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

Congratulations to Con for passing his exam, and thanks for the response. As to his final arguments and conclusion: Pro has, once again, failed to make a case for 9/11 being an inside job. He has, throughout this debate, focused only on the "controlled demolition" or "thermite" theory"which does not, on its own, make his case in any way. As such, he has failed to uphold his resolution even without any rebuttal from me whatsoever. I will, of course, still be rebutting his points, however, I am frustrated that I continue to have to rebut things that are only, at best, tangentially related to the resolution. Pro"you did not make a case for 9/11 being an inside job, despite my repeated requests that you do so. Pro opens by appealing again to his perception of our perceived ignorance. He asks us again to simply accept the 911 conspiracy theorists, because they're experts. He doesn't address what I noted in last round: that the appeal to authority, on its own, is no argument"and that, further, there are far more, and far more qualified, experts who are against the "inside job" and "thermite" theories. He claims that his sources "don't bother arguing with them, they can't argue with every nut out there on the internet who seems hell bent on proving 911 wasn't an inside job." While certainly not "every nut" should expect a response, Pro acts as though the truthers, themselves are not "nuts"--this despite continuing to offer no evidence whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside job. As I have said pretty much every round: proving thermite does not prove an inside job. Proving inaccuracies in the official report does not establish 9/11 as an inside job. Pro says that "there needs to be more open debate with scientists engineers etc a new investigation or independent investigation for example instead of us squabbling over whether its possible for paint to create iron spheres etc." This is backing away from claims that such things were "impossible"--a claim which I showed was not true. Pro claims that gypsum wallboard cannot have been a source of sulfur in 9/11, because "gypsum wallboard has been used for a hundred years to protect steel structural members and has never "attacked" it before." Pro does not offer evidence from similar fires or from tests, except for a video"a video which he claims shows "it couldn't [be a source of sulfur]." His video does not show this. It shows that in a brush fire, small amounts of wallboard wedged in metal I-beams will not cause a eutectic mixture. No jet fuel. No office rubble. No building wide fires with large amounts of gypsum wallboard. The experiment does not establish what Pro claims it establishes. Pro asks "how do you get random background metals to form into the same sphere without a thermitic reaction?" You get them because the spheres are the most efficient form"microparticles like this will ALWAYS form these shapes if given the opportunity. He then gives a video, saying that it "explains thermite, and the reactions and also the finding of nanothermite in the towers." It is not my job to go through Pro's source to make his arguments for him"Pro, you can't just post a video and call it a day. You have to make your own argument, and do so in this debate. Pro claims that "In order to cut horizontally they must have had some classified technology which is possible heres a video showing a small horizontal thermitic cutter". Appealing to "secret technology" is a failure of an argument"it's an appeal to ignorance. However, he does show that there is a horizontal thermitic cutter. It's clearly, though, not adequate to cause the collapses of 9/11. Pro claims that "whenever a building has a fire such as WTC 7 , The law dictates that you should test for thermitic materials , this wasn't done by NIST so they are complicit in the conspiracy." NIST, however, says: "NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely...To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used....It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day. Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7. Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions." [1] Pro goes on to repeat a claim: "The witnesses witnessed molten metals of orange /yellow colour, once again blackbody radiation would suggest that its mostly likely molten steel", which is factually untrue. Again: the color only indicates temperature. Pro knows this, and notes this. Drawing further conclusions that therefore it was steel is inappropriate. Pro claims "Its not aluminium it can't be." He then repeats rebutted claims. Repeating them does not make them more valid. Pro states that "What we need is independent tests and investigations". If that's the case, then he concedes the debate, because he concedes that he has failed to establish his case. Pro: you had the burden of proof. You must make your case. Pro claims "We have proof of a coverup , no mention of WTC7 in the 911 commission report , no testing for bombs/explosives or incendiaries , destruction of crucial evidence and selling of steel to china, media coverup etc." Those are just assertions. As such they can be dismissed. If "we have proof of a coverup" what is it? The 9/11 commission report was not intended to address what NIST was addressing--it was not the technical manual on the way the towers collapsed. Most of the report deals with the means of planning the terrorists used, and the response to the disaster. NIST has explained their justification for the tests they performed. Pro has not given evidence of "destruction of crucial evidence". Selling the steel is not evidence of a coverup--it was the city's desire to get the site cleaned up. Whether it should have been preserved is, certainly, an argument that could be made. But Pro has failed to give us any cause to believe it's "proof of a coverup", particularly since this round is the first time he mentions it. Pro gives absolutely no explanation of his claim of a "media coverup". I know I was alive and in school during 9/11--and watched the live footage of the buildings falling. What coverup is Pro referring to? He doesn't say--and it therefore must be dismissed. Pro claims that because his uncle hadn't heard of WTC7, there was a coverup. The anecdotal evidence of his uncle's lack of knowledge is meaningless: there has been no coverup; WTC7 is widely known to have fallen. Pro claims that he "feel[s] these things are highly suspicious , all the evidence points towards a controlled demolition." The evidence does not point to a controlled demolition. Pro has not given any unrebutted evidence of controlled demolition. Pro concedes he's not an expert, then thinks he can determine whether something was demolished with explosives via a video. He cannot, and he gives no reason to justify his conclusion other than what it looks like to him. Pro has failed to make a case for 9/11 being an inside job, even if his arguments were accepted at face value. I also feel I have rebutted all of Pro's points sufficiently, regardless of the fact that they did not make his case. I feel the resolution stands soundly negated, and urge Pro in the future to actually address the motion when making his case. [1] -- http://www.nist.gov...