Slide #21/22 - "Typical" Controlled Demolitions

This slide and this slide present a video clip. They otherwise are the same slide, and I will treat them together on this one page.

This Is An Orange

The video clip Gage uses here is from the Internet short, This Is An Orange, by Anthony Lawson. It is three different controlled demolitions (or rather, two successful demolitions and one unsuccessful). The only one I've been able to identify so far is the Oslo, Norway demolition of the Phillips building. It's the first one, and Gage uses its picture back on Slide 17.

"High Rise"

Gage calls the Oslo building a high-rise building. He wants to use this as a comparison to the 3 WTC buildings.

Let's take a side-by-side look at the Oslo building and the WTC buildings, as close as possible. Skyscraperpage.com allows this type of comparison of scaled drawing of various buildings. The Phillips building in Oslo isn't on their pages yet, so I've included a 15-story, 46 meter building from the Netherlands with similar dimensions.

The Tribeca building here is a little wider than the Phillips building, but it's plain that this controlled demolition in no way captures the type of forces at play in the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings. None of the buildings used in Lawson's clip do.

For example, Gage says that "thousands of cutter charges" are typically used to take down a building. In the Oslo demolition you're watching, a total of 30 kilograms (66 lbs) of explosives were used. (Source: Roger Holmberg, Explosives and Blasting Techniques (Taylor & Francis, 2000), p. 379)

That's the type of building that Gage is comparing to the collapses of the WTC buildings. Do you think they got thousands of usable cutter charges out of 66 pounds of explosives?

The clip used by Lawson and Gage is rather muddy in sound. Here's a clearer recording of the demolition:

YouTube: Oslo Demolition with clearer soundtrack

That's 30 kg of explosives. Nothing like these sounds can be heard on any recording of the three WTC buildings falling. How many explosives had to be used to bring down those buildings? And yet there are no distinctive sounds of explosives at all.

In the Lawson clip, you get a better view of the corner that has been segmented away from the rest of the building. His second clip also demonstrates this segmentation as well, along with plenty of loud explosive sounds, the type you won't hear at all from the WTC buildings.

The Third Building Doesn't Topple

The third clip in Lawson's video doesn't topple, although it looks like it wants to for a second. Even in a building this small, it takes lateral energy to push the building over. If the lateral energy isn't there, the building simply won't topple.

As I explained on the previous page, WTC 7 falls the way it does because of its mass. The building gained sufficient momentum to tear itself apart.

All in all, both Lawson and Gage are comparing apples to oranges here.

Gage Is Done With Premise One

Here at the end of the introduction, let me remind you of Gage's overall argument:

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.

From here on out, Gage is simply proving premise two. 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 as it applies to WTC 1 and 2.

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

• 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
• He has no professional experience whatsoever in the field of controlled demolition
• His motives for presenting this talk are admittedly political in nature
• He is using several questionable sources for information such as the demonstrably false film 911 Mysteries

For these reasons, I consider the first premise of Gage's argument as false. He has no applicable authority for constructing or offering any list of controlled demolition characteristics.

Affirming the Consequent

Gage must have the logical equality expressed in the first premise, which is sometimes expressed as "if and only if". 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.

And in the past month, Gage has seen the error of one of his points and removed it from the list of characteristics! The "squib" argument for 7 World Trade remains in the presentation itself as of 22 February 2008, but it has been removed from the front page. What better proof of the arbitrary nature of this list could there be?

Has Gage truncated his list and now is calling an incomplete list of characteristics complete? Or should squibs never have been on that list in the first place? By placing squibs on that list and then removing it while still presenting the list as complete, Gage has revealed his utter lack of authority in presenting this list in the first place. His argument is worthless now.

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 he needs 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.

Gage's Goose Is Already Cooked

Since he has failed to prove his first premise, his argument is over. The previous twenty-two slides 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.

< Previous Slide | Index | Next Slide >

This slide has been substantially changed from the September 2007 slideshow (original slide #15). A video clip with a deceptive audio track has been replaced with a video clip of three buildings, soundtracks unaltered. Full details about the additions, changes, and deletions between that presentation and the January 2008 presentation will be available at this website.