Richard Gage on CSPAN

[marplots]

In my 15 or so years writing as a skeptic I've investigated a number of fringe theories and observed the approach taken by their proponents. A number of similarities have become apparent from theory to theory, and two of them are especially relevant to this thread.

First, conspiracy theorists grossly overstate the objective credibility of their claims. They are inclined to believe their theory is more credible to the general public (or even to subject-matter experts) than it is. On the one hand I believe this is due partly to the isolation that conspiracy theorists generally build around themselves, preferring to associate mostly only with their true believers. On the other hand I believe it is also due to their misconception and/or rejection of legitimate authority, which gives conspiracy theorists an underestimation of how confidently subject-matter experts are able to reject their claims on their face.

Second, conspiracy theorists presume that the only reason their theory is not widely accepted is because it is not widely known. That is, conspiracy theorists generally avoid the notion that there can be a well-reasoned disputation of their claims. Hence they tend to attribute disbelief among knowledgeable parties as ignorance of the claims and/or of the supporting sciences. They argue that affirmative agreement would be much more prevalent if the theories were more widely disseminated, and analogously that any one person who disagrees with the theory must do so only because he is uninformed about it.

These significantly address the degree to which Gage's claims are viewed and considered.

Your second point hits at human nature generally.
"If you only understood the issue the way I understand it, then of course you would agree with me."

I believe this is driven by a psychology that is very hard to overcome:
1) I am a reasonable person. (Ego)
2) I have examined the matter to my satisfaction and come to this conclusion.
3) Therefore, anyone else who is reasonable will do the same if they get the same information.

 

[pgimeno]

Your second point hits at human nature generally.
"If you only understood the issue the way I understand it, then of course you would agree with me."

I believe this is driven by a psychology that is very hard to overcome:
1) I am a reasonable person. (Ego)
2) I have examined the matter to my satisfaction and come to this conclusion.
3) Therefore, anyone else who is reasonable will do the same if they get the same information.

Well said. And taking it a step further, changing their minds is going all the way back to point 1, i.e. a shattering blow to their egos. Thus the resistance.

 

[marplots]

Well said. And taking it a step further, changing their minds is going all the way back to point 1, i.e. a shattering blow to their egos. Thus the resistance.

My reading on it suggests that the "change your mind" bit has to come (or, I suppose, seem to come) from some internal bit - as opposed to being imposed from outside.

There are a few useful techniques from psychology that address this. One technique is to get the person to explain their position in a level of detail that leads them to a realization they don't have the full picture. I guess it mirrors Socrates there, except the questions should be non-confrontational.

The whole subject is extremely interesting.

 

[JayUtah]

Your second point hits at human nature generally.
"If you only understood the issue the way I understand it, then of course you would agree with me."

I believe this is driven by a psychology that is very hard to overcome:
1) I am a reasonable person. (Ego)
2) I have examined the matter to my satisfaction and come to this conclusion.
3) Therefore, anyone else who is reasonable will do the same if they get the same information.

Yes, that's the interpretational level where we project our own judgment and set it up as the standard of reason.

I speak also about the informational level. Conspiracy theorists generally succeed only when they talk to people with less knowledge than they. (Yes, that's possible.) They rely for their credibility on selectively informing their readers (e.g., being the ones to tell reader what "nanothermite" is, in their own way). That alludes to (2) and (3) above. When they finally get to someone who actually knows what he's talking about, they are completely unprepared for the notion that someone's opposition is properly informed. And they still try to "inform" the expert. I generally confine my skeptical writing to subjects within my professional expertise. But very often I face people with no discernible or demonstrable knowledge trying to "educate" me in the misinterpreted bodies of knowledge behind their theories.

 

[Animal]

Yes, that's the interpretational level where we project our own judgment and set it up as the standard of reason.

I speak also about the informational level. Conspiracy theorists generally succeed only when they talk to people with less knowledge than they. (Yes, that's possible.) They rely for their credibility on selectively informing their readers (e.g., being the ones to tell reader what "nanothermite" is, in their own way). That alludes to (2) and (3) above. When they finally get to someone who actually knows what he's talking about, they are completely unprepared for the notion that someone's opposition is properly informed. And they still try to "inform" the expert. I generally confine my skeptical writing to subjects within my professional expertise. But very often I face people with no discernible or demonstrable knowledge trying to "educate" me in the misinterpreted bodies of knowledge behind their theories.

And the common tactic is to move the goal post to a field out of the opponent's expertise and then declare victory when the expert declines to debate outside their area of expertise.

 

[JayUtah]

And the common tactic is to move the goal post to a field out of the opponent's expertise and then declare victory when the expert declines to debate outside their area of expertise.

Correct. Since conspiracy theorists are already arguing outside their field of expertise, fumbling around in a different knowledge base isn't any more problematic than fumbling around in the one they were in to start with.

That's why many professionals categorically refuse to talk to unqualified conspiracy theorists. Even publicly acknowledging layman's assertions tends to validate them to some degree and suggest they are worth the professional's attention.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

Frank claims that "most of the names on that list are of people signing a petition absent any technical analysis or use of their professional knowledge" and yet you have the gall to disagree that his opinion is unsubstantiated.

Too funny.

(1) I've been calling the technical names on "the list," and have yet to find a signer who has done any analysis whatsoever and while not scientific, there does not appear to be a signer who has published analysis. If you disagree, feel free to furnish me with such a paper.

(2) I've been requesting from the Truthers for three years now that they send me a paper written by an independent 2200 list signer (i.e., outside the Truther movement) who has done some analysis. I've received nothing.

(3) If such analysis exists, it would be used for marketing purposes by the Truthers as an example of someone with a science degree who looked at their evidence and was persuaded. No one like that exists to my knowledge and I think it is a safe assumption that such analysis does not exist (or it would be in use).

Is it possible that there is one CE with a Masters somewhere who signed the list, did some engineering analysis and posted a paper? Sure. But on a list of 2200, one or two that have done some analysis still makes my point.

My Point: This is an unaudited list of people who have signed their name to a vaguely worded petition that does not emphasize the central 911 loon claim, namely that three buildings were wired for controlled demolition while occupied by the US government; that most of the people on the list are not architects or engineers, and of those who are, architects with any degree and civil engineers without a Masters don't have the qualifications to comment, and that without technical papers attached to a list of signers, a list of names is meaningless.

No one disputes that some people with advanced degrees---Griscom, Harritt, et al.---have signed and then written papers.

 

[JayUtah]

No one disputes that some people with advanced degrees---Griscom, Harritt, et al.---have signed and then written papers.

I certainly don't dispute it. I simply note that these outlyers do not represent the field. And I can report that there is, within the field of forensic engineering to the best of my experience, a reasonably sufficient knowledge of the existence of controlled-demolition conspiracy theories and a general tacit rejection of them. There does not need to be a contravening petition signed by vast numbers of practicing engineers, nor a library of rebuttal papers, in order for that rejection to have life and force. To expect such is to invoke the principles I mentioned above: the inflated sense of importance among conspiracy theorists, and the expectation that some formal response should necessarily issue.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I certainly don't dispute it. I simply note that these outlyers do not represent the field. And I can report that there is, within the field of forensic engineering to the best of my experience, a reasonably sufficient knowledge of the existence of controlled-demolition conspiracy theories and a general tacit rejection of them. There does not need to be a contravening petition signed by vast numbers of practicing engineers, nor a library of rebuttal papers, in order for that rejection to have life and force.

I do not believe there is a single 911 Truth claim that has been subjected to independent analysis or verification. Gage allows no science except that which is under his control and for which the outcome is certain (i.e., Griscom "peer reviewing" the Harritt/Jones Bentham paper).

There is not a single 911 Truth paper that explains the mechanics of wiring a building for controlled demolition while that building is occupied or can explain why an organization would spend a year wiring buildings to bring them down carefully when bombs placed in an empty office could accomplish the same thing with ten minutes of effort.

Nor is there a paper that explains why people who are taking on excessive risk and expense trying to bring buildings down very carefully might fly commercial jets into those same buildings, thus defeating the purpose a controlled demolition serves in the first place.

 

[JayUtah]

Gage allows no science except that which is under his control and for which the outcome is certain...

Indeed, peer-review does not mean friend-review.

There is not a single 911 Truth paper...
<snip>
Nor is there a paper...

If I may paraphrase, there is no scenario from beginning to end explaining the WTC towers, WTC 7, Flight 93, and the Pentagon, much less anything at any degree of rigor. Instead of an explanation, we get only speculative theories for this or that tidbit, with no rhyme or reason or holistic closure.

This is an artifact of conspiracy theories in general. Every conspiracy theory starts with the proposition that the "official story" has to be false because it fails to account for some set of fringe details. Then the conspiracy theory purports to explain the fringe details, but in their rush to do so the conspiracy theorists forget to account for everything else, and for the collateral premises that they engender with their farfetched explanation for the details.

Thus they fail their own standard of proof. They can't explain everything either. Except they give themselves ultimate leniency and promise that somehow the details work themselves out, or that the details aren't important.

Gage says the prevailing theory for the New York building collapses can't explain various details such as the alleged free-fall collapse tempo. But then he and his gang propose exotic explosives and placement scenarios, none of which has any proof. But those inexplicable details in his theory somehow don't doom it the way he says the prevailing theory is doomed by inexplicable details.

 

[tsig]

(1) I've been calling the technical names on "the list," and have yet to find a signer who has done any analysis whatsoever and while not scientific, there does not appear to be a signer who has published analysis. If you disagree, feel free to furnish me with such a paper.

(2) I've been requesting from the Truthers for three years now that they send me a paper written by an independent 2200 list signer (i.e., outside the Truther movement) who has done some analysis. I've received nothing.

(3) If such analysis exists, it would be used for marketing purposes by the Truthers as an example of someone with a science degree who looked at their evidence and was persuaded. No one like that exists to my knowledge and I think it is a safe assumption that such analysis does not exist (or it would be in use).

Is it possible that there is one CE with a Masters somewhere who signed the list, did some engineering analysis and posted a paper? Sure. But on a list of 2200, one or two that have done some analysis still makes my point.

My Point: This is an unaudited list of people who have signed their name to a vaguely worded petition that does not emphasize the central 911 loon claim, namely that three buildings were wired for controlled demolition while occupied by the US government; that most of the people on the list are not architects or engineers, and of those who are, architects with any degree and civil engineers without a Masters don't have the qualifications to comment, and that without technical papers attached to a list of signers, a list of names is meaningless.

No one disputes that some people with advanced degrees---Griscom, Harritt, et al.---have signed and then written papers.

A&E 911 is a bait and switch operation, the bait is asking for a new investigation then claiming that all those signers also support a CD hypotheses.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I call Gage incompetent because I know his claims are. I've dealt with structural engineers and while I'll gladly admit to not having the qualifications to do their lines of work I can say with certainty through my xperiences coordinating with them on design projects that many of the basic issues truthers argue about (I.E. freefall speed/acceleration, steel buildings never fail due to fire, etc) are non-issues. In the 4 years I've coordinated with people in this profession, engineers and us as architects concern ourselves with building everything according to building codes. That's all... If there's an engineering issue to resolve, we invistigate everything from contractor incompetence, to design/engineering mistakes, to code compliance, and beyond. They do not assume because of a perceived "too fast of a failure" that there is an exclusive cause.

Gage may be an architect, but his claims would suggest "in name only" until he demonstrates otherwise, and I can care less if someone takes offense with me for stating facts.

 

[Richard the G]

I heard Gage live and enjoyed it. Gage did well. He was articulate. The callers were all Truthers. He got asked softball questions by CSPAN. He made many rapid fire, unsubstantiated statements, many which had obvious rebuttals that were not provided. I'm fine with that. CSPAN isn't a debate forum.

It does appear that he actually believes what he peddles. I had thought he was a con man. Instead, it appears he is willfully ignorant.

There is at least one huge ethical problem. Gage surely knows that he does not have the support of 2200 architects and engineers--there are not 2200 on his list--and he must be aware that he does not represent those on the list as he claims. Most of the names on the list are of people signing a petition absent any technical analysis or use of their professional knowledge, not people requesting that Gage represent them. Yet he made the 2200 claim several times on the show.

In my experience calling names on his 2200 list, many people on the list are unreachable or the phone number provided didn't match the name. This list, like everything else Gage does, is unaudited.

I was surprised the interviewer didn't ask why Gage has not hired an engineering and demolition firm to assist him in making his engineering and demolition claims, especially on national TV. Or why he has no civil engineering professionals willing to actively support him with technical analysis (as opposed to providing a name on a petition).

I would have like to have heard this challenge: Gage controls the outcome of all his research and investigations. There is never an independent review of papers written or claims made. There is never contact with any independent professional organization of any kind.

I agree. What I think should be clear to all is that Gage is being deliberately misleading and unethical in many areas. I thought about going through the whole video but couldn't be bothered.

The main one is the implication that the world wide support of 2200 architects and engineers is a large number and that their qualifications are relevant. This has been widely refuted in this thread and many others.

The next deliberately misleading statement being made by Gage is that most structural engineers have not heard of WTC7 and are not interested in understanding about the collapse. As a structural engineer I find that particularly misleading and deceitful. Of course every structural engineer who is interested in structures, and most are, has looked very closely at what happened on 9/11 when 3 very tall towers collapsed. Most have read the NIST report and understand what ae911truth are trying to imply. There have been many papers, conferences and even more discussion.

There is not one leading light in the industry who gives any credibility to any of ae911truth nonsense and Gage nor any of his 2200 followers from any country in the world has ever come to any major national or international conference to present his findings... He would get laughed out of town.