Richard Gage's New Zealand Tour Getting Good Media Coverage

Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is currently on a speaking tour in Australasia, which includes presentations in Wellington and Auckland, New Zealand on the 21st and 30th of November, respectively.

While he received little mainstream media coverage in Australia, the New Zealand media has been more receptive. The Wellington paper, The Capital Times, ran a full-page article about him and the attacks of 9/11 in this week’s edition, which is described by Wellingtonian 9/11 truth activist, Helen Waddington, as “Absolutely fantastic!”

Waddington, who has been taking the names of those who want to register for Gage’s Wellington presentation at Te Papa on the 21st of November, advised on Wednesday evening: “My phone is going nuts as I type this and we are up to 200 registered at present.” She said at this rate, the event should be fully booked by Saturday. The venue seats 300.

Thank-you to The Capital Times, which has a weekly readership estimated to be 62,000, for their fair and balanced coverage about Richard Gage and 9/11. Their article can be viewed in a pdf version here:

In addition, Gage was on Radio New Zealand's Kim Hill show on the morning of the 21st of November for 36 minutes, allowing him sufficient time to repeat important evidence, demonstrate both his credibility and knowledge and encourage people to attend his two New Zealand presentations. While interviewer Kim Hill, who has worked in the New Zealand media for over 17 years, kept interrupting him and made repeated attempts to undermine him in her desperation to avoid dealing with the ramifications of what he was saying, Gage kept a cool head, and told her she had put psychological barriers up to avoid facing the truth. While it was regrettable he was psychologically abused, it was instructive for listeners to hear, as Hill, who is well known in New Zealand, demonstrated that even a professional can have a great problem facing self-evident facts, thereby confirming the effectiveness of what Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels called the big lie.

The interview with Kim Hill can be downloaded from here:
or accessed via YouTube here:

If anyone has any questions or doubts about the official story of 9/11, or knows someone who does, they should go along to hear Mr Gage speak. He is a world class orator and very well versed in the evidence regarding the destruction of the WTC on 9/11. He will show that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives, not by jet fuel and fires. In other words, he will demonstrate that the official story of 9/11 is a fraud.

To book for the Te Papa, Architecture of Destruction event, which will be from 2pm-6pm on the 21st at the Soundings Theatre, on Cable Street, either email: or call Helen on 021-1 574 600. There is no admission fee.

To book for the Auckland event, which will be at the Trades Hall, 147 Great North Rd, Grey Lynn, on Monday the 30th of November from 6pm, e-mail Will Ryan at A gold coin donation would be appreciated, to give to Richard.

The interview with Kim Hill

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 -



Kim Hill

Her ignorance and unwillingness to face facts is probably why she is regarded as highly qualified to work for the government-sponsored radio station.

Kim Hill comes across ...

sounding haughty, sneering, sarcastic, condescending, churlish, ill-informed and incapable of absorbing, processing or comprehending information.

Her performance throughout the interview deteriorated into exasperated exclamations of incensed disbelief, incredulity and outright offense at Richard's calm, reasoned responses and explanations.

Richard completely exposed her pompous, supercilious bigotry with his grace and alacrity.

Kim showed that she wasn't even listening to Richard by asserting, twice, the claims made on CounterPunch about desiel fueling the fires in WTC7, even after Richard had informed her that NIST itself, had already refuted those claims.

The arguments that Kim relied upon in her attempts to discredit Richard, were absurd and only made her look ridiculous. She repeatedly claimed that there needed to be thousands of people involved in the "conspiracy", without acknowledging that the official conspiracy theory only requires 19 conspirators.

She repeatedly accused Richard of being a "conspiracy theorist" without ever acknowledging that her own beliefs about 9/11 are based on a "conspiracy theory", so therefore she is a "conspiracy theorist" herself.

She scoffed at and dismissed, out of hand, Richard's claim that there was a media blackout on the truth about 9/11, even though her own treatment of Richard and the issues he raised, clearly demonstrates the ridicule and dismissive attitudes that pervade mainstream media reporting on the subject.

She also expressed aggravated disbelief that those involved in the "conspiracy" would not readily admit to their role in mass murder. In her mind, everyone involved would be jumping up and down, shouting "I did IT, it was ME". She can't imagine that such criminals would want to keep their role secret... no, they'd definitely want to advertise it, like Rudy did, when he admitted to being warned the towers were about to come down, or Larry, who admitted he thought the smartest thing to do was "pull it".

Richard maintained poise, clarity and control throughout the interview... he was the clear winner in this particular encounter.

Well done Richard Gage.

650 Approx. Reported To Have turned Up To Hear RIchard Gage

Clare Swinney
Someone posted this comment on the Forum in the 9/11 thread.

"I just got in from hearing Richard Gage at Te Papa.

Around 650 people turned up with the 300 odd overflow having to go into another theatre to hear the 2 3/4 hour talk via audio but without the slide show. I imagine Kim Hill's appalling behaviour in her interview of Richard this morning, would have increased the numbers attending. When he mentioned her for the first time there was derisive laughter all around the theatre. What a bigot...

A show of hands at the start as to who accepted the 'official story', who was unsure, and who thought the towers and WTC7 were brought down by explosive demolition, were something like - if memory serves me correctly - 40, 100, and the rest, which would have amounted to about 200 in the main theatre where I was. A guy sitting next to me accepted the official story at the start, but had changed his mind by the end. At the end the numbers were about 10, 20 and the rest.

The outline of the talk was simply to look at ten characteristics of planned, explosive demolition, and see how the collapses aligned with them (with side by side videos of the collapses and known demolitions) as compared with characteristics of collapses due to fire, which is the official cause - even though no high rise steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire.

I already knew most of what was presented, but a number of his videos of the tower collapses very clearly showed explosive nature of the collapses and the squibs blowing out the side of the buildings just below the collapse zone, but also much further down.

The new info I had not heard of, and there were quite a few photos of this, were large sections of the outer steel framework - weighing 20 tons or so - stuck in the sides of surrounding buildings, blasted out of the towers around 600 feet at an estimated speed of 70mph. These sections were apparently not from the higher parts of the towers but from lower down where more force was required eject them to where they ended up.

Of course the implications of planned demolition are most unpalatable and I think this is the main reason why people don't like the thought of it. It totally rearranges ones perception of the world and the forces operating in it...

Very persuasive...though I was all ready persuaded..."

Someone else sent this comment via e-mail:
That was a turnout for the books!!! 620 people in 2 theaters! I got some
really good little video clips throughout it that I will get onto youtube
tonight. There was some good stuff happening up the front after it where
he talked with those of us who went up. There must have been well over
1000 people showed up today.

Thanks for the GREAT Report Clare!

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?

Hey Joe

How are things in BIG D ? I'm down in Houston with Houstontruth...We need to organize a state meeting.
Or at least get the Houston and Dallas groups together under one roof, set some plans for some cross promotion between our respective cities. Send me an email

Lets Do It,

Last night at a book signing, I gave Russ Baker a 24 DVD case of only the best 9/11 Docs. Then gave away 40 "Core of Corruption/In Their Own Words" DVD Combos to his audience. Today we are set up at the JFK Lancer Convention in Downtown where we have already given away 100+ DVD 5-packs to the JFK murder researchers.

A Texas Truth Convergence! We can make that happen.

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?

Richard should

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.

I'd like to believe she's an operative.

This woman is an operative, no question.

I'd prefer to believe she's an operative. That would at least make sense with regard to her thick headedness. What's more disturbing and alarming is if she really is just a ordinary person who can't get past the psychological barriers. She might be.

I remember several years ago when I tried to introduce my dad to 9/11 truth. He kept spitting out rhetoric before I could finish sentences. And it was mostly BS like, "Adam, don't you understand, if this were true and they were caught, the Republican Party would completely be history?! Do you think they'd take that chance?"

"What's more disturbing and

"What's more disturbing and alarming is if she really is just a ordinary person who can't get past the psychological barriers. She might be."

I agree, it is possible.


I feel your pain. So much like many of my own experiences.

Thanks for the graphic.

frightening, isn't it?

But this is what we see over and over again....people trapped in a paradigm that is false, but they cannot let go of it no matter what the cost is of living a lie.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if that was the problem. It also seems that many truth deniers are actually unconscious "operatives"....they want/need to preserve what they believe is in your father's case was the Republican Party....(how completely weird) but in other people's minds may consist of the integrity of our military, or in someone else's belief system it might be the veracity of the media.....just some factor that 911 truth demolishes....
just a theory...I keep going over and over in my mind why people cannot see the obvious...
It's like that news story where a piano falls out of moving van into the middle of an expressway and is standing there. A guy comes along and plows right into it at 50 miles an hour. People ask him why he just didn't go around it and he said he couldn't believe there was really a piano in the road, because though his eyes tell him so , his mind tells him it is not.

Is the piano story real?

I have no problem with it after listening to Kim Hill.

true story

but I can't find a link. I remember reading it on several news cites...
Now I couldn't say with 100% certainty that is true, since I can't find it anywhere...anyone else remember seeing this story about 4 years ago?

Adam you are out of order...language and calling people agents?

Adam why you need to be so aggressive and attack Kim Hill so viciously is beyond me? Gage has shown you the way to success and it's by being calm, nice and evidence based.

Kim Hill is having great difficulty with her paradigm, how about you show some compassion rather than attack her with disgusting language?

People this is the public face of this movement, this blog....where is the moderation?


Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!


A lot of her remarks were ludicrous, & she's clearly uninformed!!!
but, calling her a " dumb bitch"?.....(cringe)

at least 'one' guy noticed (or was it only because he called her an"agent"?)

I apologize for the "dumb bitch" remark

It was uncalled for, agreed. I don't apologize for speculating whether or not certain people might be plants or agents, because we'd be naive not to, given the history of Operation Mockingbird, and former CIA director William Colby's remark that "the CIA owns everyone of any significance in the mainstream media." It's not infeasible to think this doesn't happen in allied countries of ours too, like England, Australia and New Zealand.

But my main point was that even though she MIGHT be a Mockingbird style shill, she also might not, as exemplified by the remark I quoted of my own father.

I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Thanks Adam!

I've said many things I regret and that's when I hope the mods will clean it up...for every one else here and especially the public!

If blogger needs help to keep this place clean, I am happy to help?

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

I am in total

awe of Richard’s ability to remain, rational, calm, and precise in his answers in the face of such idiocy.

I wonder if it would be helpful to remind the interviewer/audience of the Bush administration's editing of the NASA reports on climate change, and the fact that government employees who turn whistle blower can lose their jobs.

Also,according to David Ray Griffin; “NIST was headed by a Bush appointee, and its work, according to a former employee, was highly politicized.”

Perhaps, in the future, Richard might guide the audience to the Firefighters for 9/11 Truth site where they can see photos of burning skyscrapers, controlled demolitions... and the results. Why in the world would any firefighter or first responder be allowed to enter a burning giant office building, if buildings are known to collapse into dust in a matter of seconds with no warning?!!!...And why were the firefighter's reports of explosions not included in the Commission Report?!!! Why did the family members have to force the government into an "investigation"?! Richard could ask the interviewer why the media are not asking those questions!

Grace under fire.

I'm really blown away by Richard Gage. What an incredibly graceful, honest, sincere, humble, and levelheaded performance. I'm a New Zealander, and I remember in 2003 Kim Hill interviewed John Pilger on national TV, and took the same hectoring, condescending, belligerent tone. Well, poor old Pilger didn't even come close to having the reserves of patience and good will necessary for dealing with Hill's total inability to repress her personal bias and unfortunate personality tics when examining subjects she has strong opinions on. He let her have it, telling her that she hadn't prepared for the interview, and that it was a "disgrace". You can see part of the interview online if you google it. Kind of amusing. But it left a bad taste, and the audience didn't learn a whole lot from the exercise. I think it was just stunning how Gage kept his head, and time and again patiently steered the audience back to the relevant issues. No matter how clear you are on the evidence, no matter how confident you are in your familiarity with the reasons for doubt, it's incredibly difficult not to get annoyed and flustered when you hear those supercilious undertones and that grating sarcasm start to creep into your interviewer's voice. I know in the same position I'd find it impossible not to lose my cool. I think there are important lessons for many of us in the way Gage conducted himself in that interview. I have such a soft spot for him after that, I can even forgive him for being a Reagan Republican!

Kim Hill Dressed Down By John Pilger

Here's the related segment of the Hill-Pilger interview from 2003. It was quite therapeutic to watch, after the Hill-Richard Gage interview.
Pilger: "You waste my time because you have not prepared for this interview. This interview frankly is a disgrace." Kim Hill's infamous interview with John Pilger, award-winning journalist, author and documentary-maker. Via satellite link from Sydney, Pilger discusses Middle East politics. He says what he would do about Saddam Hussein, and what he thinks about sanctions against Iraq. An angry Pilger says Hill is not asking informed questions. He snarls at Hill: "Just read. Read. It takes time."

It IS therapeutic!

What an aweful person she is, from the inside (and outside).

"Debunkers know a lot and

"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!

!!! Fantastic Story !!!

"It is you who are the torch-bearers with respect to that truth.... ...Steel your spines. Inspire your children. Then when the moment is right, rise again...." W PEPPER

At this point

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.

Interview on Sydney's WSFM Radio

Richard Gage, AIA, Interview on Sydney's WSFM Radio


But, truthfully....admit it

Aren't we all just like "squirrels attacking trees"???????!!
Oh my! The B.S. Richard has to put up with...
She's a real charmer!
What AMAZING composure he has, listening to her relentless nonsense.
"You're sounding like Dan Brown!".....huh????

Yes, Kim,
All of the 'tens of thousands' of criminals (more likely under 50 people) are going to VOLUNTARILY come forward, and say "Here I am!.....I did it!....PLS., take me away"!
In order for them to do that, they would have to be, to use your favourite word, quite "MAD" indeed.

He's never rude (just sticks to the facts) and in the end, Mr. Cool (Richard) always comes out on top.

Biggest Blueprint For Truth Audience Ever

Richard Gage’s Wellington Presentation Draws Biggest Blueprint For Truth Audience Ever

pretty cool dude..

Write a letter to the station

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

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 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.



Touche!! (too-shay).....

Lips Malloy!

Kim Hill's Contact Address

Great letter! Well done! I hope they print it in the Listener.

Her contact address, at her work place, at Radio NZ, which you can verify as being the correct one, via this link: is:

The link you've posted Lips, is for the magazine, The Listener, which advertised the interview.

Thanks Clare

Thanks Clare. I also forwarded my letter to the link you provided. Kim apparently reads e-mails on air, so I dared her to read mine. ;-)

Reading Your E-mail On Air

I will keep my ears open on Saturday to hear if she does. (-;

My offering

I don't expect this to get any air time but it was fun writing it and sending it.

Dear Ms. Hill,

I wish to extend my warmest regards and thanks for your exceptional interviewing style. I'm quite sure the thousands of worldwide supporters, volunteers, architects and engineers at AE911Truth would agree with me that you helped make Mr. Gage's speaking event the overwhelming success that it was. It's people like you who so eloquently exemplify the cognitive dissonance and bad manners of those who oppose the Truth Movement. Your refusal to acknowledge the evidence and your posing of idiotic, irrelevant questions made listeners realize Mr. Gage, unlike you, has something to say that is worth listening to.and worthy of serious consideration.

All the best

Chris Sarns


thanks for this. made my day!
Her handlers are probably really ticked off when they realize her stupidity and/or transparently disingenuous interviewing style aroused the curiously of hundreds of listeners and sent them scurrying to hear for themselves what she was so ineptly trying to cover up!