Richard Gage Destroyed by Kim Hill

[Bolo Boffin]

Who's Kim Hill? The New Zealand talk show host that had Richard Gage on while he continues his worldwind tour/vacation of Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/20091121

It really is quite fascinating to watch Gage bob and weave away from Hill's questions and logic. Seeing as how she hasn't dedicated more than a few days covering the subject (including watching Gage's DVD recording of his presentation), she does make a couple of mistakes in the beginning and then doesn't catch some of Gage's more outrageous, ah, shall we say misrepresentions of the facts (like for example his claim that the towers were only half occupied - they were actually at maximum capacity). But in the end she has him. His utter refusal to deal with the clear implication of his conspiracy theories are almost laughable. I particularly like her calling him out on incessant plugging of his talks.

And the truth is, she does quite well enough. After all, she's dealing with someone in the grip of a self-induced bizarre delusion, and she demonstrated that quite easily. Gage has to fight to keep a petulant, indignant tone out of his voice at times. No doubt he will continue his 95% agreement rate, because only those already predisposed to agree with him will ever attend his lectures.

Anyway, take a listen. It will be interesting to see if AE911Truth ever links to this interview, since they have never acknowledged the Hardfire series that Gage appeared on with Mark Roberts.

[Twist_U_Up]

1. I was hoping you might put *SARCASM ALERT* at the end of that diatribe, but sadly it was missing.

Still pissed that Gage schooled your boy over at your spoon bending site?
It's ok, you don't have to tell anyone you don't know a thing about engineering or physics; it's patently obvious

Preconceptions V Research.

Emotional logic loses every time.

[icee2]

2. Thanks very much. I recommend that all DUers listen to it.

Very interesting and informative. The only other observation I have after listening to the interview is that you have it
exactly backwards in your headline. It would be accurate if it said "Kim Hill Destroyed by Richard Gage."

[aldo]

4. Gage's site: http://www.ae911truth.org/

Thanks icee2, I figured Bolo must be as wrong about this as he is about everything else. I can't listen to the video here, but I will later. Up is down, and night is day for these official story apologists.

Go to the site, make your own mind up. Physics is on our side.

[rollingrock]

3. Kim Shill

is she New Zealand's version of Sean Hannity? what a baffoon this person is.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. ROFL at the sour grapes reframing effort going on so far.

By all means, please, everyone, take a listen. If you've ever donated to AE911Truth, that's what your donations are going to fund - Richard Gage's nice vacation with the occasional embarrassing radio interview. I guess seeing Wellington is worth that kind of a spanking. There are some nice bars there.

[whatchamacallit]

6. Silly old bat's hit job = fail

Bat: "In Loose Change they claim..."

Gage: "I don't know about that..."

Bat: "In Loose Change they claim..."

Gage: (in so many words): "I can't speak to that. We're AE911Truth, not Loose Change..."

Bat: "In Loose Change they claim..."



Yeah Bolo, really awesome :eyes:

[rollingrock]

7. Painful to listen to

enough with the lame talking points! I had to shut it off after 5 minutes.
Looks like the dingbat got confused and thought she was speaking to Dylan Avery.

[whatchamacallit]

8. I'm gonna be totally honest

Gage was not all that impressive in this interview. The host is skilled at getting people on the ropes, and was effective at keeping him off balance. That said, aside from points she scored questioning his motives, she failed to impeach on scientific evidence.

[rollingrock]

9. I didn't see it that way at all

I thought Gage held his ground just fine. Kim the shrill shill tried to bait him into talking about non-technical aspects of the story she very well knows are completely outside his area of expertise, and to her embarrassment and frustration Gage would not take the bait. No matter how desperately she tried. She only succeeded in embarrassing and exposing herself as the transparent BS artist that she is. Good job Shill!

[Bolo Boffin]

11. "I had to shut it off after 5 minutes"

:rofl:

Truth hurts.

[rollingrock]

12. If I wanted to hear your version of " the truth" I would turn on Fox News

like Sarah Palin or Bill O'Reilly, Kim Shrill is another idiot who likes to scream, cut off and shout over her guests. that may be your cup of tea but I can't stomach listening to it for very long.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. You are completely misrepresenting that interview.

The link for it is in the OP. Why would you would post factual inaccuracies about something that people can listen to for themselves and see your description is wrong? I guess you have to tell yourself that to keep from realizing how wrong you and Gage are.

Got any substantial critiques of the dialogue, or is this reframing bullshit all you got?

[rollingrock]

18. Uh, no I'm not

see post 6 for one example of Kim Shill's idiocy.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Uh, yes, you are.

Gage uses Loose Change in his presentation, as you admit.

Gage plugs Loose Change at the end of his presentation, as you admit.

Loose Change was fair game in that interview.

[rollingrock]

23. I'm afraid not

what Loose Change says about the airplane at the Pentagon is NOT fair game. Gage is not a pilot or an expert on aircraft. asking him to comment on something he has no expertise on is simply...idiotic.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Asking Gage to deal with the implications of his conspiracy theory is fair game.

Asking Gage to deal with what and who he chooses to associate himself with is fair game.

Still no link to this interview on AE911Truth. Tick tock.

[rollingrock]

25. You're off into cuckoo land now

Its fine to ask Gage about what Loose Change says about molten metal or free fall speed. it isn't fine to ask him about the Pentagon, which he has no expertise in. He is an architect, and the collapse of the buildings is his area of study, not what did or didn't hit the Pentagon.

[AZCat]

31. The collapse of buildings (especially high-rises)...

is most certainly not an area of Gage's study.

[rollingrock]

35. Yes, it is

the unprecedented 'collapses' of the WTC buildings has certainly been Gage's area of study in the last several years.

[AZCat]

36. Too bad he doesn't have anything to show for it.

Anybody who makes an ass of himself like Gage does regarding the physics of the collapses certainly hasn't been applying himself very rigorously.

[rollingrock]

37. That's your opinion

they are all you seem to have.

[AZCat]

38. Sure, but it's backed by the opinions of other professionals.

We often have a good laugh at work over Gage's magnificent ignorance.

[icee2]

39. How's it feel to work in an office full of delusional paranoids? n/t

[AZCat]

43. Fortunately neither they nor I give a shit about your opinion. n/t

[icee2]

48. Delusional people are like that. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Rational people worry about what AE911Truth thinks about them?

:rofl:

Are you serious?

[William Seger]

50. You have an odd definition of "delusion"

Maybe something like, "things other people believe that I don't?" A http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Delusion">delusion is "a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary." If you are under the impression that Gage has "indisputable evidence," or that NIST's theories are just a "persistent false psychotic belief," then you must have not looked into it very far or very carefully. All of Gage's "evidence" is highly disputable, and furthermore Gage must know by now that most of it is abject bullshit, so he is either delusional or an outright fraud to keep using it in his presentation.

[rollingrock]

40. And so you claim

you like to give a lot of opinions and insults, but not much else.

[AZCat]

42. When I'm trying to discuss something with a group of people...

who are steadfastly wedded to their misconceptions, there isn't much point in having a technical discussion. Besides, you've proven you're not up to the task.

[rollingrock]

44. Thanks for admitting

you have never attempted a serious debate on the subject of 9/11 in your life, proving you are incapable of doing so.

[AZCat]

45. Your ignorance streak continues.

Congratulations.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Gage and AE911Truth used to admit that they had no expertise in this matter

However, AE911Truth has now rewritten that page (no indication of an edit) to now claim the evidence was "unprecedented."

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/4



Look at that! The date on both pages is the same, and yet there's been a substantial rewrite. And as of December 27, 2008 (the last rewrite of my page documenting this admission of non-expertise), the page read as it did in the first screenshot. So now we have a verified LIE told by AE911Truth, supporting a COVERUP of their own authority in this matter..

Gage has no relevant experience. He has all the authority I possess in 9/11 Truth circles if researching the collapse of the buildings for a few years make you an expert. At this point, he's nothing but a salesman, living and traveling the globe from the salary AE911Truth pays him (i.e., what the rubes pay him).

Keep up the lying, AE911Truth! I'll keep documenting them.

[Make7]

57. Gage previously used his full name to indicate authorship of that page.

Now it merely says "- Editor." I wonder what prompted that change...

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/4">http://web.archive.org/web/20070609222500/http://www.ae911truth.org/info/4
 

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Go on ahead with your Google-Fu! :D

I would hazard the guess that more than one person has now edited that section. I'd have to compare what I have screenshotted with that link to see any changes other than the byline.

There was also the use of the AIA logo that you can still see at the web archive link. Maybe Gage's name was pulled to eliminate the use of AIA when the general scrubbing of almost every reference to AIA was removed after their confrontation outside the AIA Convention, the year they didn't have the booth.

(PS: Please don't, dear AE911Truth defenders, try to pretend AIA logos were scrubbed in the updating of the site's graphics. I've very clearly documented that the AIA logo was scrubbed well before the website redesign. Thanks.)

[rollingrock]

65. Not impressed by your photoshopping skills

how low can you go? using photoshop to paste in words that were never there?
I hope you are proud of your accomplishment.

fail.

[icee2]

67. Wow! Serious question. How'd you figure out that's what he did?

When I first read his post, I got the feeling something wasn't kosher, but I didn't know why. If, as I suspect, you are right
about what he did, it makes me wonder just how much more he and other OCT apologists have faked. Did they get the idea from
Bushco? Colin at the U.N., Cheney & the aluminum tubes, Niger yellow cake etc.

[Make7]

68. LOL! ' Rollingrock' hasn't figured anything out. It was a baseless accusation.

Rollingrock is 100% wrong. See post #57.
 

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Exactly what I predicted you would say. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

73. so, do you have the chops to apologize for this? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Probably not.

After all, Make7's post was already up there when rollingrock posted what he posted.

[rollingrock]

79. When will whoever did it

apologize for their crummy photoshopping skills?

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. is this one of those "living reductio ad absurdum" demos I've heard about?

If you can muster the gumption to click on Make7's link in post #57 -- or to enter the URL in archive.org and check out whatever versions of the page you like -- you will see that no "photoshopping" was necessary.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. This is getting close to an accusation of lying.

rollingrock, I did not photoshop that screenshot. Make7's link to a web archive of AE911Truth's website shows this. I demand that you apologize to me immediately.

[procopia]

26. association debate fallacy

Hill accused Gage of "aligning himself" with Loose Change, because both are part of the truth movement. Fair game? You don't seem to think so when you are accused of aligning yourself with Bush/Cheney.

She also threw in a number of straw men, talked over, and interrupted continuously. This is your idea of "destroying"?

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Gage has most certainly aligned himself with Loose Change!

It is incredible that you try to deny this.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Utter bullshit. The depths to which you descend to defend Richard Gage amuses me. n/t

[procopia]

34. Have you ever disagreed with any aspect of the OCT?

By "utter bullshit," what do you mean exactly? Are you calling me a liar?

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Have you ever agreed with any aspect of the OCT? You do think there were planes crashing into

into the buildings, don't you?

[procopia]

53. Why won't you answer my question? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

54. I have. When you answer my question, you'll have my answer to yours. n/t

[procopia]

59. You answered my question with another question

because you don't want to admit you have never questioned the OCT. Have you?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Because your answer to my question is my answer to your question.

Don't you believe planes hit those buildings?

[procopia]

62. Your answer could be yes or no?

Why does your answer depend on mine?

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Is your answer yes and no? n/t

[procopia]

64. Still answering with a question?

You're evading for some reason.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Why should I answer a question you won't answer?

I'm demonstrating that the smear you're trying to mark me with is applicable to you as well. You see that, and that's why you're pretending I won't answer the question.

It's silly to say I'm aligned with the Bush Adminstration since you would be as well under your logic. Why attack me for something that's true of you as well?

[procopia]

71. I didn't say you were aligned with the Bush administration.

What I was trying to say, until my post was deleted for some reason, is that Gage is no more aligned with Loose Change than you are aligned with the Bush administration.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. You know damn well what was in the post that was deleted.

And with that particular factual inaccuracy of yours, I see exactly the kind of poster I'm dealing with and bid you good day.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[AZCat]

30. Gage isn't an expert on building collapses, either.

Yet he doesn't seem to have a problem shooting his mouth off about that.

[tetedur]

100. An example of Kim Hill's "logic "

She said (paraphrasing of course):

36% of Americans believe lihop or mihop.
A majority of Americans doubt the theory of evolution.
If the fact that 36% of Americans believe in lihop or mihop is
"as in some way indicative of the fact that that's what happened,"
then "you must doubt Darwin's theory."

When asked, Gage said he believed Darwin's theory.
And he has fallen into the trap! If her premises are accepted,
then Gage must doubt Darwin. Really, really clever! Wow!

However, she is factually wrong that a majority of Americans doubt Darwin's theory.
A Gallop poll found that 39% of Americans believe Darwin's theory.
25% don't believe and 36% are unsure or don't have an opinion.
Though they are not the same thing perhaps that is where she gets 51%. Who knows?

Second, she attributes to Gage, but he didn't assert that 36% of Americans believe li/mihop "is
indicative" that lihop or mihop "is a fact." Beliefs are not facts, no one asserted they were. He used
poll numbers to justify a new investigation.

Does she imply 36% is a "majority" (like those who don't believe Darwin?) She seems confused about her math too.

Is this the kind of "logic" that is so admired?

One can see why people are in different boxes on the subject of 9/11.
Some are impressed by sophistry.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. No, you've missed her point.

The fact that a sizable portion of Americans believe something to be true in no way reflects on the actual truth of the belief. Gage cites his number as an argument that his claims should be taken seriously. Instead, Hill is saying that the claims should be examined on their merits, not on how many people believe them to be true or not.

[tetedur]

107. Oh was that her point?

When she asked Gage what does quoting the polls indicate to (him) he answered,

"Well it indicates that there's doubt about the story ...so full of holes you can drive a truck through it."

She asks how he feels about the theory of evolution. He responds. She says he's "going by polls."
He says he's going by evidence found at the crime scene that (she's) not willing to address.

She asks why does it matter or make any difference to (his) allegedly scientific case?
He says Americans who doubt the story are not alone. It is a significant number.

And her response is "So what are you going to do about Darwin's Theory?"

This is why her "logic" is admired. I see.

[OnTheOtherHand]

108. why do you find this hard to understand?

I haven't listened to the interview -- but based on your own paraphrase, how are Gage's arguments different in kind from saying that the fact that only 39% of Americans say they believe in Darwin's theory indicates that there's doubt about the story of evolution?

[tetedur]

109. Perhaps you could listen to the interview

Then you would understand the context of my comments.

[OnTheOtherHand]

110. why not clarify your comments?

Just a thought.

[tetedur]

112. Why not listen to the interview?

Just a thought.

[OnTheOtherHand]

119. OK, done

I think your paraphrase was pretty accurate. So the mystery remains: how are Gage's arguments different in kind from saying that the fact that only 39% of Americans say they believe in Darwin's theory indicates that there's doubt about the story of evolution?

And there's a further mystery: why didn't you answer that question the first time

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Gage uses Loose Change all through his presentation.

He gives it a plug at the end.

You have seen Gage's presentation, right? That's obviously where Kim Hill got the references from.

[rollingrock]

15. Gross exaggeration

1. In the entire 2 hour presentation (Blueprint for Truth), Gage uses a total of TWO clips from loose change that are about 10 seconds each. The first 10 second clip describes an interview with Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition INC, in the American Free Press, where Loizeaux confirms the presence of molten steel in the basement of the towers. The second short clip from Loose Change simply shows the collapse of the towers themselves. Those are the only references to Loose Change in the entire 2 hour presentation and they relate directly to the physical collapse mechanism of the towers, which for some reason Kim Shill does not want to talk about. To say 'Gage uses Loose Change all through his presentation' is a gross exaggeration.

2. The only thing that happens at the end is the credits rolling. And at the end of the credits, ae911truth thanks a number of people for providing the clips used in the presentation, one of the providers being Loose Change. To say 'he gives Loose Change a plug at the end' is another exaggeration.

3. Even after Gage makes it clear to the host that the Pentagon has never been his area of expertise or area of study, she continues to badger him about what the Pentagon and what Loose Change says about the Pentagon, etc. She keeps going on about all manner of off-topic nonsense that are outside his area of expertise. If she wants to talk about Loose Change, why doesn't she talk about the molten metal or freefall speed, stuff that Gage is familiar with? Because she's a complete moron not unlike Sarah Palin?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. American Free Press - do you realize what you're quoting?

There is every reason to suspect that the anti-Semite Christopher Bollyn simply made those fricking quotes up.

[rollingrock]

19. Seriously?

so criticizing anyone who happens to be Jewish is now considered anti-semitic? wow.
how about Bernie Madoff? is he off-limits too?

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Chris Bollyn's anti-semitism goes far beyond "criticizing anyone who happens to be Jewish"

http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_Domestic/9_11_conspiracy_theories.htm

You are advised to stop defending demonstrated anti-Semites at DU now. You proceed down this path at your own peril.

[LARED]

28. It is an established fact that simply reading the journal's title

"American Free Press" diminishes brain function by at least 5%.

Actually reading AFP cause brain function to drop by 10%.

Believing anything written in AFP is being considered by the AMA for a new medical classification of MGS or "massively gullible syndrome", and sharing AFP with others is likely to cause them to whisper amongst themselves. They might even use the phrase "useful idiot."

[KDLarsen]

14. Is Richard Gage stuck in 2006?

So much oldschool Twoof inthere, it's hard to believe it's almost 2010 :eyes:

[rollingrock]

16. Are you stuck in 2004?

sorry, but NIST rejected the pancaking theory years ago.
I think you have a lot of catching up to do, twoofer.

[KDLarsen]

22. What the flip are you talking about? nt

[procopia]

27. Why

would you expect questions from the truth movement to change? Has the OCT changed?

[rollingrock]

41. Indeed

the answer would be no and constantly, respectively.

[William Seger]

51. Why

... do you think the answers will change if you just ignore them?

[whatchamacallit]

52. There are "answers" and there is supposition

Knowledge is evolving. The only people I've ever encountered who are 100% sure they have all the answers are religious fundamentalists and OCTers. In the sciences there are few who, like you William, say "We've got all the answers we need, time to stop looking".

[William Seger]

55. Total bullshit

The problem seems to be that, since you don't understand how rational people think, you assume they think like you, but from the "other side of the fence" if they happen to disagree with you. There is nothing whatsoever sacrosanct about the NIST theory of the WTC7 collapse; but you have to tell me a better one or STFU about "knowledge"! Until you can, it beats me what you expect rational people to think. Instead of doing that, you to expect people to takes Gage's combination of lies and bullshit seriously, just because you do. Ain't working, is it?

[procopia]

56. What answers?

The Bush administration has ignored the questions; they have provided few and unconvincing answers. Sorry, if anonymous message board posters' "answers" have been ignored.

[William Seger]

60. I'm really not interested in your lame excuses

Yes, there are unanswered questions about 9/11, but instead of pursuing them, the vast majority of "truthers" have marginalized themselves by foolishly following David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage down dead-end streets with idiotic theories about controlled demolitions. Nothing wrong with asking any questions, but there's a reason why "just" asking questions (and ignoring answers) is called "JAQing off."

[procopia]

66. I'm not interested in your lame opinions

about "truthers." The vast majority of them have followed where the evidence leads. (The evidence that wasn't destroyed)

[William Seger]

78. They do no such thing, and that's the problem

Instead, they work backwards from a conclusion. A functional definition of a "conspiracy theorist" is someone who believes all the evidence we have was faked by the conspirators and all the "real" evidence was covered up by the conspirators.

Controlled demolition has become the defining doctrine of Orthodox Truthism, in complete disregard of the fact that there is no credible evidence whatever for it, and despite the fact that it is a ridiculously implausible hypothesis. "Truthers" simply ignore all the serious problems with the "evidence" they cling to and just repeat long-since-debunked nonsense over and over, hoping someone else will buy it. Richard Gage is a perfect example.

[whatchamacallit]

80. So much bluster, so little clue

Sorry hotshot, the most profound evidence is not some unproved-black-box-mathematical-model, it's what we saw with our own eyes.

Evidence: The infinitesimally small probability of three massive steel and concrete structures "naturally" falling into rubble within hours of each other. Probabilistic evidence ignored.

Evidence: The closest visual reference for what we witnessed is CD. Visual evidence ignored.

Evidence: The wars of political and financial fortune, already planned and ready to go, enabled. Motive evidence ignored.

All your faked technical acumen is spank. Get real.

[procopia]

81. Great points

Indisputable.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Only to "truthers"....

duh.

[procopia]

83. I notice

you didn't attempt to dispute them.

duh.

[SDuderstadt]

87. There's no need to...

most people don't fall for that bullshit in the first place.

[icee2]

88. Truth Critics

Truth critics have a hard time dealing with actual evidence. Ask any conservative. Or "liberal".

[SDuderstadt]

89. Dude...

if you had any actual evidence, people would be jumping onboard in droves. Your beliefs don't constitute evidence.

[icee2]

90. DUDE...

You are wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Again, if you have the evidemce....

why aren't people joining the "truth movement" in droves? Hint: you don't have any evidence. Rational people look at what you call evidence and burst into laughter. You're an embarrassment to the Democratic party in general and DU in particular.

[icee2]

92. Thanks for keeping this thread alive. It's important - even if...

it means having to wade through a truth critics BS.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. Yes, thanks for keeping my thread about Gage's embarrassment by Hill alive.

People need to hear this and see that Emperor Gage has no clothes.

[icee2]

98. I bet Shill Hill wishes you never started it. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

99. Dude...Hill makes a monkey out of Gage....

get real.

[icee2]

111. Dude...Shill Hill made a monkey out of herself...

all by her self. She didn't need Gage to show that her reputation is well deserved: "Shill Monkey".

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[icee2]

117. DUDE

yer funny

[SDuderstadt]

118. And you're...

peddling "no-planes" bullshit.

[icee2]

125. As usual, your claim is as wrong...

as the rest of your BS DUDE.

[SDuderstadt]

132. Then point out where it's wrong and...

why it's wrong, dude. That's assuming you even can. Hint: citing more CT bullshit without a lick of substantiation doesn't constitute proof, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

94. Yes, by all means, let's keep kicking Bolo's OP in which...

Richard Gage is exposed as the idiot he really is.

[William Seger]

95. You've got to be kidding

Are you seriously suggesting that you think there is anything in whatchamacallit's list that qualifies as "evidence" for controlled demolition, even using an informal definition?

I suggest that you carefully read that list again and think about it a little before you answer that question, but if your answer is "yes" then I'll be happy to "deal with it."

[SDuderstadt]

96. "Truther Logic"....

if you don't buy the bullshit of the "truth movement", you can't be a liberal.

[William Seger]

97. You've got to be kidding, too

Please answer the question I just asked Icee2: Are you seriously suggesting that you think there is anything in whatchamacallit's list that qualifies as "evidence" for controlled demolition, even using an informal definition?

[William Seger]

84. Here's a clue

You have no idea what the word "evidence" means.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[JohnyCanuck]

72. Largest crowd ever turns out to hear Richard Gage in Wellington NZ

Kim Hill's bullshit interview vainly attempting to discredit Gage as just another wacko, nut case, conspiracy theorist apparently does not have the desired effect on the inquisitive Kiwis.

The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under hit a high note on Saturday afternoon at the Te Papa Museum in Wellington, when over 650 turned up to hear Richard Gage, the spokesperson for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, (AE911Truth), talk about what really happened to World Trade Centre (WTC) 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11. It was the largest crowd the architect and founder of AE911Truth has ever spoken to since he began spreading the truth – what he calls the Blueprint For Truth, about the evidence of 9/11, and revealing the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, not by jet fuel and fires

SNIP

By 1pm, an hour before the presentation’s scheduled start, 328 had registered and a multitude more expected to attend, largely owing to the fact that Gage had received good media coverage. As well as a fair and balanced article in the Wellington paper, The Capital Times, he was interviewed by veteran radio interviewer Kim Hill, on the day of the presentation. Although Hill made repeated attempts during their 36 minutes-long exchange, to throw a wet blanket over the flames of truth he was throwing, her efforts were ultimately thwarted by his steely resolve to convey the facts. As one listener put it, it was very obvious as to who was invested in getting to the truth of the matter and who was invested in obfuscation.

Owing to the interest generated by the Gage-Hill interview, many phoned the Te Papa Museum to make enquiries, alerting the staff to the fact that the 300-seater theatre would not accommodate the numbers expected to swamp the venue. Offers Waddington: “Thankfully, Te Papa were excellent at managing the overflow of people. They were able to set up live audio and visual feeds in the large Oceania conference room, which held approximately 320.” Waddington, who did head counts, said there were about 648 people there for the entire presentation and that two of the event’s organisers estimated that around 100 people had to be turned away. “I estimated we may actually have had 700 who were definitely interested and close to 1000 people there at the end of the day, as visitors to Te Papa Museum were milling in and out of the Oceania room and listening to Richard speak all afternoon,” she said.

SNIP

At the start of the talk, Gage asked for a show of hands of those in the Soundings Theatre who believed the building collapses on 9/11 were due to controlled demolition. About two-thirds raised their hands. Then, near the conclusion of his talk, he asked, who still believed the official story – and only two raised their hands. The audience, evidently grateful for having someone so adept at ripping the mask of Osama bin laden off 9/11, thanked Gage for his efforts, with a sustained round of applause.

http://911blogger.com/node/21918

[icee2]

75. Thanks for the info. Good example of why U.S. MSM won't...

ever allow Gage or anyone else who knows the facts about 9/11 to have even a half-way fair opportunity to appear on TV.

Thanks, Shill Hill. You know how to build an audience, even if you have to make a fool of yourself to do so.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

103. Nice.

You started a thread attacking other members of the forums and got it locked. Color me very impressed.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

105. I've got my 10-year anniversary coming up in 2012.

Will you be here for the cake? :D

[arcadian]

106. I'll send you a heart

[Subdivisions]

113. That stupid, vacuous bitch got her ass handed to her. She seems to

think that Richard Gage is the maker of Loose Change. She's a harpy with a pre-determined view of what happened as well as bringing to the interview an agenda to play Richard against the beliefs of her audience. She absolutely tries her best to make Richard look like a loon. She has a biased view and she is an idiot.

FAIL!

[Bolo Boffin]

115. "She absolutely succeeds in making Richard look like a loon."

There, fixed that for you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

120. LMAO, what a trip

My favorite part, beginning around 25:30, by my transcription:

G: ...If 36% of Americans doubt their own government, that is significant by any measure.

H: So what are you going to do about Darwin's theory of evolution? That's obviously significant, a majority of Americans don't believe it.

G: Well, that's not my job. My job is to point out to people who are still sleeping, and unaware of the evidence, that we have to look at it squarely and deal with it. You're not dealing with it, Kim.

H: W-w-w-hat? I think I am dealing with it.

G: I don't think so.

H: What do you think I'm not dealing with?

G: Because you're not going to be coming to the presentation today, are you?

Ooh, good times! But why didn't he double-dog dare her?

There were lots of little surprises. I haven't paid much attention to Gage, so I was surprised that he waded into stuff like the BBC reporter, which can only undermine his credibility. (Best of all was the revelation that she has been "hounded by questions from millions of people in the 9/11 Truth Movement.") I was differently surprised that he repeatedly rattled off the nanothermite riff. I guess, as an Architect, he would know about stuff like that.

Mostly, in the end, it was a familiar dialogue of the deaf. Gage sounds a bit like a Campus Crusade drone.

[tetedur]

121. I think Gage needs to "do something about Darwin" also

After all we are spending billions because of Darwin.
We are losing the Bill of Rights because of Darwin.
We are vulnerable because of Darwin.
We are making national policy because of Darwin.
We attacking countries and going to war because of Darwin.

This Darwin issue must be solved so that all Americans understand evolution and are on the same page.
Otherwise it makes us look stupid.

What an OCT treasure that Kim Hill is! Her issue with Darwin so germane, her points so relevant, her impeccable logic!
Who knew?

[OnTheOtherHand]

122. maybe you need to listen to the interview again

Or maybe even rereading your own summary slowly would help.

Hill's question was: why, in the context of a purportedly scientific theory, is it relevant to cite a poll result?

Gage's best answer to that seems to have been that it lets people who doubt the official story know that they are "not alone." Reeks of argumentum ad populum to me.

You may have a better answer, but so far you've carefully refused to engage the question. I noticed.

[eomer]

124. Reeks of strawman to me.

Gage's actual statement (paraphrasing): it is important so the people who have doubts will know they are not alone.

Hill's (and now your) strawman words she insinuates into Gage's mouth: it says something about the validity of the argument.

Is this really what we need to debate in order to get to the truth of the matter?

Sophism.

[OnTheOtherHand]

126. eomer, your position is hopeless

Gage has introduced irrelevant evidence, and he doesn't have the chops to admit that it's irrelevant. He actually blurts, "It's a scientific poll." Creep.

And it's a pattern. He drags in the BBC reporter, he drags in the purported evidence of nanothermite, he drags in all sorts of shit that has nothing to do with his supposed area of expertise -- and he is on record as conceding that controlled demolition itself is outside the scope of his training and expertise. And then he says, "I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm an architect." (I think that's verbatim, several times over, but I don't have time to check right now.)

Now, if you like, none of this has any bearing on what happened on 9/11. But it does make Gage a laughingstock in my eyes.

[tetedur]

130. Excuse me?

Who was conducting the interview? Who was asking the questions? Who was bringing up irrelevant subjects
(to Gage's case?) Are we operating in the same Universe?

When Gage begins the interview by going into the more technical aspects of the destruction of the buildings
who shuts it down and says, "Too much information here, let's take it back a bit."

In this interview, Kim Hill brings up the BBC reporter. She says it is a fact that he said the reporter was reading
from a script. He suggests it as a possibility in his presentation.

Who brings up "the UBL fake footage?" Who brings up the Pentagon, Vox Pop, were there planes, Larry Silverstein,
gold in the basement, Bush or Clinton, squirrels attacking trees, Counterpunch, Popular Mechanics and utter madness.


Kim Hill (laughing): "You are all over the place, you truthers."

[OnTheOtherHand]

150. I don't know what universe you're in

So far, you won't squarely address any point I make. That's fine, but it obviously won't change my mind about Gage.

[eomer]

152. Gage has introduced irrelevant evidence? And how is any of this discussion relevant? n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

153. alas, it really isn't

I should come back in a year and see if anyone has figured anything out.

[Bolo Boffin]

129. Do the people who have doubts about Darwin need to know they aren't alone?

Does that have any relevance to the truth about evolution? The idea of comforting the people who have doubts about Darwin sounds to me like raising an irrational impediment toward these people understanding the truth. "Go on and take refuge in your belief that Darwin is wrong - so many other people think so, too!"

[tetedur]

137. Who brought up Darwin? Kim Hill.

Who said those who have doubts about Darwin need to know they are not alone? No one.

However, do people with doubts need to have investigations that answer their questions when an event
changes the course of the nation that was attacked by 19 men with box cutters?

As Gage said the only "irrational impediment" to understanding to the truth is to not look at the evidence.
All of the evidence.

[Bolo Boffin]

143. Yes, to illustrate how Gage's citation of that survey proved nothing about veracity of his claims

That's what he was there to defend, wasn't it?

Gage doesn't dare let his audience look at all the evidence.

[tetedur]

127. Perhaps you could read my comments slowly and carefully again.

Kim Hill said if the fact that 36% of Americans believe in lihop or mihop is "as in some way
indicative of the fact that that's what happened," then you "must doubt Darwin's theory."

Kim Hill reeks of the "argumentum ad populum." This is her "logic" that is so deserving of admiration.
It was one of the many instances she attempted to attribute an assertion by Gage that did not
come out of HIS mouth.

Also, Gage said he points out certain information "Because it's in alignment with the evidence that we discuss."
But I'm sure you heard that if you listened to the interview....

[OnTheOtherHand]

149. yes?

Your first sentence is quite garbled, but I agree that if one regards a poll result as relevant to what happened on 9/11, then a poll result would be equally relevant to the facts of evolution. This point is screamingly obvious.

So, the question remains, if the poll result isn't relevant to what happened on 9/11, why is Gage introducing it at all? "Because it's in alignment with the evidence that we discuss"? WTF does that mean?

[dbonds]

128. Let me take a stab at clarifying this.

'Darwin vs Creationist' and 'OCT vs CT' are not comparable when it comes to a populist argument.

With Gage it really is to say 'We are not lone nuts', as he and many CTers are portrayed. It is not an argument in itself but a defense of sanity. I 100% agree with you that taken alone that statement is meaningless to the validity of any CT. Why is this important? Because the CT people are up against 1 official version of the story. They are portrayed as crazy/nutty for just asking questions (and some for having theories). It is an important statement to say they are not the lone nut that some make them out to be.

Why is this different than 'Darwin vs Creationist'? Because in that battle there are two authority sources battling out for which theory/belief is correct. Maybe the religious side isn't authority to you and me, but it is to many of the population. The people that believe in creationism aren't left out there to be the lone nut (even though many of us think they are). This fight is a fight between science as one authority and religion as another. Both sides have a long history and 'positively sure' proponents. The beliefs are based on a totally different internal mental model of the world which is shared.

'Darwin vs Creationist' and 'OCT vs CT' are not similar in authority or differences in mental model differences of the proponents on either side.

[Bolo Boffin]

131. Darwin vs Creationist is about reality vs. fantasy

The creationist side can prattle on about their imaginary authority all they want. It doesn't change the objective truth about evolution.

"36% of Americans can't be crazy!" Uh, yes, they can, particularly on specifically defined issues. 100% of Americans can be crazy on a specifically defined issue. All of humanity could have believed the world was flat, and that wouldn't have changed the shape of the Earth. However, all those people could have taken comfort from each other, knowing they weren't crazy? Whether people can take comfort in numbers has nothing to do with the veracity of a claim, especially when the claim is based on ignorance and incredulity, the way that claims of special creation, a flat earth, and 9/11 Truth are.

[dbonds]

133. That is where you missed the picture...

It is not fantasy to the people that believe in creationist. They have an authority telling them. I agree with you that it is a made up fantasy from our (the science side) of the picture. But not to them. To them it is something they have been taught from birth and they have an authority figure they respect telling them that they are right and science is wrong. They even go so far as to say satan put all the fossils in the earth to make people doubt.

[dbonds]

135. Let me add a bit more

In Darwin/Evolution vs Creation, from a science standpoint you basically have one proven theory vs one theory/belief that has been dis-proven. How many people believe in creation still is not relevant at all. In OCT vs CT, you have many competing theories, NONE of which are proven (you can't prove either unless you can repeat the circumstances and all aspects). But people that don't buy into the OCT are portrayed as lone nuts. Saying how many people don't buy into the OCT isn't a defense of the OCT, it a defense of the people themselves that don't buy into it. It is saying there are other smart sane people that are not on board with the OCT, we are not lone nuts.
e circumstances

[Bolo Boffin]

136. Please point out all the times "people that don't buy into the OCT are portrayed as lone nuts."

And there are plenty of smart, sane people who believe in creationism. It's on that one issue that they go off track. The same with 9/11 Truth.

[dbonds]

138. 'All the times' - you have to be kidding.

All you have to do is look at all the OCTers responses in this forum for examples. I'm not going to try to distill all that down, there are years and years of it. But this would be a derail of the topic of the subthread wouldn't it? If you really want to see that in action, try to play the role of CTer somewhere.


But let me mitigate the word 'lone': I wasn't using it to mean singular, but of limited small groups.

[Bolo Boffin]

139. Sounds like a projection to me. n/t

[dbonds]

140. Projection of what?

Projection as in me projecting things I do onto other people? Exactly how would that work in this case. There is no projecting OCTers are small isolated nuts, ever. I think you either misused that word or used a different meaning than I am familiar with. Or are you doing what you go ape shit over others doing to you, trying to psycho-analyze me?

[Bolo Boffin]

142. Relax. People project all the time. You can hardly escape it.

It's part of being human.

And you've got it backwards there. People isolate themselves and worry about their own sanity first. Then they project that onto other people.

I don't know, maybe there are times when people try to make 9/11 Truth advocates out as lone nuts. There's no sense in buying into that. And if people in the Truth movement didn't feel like "lone nuts," there would be no need to offer the false comfort of "36% of Americans agree something's wrong!" It has nothing to do with the veracity of Richard Gage's or any other CD proponent's claims.

[dbonds]

145. That was a good post bolo.

I only disagree with one point, it isn't false comfort. I understand it is false if you take it as saying that means there is validity to any CT because of it. But it is comfort in that they are not alone, and insane. If you want an analogy, think how you might have felt in 2002 when every news source seemed to be saying the sky is red when you could clearly see it blue and told you were unpatriotic and bad for bringing up the blue issue. Not a perfect analogy because there isn't a clear cut blue sky you can see, but you can understand the feeling of knowing there are others that can see what you see.

[SDuderstadt]

141. Please point to one example where any "debunker" has called any...

"truther" here a nut.

[dbonds]

146. Yawn

[SDuderstadt]

147. I knew you couldn't....n/t

[dbonds]

148. Somebody has no reading skills.

If you did you would see this is dupe of another subthread where this was addressed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

151. thanks, that's an interesting perspective

It doesn't make much sense to me. Gage's principled argument about the evidence just doesn't mix with the polling result. In effect he is setting up his own conflict between two authority sources. However, I can understand wanting to offer a bolstering argument that he's not a "lone nut."

Presumably Gage more or less believes in what he is saying, so it must frustrate him that the views that he regards as based on incontrovertible evidence are shut out of leading journals.

[eomer]

123. Just a bunch of sophism.

I don't see where Gage ever claims that the polls have any bearing on the validity of the argument. He says that what they indicate to him is "that there's doubt about the story", which he feels is a significant fact. Hill is the one who imputes that he is using it to argue his case. I don't see where he uses it to argue his case. He feels it is significant in its own right.

This style of argument seems to be the rage around here lately. We seem to be using the stylistic "winner" of a debate as a proxy for actual argument of real points. Gage appears to me to be the one mostly stepping around this poop while a bunch of people in this forum seem to be wallowing in it.

Here's a transcript that is cropped a bit wider so you can see what Gage's actual original claim was:

H: Let me ask you this: you've talked about the scientific methods; you also quote polls, which indicate that 36% of Americans consider it likely that government officials allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. What does that indicate to you?

G: Well it indicates that there's doubt about the story, which is so full of holes you can drive a truck through it...

H: How do you feel about the theory of evolution?

G: I don't have an opinion on that.

H: Why not? ...(brief overtalking)... A majority of Americans doubt it.

G: I think that's true.

H: Do you doubt it?

G: No, it makes sense to me, but I haven't thought about it too much. Evolution...

H: But if you are regarding the fact that 36% of Americans consider it likely that government officials allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves...

G: This is a scientific poll.

H: ... as if in some way indicative of the fact that that's what happened then you must doubt Darwin's theory of evolution as well, or anything else that Americans...

G: That is quite an interesting conclusion you draw there, what I'm looking at is evidence...

H: No, you're going by polls.

G: No, I'm going by evidence found at the crime scene, which you are not willing to address.

H: Why tell me that it matters that 36% of Americans may think something strange?

G: It clearly matters. Are you going to say it doesn't matter?

H: I'm asking you why it makes any difference to your allegedly scientific case.

G: I'm pointing out to Americans who doubt the official story that they're not alone. If 36% of Americans doubt their own government, that is significant by any measure.

H: So what are you going to do about Darwin's theory of evolution? That's obviously significant -- a majority of Americans don't believe it.

G: Well, that's not my job. My job is to point out to people who are still sleeping and unaware of the evidence that we have to look at it squarely and deal with it. You're not dealing with it, Kim.

H: I think I am dealing with it.

G: I don't think so.

H: What do you think I'm not dealing with?

G: Because you're not going to be coming to the presentation today, are you?

[icee2]

116. Amen to that. She's pathetic & needs to go back to Shill school. n/t

[icee2]

134. Looks like someone wants to slide away from the issue...

of Shill Hill, Gage and 9/11. I guess I don't blame you since your OP got destroyed.

[Bolo Boffin]

144. Taking time off from "Hassan thought it was a drill"? n/t