...Richard Gage destroyed by Kim Hill

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, he keeps saying how he admires D.R. Griffin. An architect taking his scientific data and talking points about engineering from a spin doctor theologian.

With a hint of Judy Wood...

 

[Pardalis]

Yeah, isn't she a dentist?

 

[Justin39640]

Yeah, isn't she a dentist?

DDS:
Doctor of Demented Stupidity?

 

[Algebra34]

I love it. It just goes to show debunkers can't debate civilly and that they admire belligerence. Except when it's given back to them better. Then they cry. She just didn't want to talk about 9/11 did she? Relate much?

 

[CHF]

I love it. It just goes to show debunkers can't debate civilly and that they admire belligerence. Except when it's given back to them better. Then they cry. She just didn't want to talk about 9/11 did she? Relate much?

What do you think was Gage's strongest point?

 

[Justin39640]

I love it. It just goes to show debunkers can't debate civilly and that they admire belligerence. Except when it's given back to them better. Then they cry. She just didn't want to talk about 9/11 did she? Relate much?

um... when wasn't she talking about 911?

 

[Pardalis]

I love it. It just goes to show debunkers can't debate civilly and that they admire belligerence.

Is that why you keep using mysoginistic vulgarities when you refer to Kim Hill?

 

[TJM]

I love it. It just goes to show debunkers can't debate civilly and that they admire belligerence. Except when it's given back to them better. Then they cry. She just didn't want to talk about 9/11 did she? Relate much?

Where was the incivility or belligerence?

 

[T.A.M.]

I love it. It just goes to show debunkers can't debate civilly and that they admire belligerence. Except when it's given back to them better. Then they cry. She just didn't want to talk about 9/11 did she? Relate much?

Hypocrite much? Your posts over the last few days have been FILLED with incivility and belligerence. Obviously you know this, and you are simply trying to bait people. You have no intention of debating anything. Every time some one has provided you evidence you have scoffed at it (because it is inconvenient). Welcome to ignore troll.

TAM

 

[Algebra34]

What do you think was Gage's strongest point?

His plugs for his DVD.

 

[Childlike Empress]

She just didn't want to talk about 9/11 did she?

That's what she told him, yes. Gage is remarkably effective. Everybody else would've lost his temper communicating with this clueless person.

 

[Pardalis]

So you're coming out of the closet as a MIHOP supporter now Childlike?

 

[T.A.M.]

CLE, If I recall, is not only MIHOP, but is also a believer in Craig and Waldo's NoC crap.

But I could be remembering incorrectly.

TAM

 

[Algebra34]

That's what she told him, yes. Gage is remarkably effective. Everybody else would've lost his temper communicating with this clueless person.

He is. He stays on course. I remembered that from the Mark Roberts debate when Roberts tried the same crap as this lady. But that whole thing was hilarious. It was comedy between the rational and the clueless.

 

[Pardalis]

CLE, If I recall, is not only MIHOP, but is also a believer in Craig and Waldo's NoC crap.

But I could be remembering incorrectly.

TAM

It's hard to tell what she believes, you know, her being so evasive and all...

We do know for sure that she's got an axe to grind about America, so I guess that makes her an opportunistic truther, she'll support anything that puts the US in a bad light.

 

[BigAl]

That's what she told him, yes. Gage is remarkably effective. Everybody else would've lost his temper communicating with this clueless person.

Gage should spend less time in front of a passive crowd where he controls the Q&A microphone ("crowd" is a stretch) and more time debating people that are effective debaters and can show him the shortcomings of his content and style.

 

[Justin39640]

He is. He stays on course. I remembered that from the Mark Roberts debate when Roberts tried the same crap as this lady. But that whole thing was hilarious. It was comedy between the rational and the clueless.

Gravy is clueless?
Gage is using a shotgun debating technique (that all you morons use)
ask 100 questions in 30 seconds and then when the other party tries to answer a few, ask 100 different questions.
She was getting obviously agitated at this (as any rational person would) and slowed him down.
You see that as being belligerent. Why? I have no idea.

 

[Pardalis]

Childlike, can you answer me this question?

Why is Gage so concerned about opinion polls?

As an architect, why does he think public opinion should have any bearing on the facts about 9/11? As far as I know, science doesn't work by referendum.

 

[T.A.M.]

As far as I know, science doesn't work by referendum.

But Pseudoscience works ONLY by referendum...there is your answer.

TAM

 

[Algebra34]

Gravy is clueless?
Gage is using a shotgun debating technique (that all you morons use)
ask 100 questions in 30 seconds and then when the other party tries to answer a few, ask 100 different questions.
She was getting obviously agitated at this (as any rational person would) and slowed him down.
You see that as being belligerent. Why? I have no idea.

No. Not like this lady. I was saying the lady in this debate knows nothing about 9/11. Roberts is very knowledgeable about 9/11. He just couldn't hang with Gage on the technical aspects and then started taking potshots for lack of anything else. Roberts was not prepared for that debate. This lady all she had was the potshots. She was determined not to hear anything Gage was saying from the get go. Most of the time she isn't even addressing what he just said a moment before. She is reading off of something on a topic she knows nothing about. Kind of like debunkers here like to regurgitate Gravey's Googlepages or 9/11 myths because they themselves know nothing about 9/11.