Slide #53 - "Squibs" Orientation

In this slide, Gage introduces a popular conspiracy theory argument that explosive charges can be seen detonating in the top southwest corner of WTC 7 as it begins to fall down. Gage uses it here and in the January 2008 version of his slideshow as well.

Gage Has Abandoned This Argument

On 6 January 2008, Gage said this at 911Blogger:

We will strike the controversial WTC7 squibs (in the upper right corner) from the online PPT and upcoming DVD update. I agree with the analysis - particularly the impossible "stationary explosions". ((Damn - I thought these were the real deal!)). I think what's happening is that the windows break - and right in time with the shockwave traveling up the front face! And the smoke inside is under pressure and "poofs out" - making them appear like explosions. The 2 stationary "poofs" would be due to the already damaged windows/panels which emerged prior to the collapse - although I can't understand why the smoke wouldn't be "billowing" up and out of the damaged opening more than it is.

The smoke isn't billowing, Mr. Gage, because it isn't smoke. It is actually part of the building. That will be demonstrated on the next slide.

Gage's Dilemma

This disavowal of the "squibs" of WTC 7 leave Gage in a hopeless spot as far as his argument is concerned.

He asserts that Building 7 demonstrates all the characteristic features of controlled demolition using explosives. One of the features on his list is the appearance of squibs in the collapse. Yet by his admission, he now has no physical evidence of Building 7's "squibs."

He has two choices now.

One, he could weaken his stated argument considerably by adopting this new premise: Building 7 exhibits most or many of the features of controlled demolition by explosives. However, this would have the effect of collapsing his argument into the affirmation of the consequent described in the introduction to this rebuttal. Gage's argument is an all-or-nothing argument, and this admission of a flaw destroys it.

Two, he could simply eliminate the element of "squibs" from his argument about WTC 7 and continue forward. But this he dare not do.

If he takes "squibs" off the list of characteristic features of controlled demolition by explosives, he demonstrates the "Texas sharpshooter" nature of the list. He shows that he has constructed this list solely with evidence that supports his position, and that the list of "characteristic features" is not one at all.

Removing "squibs" from this slide will demonstrate that Gage has no authority to present such a list. Why from such flimsy evidence did he include such a feature at all? Why did he adopt such an argument? His judgment is thus to be questioned, and his list is rightly to be rejected.

As much as the first option commends itself to his argument (at least it gives him a fighting chance), the second is more likely to be Gage's selection. There can be no doubt admitted in his presentation. All means All, and None means None. Gage is the Decider, and chocolate rations were increased this week, comrades!

Gage's eighth point in this version of his argument is, of course, denied.

< Previous Slide | Index | Next Slide >