AE911Truth Dot INFO: New Debunking Site

[Bolo Boffin]

This one is my very own. I noticed that Richard Gage and his gang of fruit loops weren't using the domain name ae911truth.info, so I am.

I'm working on it slowly, very slowly. I'm only up to 28 slides out of over 300 hundred in that wretched PowerPoint of his. However, I was contacted by someone who knows Gage. I evidently popped up in a search engine. The gig is up, so the doors are open to the public.

Unlike Gage, I have no plans to plead for your money. Please save it for more worthy causes than myself. Enjoy!

[Twist_U_Up]

1. Hey bolo your stealing the term "Fruit Loop" ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=153135&mesg_id=153135

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Oh, I don't think the Kellogg's company will mind. n/t

[greyl]

8. Kellogg's can be bastards.

They threatened suit against a software company for using the product name "Fruityloops".

[Perry Logan]

2. Well done, bolo! Thank God for the internet.

[LARED]

4. Nice job. Keep up the good work nt

[nebula]

5. Where's the debunking?

a website 'under construction' with zero content and already the OCT are hailing it as the greatest 9/11 website ever made. lol.

[greyl]

6. Squint your eyes and look closer.

www.ae911truth.info/aeppt97001.html

[nebula]

9. Where's the content?

So far I have seen little more than the biography of Richard Gage
followed by a hail of personal attacks directed at him. Good job.

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. you aren't doing yourself any favors with this

Anyone can see that the site offers more than "a hail of personal attacks." You need a better cover story.

[SidDithers]

7. Good Job bolo...

looking forward to more updates.

:applause:

Sid

[Rosa Luxemburg]

114. Is this from the 'Dick cheney Handbook?'

:evilgrin:

[sabbat hunter]

10. good site so far

Boloboffin. My one suggestion would be to have a way to magnify some of the pictures so it is easier to read the writing on them.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Oh, hmmm.

I'll work on that. I've been working to keep them in the low K's and uniform in size.

I think I can pull that off, but it might be a while before I get to it. I have miles to go before I sleep.

[salvorhardin]

12. Nice site bolo

Keep up the good work

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. No need, Boloboffin, I've stumbled across ...

...the mother of all tinfoiler, moon bat, wacky, 9-11 conspiracy debunking sites -- this one's got it all and quite literally obliterates every non OCT theory with absolutely air tight, irrefutable facts and evidence, all formatted neatly on one easy to understand page.

I guess they just beat you to it, Boloboffin, better luck next time.

http://www.hampsterdance.com/classinteractive.html

[HamdenRice]

15. It goes into Gage's professional credentials. For full disclosure shouldn't your site...

also discuss your own credentials? Education (engineering degrees? graduate studies in geopolitics, security studies, jurisprudence? or was it some other educational background?) Or perhaps you could discuss your prior professional experience? The captioning thingy has no bearing on your expertise on construction engineering, but perhaps you had some other prior professional experience that makes you an expert in the areas you address on your site?

I'm sure visitors to your site who do not know your background the way we DUers do would appreciate this so that they can judge how credible your presented expert opinion is!

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. try reading it again

He says who he is. He doesn't claim to be presenting an "expert opinion." People can assess the quality of his arguments.

As far as experience with quarter-mile-tall skyscrapers, he and Gage seem to be even -- but, hey, whatever.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Hamden: quit while you're behind. n/t

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

48. Do you really think they're "even"?

I don't follow the CD debates very much, but Richard Gage is indeed an architect, which means he has a graduate degree and license.

Bolo, according to what his own blog used to say, has little tertiary education, was for many years a struggling actor and coffee shop waiter, and now does some kind of captioning.

Are you really saying that no one would be influenced by their relative expertise? Are you saying that they are "even" in terms of physics, engineering, architecture?

So are you saying that you have no more prima facia credibility on, say, statistical polling, than a college sophomore you teach? Is that what you are saying? If so, how do you rationalize teaching?

Are you saying that a PhD in Environmental Studies is "about even" with a college drop out in assessing, say, models for climate change?

[AZCat]

52. Not to nitpick...

but one can be an architect and not have a license. It's not uncommon.

[HamdenRice]

55. Fair enough. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

59. You would do well to drop the subject of me.

You know little about me and have mangled and misrepresented the things that you do. You've been the ringleader in this thread of uncalled for personal attacks against me, and all of this has been emailed to Skinner.

[mhatrw]

144. Everyone would do well to drop the subject of you.

But as long as we are on the subject, what exactly possessed you to do this?

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. do I really think you seek to understand my views?

No, and that doesn't bode well. But someone else might be interested.

I have a good friend with an architecture degree who pretty much agrees with bolo: basically, she's mystified that anyone professes to be mystified. But she also acknowledges that she isn't an expert in structural engineering. Gage's credential doesn't qualify him to rebut the NIST team; if we are playing Credential Smackdown, Gage and bolo both lose. So, I stand by what I wrote. It was not long or hard to understand.

Also, it doesn't take any formal credential -- certainly not an architectural license -- to assess whether a soundtrack has been edited, or whether a logical argument is fallacious.

"Are you really saying that no one would be influenced by their relative expertise?"

No; I'm sure that some people will be. I give bolo props for saying exactly who he is -- without pretension or apology -- and letting his arguments stand or fall on their merits, for readers with the interest and discipline actually to read them.

I came to this forum with no clue who bolo was, and I still have no real way of knowing. He marshals evidence well; he has some sense of the limits of his knowledge; he admits mistakes and learns from them. These are virtues that lend themselves to reasoned discourse, for those of us who believe that such a serious subject merits reasoned discourse. I will be curious to see whether anyone who disagrees with bolo evinces any interest in the content.

You actually began your post by stating, "I don't follow the CD debates very much...." Then, I would conjecture, you aren't very interested in assessing Gage's and bolo's relative credibility. Except that, apparently, you are -- provided that it can be done without any reference to substance. :shrug:

[HamdenRice]

62. "he admits mistakes and learns from them"

OK, you've officially jumped the shark!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. OK, you've made my point n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

19. I think this is about as much background as...

...you're gonna pry out of him:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x167674#168149

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Hamden has pryed much more out of the Internet on me than you can imagine

He and Nico Haupt have both complied little dossiers on me. Hamden's is posted at an unmentionable website where you will find many wound-licking tombstoned DU personalities late of these denizens. He's also comically wrong in about half his statements on me. Nico pretty much stuck to copying and pasting what he could find.

Nico Haupt more accurate than our HamdenRice! How low will obsessive hatred drive a person? Sad.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

24. Hey relax man -- make yourself a cup of tea...

...or maybe go for a little stroll through the Whitfurrows -- you're wound way too tight.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. LOL!

Anything like that you see in my post, you're importing.

[HamdenRice]

28. Bullshit bolo and you know it

Your old blog used to be very frank about you and your life. You always wrote that your life was an open book and one mouse click away, which it was. Too bad you seem to have scrubbed all that information, because it made it much easier to judge the "authority" of your arguments.

So tell us great expert -- what are your engineering credentials?

[Bolo Boffin]

31. I notice you didn't deny your compiling a dossier on me

Hamden: quit while you're behind.

[HamdenRice]

33. Dossier?

Have you lost your mind?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

43. Now youz seez here...

...

9-11 was an inside job, Busta.

[HamdenRice]

49. You never answered the main question

What are your qualifications in architecture and engineering -- educational, professional or otherwise.

Please inform us. We have inquiring minds and we wanna know!

[wildbilln864]

50. He's an actor!

:shrug: Yeah that's it.

[HamdenRice]

53. I'm not a real engineer, but I play one on DU!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Twist_U_Up]

56. Now thats funny, I dont care who ya are

:toast:

[Twist_U_Up]

51. Will having a diploma from the JREF forum do ?

just askin :shrug:

[HamdenRice]

54. Yes, a diploma in spoon bending!

Which is kinda like beam bending, no?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

67. First Law of Holes, Hamden... n/t

[HamdenRice]

69. You always manage not to get it, don't you?

I'm actually expressing solidarity with his experience. Why is it you always, always fail in the basic insight department?

[OnTheOtherHand]

70. O RLY?

(1) How do you think you know what experience you are expressing solidarity with?

(2) Personalization much?

(2a) WTF does this have to do with September 11?

ETA: Forgot:

(3) Please review DU rules before undertaking to reply to (1).

[HamdenRice]

71. huh?

That's too incoherent to respond to. Sorry. Maybe you could rephrase?

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. thanks for making my point AGAIN n/t

[HamdenRice]

74. Why not rephrase your question in a coherent form?

If I can understand it, I'd be glad to try to answer it.

But as for the solidarity part, I was referring to the idea that studying religion closely can lead to a loss of faith. That's what happened to me, and that's what I thought may have happened to bolo. After re-reading his Christian Chronicles blog, I realize his position is more complicated. I think he is still sympathetic to Christian religion, but just wants to get it out of the state and politics. I could be wrong.

Why not let him answer for himself.

Maybe you could rephrase the other questions now.

[OnTheOtherHand]

75. and again... n/t

[HamdenRice]

76. Is that because you can't?

Maybe there was no coherent question there to ask? Jus' wonderin'.

[HamdenRice]

30. That's hilarious!

I always wondered what a "boloboffin" was. I thought it was an arctic penguin like bird!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

41. This wouldn't be the bird you were thinking of would it?

[HamdenRice]

42. That must be it!

But it has a better haircut that "our" boloboffin!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

44. .

:rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

20. If you had gone to the website and read for comprehension, Hamden

instead of trying to find something to attack me with, you would have seen this statement on the front page.

My name is Joseph Nobles, by the way. I'm a live voice writer and actor...

From that, most people would recognize that I'm not claiming any special or expert knowledge on the subject.

However, I'm not making any argument based on my credentials the way Richard Gage is. His credentials are only relevant in that they do not give his the kind of special authority that he's claiming to have to back up his "characteristic features" lists. I'm sure he's a wonderful, proficient architect.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

26. Fiction writer by any chance? I think so. nt.

[HamdenRice]

36. That's completely incoherent

"His credentials are only relevant in that they do not give his the kind of special authority"

So his being an architect gives him no authority (compared to you) on matters of architecture?

So does that mean a Baptist minister has the same authority to pronounce on evolution as a university scientist?

[Bolo Boffin]

57. He's not speaking on matters of architecture. n/t

[eroded47095]

16. I Wouldn't Go So Far Out On The Limb

Trying to prove bush doesn't lie about things.

Just me of course.

Good luck with your site!

[Bolo Boffin]

17. No worries.

Exposing the lies of Richard Gage won't get me anywhere near the subject matters on which Bush has lied over and over again. His well-deserved reputation is safe!

[eroded47095]

22. I just hope you know what you're doing

The doubts, lies, and omissions out there could well come and bite all the OCTers in the behind, big time.

And it would SUCK to be sitting there defending bush on the day the Pakistanis or somebody offer up proof of bush complicity.

Remembering Watergate, I'll remain skeptical of the OCT.

Agnostic if you will.

Good luck with your site!

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Thanks, but I am NOT defending bush. Please stop saying that I am.

I totally reject that categorization. It's insulting and false.

ETA: Showing the lies and misunderstandings behind controlled demo theories has nothing at all to do with the Pakistanis perhaps offerign proof of Bush complicity. Bush could be complicit as sin and the CD theories would still be false.

[eroded47095]

25. I Apologize

:-)

[wildbilln864]

37. many try to reject the truth!

:eyes: in vain.

[HamdenRice]

38. He is saying something completely different and quite interesting

The evidence is mounting to almost irrefutable levels that the Saudi and Pakistani governments were complicit. Today, once again, the very chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have confirmed that their report was incomplete.

If any Pakistani or Saudi official ever ties back their complicity to anyone in the Bush administration, how would you feel having wasted several years berating anyone who questioned the official story?

[wildbilln864]

39. Will there be a place to comment there bolo?

Some place to expose your errors that is. Or are you afraid to have one? It seems you're becoming desperate so I expect not.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. you mean, a place to post fact-filled zingers like #45?

Dude, you can expose bolo's errors 24/7. What are you waiting for? Just Do It.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. If you see any errors, wildbill, please enumerate them here.

Are there any places to comment on the errors of AE911Truth at their website? No. They have forums, but they're only open to people who agree with them.

[mhatrw]

145. Interesting that you will take the same tack as the AE911Truth site you despise.

Wouldn't a dialog be more constructive?

[Bolo Boffin]

146. Aren't we involved in a dialogue here, mhatrw?

I talk then you talk then I talk...dialogue!

Yes, dialogue is constructive. I don't feel the need to give you or anybody else permission to shit all over my site. I like having nice things.

As a consolation prize, you can go get yourself a hosting plan, and post all about how mean and terrible I am. See how the Internet works?

Bye-bye.

[Laurier]

61. Is this a criticism that you reserve for those with whom you disagree?

Or can you point me to your similar criticism of truther™ sites, such as, oh, let's say, Gage's site?

[truth01]

40. Anyone believe in what you are putting on you site?

Do you have anyone who believes in what you are putting on you site, and is willing to say so publicly?

I see here:
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ARCH
a huge number of members and supporters listed by name and qualification

Architects (Degreed & Licensed - Active & Retired)
Architectural Professionals (Degreed)
Engineers (Degreed & Licensed - Active & Retired)
Engineering Professionals (Degreed)
Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Architectural and Engineering Professionals
Other Supporters and A&E Students

Do you have anyone endorsing your efforts publicly?

[wildbilln864]

45. Well....

there's Perry Logan! :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

175. It's the truth. It doesn't need endorsement. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

176. false premise

Those people who have signed onto ae911truth's call for an investigation may or may not agree with the content on the site. They may or may not even have read it; it's unlikely that they have read it all. (ETA: Note, by the way, that the petition doesn't require anyone to say that he or she actually believes in a controlled demolition hypothesis, even by a preponderance of the evidence. We can speculate about how many of them do, but we don't know.)

Have competent experts gone on record as rejecting controlled demolition hypotheses? Ya betcha. They are slandered here regularly, for convenience in finding their names. They haven't vetted bolo's new site, which isn't even done yet. But it's hard to find long lists of experts who have stated that they don't believe in controlled demolition, because experts don't spend much time compiling lists of things they don't believe in. If you find Physicists Against Geocentrism, let me know.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Is there ANYONE who can point out something I've gotten wrong in the website?

All of this attention to little old me is just marvelous. But could anyone point out anything wrong with the actual website?

[greyl]

68. Well there's one little thing...

You could add 

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />

to the head of your pages so they validate. ;)

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Oy.

One more HTML hoop to jump through.

Better now than 600 pages later.

[greyl]

79. Oy oy

Sorry, actually it should be:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8">

Just remove the "/" before the ">".

Also, remove the "/" from 

<meta name="verify-v1"
content="mdMpgMz5PtJ6c+4y++TBKJF/XkkY3DC9R6AWQbmS3RY="
/>

The "/" closing tags are used if your pages are
xhtml, not html.

I suppose we should take this to PM, if you care to. ;)

But yeah, just like the other threads here that call attention
to debunking sites, there's a distinct lack of valid
criticism, but a surplus of personal attacks and poor
argument. 

[Bolo Boffin]

82. That second tag was copied from a Google window.

I don't think I want to mess with it. That's already worked for them.

Jeez! :) No, it's probably instructional.

[greyl]

84. I understand, but trust me. :)

Plop your page addresses here: http://validator.w3.org/
It's always been of major educational help to me.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Man, don't futz wid my Google.

LOL

[greyl]

88. Okeedoke, trust Google then:

<meta name="verify-v1" content=".....

You can use this tag on the top-level page of your site to verify ownership for our webmaster tools. Please note that while the values of the "name" and "content" atrributes must match exactly what is provided to you (including upper and lower case), it doesn't matter if you change the tag from XHTML to HTML or if the format of the tag matches the format of your page.

link

(Fwiw, I've always used the "Upload an HTML file" option rather than "Add a meta tag" because you can just leave that file alone and not worry about breaking the "verify" code in the public pages.)

[Bolo Boffin]

89. I already changed it.

:P :)

[HamdenRice]

77. Yeah, you've completely misunderstood ...

the "fallacy of appeal to authority." But I don't have time right now to go into it. I'll try to give you a more specific commentary later.

But basically your entire approach to "authority" is wrong. It undercuts the logic of the entire site.

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Bullshit.

Go into it. You've got time to attack me coming and going, Hamden. Put up or shut up.

[HamdenRice]

80. Lunch hour ... up in ... five, four, three ....

Sorry, have to get back to ya later.

[Bolo Boffin]

83. What utter bullshit.

ETA: You've had two days now to explain this terrible problem with my argument. Now, all of the sudden, you've got to go to lunch.

You're completely transparent, Hamden. That's why I call your actions obsessive hatred. Why else would you act like this?

[eomer]

91. I'll give it a go.

To properly accuse someone of an appeal to authority fallacy, what you should be saying is that an appeal to authority has no place in a logical proof. A logical proof should start from known facts (or sometimes assumptions) and apply logic to proceed to the conclusion. An ad hominem attack, the converse of an appeal to authority, likewise has no place in a logical proof.

What you've done in your website is to call Gage out for using an appeal to authority when Gage is not presenting his case as a logical proof. An appeal to authority is perfectly proper in the type of case that Gage makes in his presentation. After all, experts are routinely called in to testify in court. If it is always improper to appeal to authority, why would it be routinely permitted in court cases? The reason is that it is in fact proper in the right setting and only improper within the very specific context of a logical proof.

After complaining about Gage using an appeal to authority then you turn around and yourself use an ad hominem attack. You can't have it both ways -- either appeal to authority and ad hominem attack are both improper because the argument is a logical proof (and the credentials of the authorities are just as irrelevant as their opinions) or else they are both proper because the argument does not purport to conform to the more strict confines of the field of logic.

My constructive suggestion would be to drop the complaint over appeal to authority but keep your impeachment of Gage's credentials and any other experts that he quotes, to whatever extent you think you can. Gage has a right, in this type of setting, to try to bring the opinions of experts to bear (and therefore there can be no complaint of appeal to authority) and whoever wants to argue against Gage's case has the right to bring in their own expert opinions in opposition and/or to argue against the expertise of Gage's experts.

BTW, I'm no expert in the theory of logic or the concept of logical fallacies. If anyone wants to correct or refine what I said, please, by all means.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. The only support for Gage's list of characteristic features is his personal authority.

That is Gage's fallacious appeal to authority. He has no expertise in that field to claim that authority. It is the only thing he offers the listener to accept his list. He sets himself up as an authority figure, presents his lists, and goes about proving each point.

The handout sheets and the concluding slides to each part confirm this. The list in each case is checked off item by item, and he produces his business card as supporting evidence for his list on them.

He continues to appeal to the AIA, using its logo to prop up his authority. The AIA has nothing to do with demolition or demolition theory. This is another fallacious appeal to authority. "Listen to me, I'm with the AIA." Who cares, Mr. Gage?

"Gage is not presenting his case as a logical proof." Do you mean that Gage has not spelled out his argument in classical logical terms? That's stupid. He is seeking to persuade people. He has definite, identifiable arguments which can be expressed in classical logic. In doing so, his fallacies become apparent. Your defense of him sounds like, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

If Gage was an authority in this field and was displaying evidence truthfully and compentently, then my arguments against him would be fallacies. He is not and does not. My pointing this out is not ad hominem attacks.

I will not be dropping my argument against Gage's authority. He has none relevant to his presentation.

[OnTheOtherHand]

95. well, we're talking about an informal fallacy

eomer has a point, in that you don't win the day simply by noting an appeal to authority. I think you do win the day, it just takes longer.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Oh.

I'm satisfied if people understand that Gage has no particular authority for his lists. I agree that that there's more to the task than just showing that.

[eomer]

98. Well, the list can also just speak for itself, but that's a different question.

It is perfectly proper to attempt to impeach Gage's credentials and the credentials of any other experts he refers to. That is not the same thing as claiming an appeal to authority fallacy.

My suggestion is to drop the use of the term "appeal to authority" and the definition that you provide. Once again, that definition is trying to say that an appeal to authority is improper in certain settings. But Gage's presentation is not one of those settings and it is perfectly proper for him to bring in as many experts as he wishes. If you dispute the credentials of his experts you are not claiming an appeal to authority fallacy. In fact, you are admitting that the use of experts would be proper but just disputing that his purported experts are in fact experts.

Let me try it a different way.

If my analytic geometry professor asks me to write a proof that two sides and an enclosed angle are enough to uniquely define a triangle, she is not going to be happy if I submit the following proof:

Euclid said so.

A reasonable response by my professor would be to scribble down the definition of "appeal to authority logical fallacy" next to the "F".

If, on the other hand, I am using DNA to make a case that a convicted rapist is innocent then, not only will I be permitted to call in an authority, I will be expected to. When I say that I'm going to bring in an expert, my opposing counsel will not claim, before even hearing who it is, that I'm committing the "appeal to authority logical fallacy". Rather, my opponent will take it as a given that I'm to bring in an expert and the, after finding out who the expert is, will attempt to impeach my expert's credentials or else bring in her own experts. Neither of these two latter arguments are a claim of "appeal to authority fallacy" and it would make no sense for my opponent to quote its definition as part of her argument.

So, once again, I think it is perfectly proper for you to dispute the expertise or credentials of Gage or any expert that he brings in. I don't claim that you are guilty of an ad hominem attack because that is what you call it when it is improper because of the context. When the context makes both claims by experts and disputes as to their expertise proper then it is not called an ad hominem attack, it is called impeaching an expert.

_{Edit: formatting.}

[Bolo Boffin]

101. As per the lists, that is Gage's sole justfication: Gage says so.

The list doesn't speak for itself. Where did Gage get it?

[OnTheOtherHand]

97. about appeal to authority

It isn't always fallacious to appeal to authority, either in deductive logic (which I tend to agree with bolo that Gage's arg is) or otherwise. Some people refer to "appeal to irrelevant authority." Seems to fit here. bolo argues that Gage's arch degree doesn't qualify him to offer a list of criteria of controlled demolition. But it isn't a knockdown argument -- people could differ whether a particular appeal to authority is fallacious.

(edit to fix typo)

[Bolo Boffin]

99. Thank you.

If Richard Gage of the AIA were doing a two hour presentation on Principles of Human-Friendly Architecture, he would be well within his field and his membership in the AIA would be relevant to the topic. If that talk had first been given at an AIA convention, whereupon the organization began sponsoring his various speeches, he couldn't be attacked at all on those points.

He is not doing this.

[eomer]

103. On deductive and inductive logic, although I think they are beside the point.

I think that Gage is making a persuasive argument, an informal one. Even though he uses the word "proof" in at least one slide, I think it is obvious from the form and content of his presentation that it's intended for a lay audience, not for formal mathematicians.

Even so, if Gage's argument were improved into a more formal presentation, wouldn't it be inductive rather than deductive? Gage is not saying that the facts he presents lead infallibly to the conclusion of CD. He is saying: CD has always had certain characteristics; the WTC7 collapse has those same characteristics; this is reason to believe that WTC7 was CD (but not to impute that conclusion as infallible).

But like I said, I don't think Gage meant his presentation to be one of formal logic, either deductive or inductive. It's a little bit like the neighborhood kid who declares he won the race home when nobody else knew they were racing.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. Let's quote him

Going to his website:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:

(the towers list)

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

(the destruction by fires list)

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:

(the Building 7 list)

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

(the destruction by fires list)

Emphasis is his. He is presenting three lists of characteristics. His claims are that these are ALL the characteristics of either destruction by explosions (in the case of the towers) or a classic controlled demolition with explosives (in the case of Building 7). He means to be all inclusive here.

I've spelled out this 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.

That is his purported argument. His only justification for the first premise is his own authority. His list is incomplete. It is also imprecise because it includes features that other collapsing buildings share. Therefore his argument becomes this:

Premise: Controlled demolitions have some of these features.

Premise: The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings have some of these features.

Conclusion: Therefore, the collapse of these 3 buildings were controlled demolitions.

The affirmation of the consequent is evident.

As for an inductive argument, Gage can only attempt it with persistent mishandling of evidence (including some outright fabrications). If you have to falsify your way to an induction, the induction isn't valid.

[eomer]

107. I would use a different paraphrase of Gage than the one you use.

I would paraphrase his argument as:

Fact: All of the known building collapses having these features (A, B, C, etc.) were controlled demolition.

Fact: The 3 WTC building collapses have these features (A, B, C, etc.).

Conclusion: This is reason to believe that the 3 WTC building collapses were controlled demolition.

When expressed this way, the merits of the argument can be analyzed independently of Gage's credentials. The lists of facts speak for themselves -- they are either correct or incorrect. The induction speaks for itself -- it is either reasonable or not reasonable.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. Interesting how you substitute "Fact" for "Premise"

On what grounds do you assert the first premise of that stated argument?

All of the known building collapses having these features (A, B, C, etc.) were controlled demolition.

You have changed Gage's argument, btw. He presents a list that he calls ALL the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition using explosives. He then asserts that Building 7 conforms to it. If the list is not complete, or if Building 7 doesn't, he is wrong.

[OnTheOtherHand]

120. actually, he didn't assert that

"The lists of facts speak for themselves -- they are either correct or incorrect."

I think perhaps he was trying to get away from language that he associates with formal deduction, but we'll see.

But I agree that eomer's paraphrase doesn't match Gage's first premise, although I don't think
"Any building collapse that has these features (A, B, C, etc.) must be a controlled demolition."
does either.

Basically, Gage seems to claim that he has determined all the "features" or "characteristics" that distinguish CD collapses from, say, fire or earthquake collapses, and these buildings exhibit all of them. That seems stronger than eomer's paraphrase, but weaker than the premise that any collapse with these features MUST be a controlled demo.

Of course, if the list of features is garbage, none of this seems to matter very much, which may make it even harder to get right.

[eomer]

138. You're right, Gage does refer to "all the characteristics".

On slide 67 he says:

All the features of this "collapse" match all the features of a typical controlled demolition using explosives.

I believe you are right that I changed his meaning a bit so let's not call it a paraphrase, let's call it an improvement. There is no reason I can see that the list presented is exhaustive. Someone may propose an additional characteristic that is allegedly typical of CD and if we examine the data and find that the new characteristic is in fact typical for CD and atypical for other causes then we should be open to adding it to the list.

So I believe you are correct in saying that Gage claims he has discovered a magic list of "all the features" (since the underlining, unfortunately, is his). What to do about that? Well, I think it is a silly assertion and that an intellectually honest approach requires us to point out the silliness, then to proceed on to the next step of improving his argument before we get down to serious consideration of it. The less intellectually honest approach would be to leave the argument in its silly form, use that silliness to make it appear we've refuted the whole thing, and call ourselves done. But that is more of a game of gotcha than a serious search for the truth.

By the way, before we go too much further in analyzing this inductive argument of Gage's let me clarify that I don't find it very compelling, at best. It reminds me a bit of another famous use of inductive reasoning that ends in this conclusion:

VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!

The reason I've run on about "appeal to authority" is because I think this is a case where you really need to look into the underlying physics of it and not so much just the superficial indicia that an outside, unqualified layperson can observe.

_{Edit: punctuation.}

[OnTheOtherHand]

141. I've been thinking of an old Peter Paul & Mary song

"Blue." As I remember it from, yikes, 35 years ago, the gag was that it was the only children's song the group had encountered that had the three essential elements of every single children's song.

Not that this is directly analogous to anything we've discussed -- just a bit of fun with fuzzy induction.

(For the record, from memory: The first is simplicity, so that the child can understand the song. The second is pathos, to prepare the child for later traumatic experiences. And the third is repetition, to instill in the child a false sense of security.)

I think I agree with the rest of your comments. If bolo had stopped at slide 1 or so, there wouldn't be much to talk about. At the same time, if one of Gage's central arguments is fairly described as "silly," then that is important in itself -- not because it tells us what to think about 9/11, but for future reference. And I would venture that it is pertinent to petgoat's thread on movement credibility.

[eomer]

142. I don't think one of his central arguments is fairly described as silly.

Rather, I think that there is one aspect of that argument that is silly, but superfluous. So throw out the silly, superfluous aspect and then see what we think about what's left.

As I said, I don't find the overall argument especially compelling but maybe someone else does. Let it speak for itself.

Edit to add: it may actually be more of a combination of unartful wording on his part and overzealous parsing on ours. Maybe what he meant to say was more like: it has all the features that we've identified as important indicators. I guess that would bring us back to bolo's point that Gage's expertise is an element of the argument, since he's the one who came up with the list. But rather than argue over his expertise, I'd rather see us argue over the list.

[OnTheOtherHand]

143. OK

I'm skeptical whether anything on those particular slides/handouts could fairly be described as "unartful," but that is beside the larger point.

[OnTheOtherHand]

109. I think the list can be inclusive* and the argument, still, inductive

I commit social science, so I don't often have cause to ponder whether an argument is deductive or only inductive. However, not so long ago, I did plow through a quirky attempt to refute an inductive statistical argument by asserting that a single hypothetical counterexample could refute the induction. So, I really ought to defend the distinction between induction and deduction!

At some point, a strong-claim inductive argument seems very much like a deductive argument. Maybe that's where Gage is.

*ETA: I mean, it can purport to be inclusive, or comprehensive, or definitive, or whatever that list is supposed to be.

[OnTheOtherHand]

108. hmmmm

I think the bit about "formal mathematicians" is a red herring. Anyone can, and should, consider the grounds for finding an argument persuasive or unpersuasive.

Per bolo, Gage's key slides say: "The Hypothesis of Controlled Demolition is Fully Supported by the Evidence." (For the towers, and for WTC 7.) Presumably that is supposed to be some kind of "formal." (I'm not trying to be polemical here.)

I think you're right that it makes more sense as an inductive than as a deductive argument. From the slide(s) : "No building exhibiting all the characteristics of a controlled demolition has ever not been a controlled demolition!" I don't know whether Gage consistently presents it as an inductive argument. bolo's basic line of critique is workable either way, but he should consider the question.

Now, whether the argument is deductive or inductive, and whether it's formal or informal, (1) it isn't inherently fallacious to make claims based on authority, and (2) IMO the claim that a particular appeal to authority is fallacious is adjudicated based on the relevance of the authority, regarless of the setting. So if it's true that Gage's warrant for his list of criteria is, basically, that he says so, then a charge of fallacious appeal to authority is in order.

[eomer]

110. The problem is...

that bolo is quoting a definition from a system of formal mathematics:

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth.

Note the lack of wiggle room: "an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy". If we wish to use this definition then we are apparently in a very rigorous context such as a mathematical proof or a proof of formal logic. But I don't think we meant to be in such a rigorous context and I don't think we meant to use this definition.

But we need to either get rid of the definition or else live with it. You choose which one and we can go from there.

[OnTheOtherHand]

111. oops, I skipped his definition

I'd get rid of it. His move....

[eomer]

113. In the meantime...

My personal preference would be to not use the phrase "appeal to authority fallacy" or even "appeal to authority" in the less formal context of a persuasive argument. I would shift over to language like you hear in legal cases. Language like "expert opinion" and "impeach the expert". This language makes it clear that the opinion of an expert is welcome, to the extent that the expert is qualified and relevant. The phrase "appeal to authority" is derogatory before you even evaluate the credentials. But it's not my website so that's just for what it's worth. If you insist on "appeal to authority" then you'll have to live with "ad hominem" when you try to impeach the expert. Both are misappropriations when lifted from formal logic and used in this way, if you ask me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

118. there we just disagree (subtly)

I think logic and rhetoric go together, and they aren't limited to a "formal" context.

However, I think you're basically right about the parallelism between appeal to authority and ad hominem. In fact, I think it's probably the case that each is fallacious by definition in formal reasoning, but needs to be assessed on the merits and relevance in informal reasoning. I don't agree that they are misappropriations outside formal logic.

[eomer]

137. Same page, pretty much.

I agree it is a subtle point, so just to try to capture exactly what I'm saying, it's that outside of a formal system where they are fallacious by definition, these terms should be used only when the derogatory insinuation is intentional. If you feel that it is inappropriate in a particular setting to bring in expert opinions, then make that point by calling it an appeal to authority. If, OTOH, you feel that it is permissible, reasonable, expected, or required to bring in expert opinions in a setting then make that point by calling it bringing in expert opinions.

Note that if we derogate Gage's use of expert opinions by calling it an appeal to authority then any reference to NIST is fair game for the same insinuation.

[Bolo Boffin]

117. So if that "is" were "can be", you'd have no problem with the definition? n/t

[eomer]

139. No, I still wouldn't like it.

With your proposed change, it becomes:

An appeal to authority can be a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth.

One of the problems I have with the new version is that "logical fallacy" is binary. Something is either a logical fallacy, totally, or else it is not one at all. The extent to which we should rely on the proclamations of an expert, however, is something to be judged in shades of gray.

I personally wouldn't use a definition of "appeal to authority" at all. It is a term that already has a specific meaning in the field of formal logic and, as I said in other posts, it insinuates derogatorily against any use of expert opinions before you even begin to assess their qualifications or relevance. It insinuates that you think expert opinions are out of place in the debate and such an insinuation would apply equally to the NIST. I think that, quite to the contrary, inductive reasoning is likely out of place in this debate and the use of expert opinions is probably the only reasonable approach.

But that's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.

[HamdenRice]

147. Well, I see others have also spotted your error, but I'll amplify

First of all, although it's a bit arcane, the distinction others have made about inductive and deductive reasoning is spot on. It goes to the origin of the critique of "appeals to authority."

The idea that an appeal to authority is not a valid means of reasoning has its origins in the Reformation in arguments about the basic tenets of Christianity. In the Catholic/Protestant divide, Catholic theologians often relied on the authority of the Church itself. At the time, knowledge was divided into scientia and opinio. Scientia meant knowledge that could be demonstrated, what we would today call things that could be proved by deductive reasoning. Opinio was knowledge that could not be demonstrated by deduction, but was subject to opinion. To argue about a matter of opinio, one resorted to arguments about what was more "probable" -- but not in the sense of probability, but in the sense of approbation, ie what did the authorities approve of. And here the authority of the Catholic hierarchy was definitive. That was an appeal to authority in matters of opinio.

Luther sidestepped the authority of the Catholic church by relying (eventually) only on the authority of scripture itself. But he introduced into western thought the problem of multiple authorities -- Catholics and Protestants, and different interpretations of scripture. That meant that for Protestants, an appeal to the authority of the Catholic Church (and as Protestant schisms multiplied other church authorities) became meaningless.

So the initial objection to appeal to authority was two-fold: it was entirely inappropriate in matters of scientia (deduction) and was not pursuasive in matters of opinio where the alleged authority was irrelevant.

Your entire site treats 9/11 as though it were a matter of deduction. It isn't, as another poster pointed out. It is a matter of induction. In fact, there are precious few areas of modern inquiry outside of mathematics where deduction is the primary epistemology. This was the subject matter of one of my first posts in this forum, and at the time, all the OCTers claimed that they either didn't know what induction was or thought it was a bogus means of knowledge. Interesting that a poster in this thread has picked up on exactly this topic. One of the difficulties in having a productive conversation with you, is that you are stuck in a 19th century deductive intellectual framework. It's impossible to discuss matters of inductive inquiry with you.

The displacement of deduction by induction accelerated in many fields around the turn of the century -- from jurisprudence (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis and the Brandeis brief), social policy and legislation (the progressive movement's legislators' adoption of hearings and legislative history), health (public health, epidemiology, clinical trials), and so on. Induction is essentially intellectual modernism in the social sciences.

When making arguments about matters of induction, appeals to relevant authority are appropriate. You seem not to know the actual definition of the modern critique of appeals to authority -- This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject, or when the authority is irrelevant. It does not mean that there is a fallacy when, in inductive argument, one relies on the expertise of a person who is, indeed, a relevant expert.

So most of the first part of your site attacks Gage's "appeals to authority." But the problem for you is that Gage is indeed an architect. It seems you don't know what architects do, or what they know. Architects are like engineers who have the artistic talent to also create and draw. Just take a look at any university architectural curriculum: they study physics, structural engineering and other subjects directly related to questions like why buildings fail. What's ironic is that you have no expertise in these areas.

You are, therefore, engaging in what I call the Paris Hilton/Bush era "yokel's critique of the appeal to authority," which is rampant in our culture. It goes beyond the usual critique and says, because someone is an authority they should not be trusted. "Or that expert is no better than me":

"Dr. A of Harvard Medical School says we should cut down on fat, but what does he know? My vitamin store clerk says it's fine to eat bacon as long as I take my vitamins."

"Them fancy MIT scientists say the world is billions of years old. But what do they know, damned fancy pants intellekshuls? My pastor says the world is only 6,000 years old."

In other words, you are trying to tear down Gage's "expertise" so that gullible readers will say, I guess bolo and Gage are "even" in this matter. Gage may not be the greatest expert, but as between Gage and bolo, in matters of opinio, I'd have to say Gage is more likely to be right.

But that's just the general problem of authority in your site. It's just chock full of stuff that is wrong, wrongheaded, rhetorical, and sometimes downright incoherent and is full of illogical assertions, ad hominem, and more. It is tiring to go through your slide show, and a thorough job would take all day, but I'll throw out a few:

"I will demonstrate that Gage does a terrible job at proving his second premise. In fact, Gage is almost completely wrong about every single point he makes." -- bald assertion; hyperbole; not backed up in anyway

"Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth." -- definition is wrong; appeal to irrelevant authority is the fallacy in inductive disputes; of course experts are convincing in their fields; this is "yokel's critique of appeal to authority"

" His presentation is a mixture of mistakes and outright deceptions on his part. " -- bald assertion; imputing motive without evidence

"You will see the logo of the American Institute of Architects all throughout this presentation. The AIA does not endorse this presentation by any stretch of the imagination." -- imputing motive; more likey Gage is simply saying what expert doctors say in court cases -- namely, "member of the American Academy of Pathologists" etc., to demonstrate relevant credentials

"It consists mostly of a number of 9/11 conspiracy theorists that already believe these things," -- imputing sequence of events about which you know nothing; more likely they came to believe these things because of studying evidence

"Argument ad Populum
That's a technical way of saying, "Lots of other people believe this and so you should, too." It's the popular argument." -- wrong; in inductive arguments, as in policy debates, what the majority of people who have looked at an issue believe is actually relevant; confusing deduction with induction

"This fallacy is best understood in the old story about a man shooting bullet holes into the side of a barn. Does he become an excellent marksman because he then paints targets around the existing bullet holes?
This is exactly what Gage has done. " -- wrong; irrelevant; assuming a process about which you have no evidence

"Ryan Mackey, a private contractor with NASA, had done a detailed critique of part of Griffin's most recent book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking." -- ironically an appeal to irrelevant authority

"Richard Gage doesn't design the types of buildings that he is describing in this presentation. " -- irrelevant; only issue is whether Gage is expert in structural engineering, not what kind of buildings he builds

"There are currently 80,000 members of the American Institute of Architects. Gage has 14 licensed architects listed on this slide. As of 17 October 2007, there are 34 licensed architects listed at AE911Truth.org" -- wrong sample; it's what percentage of architects and engineers who have closely studied the issue came to the conclusion -- something none of us knows

<Let me digress here: The real issue about 9/11 particularly as it relates to this forum, is whether reasonable people can disagree. It has always been the OCTabot position that reasonable people cannot, and that anyone who questions the official story is a loon, troofer, conspiracy theorist (insert your insult here). The fact that some architects and engineers believe demolition didn't happen and some that it did, means that it is a topic about which reasonable people can disagree. That's really the point -- there is a difference of opinion (opinio), and for us non experts, appeals to authority are appropriate ways of understanding the problem.>

"People may fault me for implying that all 80,000 members of the AIA not currently members of AE911Truth are absolutely in opposition to Gage's group. However, they arguably are." -- wrong sample; assuming facts not in evidence

"Gage's organization claims to be speaking on behalf of the People of the United States of America. So many do so nowadays that the People of the United States must be a terribly confused body. " -- irrelevant rhetoric; nit picking about diction; every interest group says it is doing things on behalf of the people of America

"The events of 9/11 are among the most investigated events in world history." -- attempt to imply the crime has been solved, but the chairmen of the most important investigation now jointly claim that justice was obstructed

"There are only 4 here, but Gage has managed to get 38 to sign up at the website (as of 17 October 2007)." wrong sample; attempt to impute evil motive; nitpicking attempt to imply that actual increase in membership is some nefarious misrepresentation

"The Scripps Howard poll combines two different takes on the 9/11 conspiracy theory known by the popular acronyms LIHOP and MIHOP. The LIHOP side charges the U.S. government with a sin of omission." -- so you are LIHOP now?-- what a change -- you should post something about your change of heart

"University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster, author of the book "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture," said the poll's findings reflect public anger at the unpopular Iraq war," -- appeal to irrelevant authority, ie someone who is imputing interior knowledge to public without polls or facts

"In other words, deception." -- imputing nefarious motives over punctuation!

Do I really have to go on? This is one of the most tiring, unconvincing, contradictory pieces of rubbish I've ever had to review. I can't believe I wasted an hour of my life reading and reviewing this.

[AZCat]

152. I have a couple of comments.

So most of the first part of your site attacks Gage's "appeals to authority." But the problem for you is that Gage is indeed an architect. It seems you don't know what architects do, or what they know. Architects are like engineers who have the artistic talent to also create and draw. Just take a look at any university architectural curriculum: they study physics, structural engineering and other subjects directly related to questions like why buildings fail. What's ironic is that you have no expertise in these areas.

Perhaps we have had different experiences with architects, but IMO claiming "architects are like engineers who artistic talent to also create and draw" is both a misunderstanding of the metier of each profession and an insult to engineers. There certainly is diversity among architects and some have far more "engineering" knowledge than others, but I would be hard-pressed to think of one that has the same depth of knowledge as an actual engineer. For example: when I look at the University of Arizona requirements for a Bachelor's of Architecture (chosen because I know the site pretty well) I see that College Algebra is the highest level mathematics class required, compared to Elementary Differential Equations for engineers. While most of what we discuss in this forum is not beyond algebra, a lot of the physics courses taken by engineers depend on the additional subject matter covered in successive math courses.

<Let me digress here: The real issue about 9/11 particularly as it relates to this forum, is whether reasonable people can disagree. It has always been the OCTabot position that reasonable people cannot, and that anyone who questions the official story is a loon, troofer, conspiracy theorist (insert your insult here). The fact that some architects and engineers believe demolition didn't happen and some that it did, means that it is a topic about which reasonable people can disagree. That's really the point -- there is a difference of opinion (opinio), and for us non experts, appeals to authority are appropriate ways of understanding the problem.>

I think perhaps you misunderstand the so-called "OCTabot position". It is not that questioners of the official story are automatically morons or loons - there is always room for questions - it is rather that some things proposed as "alternatives" to the 9/11 Commission and the NIST Report are so stupid that I can only conclude the proponents are indeed morons or loons.

Just because people are architects or engineers does not mean they are reasonable (I have empirical evidence suggesting otherwise). It appears that you are implying this.

[Bolo Boffin]

153. If Gage

were doing a two hour presentation of Human-Friendly Architectural Design, then his background as an architect (and his membership in the AIA especially) would be relevant.

However, Gage is claiming authority in a field he knows little about to justify three bogus lists of characteristic features. Why should we accept these lists? Because Richard said so! That's a fallacious appeal to authority.

And I don't need a degree in physics, engineering, or architecture to be able to point that out.

[AZCat]

154. Did you respond to the right post?

It doesn't seem so but maybe I'm just missing the connection.

[Bolo Boffin]

155. LOL

I was actually responding to what I saw of Hamden's post in your post. Think of it as an attempt at a supporting argument. :)

And thanks for yours.

[AZCat]

156. Ahh, got it.

Thanks for clearing that up. I like the site, by the way (although you already knew that).

[OnTheOtherHand]

157. indeed you don't

I think it would be wise to present a definition of "appeal to authority" that accommodates this point. I would say it is clear in slide 1 that you are assessing Gage's authority, not simply rejecting the concept of authority -- but the wikipedia definition muddies your argument.

I also think there is something to the view that Gage's argument is intended to be inductive, not deductive -- although it seems more inventive than anything else. I think you can and should address that. (You already did it here in about a sentence; I think it rates more on the site, albeit not a big production.)

In case I haven't said this directly, I'm really impressed by the work you've already put into the site.

[eomer]

167. Gage is not claiming authority in a field he knows little about.

He is quite literal about what his qualifications are.

Is there a claim in his presentation that I missed?

[Bolo Boffin]

168. Where do his lists come from?

The three lists of characteristic features on his front page, where do they come from?

If there is not a reputable, third-party source for these lists, then they come from him. He is not an authority in the field of building collapses or demolitions. He is an architect. He has no experience in those fields. How did he assemble these lists?

Answer: Texas sharpshooter.

[eomer]

170. Gage doesn't make any claim about where the lists come from.

I really don't see how you can have it both ways. If you're going to accuse Gage of an appeal to authority, then show me where it is. I don't see it. If, on the other hand, you're complaint is that he has cited no authority for his list, then that is clearly not an appeal to authority.

He has presented the lists as part of his argument. The lists are clear and unambiguous. He refrains from making any appeal to authority to try to pump them up. He is just letting them speak for themselves and anyone is free to critique or respond to them directly, on their substance and merits.

[OnTheOtherHand]

171. "letting them speak for themselves"

That isn't exactly my interpretation of slides #1 and 2. I give points to bolo here.

[Bolo Boffin]

172. Then why does he spend so much time building up his authority...

In the ways I've outlined in the first slide?

He is not merely introducing himself. He is presenting himself as an authority in these matters.

He is authoritatively presenting these lists. He represents them as complete and accurate. It is by his authority alone that these lists even enter the argument. I go on after the introduction is over to examine the lists item by item, and find them incredibly wanting. But at the beginning of the presentation, the focus is naturally on Gage's illegitimate use of authority.

[eomer]

178. What is illegitimate about Gage's use of authority?

The credentials provided by Gage in slides 1 and 2 are literally true.

If, as you say, he spends a lot of time building up his authority, he does so only by stating things that are true. If that builds up his authority then his authority is warranted.

[Bolo Boffin]

179. It is not relevant authority to the matter at hand.

Architects are not building demolition experts. Gage has no experience whatsoever designing skyscrapers. He is not a competent or sufficient authority to make the claims that he does on his website.

And his lists demonstrate this.

[greyl]

81. Your posts in this thread are pathetic.

What part of "People can assess the quality of his arguments" are you refusing to come to grips with, and why?

[Twist_U_Up]

87. You rely on NIST Liar John Gross, might be one. Proven here........

John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report is questioned about the existence of molten steel at the WTC, the collapse of Building 7

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501

‘Frauds-R-Us’

[Bolo Boffin]

90. I don't that I've ever mentioned John Gross in the slide-by-slide debunking.

In fact, the subject of molted whatever hasn't come up in the slide presentation.

Whatever could you mean?

Are you saying that because of that one video, John Gross has imperiled the reliablity of the entire collaborative effort of the NIST study? Well, you go on believing that.

[Twist_U_Up]

140. He was the fucking LEAD Engineer. Garbage in Garbage out.

NIST`s report is a half baked farce.
He is obviously the NIST`S spokesman with all the We and Us references.
Stop trying to brush him off as being insignificant.
Hes a fucking shill that was at the top of this piece of crap they call an investigation.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

92. That's a nervous little man engaged in deception...

...love to see him submit to an independent polygraph examination where he tries to claim he doesn't believe the WTC towers were brought down by CD.

[Bolo Boffin]

94. Can you get back to the subject?

John Gross isn't mentioned in my slide-by-slide debunking. Do you have something to say about that?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

100. Now isn't that a kick in the ass. Boloboffin, of all people...

...lecturing someone about departing from the subject of the OP.

Is there something about the idea of independently polygraphing some of these NIST experts, and other high profile OCTers, as to what they truly believe that frightens you, Boloboffin?

BTW, did you remember to vote in this poll?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x113881

[Bolo Boffin]

102. Perhaps you didn't understand.

Stick to the subject.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

104. OK, I've got a question concerning the use of your...

...new 9-11 Truth debunking site.

How would you feel about the idea of using your site to call for an extensive battery of independent polygraph examinations for both high profile Truthers and OCTers as to the question of their sincerity concerning their claims related to 9-11?

[Bolo Boffin]

106. Call away.

Let me know how it works out for you.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

112. You don't sound very interested, Boloboffin...

...why is that? Have you not referred to Mr. Gage as a liar? Seems to me you'd be anxious to have him submit to a polygraph, and it would be a wonderful opportunity to see how OCTers like John Gross do when asked if he honestly believes the WTC towers were not brought down by CD.

Why do you show no enthusiasm for this idea, Boloboffin? Gotta be a reason.

[Bolo Boffin]

116. Why do I not show any enthusiasm for the idea. Hm.

Because I don't care.

I'm sure that won't be enough for you, but it's the truth.

Now, do you have any examples of where I am wrong on the website? That's our subject. Stick to it.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

124. Because you don't care about what?

... Surely, given the substantial time and effort you dedicate to debunking 9-11 Truth, you don't want to pass up any chance to gain some insight as to who's engaged in deception and who is not.

You could call for the top 20 or 30 best known personalities from both the Truthers and OCTers and they'd only have to answer one question: "Do you sincerely hope to soon see the full truth of the events of 9-11 uncovered and exposed to the public, as well as the criminal prosecution(s) of those who actually planned and executed it?"

Just this one question, to which everyone would answer "yes," (after establishing a baseline with control questions) and let's see who makes the needle bounce. What's the problem, Boloboffin? I'd gladly submit to this question hooked up to a polygraph, administered by a qualified independent examiner -- wouldn't you?

[Bolo Boffin]

126. Do you have any objections to my website's arguments?

If not, take your silly polygraph nonsense off to its own thread. Thank you.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

127. Wow, you really are frightened by the idea...

...why is that, Boloboffin? Gotta be a reason.

[Bolo Boffin]

129. Wow, you really are frightened by addressing my website...

...why is that, Mr_Jefferson_24? Gotta be a reason.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

130. I am most definitely addressing your website...

...specifically one possible use of it that would actually be meaningful.

Your attempts to discredit Mr. Gage are just sad. You cannot discredit truth-tellers, Boloboffin, they must be destroyed, and you have neither the intelligence nor the wherewithal to take down a man like Richard Gage.

Did you even bother to do any background on him? You're in WAY over your head.

Now, getting back on topic, it's time for you to answer the question from my post #124:

You could call for the top 20 or 30 best known personalities from both the Truthers and OCTers and they'd only have to answer one question: "Do you sincerely hope to soon see the full truth of the events of 9-11 uncovered and exposed to the public, as well as the criminal prosecution(s) of those who actually planned and executed it?"

Just this one question, to which everyone would answer "yes," (after establishing a baseline with control questions) and let's see who makes the needle bounce. What's the problem, Boloboffin? I'd gladly submit to this question hooked up to a polygraph, administered by a qualified independent examiner -- wouldn't you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

131. no, you are most definitely not

All your hand-wringing about "truth-tellers" is pretty hollow if you don't make the effort to check Gage's facts for yourself.

Apparently you want to believe that that depends on someone else. But in important respects, the facts are available to you.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

133. Well whaddaya know...

...Boloboffin has new representation.

The facts are also available to you -- where is the evidence that you ever consult them? When I asked you for your rebuttal of Mr. Gage's presentation which was the OP in another thread, you produced nothing of substance. Now you're here to lecture me on consulting the facts? You're Mr. Non-substance.

[OnTheOtherHand]

135. another irony meter fried to a crisp n/t

[greyl]

119. Polygraph? OT, but what evidence do you have that they're reliable? nt edit:

Just regard that as a rhetorical question and try to get back on topic. /edit

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

121. Reliability is a question of degree...

...The FBI seems to find them useful. The CIA seems to find them useful. Police departments all across the entire country seem to find them useful. What does this suggest to you about their reliability?

[greyl]

122. I don't have Faith in the Machine. ;)

Someones "passing" a polygraph test does not cause me to believe they were being honest during the questioning.
My views on it are more in accord with the ACLU than with the FBI or CIA, though many quotes by FBI and CIA officials can be found denouncing polygraph reliability.

Now, back to the subject please.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

123. We're not talking about sending anyone to prison...

...just a little look see at who makes the needle bounce and who does not -- why am I not surprised that OCTers don't like this idea?

[OnTheOtherHand]

132. presumably because you can't imagine anyone disagreeing with you

It's interesting. Well, from time to time.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

134. Mr. Non-substance strikes again. nt.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

128. Even if you accept the most pessimistic...

...views on polygraph reliability, there's no reason to believe there would be statistical significance in the number of false pass and false fail incidents between the two groups. In other words, there's no reason to think the polygraph apparatus wouldn't perform with roughly equal reliability for both groups -- therefore the results would still be meaningful when compared between groups.

[LARED]

136. Hummm

independent polygraph examinations for both high profile Truthers and OCTers as to the question of their sincerity concerning their claims related to 9-11?

Do polygraphs measure sincerity?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

149. Is that a sincere question?

...I guess I'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is?

Here:

---SNIP---

Polygraph examinations are designed to look for significant involuntary responses going on in a person's body when that person is subjected to stress, such as the stress associated with deception. The exams are not able to specifically detect if a person is lying, according to polygrapher Dr. Bob Lee, former executive director of operations at Axciton Systems, a manufacturer of polygraph instruments. But there are certain physiological responses that most of us undergo when attempting to deceive another person. By asking questions about a particular issue under investigation and examining a subject's physiological reactions to those questions, a polygraph examiner can determine if deceptive behavior is being demonstrated.

Source: http://people.howstuffworks.com/lie-detector.htm

[LARED]

158. You wanted to know if people were sincere

in their beliefs

independent polygraph examinations for both high profile Truthers and OCTers as to the question of their sincerity concerning their claims related to 9-11?

A polygraph is designed to pick up stress associated with deception. If someone truly believes (ie very sincere) they can tell you all kinds of lies and the polygraph will not know you are lying. One reason it is inadmissible in a court. I have no doubt many CT'er are entirely sincere in what they believe no matter how wrong they are.

A polygraph might be useful to find out which CT'er are in it to make a buck. Other than that it is rather pointless

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

159. Why am I not surprised that OCTers don't like this idea? nt.

[OnTheOtherHand]

160. I already answered that

So, here's my question: why would someone be more interested in assessing sincerity than in learning the truth?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

161. As always, you answer nothing...

...Why so evasive? It's a pretty straight forward proposal (post #124). It would simply show who is indicated to be engaged in deception and who is not, when responding "yes" to this question:

"Do you sincerely hope to soon see the full truth of the events of 9-11 uncovered and exposed to the public, as well as the criminal prosecution(s) of those who actually planned and executed it?"

Why can't I get any straight forward answers from the OCTers? And what makes you think learning the truth and measuring involuntary responses that indicate deception are mutually exclusive?

Surely, anyone interested in getting at the truth, as opposed to suppressing it, would be anxious to learn who the disingenuous pretenders are. Why are OCTers so terrified by this proposal?

[Bolo Boffin]

162. This thread hijack has been reported.

Take it somewhere else.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

163. Boloboffin reporting a thread hijacking -- that's too good...

:rofl:

And I thought I'd heard everything.

I understand Bonnie and Clyde once reported a bank robbery. I guess they had a keen sense of humor just like Boloboffin.

[OnTheOtherHand]

166. yawn

Go ahead, ignore me.

[LARED]

164. And why do you think they don't like the idea?

I was merely pointing out that your desire to measure one's sincerity will not be obtained via a polygraph test.

Being sincere and being truthful are two entirely different things. The CT'er crowd seems to generally have this blind spot and often equate sincerity with truthfulness.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

165. Why indeed?

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Anybody else? Anything wrong with my arguments? n/t

[HamdenRice]

148. See post 147 nt

[Bolo Boffin]

150. Anyone else beside the ignored (by moderator request)?

(who should be on their lunch hour now...)

[HamdenRice]

151. Why not review the comments

I've decided to tone down our interaction, if you will. After you review my critique, if you like, we can go on mutual ignore.

If we do mutual ignore first, it will seem like you are unwilling to address a serious critique.

[Laurier]

177. .

[Laurier]

125. Well done, boloboffin.

Very well done, indeed.

Looking forward to the full monty when you get through the rest of it!

[Bolo Boffin]

169. How sad - I've been blocked at 911 Blogger.

I saw that the site had been linked at 911 Blogger. So I signed up for an account and said hello, defending myself, of course, from some of the slander.

Result: No comments approved, and my account is blocked.

My goodness.

[truth01]

173. Link? ... and what did you try to post?

Also, see #40

[Bolo Boffin]

174. How do I link to my blocked posts? LOL.

I posted about four messages. The front page story about AE911truth supporters picketing some establishment -- I posted that I had the courage to respond to AE911Truth and provided the link. In the blog post about my site, I posted a couple of defenses of myself. Somebody called me a part of the "Florida gang," whatever that is. I said, wrong, I live in Texas. And then something else. And then another post. Four in all.

I was respectful, and I attacked no one. I read through the rules for posting before posting a single thing. No message was ever sent to me explaining my transgression.

LOL, whatever.

[truth01]

180. Did you call Richard Gage and his associates a "gang of fruit loops"?

I see that you wrote that above.

Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the word respectful.

[Bolo Boffin]

181. When Richard Gage and his gang of fruit loops put out such rubbish

I confess to giving them as much respect as they deserve.

[Laurier]

182. That is typical of "truther" sites.

9/11 blogger is one of the worst for such cowardice, but most troof sites operate the same way.

They like to pretend that they are fearless seekers of (their own personal version of) *truth*, and they like to pretend that they are staunch defenders of free speech, and they like to pretend that they are being "oppressed" (look, look at the oppression inherent in the system, omfg eleventy111!!one!), and they like to pretend that they are being censored by others, since it all feeds into the angry young man mentality that they thrive upon. But, in reality, they do not seek truth at all, they do not defend free speech, they are worse oppressors than those that they pretend to rail against, and they censor anyone who does not fall lockstep into their mindless and silly mantra.


In short, if the idiots at 9/11 blogger have blocked you, it is because they are afraid of you, because they know that they cannot refute what you say, and because they are too cowardly to even try.