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

I note that he has failed, again, to offer any evidence whatsoever that 9/11 was an "inside job". At most, and taken at face value in its entirety, his case thus far has been that the official story is incorrect, and (again, taking at face value) that thermite was used on 9/11. None of that establishes that 9/11 was an "inside job" whatsoever. I ask Pro to please give actual evidence in support of his motion, and not merely support for "the official story is incorrect". Not to help Pro, but if it were an "inside job", it could have been done in exactly the same manner as the "official report". Or it could have been done in any number of ways. The quibbling over the specific method of the towers's falling does nothing to establish that this was an "inside job". Get to that evidence. We can come back to this if it's truly necessary for his case--but I don't think it is. As to his arguments this round: He opens by questioning the temperature again. This has, actually, already been addressed"and he doesn't have any information as to specific temperatures that he questions. As such, it's a meaningless point. Lead, his specific example of metal that "volatalize[d], oxidize[d] and finally condense[d]", does so at 1,750 C for large samples, I agree. But, again, we are dealing with small samples, and, as has already been noted, small particulates have a much lower melting point. Pro has not addressed this at all. The lower temperatures necessary for particles (vs. large samples) of these metals perfectly explains why we have the findings we have, and is uncontested by Pro. Pro gives no alternative theory of necessary temperature, and no scientific reason for his argument as to its necessity. Pro is merely repeating an argument without responding to my rebuttal. The temperatures he claims are necessary are not. Pro questions the composition of the spheres found. No, the composition is not the same as that of "fly ash". It wouldn't be expected to be, at least not unless there was a whole lot of coal in the towers. The point is that we have a perfectly reasonable mechanism for small particles, and it's a well known fact that small particles boil/vaporize at lower temperatures than blocks of material. The composition is not the problem here, the size is. Pro claims: "If its expected that these iron spheres would be found according to RJ lee then doing an experiment or finding a source in which an office fire could produce spheres like the ones found at 911 shouldn't be too hard. " Unfortunately, he fails to realize that it would be his job to provide evidence that an office fire wouldn't produce spheres like the ones found. He holds the BoP in this debate. In general, the original assessment did have to make a reasonable case to justify the findings. But this debate is whether 9/11 was an inside job (something I note Pro has still failed to give evidence for). If he wants to use this as part of his case, the burden is still on him to show why what he's claiming is true. Nonetheless, experiments showing the production of iron microspheres from simple wood fires have been done, demonstrating it does happen [2]. "The only known way of producing the spheres with that chemical composition is a thermitic reaction to produce the spheres in a different way shifts the burden of proof onto you or RJ Lee. " This is, actually not true"it's an argument from ignorance. First, because Pro has failed to show that a termitic reaction WOULD produce similar spheres, and second because (as noted) it has been demonstrated that they can be produced at lower temperatures. Pro moves on to a molybdenum sphere. 1 microparticle which formed a sphere. 1 particle does not a trend make. There are literally millions of reasons that such a sphere could have been produced. Pro then moves on to say that "large amounts of molten steel" was found. He hasn't offered evidence that it is. His round says to "watch video", but his video doesn't support that contention. There are two videos on "rethink911", but neither support his contention as far as I can see, so I cannot rebut the evidence that is not provided. Pro, in the future, actually make your case"you shouldn't rely on a video to do it for you. If you think it was found, who found it? How did they assess that it was steel? And so on. The closest to "evidence" I found in the video is a firefighter claiming he "saw" molten steel "like a foundry". That is not a claim which can have validity, when we know that, in general, you can't tell the difference between molten metal by sight. No "large amounts of molten steel" are recorded in any report that I'm aware of. Pro begs the question when he says it's iron that was mixed in Thermate. That presupposes there was thermite, something he has failed to establish. He goes on to question the amount of sulfur in "iron-oxygen-sulfer eutectic". The amount of sulfur in the WTC is an odd finding, to be sure. But the thermate explanation is insufficient to justify the amount of sulfur that was found"by a factor of 50. Even with generous estimates on quantity of thermate to bring down the building (far more than would actually be expected), it's unlikely there would be more than 80 kg. .. and 4360 kg were found. That's a lot of sulfur, and far more than is necessary for a thermate "answer". Pro returns to the "molten metal". He repeats that "metals are a great conducter of heat". That was never contested. He would need to establish at what rate the heat should be expected to be lost, and come up with a plausible starting temperature. He has failed to do that. He claims he "doesn't see" the silver color at the end of the "video" (My source referred him to photos, so I'm not sure what video he's talking about). I'll leave it up to the voters to decide if they, as the people of the source do, see a silver color as the substance cools during its descent. I acknowledge that my assertion was just that, and he may contest it on the same grounds"the voters will have to decide whether they see the silver or not. Pro has a list of assertions at the end of his case: 1. Untrue"as noted. 2. Produced an experiment in which steel could have been melted forming sulphidized steel. 3. I remind Pro we're talking about a single microsphere. 4. Lead vaporizes"is he claiming that it's impossible? 5. Does Pro think that aluminum would cease to flow at that temperature? Why? He's given us no reason to think it wouldn't"it certainly isn't the vaporizing temperature of aluminum. 6. Witnesses didn't see molten steel. They saw molten metal. You can't tell the type of metal simply by looking at it. If you could, we wouldn't need assayers, or spectrographs. 7. Pro claims "the temperatures lasted for almost 1 year after 911! " based on, as far as I can see, no evidence. I'm unsure what he's talking about. I'll turn this back over to Pro, and request that he get to the topic under consideration, and give his case for why 9/11 was an "inside job". [1] . http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com... [2] . http://forums.randi.org...