to be that accurate? In other words, you stated that the construction crews supposedly placed thermite explosives in the same area that the planes hit. This means that the hijackers (who were not professional airline pilots with years of experience but rather just enough training to be able to successfully complete their objective) were able to aim an airliner directly into the target area while traveling at nearly 500mph. Now, while this is not impossible (they oculd guess correctly, or even less likely, could have trained enough to be able to 'eyeball' these floors), I think most would agree that it is rather unlikely. That type of precision would be hard enough to manage at much slower speeds, let alone almost 500mph. Good luck w/ your dissertation, I'm just getting ready to start my dissertation on a hypothesis of mine, that the coriolis force which on earth causes the rotation of air masses (the reason why hurricanes exhibit the shape they do) is also present at much larger scales, such as in galactic groups, or perhaps on even greater scales...should be fun winking smiley lol

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Sheeple ()
Date: May 13, 2013 03:10AM

I worked security at a large skyscraper hotel demo, was only 3 little charges
about 4 mins later the top shook ever so little then it fell in place free fall
exactly like wtc7 say what you want, I was there

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Anonymous ()
Date: May 24, 2013 06:49AM

I love reading this stuff. Ok, here's how it all goes down. We so far have already established jet fuel could not alone make the WTS collaps, right?... Ok. Now when you get a chance look at The underneath porton of the plane. What!?!? That's right, there is something here but possibly hard to see. It is a hole chamber. The Same ones used I'm military planes as a resivour for extra fuel and cameras. Let me eliminate jet fuel alone. What is jet fuel a component of? Napalm!!! All they did was attach this resivour on a 757 fill it with napalm. Now that will do the trick. Have fun now winking smiley

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Conspiracy theory?
Posted by: Ernie Perez ()
Date: May 29, 2013 02:04PM

Did you ever hear of the Alabama experiments on black GI's?
Did you ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?
Did you ever hear of the WMD's in Iraq?
If you think that your government doesn't lie to you, you are a fool.
Did you ever hear of the Domino's theory?
I'm not an engineer but I would recongnize melted ice cream just as easily as melted steel.
So far I don't see anything that would produce the kind of heat needed to melt steel so quickly and evenly, do you?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Joe Robinson ()
Date: May 31, 2013 01:43PM

A couple comments:

The WTC was closed for "elevator maintenance" for the period before 9/11.

Martin Bush (George Bush's younger brother) was an executive in the company who managed the security of WTC. He was also the president of Silverdo Bank, one of the primary perpetrators in the Savings and Loan Crisis in the late 80's.

What about WTC 7? Nobody can offer anywhere near a credible story on how this building could fall down.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Tom ()
Date: May 31, 2013 07:18PM

Look, the facts are that as stated the steel didn't have to melt to cause the building collapse, any jet fuel can burn hot enough to weaken steel, I know because I've witnessed such events. The steel in the WTC was OLD and steel ages guys, it was also neglected. Ever hear of oxidation? It weakens all metals, again I've witnessed this phenomena firsthand. The ugly fact is Bin Laden sent forth suicide terrorists to destroy the WTC, other strategic sites, & American lives! We have exacted our revenge as a nation on him and are still dealing it regularly to the remaining members of his extremist cells. Also, products receive UL & other ratings based off the results from the selected samples of a given product. Do you know what rubble is? It provides nearly complete air saturation. Ruble isn't air or water tight no matter how angry you are at the government! God bless and as the student pointed out says stop grasping at straws, you're starting to sound like Alien theorists. "But rocks are heavy requiring anti-gravity" there is no conspiracy the government loves your taxes!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Andre ()
Date: June 03, 2013 03:14AM

Hey Charlie could you send me that video you were working on 3 yrs ago.. I've recently been looking into all this and some good mathematical data would help. Thanks
Also anyone else who has some solid evidenc send it my way

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Allen ()
Date: June 14, 2013 03:00AM

Steel loses it's structural integrity by 50%, at a mere 100 Degrees. FEMA estimated the top temperatures in the building at over 1800 degrees, in some central-spots. The concrete paved when the steel lost about 65-70 percent of its integrity. DO the math. You are NOT an expert.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: AbeTheMudokon ()
Date: June 20, 2013 09:28PM

it wasnt steel or iron or iron-iron it was construction grade steel also the cores of the steel [poles were 1472 degrees celcius which is the aprox temp; at which burning jet fuel is its hottest and construction grade steel has a way higher melting point. therefore what brang the buiklding down was a bomb. u fugyreds this with that and a lot more research i have been doing.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: nunyaBIZ ()
Date: June 24, 2013 07:21AM

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours... STILL STANDING
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours... STILL STANDING
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours... STILL STANDING
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours... STILL STANDING
Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours... STILL STANDING
July 28, 1945 A B25 bomber slammed into the Empire State building...STILL STANDING

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 5 of 10

Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.
This forum powered by Phorum.