Thermite was as least partially responsible for the collapse of the WTC towers.

1. < > Are you serious? You haven't responded to any of the argument, you have only cited your embarrassing clip about homemade thermite. Of course home made thermite will not bring down a building!!! Your funny! How can you consider your last rebuttal an authentic argument? You are repeating the same fuzzy science experiment as your evidence from before. 2. < > And now my friend you have committed a terrible mistake. First of all I don't need to back up your claim, you do. But because the two look so similar to each other, you have just admitted that there is no way to tell them apart. You have just proven to the audience that the two are interchangeable. This my friend is enough evidence to prove that thermite was at least partially responsible. A bad debating move. You have left enough doubt in the audience's mind that it "could" be thermite. Now you can't prove without a doubt that it wasn't Good job! 3. < > Men who run into burning buildings while other people are running out wouldn't be considered fearful or afraid. These firefighters have been trained to work under tremendous pressure, and as a son of a firefighter, I know that firefighters are some of the bravest men and women I have ever met. To say that out of fear their eyes stopped working is ridiculous. In fact it's shameful. And again you are saying that molten steel and aluminum oxide look exactly alike, your words. So how are we to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it in fact was aluminum oxide and not thermite, we can't know for sure??? I guess we will have to let the audience decide! 4. <> Yeah in 10 seconds right! That's possible. You are attacking me without responding to the argument. Open your eyes, you going to lose another debate because your not addressing the argument only making jokes about it, instead of proving it wrong 5. < > The towers didn't hit the basement my friend. And there were multiple explosions, not just plane strikes, please use common sense. The audience understands that laughing at the claims and not addressing the argument is a sure sign that you don't have an answer. You can make fun of it, but trust me the audience knows yur evading the argument. 6. < That makes sense, right? Why else would blacksmiths get steel up to temperatures above 1000 degrees before shaping it? It certainly isn't because they want the added challenge of not getting burned. Now, if you're going to WELD steel, (WHAT ABOUT IF YOUR TRYING TO BRING DOWN A BUILDING AT ITS SUPPORT POINTS, YOU'D PROBLY WANT TO MELT IT AND BLOW IT RIGHT)it does have to be melted first. But not for simply bending it.>> I have shown you proof of melted steel. By you saying that steel does not have to melt to lose it's strength does nothing to prove that there is evidence of melted still at the crime scene. You have not proven that there is no melted steel at the scene. So your argument is unrelated to the issue at hand. Was there or wasn't there melted steel at the scene?? http://planetquo.net... This is melted steel from a shaped thermite charge, you have failed to refute this argument. 7. << I have refuted your claims. You claimed that thermite was responsible for the pouring of metal from the tower: I have clearly refuted that. You said eyewitness accounts prove that thermite was there: I have shown that those eyewitness accounts are uninformed, and you have misrepresented all of them. This is an absolute strawman.>> What about that melted steel, I think you're the straw man. But I know you have a vast knowledge of fighting fires, and molten steel, because your 17 and you live with your mom right? I mean come on, have you ever been in a fire? What do you know about fire that you can discredit the claims of professional fire men. Wow! 8. < > pull down 1. To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building. 2. To reduce to a lower level. 3. To depress, as in spirits or health. 4. Informal To draw (money) as wages: pulls down a hefty salary. Maybe you should have actually done more research than, even looking up the term before you stuck your foot in your mouth. Nice try though. Look into it and I encourage the audience once again to review all the evidence that I have brought out. For the record my opponent has based his entire argument on the fact that the thermite looks just like aluminum oxide. But this begs the question, how does the audience know the difference? We are left unsure based on his conclusions. That means that it could in fact be thermite. They look the same. Therefore: you have been unable to prove that thermite was not at least partially responsible for 9/11 9. <> So you are saying you are not qualified to make an argument, yet you have challenged me to debate about whether thermite was partially responsible for 9/11??? So any and all arguments you have made should not be taken as "credible" because you admit you do not have enough knowledge about them. WTC 7 is apart of the same complex as the rest of the WTC? Is it not? < > You'd be surprised. Maybe if you had more sufficient research we could really debate the issues rather than attacking debate skills. I rest my case