Well you can make the same argument as him, or new ones, or argue against his (some of his arguments are flawed from an engineering standpoint... like he states that a small hole will have devastation effects and then uses an example where he cracks a hole the size of the diameter of the vacuum tube, simple math actually shows that in order for a hole to be large enough to cause the damage he was predicting then it would need to be between 1.5 and 2 radius, radii? Whatever the plural of of radius is)

Anyways, I have many arguments against Thunderf00t. I mean one of his videos is about the storage of energy (specifically electrochemical) and when explaining how a battery works he tries to explain it like gasoline? He has other problems too like with the waterseer debunk he assumes static deposition of energy and that as soon as so much water has been condensed that you will never be able to get more out (he says never in his sentence)

So I respect some of his views but I also respect that some of his views are flawed and incorrect.