Simple -- I enjoyed the deft and convincing manner in which he skewered Dershowitz's sloppy, egotistical academic work.
His performance in the debate was devastating. He's a much more effective cross-examiner (as a layman) than Dershowitz (as a professional), which is interesting, to say he least.
All he did was claim that he read it six times and accused Dershowitz of plagiarizing from Joan Peters. The plagiarism charge is bogus if he included footnotes giving Peters as the source.
He claimed that Peters' book was a lie, but did not provide any examples of any falsehoods it contained. He just dismissed it. How is that "deft and convincing"?
As far as plagiarism, you may have committed that on this thread by cutting and pasting an entire transcript from another source without obtaining permission or giving credit.
There is no jury in this country that would convict an airline of negligence for restraining a drunken passenger on a rampage.