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

Recently, scorpionclone held a debate holding that the WTC collapses were an inside job. As part of this, he said thermite was, in a large part, responsible for this collapse. Focusing on this specific topic of the widespread conspiracy theory, I hold that there is no credible evidence that thermite was involved. I am unclear as to exactly what evidence scorpionclone has, so I'll defer the initial argument to him.

Based on your topic, I need only provide "credible" evidence that thermite was at least partly responsible for the collapse of the towers.

1. First I will use eyewitness accounts of actual firefighters who witnessed "Molten Steel" when they were insode the building. For the sake of the audience I am supplying the most credible evidence first.

http://video.google.com...

"…….You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel running down the channel rails like you were in a foundry like lava from a volcano……"

Again, these are actual firefighter who witnessed molten steel, and something like "lava" running down the channel rails.

2. What does thermite do to steel??

Thermite:
A mixture of finely-divided metallic aluminum and ferric oxide that when ignited produces extremely high temperatures as the result of the union of the aluminum with the oxygen of the oxide: used in welding, incendiary bombs, etc.

What is Thermate?

Thermate:
a mixture of thermite and other oxidizing agents used as filling for incendiary munitions.

This still photo shows lava flows running down the and out the windows from melting steel. This is proof that temperatures had to of reached 2500 degrees+
Only incendiary chemicals such as thermate (which contains thermite) can create molten steel.

This chemical is widely used in controlled demolition, (Incendiary bombs) with timed explosions.

http://www.indybay.org...

3. Residue of Thermite and thermate was discovered and the effects of melted steel is visually photographed and logged. Steel that is bent like licorice, melted, etc, is the result of extremely high temperatures. Jet fuel does not burn at these temperatures and cannot be scientifically proven.

Again, for the audience please not I am using actual video footage of the evidence so that my opponent cannot cry "conspiracy". I encourage everyone to review the footage as this is an eye opening experience.

http://video.google.com...

"……I haven't seen any evidence of molten steel, at the towers…."
NIST Engineer, John Goss – Denies the existence of Molten Steel

4. The NIST claims to never have seen or heard about molten steel or extremely high temperatures at ground zero, clearly he is lying by the evasiveness of his answers and the facts on the ground. This Engineer must have slept through 9/11. Yet the NIST report has been referred to several times in the previous referenced argument as gospel truth. Clearly the NIST never interviewed the firefighters, rescue workers, eyewitenesses, or clean up crews about the heat coming from the site. This is why any evidence my opponent may attempt to provide, citing the NIST report should be scrutinized by the audience and not considered "credible".

5. <<I hold that there is no credible evidence that thermite was involved. I am unclear as to>>

My opponent has stated that there is no credible evidence. Video footage, that can be seen and heard by the audience is in my view the best evidence that can be provided. This allows the audience to review the clips for themselves so that they can see who is trying to be deceptive and who is attempting to uncover truth regardless of the consequences.

The fact that our fellow citizens were murdered on 9/11 should garner more attention and solemness from our "government Investgators" than a brush off and a joke in regards to physical evidence and witnesses. REferencing the NIST Engineer.

Thank you

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...

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.

1. First of all your clip was inconclusive. So I can't comment on the point your trying to make. What I can say, is that you're taking a science experiment on a small level and comparing it to actual events. This is a non- starter.

http://toolmonger.com...
-example of Thermite reaction with steel
-compare to my original picture in question
http://www.indybay.org...

<<I hold that there is no credible evidence that thermite was involved.>>

You have failed to address my main argument. There was more than just a couple of firefighters who witnessed molten steel. I am more likely to believe multiple eyewitnesses rather than a theory presented by you. (No offense, I'm sure you're a very nice guy)

<<So the stuff pouring out of the window in that picture isn't thermite. Then what is it?>>
(It's molten steel, please don't confuse the audience)

The video evidence of molten steel coming from the window is the same lava flows witnessed by the firefighters inside the building at different points of the building, (firefighters who have experience in fire and are far more qualified to observe fire and its effects, than say someone like you.) So again, it's not that easy to discredit the testimony of Fire "Professionals".

2. Bombs in the basement (Using Thermate and Thermite / Incendiary bombs)

<<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.>>

Again, just "saying" that thermite does not produce rivers of molten steel is your opinion and you have failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Your claim of a chemical reaction between aluminum and plaster mixed with jet fuel is laughable at best and would not explain the fact that the building collapsed into its footprint. In order for the building to collapse into its footprint, the basement areas would have to be blown out.

3.

http://www.rinf.com...

The second WTC janitor has come forward with eye-witness testimony of a 'bomb-like' explosion in New York's World Trade Center North Tower basement on September 11, 2001.

While working in a sub-level 4 workshop of the North Tower on 9/11, Jose Sanchez heard a bomb-like explosion, had his hair burned and rescued a co-worker who had his leg and knee broken from the basement blast taking place at approximately the same time the jetliner struck the tower's top floors.###

Now this is an eyewitness account of bombs going off in the basement as the planes are striking the towers. I encourage the audience to read this article as it details the events from a maintenance worker who worked in the towers for 14 years.

4. My opponent has failed to address the fact that jet fuel does not reach temperatures above 2000 degrees. The temperature it takes for steel to melt and bend like licorice, as referenced in my photo evidence. http://www.ae911truth.org...
http://content.edgar-online.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>>

This is a nice fantasy, but my opponent has not provided any photo or written evidence that jet fuel burns hotter than 2000 degrees. He cannot prove that his theory is possible; in fact his theory is not true.

I want to also remind the audience that my opponent has failed to provide any eyewitness accounts to refute any of my claims, the only evidence he has been able to provide is a very quaint science experiment, that when you factor in the jet fuel (can't burn hotter than 2000 degrees). It cannot be considered credible and I encourage the audience to discard my opponent's argument based on faulty and make believe science.

5. The fact that the government investigation after 7 years has failed to provide a complete investigation of WTC 7 is very telling at the least. The building in which was arguably the most unlikely to collapse, (never struck by a plane) in fact collapsed. Now I have already proven by my definitions that Thermite is used in controlled demolition, and we know that the leaseholder Silverstein gave the order to "pull it" meaning, demo the building on 9/11.

"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

How long does it take for a building to be prepped for demolition?
Hours? Days? Weeks? How could the building have been demolished minutes after the order is given without intense and time consuming preparation?

Buildings that are collapsed must be weakened evenly at the load bearing support beams.
If we are to believe my opponents theory than how were the towers able to collapse in such an even proportionality?

There are just too many questions that my opponent has failed to answer with any clarity and seriousness. I encourage the audience to vote for truth, vote pro on the resolution.

Thank you.

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. <<Again, just "saying" that thermite does not produce rivers of molten steel is your opinion and you have failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.>>

Fine, have another video.

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.

<<Your claim of a chemical reaction between aluminum and plaster mixed with jet fuel is laughable at best and would not explain the fact that the building collapsed into its footprint.>>
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.

<<In order for the building to collapse into its footprint, the basement areas would have to be blown out.>>
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. <<My opponent has failed to address the fact that jet fuel does not reach temperatures above 2000 degrees. The temperature it takes for steel to melt and bend like licorice, as referenced in my photo evidence.>>
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.

<<This is a nice fantasy, but my opponent has not provided any photo or written evidence that jet fuel burns hotter than 2000 degrees.>>
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 want to also remind the audience that my opponent has failed to provide any eyewitness accounts to refute any of my claims>>

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?

<<Buildings that are collapsed must be weakened evenly at the load bearing support beams.>>
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. If you make any new arguments, I'll address them in the comments.

1.
<<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>>

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.
<<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.>>

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.
<<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>>

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.
<<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?>>

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.
<<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>>

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.
<<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, (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.

<<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?>>

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.
<<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.>>

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?

<<But it doesn't take too much to bring a huge building down>>

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