Slide #38 - "Government Documentation" Orientation

This slide is an outline slide.

Who to the What?

How exactly is government documentation a characteristic feature of controlled demolition?

Think about it. That's what Gage's lists are meant to describe. It's right there on his key outline slide-- "all the features of a typical controlled demolition using explosives."

"Government Documentation" is right there underneath this phrase. What could Gage possibly mean by this?

Controlled demolitions do indeed have plenty of government documentation. There are permits and inspections, all of which calls for plenty of documentation. Does Gage have anything like this?

Let's take this further. Has the slightest scrap of planning information for the controlled demolition of 3 WTC buildings ever surfaced at all? They must be there somewhere. Demolishing a building is an incredibly complex task. People can't just walk around with that completely in their head. There must be records somewhere!

But Gage doesn't mean this at all. For this section, "government documentation" means the official examinations of the collapses to determine cause, and he's going to bash all four of them.

Yet this again doesn't make any sense. When buildings fall as the result of a classic controlled demolition using explosives, the government doesn't then commission study after study to determine why the building fell. They know why it fell! Somebody blew it up!

So why is this included at all as a feature of classic controlled demolition using explosives (7 World Trade)? Why is it going to be used as a feature of destruction by explosion (the Towers)? People don't commission blue-ribbon studies to figure out how a building collapsed when they blew it up, and Gage will not present a single scrap of evidence of planning documents into this incredibly complex task.

Begging the Question

Aha! says the alternate theorist! The Government commissioned these studies because they are covering up the fact that they blew the buildings up!

This is the logical fallacy known as Begging The Question. This notion can be seen as a conclusion yet to be proved true. We have been given no evidence that this is true, and yet Gage wants you to go ahead and start believing this. If we grant him this premise for the sake of argument, then he doesn't need to go through all of this two-hour presentation. That's the point of it!

Gage will spend this entire section poisoning the well for these organizations, because they undercut his entire presentation. They are what his organization pretends to be -- competent scientists and engineers working together with the actual evidence, trying to learn what happened inside those buildings.

Obviously, they got to go.

The Shoddiness of Gage's Presentation

People trying to defend Gage will point to the front page of his site, where this feature actually does not appear in the two list of features. Indeed, the graphic in the PowerPoint presentation doesn't actually connect the Gov't Documentation square with the evidence tree.

But there is more things like this on that front page. For example, the Twin Towers list includes the item that 1000 bodies are unaccounted for, and that 700 bone fragments were found atop nearby buildings. How many other buildings destroyed with explosions exhibit this feature? If they do not, then have they truly been destroyed with explosions?

This truly is evidence of how ludicrous, slapdash, and amatuerish the entire thing is. The key slides of this presentation are badly conceived and poorly executed. There is no clear distinction between sidebar evidence (which this section clearly is) and the main argument. And why is Gage talking about this now? Isn't he in the middle of his main argument?

It muddles the entire presentation. You would think a disciplined mind like a degreed and licensed architect would understand this and correct it.

But confusion and distraction is something the conspiracy mind thrives on. By presenting his audience a list of characteristics to check off, and then bopping back and forth, returning to points again and then darting off on tangents, Gage confuses his audience. The path is dark and murky, and we can only patiently follow the mild-mannered voice of Richard Gage out of the woods, a voice edged with a hint of outrage at the foul deeds it falls to him to expose to the world.

Or Gage could just not understand what a hopeless mess this presentation is. That probably explains most of what we see here. Maybe he's just that clueless.

< Previous Slide | Index | Next Slide >