Scientific Method
This slide was added to the March 2008 slideshow.
"Oh, Great. A Running Gag."
A quote from The Muppet Movie is an appropriate title, because this slide will indeed become a running gag in Gage's presentation. It presents a decent version of the scientific method. However, Gage will be using it to attack actual scientific inquiries into the collapses of these buildings.
It's rather clever of him to do so, because this makes it appear like he's the champion of science! To assist in this, he has also moved the greater part of his molten metal and thermite presentation into the WTC 7 section of this slideshow. As he dashes through these experiments done by Steven Jones and others, he will seem to be displaying a great fidelity to the scientific method. After all, they sent stuff to a laboratory and got back results! They went out and collected their data! It's as scientific as creationism.
So Gage gets a slide like this out there early. And once he's done so, he will use it again and again for a host of silly digs about the few scientific studies he deigns to recognize. In fact, Gage has added about 110 slides to this third version of his slideshow, and 15 of them are variations of this slide. All but this one are attacks on either FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission.
The 9/11 Commission Report was not meant to be a scientific presentation at all. It was a historical accounting of how the attacks came about, not about why physical things happened the way that they did.
The FEMA report was admittedly a preliminary report, calling for the more comprehensive studies like the NIST examinations would prove to be.
And many other scientists and organizations have studied these collapses. You will only hear about these if their conclusions or suspicions are different from either FEMA or NIST. There are many like this! But you will also never hear from Gage if they have specifically disavowed controlled demolition theories. This I promise you.
Science Buddies
This diagram has been taken from the website Science Buddies, an excellent source of information for science fairs in schools. As such, it is somewhat simplified, but it is basically correct.
As we will see, Gage doesn't follow the instructions at that page very well. In fact, what Gage does is precisely the opposite of the scientific method. Gage builds his hypothesis around little bits of information here or there, regardless of whether it actually makes sense to describe a controlled demolition the way that he does.
Similarities Between AE911Truth And Creationism
Again, this is just like creationists arguing against evolution. They seize upon controversy in scientific circles to say that their theory should be considered with the same degree of respect that evolutionary theories are accorded. However, this is not the case. Scientific theories are indeed up for disproving based on the actual evidence, but scientific facts are not.
For example, gravity is both explained in several theories and is a fact. People who say there is no such thing as gravity can be dismissed as cranks. Of course gravity exists. We can observe it. Likewise, evolution is an observable fact and yet has several competing theories that seek to explain the facts that we see. Creationism is not one of these theories that we should contemplate seriously, because creationism doesn't deal with the observable facts.
Is an unassisted collapse for these three buildings on the same level as gravity and evolution? Not at all. Several less respected people advocating for 9/11 Truth have come up with some easily dismissed ideas. One of these is energy beams disintegrating the buildings. This is easily dismissed as without merit, even by other conspiracy theorists like Richard Gage. Another is nuclear bombs being detonated in the structure. This enters the realm of possibility (i.e., there are nuclear bombs in existence, and one could conceivably be transported to the site and detonated). Yet again, this one is easily dismissed after a bit of thought. The effects of a nuclear bomb would be clearly seen and felt in Lower Manhattan, and though many who worked on the Pile are sick, radiation poisoning is not indicated by their symptoms. Indeed, radiation poisoning would be present in the population far beyond workers at the Pile, and the radiation from three bombs large enough to destroy those buildings would have been easily detected even today.
Controlled demolition is also within the realm of possibility, since controlled demolitions do happen. Yet with some study of the available evidence combined with some careful thought will show that the controlled demolition of 3 WTC buildings on 9/11 belongs in the same category as nuclear bombs or energy beams taking out the buildings.
The dispute between creationists and evolutionary scientists is very instructive for the student of 9/11 conspiracy theories. You will find the same kinds of mistakes being made by Richard Gage as creationists do. Controlled demolition theories for 9/11 become quite malleable things as Gage needs them to be. Three iterations of the same slideshow make this quite apparent. Gage rarely abandons any argument due to the evidence, and even when he does so, he tries his best to get back to it. This has happened several times, and I can document it with the three slideshows.
This is due to the unfalsifiability of Gage's hypothesis, which is seen in how he treats his hypothesis. There is literally nothing that someone could show Gage that would make him change his mind about his theories. Show an evolutionary scientist actual evidence that variations do not exist within species, or that some variations have survival benefit for the individuals possessing it, or that individuals do not pass their variations down to their offspring, and you will have convinced that scientist that evolution is not true.
But Gage is a controlled demolition advocate with the fervor that only a convert can demonstrate. Show him evidence that he is wrong, and he may retreat from his point slightly. As soon as he can, however, he will return to the argument, and if unable to, he will change his arguments to erase the doubtful evidence and never refer to it again.
He has already done this. Gage's argument is that all the characteristics of a controlled demolition are present in the collapses of these buildings. However, he was recently forced to recant a particular argument about "squibs" in 7 World Trade. He then changed his list of characteristics, eliminating squibs as part of the CD list he applies to 7 World Trade (was that list incomplete before or after this change?). Furthermore, he continues to refer to the argument in his live presentations, saying only that some think it true and some false, even though he's one of the ones who is on record saying it's false.
Having two different lists (one for the Towers and one for 7 WTC) is bad enough. Try applying either of them to an actual controlled demolition. But in this third slideshow, Richard Gage has THREE (3) lists. As we get to them, I will point them out. Gage will present one list, change it for 7 World Trade, and then change it again for the Towers. This is not the scientific method of adapting a hypothesis to explain the facts. This is the pseudoscientific method of building your hypothesis to fit in between the facts. Gage is arguing for a controlled demolition of the gaps, as it were.
A great chart explaining the differences between actual science and pseudoscience is available on this website. Though Gage pretends that FEMA and NIST are unscientific, a close examination of his actions and theirs will show that he is the pseudoscientific one, not they.
| Slideshow Date | Previous Slide | Current Slide | Next Slide | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| March 2008: | Slides 13/14 | < | Slide 15 | > | Slide 16 |
| January 2008: | Slide 15/16 | < | Not Present | > | Slide 17 |
| September 2007: | Slide 10 | < | Not Present | > | Slide 11 |