Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

The great 9/11 magic trick

94 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Shalott

Fair enough, I'm a Psych student not an engineer anyway, so I'll take your word for it. You can see a small vid of the person here http://thewebfairy.com/911/humanwaving/ and it's clearly someone waving. Thanks for the reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim88
Fair enough, I'm a Psych student not an engineer anyway, so I'll take your word for it. You can see a small vid of the person here http://thewebfairy.com/911/humanwaving/ and it's clearly someone waving. Thanks for the reply.

I don't know how you can indentify that as a person. It is so blurry I can't tell what it is.

There is no fire any where near the "person" so the temperature could have been lower there. That doesn't mean the fires weren't hot enough to weaken the steel. In the larger image you can see where the fires are. They don't cover the entire floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
Good point. Why did they attack the Pentagon if it was a government conspiracy?

They have Osama Bin Laden on video bragging about the attack. Al Qaeda has accepted responsiblity for it.

I can tell.

which Usama took responsibility for the attacks?

post-28981-1177511587_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim88
which Usama took responsibility for the attacks?

Didn't you see the video of Osama Bin Laden talking about the 9/11 attack with other members of Al Qaeda? It was broadcast on television shortly after the war in Afghanistan started. Al Qaeda has also accepted responsiblity for the attack on websites they have.

As far as I know there is only one Osama Bin Laden. What do you mean which one?

Those pictures all look like the same person to me.

Edited by Jim88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
Nobody is claiming the fires were hot enough to melt the tower structures. They're saying the fires were hot enough to cause metallurgical changes to occur in the steel. Steel becomes weaker when heated above a certain temperature due to metallurgical changes that occur. They're saying the fires were hot enough to heat the steel above that temperature.

It is like using a four-candle structure to support a 5-pound weight and heating the candles just enough to weaken them to where the weight collapes the structure. The heat needed to weaken the structures of the World Trade Towers would not have to come anywhere near the melting point to weaken the support beams in a similar manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
contactismade

I want everyone to really think about this, if the terrorist were really that clever and really had pulled it off on their own, explain to me how they did it. I mean think about the logistics here, financing-it took years to set this up and that would have taken some major funds for the training and living costs for the whole team of terrorists. These guys would have had to exist in a society which they held in contempt for a extended period-and they didn't once one of them call attention to themselves at alll? Their infiltration is a mystery that has bothered me from the word go. Not one not two but 10+ people faked their way across the border one or two of them were even on a watch list.

You see the ease with which they accomplished their mission contradicts the facts later on. How could they fool the intellegence apparatus so thoruoghly in the execution of thier mission, but the same intellegence apparatus manages to have all these salient facts soon after the attack? Which are they, highly incompitent or highly efficient?

If they intended to fool anyone it was people who wouldn't have the first clue about something like this because of mental appathy. It certainly wasn't made to fool me or people like me with the ability to see underlining cause and effect and sense of history and its nature. Definitely something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim88
I want everyone to really think about this, if the terrorist were really that clever and really had pulled it off on their own, explain to me how they did it. I mean think about the logistics here, financing-it took years to set this up and that would have taken some major funds for the training and living costs for the whole team of terrorists. These guys would have had to exist in a society which they held in contempt for a extended period-and they didn't once one of them call attention to themselves at alll? Their infiltration is a mystery that has bothered me from the word go. Not one not two but 10+ people faked their way across the border one or two of them were even on a watch list.

You see the ease with which they accomplished their mission contradicts the facts later on. How could they fool the intellegence apparatus so thoruoghly in the execution of thier mission, but the same intellegence apparatus manages to have all these salient facts soon after the attack? Which are they, highly incompitent or highly efficient?

If they intended to fool anyone it was people who wouldn't have the first clue about something like this because of mental appathy. It certainly wasn't made to fool me or people like me with the ability to see underlining cause and effect and sense of history and its nature. Definitely something to think about.

I wonder that myself how the government knew all it knew so soon after the attack. The only thing I can figure out is they had intelligence about it and failed to take action to prevent it. The government appears to have been pretty incompetent. I heard that some FBI agent tried to alert the higher ups that the terrorists were in the country taking flight lessons, but nothing was done about it. None of that proves the government was behind 9/11. It just shows the government was incompetent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
I want everyone to really think about this, if the terrorist were really that clever and really had pulled it off on their own, explain to me how they did it. I mean think about the logistics here, financing-it took years to set this up and that would have taken some major funds for the training and living costs for the whole team of terrorists. These guys would have had to exist in a society which they held in contempt for a extended period-and they didn't once one of them call attention to themselves at alll? Their infiltration is a mystery that has bothered me from the word go. Not one not two but 10+ people faked their way across the border one or two of them were even on a watch list.

There are those who think that a small amount of explosives was enough to bring down the World Trade Towers but I have to disagree. After all, the explosions from the aircraft themselves were not enough to knock down the towers and a massive vehicle-borned bomb wasn't enough to bring down one of the World Trade Towers in 1993 and look at the damage and note that the steel beams remained unaffected by the massive explosion from the 1993 incident eventhough the beams are sitting right in the middle of the bomb crater itself.

linked-image

Heat from the burning jet fuel caused the collapes of the World Trade Towers in 2001. The heat weakened the steel structures enough to where gravity took over and the rest is history.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shalott
It is like using a four-candle structure to support a 5-pound weight and heating the candles just enough to weaken them to where the weight collapes the structure. The heat needed to weaken the structures of the World Trade Towers would not have to come anywhere near the melting point to weaken the support beams in a similar manner.

My use of the word "melt" was definitely a bad one, I understand that the heat required to melt such a structure would be great, but thanks for explaining anyway.

I don't know how you can indentify that as a person. It is so blurry I can't tell what it is.

There is no fire any where near the "person" so the temperature could have been lower there. That doesn't mean the fires weren't hot enough to weaken the steel. In the larger image you can see where the fires are. They don't cover the entire floor.

That's fine, I only posted the link because I was curious as to what people would make of it in regards to the heat discussion. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread about the firemens' reaction to the fire (that it was not strong enough that their suits couldn't protect them) and here I had a link about a possible work-clothed civilian in the same general area. So thanks for your thoughts and opinions.

To me, it looks like a person, but obviously it's not a clear enough image to make that a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim88
My use of the word "melt" was definitely a bad one, I understand that the heat required to melt such a structure would be great, but thanks for explaining anyway.

According to Popular Mechanics steel melts at 2750°F. The temperature is great.

They also say steel looses 50% of its strength at 1100°F. And at 1800° its strength is probably at less than 10 percent. They estimate that pockets of fire in the World Trade Center reached 1832°F.

That's fine, I only posted the link because I was curious as to what people would make of it in regards to the heat discussion. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread about the firemens' reaction to the fire (that it was not strong enough that their suits couldn't protect them) and here I had a link about a possible work-clothed civilian in the same general area. So thanks for your thoughts and opinions.

The problem with the fireman's statements is he was just telling us what somebody told him. I can't verify anything he said. So I don't know how credible it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
According to Popular Mechanics steel melts at 2750°F. The temperature is great.

They also say steel looses 50% of its strength at 1100°F. And at 1800° its strength is probably at less than 10 percent. They estimate that pockets of fire in the World Trade Center reached 1832°F.

The problem with the fireman's statements is he was just telling us what somebody told him. I can't verify anything he said. So I don't know how credible it is.

The radio communications from the firefighters to the command center were made public; you can google them and listen yourself to what the firefighters on the firefloors were telling command. It is very clear that the firefighters felt they could fight the fires and put them out with handlines; this is not something I am making up; it is recorded and released to the public.

I would like to know how exactly pockets of the fire reached 1832 degrees. Nothing in the offices burned that hot; I am not going to copy and paste my previous statement explaining the fire situation, but the bottom line is that fire could not have reached those temperatures. The story does not add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim88
The radio communications from the firefighters to the command center were made public; you can google them and listen yourself to what the firefighters on the firefloors were telling command. It is very clear that the firefighters felt they could fight the fires and put them out with handlines; this is not something I am making up; it is recorded and released to the public.

I would like to know how exactly pockets of the fire reached 1832 degrees. Nothing in the offices burned that hot; I am not going to copy and paste my previous statement explaining the fire situation, but the bottom line is that fire could not have reached those temperatures. The story does not add up.

So far you haven't provided any evidence to support anything you told us, so I have no way of knowing if any of it is true. I don't know if the person who told you that lied to you or not. It would be very helpful if you could provide me with a link to the site their radio communications is on. I'll google it. I'll try to find it. If it's true then I don't know why the media hasn't reported on it. If what the firefighters said contradicts what they told us then that would be big news.

Edited by Jim88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim88

I found a transcript of the tapes on the Internet. They don't support what you've been saying. It doesn't mention any firefighters hearing high energy explosives. It doesn't even cover the collapse of the towers. Not all the tapes have even been made public. According to that they only made it up to the crash site in the south tower. It doesn't say how they were planning to put out the fires on the 78th floor.

Check it out for yourself.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...irefighters.htm

Edited by Jim88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
muddyfrog

Fluffybunny is making way more sense than some of you other guys.

I know the fire fighter tapes he speaks of, google them. I did awhile ago. They say there are small pockets and they can knock it out with 2 lines, jsut as fluffybunny said.

But guess what all the firefighter tapes malfunctioned lol. Oh wait no they didn't... weird ehh? :D I bet most don't even know what I am talking about...

-Muddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim88
Fluffybunny is making way more sense than some of you other guys.

I know the fire fighter tapes he speaks of, google them. I did awhile ago. They say there are small pockets and they can knock it out with 2 lines, jsut as fluffybunny said.

But guess what all the firefighter tapes malfunctioned lol. Oh wait no they didn't... weird ehh? :D I bet most don't even know what I am talking about...

-Muddy

I did google it. What I found didn't support what he said. It doesn't even say how they planned to fight the fire on the floors the planes crashed into. I posted a link to the site. If I missed something then please point it out to me. I didn't find anything there that supports what he said.

If somebody would provide a link to the tapes then I could hear them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
muddyfrog

I found it a long time ago, so I am not sure as to where it is.

I'll look, but no promises. :)

Ok well it's not there anymore, but the link you provided has the same audio. I should have checked your link first lol.

-2 isolated pockets of fire

-we need 2 lines

-we have access to 79

they sound very calm. Especially at the end.

-the stuff fluffy said about bombs were from his own conversations, so unprovable at this time. That being said, I trust him.

-there is a video that I have that shows firefighters discussing bombs going off one after the other. firefighters talking

-and there are written reports from firefighters that say the same.

just found this, read the survivor reports at the bottom, they are well sourced

Survivors

also look at that building at the bottom, the one with an actual inferno...

instead of isolated fires, and licking flames...

hope I helped,

-Muddy

Edited by muddyfrog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

This is from the other thread regarding the radio traffic that Jim feels does not support my claim. It does. Jim is incorrect in his statement and obviously didn't understand the meaning of the radio traffic which would be understandable as he is not a firefighter. If the following breakdown of the discussion matter doesn't make sense then say that you don't get it, rather than saying that it doesn't support my claim and implying I am not being truthful, I don't think that is fair. I am, and continue to be 100% honest in my claims of what I know of that day.

Like I said, I am no engineer, but I am a firefirefighter that has spent time in those buildings, and fought fire in buildings of similar construction layout. I spent time with folks that were in the building and heard(and spoke) during the radio traffic of that day. Some folks simply would rather believe the official story regardless of what is presented and that is their business, but I can vouch for one aspect of the matter and again it shows the fires to be nowhere as bad or as hot as claimed.

Anyway:

Maybe it is assumed knowledge on my part, or you didn't get the lingo translation, I am not sure:

QUOTE

"Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Two lines, two hose lines/hand lines that I spoke of. 10-45= dead, Code 1= do not rush. No mention of a raging inferno, no mention to hurry. Two lines worth of water is a small fire.

QUOTE

"I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house[sp error] line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."

House line is mispelled and should be hose line, hose line being the hoses I spoke of in this case singular, so even less fire in this area. 2 firefighters is the minimum that you can have on a line, so this is a small fire. Not exactly the sound of a commander with a huge fire on his hands.

If I assumed that you should know what the terminology means, I apologize. These messages are describing small fires. To give you an example, two hose lines is what we would use on a small storage shed or maybe a car fire, one hose line would be something that we would use on a dumpster fire. We would use as many 2 and 1/2 inch lines on a house fire, but those aren't even mentioned here, just the smaller hose lines. You can see that what was mentioned here are smaller fires. The guys I talked to said it was more of the same isolated small fires like we have in the above examples.

Take explosives out of the equation if you think it is too crazy, that is fine, but as I keep saying the fires were not big enough or hot enough to warp, soften, or tweak the huge steel beams, coated or not. It looks like a big fire to a layman, but it wasn't. If it were a big hot fire people would have been pulling out left and right to get away from the heat, but that was not the case.

Edited by Fluffybunny
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim88
Take explosives out of the equation if you think it is too crazy, that is fine, but as I keep saying the fires were not big enough or hot enough to warp, soften, or tweak the huge steel beams, coated or not. It looks like a big fire to a layman, but it wasn't. If it were a big hot fire people would have been pulling out left and right to get away from the heat, but that was not the case[/i].

Nowhere on that tape does it say there were only two fires on that floor. If there were only two pockets of fires then where did all the smoke come from? There would have had to have been a lot of fire on those floors to produce all that smoke. Boeing 767s carry more fuel than that. They carry enough fuel to fly from New York to California at a high rate of speed. It takes a lot of fuel to do that.

You didn't lie to me, but that tape doesn't support the conclusion you're making. You're concluding that none of the fires on the floors the planes hit were hot enough to weaken the steel supports. You're concluding that for both towers, even though the tape is only for the south tower. Just because two pockets of fires aren't that bad doesn't mean that there aren't other fires on those floors that are that bad. You're conclusion isn't a reasonable conclusion to make based on the evidence.

Edited by Jim88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
-the stuff fluffy said about bombs were from his own conversations, so unprovable at this time. That being said, I trust him.

-there is a video that I have that shows firefighters discussing bombs going off one after the other.

If explosions were going off, it would have been evident outside the buildings, yet there were no evidence of any explosions at that time. Ever heard the sound of a wing undergoing fatique testing that failed? You would think that an explosion had just gone off.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
Take explosives out of the equation if you think it is too crazy, that is fine, but as I keep saying the fires were not big enough or hot enough to warp, soften, or tweak the huge steel beams, coated or not. It looks like a big fire to a layman, but it wasn't. If it were a big hot fire people would have been pulling out left and right to get away from the heat, but that was not the case[/i].

During my Air Force career, I have witnessed major aircraft accidents and I have seen steel vehicles deformed from the heat generated by the fire eventhough they were parked outside the aircraft's circle-of-safety boundry. An example of one such incident occurred at Travis AFB, CA. years ago where a contract DC-8 caught fire due to a fuel booster pump malfunction. Given the time factor, there was more than enough time to heat-soak the steel beams to the point of failure within the World Trade buildings.

Heat from burning fuel can damage steel structues to the point of failure and I have seen firsthand what heat from burning aviation fuel can do to steel objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim88
If explosions were going off, it would have been evident outside the buildings, yet there were no evidence of any explosions at that time. Ever heard the sound of a wing undergoing fatique testing that failed? You would think that an explosion had just gone off.

I've done fatigue, torsion, tension, compression, bending, and impact testing. I've always heard a bang when the part failed. It doesn't matter how it is loaded. It always fails with a bang.

There was a lot of energy being released when those supports failed, so it would make a loud bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
muddyfrog
I've done fatigue, torsion, tension, compression, bending, and impact testing. I've always heard a bang when the part failed. It doesn't matter how it is loaded. It always fails with a bang.

There was a lot of energy being released when those supports failed, so it would make a loud bang.

I am not sure how demo charges compare to Bazooka explosions, but if they are anywhere near that, then you can't mistake it for anything lol. I was knocked back in surprise from 900 meters.

I have never heard parts fail in the ways you are discribing here though. The difference is that I don't assume I can make that judgement, and you think you can?

Do you know how dumb it would sound if the firefighters said, "their were loud bangs as if the steel was sagging and snapping." And then the CTists come in here and go, "oh how can they tell the difference, bombs would sound like that, and I have been around lot's of explosions. They were really talking about bombs going off in a controlled Demo." Yes sounds stupid huh? That is what you are doing.

The firefighters explain it as a quick equal succession, "as if they had detonators... to bring a building down... boom boom boom boom boom boom..."

Their account is clear. Their account of the fires being weak is clear too.

-Muddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
The firefighters explain it as a quick equal succession, "as if they had detonators... to bring a building down... boom boom boom boom boom boom..."

Their account is clear. Their account of the fires being weak is clear too.

-Muddy

With tens of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel burning, there's not going to be any smal fires. The smoke plumes from the two towers are clear evidence of that. I wouldn't exactly call this a small fire by any means, as the evidence in the photo shows.

linked-image

World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects

After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns at each level were almost instantly destroyed as the huge upper mass fell to the ground.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409
I've done fatigue, torsion, tension, compression, bending, and impact testing. I've always heard a bang when the part failed. It doesn't matter how it is loaded. It always fails with a bang.

There was a lot of energy being released when those supports failed, so it would make a loud bang.

Yes indeed! And, as each of the structural beams of the buildings began to fail one by one, the noise would been extremely loud! As shown in my earlier post in regards to the bombing of one of the World Trade buildings in 1993, over 1000 pounds of explosives failed to destroy the steel structural beams eventhough the beams sat right in the middle of the bomb crater. Here's more information on that attack and note the amount of explosives that was estimated to have been used.

World Trade Center, 1993 Terrorist Attack

The attack and its aftermath. At 12:18 p.m. on Friday, February 26, 1993, an explosion rocked the second level of the parking basement beneath Trade Tower One. The explosive material, as investigators would later determine, was somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 pounds (544–680 kg) of urea nitrate, a homemade fertilizer-based explosive.

The blast ripped open a crater 150 feet (46 m) in diameter and five floors deep, rupturing sewer and water mains and cutting off electricity.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
You didn't lie to me, but that tape doesn't support the conclusion you're making. You're concluding that none of the fires on the floors the planes hit were hot enough to weaken the steel supports. You're concluding that for both towers, even though the tape is only for the south tower. Just because two pockets of fires aren't that bad doesn't mean that there aren't other fires on those floors that are that bad. You're conclusion isn't a reasonable conclusion to make based on the evidence.

Tell me how much of the floorspace got hot enough to weaken the steel and collapse the floors? How do we know? Who's specuation is that?

I have a bigger understanding of the fire there than just the recordings; but that is what I was referring to as that is what you linked to. If you have another transcript we can deal with that as well, but I have been responding to your posts and trying to explain from an actual firefighter and person with a fire science degree and a fire inspector for industrial and commercial buldings.

There were firefighters working throughout many areas of the buildings, not just this one, They were almost all in contact(directly or indirectly, some had to be relayed due to radios not eing able to reach) with command. I am not speculating that there were only two fires; of course there were more than two fires and it is silly to think different, a simple look at any photo of the towers after the impact will show multiple fires on multiple floors(78 included) and I never said any different. We are dealing with the clip and transcript you linked to.

The clip is short; in it it mentions how they were going to deal with the fires they had ahead of them. One with two hose lines, one with a single line and two firefighters...this on a floor with many dead and the ceiling above them would have been opened up in places from the impact; look at the impact point.... This being the floor directly below which a wing of the 767 ripped open spilling its kerosene fuel. Do the firefighters mention zero visibility, Low visibility? no they did not, and they would have had to of when talking about progressing to a fire, command absolutely needs to know these kinds of things. Command would get a constant update as to where each fire is and what would be needed to put it out, they also get a mention of any hazards near the fire; visibility being one of many. That kind of communication goes into each update so command can make decisions. This isn't speculation; this is protocol. NYFD protocol.

To have fires in an enclosed building for any length of time without a thermal layer on the floor and near zero visibility means the smoke was going somewhere. Fire doors would have closed to limit air movement and fire spread so where did the smoke go? The ventilation I have mentioned is where the smoke would have gone; out broken windows and missing walls. When the smoke goes out, so does the heat. Hence my claim of relative cool fires. Could small pockets of fire gotten hot? yes...but certainly a far cry from 1832 degrees...and a far cry from enough to warp enough supports to make those buildings completely collapse.

I have been in the building. Ask any firefighter worth his salt; when they go to a building for the first time they look at it from a firefighters perspective; where the fire would go, how it would get there, fire loads, stuff like that. Firefighters are as geeky about those kinds of things as Star Wars fans are about noticing things in a sequal. It is what we do. The fuel load in the building was low relative to the size of the building; less than your average 3 bedroom home square foot to square foot. There was a lot of open space. The things that were there to burn were plastics, wood, paper...there were no stored hot burning materials. It wasn't like it was a chemical plant. The magazine you mentioned claimed pockets of 1832 degrees; I will tell you that is bunk; there was nothing there to burn that hot, and it was either too enclosed toget oxygen or too vented to get very hot at all. Believe whatever you want, but 1832 anywhere in that building isn't possible. Not unless they moved a magnesium factory into the place...

You have made it quite clear that you believe the magazine regarding the heat of the fire; I am not going to waste time trying to get you to cosider anything else. I could make calls and get people who were actually in the building relaying messages to command and have them explain it all, but it still would not make a difference and I realize that. I don't type all this material for the benefit of folks that wouldn't believe what I say and assume I am speculating. I could sit here and type for hours on what I know of the matter, but it wouldn't make a difference as there are just some folks that can't get their minds in a different perspective to see the possibility that maybe the fires weren't hot enough to do the damage claimed by the official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.