Thursday, January 27, 2011

#138: Richard Gage

Richard Gage is one of the main people behind the 911 troofer movement and the founder of (note: visits not recommended) and Architects and Enginers for 9/11 truth. Architect (not engineer or explosives expert, contrary to widely held belief) Gage is currently touring the US and Canada and making a lot of noise with unsubstantiated claims and misleading “evidence”. As expected he believes that a mysterious conspiracy was behind the 9/11 attacks and that it was secret operatives who planted the “explosives.” He is careful not to explicitly implicate the government and CIA, but conversational implicature abound. For a general debunking of various claims, see here. His basic point, however, is an argument from ignorance: how could people living in cages in Afghanistan possibly have brought down the pillars of freedom in the civilized world (kinda the way people in the 5th century failed to believe that Alaric sacked Rome)? (tip: no one claims Afghan cavemen brought down WTC).

If engaged in debate, Gage is a frequent user of the Gish gallop and snowing (very effective – since his opponent cannot possibly be an expert on everything, it is relatively easy to find a question he or she will be unable to answer then and there).

How do you end up as Richard Gage? Well, one point he repeatedly makes is pretty revealing. He claims that he loves the scientific method, but doesn’t understand it. According to Gage we must collect data before we decide on a hypothesis to test. Which is, of course, the very recipe for confirmation bias (if you collect data you are already collecting data with respect to some hypothesis, in Gage’s case he collects data in favor of his conspiracy theory before he officially puts forward his hypothesis).

Diagnosis: The king himself of confirmation bias, snowing, double standards of evidence and selective use of evidence. He seems to have a pretty wide influence, being one of the main people behind a relatively significant, though delusional, conspiracy movement.


  1. It is quite obvious, that the writer of this article/paper, has not bothered to at least, look and digest the overwhelming evidence of explosive demolition at the WTC on 9/11/01.
    The author is quick to assert that Richard Gage, who happens to be a member of the prestigest American Institute of Architects, and was a practicing architect for 22 years, is a "loon". So lets weigh out the scale of logic on this subject.
    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is a NON PROFIT organization which receives tax exemption 501 status. Therefore, anyone who says that Richard Gage is in this for the money, has just stated the worst, most ignorant logical fallacy in history. Gage has worked on $400,000,000 projects as an architect in the past. I hardly think that people giving a donation to ae911truth, could pay the salary that a multi million dollar contract would.

    1. It is quite obvious that you yourself have not bothered to at least digest the 'overwhelming evidence' of 'explosive demolition at the WTC on 9/11/01". There is NO evidence. Why do you think Gage hasn't come forward to any court and presented this "evidence"? The evidence proves Gage is wrong...on absolutely everything.

      "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is a NON PROFIT organization which receives tax exemption 501 status. Therefore, anyone who says that Richard Gage is in this for the money, has just stated the worst, most ignorant logical fallacy in history."

      Except that Richard Gage himself admits that he survives off of funds from donations by his supporters. He is unemployed; yet made $75,000 on donations from truther activists. It is hardly illogical to note that he does it for money.

    2. Having worked in construction for a number of years, let me clue you in on something I have discovered: ALL architects are "loony" to one degree or another. The problem lies in the fact that they never have to actually build what they design.

      Secondly, being an architect doesn't make you an expert on what buildings will or will not under these kinds of circumstances. Being a structural engineer does. His demonstration with cardboard boxes clearly illustrates his ignorance in that area.

    3. "We don't have any relationship with "Gage's organization" Scott Frank Media Relations AIA.

      There are different levels of membership. Allied members can have the tiniest connection to architecture. Publishers or manufacturers can join.

    4. I would like to know more about Richard Gage. His background, family, political and social history. Does anyone know if I can find a place for this information?

    5. "being an architect doesn't make you an expert... Being a structural engineer does"

      Ok, so here you have.
      The head structural engineer (WTC 1&2), John Skilling, explained in an interview with the Seattle Times following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." Skilling went on to say he didn’t think a single 200-pound [90-kg] car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to either of the Twin Towers. "However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage…. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

  2. The author also refers to "unsubstantiated claims and fake evidence". Wrong again.....all the evidence put forth by Gage is documented and can be seen and researched by anyone. Let's start with the 118 FDNY, who were first responders on 9/11, who have sworn testimony as to hearing "sounds of explosions" and "flashes of light" as they were saving lives on that fateful day. Are they all “loons” too, all 118 of them? Or are they just making up lies….you know all of them together……ya, that’s it! LMAO!!
    Another massive undeniable point , also coming from a FDNY Captain Phillip Ruvolo, is the "molten steel flowing like lava" in the basements. Is he crazy for seeing this? Oh wait…..he must have seen an optical illusion and that really didn’t happen either eh?
    The problem with the molten steel is that the fires on 9/11 could NOT come close to melting it. So, any logical conclusion would be that something else must have melted the steel. I don't see much lunacy with that.
    The author references a debunking site. I challenge any of you to look at that site, and then research the ae911truth site and decide for yourself. Funny thing.....nobody from those sites wants a public debate! This just shows the cowardly demeanor from supporters of the official story, which in itself is a conspiracy theory. They simply say that there is nothing to debate, stick their tales between their legs, and scurry back into their little rat holes.

    1400 plus A and E's have signed Mr. Gages petition. Wow....this guy is not only a lunatic, but he can brain wash professionals from all over the world to follow him lol! Wait…..they must be crazy loons too, all 1400 of them. I hope the author of this can see what a complete farce this article is.

    Here's some diagnosis for ya buddy:
    WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for over 100 feet. I don't suppose you know what I'm talking about, judging by your poor writing skills and mis-quotes, you probably have no physics background either.
    Here is WTC & “collapsing”

    Ask yourself how that is even possible with hundreds of girders in the way. more thing, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, and fell on the same day.
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has admitted this scientific fact in their last report on the collapse of WTC 7. Here is how they were forced to do it:
    For the small closed minds of people who just can't seem to think for themselves, like the author of this subject and article, if you look at the evidence with an open mind, even though the implications are staggering, you will wake up to the fact that all three buildings on 9/11, came down in controlled demolition and killed thousands of innocent people.......all at the push of a button.
    The stereotype of being a "loon" when speaking of demolition on 9/11 is becoming a thing of the past. All kinds of credentialed professionals from around the world are now stepping up and speaking out. The only people that don't look at the evidence, are the ignorant the person who wrote that stuff about Richard Gage.

    1. I guess my next question is, can people have a civil debate? I mean, can people take in the perspectives of others and give those people the benefit of the doubt that they are well-meaning just like ourselves? I am interested in this topic but not so much interested trying to squash opposing views by calling people names or suggesting that we are laughing at them, or suggesting people are stupid and all that? I wish we could.

  3. Ah, we were bound to draw the nutjobs with this one. Darcy, in addition to a couple of appeals to irrelevancy, mainly repeat the usual talking points thoroughly debunked elsewhere (though in all fairness, some of the links here don't work. This one should do some of the work.

    Darcy's general recommendation seems to be the same recipe for confirmation bias Gage appeals to: "look at the evidence and see where it takes you". That's a very poor way of getting at the facts (and the fact that Gage thinks this is the scientific method alone qualifies him for an entry).

    Let us rather look at it scientifically. The hypothesis is "the towers fell in a controlled demolition". From this we derive a prediction: if the towers fell in a controlled demolition, a shitload of people would have had to be in on it (the people carrying it out, people in the government, witnesses and so on). But if such a shitload of people were in on it, someone would without a trace of doubt have blown it. You cannot keep a secret with thousands of people in on it (this is the main problem for all conspiracy theories).

    Now this is a crucial test (in the scientific sense) for the controlled demolition hypothesis. It fails. This test proves that the controlled demolition thesis is bunk. Forget it.

    The error Darcy, Gage and other people commit is to forget the big picture. The controlled demolition hypothesis founders on the first big test. Looking at various recalcitrant and peculiar data is in light of this completely irrelevant. You can probably find curious things if you look at them in the right way, but Darcy and others are JUST looking at these details, and forgetting the crucially decisive big picture (which is, of course, typical for all conspiracy theorists). It doesn't really matter what kinds of small, peculiar details you can come up with when the major fact about the numbers who would have had to be in on the conspiracy straightforwardly undermines the idea. The controlled demolition idea is completely untenable (the people involved point is just the most obvious and easy test that the hypothesis fails miserably). Sticking to it in face of its obvious falsehood is pure crackpottery.

    1. This is not a scientific test. This is you imagining how the towers might have been intentionally demolished, in the process making several implied assumptions that favor your hypothesis, and refuting your imagined scenario.

      Nice work if you can get it. If this is science, than every dry-lab oriented chem student in the world would be in line for the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

    2. G.D. it doesn't matter how many people were hypothetically involved if it was an inside look at the big picture, as you put it, how can anyone go past the fact that 3 buildings fell at free-fall acceleration, exactly the same way that controlled demolitions do, and one of them wasn't even hit by a plane! Explain that first, before you start looking at whether so many people could keep a secret or not!

  4. Good blog post, summing up Richard Gage very well, and providing a link to an excellent and thorough debunking of AE911Truth.

    As usual, a truther comes along and ignores the links and logical criticism of truther methodology, and instead replies with a Gish Gallop of his/her own. Hilarious!

    Darcy, Gage earns close to $80,000 per annum. Not bad for someone whose sole purpose is sitting on a petition that's going nowhere and for which there are no plans to submit to Congress, to whom it's addressed to.

  5. In general, I like your Encyclopedia but I question as to whether Gage is one of the Loons unless he has done or said something of which I am not aware. What I've heard him say is that there are still questions about 9/11, not that there is a mysterious cabal (although there could be). I think the following points are not "loonacy":
    --- what caused WTC 7 to fall, it wasn't hit by a plane?
    --- when 300+ fire-fighters & police report they heard explosions, what did they hear?
    --- where did the Thermite, found in ground zero area, come from?

    If these questions make me a loon too, I suppose a padded cell should be reserved with my name

    - Lev Sinestra

  6. Dear Lev

    Asking questions does not make you a loon. Not listening to answers would, though.

    --- what caused WTC 7 to fall, it wasn't hit by a plane?
    Answer: Fires. All the towers had intense fires.

    --- when 300+ fire-fighters & police report they heard explosions, what did they hear?
    Answer: Explosions, not explosives. Many things explode in normal fires (appliances, wiring, gas, etc). Also, the bodies of people jumping made sounds like explosions when they hit the ground. :( Then, when the towers collapsed due to damage and fires, the collapse sounded LIKE an explosion, but no earsplitting BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG happened a second before the collapse, which would happen if a demolition was taking place. (Note, Richard Gage et al claim conventional explosives were used along with thermite.)

    --- where did the Thermite, found in ground zero area, come from?
    Answer: Thermite was not found. The article that reported that "finding" was fraudulent and biased. They found no barium nitrate which should be found if there was thermite. They also didn't find enough aluminium to make it thermite.

    Your questions have been answered. Enjoy your life free from superstition!

    1. Really? You think over 100 experienced NY firefighters don't know the difference between explosions and explosives? I presume you have not actually listened to their testimony.

      > "if a demolition takes place"

      Right. A legal, licensed demolition, performed under legal commercial budgetary constraints.

      What they found was traces of unexploded nano-thermate, not thermite, with, in fact, aluminum substrate in nicely regular flat dual-sided chips--they heated a concentration of it to about ~400 degrees and it instantly blossomed to ~1400 degrees.

      Try that with paint chips.

      They, and the USGS, and the RJ Lee investigation for Deutsche Bank, all found about 5% microscopic iron spheres in the WTC dust, several samples of which were known, and technically verified, to have been taken on 9/11. In the real world, that concentration is indictable evidence that accelerants were used in the loss of a building, according to the AFIP fire forensic guidelines.

      I notice you have nothing to say about 7 actually known, as acknowledged by NIST, to have fallen at freefall for roughly 1/2 the time of fall. Which is fair, because NIST made no technical attempt to explain it either, after a high school teacher rubbed their noses in the fact just prior to the report's publication.

      You have answered no questions, except with the shallow, standard, and misleading bs that's been floating around this issue for some time.


      I have enjoyed this blog very much, but
      the author's indictment of Richard Gage lacks substance--it's just a vaguely justified set of aspersions irrelevant to
      the technical merits of his case--and the technical merits of the case really ought to be looked at, even though it's a time-consuming pain-in-the-butt.

    2. > Answer: Fires. All the towers had
      > intense fires.

      No, they did not--they had the same fires at the same heat as ordinary office fires, as defined by AFIPS. That's NIST's findings. They did fire forensics on the few structural beams they could find, and by the time of the wtc-7 report, had acknowledges that the fires were, in fact, not intense enough to cause weakening of steel. The fall of wtc-7 was blamed on the expansion of steel, not the weakening of steel. And not on any of the 7 floors upon which fires were, sporadically, observed.

    3. > selective use of evidence.
      > He seems to have a pretty wide influence

      He has pretty wide influence because he's reasonably meticulous and credible to a lot
      of people with serious relevant credentials with whom he has aligned himself, and who are not so easy to dismiss. He has lots of evidence because there's lots of evidence.
      And if you want to see confirmation bias writ large, just look at the glaringly unprofessional omissions of the NIST report, which is the technical flagship of the official story, and to which he frequently avers, and which can be verified easily by just looking at the report. Not that the debunkers hardly ever do, cocksure as they are. 2 1/2 seconds of freefall, indeed. Where do these people get their physics education? Matchbook covers?

  7. Donald,

    Thanks for asking questions, but I have a few for you:

    1. How do you plant several tonnes of explosive into a building without anyone noticing?
    2. How do you hide the miles of detonation cord required?
    3. How do you get all of the miles of firing cable to disappear after the explosion occured?
    5. Seeing as both commercial and military detonators have a 6-8% failure rate, please explain how not one has been found...?
    6. There would also be a requirement for miles of tape, fixtures, junctions, detonator and detonation cord clips, cable ties and other assorted accessories, where did all these go?
    7. How do you strip off the internal walls, plaster and fireproofing to get to the load bearing beams and columns without anyone noticing?
    8. Finally, please tell me more about this thermite demolition technique: I ask this and all of the above because I am a graduate of the Royal School of Military Engineering 1RSME, the UK Defence Explosive Ordnance Disposal School (DEODS) and have done 4 EOD tours of Afghanistan and about to deploy again in March for the 5th and hopefully last time. Id really like to know about this thermate stuff because, despite my security clearance and qualified to render safe all known weapons and devices including nuclear, biological and chemical, Iv never heard of it. I will not snow on you either, happy to hear from another demolition expert or member of the Institute of Explosive Engineers if you have one.


    1. Robert, as an architect that was always my approach to the conspiracy "theory". (I put that in quote marks because it lacks any details, just counter-claims.)

      If you look at a plan of one of the columns and see how they were clad (covered and encased in finish materials) you will quickly see that on the inside, the cladding was tight to the structural steel. There was no place to put an explosive and hide it from view- unless you cut a large enough section of the column and placed the explosive inside column. Moreover, since many of the tenants used an open floor plan layout, the interior cladding of these columns would be exposed to view. So if there were explosives attached to the columns, you would see them.

      Like you I also though of the wiring that would have to run all over each floor and from each of the 236 columns along the perimeter and the almost 50 columns at the core AND to do this for EACH floor. If you were able to conceal the explosives, you could tun the wiring in the ceiling structure, but then at some point it has to come back out and join all the others somewhere- like the stairwell. Also, where was the detonator stationed and how did the wiring get to them?

      As the say, "... the devil is in the details..." and that is why the 9/11 Loos... I mean Truthers stay away from developing a cogent and systematic THEORY about how all this was orchestrated.

      Also, no matter for which country you serve, thank you for your service!

    2. The Fire Emperor has no clothes, says little boy Nano-Thermite. Molten iron only gets that way at 2,500+ degrees Fahrenheit - the fires were giving off black smoke, a sign of a cooling. Maximum heat from WTC fires was only 1800 - 2000 F, not nearly hot enough to melt structural steel. Only nano thermite is sexy & hot enough to melt those columns, and she now only speaks Mandarin.

      Physics, guys, physics. Only 3 high rise building fires in history have fallen in seconds into their footprint. They happened all on the same day, in NYC on September 11, 2001. What a coincidence!

      If you have an hour+ to learn more than you ever wanted to know about thermite, check out Herr Professor:

    3. Your credentials are impressive. I really don't know what to think and I have none of your technical experience. I do have 2 questions though:
      1. Do you think it would be better to offer your credentials at the start of such a post so that people can read it in the context to which it belongs? That way, when people respond to a post with no way of knowing your credentials, they will not say things to which you feel you need to respond with sarcasm and condescension. It just helps with civility.
      2. Do you think, and I am sincerely asking, that having gone through several tours in Afghanistan, a person may be resistant to considering they were fighting a false enemy and that one's actual enemy is either unknown or worse, one's own government? I am sure it would be difficult for anyone to accept, honestly, but even more so if one was engaged in such an intense way with that reality. I am a clinical social worker and my own experience in dealing with persons who have been in combat or some other potentially traumatizing situation would lead me to consider this possibility.
      Thank you for being willing to read this post.

  8. Is this Richard Gage's looniest moment ?

  9. This is an obvious debunking website. Name calling and irrelevant statements are used extensively. Many of us have learned to recognize a debunking site operated by some intelligence agency when we see one.

    I ask the author of this site for full disclosure of identity, income, and financing of this website. Somehow, I feel that I shouldn't hold my breath awaiting a reply.

    1. Ha ha. Well, I suppose this is a debunking website, if you mean "website devoted to debunking moronic conspiracy theories and anti-science".

      And no, the website is not financed by anyone or anything, not even advertising. No income generated. I am, however, not inclined to give someone like you my full contact information or personal info (don't worry; I'm only semi-anonymous, and the information isn't particularly hard to find).

      Otherwise, I find your comment rather funny. As William Burroughs said, "Paranoia is the delusion that your enemies are organized," and it is amply on display in your comment - since we disagree with you, or Gage's conspiracy theories, we must have ulterior motives. There is no honest disagreement; anyone who disagrees with you is out to take you. And yes, I am sure that you have learned to recognize a debunking site operated by some intelligence agency when you see it - completely regardless of whether it is or not, of course: That vague feeling of paranoia is evidence enough. (How, for instance, have you gone about testing whether your ability is reliable? No?)

      It is also somewhat funny that you on the one hand accuse us of representing some nefarious Powers that Be and also accuse *us* of "name calling". You see that, don't you?

    2. Oh, it does make me laugh when someone thinks "debunking" is bad or nefarious.

      That's them saying, "I like blatant nonsense and lies. No facts for me."


  10. GD-Thanks for the reply. I'm satisfied that you are what you claim to be. William Burroughs is one of my favorites. He wrote about control systems, from heroin to Interzone. I don't remember the quote you cite about paranoia but it would not surprise me if it were taken out of context. Perhaps it pertained to Mr. Lee, the junkie?

    Were you alive in 1963? The TV news contradicted itself continuously at first, just as on 911, but very quickly, an "official" story was put forth as the undisputed truth. No matter that the official story was always full of holes, Americans are mostly conditioned to believe TV News.

    Actually, the Soviets were the only ones to tell us the truth about JFK's murder, which was ignored as "Soviet Propaganda." Sites like yours seem to me to only ridicule, but never give evidence to refute claims made by some of your "loons." Granted, 90% of those you cover really are loons, but I have yet to see a reasoned rebuttal of those who debunk rather obviously false documents like the Warren Commission report and the 911 Commission Report. Evidence given in these documents is not sufficient to convince me. Lone nut-magic bullet? Please, don't insult my intelligence. I have yet to see you "professional" debunkers offer any evidence that refutes the contentions of Gage, Fetzer and others.

    Debunking may be a sort of intellectual sport for you. But I never see reasoned arguments to support your positions, only 8th grade level name calling ("moronic" this time) and re-iterations of "facts" that have widely been called into question, that is "debunked."

    Riddle me this one thing: how could WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 have fallen at free fall speed (and even a bit faster!) without demolition explosives. Just explain this one thing to me. Maybe you will enlighten me so that I can take take the blue pill as you have done, and happily trust our wonderful leaders.

    1. OMG! Maybe there was a subterranean vacuum... or neutron bombardment from above!


    Dr. James Fetzer never destroys Dr. Steven Jones.

    Dr. James Fetzer never destroys Mr. Richard Gage.

    Mr. Richard Gage never destroys Dr. James Fetzer.

    Dr. Steven Jones never destroys Dr. James Fetzer.

    Mr. Richard Gage never destroys Dr. Steven Jones, but actually covers up for him.

    None of the above characters destroy Mr. Bill Deagle, and Mr. Deagle never destroys them.

    None of the above characters destroy Mr. Dimitri Khalezov, and Khalezov never destroys them.

    There are many other names that go into the above category as well and NONE of them destroy each other, but ALL of them attempt to destroy Dr. Judy Wood...

    It is widely known that the last time Dr. Judy Wood voluntarily spoke with Dr. James Fetzer or exchanged emails was February 2008. That is, it has been over eight years since Dr. Wood HAS NOT voluntarily spoken with Dr. Fetzer or emailed him. So why is Dr. Fetzer still so obsessed with Dr. Wood???

    Dr. Wood has never spoken with Mr. Gage, yet Mr. Gage promotes disinformation about Dr. Wood at nearly every interview he does – if not every interview. Dr. Fetzer also promotes disinformation about Dr. Wood in nearly every interview he does. Yet none of them have ever refuted anything Dr. Wood has presented.

    Yes, if you don’t like the lie behind door#1, they show you the lie behind door#2. Then, if you don’t like the lie behind door#2, they show you the lie behind door#3. Any lie is ok with them as long as it keeps people from looking at the evidence Dr. Wood presents. This is why “thermite” is ok with those promoting “mini-nukes,” and why “mini-nukes” is ok with those promoting “thermite,” etc. Even Dimitri Khalezov’s maxi-nukes or megga-nukes are ok with Mr. Gage and Dr. Fetzer.

    WTC7 on 9/11/2001

    Mr. Richard Gage got a lotta splainin to do! No sound of explosives! - No explosives! What does this tell you about Richard Gage and his agenda?

    Dr. Wood does not make any claims. Dr. Wood is not an Internet blogger tasked with the job of swaying public opinion like Richard Gage, Dr. James Fetzer, and their government run organization is doing. Dr. Wood is a forensic engineer and scientist. Dr. Wood conducts research and writes reports. That is what Dr. Wood does. Dr. Wood does not have a dog in this fight. If someone has not read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, they have no standing to dispute it.




    "When fascism came to America, Liberty was wrapped in the flag now carrying a cross."