Slide #3 - Title Slide

Richard Gage's Argument

Slide 3 begins to build the case for Richard Gage's overall argument. Here is that argument in a nutshell:

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.

If Gage can prove both of these premises to be true, then we would all be forced to admit that the conclusion is correct. This is Gage's goal.

The first premise is seen in the following crucial slides from Gage's presentation, the Hypotheses slides:

If you'd like a better look at these slides, just click on them.

In these two slides, Gage gives long lists of what he calls characteristics of two different phenomenon: controlled demolitions (in the case of Building 7) and "explosive demolitions" (in the cases of the Towers). These are the first premises of his arguments.

Gage will then spend the vast majority of his time proving the second premise. I will demonstrate that Gage does a terrible job at proving his second premise. In fact, Gage is almost completely wrong about every single point he makes.

However, you may find this to be an immense waste of time, because Gage never gives adequate justification for accepting the first premise - the actual characteristics lists. Indeed, the only justification he gives for accepting this list of features is a massive logical fallacy.

Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority can be a logical fallacy or it can be a legitimate way of acquiring knowledge. The Nizkor Project gives six excellent criteria for determining when an appeal to authority is valid:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
6. The authority in question must be identified.

From what source does Gage draw the characteristics he lists for controlled demolitions and what he calls explosive demolitions? Himself alone. It is on his authority that these two crucial slides stand and fall. Is his authority an adequate one on which to accept these characteristics?

Gage is an architect and not a demolition expert. His field of expertise is closer to the demolition discipline than many other professions, but Gage has not spent his life demolishing buildings. In this subject matter, he has little expertise, and his claims are outside his area of expertise.

Gage can produce no adequate agreement among actual demolition experts for these lists. In fact, at least one of the characteristics present on both lists would leave demolition experts scratching their heads (microspheres and pools of molten iron).

Gage's considerable bias can be demonstrated in the way he compiled this list. Only those characteristics he believes he can prove are listed. Other notable characteristics of controlled demolitions are left off the list, such as visible segmentation of the falling structure and the stripping of potential demolition targets of all interior contents.

Only in the last two criteria is Gage safe. The area of demolitions is a legitimate one, and we know who Richard Gage is. Indeed, that is part of what Gage is doing right now in the current slide: introducing us to him and giving all the reasons he can as to why we should accept his authority in the matter of these lists.

However, satisfying two criteria for a valid appeal to authority is not enough to establish this claim, no matter what additional ways he employs to shore up his authority. And he has several.

Gage's Personal and Professional Reputation

Richard Gage is a mild-mannered, likable person. He generates a great deal of sympathy as a speaker because of this. I have no reason to doubt his professional abilities as an architect, and he seems genuine to me in his desire to see justice done for the 9/11 attacks.

Therefore, the best I can say for him is that he is terribly misguided. His presentation is a mixture of mistakes and outright deceptions on his part. Each will be demonstrated in the course of this critique.

It is a terrible thing to watch a true believer dissemble for his righteous cause. Such is the spectacle you are about to witness.

The AIA Logo

You will see the logo of the American Institute of Architects all throughout this presentation. The AIA does not endorse this presentation by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone who is a licensed and degreed architect may join this trade association:

As AIA members, over 80,000 licensed architects, emerging professionals, and allied partners express their commitment to excellence in design and livability in our nation's buildings and communities. Members adhere to a code of ethics and professional conduct that assures the client, the public, and colleagues of an AIA-member architect's dedication to the highest standards in professional practice.

Richard Gage is not engaging in his professional practice here. He is not dealing with the design or the livability of the World Trade Center complex. He is a part of a team that designs and builds buildings, and not part of a team that tears them down.

If Richard Gage were giving a two-hour presentation on the topic Designing Healthy and Secure Structures for Humans, he would be speaking within his field of expertise. If this same speech had been presented at an AIA convention, and subsequently placed on the organization's website, his authority in the matter would be quite difficult to question.

This is not the case when Gage speaks about the possibilities of the WTC buildings being demolished. Therefore, whenever you see the AIA logo (and you will see it often), remember that this is an attempt by Gage to enhance his authority to speak about something he has no expertise in. He is propping himself up with this trade association. Don't be fooled.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Gage is the founding member of this organization. It consists mostly of a number of 9/11 conspiracy theorists that already believe these things, but the headline members are the building professionals who Gage has been able to convince with his presentation.

That makes this less a professional organization and more an advocacy group. And like all advocacy groups, the claims made must be judged by the evidence - especially when the group's claims fly in the face of accepted authorities in the field.

Argument ad Populum

That's a technical way of saying, "Lots of other people believe this and so you should, too." It's the popular argument.

Gage will do this a lot. He's got some poll numbers (although there's not a lot of populum in the polls he cites). The advocacy group he started is attempting to be more of the same.

The reason for this argument being a fallacy is obvious. Lots of people can be wrong about a great many things. Claims should be evaluated by the evidence, and not how many people believe them.

The Lists of Characteristics

All of this is meant to support Gage in his assertion of the first premise above. In the end, it is by Gage's word alone that you accept the first premise.

Richard Gage is the sole source of these characteristics. No team of demolition experts ever sat down and developed these lists. Indeed, as I will demonstrate, these slides are excellent examples of the logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.

This fallacy is best understood in the old story about a man shooting bullet holes into the side of a barn. Does he become an excellent marksman because he then paints targets around the existing bullet holes?

This example of the "Texas Sharpshooter" is exactly what Gage has done. He describes a number of things about the collapses of these three buildings, and is very often wrong about what he is describing. However, he then calls them all "characteristics of controlled (or explosive) demolition."

Why? Because he's the man with the paint can!

It is a free country, and Gage can speak about these matters if he wishes. However, his authority is no reason to accept his first premise. If his presentation of the facts is skewed, and his interpretations flawed, his authority would not matter one bit. He would still be wrong.

The Way His Argument Should Read

Because Gage doesn't satisfy the criteria for a valid appeal to authority, and because these lists are going to prove inadequate and biased, Gage does not even come close to proving this first premise true.

This alone destroys his argument. Gage could completely prove his second premise over and over again, but because his first premise is false, his argument fails.

His argument collapses, then, into something more precisely expressed like this:

Premise: Controlled demolitions have some of these features.

Premise: The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings have some of these features.

Conclusion: Therefore, the collapse of these 3 buildings were controlled demolitions.

Here, his overall fallacy of affirming the consequent can be much more easily seen. Without an adequate foundation for his lists of characteristics, this is all his argument amounts to.

There will be much more on this later.

3 Buildings

A final note for this slide: Gage likes to surprise his audience with the fact of three buildings falling that day. Most people have never heard of the collapse of 7 World Trade, and on most other days, the collapse of a 47-story building allowed to burn for over seven hours would be news.

But not on 9/11. No one died when Building 7 collapsed. Firefighters and other rescue personnel had been pulled from the area because of the danger of it falling. Its collapse was noticed, and is currently being studied by the National Institute of Standards and Technologies. But in a day of terror and heartache, the media organizations have focused elsewhere.

By the way, five buildings actually were completely destroyed on 9/11 -- these three, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, and WTC 3. The collapse of the church and the Marriott hotel were even less noticed than 7, but you won't hear about them from Richard Gage because they don't fit his narrative.

< Previous Slide | Index | Next Slide >

This slide has been unchanged from the September 2007 slideshow (original slide #1). Full details about the additions, changes, and deletions between that presentation and the January 2008 presentation will be available at this website.