On 9/11, WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition.

<> Let's address these issues then: 1.Silverstein made comments to "pull it" in reference to building 7 2.When Silverstein bought the WTC he also insured it at the same time, this is usually what you do when you buy a property, contrary to my opponent's opinion that you buy property and then insure it later. 3.Building 7 was never struck by a plane, yet it collapsed in 7 seconds. My opponent claims it was 13 seconds, but either way, it collapsed at free fall speed. It seems he is so overwhelmed by them that they seem like more than he can handle. <<"I haven't seen any evidence of molten steel, at the towers". Seems factual to me. Have you seen the evidence? If so provide it. If you are using the "evidence" in the video then I will address those: a) Molten material dripping from the tower - Could be and is most likely aluminum….>> Really? It could be aluminum? Do you have any references or proof to back up your claim? Or are you hypothesizing? This is only your opinion. In fact the proof I have provided is much more consistent with Thermite reactions than "aluminum" !! Does this look like Aluminum to you? http://planetquo.net... I submit that if there is evidence of molten steel. Remember, my opponent has provided zero evidence that there was aluminum, and he denies that there is melted steel. Yet this is a steel column that has been literally melted. < > Can you? You can tell the difference between the two? The problem with your theory is that, you say the two look so similar, then in fact it "could" be thermite? Correct? http://video.google.com... 1. << No controlled demolition expert uses the term "pull it" do describe a building implosion. The only context that "pull" is used is when demolishing smaller buildings, where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure with bulldozers etc.>> http://www.thewebfairy.com... http://www.thewebfairy.com... In reference to bulding 6 the demolition expert uses the term "to pull" meaning demolish the building. http://www.wtc7.net... "An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building. " My opponent has not provided any evidence to the contrary. Again I have provided additional evidence to prove my point by the added audio clip. I encourage the judges to fully investigate my claims, as my opponent hopes that you won't do, as you will discover some serious inconsistencies with his argument. 2. < > Did he? Give me a source. He did however sign a 99-year lease on the entire WTC complex 6 weeks before.>> When you buy a house, do you buy homeowners insurance? Common sense would say that you have to otherwise; the bank won't approve the loan. Right? Yet my opponent contradicts himself here: < > When was he forced to take out this insurance policy? Was it taken out when Silverstein leased the building (6 weeks before the attacks?) or after he leased it? Doesn't make sense since this complex is worth a lot more than a house, and you have to have insurance for that. So obviously my opponent is applying the straw man theory, as if this is against the normal real estate practices, to require insurance. http://www.loveforlife.com.au... < (Representing the Port Authority of New York was Mr. Lewis Eisenberg, Chairman of the Port Authority for New York. Eisenberg, was also former chairman of Goldman Sachs Inc., and is currently the chairman of the Republican National Committee. ) The winning bid from Silverstein and Lowy was 3.2 Billion dollars. Silverstein and Lowy were required to make a down payment of $125,000,000.00. (According to the website "What Really Happened," Silverstein had two other financial backers, a Lloyd Goldman and a Joseph Cayre, who also put up a portion of the down payment.) However, contrary to popular belief, Silverstein et.al., did not buy/purchase the WTC. The partnership only gained control of the WTC by obtaining from the P.A.N.Y. a 99 year lease in Buildings 1,2,4 and 5 and 9 and 400,000 square feet of retail space. Mr. Silverstein immediately insured the complex for 3.6 billion dollars. This was accomplished under contract with Willis Group Holdings Ltd. who arranged and negotiated the coverage with a consortium of 25 insurance companies. >> There you have, my opponent has provided no evidence, yet again I have provided the proof that Silverstein did in fact insure the building 6 weeks prior to the attacks. When he leased the properties. 3. < > Again my opponent has provided no evidence to support his claims but only conjecture and opinion. <> its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building. * its size - The pile from the 47-story b47-story building was less than two stories high. * its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building http://www.wtc7.net... The photo evidence on this site of building 7 clearly shows that the rubble is in a tidy pile. Finally, I have clearly refuted all of my opponents arguments