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

I'll get right into rebuttal. Pro says that "the truth is the truth regardless of who wins an argument". This is true. But it is through discussion and debate that we come to determine our best understanding of truth. If Pro has no basis for his belief, it may well be true--but we have no way of knowing that. If we know that 9/11 was an inside job because of "science", then presumably Pro will win this debate, because he will have evidence. Pro (sort of) opens his case by claiming "the scientific community or mainstream thought is generally always wrong as history has proven. " This claim is supported by Pro based on theories which were became supported after they were tested and found to have evidence--that is why "mainstream thought" changed: evidence. There is nothing that makes a theory better just because it is not mainstream. I hope, for his sake, Pro has the evidence to back up his claims. Otherwise, what he's said here almost seems like he would be saying "My evidence isn't compelling, but I'm right anyway", and, to turn a phrase, that's no way to run a railroad. Now, on to his actual claims on the contention. Pro's first claim is that there were extreme temperatures at the site. To begin with, I will note that this claim, in isolation, does not establish that 9/11 was an "inside job". At absolute best it might establish that the official story does not sufficiently explain the events and that, on its own, does nothing to establish that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government. Even accepted at face value, this claim does not make Pro's prima facie case for the resolution, even if it went completely unrebutted. But, of course, there are rebuttals. Moving on to the claim itself:Pro claims that NIST did not address "where the temperatures came from to Melt iron or steel let alone lead". The melting point of lead is 327.5 C (621 F) [1]. That's achievable with pretty much any fire, even candle[2], let alone a fire made with jet fuel. Technically, at least parts of a lit cigarette will melt lead. The melting point of iron and steel, however, is generally higher. Ductile iron has the lowest melting point, at 1149 C (2100 F), and some wrought iron has the highest, at 1593 C (2900 F), with steel coming in at a close second, at 1540 C (2800 F) [1]. That seems damning for the official story, until you realize that we're talking about particles here. Particles have melting points far lower than that of large blocks of material, often by hundreds of degrees. This is a well-known phenomenon. [3]We expect, in an office building which has just been hit by an airplane, that there will be rather a lot of small particles of iron, particles whose melting point is actually much lower than the "standard" melting point. In fact, if temperatures had reached levels high enough to make molten steel, we'd expect large quantities of molten steel as evidence, not merely that of particles--evidence which is lacking. As Rich Lee (of RJ Lee, which prepared the report that Pro used as a source) said, in a letter titled "Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust":". .. the building is hit by two jet airplanes in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. .. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses. .. What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino-silicate spheres were also observed in the dust. The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. " [4] (All emphasis mine)All of this indicates that Pro's statement: "The only thing that can explain molten steel is something added to the fires to increase temperature" (emphasis mine) is untrue, and his conclusion: "Therefore incendiary devices had to be placed in the towers alluding, they needed access and also high tech incendiary devices. " (emphasis mine), is also untrue. Moving past the iron microspheres, Pro brings up the the "molten material" seen in some photos coming from WTC 2. The fact that the images we have are not necessarily color-correct was not addressed by Pro (relatively small changes to hue and saturation matter when we're trying to get temperatures! ), but I'll ignore that issue for now to address his points regarding it. Pro claims "the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. .. as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing . .. was at approximately the melting point of the metal. .. therefore, it was molten iron. "But, of course, molten iron has an even HIGHER melting point. The black-body radiation is similar across the board for metals. That metal is at that approximate temperature, sure, but whether it was iron or steel, it "flowed away from the heat source" equally when it liquefied. Pro contends that it MUST have been molten steel (with a melting point of 1540 C). If his calculations are correct, that CAN'T have been molten steel falling from the towers"because it wouldn't have flowed, it would have been solid at the temperature he claims it was, which he claims was "a temperature of 980C - 1050C"Pro states that "Aluminium melts at 660C at which temperature is looks silvery". This is correct--though it is glowing, we can't really see it glow until it gets above 730 C [5]. An approximate temperature at which steel glows, too. His contention rests on his assertion that "the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. .. as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron. "This does not follow, because it depends on where the aluminum WAS when it melted, and how far it had to flow to get away from the heat source. Pro seems to think that the metal, whatever it was, necessarily had to come from RIGHT where we see it exiting the building. There are no grounds to assume this and, indeed, the heat source wasn't there, but more "inside" the building. Whatever fell from the building was flowing, and was emitting light. But that it must have been at "approximately the melting point" is unfounded. Pro's video, btw, demonstrates the aluminum pouring while glowing. Watch the first pour, it glows as it pours, then, when it hits the pan it cools and turns silver. The small amount of aluminum in the heated container cools quickly, but the initial pour shows the aluminum glowing until it hits. Pro also doesn't help his case when he says "the molten material flowing from the south tower remains orange yellow during its whole descent". This has nothing to do with his contentions. (In fact, he notes that metals are great conductors of heat, then claims that therefore it's steel and not aluminum when they're both metals! ). For Pro and the voters's reference: aluminum DOES cool faster than steel. But Pro has failed to show that it would take "its whole descent" for steel to cool vs. aluminum and, indeed, the substance begins to cease emitting light on the way down, turning what appears to be a silvery color, rather than a near-black one. [6] (This source has the photos under consideration, and points out the silvery color. It is rather obviously a "debunking" site, but the photos rather speak for themselves, particularly at the "bottom" or vertically lowest edge of the substance, where it is clearly no longer glowing, and just as clearly a silver color). Pro ends by saying that "The evidence for molten steel goes on , to much to write down in enough words so I have to copy this link which has a great video summarizing more evidence. "I'm not rebutting that, as he never made it part of his case and verges on an indirect attempt at a Gish Gallup. Pro, there's a character limit for a reason--don't try to dodge it. If you wanted unlimited space, or to not have to abide by the rules of a debate, you did not have to instigate one--you could have simply gone to the forums. I turn the debate over to Pro, with an earnest hope he'll give some evidence in support of his contention, and remind him that it is not enough merely to show that the "official" story is incorrect. In order to fulfill his BoP, he MUST give us evidence that the US Government was behind the events, and in this round he has failed to provide any. [1] . http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://www.metabunk.org...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://www.debunking911.com...;