World Aero Data
Aviation discussion. 
Home | Older Messages

Search the Database


Current Page: 7 of 10
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Frank ()
Date: November 16, 2013 09:52PM


Thanks for your comment.
One question I have.
If the jet fuel was hot enough to melt the steel beams what is the chance it would fall straight down? I have seen video's of building falling but not straight down.
The only buildings that fall straight down are buildings with controlled demolition.
What are your thoughts?


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: tim ()
Date: November 21, 2013 12:24AM

Anyone who believes that the towers went down from jet fuel is a person who has been conditioned to believe lies that are spoon fed to them from the media and government. They are likely a product of public education that has dumbed them down with a system that is about control. And they will follow blindly and ridicule people who know and love the truth by calling a conspiracy theorist a wacko.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Dawn Courville ()
Date: December 14, 2013 01:02AM

For all you yahoos attacking the student stop. Are you engineers? And to the idiot who suggested that no building has ever collapsed from fire you know this because so many buildings have had planes fly in to them for you to study right???????

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: George Marshall ()
Date: December 17, 2013 04:26PM

To know what happened to the World Trade Centers, all you have to think of is a western movie where a blacksmith is making a horse shoe.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Wallymarx ()
Date: December 21, 2013 12:54PM

It's funny when the conspiracy denials come out, it's all emotion and no scientific contemplation. My first point is to jane, it was terrible what happened to the passengers on FL93, they perished on that plane sadly, but what about the passengers on FL11, FL77 and FL175? You failed to mention those poor souls, or have you coincidentally not heard any stories of who exactly those passengers were?

Secondly to anyone who thinks the jet fuel brought down the towers, you're an idiot lol! High rise architectural steel melts at 1600C, it weakens after prolonged exposure at 930C, jet fuel does burn at around 950C... but OXYGEN STARVED JET FUEL burns anywhere between 300-700C, black smoke billowing from the towers is evidence of this.

Thirdly, why would 1500 structural engineers, high rise architects, metallurgists, aeronautical experts, physicists and demolition experts (including the American Institute of Architects) form the Experts Speak Out Movement who use their 25,000 years of combined expertise to validate a need for an independent investigation as to why the governments 9/11 Commission Report was even published as fact, and also to perform an independent investigation into how the towers and WTC7 came down?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Squirrel ()
Date: December 22, 2013 09:32AM

@jack barnett...yea because a security guard is really gonna stop and search FBI or CIA, that's the saddest defence I've heard yet and @BTsun one simple thing dumb ass you say yourself it take time to wear out the steel to cause it to weaken enough for the buildings to collapse, 1 they burned for what 70 minutes before crashing? 2 you say 5th floor burned for 7 hours how do u which floor it was? After an hour it was all 1st floor, so your little 7 hour fire wasn't the reason these buildings came down, try again, i personally believe they were intentionally brought down by our government, the 2 tallest building in USA come crashing down and none of the surrounding building take any damage what so ever, yea too perfect, also of we see 4 planes completely veer off course even turn completely around automatic assumption should be its hijacked and when its headed towards heavily populated areas automatic assumption should be crash course, let me being an American even before 9/11 get in a small plane and fly towards d.c. or fly below 4,000 feet in populated areas and guaranteed my plane would have been warned to identify itself before being brought down, the fact they were still looking for flight 11 tells me their story is bullshit and with 2 f-15s in the twin tower area another plane strolled right past and flew into the other tower unscathed? Fuckin please our f15s would have dropped that plane before impact because instant common sense would have said the death toll would have been smaller

Options: ReplyQuote
people are just retarded
Posted by: Squirrel ()
Date: December 22, 2013 09:46AM

Loves seeing people on here talk shit about intelligence and then Google big words to put IM their statements so they'll look smart, LOL if ur clowning on someones intelligence obviously their not gonna understand that big word u didn't even know until you Googled it LOL sad pessimists

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: shane ()
Date: December 22, 2013 05:37PM

Please stop with the name calling. I don't like to delete anyone's message, especially if they have something valuable to contribute to the discussion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Steve ()
Date: December 26, 2013 02:21AM

I am shocked, and saddened with what I see taking place here. This whole discussion is senseless since it focuses on one irrelevant question which precludes EVERYONE to ignore the facts...the evidence. Evidence is fact. How you interpret it, is opinion. No one here seems to want to follow scientific method which requires establishing WHAT happened before allowing any speculation as to HOW, WHO or WHY.

Every post I have read, cherry picks the evidence to support their position. I've never seen such a wide variety of possible temperatures for jet fuel combustion, steel melting points, presence of certain alloys and exotic conditions resulting in ultra high heat,...all thermal related methods expounded upon to prove or disprove whether steel can melt or not making it responsible for the destruction.

Every one of these posts here FAIL to include ALL the evidence...since it would eliminate their theory from being possible. I could site several items of evidence that disproves any thermal method, but will chose this:

What about the survivors at ground zero???? The group in the stairwell of one of the towers for example. All of you are proposing a scenario that you claim can melt, weaken and cause the disintegration of two 500,000 ton structures in 10 seconds each, yet...not crush, burn or blow up those people. The survivors that were covered in dust were NOT burned by it, yet you would have us believe that it was heat that destroyed everything around and above these people. How is that possible.??? It's not with any thermal and/or kinetic collapse type event.

If anyone is ready to consider an explanation that follows scientific method as well as accounts for ALL the evidence and is focused only on determining WHAT happened, I suggest you investigate Dr. Judy Wood's work and book titled, "Where Did the Towers Go??" or her presentation at the "Breakthrough Energy Conference 2012" in Holland. I'm not going to elaborate anymore on this here as the amount of supporting empirical evidence provided is huge.

You all have fun with your "dog chasing it's tail" discussion. Just keep this in mind...Empirical evidence is the fact that theory must mimic.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Johnny ()
Date: December 27, 2013 06:51PM

I like most of you here don't believe the official explanation of what happened on that day. There are thousands of loose ends which one can find fairly easily. Regardless of this however I think the most important thing we should all be aware of, and agree on is that 9/11 was used for ALL the wrong reasons. If we all accept this and push this fact instead of the "who done it" argument, then I believe we can make some real progress.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Adrian ()
Date: December 28, 2013 09:33PM

Untrue. MAX burning temp of Jet Fuel is 599F. Let's round that to 600F. Min melting point of structural steel is rounded to 2000F. Critical Temp (at which its ability to support reduces to 60%) is rounded to 1000F.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Mark ()
Date: January 02, 2014 04:20PM

I've read this and feel compelled to respond, here's my thoughts.

Firstly why does every conspiracy theorist adopt this elitest I'm enlightened stance? Belittling the person you're speaking to and expecting then to take your points on board! not really going to work. You say that you're open minded and educated and yet you're ignorant to everything that disproves your theories.

I have looked into this with an open mind, listened / watched and taken on board the conspiracy theories and then looked how these theories stand up and not one really stands up or at best is very circumstancial maybe it doesn't seem like it if you're paranoid but with an open mind very circumstancial.

I'm happy that no conspiracy exists around how the buildings fell or that the real accounts of what happened are fake.

I'm not saying that many people haven't benefited or tried to benefit from a very bad thing but that doesn't mean that they've orchestrated it.

I've taken a balanced non paranoid approach to looking at this and I think if you do the same you'll draw the same conclusion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Ndian ()
Date: January 03, 2014 04:43AM

I realize that this is a waste of time. This original post was written so long ago. So many people get upset over this subject. Clearly, the topic has a heated debate going that will continue for many more years to come. I am a Union Iron Worker. Like my father and my grandfather, my uncle and my cousins. I build sky rise buildings for my living. I weld beams and columns together on a regular basis. I cut steel using oxy-acetylene torches all the time. My friends (also Iron Workers) were there at Ground Zero volunteering and helping cut steel away to try and clear the site. I know all of the properties steel has when its cold, and when hot, and when too much heat is applied. I hope some of you will consider that what I'm going to say is not to choose a side. I'm completely non confrontational here. I've tried in the past to explain to people there is not any possible way that fire could have brought down these structures alone, in my long experience. Also there is no possible way fire initially started from jet fuel caused molten steel if its burning at 980 deg. C as stated by the engineering student whom by now is graduated,comfortably working in a nice office somewhere I hope. You see steel becomes liquid somewhere around 1500 deg. Celsius. Where if the structures were compromised by fire alone, they would have listed and sagged down on to themselves. all the substructures unharmed below that had been supporting them would have continued to do so. Building six had molten steel pouring from it. Fire alone could not have caused that. Building seven collapsed. fire alone there as well, could not have caused that either. The Elephant in the room: both towers, in my opinion should have never collapsed on their own weight even with missing and weakened structural components. There are extensive examples of fires in many sky rise buildings through out the world with less stringent building codes where they continued to stand long after the fire were contained days later, in some cases. I hope this helped. I build these things for a living and i'm not here to upset anyone.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: J.T. ()
Date: January 15, 2014 09:29PM

You don't have to be an engineer or a physics major to know a controlled demolition when you see one.
Simple physics says if you hit only 2 things, 3 things shouldn't fall down.(okay, bowling doesn't apply here!)

ONLY a controlled demolition, gives you a "controlled collapse" (AND molten steel puddles on the ground!) as we saw 3 times on 9/11!

And finally on this issue:
except for........ North Tower (1 WTC), South Tower (2 WTC) and Building 7!!
(funny how America is so good at doing things no one else can do?!?!)

Bottom line...someone in government was behind this. The purpose of this "false flag event",
was top scare America into accepting the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act, gives the government the power to "suspend" your Constitutional right at their whim.
All they have to do is label you a "terrorist" and they can lock you up and do whatever they want to you.

Think about it....our government couldn't have SPENT enough money to get Americans to accept an amendment to the Constitution.
But scare a nation of people who can no longer think for themselves and they can get them to do whatever they want.
When you know the REAL RREASON for 911, a government conspiracy is the only RATIONAL answer.

I mean who else could have pulled this stunt off?!!?
There just "happened" to be a millitary exercise that relocated planes AWAY from the Petagon
AND another "exercise" that put "artificial targets" on air traffic controller screens in the area so that our fighter jets couldn't respond?!?!
All this the SAME DAY and at the EXACT SAME TIME as the "terrorist attack"?!?!?
(Seems these "terrorists" had a plant inside the government to know all that!)
C-o-i-n-c-i-d-e-n-c-e....I think not.

And 9/11 wasn't the first time.
Pearl Harbor was "allowed" to happen. We had just gotten out of WWI and were in the grips of
The Great Depression, and Americans had no taste for war. But get Americans mad enough
(or scared enough) and we can be made to do anything.

Even give away our freedom!!

P.S. there was a TV program that showed the US Government hijacking a
plane and crashing it into the World Trade , 6 months before it happened!!
(look up "Lone Gunmen" Pilot) C-o-i-n-c-i-d-e-n-c-e....I think not!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: kevin himes ()
Date: January 24, 2014 12:40PM

Jet fuel WILL NOT BURN AT A TEMP HIGH ENOUGHT TO TURN STEEL INTO "MOLTEN STEEL" LIGQUID!!! It was over 2000 degrees at ground level...I'm sorry but jet fuel COULD NOT create a high enough temp to completely melt it!!! PERIOD!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: WTC collapse
Posted by: Ken.Henshaw ()
Date: January 24, 2014 11:16PM

When the design engineer of the WTC was interviewed he was clearly distraught, His explanation was the after the aircraft impacted the WTC the construction was such that the intense impact severed key load bearing steel girders putting a serious load on the remaining girders, coupled with the intense heat from the fire the impact floor failed and the remaining floors could not carry the load of the floors that were damaged. Consequently causing the pancaking effect,you will remember both tower's failed exactly the same way. The architect also said he was still in a quandary over if they could have used stronger material, would effect the design of the Tower's weight and sway calculations among other material considerations.
This boils down to second guessing to the enth degree.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jason ()
Date: January 25, 2014 09:56PM

JB, the conspiracy theories are easier to believe than the "official" stories.I joined the military after 911 and thought I was fighting a just war. But it just doesn't add up.
19 terrorists all at the same time broke through our billion dollar security system undetected all at the same time taking different planes to perform their tasks without interruption minus Flight 93, of which there's little proof of wreckage. And the terrorists were said to not even be able to maneuver a Cessna well, but they flew passenger jets into their targets with pinpoint accuracy.
And did we mention that there are scores of witnesses recorded saying that the planes didn't even look liken commercial planes, but military planes? And then there's the fact that you SEE molten metal pouring from the smoking hole in the buildings and there are firefighters talking about molten metal flowing for days after the crash.
Given the motive of going into a country rich in resources to devalue it's economy, buy it up, and rebuild it to make your currency skyrocket in value I'd say we have way more reason to believe the conspiracy theories than the official story that's just there to put tension between religions to break down resistance to the new global power structure.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Charlie ()
Date: January 30, 2014 04:34AM

Ok,Jeff, your comparison with Iran-Contra is completely flawed. Because, the PUBLIC DID FIND OUT about it. Why? Because of loose lips of the people required to keep it hush hush. This is in fact the main reason (as Mr. Barnett said originally) that an 'inside job' is implausible.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: john ()
Date: February 08, 2014 12:19PM

WOW! I know thread is 3yrs old now but I hope some dumbass sees this. Why does kero have to melt steel to weaken it? Red hot steel is said to be "austenitic" at that state and bends very easily. I have bent 5/8 rebar with two fingers. But if kerosene cannot make steel red hot why does the front of my "Reddy" heater or any other "salamander" type kero heaters glow red freakin hot? Riddle me this all you CTers. BTW I do not think kero did it but it is a hole in the story. Ever light a hollow log or chimney on fire on purpose? It gets hot! Way hotter than it does in my stove. Why? Air flow volume and temperature vs height of chimney. A tower is like a big arse chimney with fire stops in it. Bang a hole or two here or there, add a match and some fuel and viola, inferno in the hole! Not pickin sides just pokin holes. I agree that our Gov't is capable of stuff like this, just look what other gov'ts have done to protect their beliefs, I.E. the killing of scientific naysayers during the inquisitions or our own creation of things like the "little boy" and "fat man" or the Russian "tsar bomb" Why? Why do such crazy evil things? Self preservation and point proving IMO. I asked how a guy knew the legless lady was legit. he said why would she lie? I ask why wouldn't she? Maybe she hates the gov't too and will poke any hole she can to stoke the fire a lil hotter. Maybe she was part of it, how the hell do we know? Heresay is just that! Ever wonder why magicians love pyrotecnics? Misdirection, thats why. You notice the bang but don't notice the dove in his shorts or the lady leaving the box via trap door. All hidden in the fire, While we are/were debating this and giving it our attention what did uncle Sammy slip in under our radar? just my dime, too long a post to me just my $0.02.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: FreedomFighter ()
Date: February 08, 2014 06:53PM

So ALL FOUR CORNERS of the building WERE WEAKENED to the SAME POINT at the SAME TIME???? Do any of you understand how RIDICULOUS that sounds? So as a simulations would suggest, neither building would be able to fall directly downward like they did. WOW. I can't believe I even have to argue this still. People, STOP HAVING SO MUCH FAITH IN OUR $&%*$-UP GOVERNMENT.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Veda ()
Date: February 20, 2014 12:13PM

If you have any understand in the field of common sense, money, science, demolition and how trillions of dollars of "defense" money cant protect one of the most important cities in the US then two things must be considered. first where are our tax money going? Second everything about 9/11 from the dam date to how the buildings fell is dam weird, I have learned that nature has some bases of pattern which we call physics so how do you explain the twin towers defy the logic of science and nature. also could someone explain to me why the top parts of the damaged areas of the tower didn't collapse like for example the second tower that fell the roof and how many levels that were left between the damaged area and the roof remained perfects fine including that metal rod antenna on the roof never collapsed before hand. the reason I'm puzzled is the top part of the build which would be above the damaged burning area (where the plane hit) the steel supports were physically damaged and whats left of those steel supports we're being weakened by the heat so why didn't the level where all the damage and heat occurred give in and collapsing the top part of the building on to the rest of the build but instead was perfectly fine and rode with the collapsing build as a solid piece and i may add until it collided with the ground. this kind of stuff make me wonder what actually happened in new york at 9/11. Chelsea and Mike truth is hard thing to swallow and find so this fox news you speak of who focuses on Bill Clintons freaken affair then some of the good work he did for his country or Mike and Chelsea have you heard of the discovery of God particle (btw its a slang term for the particle) which was one of the most profound discoveries of maybe this decade or maybe the 21st century and did fox new cover that no but celebrity bullshit they cover. so how about you mike and chelsea grow up and see the world as it is a bad place where money is addiction and some people will do anything for more no matter the cost to another human being. at same time there is some good in the world and as long as we all try to better our selfs we may as a species have a chance to make a better world for all.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: J ()
Date: February 23, 2014 02:25AM

These people with their conspiracy theories are just nuts. For me to believe that government agents were able to consistently bypass WTC security and plant explosives over and over again without detection seems implausible to begin with.

Next, I'm expected to believe that any person asked to participate in this plot cooperates whole heartedly and does not question authority? Not only that, but do you know how many people would have to be involved to pull this off? How about friends & family? Not a single person would tell a friend or family member about this plot? And then we expect them all to keep quiet? Someone, someplace would have written an electronic communication tipping off the media and authorities and this would have come to light.

Clinton couldn't even keep semen stain secret.

I can't even imagine a president asking FBI/CIA officials to blow up the trade center.

You may believe that most people in the government are corrupt and or stupid, but to believe that they encompass this unbridled evil says more about them than anything else.


The World Trade Towers were "Shut Down" to install "New Internet" before 9/11 happened. Look it up for specific details.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jordan ()
Date: February 24, 2014 04:41AM

Your theory is a good one, however I am inclined to say that physical speaking, even if the steel beams were weakened enough to cause the buildings to collapse according to Newton's third law there would be an equal and opposite reaction. In other words once the steel structures became insufficient to hold up the higher floors , and the upper floors hit the lower floors, the upper floors would begin to crumble just as the lower floors would, in addition the top part of the building would certainly not fall at free fall speed (which is in fact what we see). We also have video and eye witness accounts that show that molten metal was dripping from the support beams near the impact zone of the plane. And however you and I can agree that steel dose not have to melt to become insufficient we can also agree that the jet fuel fire would not cause the molten metal that we see in the world trade center. We also see in the dust from the world trade center collected by someone before the clean up crew arrived under the electron microscope the leftovers of a thermite reaction. Therefore based on forensic data, eye witness accounts, and video evidence that there was molten steel, and that thermite was used in the bringing down of the world trade center. Your argument is still completely valid, however jet fuel fire still dose not match up with all the data we have, and as the great Sherlock Holmes said, you can make a wrong conclusion based on good interpretation of some of the evidence, however when taking all the evidence and examining it thoroughly you can come upon the right conclusion. One last thing the twin towers were not the only buildings of the world trade center to go down that day, building 7 a significantly smaller building that was not hit by any planes and had minimal office fires collapsed at near free fall speed, something that is consistent with a controlled demolition. Despite all this I believe that you still did some good science.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jordan ()
Date: February 24, 2014 04:58AM

Your claims that people who claim "conspiracy theories" and what not are liars, with no conscience is a far cry from the truth, so in answer to "Jane" I say that supposing that 911 was an inside job wouldn't the families of the victims want to hear the truth rather than be fed a lie? Also it is not in an effort to destroy America, or tarnish it's reputation, not in my opinion at least, for in truth I do love this country, now there are certain corrupt people who are and those who have been in charge of this country and have done bad things, now it is wrong to judge a group based on the actions of a few, just as it is wrong to judge a people based on the actions of their leaders. Science does help us understand a lot of things but to think that the families of the people who died that day would hate these theories is blind folly, I have watched news interviews of family members of people who died that day and are trying to get the public to see that it wasn't as it seems, personally if someone I loved was killed, I would want all who were responsible to be tried, and I certainly would not want to be fed a lie about it, and for the sake of the people who died, they would want people to know the truth, so again don't be biased rather go with an open mind, and Think. I love America, I hate what the leaders of this country have done.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Brian ()
Date: March 04, 2014 04:20PM

not to argue, I value your opinion, but do you think you could explain the molten steel that was found?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: joey ()
Date: March 20, 2014 02:06PM

I know I'm coming late to this argument, but any demolition expert will say it resembles controlled demolition. And regardless of what you or anyone knows about steel and jet fuel, the company that produced the steel beams to build the WTC guaranteed that it could withstand temperatures in excess of 7000°F and would need to be exposed to that temperature for hours in order to weaken it. Which, one big explosion would happen in a second or so. Then, the company decided to change its statement and said it definitely was the planes that caused it. Now if it were a conspiracy, I'm sure it would take some very powerful people to pull off...people I'm sure would have enough power to influence a company to so harshly and rapidly change their statement. And this is only one aspect. Why did newspapers report bomb sniffing dogs were removed from premises? Why did the owner take an insurance policy out just before it happenes specifically covering terrorism, when at that time we weren't nearly as concerned with terrorism as we are now. He then filed separate claims on each tower. If you or I were to do this, we'd have some private investigator on our ass. Its no longer a theory..I'm fully convinced.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jay ()
Date: March 21, 2014 11:52PM

#1 Examining the attrocity of 9/11 IS very important AND the families of vicitums still cry out for this to be done. It took years before GW comprised the 9/11 Commision. It does justice to those lives lost and the consquential lives dedicated to fight in war proceding the "big event".
It shows that we CARE enough to still think about it, still acknowledge those lives and the TRAUMA that the nation as a whole experieinced. It shows we love our country and countrymen enough to honor the Truth of what was done to them and to not just forget it. There are children who have grown up without parents or loved ones for 13 years now who don't have the luxury of forgeting and the 9/11 responders now suffering from site induced complications and conditions deserve our attention. That means we continue to explore and get to the bottom of what happened then, with what, and why. The people of NYC deserve it.
#2 To the person who made the comment about the WTC security... HA! I was in the world trade center seeing "work" being done a YEAR before hand! The board of the security company OF THE WTC at that time was headed by Marvin Bush. GW and Jeb's little brother. Yes. look it up.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: cooter brown ()
Date: April 04, 2014 03:05AM

"Next, I'm expected to believe that any person asked to participate in this plot cooperates whole heartedly and does not question authority?

Military - They do it every single day.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say WTC collapsed because of melting steel.
Posted by: Josep ()
Date: April 07, 2014 12:37AM

I'll be brief.
Just think about it everyone, disregarding the fact that jet fuel doesn't melt steel, what happens to steel when it melts?..

When it melts...
It might cramp like a retard building, BUT!

It doesn't collapse in 50 min!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: researcheverything ()
Date: April 12, 2014 01:26PM

yes, that PROPELLER ENGINE PLANE did indeed crash, NO Jet Engine, NO jet fuel.
so what is your argument?

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 7 of 10

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