Attacking Richard Gage, AIA, and why it doesn't work - Part 1

From Cheri Roberts at

January 6, 2008 Permalink

Attacking Richard Gage, AIA, and why it doesn't work - Part 1

Diary Entry by Cheri Roberts

A new website was launched into cyber world aimed at debunking Richard Gage, AIA and the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Voice Writer and Actor Joseph Nobles – better known as blogger Bolo Boffin, has decided to take on facts with his opinion once again and call it truth, this time attacking Richard Gage, AIA.

Prematurely launching his site before its completion, ae911truth.INFO is relatively bare except for some commentary directed at 28 slides from Richard Gage’s PowerPoint presentation on how and why the Towers fell on Sept. 11th, 2001. The site is laid out nicely, however the commentary is just that, opinionated commentary no different then found in an Op Ed . The commentary is presented to the world as if Mr. Bolo is some sort of authority on a parallel with Richard Gage, AIA and his peers. I guess as an Actor he is just playing the part, it makes one wonder though who pays him to take the stage.

Nobles’ rebuttal begins with slide one of Gage’s presentation where he focuses not on the content of slide one so much, but instead tries desperately to find ways in which to convince or warn the reader of Gage’s magical skills of mass hypnosis, or what he calls appeal to authority. Pointing out Gage’s use of the AIA logo and title – which by the way Gage has every right to use, Nobles asserts,

“Richard Gage is not engaging in his professional practice here. He is not dealing with the design or the livability of the World Trade Center complex. He is a part of a team that designs and builds buildings, and not part of a team that tears them down”.

Nobles wants the reader to believe that Gage has no experience with building structure, but that statement makes little sense to support that, and certainly proves no point let alone the one he is trying to make.

Like an attorney getting ready to sum up his case (his character changes often, try to keep up if you can) Nobles goes on to say,

“Therefore, whenever you see the AIA logo, remember that this is an attempt by Gage to enhance his authority to speak about something he has no expertise in. He is propping himself up with this trade association. Don't be fooled”.

He follows that by labeling ae911truth members as conspiracy theorists and says they are not a professional group, but an advocacy group. Maybe he should have said they were advocacy group of professionals? Nah, that would be asking too much of a professional debunker to debunk his own bunk now wouldn’t it?

By using fancy terms like Appeal to Authority, Argument ad Populum, and
Affirming the Consequent Nobles tries to sound authoritative regarding Gage’s credentials, research, evidence and his cause. He even appeals to his readers by complimenting Gage on a personal level by saying,

“Richard Gage is a mild-mannered, likable person. He generates a great deal of sympathy as a speaker because of this. He seems genuine to me in his desire to see justice done for the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, the best I can say for him is that he is terribly misguided”.

Sounds kind of sweet doesn’t it?

Don’t be fooled by the sugar coated venom because what most of his readers don’t or wont know, is on Jan. 1st, 2008 – the day he launched the sight, he also had this to say about his shiny new site, Richard Gage and the ae911truth colleagues,

“This one is my very own. I noticed that Richard Gage and his gang of fruit loops weren't using the domain name, 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!”.
*Source: Boloboffins Democratic Underground Journal

This self-proclaimed debunker has zero credentials, training, or professional experience on the subject of Richard Gage’s research let alone any authority to pass himself off as if he does by mere expression and conjecture. He is quite simply an Actor on a self-erected stage continuing the monologue people have been ignoring. The only thing he is an authority on is self-promotion like the big bolo, bolo tube, and the best of bolo. If this is the best of bolo, Gage and his crew have nothing to worry about.


Bolo Boffin Blog

Everything in the known universe about boloboffin

To be continued - this is part 1 in a series… MTR News

C Piper, Aka Cheri Roberts, lil…is a longtime activist and writer who has worked in mixed media for 15 yrs. With 911 Truth as her primary focus, she participates in and organizes for events both locally and nationally always striving to get people out of their chairs and in the streets. She believes the biggest strength of the 911 Truth movement is the one strength they have yet to embrace, unity.

I also wonder who gives

I also wonder who gives people like Nobles and Mark Roberts their paychecks.

This is what the guy looks like by the way:

Joseph Nobles dodges the important questions

Based on a recent email exchange with the creator of, Joseph Nobles, I already see a familiar pattern of dodging certain important questions about 9/11 physical evidence. Like Nobles, NIST will not deal with the temperatures issue that caused the existence of molten iron in the buildings *before* the buildings became piles of rubble--molten iron which became the iron-rich spheres characteristic of the dust due to the spray of this liquid metal by the explosive forces of the buildings' destruction. Many other bits of evidence such as the sulfur on steel samples found, the complete pulverization of concrete--so many things like this--are not dealt with adequately. It is a pattern of ignoring or marginalizing evidence without providing scientific data or even a reason to explain why this is being done--i.e., arbitrarily ignoring evidence. It's like turning the faces on a Rubik's cube without knowing why you are turning them--you won't accidentally solve anything that way, you are only mixing things up. Based on this familiar pattern of defenders of the official story, my prediction is that nothing of importance to the discussion of 9/11 will come from this site. Never.

Richard Gage, AIA, has provided us with an amazing 2-3 hour presentation that wonderfully rebuts this unsubstantiated claim: "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." Source: Certainly within this 2-3 hours of evidence people can reasonly see *some* "circumstantial evidence for" or "supporting evidence for" controlled demolition. Define "corrobroating" however you like, the fact remains that 9/11 Truth can logically claim *SOME* of this evidence rebuts NIST.

Nobles has taken part in the all too amusing activity of throwing things against the wall and, if something sticks, drawing a target around it, declaring a bullseye--which I refer to disparagingly as unscientific debate. This is a metaphor Nobles reminded me of, claiming that it describes the presentation by Richard Gage, AIA. Ironically, it describes Nobel's own presentation of facts. Yes, Joseph Nobles, I agree with you on this: Debate has problems.

One of the problems with debate is that in debate facts are not put into context, and often "theories" that have not been proven are allowed to derail the conversation.

For instance, Nobles claim that Gage did not take some evidence out of the presentation even though Gage was notified by email that it was incorrect. Should we just take Nobles' word that this evidence is incorrect? Or can he verify scientifically that some bit of Gage's presentation is incorrect? If he can, where is the scientific proof? Does he expect every person capable of using email to be allowed to dismantle parts of Gage's presentation? This is the reason he is creating his site? So he claims.

Perhaps we should raise the bar a little: We should require that if something is to be refuted, it has to be refuted with fact and not mere theory. This will significantly separate the wheat from the chaff.

Similarly, if NIST is to suggest it has seen no corroborating evidence of controlled demolition, it must demonstrate that what Richard Gage, AIA, presents is not evidence of a controlled demolition. They have totally sidestepped all of this evidence, providing no evidence of any sort. This is reminiscent of how they did not release the data on their scientific experiments. NIST has sidestepped the iron-rich spheres in the dust, providing their story of what happened without the context of all the physical evidence that has been multiply and independently verified.

It is quite obvious to people who really look into the facts that these were very much like demolitions. Pretending otherwise is dishonest and saying that no evidence of controlled demolition was found is ludicrous.

WTC North Tower vs. Controlled Demolition

WTC7 vs. Controlled Demolition

Pictures of the iron-rich spheres: .

These iron-rich spheres are characteristic of the dust, according to RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Report, Composition and Morphology, December, 2003, which is available here:

Coming soon:

Thanks for that. We still

Thanks for that. We still seem to have this little matter of needing 2800 F temps.

Pg. 17: "Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson