Ed Debunking Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

[triforcharity]

I have been promising to do a thorough debunking of Erik Lawyer and his analysis of NFPA 921. Well, here it is.

(A special thanks to Josarhus who was kind enough to get me the copy of NFPA 921 early, as school does not start for another week or so. Thanks! )

First, we will analyze this video found here

Yepo, you've all seen it touted before by the "Truth Movement". It is Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. He goes step by step though the NFPA 921 guidelines and points out what NIST did wrong.

Well, the first problem he has is that NFPA is not a law or a state code. It is a guide, a model, or a best practice, for the investigation of Fires and Explosions. Nowhere does it ever say that it is a law, or that this is the only way to do it.

In fact, NFPA says specifically

NFPA codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides, of which the document contained herein is one, are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. This process brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus
on fire and other safety issues. While the NFPA administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in the development of consensus, it does not independently test, evaluate, or verify the accuracy of any information or the soundness of any judgments contained in its codes and standards.

It goes on to say

The NFPA has no power, nor does it undertake, to police or enforce compliance with the contents of this document... Users of this document should consult applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. NFPA does not, by the publication of this document, intend to urge action that is not in compliance with applicable laws, and this document may not be construed as doing so.

It is very clear that is not a law enforcement agency, and as such, cannot enforce any of the recommendations in their guides.
So, we have determined that this is NOT a law, nor is it considered any kind of Formal guideline. So, whenever Mr. Lawyer says "They didn't follow the guidelines" remember this.
It is not a law.
Now, onto the video!

At about: 27 seconds in, he basically calls anyone who hasn't signed the petition a coward. Way to win ‘em over Erik! Woot! (Roll eyes here)

At: 39 seconds in, he asked for an investigation that follows the standards and has contempt and subpoena powers. The "Standards" he is referring to, is NFPA's guidelines. Well, as we have already established, NFPA is not a law enforcement agency, and makes no laws. See above.

At about: 40 seconds in, he says that “This should have been the most protected, preserved, over tested and thorough investigation in world history."

Well, you see it was. Fresh Kills rings a bell. The FDNY and NYPD could not logically say that nobody was to try to rescue anyone, or move anything, until this scene was completely documented. To ask that is asinine at best.

:56 " Most of the evidence was destroyed."

Really? Fresh Kills didn't exist? Amazing! Tell that to the guys from Phillips and Jordan out of Zephyrhills Florida. Here is their account.
http://911depository.info/PDFs/Other%20Reports/Phillips%20and%20Jordan%20Inc%20-%20World%20Trade%20Center%20Forensic%20Recovery.pdf
Pretty cool eh?

At 1:00 he says " I have seen a lot of crime scenes, but I have never seen anything like it in my life."

No **** Sherlock! Neither had 99.9% of the world’s population. Well, except maybe those guys in Hiroshima and Nagasaki! They got us beat.

1:22 "Evidence was being destroyed when it was being shipped off."

Really? Again, Fresh Kills ring a bell? Sure, some of the steel that was nowhere near the collapse initiation zone was not saved, but do I need the entire football team to undergo physical exams when one player hurts himself? Of course not.

1:32 "NIST investigation into Tower 7 had no physical evidence. How do you investigate a crime when you have destroyed all the evidence?"

Well, considering nobody died in 7WTC, and there was no crime committed, it was not necessary to save the physical evidence

At 1:38”They also refused to test for explosives....or residue of thermite"

No, they decided against it, as there was no physical evidence of any explosive, and no records of any of the recovery workers reporting any suspicious pieces in 7WTC.
Thermite? Do I really need to discuss this?

Here is what NFPA 921 19.2.4 says about thermite

19.2.4* Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers (see NFPA 430, Code for the Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers) may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.
Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing fires and were referred to in these particular instances as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete. A study of 25 fires suspected of being associated with HTAs during the 1981–1991 period revealed that there was no conclusive scientific proof of the use of such HTA.

Even NFPA classified thermite as an accelerant. Not explosive. It also goes on to say that you would see EXCEEDINGLY RAPID FIRE RATE (Not witnessed in 7WTC) BRILLIANT FLARES (Not witnessed in 7WTC) AND MELTED STEEL or concrete. (Also not found at 7WTC)

No steel melted. No flares and no rapid fire growth.

1:46 "There are standards for an investigation."

Yeah, too bad they are not from the NFPA. NFPA is, as we have already discussed, a guideline, a model. Not STANDARD.

1:52 "And holds people accountable."

NIST nor NFPA have that type of jurisdiction, as neither of them are a law enforcement agency. That is what the FBI, and the ATF do.

2:30 He brings up NFPA 9.3.6
Here it is.

Spoliation of evidence refers to the loss, destruction, or material alteration of an object or document that is evidence or potential evidence in a legal proceeding by one who has the responsibility for its preservation. Spoliation of evidence may occur when the movement, change, or destruction of evidence, or the alteration of the scene significantly impairs the opportunity of other interested parties to obtain the same evidentiary value from the evidence, as did any prior investigator

BUT, here is where he cherry picks the NFPA. Here is the special clause that NFPA put in, as they understand that in an imperfect world, sometimes spoliation may occur during the rescue operations, cleanup and investigation.

Fire investigation usually requires the movement of evidence or alteration of the scene. In and of itself, such movement of evidence or alteration of the scene should not be considered spoliation of evidence. Physical evidence may need to be moved prior to the discovery of the cause of the fire. Additionally, it is recognized that it is sometimes necessary to remove the potential causative agent from the scene and even to carry out some disassembly in order to determine whether the object did, in fact, cause the fire, and which parties may have contributed to that cause. For example, the manufacturer of an appliance may not be known until after the unit has been examined for identification. Such activities should not be considered spoliation.

Also of note, this chapter is referenced under Legal Considerations. It even gives a nice little disclaimer

The legal considerations contained in this chapter and elsewhere in this guide pertain to the law in the United States. This chapter does not attempt to state the law as it is applied in each country or other jurisdiction. Such a task exceeds the scope of this guide.

2:38 "The steel was melted down. We know this by their own admission"

Again, I ask, what crime was suspected of happening in 7WTC? None.

At 2:42 he brings up exotic accelerants. We have already gone over exotic accelerants.

at 3:00 he states "Even on a routine house fire, if we suspect even the slightest use of an accelerant, we test for it."

Yes, where you do not know the cause of the fire, and there is physical evidence of an accelerant. None was found. Well, except for the giant diesel fuel tanks that was contained in 7WTC. But, we know they were there.

3:17 "There is no excuse not to test for it."

Well, in a normal routine house fire, yes. But we knew the cause of 7WTC's fire before lunch time. The firefighters around the scene noted no brilliant light sources, no rapid spread of fire, and no melted steel or concrete. So, tell me, why should they have tested for it? To waste time and resources? For practice?

At 3:20, he talks about NFPA 18.15. This is a doozie! You'll get a kick out of this!
Here is what NFPA 921 18.15 says.

18.15 Analyze Fuel Source. Once the origin or epicenter of the explosion has been identified, the investigator should determine the fuel. This is done by a comparison of the nature and type of damage to the known available fuels at the scene. All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all of the physical damage criteria. For example, if the epicenter of the explosion is identified as a 6 ft (1.8 m) crater of pulverized concrete in the center of the floor, fugitive natural gas can be eliminated as the fuel, and only fuels that can create seated explosions should be considered.

IT'S TALKING ABOUT EXPLOSIONS THAT CAUSE FIRES!!! Please learn to read the ENTIRE text Mr. Lawyer...

At 3:32 Notice he stumbles a little and almost says craters.....Wonder why he left that out?!?!?
He then says "If you find cra - If you find pulverized concrete, which we all know was in all 3 buildings there was pulverized concrete"

Say it ain't so? You mean to tell me that hundreds if not thousands of tons of building collapsing on a concrete slab will pulverize concrete? Derpa. Again, this is STILL referring to EXPLOSIONS!!

At 3:43 or so, he says "Only fuels that create seated explosions should be considered. So they should not be considering fire, they shouldn't be doing that, it doesn't account for pulverized concrete" (NFPA def. of a seated explosion

Only specific types or configurations of explosive fuels can produce seated explosions. These include explosives, steam boilers, tightly confined fuel gases or liquid fuel vapors, and BLEVEs occurring in relatively small containers, such as cans or barrels.

This is VERY misleading and blatantly dishonest Mr. Lawyer. This is, again, referring to EXPLOSIONS. Of course the fire did not cause the pulverized concrete, the collapse of the enormous building caused the pulverized concrete.

At 3:51 he says " 19.4.8.2.6 Extremism "The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons, along with explosives, used in furthering his or her goal." We know they used them in 1993, why would we not test for them now?"

Because the terrorists parked the fire and explosion in the side of the building at ~500 MPH. Everyone saw it, and everyone knew where the "bomb" was planted.


At 4:06 he brings up explosives in the basements and asks "Why didn't we test for it?”

No evidence of an EXPLOSIVE going off in the basement, other than fuel from the elevator.

At 4:15 he brings up 14.3 Preservation of the fire scene and physical evidence. He states "The cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation."

But, is that was NFPA says? NOPE!! Close, but no cigar!!
Here is what NFPA ACTUALLY says

Every attempt should be made to protect and preserve the fire scene as intact and undisturbed as possible, with the structure, contents, fixtures, and furnishings remaining in their pre-fire locations. Generally, the cause of a fire or explosion is not known until near the end of the investigation.

We know what caused the fires. In buildings 1&2, it was a huge 767 being plowed into the side of it. 7 was because parts of that huge building that collapsed caused substantial damage to it, and sending flaming debris into the building.

Nice job quote-mining Erik! Why do you leave words out? Oh, because then it does not say what you want your audience to hear. You want them to hear what you WISH is said.

(Christopher7, are you paying attention? Your buddy is getting his ass handed to him)

At 4:42 he states that "NIST refused to test for explosives, as Dr. Stephen Jones did."

Yeah, except for the fact that there were so many methodological errors in it that it cannot be taken seriously. And, not to mention, to date, has not once submitted his results to an independent lab for analysis, not presented his paper to a respectable journal for peer-review.
Again, NIST is not required to test for explosives by NFPA guidelines.

At 5:15 he talks about Chapter 18 of NFPA 921. He says "Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not (in big bold letters) an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion."

Well, this is another lie. It does NOT have big bold letters at all.

Here is the exact text.

Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.

BUT, then it goes on to describe why a loud noise may not accompany an explosion.

The ignition of a flammable vapor/air mixture within a can, which bursts the can or even only pops off the lid, is considered an explosion. The ignition of the same mixture in an open field, while it is a deflagration, may not be an explosion as defined in this document, even though there may be the release of high-pressure gas, a localized increase in air pressure, and a distinct noise. The failure and bursting of a tank or vessel from hydrostatic pressure of a non compressible fluid such as water is not an explosion, because the pressure is not created by gas. Explosions are gas dynamic.

At 5:50 “NIST has lied. And we can prove it. As soon as the new investigation happens...We have 118 first responders that reported explosions, we have the radio transmissions from the FDNY members that are still recorded today that reported explosions. We have audio recordings, we have video recordings."

Excellent! 188 first responders reported something that went boom. Now, that is another topic for another thread, but we can touch on it briefly.
The 188 firefighters that reported explosions is a quote mine of all quote mines. It looks through all of the firefighters' oral histories (found here http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html ) and looks for the word explosion. This is BLATENTLY dishonest, as many of them are describing the collapse itself, or are using simile or hyperbole.
Also, there are many many things that go boom in a fire. Can we dismiss them in favor of the least plausible? No.

At 6:25 "This was the most incompetent investigation of all time."

Really? I think you are the one that is incompetent. You have quote mined and taken out of context just about every single thing that NFPA says. You are a disgrace to firefighters everywhere, and I have shown with irrefutable facts that you are wrong, and are a liar.
To Mr. Erik Lawyer, of the Seattle Fire Department; Please turn in your badge, as you sir, are a disgrace to the people of that department, and are not deserving of the honor, courage, and commitment that it takes to be called a true firefighter.

 

[Oystein]

Cool work, thanks, tri!

 

[tfk]

Tri,

I ran across this interesting article about one group of guys (& dogs) that pertain to the question of the use of either thermite or explosives on 9/11.


NO THERMITE:
http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/...howComment=1240395840000#c6101665985354960506

wardogs said...

Thank you Ron for both your patience and equanimity in dealing with this subject.

I am owner and trainer of a K9 training and deployment company in FL. We have been breeding, training and deploying our purpose bred explosive detection and SAR dogs for over 40 years as well as training K9's for the Military, LE and private industry.

In addition we are a FEMA Incident Response Team/First Responder K9 unit for FEMA Task Force II, Miami.

It was in the latter capacity that we were went to NY on 9/11 as part of the FL Task Force, arriving on scene about 3 1/2 hours after the second tower fell. We went with 4 of our dogs and handlers. Our main function was US&R, live person, (not cadaver search) but all of our dogs are cross trained in several disciplines, including EDD and Incendiary detection. In addition, of the over 300 K9 teams that came from all over the world, there were more than 70 other EDD K9's present on site. This is on top of the 6 full time EDD dogs employed full time at the WTC site, 3 of which I had trained personally. Besides the presence of the normal team that patrolled in shifts 24/7, there had been an ADDITIONAL team of 16 explosives interdiction K9's on duty for several weeks prior to the attack. They were there in response to bomb threats against the center (unrelated) and had only been removed 5 days prior to the attack. 6 of those dogs were also trained by our company.

No explosives or incendiary devices were planted anywhere in that complex. None. Our dogs and the other EDD K9's would have alerted after the fact as well. It's what they are trained for. We staged for the two weeks we were there at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. This is where much of the structural steel was brought. Despite rumors to the contrary, chain of custody was maintained and virtually all of the steel was cataloged and vital pieces were inspected. Not a single dog ever alerted to the presence of either explosives or incendiary residue.
Not one.

Two K9's were lost at 9/11 and dozens more injured. One was our lead dog and the other was one of our trainees, EDD dog "Sirius".

Sirius was K9 Officer #17 of the Port Authority Police Dept. He had just finished his rounds with his handler, David Lim on the morning of the attack. When the first plane hit David placed him in his Kennel in the basement of Tower II while he investigated what had happened. He was still there when the tower came down.

Our dog "Ali'i" was lost on Sept 13th while attempting to find a way through the tunnels under building 6 into the subway system under the complex. He was carrying a video pack and VA radio and was trapped when 6 suffered a partial collapse from fire. It wasn't until the following Dec that 6 was pulled down and the basement of Tower II was cleared to the point where the body of Sirius was found. They had a full memorial service for him. Ali'i was never found.

I'm not a scientist, but I am an expert on explosives/incendiaries, their use and detection both before and after detonation. I've testified as an expert witness more than 70 times at court proceedings on explosives detection, K9 training protocol and K9 scent differrention capability.

No explosives or incendiaries were present at the Trade Center on 9/11.

Thermite has never been used in demolition, ever. It has been used occasionally in clean up, but never as an instigator for controlled demolition.

The procces of controlled demolition itself is one that takes many weeks to prepare. the buildings undergo extensive preparations, and the demolitions are painstakenly placed in strategic positions. Remember also that 6 full time explosive detection dogs were on 24 hour patrol in shifts, 7 days a week. In addition, until just 5 days before, 16 additional dogs were working the Center in response to bomb threats from two weeks prior to that.

Walls are ripped apart and knocked down, beams are cut, holes are bored, wires are run to detonators. Here is a description of the work needed to take down a much smaller, 33 story building, the J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit. It was the largest (by square footage) building to be imploded at the time of 9/11. Keep in mind, this is just the amount of time needed to emplace the explosives, not to prepare the building in the first place:

Controlled demolitions Inc.
J.L. Hudson Department Store - Detroit, Michigan
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120

"...In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum..."

Before the placement started, more than a month of "prep" was involved that included removal of non load bearing walls, exposure of structural beams and stripping of all internal walls and supports.

I guess no one at the WTC noticed all that work going on.

wardogs

 

[tfk]

... And this absolutely superb program (by NPR) describing the processes at Fresh Kills.

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/may/freshkills/


tom

 

[bill smith]

Well Tri....if hat was your best shot then Ol' lEric Lawyer doesn't have a a whole hell of a lot to worry about.In fact the debunking `is so weak that it amounts to faint praise.

 

[triforcharity]

Bill,

How do you come to that conclusion? Care to back up Eric Lawyer with anything relevent? Or do you normally just pull stuff our of your underwear for fun....

You cannot refute anything that has been said in regards to NFPA 921. Nothing.

I urge you to try.

Eric Lawyer is a liar. Proof positive.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Tri:
Lawyer is only correct about chemical testing if he's only referring to NIST. The NYPD Crime Scene Unit and the FBI did some of their own evidence testing. One of our ex-posters here Pomeroo (Ron Wieck) talked to an investigator informally at one point about this. As far as I know, no one's attempted to FOIA either organization for their findings, although I would guess that such a request would get turned down as protected trial evidence. Then again, who knows? It'd be interesting to see if someone would try.

-----

Tom:
Thanks for that comment clip from Ronmossad's blog. I'd not actually seen that thread before, but it reminded me of one of the really old trutherisms that we haven't seen recycled in a while: The supposed pulling of Port Authority K9 units being pulled from WTC 7, supposedly to pave the way for "charges" to be planted (insert eye roll here). As that poster points out, what was removed were the excess/additional teams, and the normal contingent was still in place. We tend to forget that, as well as the fact that it wasn't just rescue and "cadaver" dogs that combed the rubble, it was also police K9s that did so, too (both at Ground Zero, and as the man pointed out, at the recycling site, which was something I had not known before). And as that man pointed out, some of them died while doing so. But the point is that it's an outright error for truthers to imply that the steel was never investigated.

 

[triforcharity]

Well I have lists of firefighter statements that can only be described as stunning and a scientific study of of those statements. Would they be relevent to backing up Eric Lawyer ?

Sure, find another thread to discuss them, as this one mainly focuses on NFPA 921.

Their scientific study was doing a "Ctrl+F" and searching the documents. Hardly scientific.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, enough about defending Lawyer. Firefighters have already ripped him to shreds.

 

[Oystein]

It is "Erik Lawyer", not "Eric", by the way.

Maybe an admin could change the thread title, and/or tags, so that future searches would not fail?

 

[triforcharity]

It is "Erik Lawyer", not "Eric", by the way.

Maybe an admin could change the thread title, and/or tags, so that future searches would not fail?

I realized that mistake about 8 am this morning, and couldn't edit it.

I have reported it, and asked that it be changed.

Thanks for the heads up!

ETA: Thanks to Tricky for changing that for me. Much appreciated!

 

[ergo]

At 1:00 he says " I have seen a lot of crime scenes, but I have never seen anything like it in my life."

No **** Sherlock! Neither had 99.9% of the world’s population. Well, except maybe those guys in Hiroshima and Nagasaki! They got us beat.

Um, you're comparing two plane crashes to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

1:32 "NIST investigation into Tower 7 had no physical evidence. How do you investigate a crime when you have destroyed all the evidence?"

Well, considering nobody died in 7WTC, and there was no crime committed, it was not necessary to save the physical evidence

Yet, here, you say:

At 1:38”They also refused to test for explosives....or residue of thermite"

No, they decided against it, as there was no physical evidence of any explosive, and no records of any of the recovery workers reporting any suspicious pieces in 7WTC.

Which is the same illogic that NIST used. In other words "we don't test for things that aren't there".

But we won't find things that "aren't there" if we don't we look for them, will we?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

But we won't find things that "aren't there" if we don't we look for them, will we?

You mean rust deposits on the steel that LOOKED LIKE thermite?

 

[ergo]

You mean rust deposits on the steel that LOOKED LIKE thermite?

"Rust" deposits? What photos are you referring to?

 

[leftysergeant]

But we won't find things that "aren't there" if we don't we look for them, will we?

How do you test for things that are not there? You can see thermite damage without testing for it. Nothing that anybody has ever mentioned l;ooks the least bit like thermite damage, least of all the acid-etched "Swiss cheese" steel.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

"Rust" deposits? What photos are you referring to?

You have a charcoal or gas grill outside your house don't you? Now look inside & you will see rust forming on the racks. That's what we call iron oxide, or rust as it's known.

 

[ergo]

What does the swiss cheese steel look like?

 

[leftysergeant]

"Rust" deposits? What photos are you referring to?

The "Swiss cheese" steel. To those of us with experience in fire fighting, welding, construction, or metal etching, it looks like rust and acid damage.

To ignorant louts and psychotics, it is thermite damage.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Edit: Lefty beat me.

 

[leftysergeant]

What does the swiss cheese steel look like?

Like steel that was heated in a damp environment in the presence of sulphuric acid and copper wires for a long period.

 

[leftysergeant]

Edit: Lefty beat me.

If he brings up the angle-cut coilumn, I'll let you explain thermal lances.

 

[ergo]

Like steel that was heated in a damp environment in the presence of sulphuric acid and copper wires for a long period.

Really? Do you have evidence of other such steel that looks like this from those conditions?

 

[bill smith]

Um, you're comparing two plane crashes to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?



Yet, here, you say:



Which is the same illogic that NIST used. In other words "we don't test for things that aren't there".

But we won't find things that "aren't there" if we don't we look for them, will we?

Yes, that was a really really funny statement for the National Institute for Standards and Technology to make.lol

Reporter Jennifer Abel:"..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?"

Michael Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that."

Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers' money."

 

[leftysergeant]

Really? Do you have evidence of other such steel that looks like this from those conditions?

Not likely that anyone would photograph such a thing, its being so common. There might be pictures of it in text books related to boiler operations.

 

[ergo]

People don't photograph things that are common? Funny, I would think if it was "common", there would be plenty of photographic evidence of this effect.

 

[leftysergeant]

People don't photograph things that are common? Funny, I would think if it was "common", there would be plenty of photographic evidence of this effect.

Not that many people are interested in the insides of boiler fire boxes anymore, especially not coal-fired ones.

 

[uke2se]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/88/235366876_5c9e978d35_m.jpg

http://jimmycrackedcorn.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/img_2969.jpg

 

[ergo]

Not that many people are interested in the insides of boiler fire boxes anymore, especially not coal-fired ones.

So we should just take your word for it?

 

[ergo]

Thanks for showing us the pictures of rust, uke2se.

 

[uke2se]

So we should just take your word for it?

See my last post.

 

[uke2se]

Thanks for showing us the pictures of rust, uke2se.

That's what you asked for. The first picture is from Ground Zero. The second is of a common charcoal grill. Note the similarities.

 

[T.A.M.]

since when does corrosion and sulfidation = Thermite? Is this really the argument ergo is trying to make?

TAM

 

[ergo]

Yes, comparisons between structural steel and rusted outdoor grills are completely valid.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, comparisons between structural steel and rusted outdoor grills are completely valid.

Do you know what charcoal grills are made of?

 

[ergo]

Structural steel ??

 

[uke2se]

Structural steel ??

What exactly differentiates structural steel from the steel used in charcoal grills, ergo? Dazzle us with your brilliance.

 

[ergo]

Ah yes, I see it now. But now I'm really flummoxed. Why hasn't my charcoal grill self-pulverized from the force of gravity yet??

 

[uke2se]

Ah yes, I see it now. But now I'm really flummoxed. Why hasn't my charcoal grill self-pulverized from the force of gravity yet??

Possibly because it isn't constructed like any of the WTC, but incorporates the same material as the WTC. After all, I'm not making a structural integrity comparison, merely a material comparison. Any more stupid questions?

 

[T.A.M.]

Ah yes, I see it now. But now I'm really flummoxed. Why hasn't my charcoal grill self-pulverized from the force of gravity yet??

dodge and topic switching noted. Welcome to the JREF truther.

TAM

 

[ergo]

Sure. How does structural steel rust?