No evidence; no argument.

MINK:

You're probably right that our analogous drain-pipe would break into only a few pieces when it fell. However, the cores (and this is why I described the analogy as a rough one) differed from drain-pipes in that they were extremely complex, interconnected and generally much larger structures. So, while the two types of entity share the characteristic of being unable to stand unsupported, they differ in the ways that they disintegrate once they begin to collapse.

To suggest that the National Institute of Standards and Technology haven't been insufficiently thorough with regards to World Trade Center 7 seems a little unfair. The final draft of their investigation into the collapse (which includes the testing of controlled demolition hypotheses) has not yet been released. It is due later this year.

MINK:

I'd like to take a look at the phenomenon of the crumbling radio antenna; are you able to give me a time code for the part of the above video (or a link to another) that shows it?

Constitutional_Patriot:

As we've already discussed, while they indeed had sincere reservations about how it was formed, funded and so forth, neither Hamilton nor Keane believe that the 9/11 Commission was ultimately unsuccessful. In fact, the opposite is true. The following is a quotation from their book Without Precedent:

Both of us [Hamilton and Keane] were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.

In short, whether or not they believe that the Commission was "set up to fail," they don't believe that it actually did fail.

Further, also as we've already discussed, the information that was kept from the 9/11 Commission and the changing stories did not concern what actually happened during the attacks. It was the question of whether, during the investigation, NORAD gave the commission false information intentionally (to cover their mistakes) or inadvertently. (Regarding the attacks, however, the correct information was uncovered in the end.)

We can certainly agree on at least one thing -- the government is indeed significantly underhanded and overwhelmingly untrustworthy. As Winston Churchill somewhat dryly said, "Do not criticise your government when out of the country; never cease to do so when at home." Of course, I'm all in favour of asking questions -- equally vital, however, is recognising answers.

The idea that the President is liar and that the Central Intelligence Agency have their moments of incompetence is one I'd never even dream of contesting. However, as I've said, until I see compelling evidence either that the current reports are drastically inaccurate or that any kind of appreciable cover-up has taken place, I cannot faithfully show any solidarity with those pushing for a new investigation.

Again, the cores were simply never designed to stand completely independently of the rest of the building. Roughly analogously, a drain-pipe bolted to the side of a very tall building maybe perfectly secure and could even provide enough stability for someone to climb; however, that same drain-pipe left free-standing in an open area would collapse of its own accord.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you mention something "dissolving in mid-air". Can you clarify that for me?

From an epistemological and a platonic perspective, to be able to rationally reach the conclusion that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 looked considerably suspicious, one would have to be reasonably familiar with what this kind of skyscraper collapsing due to a combination of severe structural damage and widespread fires should look like. Unfortunately however, there exist no comparable examples for us to evaluate. Prior to 9/11, the only time the vast majority of us will have seen a high-rise building collapse is due to a controlled demolition, so it's perfectly natural to draw such a cognitive association.

MINK:

When assessing the collapses of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2, it's important to bear in mind that the National Institute of Standards and Technology Report simply does not claim that global failure was the result of the collapse of the floor slabs. Rather, it was caused by the fires weakening the trusses which allowed the floor slabs to sag. This, in turn, exacted significant force on the perimeter columns causing them to bow appreciably inwardly (take a look at the following photograph: A). Eventually, due to the overwhelming strain, all of these perimeter columns along one side of the building failed practically simultaneously (also take a look at the following video: B).

Regarding the collapse debris fields, the towers can't be rightfully said to have fallen into their own footprints. The towers footprints measured one acre each; their debris fields, on the other hand, spanned approximately sixteen acres. If you're wondering why the top sections of the structures collapsed down onto and through rest of the buildings instead of falling away from them (and if you're in the mood to tackle some rather complex physics) you might want to take a look at this paper by physicist Dr. F. R. Greening.

blankfist:

Given your penultimate post, you might be interested to learn that the National Institute of Standards and Technology indeed are evaluating controlled demolition hypotheses for World Trade Center 7.

While, as you might have guessed, I disagree with your assessment that there are compelling prima facie grounds on which to take these conspiracy theories seriously, I do commend your obvious desire for impartiality and even-handedness. However, be careful not to commit the fallacy (frequently seen in the media) of assuming that for any given issue, the two sides must be balanced and that the truth must lie somewhere in-between. Oftentimes, after all, one side is just plain wrong!

From my experience of that website, you're perfectly correct. There's certainly a case for saying that it's biased and it's doubtless somewhat rhetorical. However, the most important things are that it's honest and it cites proper sources throughout -- unlike conspiracy theorist resources.

No evidence; no argument.

MINK:

I should probably add this:

I'm sure that a large number of those who push for a new investigation are perfectly well intentioned and genuinely believe that the current investigation suffers from glaring and extremely suspicious shortcomings. That said, however, in my experience, these beliefs are groundless and these people have been deceived and misled by the conspiracy theorist figureheads and their acolytes. It appears that practically without exception, the "Investigate 9/11" agitators foster utterly distorted and wholly inaccurate beliefs about the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Report and so on. Personally, I have seen absolutely no compelling, sober and rational evidence either to suggest that the conclusions reached by the current investigation are drastically inaccurate or that any kind of appreciable cover-up has taken place. If I were exposed to such evidence, however, of course, I would wholeheartedly support your cause.

The cores were not the solid entities you seem to believe them to have been; they were largely hollow as they housed the elevator shafts and stairways. They were composed of steel I-beams and box-columns which were in turn enclosed in gypsum wallboard. The cores didn't collapse at the same time as all of the floors; large sections remained standing until appreciably after the main superstructure had fallen (take a look at the following photographs: A; B.) The cores simply did not "turn to dust"; as I understand it, they collapsed due to the fact that they were severely damaged and because they were simply unable to (and also never designed to) stand completely independently of the rest of the building.

Further, perhaps some of the reason you're having difficulty with this issue is that you're not a structural engineer; all of your arguments regarding the cores include the logical fallacy of exclusively appealing to your own personal incredulity.

There is no mystery concerning the fireproofing. In the cases of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2, the fireproofing was a light and brittle composite which had been simply sprayed-on to the structural steel; that steel was thrashed and the fireproofing stripped by the debris and explosions caused by the impacts of the airliners. In the case of World Trade Center 7, the fireproofing was designed to withstand, at most, a three-hour fire; on 9/11, however, World Trade Center 7 burned for approximately eight hours.

You have patently misrepresented my views on the issue of the molten metal and in doing so have committed the straw man logical fallacy. Clearly and straightforwardly, I neither claimed nor implied that the photographs of molten metal had been faked. Here is what I did say: "There is no compelling evidence of molten steel; the molten metal was mostly likely aluminium".

Perhaps some of your incredulity stems from the fact that you evidently haven't properly understood the National Institute of Standards and Technology's conclusions concerning the collapse mechanism; they simply do not state that global failure was brought about by the catastrophic collapse of the floor slabs.

Thank you for a generally more reasoned post. However, there are a few things I need to clarify before I deal with your subsequent points:

Regarding the size difference between a Boeing 707 and a Boeing 767, there is no need to simply take my word for it:

707-320B:

Dimensions: Wing span 44.42m (145ft 9in), length 46.61m (152ft 11in), height 12.93m (42ft 5in). Wing area 283m2 (3050sq ft).

Weight: Empty 66,406kg (146,400lb)

767-200:

Dimensions: Wing span 47.57m (156ft 1in), length 48.51m (159ft 2in), height 15.85m (52ft 0in). Wing area 283.3m2 (3050sq ft).

Weight: Empty with JT9Ds 74,752kg (164,800lb)

In order to sufficiently contribute to a global collapse, the jet-fuel itself simply didn't need to burn for long enough to significantly affect the structural steel; it was merely required to serve as the accelerant for the fires. Once the fires had taken hold, there was plenty of other fuel (office contents, etc.) in the buildings to sustain them.

rougy:

On a related note, you suggest that the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- and those other qualified organisations that acknowledge their evidence and their findings -- cannot be trusted. This is precisely the kind of idea propagated by creationists; they claim that Richard Dawkins et al -- and indeed all evolutionary biologists -- are either credulous, part of some ubiquitous and satanic conspiracy or are at least in its pay. However, there is absolutely no evidence that evolutionary biologists are party to such nefariousness. Congruently, there is absolutely no evidence that the aforementioned structural and civil engineers are being either threatened or bribed into countenance by theoretical shadowy individuals.

rougy:

So, in your complete inability to appropriately argue your point, you've resorted to simply plastering those who don't agree with you with abuse, denying the very existence of prosaic explanations for the collapses and denying straightforward facts. I never thought it'd be appropriate to quote Choggie, but "Denial", indeed, "is a motherfucker."

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that making assessments based on the available evidence is somehow a moral or epistemological failure on my part. However, it's difficult to see why adhering to such an enlightenment principle -- one essential to the very foundations of empiricism and science -- should rightfully be considered so ignominiously.