A stunningly inept "debunking" of Richard Gage from Tom Quiggin

I don't who this guy is, but it's always useful to post crap like this if only to expose it as crap.


9/11 Conspiracy Theories – Debunking Richard Gage
Tom Quiggin
May 1, 2010

“The popularity of conspiracy theories is explained by people’s desire to believe that there is some group of folks who know what they’re doing,” (Damon Knight)

Debunking conspiracy theories that involve the government is a relatively simple process. Rather than getting bogged down in the analysis of minor details, a larger overview of the relationship between government and conspiracies will easily determine if a conspiracy is at play.

Any major event will attract a fringe group which seeks to profit financially or advance an agenda by creating a conspiracy. One current example is the speaking tour of Mr Richard Gage who is the founder of “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” His current tour is taking him to Canada, where he will address audiences at the University of Toronto, Carleton University and the University of Quebec in Montreal. Mr Gage believes that it was “explosives” that brought down the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 and not the 400,000 pound airliners travelling at several hundred miles per hour.

Mr Gage would have us believe that a mysterious conspiracy was behind the 9/11 attacks and that it was secret operatives who planted the “explosives.” As with any other conspiracy theory that involves accusations that the “government” or the CIA (or whoever) actually carried out the attack, it is necessary to run down the following checklist of observations. If you can get past all of these tests, then maybe there really was a conspiracy at work. If not, it is simply that, a conspiracy theory dreamt up by fringe individuals.

1. A good conspiracy theory suggests that the government is competent enough to map out the strategy, plan the mission, subvert the individuals required to run the plot and then carry it out without getting caught. For anyone who has ever worked for government, it is known that the level of competency required to create such a conspiracy is beyond that of virtually any government – democratic or otherwise.

2. A conspiracy theory assumes that the government pays its employees enough to remain silent. Given the untold millions that could be made by a single book deal revealing the conspiracy and the relatively low rates of pay in government, this is obviously a ludicrous suggestion.

3. The 9/11 conspiracy theory assumes that the rank and file worker in government who helped carry out the conspiracy would tolerate and assist in the mass murder of their fellow citizens. This might be a fair criticism of senior political leaders in some states, but it is a slanderous accusation for the vast majority of government workers in democratic states.

In addition to these general guidelines, it is useful to keep the principle of Occam’s razor in mind when doing analysis on major events: the simplest solution is usually the correct one. If a large airplane full of jet fuel crashes into an extraordinarily tall building at a high rate of speed, then it was probably the airplane that caused the building to fall, not a cabal of unseen secretive government operatives who committed a mass murder against their own citizens.

One other quick general rule might be applicable as well. Any group that has the word “truth” in its name is probably not looking for the truth in the same way that any country that has the term “democratic” in its official title is probably not democratic.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not reflect the views of either Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

My response, likely forever awaiting moderation

Mr. Quiggin battles strawmen, apparently oblivious to the facts Richard Gage presents to debunk Quiggin’s favored conspiracy theory. For those who aren’t intent on burring their heads in the sand, see here:


Your comment has been posted

Your comment has been posted and so has mine. That article was so pathetic.

Good to see

I replied to you there.