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

Most of your points say pretty much the same thing, so I'm not going to deal with them in order. I'll deal with the whole idea of them and then apply that to each one later. Your most striking piece of evidence is this picture: http://www.indybay.org... Which has been claimed to be a mixture of molten iron and aluminum oxide produced by thermite. That is an extremely rash conclusion to come to, and I can show it to be extremely unlikely. First, I want to impress on you exactly why thermite is used in controlled demolitions. It is not meant to liquefy vast pillars of steel and turn the entire support structure into a fluid. Thermite charges are used in pairs, displacing a section of a steel pillar so that the rest of the building above can fall a couple feet. Then gravity does the rest. The small amount of liquid steel produced solidifies quickly. The idea that a thermite demolition produces flowing rivers of liquid metal is ridiculous. The thermite itself is held by a binder, preventing much of it from moving. Look at that picture. It would take TONS of thermite to produce that much slag, many times more than would be necessary to take down the entire WTC building, let alone a single tiny section of it. So the stuff pouring out of the window in that picture isn't thermite. Then what is it? We need to think of something that would have been present in huge quantities all around the building. Something that could have been produced by the temperatures already created by burning jet fuel and office fires. No, let's go the extra mile. I need something that firefighters could have mistaken for 'molten steel'. Even better, something that might partially account for the lingering hotspots under the rubble. How about... http://www.youtube.com... The reaction between aluminum and plaster (the important ingredient in which is calcium sulfate) is quite similar to that of thermite. Both of them ignite at relatively high temperatures (but attainable by the combustion of hydrocarbons like jet fuel), and both produce molten aluminum oxide, which is probably what the molten metal pouring from the window in that picture is. Aluminum would have been abundantly present in piping, or even better, in aluminum based paints DIRECTLY ON TOP OF THE PLASTER. Once ignited, this reaction would be self sustaining and could burn for a very long time, producing huge quantities of aluminum oxide. So there you have it. The metal in that picture is not molten steel, but aluminum oxide. It did not come from thermite, but the aluminum-plaster reaction. Now I will go through and address each of your points. 1. As I already said, thermite does not produce rivers of molten steel. And unless this firefighter has an extensive knowledge of metallurgy, I don't trust him to know exactly what metal he was looking at. Again, the 'molten steel' was aluminum oxide. 2. Already addressed. 3. Bent steel is not the result of thermite. It is the result of 200,000 tons of building crushing down on it. 4. You are using the views of the third party to represent my views. That's a strawman, and I won't spend any time on it. There we go. I await your rebuttal.