VIDEO: Things Can Go Wrong With CD

This slide and this slide present a video clip. They otherwise are the same slide, and I will treat them together on this one page.

This slide was added in the March 2008 slide show.

This Is An Orange

The video clip Gage uses in this slide is from the Internet short, This Is An Orange, by Anthony Lawson. It is three different controlled demolitions (or rather, two successful demolitions and one unsuccessful). The only one I've been able to identify so far is the first one, the Oslo, Norway demolition of the Phillips building.

Lawson includes the soundtrack of the Oslo demolition on his video. It's rather muddy, and the demolition can be more clearly heard in this video:

YouTube: Oslo Demolition with clearer soundtrack

Lawson's video presents the idea that you can tell if a building is a controlled demolition or not by visual identification. The eyes can be fooled by so many things, however. For example, by visual identification, which sun is burning hotter?

Of course this is the same sun burning at the same temperature. Visual identification has to be supplemented by other criteria. It should never be used, as Lawson and Gage are doing here, to make a first impression the sole judge of all following criteria.

"All Support Columns Severed At The Same Time"

The last clip shows a controlled demolition gone wrong. Funnily enough, the main point of the video seems to be that by looking at a building fall, you can tell that all the support columns are severed at the same time. That makes the building collapse in a visually identifiable way, such as the Oslo demolition and, so they argue, 7 World Trade.

Yet clearly all the support columns in the silo CD are cut at the same time. Lawson does mention "or if something else goes wrong" to ward off criticism, but clearly the structure and the composition of this silo is what is resisting the full collapse. It's quite small (nowhere near a single percentage point of the mass of 7 World Trade), and we have no reason to assert that the structure is made of steel. It simply isn't comparable in a rigorous way to any of the WTC buildings.

But a rigorous comparison isn't on the agenda in this film and in this slide show. Snap judgments and reinforced errors are.

Gage Is Done With Premise One

As Gage draws this section to a close, let me remind you of his overall argument:

Premise: Any building collapse that has these features (A, B, C, etc.) must be a controlled demolition.

Premise: The 3 WTC buildings have these features (A, B, C, etc.).

Conclusion: The 3 WTC buildings were controlled demolitions.

From here on out, Gage is simply proving premise two. He will first present the first premise step by step, without one single word of justification for including any element of it. He will then proceed to demonstrate it in the case of 7 World Trade, and yet as you will see, he will alter it as necessary without acknowledgement.

He will stop after his discussion of Seven World Trade to restate and change the first premise a second time to suit the Twin Towers, but he will offer no other justification than his need to do so. He will then plunge again into a demonstration of the second premise as it applies to WTC 1 and 2.

So for better or worse, that is the extent of Gage's defense for his first premise. Was this time well spent?

He is illegitimately using his membership in a professional organization to boost his personal authority
He has no professional experience in the size of buildings under discussion, as his own slide demonstrated
He has no professional experience whatsoever in the field of controlled demolition
His motives for presenting this talk are admittedly political in nature
He is using several questionable sources for information such as the demonstrably false film 911 Mysteries

For these reasons, I consider the first premise of Gage's argument as false. He has no applicable authority for constructing or offering any list of controlled demolition characteristics. There is no particular reason why we should accept this list as a complete and accurate list of CD features. Indeed, Gage himself doesn't accept this list as complete and accurate because he the maker must adapt it to his special cases.

I can't think of another instance of special pleading where the person who custom designed his own list of criteria must then alter it himself to fit his specific cases. In this, Gage is a true rarity among fallacious thinkers.

Affirming the Consequent

Gage must have the logical equality expressed in the first premise, which is sometimes expressed as "if and only if". These features must imply a controlled demolition to the exclusion of any other conclusion. It is just like the presence of a fingerprint which implies the presence of the person to whom the fingerprint belongs.

But the foundation for the first premise is on shaky ground. Gage's list of characteristic features isn't taken from any reputable third-party source. He has assembled this list and now he is using it to demonstrate his case. He gives no further justification for accepting this logical equality other than his own scant and biased authority.

Compounding this, Gage has badly bungled the building of this list. Several of the characteristic features are not exclusive to controlled demolition, making the list imprecise. Several characteristic features of controlled demolition are not on the list, making the list incomplete.

And in the past month, Gage has seen the error of one of his points and removed it from the list of characteristics! The "squib" argument for 7 World Trade remains in the presentation itself as of 22 February 2008, but it has been removed from the front page. What better proof of the arbitrary nature of this list could there be?

Has Gage truncated his list and now is calling an incomplete list of characteristics complete? Or should squibs never have been on that list in the first place? By placing squibs on that list and then removing it while still presenting the list as complete, Gage has revealed his utter lack of authority in presenting this list in the first place. His argument is worthless now.

For these reasons, I deny that there is an actual logical equality between this arbitrary list of features and a controlled demolition. Indeed, Gage gives off the distinct feel of affirming the consequent rather than objectively listing the features he needs for his argument.

Adding to this impression is Gage's use of it for a single case, the collapse of 7 World Trade. He must construct a second list to "prove" the twin towers victims of explosive devices. It is a peculiar "universal" list that only applies to a single case.

Gage's demonstration of the second premise is equally dodgy. Much of his proof of his features just doesn't hold up. He also skips through his points haphazardly instead of proceeding point by point.

Furthermore, one particular feature is that the controlled demolition shows no typical characteristics of destruction by fire, and yet several of these features of fire can clearly be demonstrated in all 3 of the WTC buildings.

That is my argument for rejecting Gage's presentation. I will take you through this presentation step-by-step to demonstrate my case. At the end, you will agree with me that the 3 WTC buildings were not controlled demolition.

Gage's Goose Is Already Cooked

Since he has failed to prove his first premise, his argument is over. The previous slides are the only justification Gage will ever give for the truth of his first premise. From here on out, he is only trying to demonstrate the truth of his second premise.

But as he does so, you will find that his "proof" is sadly wanting. Many of the propositions he advances lack evidence, or he badly mangles the evidence that is there. All of this will underscore his ultimate unworthiness to be an authority on these issues.