Richard Gage is one of the most vocal advocates of the 9/11 truth movement. He believes that the three World Trade Center buildings that collapsed on that day were actually demolished, and did not collapse as a result of plane impacts on the twin towers. Donning a suit and tie, and with a reserved and studious appearance, he represents the acceptable face of a movement that often suffers from a bit of an image problem.
Conventional wisdom has it that the planes hit the towers, and the force of their impact combined with the raging office fires that followed weakened the buildings to the point at which they collapsed. Within days of the event a paper by Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE which suggested the theoretical basis for the structural collapse of the twin towers. NIST, a government-funded body, produced two colossally-detailed studies of the inception of the collapses in an investigation that has lasted over 7 years, and has suggested many amendments to existing building codes for high-rise buildings.
But Gage rejects these analyses. And he has set up a website to promote his alternative theories, called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It is often referred to by other truthers as one of the more prominent and credible public faces of the movement.
Gage’s primary analysis of the twin towers is printed on the front page of his website – “…the Twin Towers’ destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives”. This list is an ever-changing one, and has at least evolved to exclude some of Gage’s more preposterous claims – he never notes all the fallacious claims he has made in the past, but simply quietly deletes them without apology. He currently lists 14 characteristics of demolition that he has noted from the evidence available on the twin towers. Put in a bullet-point list, this can look impressive – if there are really 14 reasons why the twin towers were a collapse, then that is fairly conclusive evidence, no?
Unfortunately this approach is utterly flawed from inception. It’s a fairly basic logical fallacy – the presence of characteristics alone does not necessarily imply or support a certain outcome. It is called ‘affirming the consequent‘ according to Wikipedia. Straight edges are characteristic of a square. A triangle has straight edges. It does not therefore follow that a triangle is a square.
Here are 14 of my characteristics, all of which are characteristics of a crocodile.
1)A nose
2)Two eyes
3)A tongue
4)Two nostrils
5)A long body
6)I have basked on riverbanks
7)I can swim
8)I eat fish
9)I sleep for a proportion of each day
10)I often lie quietly on my own
11)I can look menacing
12)I’m deeply uninterested in chick-lit fiction
13)I haven’t seen the recent Transformers movie
14)I was created by God in the garden of eden.
Unfortunately, despite this mountain of evidence that may prove otherwise, I am not a crocodile. Logically that means I must be an alligator.
It is hardly surprising that a collapse and a demolition may share characteristics – a demolition is a collapse, but one that is created by demolition companies. Gage notes lots of dust, a rapid onset of collapse, the pulverisation of materials, and the total building destruction – these are theoretically created both by a demolition and a collapse.
Gage doesn’t note characteristics of demolition that are missing. For a start any evidence of the intense preparations undertaken before a demolition – the best the truth movement can do is cite building work or maintenance done before 9/11 and imply that it was a cover for such preparations. Gage cites witness recollections of flashes and explosive noises, but there is no clear consensus among witnesses hearing the clear and extremely loud blasts of the charges that normally precede demolitions. And of course, the twin towers collapsed from the top down, initiated at the floors around which the aircraft hit, totally different characteristics to any conventional demolition.
One of the best critics of Gage comes from within the truther ranks. Gregory Urich, a contributor to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, has published an open letter to Richard Gage in which he outlines his problems with Gage’s list. He cites technical papers from within the truth movement that simply disprove Gage’s claims about dust and pulverisation. He points out that Gage is mistaken on a basic claim about the physics of collapse – in no way is the collapse through the path of greatest resistance. He asks Gage to explain why many of the characteristics support a demolition theory over a conventional gravitational collapse theory.
Gage has not, to my knowledge, responded to these criticisms. He continues with his campaign of public engagements and appearances on local radio, television, or anywhere else that will have him. He is spreading his word, based on what I think is an illogical premise, while refusing to acknowledge his errors, or respond to clear arguments from critics.
I remain totally unimpressed by Gage’s arguments, and thoroughly suspicious of both the man himself and those who profess to follow him. I think his basic argument is simply wrong.
