ps to say you are wiser than richard gage is a comedy central punchline :mj07: :mj07:
Richard Gage is the sole source of the "characteristic features" that he presents to us. No team of architects or engineers ever sat down and developed these lists. Indeed, 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.
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.
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.
GAGE'S BUILDINGS
In this slide form his presentation, Richard Gage shows that he is an architect. There is no disputing this.
But take a look at the size of the buildings Gage has helped design. None of them are taller than two or three stories.
The twin towers were 110 stories tall, the tallest structures on Earth when they were constructed. Building 7 was a 47-story office building.
Richard Gage doesn't design the types of buildings that he is describing in this presentation. The overall potential energy in the WTC buildings is much, much greater than he is used to dealing with. None of the pictured buildings have the tube-in-tube design of the 9/11 buildings in question. He has no expertise (and thus no special authority) in the structure of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11.
The first thing to notice in this slide is the actual number of professionals that have joined Gage.
There are currently 80,000 members of the American Institute of Architects. Gage has 14 licensed architects listed on this slide. As of 17 October 2007, there are 34 licensed architects listed at AE911Truth.org.
Now either the 34 or the 80,000 have a serious problem. Truth has been found in smaller ratios before, but authority isn't derived from numbers or expertise necessarily. 80,000 people can be wrong just like 34 people can be wrong.
What matters is the evidence. What matters are the actual facts, rightly seen and rightly interpreted. Experts in a field are more practiced at seeing and interpreting the facts. But the experts can be wrong, and this is one of Richard Gage's arguments.
What we know is that someone here is wrong. Gage's presentation doesn't allow for very much compromise. One group is horribly wrong and one group is right.
This is not to say that all 80,000 members of the AIA not currently members of AE911Truth are absolutely in opposition to Gage's group. However, they arguably are. I would hazard a guess that all of them are aware of these buildings falling down (most certainly the twin towers). Yet only these 34 have seen fit to join Gage's group, and many of them only after viewing Gage's presentation.
By his own admission, Gage has made this presentation many times to groups of building professionals. How many of them have walked away? Gage doesn't share these statistics with us, though he must have a rough idea.
What Gage is most certainly is not is a structural engineer and the number of engineers in his "roster" is even smaller than the number of architects listed. There are only four here, but Gage has managed to get 38 to sign up at the website (as of 17 October 2007).
In September 2006, membership of the American Society of Civil Engineers was just under 140,000. Again, I will mention that not all the members of the ASCE have positively stated their opinion of the WTC collapses. I only mean to show that the members of AE911Truth have a long way to go in convincing their fellow members about their suspicions.
And again I say that Gage has not revealed the number of people who have heard his presentation and not signed his petition.
It should be noted that all engineers are not created equal. Engineers come in many different specialties.
And a look at the Architects & Engineers roster for A&E 911 Truth shows this clearly. Of the licensed engineers that have filled out profiles, there is a sewer and street designer, a specialist in solar energy and housing, a fire protection engineer, another energy engineer, water resource and management, a computer engineer, an asbestos consultant, hazardous waste management, industrial wastewater, computer network engineer, process engineering in the natural gas industry, and a chemical engineer. Clearly all of these people cannot be speaking in their field of expertise here.
Gage does list two structural engineers on his page, however. It would be interesting to hear why they alone of their thousands of colleagues have fallen for this presentation, because I will demonstrate that no one should.
As on the last slide, an appeal to large numbers can be just as fallacious as an appeal to authority. The crucial test is in the way that facts are recognized and interpreted. It is there that either the 38 or the 140,000 will be vindicated.
Gage's organization claims to be speaking on behalf of the People of the United States of America. So many do so nowadays that the People of the United States must be a terribly confused body. I myself being a member of that People, I would like to state for the record than none of those on Gage's lists speak for me.
Dispensing with the patriotic hyperbole, the main claim that Gage must prove in this petition is that such an investigation is needed.
The events of 9/11 are among the most investigated events in world history. The collapses of those three buildings specifically are the subject of several studies and numerous scholarly papers by the scientific community. The National Institute of Standards and Technologies has released its final report on the collapse of the twin towers, and its delayed report on the collapse of 7 World Trade is due any day now. These collapses have been and continue to be investigated.
But Gage believes that these buildings fell because of explosive charges deliberately placed to knock them down. This is not something that Al Qaeda could have pulled off. Gage believes that he is exposing a level of government complicity in these attacks, and that is why he requires a "truly independent investigation with subpeona power."
Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence. Gage's evidence simply does not support his extraordinary claims.
More later . . . . .
