Slide #1 - Title Page

Richard Gage's Argument

This first slide 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.

In logical terms, this argument is sound as expressed here. It is well-constructed. So if Gage can prove both of his premises to be true, then we would all be forced to admit that the conclusion is correct.

The vast majority of Gage's talk and presentation is about proving the second premise. He lists what he calls characteristic features of controlled demolition (the first premise) and sets about showing how each of the 3 WTC buildings are a particular example of this universal case.

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.

Indeed, the only justification he gives for accepting this list of features is a massive logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.

Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth.

Gage must build up his authority here, because it is on his authority that these two crucial slides stand and fall:

Gage uses a handout that reproduces both of these slides at his live talks. They are the backbone of this presentation, and they rest completely on the above first premise, which in turn rests solely on his authority.

Gage isn't foolish enough to think that you will simply accept his word, so he will shore up his authority in several ways.

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. 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 lie 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.

Therefore, whenever you see the AIA logo, 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.

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 Characteristic Features

All of this in the introduction 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 "characteristic features". No team of architects or engineers 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 is exactly what Gage has done. He describes a number of things about the collapses of these three buildings. He is very often wrong about what he is describing. He then calls them all "characteristic features of controlled 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 arguments. 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 uses no third-party, objective source for his lists, 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.

Therefore, his argument collapses 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 is much more easily seen. Without an adequate foundation for his lists of characteristic features, that's all his argument amounts to.

3 Buildings

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.

David Ray Griffin

David Ray Griffin may be "reluctant" but that hasn't stopped him from writing book after book on 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, he's got another one coming out in March 2008!

Ryan Mackey, a private contractor with NASA, had done a detailed critique of part of Griffin's 2007 book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking. Griffin proves to be quite unscientific and illogical in his "debunking". You can find that paper here (pdf).

Since Gage will be doing a lot of reproduction of Griffin's work, Mackey's paper will be a primary source for a lot of my arguments. As Gage gets into that information, I'll get into why he and Griffin are wrong.

Index | Next Slide >