Creative Speculation

Many people here and elsewhere have spent considerably time and effort explaining "clearly and definitively," in excruciating detail, why the claims by Gage and other "truthers" fall far short of what is required to substantiate extraordinary claims about controlled demolitions. I doubt that anyone is surprised that you aren't convinced, but can't you at least be honest enough with yourself to admit that such explanations exist?

On the other hand, you are impressed with "two thousand plus architects, engineers and physicists, in addition to individuals from other walks of life" who have made extremely few serious attempts at producing serious technical arguments based on actual evidence. You seem to be unaware that each of those attempts -- from Gordon Ross's "Momentum Transfer" to Tony Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" to Niels Harrit's exploding paint -- has gone down in flames from technical rebuttal. Instead, you'd rather convince yourself that valid technical arguments are being ignored.

But you are wrong in thinking that I wouldn't personally love to see Gage humiliated by bringing his nonsense to the table with "truly independent" investigators who are also technically competent to evaluate it. But that's has already happened; you'd rather convince yourself that anyone who doesn't buy Gage's crap must not be "independent."

Suit yourself.