Wow, Kim Hill is a complete idiot!!! She doesn't know the first thing about the official story or any of the evidence presented by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Why does she even bring up the issue of evolution? She obviously didn't want to hear any of the evidence. Once Richard Gage started talking she would interrupt him by bringing up some other irrelevant issue or question.

Kim doesn't seem to understand why nobody has come forward and admitted to being involved in the plot. That is because admitting involvement in 9/11 would be tantamount to confessing to mass murder.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth."
- Aldous Huxley -

not accept being interrupted all the time. Every time he makes ANY argument, he gets interrupted with a new question, when he answers het gets interrupted again and again to drive him into a corner of conspiracies and away from the facts.
He should resist this obvious scheme, don't waste time and steer back to the facts faster.
This woman is an operative, no question.
She doesn't want to be told or learn ANYTHING, she "knows" it all and she knows the purpose of the interview.

Debunkers know a lot and ask some intelligent questions but turn willingful ignorant when it comes to relevant facs and implications.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE when you are looking for the truth.
It makes only sense when you have the purpose to defend a certain point of view, when you are an operative for the official lie.

"Debunkers know a lot and ask some intelligent questions but turn willingful ignorant when it comes to relevant facs and implications.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE when you are looking for the truth." [Quote]

Excellent,Fred,there's a lesson to be learned here. It doesn't make any sense UNLESS they have a biased position they are trying to defend!

It's very obvious as to who is invested in getting to the truth of the matter and who is invested in obfuscation.
It seems most professional people particularly in the engineering trades once confronted with scientific forensics concerning the liabilities created by the official story are full on for a real investigation. Professionals in the trades such as Van Romero, and the people at NIST with jobs to lose or grants denied in the case of Van Romero at New Mexico School of Mines, change their stories from condemnatory in tone to one of acquittal of any govt responsibility. Van Romero stated on national television these looked like controlled demolitions. He essentially said what anyone using common sense would think, that a steel building of any type doesn't just turn to dust. If it does collapse, If by some infinitesimally small chance a huge steel building just collapsed IT WOULDN'T happen symmetrical, and IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN THREE TIMES by any stretch of the imagination. NIST relied exclusively on computer models to explain the unexplainable unless the use of demolition is a factor, which they did not, nor did they do a forensic investigation, which is standard procedure in the case of a house fire for crying out loud , NUFF SAID !! The mainstream is blackballing REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY NEILS HARRIT, DR STEVEN JONES, RICHARD GAGE AND KEVIN RYAN......NUFF SAID..Therefore I think by now it's safe to say, your either just ignorant of the facts, looking for a real investigation or your actively working to maintain the fraud and the cover-up. Just my 2 cents.

Some great comments here. Why not forward them to the station? Here's the contact link:

http://www.listener.co.nz/page/260/contact_us.html

Here's the letter I sent:

Kim Hill must be the Bill O'Reilly of New Zealand. I listened to her "interview" with Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. She was incredibly rude, constantly interrupting with absurdities, referring to no longer relevant theories debunked by NIST itself, bringing up anything and everything but the scientific evidence of controlled demolition of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers, which is ALL AE911Truth.org focuses on.

Hill wonders why no one has come forth and admitted involvement in the largest mass murder in recent US history. What an idiotic question.

Had she but only high school level physics and familiarity with Newton's Laws of Motion, she would understand the impossibility of the conclusions of the NIST reports. You cannot have a symmetrical collapse with asymmetrical damage, and you cannot have a period of freefall acceleration with a progressive collapse. WTC 7 experienced over 100 feet of freefall acceleration - 8 stories. The only way this can happen is if ALL the structure below was removed simultaneously. NIST stated this fact in the August 8, 2008 briefing, at a time when they were denying a period of freefall acceleration occurred. Thanks to David Chandler, a physics teacher associated with AE911Truth, NIST was forced to revise their report in Nov. 2008 to reflect the obvious period of freefall acceleration. The only way to achieve this sudden removal of all supporting structure simultaneously is through controlled demolition.

With regard to the twin towers, WTC 2 had smaller fires, the plane impact missed most of the core columns, most of the jet fuel was expended in a fireball outside the tower, and the steel was exposed to fire for a much shorter time than WTC 1. WTC 1 had larger fires, a direct hit into the core, and the steel was exposed for longer time to fire than WTC 2.

Yet these two 'collapses' look essentially the same with completely different parameters; completely different damage. What happened to the angular momentum of the tilting top of WTC 2? It should have fallen down intact. Instead, it was pulverized mid-air. Why was the dropping tower on WTC 1, tied to the massive core, the first sign of collapse? This indicates removal of the core structure. How could either 'upper rigid block' act as a pile driver to destroy the undamaged, much stronger, larger lower portion, when each 'rigid block' was destroyed itself in the first seconds? This is abundantly clear from video.

NIST selected the steel for its investigation. 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the 9 recovered panels from the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels. Only 3 locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C, and these show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

NIST ignored the results of physical tests in favor of their computer model, in which it converts 3" of sag from a 2 hour physical fire test (more time than either tower experienced) into 42" on the model, and set thermal conductivity to zero. The NIST reports are a fraud.

NIST did not even test for evidence of explosive or thermite residue. NIST denies the eyewitness reports and video and photographic evidence of molten steel.

In an exchange with a reporter, it is obvious to see the circular logic in play, which I am sure makes complete sense to Ms. Hill:

“We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of explosives,” said NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman. The reporter asks, "But what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?"
Neuman: “Right, because there was no evidence of that.”
Reporter: "But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?"
Neuman: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time … and the taxpayers’ money.”

I urge everyone to look further into the events of 9/11. There are way too many coincidences and anomalies for the official story to be true, and the physical evidence and science back this up. 9/11 affected the entire world, in a very negative way. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to get to the truth.

Ms. Hill should be ashamed of her intellectual dishonesty and complete lack of journalistic integrity, and if her on-air show is any example of what the NZ Listener typically offers, it too should be shunned by anyone with an ounce of intelligence and the capacity to think for themselves.

I dare you to print my letter.

Sincerely,

(me)