Sure it is, he is saying basically all you have is Youtube. The implication being why is not in a "respected" journal. With out a doubt an appeal to authority.
Actually we have been asking you to show us anything that has some authoritative backing. That is not an appeal to authority logical fallacy which is the appeal to inappropriate authority or non sequitor.
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam) is a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although it is possible for the argument from authority to constitute a strong inductive argument, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.
Appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:
X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
Fallacious appeals to authority/Fallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section. Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority". This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.
Because the argument is inductive (i.e. because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it is also fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true. In this event, the argument is a non sequitur
"
Showing that an author is a legitimate authority can be determined by several factors, education and training of the individual, past publications and experience of the individual and the quality and respectibility of the publications in which the author's papers have been published.
If the author can be shown to be la legitimate authority then the inductive arguement using his/their work can be considered valid. OTOH if the person or organization cannot be shown to have this legit authority or if a greater authority refutes a lesser authority then one cannot legitmately claim that this is an authoritative source.
As an example we have AE911T in which members can, and are from diverse backgrounds most of which are not engineers or architects even though a few are.
Sf911T, same applies.
PfT, similar
So something with the brand of approval from these orgs cannot be automatically accepted as authoritative. How about the individual authors of papers from enginers or architects belonging to AE911T? Well none has published in anything other than their own , self serving 'journal' or in pay-for-publish journals, which again cannot be shown to have legitimate authority.
I find it odd that the 911 conspiracy crowd will complain that engineering organizations are self serving, gov't backed and therefore illegitimate sources with a conflict of interest but no such hubris is attached to the Journal for 911 Studies.
What about Gage? Well he is in this case speaking authoritatively about 110 and 47 storey buildings. Does he have any experience with tall buildings? No!
Does he have credentials from an accredited university? No!
Has he published in any respected architectual or engineering journal? No!
What about the people who worked on the NIST reports?
yes, yes, and yes.
Bazant?
yes, yes and yes.
How about the ASCE? Is it a legitimate authority? Well it has been for many decades so one can infer that it still is.
What respected publications have published any papers or articles in any way supporting technical arguements made by the 911 conspiracy groups?
Scientific American? - no
Nature - no
Spectrum - no
Physics review - no
Shall I go on?
What publications have published such articles?
Jornal for 911 Studies and Bentham (pay-to-publish)
Can said articles then be shown to have legitimate authority, no.
Is there anything more to be said?
