Slide #15 - Gage's Characteristic Features of CD

Gage's Main Argument

This slide presents Gage's argument completely for the first time. It's an important slide, so I'm reproducing it here.

Gage's Characteristic Features of Controlled Demolition

If you are at one of Gage's speeches, this slide is also one of your handout pages. On the handout, that looping CD clip is replaced with Gage's business card (complete with AIA logo) and a picture of a collapsing WTC tower.

Please note that this is the third time Gage has used the deceptive clip in the top right corner.

Gage Is Done With Premise One

From here on out, Gage is simply proving premise two. In the online version of this presentation, he spends a total of 11 minutes and 33 seconds establishing his authority for presenting the list before us now.

He will stop after his discussion of Seven World Trade to restate and change premise one 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 premise two.

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

He has been caught in two outright lies, the added quotation marks to the Washington Post article and the deceptive soundtrack to the Oslo demolition
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
His motives for presenting this talk are admittedly political in nature
He is using several questionable sources for information, including David Ray Griffin and the demonstrably false film 911 Mysteries
His self-made lists of characteristic features of controlled demolitions have been shown to be imprecise and incomplete

For these reasons, I consider the first premise of Gage's argument as false.

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.

Affirming the Consequent

Gage must have the logical equality expressed in the first premise. 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.

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 heneeds 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.

Some "LogicSpeak"

I'm going to try not to branch off into "logicspeak" very often. Most people don't get that into classical logic, and most of the concepts of logical fallacies can be explained in more practical terms.

But it's crucial here because this is where Gage has presented the bulk of his argument.

In persuasion (what both Gage and I are doing right now), positions are ideally supported with sound arguments. That means that the actual position follows logically from the premises. Here's an example of a sound argument:

Premise: All babies are bananas.

Premise: This is a baby.

Conclusion: Therefore, this is a banana.

Yes, the first premise is absurd! Making sure the premises are true is a different step entirely, and I've made it ludicrous on purpose to demonstrate this. The argument is still sound. Should the premises be proven true, you and I would be forced to conclude that this baby is indeed a banana.

The first premise is made up of two parts, the antecedent (all babies) and the consequent (bananas). Here, the second premise affirms the antecedent (this is a baby). That is the proper way to construct an argument.

However, the first premise is absurd in that argument. Therefore, even though the argument is sound, the first premise is false and so the conclusion can be safely denied.

How about this argument?

Premise: All cups are small.

Premise: This particular item is something small.

Conclusion: Therefore, this is a cup.

In this case, we can see that the premises may actually be true, but the argument is not sound. Many things can be small and not be a cup. This argument is a perfect example of affirming the consequent. The second premise doesn't affirm the antecedent (all cups), but the consequent (small). This leads to a logical fallacy.

It's this that Gage is actually doing. Since his first premise is false, his argument collapses into 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.

This is Gage's real argument. As you can see, it shares the same form as the false argument above. It affirms the consequent.

Gage's Goose Is Already Cooked

Since he has failed to prove his first premise, his argument is over. The previous fourteen slides, the eleven and a half minutes of his video: they 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.