Skeptics Magazine Article

Does anyone know of any concise arguments that specifically address the Skeptics Magazine article, which claims to debunk 9/11 truth.

I can argue against it myself, drawing on various sources but I'd like to see any articles dedicated to answering the claims stated here.

I recall

Kevin Ryan posted at least a very good beginning response here and probably on his blog as well.....

I cannot recall when. Fairly recently, I think.

WTC-7 was 350 feet away from the nearest tower. Why should it

have sustained any "severe damage & raging fires" at all? Was it made of paper-maché and not steel & concrete?

If the towers "pancaked" as per the "government story" then

why do we see absolutely no evidence of this? Why are there no "layers" on the gound? Why was most everything pulverized into small particles & dust before it even reached the ground?

What they miss out

Able Danger
Saeed Sheikh
Sibel Edmonds
Alhazmi and Almihdhar

Also they write:
"The second airplane struck the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors, but sliced in at an angle, severely damaging the entire northeast corner of the building."
Northeast? No, southeast.

"Compared with the North Tower, the South Tower sustained damage that was both less evenly distributed and significantly lower on the building’s frame, requiring the weakened point to support more upper building weight than the corresponding crash site on the North Tower."
The columns in the towers were tapered and the columns at the south tower impact zone were proportionately thicker than the columns at the north tower impact zone, because they had to support more weight anyway. The idea that the columns are not tapered and the south tower collapsed first because it was hit lower down is pure bunk put about by people who haven't even read the FEMA summary, let alone the whole NIST report.

"Best engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650° F"
Not according to NIST they don't. The graph on page 30 of NIST's final report says steel loses half its strength at about 600 degrees centigrade, not fahrenheit.

"244 exterior columns"
Actually, 236.

"The impact and explosion of the airplane crashes probably knocked off most of the insulating material intended to fireproof the steel beams,"
There is no proof or evidence of this. NIST's assumption is that the plane transformed itself into buckshot, but I am unaware of any previous crash in which an airliner transformed itself into buckshot. Therefore, I think it is unlikely.

I just picked a section and went through a couple of paragraphs, you could probably do this for any section.