Referring to the Twin Towers collapse? Be at least fair when talking about the official explanation, I don't remember any mention, apart maybe some newspaper or such headlines, about steel beams actually melting in that fire, from what I have read about it. What the official explanation seems to say is that they softened enough that they started to bend, and that temperature can be considerably lower than the melting temperature, and that was enough for the collapse to happen.

Which seems plausible enough from what I know of basic physics.

There are hell of a lot of questions about 9/11, and especially building 7 collapse looks suspicious as hell, but claim of "melting steel" in the towers is not one even if some "journalists" may have used it.

Referring to the Twin Tower collapse? Be at least fair when talking about the official explanation, I don't remember any mention, apart maybe some newspaper or such headlines, about steel beams actually melting in that fire, from what I have read about it. What the official explanation seems to say is that they softened enough that they started to bend, and that temperature can be considerably lower than the melting temperature, and that was enough for the collapse to happen.

Which seems plausible enough from what I know of basic physics.

There are hell of a lot of questions about 9/11, and especially building 7 collapse looks suspicious as hell, but claim of "melting steel" in the towers is not one even if some "journalists" may have used it.