911 WAS an inside job ..........

Thank you to Con for his response. I wish him luck on his exam. As to the debate, I will open with a plead to Con to stop this line of argument. It continues to do nothing so support his resolution. The resolution is not "Is the official report flawed?" It is "911 WAS an inside job .........."Even taking everything he has claimed regarding temperatures at face value, Pro has not argued for his resolution at all. He has one more round to do so. Moving on, though to the continued rebuttal of the points Pro raises, I'm going to start by addressing things a bit out of order, because there is a point of order I need to make. As to the sulphur:That is my error!I misread my source(http://www.911myths.com...).And I apologize. They were talking about SOURCES of sulfur, and demonstrating that there are far more plausible sources for the than thermate, which would provide a relatively small total amount—the 4360 kg was merely the total estimation of other possible sources, as opposed to the expected 80 kg of thermite/mate. In addressing this error of mine (for which I apologize again), I have actually had a hard time finding any specific AMOUNT, merely its presence. On to the rest of the rebuttals!Con opens by attempting to argue that nano particles "would not have been produced by fires or friction", and that the particles "were not nano-sized but ranged in size from 0.001 to 1.5 mm in size". The first point has already been addressed, and was when I originally brought up the point. Small particles would trivially be produced in a circumstance like this, for the reasons noted in the letter from Mr. Lee. As to the issue of the size of the particles, the issue here is that they are certainly on or near the nanoparticle scale. In general it is trivial to demonstrate that it is far easier to melt a small amount of material, than a large one. A thin wire can be melted, in some instances, with a lighter, while a block of the same metal will not melt. As has been noted, we KNOW various processes that produce similar spherules, such as coal combustion, which occurs at lower temperatures than Pro claims are necessary. That the composition is different in fly ash is a result of the difference in the process, but the principle remains the same. Pro moves on to talk about the composition of the spheres. He doesn't source the statement or give an argument besides assertion for it being a "trademark signature of thermite". The metals he lists are obviously all present at the WTC, without thermate. On a side note, Thermite is usually used to burn vertically, guided by gravity. Pro hasn't given us his theory on how it was used to cut horizontally. Certainly, it can in theory, but how specifically does Pro propose that it occurred?Pro moves on to say that "Its difficult for us to sit here an argue over these scientific details when its quite obvious that there needs to be more testing done with more samples of dust from the wtc ."I'd be fine with more testing. More testing can't harm anything, certainly, though it might be argued to waste time and/or resources. However, an appeal to ignorance doesn't make Pro's case. If there's insufficient evidence, his resolution does not stand. Pro claims the video he showed had "witnesses who witnessed molten steel". As has been noted before, there is no way they would know it was molten steel just by seeing it. Pro then, strangely, tries to claim "Heat from aluminium as shown in videos clearly loses its heat instantly." Obviously, this is not true. Heat doesn't transfer "instantly". Pro needs to actually find out the speed of heat transfer for aluminum vs. steel, compare them, and make his case for why its implausible for the metal to be aluminum. Pro readdresses his numbers in his conclusion, so I will readdress his readdressing. 1. Pro concedes the possibility, and so the point.2. I apparently had trouble last round understanding things related to sulfur. As to this claim, specifically, the wallboards were made of gympsum, which contains high levels of sulfur. There is an expected amount of sulfidization that would occur with the sources of sulfur present, and the fires and chemicals involved. [1] The linked source demonstrates plausibility, but calls for more testing from NIST under more accurate conditions to demonstrate the specific rate. As noted above, more testing isn't a bad thing.3. The rarity of molybdenum is not addressed by thermate—unless Pro is going to claim that this was a thermite USING molybdenum, which is a thing that exists,[2] but that there is no evidence to support other than the anomalous spherule. 4. Pro has failed to take evaporation into account, the process by which a liquid becomes a gas at lower than boiling point temperatures. 5. This is simply untrue. Aluminum can clearly flow when it's glowing, even his own video showed that. I think what Pro is trying to claim again is that the molten material must be near its melting point, and that has been rebutted. Reassertion is refutation. 6. The color ONLY indicates the temperature. Again, visual observation cannot determine composition. Pro's final comments are that none of us are qualified to continue the scientific debate. That may be true! I'm certainly no engineer or metallurgist, and at the risk of making assumptions, I am not under the impression that Pro is, either. But Pro is the one making the assertion, and it is up to him to support it. He says he will "stop trying to argue the science and bring out the big guns.Evidence we can all appreciate without knowing about science. video visual evidence of bombs etc."He posts a video which is not visual evidence of "bombs etc", though I suppose "etc" could mean anything. . His final rhetorical questions are: "who do you beleive the govt? jref or see the truth with your own eyes !"I would believe, as a general rule, the experts. Until given reason to suspect otherwise, which Pro has not provided. I will reiterate what I have said every round since R2, and already at the beginning of this roung: Proving a the "official story" is wrong does not prove that 9/11 was an inside job. If Pro has evidence of his actual resolution, this next round is his LAST chance to provide it. [1] - http://911myths.com...[2] - http://www.amazingrust.com...