Very Different Characteristics

This slide was changed in the January 2008 slideshow. A deceptive video was eliminated and the slide's title was changed. This slide was also changed in the March 2008 slideshow. Another picture was used for Earthquake (Topple), the title was changed again, and the words "Plane Crash?" were struck from the "Fire?" caption, as well as the question mark behind Fire. You can compare these slides here.

The Argument Begins

With this slide, Richard Gage introduces the notion that all types of destroyed buildings have "very different identifiable sets of characteristics." Building collapses are like fingerprints in Gage's argument. In logical terms, there is an if and only if relationship between these "sets of characteristics" and the building collapses they describe.

Gage needs you to accept this because his main error throughout this presentation is affirming the consequent. His noted characteristics do not imply what he's claiming.

And the only apparent authority that Gage is presenting to back up this claim is his own. His speaking style shows him to be a serious and mild-mannered person. He's backed himself up with various polls and other important people. Why shouldn't you accept what he's saying at face value?

Because what he is saying is pure poppycock.

Gage's Categories of Building Collapse

Gage lists five different categories of building collapse in clockwise order: Fire, Controlled Demolition, Earthquake -Topple, Earthquake - Collapse (Concrete), and Explosion. He gives a picture to illustrate each. A closeup of the Parque Central Fire in Venezeula illustrates collapse due to fire (or fire, at any rate). The Philips Building in Oslo, Norway illustrates controlled demolition. Two pictures I have not yet been able to source illustrate Earthquake (Topple) and Earthquake - Collapse (Concrete). Finally, a picture of a building being bombed in Iraq illustrates a building collapse due to explosion.

Already Gage is demonstrating a carelessness of thought. Explosives are responsible for controlled demolitions, are they not? And an earthquake is responsible for both the toppling and the collapse of concrete structures, although it appears to me that both earthquake pictures are of concrete structures. Why is it that concrete is being used to differentiate between these two modes of collapse?

All the buildings are completely different structures from the three WTC buildings. All but the Parque Central building have floor counts in the single digits. And the Parque Central building, a building without a central core, reinforced by concrete macrofloors, didn't actually fall down! Doesn't a collapse need to actually be a collapse to be called a collapse?

Controlled Demolitions Are Mainly Gravity-Driven

Stacey Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition gave a great interview about her profession to NOVA in 1996. Conspiracy theorists have been mining this interview for quotes to support their ideas, but she really doesn't at all.

Listen to her describe the process of controlled demolition:

NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?

Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion."

There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

NOVA: I understand that you try to use the smallest amount of explosives possible.

SL: Right.

NOVA: Can you explain why?

SL: Well, the explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity. And we're dealing with Class A explosives that are embedded into concrete—and that concrete flies. So, let's say your explosive is 17,000 feet per second—you've got a piece of concrete moving at that speed when you remove it from the structure. So we try to use the minimal amount to keep down the fly of debris for a safe operation. Other than that, it comes down to cost effectiveness. You know, the more holes you have to drill, it's more labor, more time, and it's more expensive. So, obviously, the smallest amount of work is best.

How all buildings fall is determined by their structure. If a building fails internally, then it will fall in on itself. Stacey's company helps this process along in as predictable a fashion as possible, but explosions are only the catalyst for the destruction. Gravity does everything else.

All buildings that collapse do so because of gravity. There are many different catalysts that can cause a building to fall, but once a building collapse starts, it is gravity doing the bulk of the work in all cases.

So Gage's "Forces That Destroy Buildings" is a misnomer. Only one force causes a building to collapse - gravity. Gage is listing catalysts for collapse, not forces of destruction. Since gravity works in all building collapses, they all have very similar features.

(By the way, NIST's working hypothesis of 7 World Trade's collapse is that key internal structural components failed inside the building, beginning with column 79. Internal failures cause a gravity-driven implosion, just as Loizeaux says. The difference in 7 World Trade is that there is no evidence of explosives causing these failures and plenty that fire did so.)

Building Collapses Differ Due To Structure and Composition

The truth is, Gage is looking at these categories the wrong way. The structure and composition of a building are far more important determinants of how a building falls than the simple catalyst of collapse. If a building is small and made of concrete or concrete-reinforced steel, it will more likely topple over if it falls. The structure is stronger than the mass of the building in most cases.

Sometimes the building can build enough momentum as it falls to smash apart, but it's important to note that none of Gage's pictures (with the exception of the Oslo demo) show their actual collapse - only the result of collapse. Therefore, there's no real way to compare these pictures to the collapses of the WTC buildings.

However, we have not seen very many larger building collapses due to earthquakes or fire. The tallest building ever demolished in a controlled demolition was the J.L. Hudson building in Detroit. It stood 23 floors above the ground.

Without exception, large structural steel buildings are built in places that require design capabilities to resist collapse. They also are in places where large fire departments are dedicated to keeping dangerous burns under control. On September 11, 2001, this elaborate safety net of code and protection failed these three buildings, as I detail in the Flame Engulfed Buildings slide. Until I get to it in this debunking, the September 2007 version will suffice.

March 2008: Corrections To This Slide

Gage has corrected two mistakes from the original slideshow.

The first was a major error. He used a video of the Oslo demolition that the soundtrack had been tampered with. Sounds of explosions had been eliminated by cutting them out and sliding the soundtrack forward. To his credit, he replaced this deceptive video with a popular CT video that includes the Oslo demolition. It will be dealt with here on the appropriate page.

Corrected Mistake from September 2007

The second spoke to his confusion in categorizing these collapses. He had categorized a picture as Topple on this slide, but on the next slide, the same picture was categorized as Fell Over. Again, it's good that he corrected this.