Truth in Wellington

Well, I’ve booked my tickets to fly down to Wellington to see Richard Gage relate his particular Conspiracy Theory about 9/11.

I’m both excited and perplexed; I’m funding this trip myself, and as an impoverished PhD student that does mean a slice of money. In that respect I have to wonder ‘Why?’ Why spend money going down to watch a Conspiracy Theorist at work?

Well, the answer to that is the excitement. Several commentators on Conspiracy Theory culture have noted that Conspiracy Theories seem to be mostly oral, or, probably more accurately, Conspiracy Theories seem more plausible when they are presented orally rather than when they are written down. This doesn’t suggest that the arguments are somehow magically better when they are spoken but rather that, in such presentations, with the charged rhetoric and the shout outs of support from the audience, you can see why people might find it all very convincing.

That’s the theory, anyway.

I’ve not had much of a chance to see a Conspiracy Theorist in action and this event should be filled with them. I shall, I must admit, be somewhat incognito; I don’t really think I’ll be able to summon the ultimate counter-argument to Gage and his theories; the environment won’t be conducive and I’m far more interested in the swing voters than the hard-core believers of either stripe. More importantly, I would like to see how the believers react and play; I’m going more as an amateur sociologist or anthropologist than I am as an epistemologist.

So, Wellington. Land of good coffee, great vegan cake and Truth in Architecture. What more does a boy need?1

Notes

  1. Even more cake, that’s what.

9 thoughts on “Truth in Wellington

  1. Dear Matthew,
    I look forward to hearing your thoughts on Richard Gage’s presentation.

    I presume that you would have studied some physics and chemistry in your NZ education. This would be good, as you only need about 8th grade level to work out that the official story violates the laws of physics.

    If so you could be in for a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Interesting to see how you handle it.

    • I know that many in the ‘9/11 Truth’ movement like to think that the academically and political endorsed and warranted Conspiracy Theory, that Al-Qaeda’s attacks brought the Twin Towers and WTC7 down, aka the Official Story, violates the laws of Physics but asserting that does not make it true.

      Anyway, my thoughts will be the topic of next week’s radio segment. Short, preview version, Gage was just as I expected him to be (from the various things of his I have heard), and his argument, such as it was, did not do the work required to debunk the Official Story, let alone produce a satisfactory rival. At best, he asks questions about the fulsome nature of the Official Story, but that, on its own, doesn’t do the work of showing it to be a patent fabrication, which is his central thesis.

      • Matthew

        I agree, assertions either way are useless. But that doesn’t mean that his aren’t verifiable.

        Gage’s central thesis is that the official story violates the laws of physics in relation to the collapse of the 3 skyscrapers. We are not talking a single violation here, he outlines around 10 separate instances.

        His arguments hinge on physical science and the empirical evidence.

        The only way to debunk him is to prove that his scientific theories are wrong, or to argue against the empirical evidence.

        There is no way you can do this as you obviously lack the necessary qualifications.

        Any arguments you put forward that are not addressing the hard science that he presents, are worthless faff.

        The university that you attend must surely have a physics department. Why don’t you take the AE911Truth CD down to one of the professors and ask him/her to pull it apart.

        In the meantime you could also ask yourself, who would have more of clue when examining the scientific evidence? – you or Dwain Deets ex-Director of NASA’s Dryden Flight research centre.

        Have a good one

        • I like the way you immediately rule out the possibility of my being able to dissect and analysis the ‘Inside Job’ hypothesis. Given that only part of that thesis is based on scientific ‘evidence’ (large chunks are assumptions of what the supposed conspirators were up to and how they might have managed it), I really think you’re trying to distort the argument.

        • Indeed, you’re displaying a fairly common tactic of the 9/11 Truth movement; you don’t want to have an argument in regards to the merits of your theory; rather, you want a platform to attack those who question the ‘Inside Job’ hypothesis. In part this is motivated by the lack of traction you are getting from qualified professionals in the sciences and in part it is because the various media outlets and organisations just are convinced by your theories, so you have to take whatever avenues you can to get your message out there.

Comments are closed.