This is exactly what I described in my previous post:
Anyway, these arguments tend to veer all over the place (usually by just introducing more claims when you question the first ones), so you've gotta nip it in the bud by asking for a basic level of clarity and specificity.
This is standard operating procedure: post a big ol' infodump, rather than something specific and focused, so that anyone who wants to dispute it has to do a lot of homework first. Most conspiracy theorists don't so much win arguments as they eventually just convince the other person to tap out.
Suffice to say, even just skimming that first link, it becomes obvious it's not a debunking at all, unless you think "debunk" is just a synonym for "say something in response." Which seems to be what that site thinks: you can see that the goal is not to actually levy (or dispute) a meaningful claim, but just to say A Thing in response to each bit.
For example, one of the very first sections ("Intercepts Not Routine") cites as evidence
another conspiracy site (OilEmpire.us), if you can believe that. Almost immediately afterwards you see tell tale phrases like "It is safe to assume that..." So, circular citations and an unexplained assumption, right off the bat.
Another example: the section on demolition, which is the focus of the part of the article I quoted above. They don't seem to be able to dispute any of the technical claims, so they resort to saying the
choice of photo "minimizes the explosiveness of the event" and complains that the article talks about "dust" rather than "concrete" (nevermind that the "dust" is "concrete dust"). It also makes a very strange distinction between one type of demolition conspiracy and another:
The article's lead point in the World Trade Center topic is an obscure idea that explosives in the basements of the towers damaged the lobbies at about the time the planes hit. This claim is difficult to find in 9/11 skeptics' literature, and is entirely distinct -- in both the support that exists for it, and the support that it provides for "conspiracy theories" -- from the contention that explosives brought down the towers (56 and 102 minutes after the plane crashes).
Does it go on to explain why this distinction is important, because the explanation provided explain the first thing but not the second? Why no, no it doesn't. But it doesn't matter, because they have successfully posted a paragraph, full of actual words, in response. Debunk complete!
In that same section, they imply the explanation is invalid because it doesn't explain "where the concrete dust came from, or even attempting to quantify the amount of dust that should be expected in the absence of explosives." In other words, they don't even have anything to contradict the testimony in question, they just have some follow-up questions that were not preemptively and explicitly addressed, which...makes the explanation suspect? Somehow?
This is how these exchanges always go. It starts off with accusations of contradictions, lies, or falsehoods ("how do you explain THIS?"), and when someone sits down and takes those seriously, it quickly shifts to "well what about this other thing?" Suddenly it's no longer contending that something is false or making a clear contention, it's just prodding at anything which hasn't been discussed in granular detail, which is a pretty substantial retreat.