911 why debunkers cant face the facts

Thanks for the kind words, Pro. We are not, however, debating the science. Rather, we are evaluating whether debunkers respond to questions about controlled demolition.Con argued that well-known debunkers like NIST and PM have directly addressed concerns about molten steel and thermite and provided a few examples. Pro counters by stating "Well,, they have responded but their science is not valid." Therefore, Pro concedes the argument. Whether or not the science is valid, Con concedes that debunkers have responded to questions of controlled demolition, in contradiction to Con's original argument, debunkers never face these questions. Both Pro and Con are now in agreement that debunkers sometimes face questions of controlled demolition, which essentially ends the debate in favor of Con.*******Although Pro argues that debunkers have not scientifically proved that the WTC was not imploded by controlled demolition, Pro neglects to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on the side of conspiracists, not debunkers. As Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I don't think even Pro would go so far as to find that these minor points of clarification amount to extraordinary evidence.NIST fails to show how aluminium can be yellow at the temperatures of 1000 C .As documented above, NIST makes no argument that aluminum itself is yellow. NIST advises that the yellow glow comes from the massive amount of organic material trapped in the flow. If Pro's undocumented independent experimenters are unable to produce a yellow glow by burning organic material, Con would recommend burning wood in a fireplace. This is a simple experiment that can be repeated at will and often produces a yellow glow.Molten Iron SpheresHere is a debunker reproducing RJ Lee's molten iron spheres with a bic lighter, proving that thermite is not necessary to explain the presence of molten iron spheres in WTC dust:http://www.youtube.com...FEMA melted steelPro has failed to document this argument, but the same FEMA report also provides a lucid explanation without resorting to extraordinary causes:1.The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.2.The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.3.The high concentration of sulfides in the grain boundaries of the corroded regions of the steel occurred due to copper diffusing from the HSLA steel combining with iron and sulfur, making both discrete and continuous sulfides in the steel grain boundaries [1]Pro has failed to elucidate why NIST should contradict FEMA's report.Many eyewitnessesMuch of the world can be counted as an eyewitness to the WTC collapse, what of it? Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. [2]Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.... saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center.Astaneh-Asi is a prominent civil engineers whose conclusions are the same as NISTs and whose findings were considered part of the evidence that NIST and Congress used to conclude that there was no controlled demolition. Pro disagrees with Astaneh-Asi's findings so why Pro is citing him in evidence?Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known "chain of custody" dustObviously, NIST is not at liberty to create studies is response to every minority theory. Nevertheless, many objective analyses of WTC dust contradict Jone's findings. "There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite." [3]NIST claimed they found no evidence of explosivesNIST was trying to understand the cause/effect of WTC collapse after jet impacts: the most obvious and likely explanation for collapse. Although NIST had no cause to suspect demolition and therefore did not seek evidence to that effect, NIST does point out that the presence of hundreds of demolitions experts suggests that any strong evidence indicating an explosion would have been detected and reported by these experts. In the absence of any report of any sign of explosion by any demolitions expert, NIST did not waste time exploring explosions as one possible cause.NIST claims on how much thermite are needed are irrelevant as nanothermite was claimed to be used and not normal thermite.nanothermite was not in general production outside of the lab in Los Alamos at the time of the WTC collapse. The point is that any theoretical explosive would require a massive, coordinated effort that went entirely undetected by the many police agencies protecting one of the busiest buildings in the world, a highly unlikely scenario.ConclusionHowever unconvincing Pro may find the science, the central dynamic of the controlled demolition debate always revolves around the same fallacy- that debunkers have failed to prove that the WTC was NOT brought down by controlled demolition. This dynamic keeps the debate alive since it is impossible to prove a negative. At the end of the day, the burden of proof must always be handed back to the Truther side of the argument. Unless Pro and controlled demolition advocates can provide unimpeachable evidence that demonstrates controlled demolition, there is little reason to change history's verdict.PRO proposed that debunkers never face molten steel or thermite arguments. Pro conceded the argument in the second round by admitting that debunkers do address these arguments, but Pro finds the science unsatisfactory. Con has demonstrated that the debunkers' responses reflect mainstream and common sense opinion. Voters only have to agree that debunkers do sometimes contradict truther arguments regarding steel and thermite to refute PRO's proposition in order to vote for CON. Thanks in advance, voters, please vote for CON.[1] http://www.fema.gov...[2]http://www.innocenceproject.org...[3]http://www.nmsr.org...