youcanhandlethetruth

Are you sure that's a good effort mkp ?

Let's take a closer look at this Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7 website........

The link I posted before was a response to the popular mechanics article.

Here is a reponse to the website you posted Mike:

Debunking 9/11 Website Debunks Itself

To show I'm not biased towards 911 truth I've taken the last 2 hours to examine the evidence on the website again carefully in the forlorn hope I can maybe find evidence the 911 conspiracy theorists are wrong.

Forgetting the argument about literacy for a second (not that I don't believe the site wasn't strewn with errors but the article I posted was along time ago and the websites contect has obviously been changed), the theory of this website is that (quote) :

"while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7."

The they try to compare Building 7 with the Bankers trust building as both were in range of WTC 1 and 2 and say about the latter:

"As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse."

Ok so are they implying fire brought down WTC7 ?
No they go on to quote larry Silverstein's decision to "pull" the building....
This is one of the things both camps disagree about......

"Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them."

[Note also:
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics, which is cited by the Debunking 9/11 website in its links section, also quotes NIST in saying "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."(do a search on the open page you'll find the quote)]

""In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires."

"I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out."

Notice the website itself underlines "pulled" though the author also claims:

""Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition."

To be fair, I don't think the prisonplanet article is the best they could have done, but they make the point that the Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage website is full of contradictions, firstly implying the reason as fire, then that they pulled the firefighters out that were fighting unfought fires, then that they "pulled" the building."

It's all a bit confusing(maybe that's the intention) but there are contradictions in the quotes they use you can't ignor and as the prisonplanet article says,
"Which is it to be? Firemen or no firemen? Pull or nothing to pull?"

youcanhandlethetruth

So mkp, do you still believe it is the 911 truth movement who are playing "fast and loose" with the facts now ?
Or the debuking911.com website ?

mkpdavies

I think both sides do.

I still haven't seen a reasonable explanation for the WAY wtc7 went down yet.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

youcanhandlethetruth

I think you're being slightly unfair to 911 truth mkp.

I'm not saying I totally disagree with you, but wouldn't you agree the official theories and debunking websites like this contain many more lies/spin than the occasional error or oversight on behalf of 911 truth ?

Even I am conditioned to lean towards the official version of events when I'm not thinking straight (no sarcastic jokes please).

I think that's the reason - social conditioning.

Those that support the establishment can get away with a 1000 errors/lies but the libertarians can't get away with a single mistake ot their argument is thrown out along with all the other very credible points that the debukers never seem to explain.

youcanhandlethetruth

Can you comment on the contradictions I've outlined on the debunking website Mike ?

Mikeuk

Remind me what they were >>yawn<<

Roland

Just a thought.

That web sight always refers to Larry Silverstein as MR Silverstein.

When dose any news article refer to some one of any category refer to any one of any stature as MR. The only time you refer to some one as MR is if you are working under them and you see them as way above your station.

Just a thought.

youcanhandlethetruth

They're highlighted in bold in my post above on page 10.

That website that you believes debunks the theory clearly contradicts itself.

It states that
a) there were fires in WTC7 and
b) there were no fires in WTC7

It also contradicts itself with the reason as to why the building collapsed - i.e. the definition of "pull" the building.

Can you really trust the website out of hand, without looking more carefully at the evidence it presents ?

Mikeuk

What unbelievable rubbish. How else would you expect them to refer to him?

These days the press even refer to persons accused in the courts as 'Mr'.

Mikeuk

Yes. Here is the full quote:

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."


Can't find that quote.