My Response:

I don't think Larry Silverstein's comments are at all important, this draws away from the fact that it was extremely obvious that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition.

But for the sake of this debunking article I will give a response. Mike's basic argument is that Larry Silverstein meant to pull the fire fighters away from building 7. There wasn't any fire fighting in building 7! Mike even says here: http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_water_supply.html That there wasn't enough water to fight the fires in WTC 7, what a total contradiction! Mayor Giuliani even said that they were warned in the morning that the South Tower was going to collapse so WTC 7 was evacuated.

Source:
http://rapidshare.de/files/9142704/giuliani_warning.wmv.html
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths/WTC7.htm

Issues:

"Mike's basic argument is that Larry Silverstein meant to pull the fire fighters away from building 7. There wasn't any fire fighting in building 7!"

From reading this you might think he's exposed some major flaw in what we've said... Except he hasn't at all. Here's what Chris quotes us saying about Silverstein's story:

There is a problem with this account, in that it mentions firefighters being in the building, and by all accounts the WTC7 firefighting effort was over by that time.

Some people say this is proof that Silverstein is lying, although of course there are other possibilities: maybe Silverstein didn’t remember every detail of the conversation correctly when he recalled it some months later, say.

 There’s certainly good reason to believe that firefighters were in reasonably close proximity to WTC7 until very near to the time it collapsed, as a number of testimonies suggest, and so it’s conceivable that they were the firefighters that needed to be pulled away:

(and plenty more to support those thoughts). So we give a far more fair and balanced discussion than Chris would like to pretend.

Mike is correct, there are no obvious squibs bursting out of WTC 7. Why doesn't Mike show the people on his website the OBVIOUS squibs bursting from the WTC Towers that are far below the demolition wave of both the Towers?
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths/WTC7.htm

So this point is debunked by, ah, accepting we're right? Okay. Actually we don't accept that there are obvious squibs at the WTC, but our comments on that will appear on a different page, once we have enough to make it worthwhile.

Where is the evidence of intense fire? None of the fires in the photos shown above would be considered intense, and most importantly even if they were they are NOT widespread. The claim that 25 % of WTC 7 was scooped out by the debris from WTC 1 & 2 is ridiculous, where is the evidence that 25 % of WTC 7 was scooped out?

If 25 % of WTC 7 was scooped out by the debris from WTC 1 & 2 it would only strengthen the controlled demolition theory for the Towers, how can pulverized concrete dust scoop out 25 % of a building? The only way this could happen is if steel beams were sent flying from the towers with incredible force, but even then, I would find it hard to Imagine 25 % of the building being scooped out.
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths/WTC7.htm

The point of this page is addressed at the top of it: "WTC7 collapsed despite only having small, limited fires". We don't say that they were intense (a straw man). We don't state proof that they were widespread (although the videos suggest it may have been). This page doesn't mention "the claim that 25 % of WTC 7 was scooped out by the debris from WTC 1 & 2 is ridiculous" (another straw man). 

Our aim was to show that some sites (and people) misrepresent the WTC7 fires by showing only one or two shots of one side of the building, and carefully avoiding the other. We think that's misleading, and this response doesn't debunk any of that.