That the US government is responsible for 9/11

My opponent seems to disagree with me that a debate should focus on the validity of the claims being made as opposed to the amount of them. In this round Pro again fails to go into depth on any of his claims, leaving me to read each of his 19 links in order to understand and refute his case. Being that my intention is to refute his claims rather then to simply post links in response, I will again run out of space and not be able to acknowledge every point he attempts to make. I trust that the voters understand how a debate should be conducted. Response to Pros opening statementsI will begin by refuting Pros opening statements about my case. Pro states that I was unclear about his claims twice. The first claim that I was “unclear” of was a vague statement about the US conducting “widespread campaigns of misinformation”. Pros vague claim was followed only by a link that goes onto depth on 4 separate events. Expecting me to refute 4 separate claims supported only by a link is unacceptable. That is not debating. The second was a claim that the fall of the towers as told in the official story is “technically impossible”. Pro makes this claim and then posts 3 links to illustrate it. Calling the fall impossible is not an argument, and again there is no reason for me to read 3 links to refute this statement. If my opponent wants a rebuttal to match his vague claim here it is: It is technically possible: . http://wtc.nist.gov.... So there. Lastly, the reason I did not post sources for “half of my claims” last round is because my claims were in refute of the sources Pro provided. Many of my points either came from his sources or are common sense arguments against them that the voters may or may not agree with. There is no reason for me to re-list Pros sources, and there is no source for common sense. Rebuttals1. Pro brings up a book called “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission”. He states that they reveal that the military was lying to them and that in the words of the book's authors, they were "set up to fail". Pro is apparently trying to make it sound like this book should be taken as evidence of some cover up. This is an excerpt from Amazon. com describing the book:“The authors cogently defend the compromises they made and swat conspiracy theories about coverups”. http://www.amazon.com...Pro also states that I should read the 9/11 commission report, because I asserted that they mentioned building 7 which they did not. I clearly never said this. Also, there is a very good reason why building 7 was not in it: because it was not an engineering report. The purpose of the 9/11 commission is to explain who attacked us, evaluate our preparedness for it, and what we need to do to prevent it from happening again. Building 7 was not a terrorist target, and nobody died in it, so there was no reason for building 7 to be included.2. Pro states that Bush told the FBI to “back off” from investigating Bin Laden. This statement originates from a news cast where a BBC journalist states:“After the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents. I'm told that since September 11th the policy has been reversed. ”. This statement does have some merit, but is obviously not what pro makes it sound. First, it comes from a journalist. There is no documentation to verify the validity of this statement or the context in which it was originally spoken. Second, he is talking about the Bin Laden Family and the Saudis, not Osama Bin Laden and certainly not Al Qaeda. . http://news.bbc.co.uk...3. Pro states that the US waited a month to carry out their pre planned attacks because they didn’t want to make it obvious. However if they had carried out their attack right away conspiracy theorists would have found that to be suspicious. Apparently waiting a month is suspicious also. I also find it interesting that Pro notes the inevitability of keeping a large secret, while at the same time showing evidence that would implicate thousands of government and private citizen’s to be involved in orchestrating and covering up the murder of 3,000 people.4. The argument of finding molten steel at ground zero is important because steel has a very high melting point that would not be explained by the fires observed in the towers. Pro claims that numerous eyewitnesses saw molten steel at ground zero. First of all, an eyewitness can not tell what kind of metal it is simply by looking at it. There are many metals that have a much lower melting point then steel, and would have been expected to be found at ground zero. Also, the very source he provided states that it is “molten metal”. The third source Pro provides is of a research paper by RJ Lee Group who analyzed dust samples at ground zero. Pro claims they found a composition of molten steel in their dust samples. Question for Pro: since all steel used in the creation of any building was melted at one point, how is finding a composition of steel in a dust sample at the WTC suspicious?5. Pro states that my criticism of his thermite source is unwarranted because it only set out to prove that thematic material was found in the dust. Pro should read his source. The purpose of the paper was to prove (which it didn’t) that the existence of nano-thermite was found in the dust to support the controlled demolition theory. Investigating WTC dust for simple thematic material would be completely senseless because it was used in the construction materials that made up the twin towers and is expected to be found. . http://wtc.nist.gov... 6. I did not claim that scientists for 9/11 truth did not read the NIST report, although I can see how my wording might have given that impression. The fact that 9/11 truth continues to question NIST hardly changes the argument. If any respectable science organization would actually question their report then there might be a reason to consider NIST giving up suspicious. Pro asserts that the remaining 20% of the metal was “wholly inaccessible to investigators”. There is so much to say on this point so I will simply quote this, which came directly from the link where Pros source got their information:“Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York have volunteered to work on the BPAT team’s behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings. ”Is this the scrap metal cover up conspiracy theorists are referring to? . http://911research.wtc7.net...(half way down the page)7. In response to my rebuttal Pro asserts that thermite does in fact have an explosive sound. While thermite is used in grenades and fireworks this does not mean that thermite is the cause for the explosive sound. The following 2 excerpts are taken from Pros own source:“Thermite is not an explosive; instead it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures”“Thermite can permanently disable artillery pieces without the use of explosive charges and therefore can be used when silence is necessary to an operation. ”Summary:As much as I am enjoying this, I am again out of space. The voters should take notice that I went in order, I did not cherry pick or avoid any of Pros points. I could easily continue but we have a character limit for a reason. That is why pasting links and providing only brief descriptions of those links does not make a valid argument. Pro states that he has much evidence to cover, but this does not mean that any of it is valid. Pro should focus on providing strong evidence instead of much evidence.