These Scientists And Engineers Aren't Buying The "Melted Steel Beams" Theory

Submitted by: monkwarrior 7 months ago News & Politics
wtc-collapse

The European Scientific Journal, a publication of the European Scientific Institute (ESI), published this article in which they analyze the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings. The results of their findings also indicate that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, this echos the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth who have been campaigning for a re-investigation for nearly 10 years.

From Europhysics News:

Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally. Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.

There are 51 comments:
Male 835
Monk, we've all been through this before. Read the reply directly before mine, which refutes the credibility of your "source". I do have to agree that the steel beams weren't "melted". However, steel doesn't have to get that close to its melting point to be severely structurally compromised. Having worked with metal for many years (welding and fabrication), I can attest to this first hand. Also, as has already been pointed out, the thermal insulation applied to the structural members of a building is only rated to hold up for a certain time, typically 30 minutes to an hour. The fires burned for well longer than the rated times. Also, as a certified firefighter, I happen to know that the interior of a burning structure can, in some instances, reach temperatures of over 2000 degrees F. Steel begins to melt around 2500 F. It will be considerably weakened at less than 1000 F. With the addition of jet fuel to this particular fire, I have no doubt that there were temperatures of over 1000 F inside the towers during the fires. As to the lower floors failing without being actually involved in the impact of the planes or the fire, it comes down to simple loading. The structural members are rated for static load, not dynamic. While the lower floors are holding up the entire weight of the upper floors with no problem, and what should be plenty of safety margin, this is a mostly static load. When the upper floors collapsed, the force applied to the lower floors was multiplied many times over. As an example, lets say that the portion of the building above the initial collapse zone weighs 100,000 pounds. I'm sure its actually more, this is just an example. We'll use a "standard" floor height of 10 feet. Material accelerates downward due to gravity at an approximate rate of 32.174 ft/s squared. Take the rate of acceleration, and the height of 10 feet, and it gives us an approximate downward speed of around 8.66 mph, neglecting air resistance and the like, if I did the math correctly. A good rule of thumb for figuring impact force (not exact, just a good estimation) is to multiply the speed of the object in mph by its weight. With a weight of 100,000 lbs, and a speed at the time of impact of 8.66 mph, the impact force of the upper section of the building "landing" would have been around 866,000 lbs. Even with a safety factor of 5, which I doubt was that high, the lower floors still would've failed with the impact. With a weight of 200,000 lbs, the impact force would've been around 1.7 million lbs. How much do you think the portion of the building above the initial collapse zone weighed? To put this in perspective, you can easily rest a 10 lb weight on your hand, with no damage, and minimum discomfort. Now, drop that same 10 lbs onto your hand from a height of 10 feet. You will very likely have a broken hand. Get the picture? Physics, man! Perhaps you should learn some...
0
Reply
Male 1,906
Patronize all you like, I admit that there was an error in the article i had made this post from, that got copied over. But try not to get all ad-hominem on the fact that it was reported in Europhysics News (as noted in the post in I-A-B). The issue is the article does point out that physicists are questioning the events of that day. Also, your understanding of physics is clearly flawed.
0
Reply
Male 835
Kindly enlighten me as to what part of my understanding of physics is flawed? Also, I only cited the fact that the source was flawed once, then went on to give an intelligent, knowledgeable dissertation on how the events of 9/11 could have occurred. What part of my reply is blatantly incorrect?
0
Reply
Male 1,906
Oh, just the well known laws of physics, for example, where things fall into the path of the least resistance but the buildings fell into the path of greatest resistance (themselves). Also Newton's three laws which were defied on that day (after being a consistent and reliable theory since around 1670's), which according to the 'official report' it somehow ceased to be consistent in the relative area occupying those 3 buildings (it was not observed elsewhere). Again, the fact is there is no science that can back up the "official report" unless you're calling assertions 'science'. The entire official report is heavily flawed has been proven as such, over and over, by physicists all over the earth for over 15 years. In fact, no one can prove the official report without assertions or speculation (as you're doing), and even physicists have tried to prove it with science and just can't do it (again, unless they want to assert their 'science'). This is why people are asking for a re-investigation, and with what many physicists are finding in the years since that day, it's clear a re-investigation is warranted.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
There you go again, asserting a conspiracy theory without a shred of proof to prove it as such, personally attacking me with your ad-hominem when the facts have been pointed out in this post, and ignoring the proofs provided by the physicists in the post by asking me personally for them. What you described about an idiot seems to be exactly what you're doing, because your asserted 'proof' is speculation, so it looks like you may have judged yourself by your own judgement. It may be your style to do that in order to mark people as 'unowrthy' (as was noted in a previous thread), but i prefer the facts, not what the TV fed me, not what makes me feel accepted among peers, not what makes me resort to fallacies and judgements. Also i don't make declarations to shun others, as any sensible human being can see all humans are part of the whole, but i can understand your desire to brand me as such and your desire to run away, since you really have nothing.
0
Reply
Male 835
Ok, you can't comply with my request. Clearly, you realize that you can't prove anything, and so continue to refer back to the conspiracy theorist websites, instead of simply giving me proofs of your point of view, like I asked. Clearly, I am arguing with an idiot, and have forgotten the first rule of arguing with an idiot: never argue with an idiot, they will only drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience! I am done here, and there is no need for you to reply to me again; I will not read it. I asked, very simply, for YOU to provide VERIFIABLE proofs of your point of view, and you are unable to do so. I didn't ask you about what was said on a website, or in a report, but for proof from YOU. I gave you proof of my point of view. Not something I got from a website or report, but simple, mathematically provable proof that I myself created that defends my point of view. As with most conspiracy theorists, you don't have the intelligence to do such a thing, and can only continue to parrot the stupidity that you have been fed by your fellow theorists. Enjoy you life of bliss. I know you lead a life of bliss, as ignorance is bliss, and you are clearly ignorant. As I have already stated, don't bother replying, I will not be visiting this post again, and will not see it. You had your chance.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
You can ignore the peer-reviewed findings all you like, but the facts are quite clearly against the official story, and so too are many other firefighters: http://ff911truthandunity.org/. If you're so sure that your numbers and scenarios are right, why not a study, have it peer-reviewed, and then get back to us with the results? Otherwise you're just making an ad-hominem here, and also a grasp at straws in the face of what scientists and engineers are finding (re: this post)
0
Reply
Male 835
See my reply up above. I give mathematical proof of my point of view. Not a reference to someone else, but my own basic proof. You seem to be unable to do the same, or simply refuse to do so. Until you choose to do so, I am done. I will not reply until YOU, not a citation from you, or a cut and paste from another source, but YOU, give me some proof of your point of view.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
i'm sorry, the examples have been given but you chose to ignore, citing conspiracy theory without a shred of proof to prove it as such, and where the facts point to explosives. physics supports explosives. newtons laws support explosives. eyewitness reports support explosives. Video footage supports explosives. crime scene evidence supports explosives. But if you want to keep that out of your worldview (maybe because your telly's 'norms' tell you to), its your choice. After all, it is your life to choose to brush away the pesky facts with run-around games and wild goose-chases to maintain your ignorance... best wishes, sounds like a tough bubble to pop..
0
Reply
Male 835
No, I'm not afraid to ask questions. Thats what I've been doing. You are the one who refuses to answer my questions. I've given you provable examples, but you refuse to do the same for your point of view. You just keep referring me to conspiracy theorist sites, and calling it "evidence". Are you unable to speak for yourself, and have to let other nutjobs speak for you? I made an intelligent, well thought out reply, and you seem to be unable to follow suit. That in itself pretty much tells the whole story.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
this post pretty much does that, and if you want more in depth examples, search "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out", and there you go. You'll see it all summed up nicely in one package how the official story is wrong. From there you can take the effort to pop your bubble of denial and seek out the further peer-reviewed documents that have refuted the official report. But knowing your responses, i don't expect you to do anything to break out of your bubble, as you've shown you're afraid of asking questions about things that the TV, celeberties, and your peers, would pour ridicule on you over (as you are trying to do here on me). I fully expect you to continue ridicule, ignore the facts, and do everything you can to protect your fragile world view.
0
Reply
Male 835
Again, give me some provable examples of why your version of the story could be correct. I gave you some provable examples of why my version could be correct. You continuously harp on how the official story is wrong, but refuse to give any actual evidence of why. You just quote other conspiracy theorists with no actual,provable evidence.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
fyi your fallacies make your arguments ridiculous. eg. Im not saying "that the government, or the building's owners, deliberately destroyed it." i'm saying that there is enough evidence to warrant a re-investigation, which is what many others are saying (another fact you want to deny). The fact that the official report can not, and does not stand up to the science, and was even found to deliberately misleading on numerous occasions, as well as ignoring evidence, has already made it bunk. Sure, people may have theories of who did it, or why, but ultimately that is what a re-investigation will discover.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
I already know that's your take on it dude, you've been continuing to repeat your denial of the facts, and even defending the flawed report with any speculation and assumption you can to the point of denying any reason. You're not the first such denier of the facts I've met, certainly won't be the last, so i already know it's a waste of time for me to deal with your denial of the facts - it's something you need to work out on your own.
0
Reply
Male 835
Unless you were there to witness exactly what happened, from the crash/collapse zone (which would mean that you would be dead, of course), nothing that will ever be said about the events of that day will ever be any more than speculation. I don't care who does the study, or issues the report, it will still be nothing more than speculation. The current "official story" is based on observations and years of collected data about similar building collapses. I'm sure that you can make a convincing argument that the ACLU (or pick any group of your choice, its only an example) used salt water spray over a period of years to weaken the beams, and had the jets flown into the towers because it was taking longer than they wanted to collapse on its own. You could make that argument, but it just wouldn't make sense, any more than it makes sense to claim that the government, or the building's owners, deliberately destroyed it. Can you make any sensible argument for why either group would have done this, or had it done? The buildings did not "fall into the path of greatest resistance". Reread what I wrote earlier. The upper floors collapsed down onto the lower floors. When they collapsed, the dynamic load applied to the lower floors was many times in excess of what they were ever designed to withstand, so they failed, and became a path of very little resistance. If the lower part of the structure had not been overloaded so badly, then I would agree with you that the collapse looks suspicious, but they were. Again, reread what I wrote above about the kinds of forces applied when the upper floors collapsed. Kindly refer me to where there is evidence that Newton's laws have been "(re)defined" on that day? I don't mean some crackpot conspiracy website, but an accepted, scientific source. How, exactly, were they "(re)defined"? Where is this "proof" that the official report is "heavily flawed"? Again, please refer me to a credible source, not some crackpot conspiracy website. The official report has been "proven false" you say, but what about the fact that the line of bullshit that you and your fellow conspiracy nuts spout off has also been proven false? I gave you mathematically-backed examples of why the official story makes sense, now how about you give me some provable examples of why it doesn't? What part of the physics of my example above is flawed? You aren't offering evidence, you're just repeating yourself.
0
Reply
Male 48
Anytime something is attributed to a scientific journal, or to a "respected scientist", etc., first thing is to check the sources. In this case, the claim is that " The European Scientific Journal, a publication of the European Scientific Institute (ESI), published this article ...". Going to the website of the ESJ - http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj - the first item under "Announcements" is "Disclaimer: The European Scientific Journal, ESJ did not publish an article on 9/11 attacks". So, whoever wrote this is trying to falsely boost the credibility of the article by associating it with a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal. It was actually published in "European Physics News", which is a news source, not a scientific journal. Their editors even say that the article contains "some speculation" and "Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors". And the authors of the article are all long associated with the 9/11 "truther" movements - hardly unbiased scientists. If you want more on this publishing controversy, read this: http://www.gspellchecker.com/2016/09/the-european-scientific-journal-didnt-conclude-911-controlled-demolition/ . Bottom line: nothing new here regarding the claims regarding the controlled demolition, and I'll be the editors of Europhysics News are pretty embarrassed about letting this be published in their news magazine.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
I admit that there was an error in the article i had made this post from, that got copied over. But try not to get all ad-hominem on the fact that it was reported in Europhysics News (as noted in the post in I-A-B). The issue is the article does point out that physicists are questioning the events of that day.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
Also, Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences. http://www.eps.org/
0
Reply
Male 1,157
well here is ONE engineer who is buying it just fine.  These beams did not "melt", as in form puddles of molten steel.  But they got hot enough to loose their tensile strength.  The building had a stressed skin structure, which to save on the cost of construction, put a lot of force on every piece of steel.  Couple to that a heavy fast moving aircraft ripping off the insulation covering the beams, and yes....the weakened steel, as it heated up, would have eventually fail in a catastrophic way.  If the steel even just lost 30% of its strength from the fire...it would be doomed....... Where the heck do they get these incompetent "engineers" and "scientists" anyway.  Did they get their degrees at K-Mart?
0
Reply
Male 1,906
Mr. Engineer, do tell how the fire weakened the steel structure from floors 0 to 75 (or from lobby to 5-10 floors below the impact zone), or even how the plane blew off the fire retardant on those levels, causing metal unaffected by fire to lose tensile strength. You understand that those pictures steel beams flying out laterally at 50-200mph during the collapse (which were originally welded into place 5-10 floors below the impact zone) meant that they would have had to be snapped out (even though doesn't snap, it bends)? Or is it really you who got your own degree at K-Mart (where they teach you to assert fallacies when you don't like the facts)?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Actually Mr Ike was covering other aspects, but like I said floor beams keep the floor in place. You can't expect them to keep to doing so when the weight above it comes slamming down into it.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
Sorry dude, no point wasting time trying to get sources of steel beams flying out that you can easily see in many of the pictures of the destruction in the very article in this topic. You clearly have your mind set in your way, and will ignore any pesky things like physics to maintain it. The fact is that the official story doesn't stand up to the physics, and that is what is being exposed in the article, is where you should be applying your physics knowledge.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
As Mr Ike has pointed out the load bearing beams on the 76th floors were designed to hold up the 76th with a safety margin. The two floors above slamming down into the 76th would easily go 3 times past the safety limit. All that weight then transfers to the 75th floor then 74th and so on. "steel beams flying out laterally at 50-200mph during the collapse" >>> Where is this photo? Even so a controlled demolition would NOT do that. On the other hand an airplane slamming into the building would do that.
0
Reply
Male 333
Our government can't catch a terrorist when the terrorist's own father tells them he's a terrorist, they're too busy looking for bombs in Grandma's underpants at the airport. They can't keep a secret when more than 2 people know it. And they could keep something like this a secret? That's just stupid.
0
Reply
Male 333
People are still talking about the steel melting? The steel did not have to melt in order for the connections to fail, all that had to happen was that steel was distorted by uneven heating, putting much greater loads on the connections and applying them in directions that they were never designed to withstand. Excessive loading on a connection is a factor, the direction of the load is another; which is why there are shear and moment connections in these buildings.
0
Reply
Female 7,865
Nice to see people defending sense. It is a terrible insult to suggest these conspiracies, it is also ridiculous- I suspect much of it is only because up until that point the USA had had very little terrorism, and what you did have was homegrown. Its very hard to realise that you are not as safe as you thought, and for many people it is easier to invent a wild theory than to admit that death can happen in a blink, without warning for no good reason. Had this happened elsewhere the wild theories would I am sure not have been so common.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
you're wrong, and here's why: when the laws of physics, which have been observed for quite some time now on earth, don't match up to the story being told about what happened, people will question it. It could happen anywhere. A building not falling into the path of least resistance, but falling AND COLLAPSING into the path of greatest resistance, with a story of "oh it was just planes" and the other baloney the deniers of the facts make up, is going to raise a heck of a lot of questions. Why? Because the laws of physics have been observed for quite some time on earth, and have been well documented, and trained people can see when something is out of place, and it deserves to be questioned. ESPECIALLY SO with the loss of freedom and life inspired by the policies of what happened on that day..
0
Reply
Male 186
The entire article (and all "research" it purports went into it) seem written to a conclusion reached beforehand. Right from the start there are these assertions of why the building couldn't collapse the way it did: "1) Fires typically are not hot enough and do not last long enough in any single area to generate enough energy to heat the large structural members to the point where they fail (the temperature at which structural steel loses enough strength to fail is dependent on the factor of safety used in the design. In the case of WTC 7, for example, the factor of safety was generally 3 or higher. Here, 67% of the strength would need to be lost for failure to ensue, which would require the steel to be heated to about 660°C); " Fires CAN and DO get that hot. On top of that we know that WTC 7 was not structurally sound even apart from the fire. A MASSIVE flood of debris from the towers collapsing got blasted into the base of the building, weakening the structure. It also conveniently ignores the wind load they later talk about. " 2) Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;" Except when a plane crashing into the building or a nearby highrise collapsing has destroyed all these systems and its feed supplies '3) Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods;" Except when a plane crashes into the building and dumps thousands of gallons of jet fuel over an entire floor overwhelming the fireproofing materials, which only work up to a certain temperature and up to a certain time. Exposure to high temperatures for such an extended period of time (The building had been on fire continuously for 1:42 hours at the point of collapse.) Most fireproofing materials are rated for 30 minutes to 1 hour exposure. Several floors being on fire at the same time is way beyond anything the fireproofing was ever designed to handle. "4) Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure. " The failure wasn't localized. Read the official report and figure out what it says. The floor beams on an entire floor weakened to the point of failure all pretty much at the same time. The building might handle losing 2 or 3, but not all of them. This article references things that have been thoroughly debunked by now. Like 7 WTC collapsing at freefall speed. It only looked that way on 1 video due to the direction the building falls and camera angle. Or how the large scale deformation seen in the computer model is not seen in the video. Well duh, it's right behind the massive cloud of billowing smoke obscuring all view from the parts affected. Occams razor applies here. What is more likely? That a government pulled of a massive, complex, highly secretive, covert operation to kill its own people so that some behind the scenes rich people could benefit from the country going to war OR that a group of muslim terrorists managed to hijack 4 planes due to the lax security and failing intelligence agencies and flew them into 3 buildings? (With one plane failing to make it to the target due to the passengers fighting back) Do you REALLY think that the US government (or even a faction within) could pull off installing demolition charges in an active building full of people without ANYONE noticing? That they could REALLY convince all of the hundreds of people who would have to be involved in an operation like this to keep their mouth shut? Or that they could make ALL those people meet with unfortunate accidents without some of the others getting tipped off and running straight to the media? What happened on 11 September 2001 was a tragedy, but lets not insult the families of those that lost their lives that day with rampant speculation about how it was all some secret government op. It wasn't.
0
Reply
Male 27
Mr Ike, I agree entirely. or at least I agreed entirely until a well respected, peer reviewed journal published this article. First off let me say that I haven't read the article so wont comment directly on it but before it was published it will have been reviewed by experts who oppose it and if they couldn't fully debunk any of it, it is published as our current best version of fact (or the journal's current best version of fact). I'm massively surprised that this hasn't had more coverage. For a peer reviewed scientific journal to publish something this controversial means one of two things, either it is true or the journal is about to get destroyed and lose all of its credibility. The European Scientific Journal is very respectable. So I'm torn, either I follow my scientific and critical thinking side which tells me this must be what happened and therefore the crazy conspiracy theorists are right (mind, blown) or.... ...The well respected, peer reviewed, scientific journal has got it wrong (mind, blown).
0
Reply
Male 2,384
I suggest you read the comment from @nomnomnom - "Going to the website of the ESJ - http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj - the first item under "Announcements" is "Disclaimer: The European Scientific Journal, ESJ did not publish an article on 9/11 attacks". So, whoever wrote this is trying to falsely boost the credibility of the article by associating it with a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal."
0
Reply
Male 1,906
Already saw that in another forum where people were ad-hominem' like crazy, trying to reject the article on an error. Yes, there was an error in the report that i had used to create this post, that I didn't realize until after the post, but the article here on I-A-B, in case you didn't notice, does correctly indicate it was an article from Europhysics News.
0
Reply
Male 333
You mentioned the fire protection material that is sprayed onto the steel members during construction, and how it's rated by time. I don't think a 1-hour or 2-hour coverage even matters. This material is soft, and it can be removed from the steel very easily by hand. The impact of a jet would certainly remove it as well. Steel had to be exposed to fire at the instant the fuel ignited.
0
Reply
Male 303
Oh please, not this 'Trutherism' shit yet again.
0
Reply
Male 1,213
Has anyone explained how a team of explosive experts installed probably tons of explosives and wiring over a period of months or even years with out being seen or noticed? just wonderan
0
Reply
Male 1,906
that's more of an issue for a re-investigation, but it's been theorized that if a team had access to the service shafts it could have been done without notice, but i digress.
0
Reply
Male 198
Plus metal DOES burn, hence the Class D fire extinguisher. Sparklers, steel wool - two examples of easy burning metals.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
FYI: While i did post the link to the article: http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf, it should be noted my post was something like this (parahprasing): Title: Europhysics Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition Sub-Title: Looks like the Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth were right all along. Information: Collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings is analyzed and the results of their findings indicate that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, echoing the ae911truth.org who have been pushing for a re-investigation for almost 10 years. SO!!!!!!! don't blame me for the I-A-B write up!!! THANKS!
0
Reply
Male 1,906
oh wait, the information was pretty much what i submitted but its the only part that i submitted (i think): The European Scientific Journal, a publication of the European Scientific Institute (ESI), published this article in which they analyze the collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings. The results of their findings also indicate that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, this echos the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth who have been campaigning for a re-investigation for nearly 10 years. AGAIN TO NOTE: "melted steel beams theory" was completely I-A-B's addition
0
Reply
Male 7,636
There IS no 'Melted Steel Beam' theory. The only idiots that argue 'Melted Steel Beams' are wack-jobs who want to yell 'jet fuel cannot melt steel beams'. WTC 1 & 2 collapsed because the damage and fire WEAKENED the steel beams. Such a fire would cause steel to lose 80% of it's strength. So please shut the fuck up about it.
0
Reply
Male 1,879
@Grendel We may not agree at times, but thank you for the basic facts. "WEAKENED" is the word of the day for this article. Once this occurred, the weight of the structure caused the collapse. The whole "jet fuel melting beams" bullshit is another great point. The fuel had nothing to do with it, but the resulting fire and subsequent weakening of the steel structure sure as hell had everything to do with it. Transference of heat through steel to the point where it crumbles under the weight of the structure. This is basic physics working as it should.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
Kal/jay, your understanding of basic physics leaves much to be desired (As the physics experts in that article pointed out).
0
Reply
Male 2,384
Au contraire
0
Reply
Male 2,384
Second that. Today's *mic drop* moment is awarded to @Grendel. :)
0
Reply
Male 61
No, they found molten steel in the rubble.
0
Reply
Male 333
How long do you think steel remains in liquid form when the heat source is removed? Nobody found molten steel in the rubble.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
Actually they did, and the temperatures were recorded being quite high for several months afterward.
0
Reply
Male 7,636
Yes, I remember that they did. But that was well after the collapses, and dealing with a whole different set of materials, conditions and pressures.
0
Reply
Male 2,384
You're sure it wasn't another metal....like maybe aluminum from the planes?
0
Reply
Male 1,906
FYI: the melted steel beam theory was I-A-B's addition, my original submission only pointed to the pdf document, and also said how that it echoed what the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth have been saying for the last 10 years, and that a re-investigation is warranted.
0
Reply
Male 6,437
It's a conspiracy!?
0
Reply
Male 636
Bush did the Moon Landing.
0
Reply