Best 9/11 conspiracy debunking website + question about Building 7

[Lethe]

I was wondering what was the best source of 9/11 conspiracy debunking was?

I tend to agree with most of the "conspiracy theorists" because I have not heard satisfactory evidence to dispute their claims.

The one point I can't get past is Building 7 collapsing. It wasn't hit except by debris, and the fires there were small, yet it still fell into its own footprint just like the other two. How can that be explained?

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Building #7 is remarkable. But even stranger is the no air defense for

an hour and a half.

How could the hijackers manage that one?

Building #7 does cause a lot of people to take a second look at the official story to be sure.

In context, we have three buildings, (the towers and #7) which experienced 3 random events and all completely collapsed in a stagiated

manner.

[greyl]

2. Here's a few

www.911myths.com
www.debunking911.com
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

These 4 sites are a great start to investigating the skeptical side of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
They link to many other critical thinking sites about 9/11 conspiracies - check those out too.

[yodermon]

3. wtc7

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

[Roachman]

5. I'm trying to keep an open mind...

but when he explains the Silverstein quote on this page, he's
obviously not expecting us to believe him, is he? 

Silverstein said: 

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department
commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be
able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had
such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is
just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we
watched the building collapse."

The author argues that Silverstein is not a demolition expert,
and then attempts to explain what he meant by "pull
it" by first suggesting he may have meant pull the
building to one side (it is not clear if this is a secondary
explanation of Silverstein's quote or just left for the reader
to understand what the author thinks "pull" means in
demolition terms), and then by suggesting he meant "Pull
the people out of nearby buildings." As evidence for this
second version, he gives this quote: 

    "They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us
out. They said all right, get out of that building because
that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of
there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street,
between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in
there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much
later on in the day, because every day we were so worried
about that building we didn't really want to get people close.
They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in
there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt

But "pull it" can't possibly be translated to
"pull them out." Those are different phrases. And I
can't imagine anyone would think the first implies the second
or could be interpreted by others in terms of the second.

[Nozebro]

4. Best site for "debunking" the craziest 9/11 conspiracy theories

www.democraticunderground.com

The OCT'ers are very very good at distracting and otherwise trying to undermine the quest for truth about what really happened and who is behind it, but there are some very bright people right here on this DU forum that are quite capable of piercing thru the OCT fog and revealing the truth.