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

First, what do you mean, I haven't addressed the question? I have shown that all the evidence you presented cannot prove that thermite was responsible. You have claimed that the metal pouring out of the window is steel, yet you have shown no evidence whatsoever of this. The firefighter who claimed to witness molten steel probably had no experience at all in molten metals (you know, these don't occur in conventional fires. ) Molten steel and aluminum oxide look almost exactly alike, given their red glow hiding their texture. Anyone would be hard pressed to tell the difference, especially while fearing for their lives. 1. Your video DOES NOT show thermite reacting with steel. It just shows thermite burning by itself. You clearly have little knowledge of thermite. <<(It's molten steel, please don't confuse the audience)>> Do you have any proof to back up my claim? As I said, the amount of thermite used in a demolition would be utterly incapable of producing a lake of steel. Prove that the metal seen there is steel and not aluminum oxide. Molten steel: . http://www.rimcapital.com.au... Molten aluminum oxide: . http://amazingrust.com...(3-12-06).jpg Please, can you tell me the visual difference between these two metals? There is none. A firefighter would have no way of knowing whether he was looking at steel or aluminum. 2. <> Fine, have another video. . http://www.youtube.com... Look at all that thermite! Look at all the molten steel it made! Oh wait, it didn't make any. Just enough to put a small hole in the steel. The tiny bit of molten steel quickly solidified. Thermite does not create rivers of molten steel. It never has, and never will. If you have a scrap of evidence to show that it does, please show it to me. < > I do not claim that the aluminum-plaster reaction made a large difference in the collapse of the towers. I am merely saying that it accounts for the 'steel' in the picture. You have shown no evidence, or even a theoretical argument, to counter this. < > Are you serious? What physics training have you had that says a million tons of steel and concrete aren't going to crush everything for a couple dozen feet below them? 3. BAHAHA. You have got to be kidding me. Please, just try to think for yourself, instead of listening to what a conspiracy site tells you. Now, people in the tower said they heard something like a bomb going off right at the time the plane crashed into the tower. Now. .. was there anything else happening at that time that might have sounded like an explosion. Let's think. Maybe. .. A PLANE HITTING THE TOWERS? This should be absolute common sense to anybody. 4. < > Oh, come on. We've been over this, like, three times. I guess I'll have to put in all in caps to get you to read it. STEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT TO LOSE MOST OF ITS STRENGTH. 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, it does have to be melted first. But not for simply bending it. < > Please point me to the place where I said that jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees. IT DOESN'T. I said that jet fuel reaches temperatures needed to ignite aluminum and plaster, and even that doesn't get hot enough to melt steel. But for the millionth time, steel doesn't need to it 2500 degrees before it weakens. <> 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. 5. I have not done sufficient research on the collapse of WTC 7 to hold a good argument about it. I do, however, know that no evidence of controlled demolition exists for it, and you are working off of pure speculation. <<"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. ' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. " Larry Silverstein, on 9/11>> This is hilarious. I actually chuckled. Those sites must have really brainwashed you a lot to make you look at a quote like this and assume that the FIRE DEPARTMENT was discussing demolishing the building on a whim. I really don't know what to say about this. Well, one thing. .. When he says 'pull it', he means to pull the firefighters out of the building to prevent further loss of life. How could you not immediately see that? < > Show me the evidence. True, this is how it's done in controlled demolitions. But that's just because it increases the safety of the procedure. But it doesn't take too much to bring a huge building down. That's it. My opponent's debating skills are lacking. He has largely ignored everything I said last round, instead presenting another slew of arguments, most of which are strawmen that horribly misrepresent evidence. My request scorpionclone for the final round is that he refrain from bringing any new arguments into the debate, and instead focus on systematically rebutting the ones already present, as I did for him. And finally, if you say one more time that steel doesn't lose its strength until 2000 degrees. .. But it's been a fairly good debate, compared to most of what goes on here. Good debate.