I grew up when Diff'rent Strokes was a popular television show. That's no big deal unless your last name is Willis. To this day I still hear those famous words popularized by Arnold: "Whatchu talkin bout Willis?" Usually they are uttered by someone looking at me as though I may have never heard it before. Yeah, right! Well this blog is what I (Willis) am talkin bout...my thoughts, observations & opinions. Enjoy...

Monday, September 22, 2008


With all the 9/11 CONspiracy stuff being mentioned on my blog I thought I'd share a couple of videos. Well, they're more like "audioes" but they're good nonetheless.


William Mckinley Dyer said...

Hey whats IMHO mean? I keep seeing it on ur site but i dont know what it means

David H. Willis said...

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

It's old folks texting!

Larry said...

Dave, you have GOT to be kidding me! You are using audio clips from James Meigs of Popular Mechanics? PLEASE tell me youre kidding. CHRISTIAN author David Ray Griffin completely annihilates Popular Mechanics in every book he has written. You know Dave, you shouldnt just sit down at a computer and type in 'debunking 9-11" on your keypad and then posting on your blog their first thing you see on some "debunking" website----ESPECIALLY videos from the Editor of Popular Mechanics-----the biggest example of yellow journalism on the planet. James Meigs knows NOTHING about engineering. Do you know what his last job was before he became EIC at PM? He was a writer for Premiere Magazine----he used to write about movies and who would win Oscars! He doesnt even have a freaking wikipedia page on himself---Im SURE because of that very reason!

Did you listen to the audio clip I have on my site between Charles Goyette and Popular Mechanics' Davin Coburn? Goyette is an agnostic about 9-11 truth and he STILL blows Coburn away!

You really need to research before you run to Popular Mechanics for your "facts". They have been debunked---every single one of them. Just incase you choose not to listen to the interview on my site, let me just tell you what Coburn said about the DNA of the hijackers. He said they FOUND the DNA of the hijackers in the rubble of the WTC!

Then Goyette asks the brilliant question: "How did they get the original DNA to match it?" Coburn does NOT answer the question and spends the rest of the interview dodging and deflecting anything Goyette says, even accusing Goyette of "framing his question wrong". All Goyette asked was "Where did they get the original DNA of the hijackers to match it?"-----Coburn NEVER answers his question.

Dave, you say youre "all about the truth" but you go to the very WORST source on 9-11, Popular Mechanics? That just proves you do absolutely ZERO research on 9-11---none. Popular Mechanics is by far the worst source for 9-11 "truth" you can go to. Feel free to bring up ANYTHING they say---I can destroy any argument they have. I done ALOT of research on this, so if you want to debate this, you better have the ammo!

Anonymous said...

The people that made this clip even spelled MEIGS wrong---they spelled it MIGGS! IM sure Ive heard this interview before, but Ill listen to it, I need another laugh.

Larry said...

Dave, Ive listened to to the clips and all I can say is it was no different than all the crap Ive heard Meigs say before. Its nothing but a smorgasbord of lies---all lies. Where do I even begin? I will address these very short observances:

He said there was SOME debris of the plane at the Pentagon? Every piece of the little debris found you could bend down and pick up. How many plane crash sites have you seen where you dont see a major piece of the plane still there? The official story says the plane vaporized. If it vaporized because of the intense heat, how were they able to identify most of the bodies? Fire can vaporize a plane but cant burn human flesh?

Also, he doesnt mention the fact that theres no wing damage on the Pentagon (before the collapse)---the official story says the wings "feel off" at impact, yet there are no wings laying on the outside. Plus theres no way a plane could have hit that building and left that lawn in pristine condition. The hole in the Pentagon is so low that the plane itself (especially the engines) would have skidded on the lawn, and yet we see a perfect untouched lawn.---Meigs "leaves that out"

Also, Hani Hanour who flew Flight 77 was a terrible pilot--everywhere he went he did bad even in smaller planes (Cessnas) and Meigs is simply lying when he says they were all certified----Hanour was NOT.

He said the transponders were off. How did they know where their targets were with the transponders off? When he says nobody knew where those planes were is simply a lie. YouTube Norman Mineta's 9-11 testimony where he mentions being in a white house bunker with Cheney and Mineta said a young man came in every few minutes and said "the plane is 50 miles out...its 30 miles out...its 10 miles out" and asked Cheney if the orders still stood. Cheney said "of course they do"---what were the orders? To let the plane hit the Pentagon? Did you know the Pentagon has an anti-aircraft battery inside to shoot down planes? Besides the fact that Andrews Air Force base is MINUTES away ---they could have shot the plane down FROM the Pentagon---but didnt.

Meigs fails to mention the smoke from the WTC being BLACK--which indicates a cooler fire. If it was hotter (as they claim), the smoke would have been gray. Black smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire----hence, cooler. He also said the fires "raged"---really? Dave, did you know there were other buildings since then like the Madrid fire of 2005 (also posted on my site) which engulfed the ENTIRE building and burned for 24 hours, yet did not collapse? These are the same buffoons that said WTC 7's fires "raged".

Meigs also fails to mention Frank DeMartini who designed the WTC, who said in a taped interview in Feb 2001 that the twin towers were designed to take MULTIPLE impacts from airliners.

Meigs also failed to mention that Benjamin Chertoff is Popular Mechanics' research editor----the cousin of Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security. Hmmmmmm. Also, a 9-11 writer wanted to know if they were related a few years ago, so he contacted Ben Chertoff's mother and when the writer wanted to confirm the relation, he simply asked her--and she said "Yeah, he's a cousin". Well, in their book "Debunking 9/11..." Meigs mentions this and he even said it "might" be true that theyre cousins and says Ben's mother said "they MIGHT be related". Funny, how they seem to have the entire 9-11 story figured out when they cant even figure out if the head of Homeland Security is related to one of their own staff!

Meigs also leaves out the fact that nearly their entire personnel was replaced in 2004. People who had been there as long as 21 years were told to clean out their desks in one hour. They were all replaced. Cathleen Black, President of Hearst Publications, is married to Thomas Harvey, who used to work for the CIA, the Dept of Defense and the US Information agency.

Dave, I will not sit here and continue to post these mile long posts on something like this, where I have already done the research on this for years now. You used Popular Mechanics, which is the biggest indicator you care nothing about the truth.

If you want to ask me individual questions, I will answer, but I wont address 20 questions at once. Theres way too much involved in this----FAR more than info about Iraq. Like I said, you better be armed with facts, because I know ALOT about BOTH sides of this topic. I study BOTH sides, not just one. So you sending me clips like this is pointles because Ive heard it all, seen it all. I didnt just jump on one side from the gate, I studied BOTH sides----thats why I believe the official story is crap.

Larry said...

the anonymous was post was me Dave, I didnt realize I didnt type my name in

David H. Willis said...


I'ts amazing that the denial crowd are "experts" because of their "research". Tell me about the empirical evidence that you personally examined which has been peer reviewed. Tell me of your credentials to investigate structural engineering, flight paths, DNA, etc. You have simply chosen to believe all this jive and you will not let go because you would be admitting a tremendous amount of utter foolishness.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe...

No plane hit the pentagon, right?

It was a US missile instread, right?

Bush & the neocons like Cheney actually planned these attacks, right?

No hijackers flew the planes, right?

Osama had nothing to with 9/11, right?

Building 7 was set for demolition beforefor 9/11, right.

The twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, right?

There was some sort of bomb(s) attached to the plane(s) hitting the towers, right?

The plane that went down in PA was actually shot down by Americans, right?

The press is in bed with the government so they won't report all the obvious facts that you so easily see, right?

And you DON'T pay income taxes, right?

Maybe you should hook up with this blog next: http://extruther.blogspot.com/

I'm sure you laothe a "Benedict Arnold" like him.


We might still have a little common ground...

Do i think the IRAQ invasion was a bad decision? - YES.

Do I think we are in an unathourized war because no declaration has been made? - YES

Do I trust the government? - NO

Do I think the reason for going into IRAQ was faulty? -YES

Do I think we were misled? - YES

Do I think we are unnecessarily forfieting freedoms in the wake of 9/11? - YES

Do I think being global policeman and nation builders is a very flawed idea? - YES

David H. Willis said...

You know Larry I was think... your blog is a video extravagaza and that's ok. I post a video and I'm not doing "research" (unless of course the video is by Alex Jones).

Larry said...

You posting videos is NOT research---any buffoon can go to YouTube and type in "Debunking 9/11" and 30,000 videos appear by Popular Mechanics clones who lie, lie, lie about 9-11. Hey Dave, isnt it amazing that you criticize ME for not being an "expert" because I dont study DNA, flight plans, etc... and yet you believe in talking snakes and the sun standing still. What scientist on Earth living or dead could you EVER find to support your beliefs on those things?

I notice you failed to ask me ONE question---i mean a REAL question. The ones you asked were in mockery.
But being the guy I am, I will answer your questions, even if they are asked in mockery:

No plane hit the pentagon, right?

(No evidence of a 757---have you ever seen photos of the Pentagon BEFORE it collapsed? The hole is no bigger than 20 feet---and James Meigs said the hole was 90 feet wide! If he was talking vertically he's wrong because the wing span of the plane was 125 feet wide---and if he was speaking horizontally, he's wrong because the entire length of the Pentagon wall was only 77 feet! The hole was bigger than the entire length of the building? PLUS, the photos do not SHOW a 90-feet hole! Did you miss the part where I said the Pentagon has an anti-aircraft battery and can shoot down planes? Ahhh, you just chose to IGNORE that I see)

It was a US missile instread, right?

(I have no clue, it could have been a small drone that was painted to look like an American Airlines replica------this CAN be done and it has already been planned at least twice in history. 1962's Operation Northwoods and Bush himself mentioning PAINTING a plane in UN colors to fly over Iraq to provoke Saddam in 2003----in the Manning memo! not a conpsiratorial idea---FACT)

Bush & the neocons like Cheney actually planned these attacks, right? (I believe Cheney did, Bush is a puppet--he just knew, but didnt plan it)

No hijackers flew the planes, right? (I have no clue. I do know there were NO Arab names on the flight manifests---thats FACT. I have a better question Dave---how do you know hijackers WERE on the planes?)

Osama had nothing to with 9/11, right? (Even the FBI has ADMITTED there's no evidence that Osama carried out 9-11. Do you ever read my posts? Ive said this like 3 times now. Go to Osama's profile on www.fbi.gov and you wont see 9-11 as one of his crimes. He's not even been INDICTED for it!!)

Building 7 was set for demolition beforefor 9/11, right.

(It had to if it was demolished. It takes at least weeks to rig a building with explosives. Larry Silverstein ADMITTED it was taken down by explosives on a PBS special in 2002. Then, 2 years later he "revised" what he said--he said when he said "Pull It" ---he was refrring to pulling the firefighters from the building. THREE problems with this: 1- there were no firefighters still in the building to pull, 2- when you say "Pull IT"---you're not referring to PEOPLE---he didnt say "we pulled it out"----he said, "the smartest thing to do, was PULL IT---then we watched the building collapse"--and 3- People that deny "Pull it" is not a term used for demolition apparently didnt watch that SAME PBS special when it shows some guys ready to demolish building 6, you hear one of the guys say "we're gonna pull building 6")

The twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, right?

(let me answer that by asking YOU a question: they told us the buildings just collapsed right? if the buildings just fell because of weakened steel, fire, etc....then Im assuming that when buildings fall by collapsing, the building and debris will fall straight down right? Right? I mean, a gravitational collapse means everything falls straight down right? Then tell me this Dave---tell me why when you see films of the collapses---you see the debris being shot out in a mushroom shape? what energy is making that debris shoot out like that? the force of the building? NOPE. The weight of the building is all the more reason why it should go straight down! But it doesnt! It mushrooms outward!---even firefighters said they heard explosions and they said it sounded like a demolition)

There was some sort of bomb(s) attached to the plane(s) hitting the towers, right?

(I dont really care about the pod theory---who cares it something was attached? Thats only a peripheral issue)

The plane that went down in PA was actually shot down by Americans, right?

(Absolutely. And there's tons of evidence to support this, but Im not going to type out 15 pages of David Ray Griffin's books---buy them and read it---stop being lazy. He's a Christian Dave---not a kook according to you. The biggest piece of evidence of the plane being shot down is---there was NO plane in that field! If you can find pictures of even PIECES of that plane, Ill send you $1,000. 9-11 was a day or miracles: 2 planes "vaporized", 4 planes not shot down by NORAD in over 85 minutes! Another thing Meigs "forgot" to say---is how LONG the planes were in the air without being shot down----85 MINUTES! Thats NEVER EVER happened before or since 9-11, a building collapses for no reason and no plane hitting it, the twin towers literally turning to pulverized dust---it would only be pulverized if there was energy from a blast--NOT from just collapsing--wow--a day of miracles)

The press is in bed with the government so they won't report all the obvious facts that you so easily see, right?

(not so much in bed with the government as much as they dont wanna lose their jobs----the EXACT same reason you wont look into this and find the truth, because if you knew what I knew and had a brain, youd believe it was an inside job---and if you believed that and posted it on your blog, all your church buddies would find out and you'd get fired from your church for being a "kook")

And you DON'T pay income taxes, right?

(wrong, I pay them, but I dont mind now because I still have a child and get all my money back---now when she's no longer a dependent I might stop)

Dave, why dont you buy some books by David Ray Griffin? Are you scared you might come to believe what I believe and face scorn and people calling you 'nuts'? You cant handle that kind of persecution, can you? Thats why you stay inside your church, isnt it? Tell me something Dave---when is the last time you were persecuted for being a Christian? Let me guess---never? You dont want to be mocked and scorned, do you? Thats why you you follow the official story like a good little obedient follower, never questioning anything and loving to be spoon fed lies and asking for seconds. Pathetic.

Any REAL questions now? Or do I get more mocking questions? Hmmm. I wonder why you didnt address hardly ANYTHING in my last post about how fraudulent Popular Mechanics is-----I wonder why, hmmm.

Larry said...

Funny how you said this to me---"Tell me of your credentials to investigate structural engineering, flight paths, DNA, etc."---and yet you completely IGNORED my comments about Meigs being in the movie critic business before being EIC of Popular Mechanics. What does he know about engineering? Maybe how to construct a statuette of an Oscar? You also completely IGNORED the interview I mentioned between Charles Goyette and Popular Mechanics' Davin Coburn in which PM claims to have the DNA OF THE HIJACKERS and when Goyette asked him 'where did you get the original DNA to match it?'---Coburn panicked and NEVER answered him. I called Goyette (I heard the interview a month after it happened) and spoke with him about 20 minutes and he told me that he found out Coburn had 3 more interviews that day and cancelled them all. LOL. Are you afraid to listen to that interview on my site Dave? Oh, thats right, let me guess --you'll say "Its a waste of time?"---"Who cares?"-----or my favorite "I already did, after 2 minutes of hearing Goyette getting torn to shreds I couldnt listen anymore"------whihc one will you pick?

David H. Willis said...


You PAY income taxes, but Christians are the real hypocrites? Please let me know when you decide to stop. I'll drop you a card in the state pen.

Tell me about the empirical evidence that you personally examined which has been peer reviewed. Tell me of your credentials to investigate structural engineering, flight paths, DNA, etc.

Why don't I read the books you've suggested? Because I have other priorities. I am not consumed like you are. I did spend several hours watching videos from you. That's enough for me for now. Call me lazy or any other verbal flatulence you can come up with, but I'm not committing any more time in the immediate future to "9/11 truthers."

Am I afraid of being thought of as a kook or a nut? Not if it involves my faith in Christ, but I don't want to be lumped in with your bunch. When have i been mocked? Duh - read your own posts here and at Laura's blog. I believe in "talking snakes" & hell right?

You expect me to believe that everyone in the press is fearful of losing their jobs? C'mon! Are you kidding me? These are the same guys who routinely rip the administration on a variety of issues. Am I supposed to believe that among all those anti-bushers out there we can't find one willing to risk his or her employment over exposing Bush? All Obama would have to do is prove Bush orchestrated 9/11 and the dems would own the Whitehouse for generations.

Common sense.

You really have drunk the Alex Jones kool-aid on this stuff. You are the one who can't handle being a kook! That's why you spew vitriol at us while calling us arrogant. You are laughable.

You have acquired a taste for inflammatory rhetoric - I guess that comes with the territory. Sorry but you aren't converting anyone to your position.

Keith Wood said...

You know what is really sad to me is that just the other day before I ever read Larry on here I had pulled an old Super Weekend video from the Library here at RBC and popped it in. There were Larry, Tony, and Bryan Cut, leading the teens in the program that night. Larry, I personally don't care which side of the 9-11 issue you are on or who you vote for, but I do care about your eternity. My prayer is that God will somehow light your way back to Him.

Larry said...

Have OTHER priorities huh? So, in other words, NO time to be fair and balanced?? Hmmm. You only read ONE side Dave. You should see if there's an opening at FOX News!!! I thought you wasnt a sheep there for a few months, boy was I wrong!

By the way, nice job AVOIDING (once again) the FACTS I stated in my last post when I answered your questions. Good avoid job!

By the way, did you listen to the Goyette/Coburn interview? Im guessing NOT. And I even watched YOUR clips even when Ive seen all that before!! Amazing. Simply amazing. Why cant you refute one thing Ive said Dave? I'll make it easy for you Dave, refute just ONE thing Ive said, ONE. Ill be waiting--lol.

David H. Willis said...


You are so confused. I haven't even used the phrase "fair & balanced." I don't watch FOX news either. I don't even have cable! I have the old "rabbit ears" and rarely watch TV period.

Here is the bottom line: You have the burden of proving your accusations. PROVE THEM: No circumstantial evidence. No speculation & "smoking guns." Simply show the irrefutable evidence. Don't just regurgitate accusations and blovaite endlessly. No more rehearsed diatribes - Just prove your accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. Then, I'd suggest you bring a lawsuit against the government when you're done.

So you were wrong about me. I don't walk in lockstep with the republicans, but I'm no "9/11 truther" either. I am interested in truth so I watched your videos. You just can't handle the fact the other people don't get swept away like you did.

I was certainly wrong about you. I had no idea that you were such anti-christian bigot. I watched your videos and visited your blog. I'd hoped that you'd see that I wasn't willing to just dismiss you and write you off. As you know, many of your old college classmates who read what you write these days either recoil or laugh. I'll listen to just about anyone, but that doesn't mean I'll embrace eveything. You might be right, but how will we KNOW for sure.

I understand that you want to spread your ideas and gain subscribers to your movement. Here's a tip: remember that the messenger can greatly hinder the delivery of the message, so work on being a little civil and diplomatic.

I apologize if I have been to provocative. I like to mix it up and have some fun, but I need not push your buttons anymore.

Finally, I'm with Keith. I hope you return to Christ before it's too late. I know you see us as a bunch of religious nuts, but we really care about your soul and your destiny.

Larry said...

and yet ANOTHER post riddled with OPINION, NOT facts. Actually Dave, the burden of proof is on the official story supporters, not us, because we have already PROVED it to be flawed---as evidenced by your REPEATED refusal to answer ONE hard question---all you do is come back and reply with your personal opinions and generalizations. Where's the hard questions? Im not confused at ALL. Ive studied BOTH sides. You ADMIITEDLY have NOT---you said reading books against the official story is "NOT a priority"---correct? Thats FOX News behavior! Do you really think I care what old college classmates say? Its the religious NUTS in this country that have helped RUIN it by voting for the worst president in history and the universe, George Bush, hater of liberty. Why would I care what a bunch of other people like YOU think of me? You walk in lock-step with Popular Mechanics----proven liars. Spare with me your fearmongering comments like "I hope you return to Christ before it's too late."-----too late Dave? or what?? Sounds reminiscent to Bush saying to Saddam "surrender your WMD's before its TOO LATE". Christians love Bush because you all are a big pile of fearmongers. You LOVE using fear. I know I wont get any hard questions asked of me, because that's what your side does: dodge, deflect and ignore---as evidenced by your endless opinions in your posts as opposed to my posts filled with FACTS. You couldnt even debunk ONE thing I said! Will you even try? IM sure that answer is a big fat NO.

David H. Willis said...

More self-congratulations from Larry.

Larry said...

Better edit your profile Dave where it says "Im all about the truth" and delete it, or ADD "...unless it means personal inconvenience and having to research it myself."

Wanna have a public debate on it Dave? To make it fair for you I will allow you to bring any newspaper, book, DVD, magazine, printed pages from the net to support your views. I will bring nothing, and I will still win the debate.

David H. Willis said...


You pompousness reflects inferiority and/or insecurity. You want to debate. That's like me asking you to put on some gloves and get in the ring. I haven't dedicated myself to finding out the "truth" about 9/11. You guys just reel off all your "facts" but cannot prove your case. You try to overwhelm the average person who doesn't sit & listen to Alex Jones and read like minded websites constantly.


Do you believe the offical story about the holocaust? Have you investigated it thoroughly? Have you done your research? Can you say it is absolutley true because of your dedicatd pursuit of truth? Have you debated the deniers? Have you read their books? If they can find one error in the "official story" does it mean the holocaust never happened? Aren't you interested in truth? I guess not.

That is illustrating your absurdity with absurdity.

I'm waiting for your answer...

Larry said...

Dave, continually calling me a liar and saying I dont have facts over and over again doesnt make it the truth just because you repeat it. I have posted a mountain of facts so far---have you refuted ONE of them? NOPE. You dont even MENTION anything Ive said.

You arent dedicated to finding the truth? Hmmmm. Guess that makes that whole "Im all about the truth" jive null and void! LOL. But yet you posted videos on your blog in a failed, miserable attempt at the truth---Im sure without realizing you posted videos to a group of yellow journalists that are a tool of the CIA-----Popular Mechanics---lol.

David H. Willis said...

Skip my questions again & again. your larry logic is illogical whether you cende or not. Prove guilt - you can't do it. Raise innuendo & bloviate - you can do that!

-Credentials - none.
-Empirical evidence - none.
-Peer reviewed research - none.
-Testimony of witnesses - none.

I'm not the one who commited the acts on 9/11. I'm not an apologist for those whom you accuse either. I didn't have anything to with it. You attack me like I did it. I posted videos for a couple of reasons: to jab you and to disassociate myself from your view.

THINK with me for a moment.... You said in another post that - "If there's so many views about Hell, that must mean only one thing: God wasn't clear on this subject."

Consider: Since there are so many different views amongst the "truthers" then there is no clear truth regarding the events. Which "truthers" tell the truth? A little larry-logic.

Here's what you must believe to sustain your 9/11 position...

1. No one aware of the governmant plot will come forward because they'll lose their jobs or worse - That's laughable.

2. This goverment you openly mock for incomptence is amazingly successful in pulling this whole thing off as you alledge.

3. The press is either duped or afraid of being branded as whackos. Silly again.

4. The passengers on at least one of those flights are still alive somewhere! They probably live next door to Elvis.

5. American servicemen killed there own countrymen.

The list could go & on.

PS. Popular Mechanics is a tool of the CIA? I guess the History Channel is too! FOX News is too I guess, huh?

Larry said...

Dave, Dave, Dave---so wrong AGAIN, on so many points.

-Credentials - none.

(I believe I already provided several names of those who reject the official story of 9-11, but since your brain is mush and needs to keep hearing the same answers continually, here is a more EXTENSIVE list of those WITH the credentials):

Chuck Baldwin (who believes the 9/11 truth movement has a right to open a new investigation and also believes the government may had something to do with the attacks. The SAME CHuck Baldwin in which you posted one of his articles on YOUR SITE) LOL

Kevin Barrett
Robert M. Bowman
Andreas von Bülow
A.K. Dewdney
James Fetzer
David Ray Griffin
Sander Hicks
Jim Hoffman
Steven E. Jones
David Lynch
Annie Machon
Lynn Margulis
Michael Meacher
Thierry Meyssan
Morgan Reynolds
Paul Craig Roberts
Barrie Zwicker
Webster G. Tarpley
William Rodriguez
Michael Ruppert
Peter Dale Scott
David Shayler
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Just to name a FEW

-Empirical evidence - none.

(you can go to this link, David Ray Griffin's speech: Lets Get Empirical--->http://video.google.com/

-Peer reviewed research - none.

(This site shows you that Steven Jones' work HAS been peer reviewed--->http://journalof911studies.com/)

-Testimony of witnesses - none.

(this of course is an "argument from ignorance"---saying because there's no witnesses to the actual planning of the cover-up or they dont whistleblow it, they dont exist)

Any more ridiculous things you have for me to debunk and make you look even more foolish on?

Larry said...

Oh by the way Dave, when I use the term "government" to describe those behind it, Im using the general term---what I REALLY mean is Black Ops, a very rogue element of the government. Stop acting like Im talking about Senators, Congressmen or Judges.

Black Ops is not American servicemen, they are evil and I wouldnt even call them American. These are the same people that took out JFK and MLK.

Larry said...

Pretty embarrassed now that you used Chuck Baldwin's (a 9-11 truther) article arent you? If only you would RESEARCH, but that's not "a priority", is it Dave? LOL

David H. Willis said...

Let me know when you finish research on the Holocaust. I can't wait for your take on that!

David H. Willis said...

Because I used an article by Churck baldwin doesn't mean I believe and/or endorse everything he says. More larry-logic I guess.

Larry said...

Some people I know dont believe that Hitler killed as mant as was claimed in the holocaust. However, I have not researched this enough to know, so as it stands I will believe that 6 million died.

What does the holocaist have to do with 9-11? Playing the old switcheroo when you have been pummeled with facts from my side?

No, it doesnt mean you believe everything he says---however, I wish you'd admit that you had NO CLUE that Baldwin was a 9-11 truther and you feel like a dork for posting one of his articles. I saw on your page under one of your posts you said something like "I dont hold any of Larry's views on his blog.."-----just curious----which stories were you referring to? I schooled you on your "Credentials - none, Empirical evidence - none, Peer reviewed research - none and the
Testimony of witnesses - none." post. Nuff said

David H. Willis said...


The point is YOUR "research" is nothing more than parroting what you hear from others. You aren't qualified to do or analyze the research you write about. For every "expert" you mention there are plenty on the other side.

Here's Baldwin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbwu14Z3umw&watch_response

My position is closer to Chuck Baldwins than yours by the way! I'd be happy with an independent investigation by qualified unbiased folks. Of course you probably think he's not interested in truth because he hasn't swallowed the "truthers" positions. I guess he's to lazy like me!

Chuck Baldwin also believes in Jesus and the Bible! I guess that is quite an embarassment to you! He thinks he knows there is a God!

David H. Willis said...

I cited an article buy Baldwin. I generally believe in the platform of the Constitutional Party so I posted a link to his website. I don't agree with everything on every website I link to. Chuck Baldwin is not a "truther." Show me where he believs as you. He simply stated he'd be in favor of an independant investigation of 9/11 when he's elected president (like that would ever happen). Who's loose with the facts now? I guess (by larry-logic) everything you say is now in question. As far as feeling like a dork - I don't. Notice I never linked to your website.

As far as the Holocaust goes it illustrates exactly what kind of buffoonery you exhibit. You don't know what really happened - MUST BE THAT YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT TRUTH. You haven't "researched " it - YOU MUST BE LAZY. If there weren't 6 million killed does that mean the whole event is now called into question.

Larry said...

You said, "For every "expert" you mention there are plenty on the other side."

Yes, and when I DO mention what people on my side says, you IGNORE it and send posts that are chock full of OPINIONS that dont address anything I have said----but when YOU post what the people on your side say, I address each thing specifically and debunk them. You have not addressed ONE thing Ive said about ANYTHING. If Im just "parroting" like you say, then it should be pretty easy to refute and debunk me right? You didnt take me up on the public debate I challenged you on---whats the matter? Afraid of getting crushed? If the truth was on YOUR side and Im the kook, wouldnt you win with ease? Surely, you can defeat the "nut" in a public debate right? But, yet you seem afraid, hmmmm. Im puzzled as to why the 'beacon of truth' would be afraid of the 'kook' who just parrots people.

Dave, whats your point about Baldwin believing in Jesus? So does David Ray Griffin, something that Ive mentioned over and over, only for that not to be important to you unless you are using it to defend one of your points (poor attempt by the way).

See, thats the difference between us (of the many)----I dont give a crap what someone believes religiously if they believe the truth about 9-11. I dont care if they're a Satanist, as long as they are a patriot and know the truth about 9-11. Several people in my Ron Paul group are Christians and that never made me not come to the meetings nor did it stop me from campaigning with them. On the other hand, YOU get so offended at MY religious stance that you abandon even researching the things I ask you to research. I ask you to read David Ray Griffin's books and whats your reply? "Not my priority" or whatever crap you said. Why? Because you're boohooing and personally offended by my religious views. Boo Hoo Dave---need a kleenex? You should search for the truth no matter what the personal, religious bel;iefs are of the person who is giving that truth. I didnt look at one of David Ray Griffin's books and say "Ahhhhh! He's A Christian! He's a kook, he must be lying about 9-11 if he believes in talking snakes!"----no, just the opposite, David Ray Griffin is by far the most intelligent person who is involved in 9-11 truth. But if I gave you a book by someone who didnt believe in God, yet was 100% correct on political issues you'd say "I have other priorities man"----oh, wait, youve already done that! What a hypocrite you are!

I dont research the holocaust because right now, it's not important to me. Its not effecting the world as we know it now. I dont research EVERYTHING Dave. I have DVD's about the moon landing too, but I havent watched them, because I take time when I research things. I dont research 100 things at once, I do them one at a time. Right now, the holocaust is not one of the things on my plate. Maybe it will be later, but its not now. You on the other hand, dont research ANYTHING----oh wait, yes you do, you research YouTube for 10 seconds to post yellow journalists and debunked, proven frauds Popular Mechanics.

Larry said...

oh and Dave, among the many things youve ignored, you 'forgot' to tell me what thermite is. have any clue without using wikipedia?

David H. Willis said...

You've just lost it - plain and simple. You are just interested in arrogantly advancing your nonsense and arguing ad infinitum AND NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION TO YOU, save me. Larry, you are a part of a mutual admiration society that thinks everyone is nuts or duped or lazy but you.

You wrote: "I dont research the holocaust because right now, it's not important to me. Its not effecting the world as we know it now. I dont research EVERYTHING Dave."

I can congratulate you on the obvious. Now get over yourself & recognize that I (& many others)don't care about investigating or debatig your views and I'm not apologist for the offical story. Can you not read?

Baldwin's position isn't yours - admit it. It's actually mine! And I'm supposed to feel like a dork?

Check this page out on YOUR BLOG: http://realtruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/my-top-10-smoking-guns-that-911-was.html

Start in the comment section with "Jas said"... I thought he was little over the top & i'd use different language but I'm starting to see where he's coming from.

Larry said...

Of course you would hold the same view Jas does----you and him should be brothers! He's EXACTLY like you, ignores facts, doesnt answer questions, dodges, deflects and resorts to ad hominem attacks and never refutes a single thing.

Oh, and he was a chicken too when I challenged him to a public debate. Why are the ones who think they possess the truth the chickens who are afraid to argue their case and the "kooks" are the ones that challenge others to debates?

Dave, why dont YOU admit that if you investigated this stuff and came to believe in it, it would require a MAJOR life change (that is, if it meant anything to you) and your lifestyle requires COMFORT, not hardship. Like I said before (of which you never responded to...hmmm, I wonder why) I bet you have never really suffered ONE day in your life for being a Christian---that is, if you count a giggle from someone who watched you pray over your food in Burger King.

What is your point about my holocaust comment? The holocaust was evil, sure but that happened 60 years ago and doesnt affect what's happening in America right now--that is what I focus on the most. Besides, we have our OWN Hitler to worry about right now. Buah is a National Socialist (a Nazi) and that is the truth. His grandfather, Prescott, worked for a bank that financed Hitler.

I dont condemn you for not investigating things. I condemn you for not investigating things and then disguise yourself as an investigator by posting stories and videos on your site in response to me as if you HAVE studied it---and then, you condemn ME when I DO study it! If you would just say, "I dont investigate it, so I have no opinion on it" that would have been more admirable. Yes, I realize I did say that I dont investigate the holocaust so Im going to stand by the official story of it until I DO look into it, but the big difference between 9-11 and the holocaust is that everyone alive during the holocaust is DEAD now (except a few people I suppose) and that was ANOTHER country. I think things that are happening NOW and to OUR country puts investigating this a high priority (or at least it SHOULD). Whether Hitler killed 6 million or 6 hundred doesnt affect my life (and the rest of Americans) when it comes to keeping our freedoms right here and now. When the Constitution is officially gone and we may possibly have to begin a revolution (that is, if enough people even CARE) nobody is gonna be walking around wondering how many Hitler killed---but 9/11 is another issue. That was the beginning of the domino effect and knowing all we can about that has EVERYTHING to do with being a patriot. Studying the holocaust doesnt make me a patriot, it would make me a history buff. Are you condeming patriotism Dave? Or do you think patriotism is saving a cat from a tree like Bill O Reilly does? Do you think it's cranking up a Toby Keith song? Or putting a flag on your car antenna? Oh thats right, none of this matters because your soul is more important right?

If our country isnt saved, you wont have nowhere to worship your God. I am really thankful the founding fathers were not like you!

Larry said...

Oh, I forgot. Here's an EXCELLENT article for you to read. Read it Dave---it's all about YOU!


David H. Willis said...

Larry wrote: "Dave, why dont YOU admit that if you investigated this stuff and came to believe in it, it would require a MAJOR life change (that is, if it meant anything to you) and your lifestyle requires COMFORT, not hardship."

Could it possible for you to be more ignorant & arrogant at the same time? You don't know me.

Sure if I embraced what you believe and publicly announced it i'd probably be run out of my job.

And I'd probably end up stuck behind my computer with an Alex Jones podcast playing, using my prison planet mouse pad, dilluding myself into thinking I was superior and a true patriot, parsing every word on FOX News, admiring the Ron Paul picture on my desk, anticipating the latest book by David Ray Griffin, wishing I was as smart as Steven Jones, contemplating watching "In Plane Site" for the 100th time, working on my blog that no one reads, trying to ignore the fact that most people think I'm a total loon!

Other than that, life would be pretty normal. And what does that prove, Larry?

Consider: If you embraced what you believed and stopped paying income taxes and publicly announced it, you would go to jail. So practice what you preach or do you lack the courage to act upon what your convictions?

Ron Paul publicy disassociates himself from you and he's the man! Chuck Baldwin is open (like me) to further examination of 9/11 and he's a "truther." You can't make this stuff up!

Larry said...

Ron Paul was also running for President too----as I said 100 times it would political suicide if he said 9/11 was an inside job. Jesse Ventura doesnt disassociate with my views---either do many other politicians, scientists, physicists and engineers.

You call ME the loon and YOURE the one that believes in talking snakes, talking donkeys and a man lived in a big fish for 3 days--and the sun stood still??? Youre kidding me!---and you cant even PROVE that stuff! I NEVER said I follow Ron Paul for his 9-11 views. I follow him because he's 100% FOR the Constitution and if that had been followed, other countries wouldnt hate us so much!

You stick with your ad hominem attacks, but you STILL have not refuted ONE fact I posted. When will you do that? NEVER? Oh and by the way, did you read the article about yourself I sent the link to?

Probably not, the man who is "all about the truth" finally got his fill of it! LOL

Oh, and if YOU believed what YOU truly believed youd be selling your possessions and giving them to the poor, feeding the hungry, mending the sick and would be not driving around in the nice car you no doubt have, (ministers always have nice things, they're the most materialistic people on Earth)---youre a hypocrite---a major one.

David H. Willis said...

A 95 Civic. You are right about one thing - You have fully convinced me to believe in talking jackasses!

Larry said...

LOL, yeah Dave, I noticed that you only commented about your car---but 'left out' whether you feed the hungry or take care of the sick and if you have suffered as a Christian. Nice attempt at spin by addressing my post by NOT addressing the MOST IMPORTANT part of it---which, I have to assume, you fail at and neglect since you have no response. What a fine Christian you are NOT feeding hungry people, NOT taking care of the sick and NOT suffering as a Christian despite those being among the top things Christ requires to be his follower.

The truth is clear. You're a FRAUD. And your reaction to being the fraud you are is to cover it up by just saying Im a fraud. Dave, do yourself a favor---stick with the windshield wiper fluid stories. They take no investigation----well either did your posts of Popular Mechanics' lies, so I guess in that sense they were of equal journalistic value---lol.

Oh and one more thing Dave. Bill Doyle, head of the largest victims family member group (of 9-11) says "inside job" and more than half of the family members in his group agrees. Guess they're kooks too!

David H. Willis said...


Ignoring what I've written is what you do so well. Whether I measure up in your eyes is of no consequence to me. You do not know me and i do not answer to you. You obviously can't handle someone rejecting your views. You over-inflated ego results in your incessant blather. Now I'm a fraud? Great Larry. This is how you work - now I'm guilty until proven innocent. You don't get. Example: "Larry beats his wife. Prove it's untrue or you're guilty!" Another: "Larry is a crook. Prove you're not." Here's one more: "Larry is resposible for 9/11. If not, disprove it!" This is your infantile, illogical, unjudicial approach. No evidence just speculation.

Alledged problems with the "offical story" of 9/11 isn't equivalent to Bush's guilt. That's a non sequitur.

Yet you still assert that G.W. Bush orchestrated. Prove it! You have the burden of proof. So let's see it. No anectdotal evidence, no hearsay, just indisputable proof. Prove your charge beyond a reasonable doubt or expect continued disregard.

No wonder Ron Paul distances himself from your crowd.

Larry said...

LOL, I ignore YOUR questions??? Youre kidding me right?? Youve ignored every single FACT Ive posted and a slew of other questions Ive asked. You're incorrect that we have to PROVE our side is true----all that is required of us is that we prove the official story is false. If the official story that is purported to be TRUE is NOT true, then it has to be false, or a lie, or a fallacy---hence, something is covered up. Here Dave, I will post the slew of questions that were NOT addressed in the 9-11 commission and you tell me WHY these things were never addressed:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

I'm quite sure you wont address even ONE of these things. You will IGNORE them just like the government did. But yet, you're "all about the truth"---lol

David H. Willis said...

Let the readers evaluate & decide.

Larry said...

I knew you'd ignore every single one of them. I didnt actually expect you to sit there and read ALL 115, I wouldnt either, but I figured youd read 10 of them at least. I only posted all 115 so you'd know I wasnt making this stuff up. And, naturally, Mr. "Im all about the truth" wants no part of FACTS, does he. You're pathetic.

David H. Willis said...


Again with the "pathetic" comments. It really undermines your credibility. Frankly is puerile and does nothing in terms of enhancing your arguments. But if it makes you feel better..

Also, 2 questions:

1. How do you know what I read?

2. Are you bipolar?

Larry said...

And liking Sarah Palin undermines yours, as well as ignoring the 115 things I posted as well as the slew of other facts I posted and not answering 90% of the questions Ive asked you--you know, the ones in which you reply, "I have other priorities" yet those 'priorities' dont come before posting stories about windshield wiper fluid and Sarah "I am a Christian but my daughter is pregnant" Palin (another hypocrite in Christianland). I have no clue what you read, but I bet a million dollars its Max Lucado or Josh McDowell or some other loon that believes a 500 year old man spent 100 years building a giant boat and you stay away from books that explain whats REALLY happening.

It all makes sense now Dave--I just now realized that it all makes sense why you gleefully accept the official conspiracy theory of 9-11----it defies science, logic and physics, just like the Bible does in many of its foundational teachings. You believe a man walked on water, a snake and an ass spoke (literally...like Mr. Ed), the sun stood still and a 500 year old man built a boat roughly the size of the Titanic! Why wouldnt you believe planes vaporize on impact? Or buildings collapse due to fire and minimal damage? Or that a supposed gravitational collapse PULVERIZED the concrete of the twin towers into dust? Or that NORAD took over 85 minutes to respond when it has never happened in the 60 year history of NORAD? 9-11 was a day of miracles---of course! Makes perfect sense now Dave! Dave--you dont know ANYTHING about what happened on 9-11 and Im sick and tired of people who watch glimpses of clips on TV and think they know. They dont. They THINK they know, but they dont. If you read just ONE of david Ray Griffin's books, you would realize how ignorant you are of everything that happened. Thats right...its "not a priority"... dont you think the victims that day, many of which leaped to their deaths and splattered like bugs on a windshield on the ground DESERVE people who CARE and TRY to do something? If it was one of YOUR family members who hit the ground at 120 miles an hour whose arms and legs popped off their bodies (not my opinion, witnesses actually saw this), wouldnt YOU take this just a TAD more seriously? They DESERVE the TRUTH----not a land of people who get more excited at the next touchdown scored in a football game. Not a land of zombies whose sole purpose is to read as little as they can and eat as much as they can. Surely they dont deserve the apathy of our elected leaders and yet it took Bush 441 days to start the fake, phony, non-independent investigation of 9-11----ONLY through the pressure from victims' family members. God, Dave? God is here and lives among so many who dont give a damned about ANYTHING but to self-serve and indulge in gluttony, laziness and pride? Oh, wait--arent they 3 of the 7 deadly sins? Didnt you say you had "other priorities"? In other words, an admittance of laziness? Yeah, I said "pathetic"--and I stand by it.

David H. Willis said...

A word from your favorite book to mock:

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.


Why do you care about what I think? Seriously. You are bent on trying to convince me. Why? Is it because you have no influence and you hope the little I do have will advance your cause?

Here are some folks you might want to argue with. They're much more influential than I am.



Larry said...

Good job blowing off all my points in my posts just to give me aanother dose of your personal bloviating. Im not trying to convince of anything. I only respond to your posts and bring you the TRUTH (that thing you claimed to be all about, remember? But yet you said you have no time for?)

Dave, there's something you dont understand about the truth of 9-11. Its not a right wing/left wing issue! Even the LEFT doesnt cover it, so giving me links to the Huffington Post means nothing----the media is ALL corporate controlled. Even the LEFT would be run through the mud and fired for having the beliefs I do---why? Because it's false? Because it's considered unpatriotic and even treasonous to even suggest that your own government is involved in false flag terror---even though it's documented left and right that it happens. This is the SAME exact reason even the left has completely blacked out Vincent Bugliosi's book! Because it's false? NO. Because of the very opposite--it couldnt be more true!

Tell me something Dave. Why would you totally black out a group of people, or certain books or anything that is considered by the nay-sayers "fringe" unless you really believed and were afraid that the cause is larger than you want to believe it is? Heres my point: If I had my own show and expressed on my show every night that I think Christians are nutballs---would I AVOID you if I TRULY thought you were? My personal answer is: NO, I wouldnt. If I thought you guys were the nuttiest people on Earth, I would actually INVITE you on my show to show the world how nutty you are so it wouldnt be just my opinion anymore, but it would be something the entire world could see for themselves. Plus, I would get a thrill at making you look like fools when I ask you questions you could not possibly answer.

So, tell me Dave---why is it that this is NOT what's happening with 9-11?? Yeah, you see truthers on O'Reilly and Hannity once in a blue moon, but do you ever notice they ALWAYS have them on during the final 2 minutes of the show and O Reilly and Hannity never shuts up to let them talk?

What Im referring to is inviting us on the show to actually DISCUSS this with others who dont agree for entire segments---maybe even the entire show. NO, you NEVER see this---why? Good question. Dont you think it would thrill O Reilly and Hannity to invite us on to make us look like complete fools when we actually are involved in a debate and lengthy dialogue? Since we are "fringe" like they say, they shouldnt be afraid of losing the debate, right? So, why do they never EVER have truthers on for fair amounts of time exchanging in actual debate? The only LONG segments theyve ever had is when they just have a person from the OFFICIAL side on. James Meigs was given an 8 or 9 minute segment on O Reilly once--and O Reilly let him talk. We are given the last 2 minutes with O Reilly talking the whole time calling us "far left loons" and saying we're "unAmerican" and we should be investigated. Why is he so afraid to let us talk?

Your lack of research skills shines through once AGAIN as you posted a link from "skeptic" magazine----a magazine created by Michael Shermer---a professed NON- theist who said on the Penn and Teller show "Bulls**t" a few years ago "The Bible is MYTHIC storytelling..nothing more"--then said "The more we learn about archaeology and Biblical times, the more we find out that most of the things in the Bible are FICTION"-----good job Dave---good research skills once again. This is why I would annihilate you in a debate because I ALREADY KNEW about Michael Shermer being the publisher of Skeptic magazine. Whereas you just punch 3 keys on your keyboard and think you've cracked the case with a simple link! Here, if you dont believe me, here's the link of Shermer on the show "Bulls**t"--I believe it was in 2005. It would stand to reason that if he was right about 9-11, he'd be right about the Bible too. Well, I can tell you he's NOT right about 9-11. These people are just like YOU---they spend ZERO time researching it and refer to sources like Popular Mechanics who do their "research" for them and then claim THEY are experts too when theyve done ZERO work. So, if you are a Michael Shermer advocate now, then you must take his stance on the Bible too. So let me guess, you're going to pick and choose huh? Youll say he's wrong on the Bible but right on 9-11 right? That's SO BIll O Reilly. Arent you a freethinker?


Warning: there is alot of language in this----you can skip to Shermer--he's at 3:37 in the clip. Stop posting links blindly Dave and start actually researching----it's really making your credibility sink to new lows--lol.

David H. Willis said...

So I cite someone with beliefs I disagree with and it's wrong. You read books by a theologian who agrees with your views and it's ok? More larry-logic = inconsistency!

So the lest & the right are all together against you?There are planty of ways for you to get your message out - the problem is that you aren't winning many folks over. Of course this is because they are all lazy, won't do research, just watch FOX news and won't read the right books or watch the right videos. Otherwise everyone would agree with you.

I think I figured it out.

Also, there are lots of groups that the media "blacks out." I sure you don't conclude that they must all be right as a consequence.

Larry said...

No, Dave, the problem is not that you just happened to cite someone whose beliefs are against yours---the problem is that you didnt do any research to know that his beliefs actually WERE different than yours---so it destroys your credibility that you sent a link of a website to a magazine who's creater says the Bible story is a fairy tale in order to disprove my stance on 9-11! Are you trying to tell me had you known Shermer rejected the Bible you still would have used that link as a source? You've stated many many times now that God and the Bible are more important than the 9-11 issue and you would have STILL used a source that doesnt believe in the Bible as your evidence that IM wrong?? So, you're saying "He (Shermer)rejects the more important thing, so that validates what he says on the lesser important thing?" Keep in mind there's tons of evidence that what I say about 9-11 is true and ZERO evidence the Bible is true.

In my case, I knew from the get go that David Ray Griffin is a Christian, so I didnt take a blind leap into reading his books without knowing where he stood religiously. Besides, his stance on religion does not negate his excellent research on 9-11. The fact that I have issues with the Bible and STILL read a theologians books about 9-11 solidify that I am a free thinker and I go to the truth wherever it's at and I dont let my PERSONAL stances on things interfere with the truth.

YOU, on the other hand---do ZERO research and when I school you on knowing about the very links YOU send ME better than YOU do----Im sure it has to be a major embarrassment. YOUR philosophy is that you only seek the truth where it fits your comfort zone. You already ADMITTED that youd be fired by your church if you believed what I believed, so therefore your answer to that is that you wont even look into it---that way it saves you from the possibility of you accepting it as truth. Sad. Very sad.

Funny, I ACCEPT David Ray Griffin's books DESPITE that he's a Christian, you REJECT his books even THOUGH he's one. Utterly amazing.

David H. Willis said...

L: "Are you trying to tell me had you known Shermer rejected the Bible you still would have used that link as a source?"

D: YES. And exactly what difference does that make to an argument about whether "truthers" are truthful?

L: So, you're saying "He (Shermer)rejects the more important thing, so that validates what he says on the lesser important thing?"

D: Plenty of atheists believe 2 + 2 = 4 but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Because a person is ever wrong doesn't mean he's always wrong.

L:... ZERO evidence the Bible is true.

D: Talk about losing crediblity.

L: I knew from the get go that David Ray Griffin is a Christian, so I didnt take a blind leap into reading his books without knowing where he stood religiously. Besides, his stance on religion does not negate his excellent research on 9-11.

D: Precisely. So if you didn't know about Griffin's beliefs would it efect the reliability of his research? No.

L: YOU, on the other hand---do ZERO research and when I school you on knowing about the very links YOU send ME better than YOU do----Im sure it has to be a major embarrassment.

D: No actually I'm not embarassed at all.

L: Funny, I ACCEPT David Ray Griffin's books DESPITE that he's a Christian, you REJECT his books even THOUGH he's one. Utterly amazing.

D: Nice reasoning or lack thereof. The embarassing thing here is that you consider yourself so astute yet fail at elementary logic. And now I should be accepting of Griffin's views because he's a Christian? That's just more not so compelling larry-logic.

Larry said...

D: YES. And exactly what difference does that make to an argument about whether "truthers" are truthful?

L: The fact that you have IGNORED just about every single fact Ive posted, included the 115 other questions speaks volumes to my beliefs being true.

D: I should be accepting of Griffin's views because he's a Christian? That's just more not so compelling larry-logic.

L: Actually I condemn you for for condeming his views without even knowing what they are! But you blindly post the views of a non-theist just to boost your agenda!

D: Precisely. So if you didn't know about Griffin's beliefs would it efect the reliability of his research? No.

L: Thats impossible. I always know of who Im studying because I do research on where I get my facts at....unlike you. And twice now (Meigs/Shermer) it has come back to bite you in the hiney (despite your acknowledgement of it)

D: Plenty of atheists believe 2 + 2 = 4 but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Because a person is ever wrong doesn't mean he's always wrong.

L: That wasnt my point. YOU supplied the source of Shermer without researching who he was and automatically assumed he was an expert on 9-11 to boost your agenda. He was YOUR source--not mine. You wasnt trying to prove/disprove mathematics Dave. AGAIN, bad analogy. How many of those do you have now? 4?

L:... ZERO evidence the Bible is true.

D: Talk about losing crediblity.

L: You supplied no facts to support it (as usual), so my credibility stands.

David H. Willis said...

There's nothing wrong with my logic. You simply chjange what you say when you've been exposed. The background of the messenger doesn't mean he's necessarily right or wrong. Empirical evidence is what it is as the saying goes. Facts are true with or without confirmation and with no regard for messengers or deniers. You really should enroll in a elementary logic class at the local community college in H-town. I'm sure Alex would approve. MAybe prisonplanet offers a correspondence course or soemthing.

I was checking out your blog. It's funny how much junk you just copy & paste from Alex Jones approved websites. Then in your predictable audacity you come here a dog me for posting unoriginal stuff which really shows your hypocrisy.

For the Bible see - http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html

But you might find it hard to believe. You are enlightened. Get some matter add lots time and a bunch of random chance and voilà you got yourself everything that is! Oh that's right - you are byeyond us dumb theists and stupid atheists - you are agnostic!

Larry said...

D: I was checking out your blog. It's funny how much junk you just copy & paste from Alex Jones approved websites. Then in your predictable audacity you come here a dog me for posting unoriginal stuff which really shows your hypocrisy.

L: Alex Jones "approved"? Meaning? You mean PrisonPlanet and Infowars? Sure, I post a good deal of stuff by Paul Watson because I research it and he's dead on with almost everything he says. Some stuff he's said Ive disagreed with, and in those cases, I dont post it. No, Dave, there you go SPINNING again (O Reilly would love you), I didnt say you posted unORIGINAL stuff, I said you post unRESEARCHED stuff. You had NO clue who James Meigs was or his background (used to write movie reviews), nor who Michael Shermer was (professed non-theist) and I never EVER said that you have to AGREE with everything that the sources you post believe in because there's many people I disagree with on certain issues (HIGHLY disagree with) but on others I agree with 100%, like Bill Maher. I agree with him on religion, but completely am disgusted with him on his 9-11 stance. I was simply making the point (clearly, I thought) that you didnt even KNOW what your sources believed to even know what you were posting.

It wasn't an issue of originality, it was an issue of you not even knowing the backgrounds of your sources. You punch in "debunking 9-11" on your keyboard, and the first site you see that says they debunk it ---you get giddy and just post the first link you see. Did you ever even READ the stuff on the sites? And even if you DID----you even ADMITTED you dont have time or its no "priority" to read David Ray Griffin's books, so how would even know what our side is saying when you read these debunking sites to know if they're not lying through their teeth? You dont! Because you dont study BOTH sides! You dont even study ONE side!

This is what Hitler did, just repeated the lie over and over until people believed it. Thats why FOX News would be under the control of Joseph Goebbels if he were still alive. Something doesnt have to be TRUE, it just has to be REPEATED over and over.

Here are just a few things that have been repeated over and over and people have believed it without question:

"They hate us for our freedoms"

"Iraq was filled with terrorists before our invasion"

"Saddam was involved in 9-11"

"the surge is working"

"we cant cut and run"

"fire melts steel"

"the planes vaporized"

"The impacts blew the asbestos from the steel girders" (the towers were designed for jet impacts)

I could list a dozen more--the point is, you keep believing their repetitive lies and talking points and I thought you were smarter than that. I was wrong.

What does it matter if I post from PrisonPlanet anyway? I attribute the stories I post to the authors, dont I? Find ONE time on my site where I used verbatim someone else's story and posted MY name on it. When Laura posted Bush's speech from 2002 and made it appear as if it was her words, you didnt condemn that did you? Of course not.

You said this:

D: You simply change what you say when you've been exposed.

L: Name ONE time I CHANGED what I said...just one. Im quite sure this will be ignored.

Funny you lecture me on empirical evidence. Did you watch the David Ray Griffin video called "Lets Get Empirical" from the link I sent you? Im quite sure that answer is NO. You have "no time" right? But yet you manage to muster the time to copy and paste the phony sites you go to only to find out (twice now) that I knew more about the backgrounds of the sites than YOU did!

You also said this:

D: Facts are true with or without confirmation and with no regard for messengers or deniers.

L: Facts are true with or without confirmation? If someone states a supposed fact and it's confirmed, the source of that confirmed fact should be researched and validated. If it's NOT confirmed, how can you call it a fact? THIS is why you believe in the Bible! Because it requires ZERO confirmation! You call THIS logic?? WOW!

Then you said "....with no regard for messengers and deniers." WHAT?? So, in other words, you're saying it doesnt matter who the messenger and denier is? What if the messenger is the apostle Paul? or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Dave, do you even know what you typed? What if the messenger is Charles Manson, Dave? He claimed he was Jesus---is he right or wrong? Shouldnt this be CONFIRMED? and if it IS confirmed---doesnt it matter WHO confirms it? You cant use the Bible as your proof that Manson is lying, because the Bible isnt even confirmed fact, so, really you cant confirm Manson is lying, because no one from Biblical times is alive to confirm they saw the real Jesus. You cant use the Bible to prove the Bible, thats circular reasoning---saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it is. Now, do I highly suspect Manson is lying? YES, because he's a nut---but I cant PROVE it because the Bible itself cannot be proven.

Wow, Dave. If I were you, Id quit your own blog, because you just keep burying youself with your own twisted "logic". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I think you meant to say this:

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained"---said by Gandhi---which is also the header on my site. It fits perfectly with the truth of 9-11.

Oh and by the way Dave---there you go AGAIN knocking something else you provided no proof AGAINST. Can you prove Alex Jones lies? If not, then how can you condemn him by saying "you get your stuff from AJ approved sites" as if he's a liar. PROVE he's a liar, THEN you can condemn it and claim it should not be followed. Thats the amazing thing about our blog-of-war Dave, you have not refuted ONE thing I've said----not ONE. Dont forget about my question when I asked you to name something Ive "changed"---when you said "You simply change what you say when you've been exposed."----Id sure like to know just ONE. Like I said, Im sure it will be ignored.

Larry said...

By the way Dave, I looked at the link you sent me----it is riddled with circular reasoning (claiming the Bible is true because it says in the Bible it is)

heres an example: (from the site you sent)

"Nevertheless the Bible writers claimed repeatedly that they were transmitting the very Word of God, infallible and authoritative in the highest degree."

"If one will seriously investigate these Biblical evidences, he will find that their claims of divine inspiration (stated over 3,000 times, in various ways) were amply justified."

I found this interesting too:

"But, on the other hand, if the greatest and most influential book of the ages, containing the most beautiful literature and the most perfect moral code ever devised, was written by deceiving fanatics, then what hope is there for ever finding meaning and purpose in this world?"------so, they are saying "just incase its NOT true and was written by a bunch of loons, it gives us no hope, so if for no other reason, you should accept it because it wont give you despair and hopelessness". That's how I translated it. To me, that's fearmongering----saying that if it's NOT true, there is NO HOPE, Hell, burning, sadness, meaningless existence, etc..."

If the Bible is true, then it is true REGARDLESS of how it might or might not makes us FEEL. The Bible exploits our feelings too much, it depends on our fears. Kinda sounds like the Bush administration when they say "we gotta get them there so they wont attack us HERE" or "the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" and just last week when he told Americans that if we dont accept this bailout, we will lose businesses, farms and wont be able to get credit or loans, etc....FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR. The Bible's tagline should be "Be afraid, be very afraid"------that's LOVE Dave? To always be in a perpetual state of FEAR? wow!

Dont forget my question in my last post and use THIS post to wiggle out of answering it.

David H. Willis said...

You just on and on...

Here it is again.

A fact is a fact. Truth is truth whether you belive or disbelieve it, research it or not, confirm it or not. EX. There was gravity before anyone defined. Right? What happened on 9/22 did so regardlass of whether you believe it or not, right? This isn't hard Larry. Reading comprehension is an acquired skill.

Here's how you change: I'm not researching because i post a vid you disagree with. I post a story you agree with and I'm cool. You aren't interested in truth or research - you interested in confirmation of what you believe.
You dismiss my link because i
don't "research" it.

You research is just web searches and AJ apporved books. I haven't seen in original research on your website. You cut & paste. The originals are nothings but explitive filled ad hominem rants that would be an embarassment to any credible researcher. And you wonder why no one invites Larry to appear on their shows?

Here's another: Ron Paul is great and supposedly a Christian too! He publicily dismisses your crowd (like I did). The result: He's just doing it becase he doesn't want to be branded a loon. Now LArry's a mind reader! Or is that mind "researcher?? Me - I do it because I "don't want to lose my job." He's great. I pathetic. You simply DENY REALITY. You deny the real truth because you can't handle it.

Have you thorughly researched every truth there is? So are they now untrue?

Here's a question about 9/11. It's simple and I'm sure with your enormous research backgroud you can answer it with precision. Did airplanes strike the twin towers?

David H. Willis said...


I just discovered that there must be some kind of 9/11 truther boot camp you guys all attend. Check this out:


The bearder guy is you! You can't make this stuff up. He's reading right out of the same playbook you use.

David H. Willis said...


I do know who opie & anthony are. My mentioning of their clip oes not imply endorsement of all their views. Happy now?

Larry said...

I have no interest in research? Are you joking? is that why I knew the backgrounds to the links you sent BETTER than YOU did?? I know who Opie and Anthony are----all they are are people just like you, people who repeat the talking points heard on TV. Jesse Ventura was on their show a few months ago and schooled them. That buffoon Jim Norton who was with them didnt know ANYTHING----he just repeated FOX News rhetoric. Norton actually had the kahunas to say "Yeah, Hitler didnt have Youtube back then, he didnt have the internet"-----he was trying to make a point that truthers have the internet and can spread these theories around like wildfire on the net. My reply to idiot Norton? Hitler would have SHUT DOWN the internet like he did everything else! He hired Joseph Goebbels to wipe out magazines, newspapers, theater, the arts and any other medium that people could express views openly. He was FOX news of the 1930's. Opie and Anthony are idiots on 9-11--they do NO research, they just repeat the talking points and the official story jargon. Oh and by the way, Ron Paul is on Alex Jones' show ALOT doing interviews---so he DOES associate with the "truthers". He doesnt HAVE to believe in the 9-11 cover-up like we do as long as he notices what the symptoms of the cover-up is, and he DOES. Funny, Ron Paul was on Meet the Press a while back (during his campaign) with Tim Russert and Ron Paul even mentioned ON THE AIR the movie "Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo---the movie about income taxes. You would call that movie "Alex Jones approved" and Ron Paul endorsed it! You just have no idea what youre talking about Dave. Once AGAIN Dave, you addressed about 1% of my post. You call agreeing with certain posts and not agreeing with certain posts CHANGING??? So, I have to agree with ALL or nothing? I have to DISagree with ALL or nothing? I flat out tell you WHY I agree or disagree, which is never good enough for YOU. You dont research anything Dave----you spend two seconds punching a few buttons on your keyboard and callit research---lol. If I know NOTHING Dave, then why have you refused my invitation for a public deabte? I will debate you publically and I will bring NO materials with me---just me. How about it Dave? Up for the challenge or are you afraid of the "kook"?

David H. Willis said...


A debate - this would be probably be the only way you get someone to talk to you. You just want someone to give you credibilty which you just don't have. I'd actually prefer 3 rounds of MMA instead? At least you'd stop droning on ad infinitum!

You are a vacuous blow-hard. I hate to be blunt but you are - just like the guy on the video - same talking points. No common sense. Research? Brainwashed! You post youtube videos or articles from prisonplanet. You are no researcher. Having a blog won't make you a researcher any more than strapping wings on a jackass makes it an airplane. You are a wannabe. You wish someone would acknowledge you but instead you are mocked for your incessant buffoonery. Or most sane people just ignore oyu - have you noticed. Of course all this does is feed your narcissism. Read the comments on your own blog. You are a joke. Researcher? Sure Larry. And you probably are a superhero too!

In your research did you determine if planes actually stuck the twin towers on 9/11?

Larry said...

In that ENTIRE post there's TWO things I didnt see: An acceptance to a public debate and ONE of my facts debunked. Just ad hominem attacks based on NOTHING. You failed to provide proof for ONE attack you dished out. PROVE Im brainwashed. Youre playing the oldest trick in the book Dave---when someone accuses YOU of not researching and being uninformed (which is TRUE--I PROVED it)----you come back with the EXACT same accusation (only yours is NOT supported with ANY facts whatsoever, just endless rants and attacks based on absolutely NOTHING---just your PERSONAL opinions) Everytime Ive addressed your questions, they are riddled with facts (ie: Meigs, Shermer, the 115 omissions from the 9-11 commission report, and the endless facts I posted in other posts about the inside story of Popular Mechanics' employees and the countless other things Ive addressed) There is not ONE fact in your last post-----ALL opinions---NO facts.

I will ask you AGAIN Dave---will you accept my invitation to debate me on this? Im a nutjob right? So beating me in a debate should be EASY, right? RIGHT? So, accepting my invitation SHOULD be something youd want to do to embarrass me with shame and humiliation 20 times over--right? But yet...you DONT...hmmmm, I wonder why that is...hmmmmm. Ill watch the video Dave if you watch the link I sent to you---David Ray Griffins "Lets Get Empirical"----Im sure you havent watched it----although I watched the stupid Meigs interview that Ive heard before! You dont watch or read ANYTHING of the skeptics view of 9-11, and you claim they are kooks, but you have NO IDEA what theyre saying!

and to answer your question----yes, planes hit the towers---and the towers were also DESIGNED for plane impacts according to the VERY MAN who designed the towers, Frank DeMartini--who said they were designed for MULTIPLE plane impacts--- he said it on a PBS special 8 months before 9-11. Its on TAPE, not in some obscure book---why dont they show that clip on FOX News? Hmmmmmmm??????

Larry said...

Heres the clip of DeMartini


Keep in mind that 707's (biggest plane when towers were built) and 757's (planes on 9-11) were very very close to being the same size. The differences were miniscule.

Larry said...

By the way Dave----I got a call from one of your buddies and he threatened me. Nice---now Christians are conspiring to "kick my ass" (his words). I thought about it for a second that it could be someone who read stuff on my site. I said 'no, cant be', because Ive had that site up for almost 3 years and never got ONE call like that. Then I thought, 'and besides--my number is unlisted---even knowing my name they couldnt get my number'---then I starting to think, it could have been one of Dave's so called Christian buddies since my number is easily accessible through the RBC website. Hmmmm. I have no way of proving youre behind it----but like I said---nobody can get my number by name alone since my number is unlisted. So, Im not accusing you officially----Im basically just saying----the circumstantial evidence and the timing of the call all point to the comments being made on your blog now. Its VERY coincidental if youre NOT involved.

Larry said...

I can run traces on blocked calls-----so if youre behind this, Im warning you the law will be called and I will NOT let threats against my family be tolerated. If youre NOT behind it, then I do apologize. You cant expect me NOT to suspect you or anyone on this site since in 3 years Ive never received ONE call like that concerning things on my site. The timing is just too coincidental. I know its politically motivated too because he said "Why are you posting liberal things on the net?" "Ill come over and kick your ass"

Larry said...

by the way Dave--I watched the stupid clip you sent me (even though you DONT watch the ones I send YOU) and it was a joke. the truthers were uninformed wimps who didnt know jack----hardly a win for Opie and Anthony. If there was a baseball game between the Yankees and Mets and all the talented Mets players were injured and the only people to replace them were Minor League triple A players and the Yankees won the game---I wouldnt call that a real win for the Yanks---a technical win yes, not a REAL one. I guarantee you this---they wouldnt have won against ME. I dont even see how you really call this a win for them---there was no real debate there----is this the best clip you could dig up? And besides, Jim Norton did most of the talking and Jim Norton is a buffoon that got schooled by Jesse Ventura a few months ago. Plus, Dave, your Opie and Anthony clip still doesnt explain the fact that you have yet to debunk ONE thing Ive said----just ONE Dave---debunk just ONE!

Heres the clips of that: (Im sure you wont watch, Mr. "Im all about the truth")

The video isnt good, but the audio is decent



Jim Norton even ADMITS he doesnt read ANYTHING---he WATCHES TV for his info!!!!!! Isnt it funny how when Jim Norton says "Just because I dont know the answers, doesnt mean the government as involved in this big massive plot.."---but yet when a truther says "I dont know the answer.." then that must mean we're a bunch of uninformed idiots and that the government was NOT involved! The hypocrisy is astounding. This is the clip where Norton says "Hitler didnt have the internet..."------yes, he had Joseph Goebbels---who would have shut it down! Norton is an IDIOT. He's an uninformed punk who ADMITTEDLY reads NOTHING.

I find it interesting that Norton says "Why would they go through all this stuff and risk the possibility that a snafu would occur, as opposed to 2 properly wired trucks in basement.."------funny, the official story is EXACTLY the same type of thing. The official story says the planes took off from Boston. Why would they take off from Boston and risk something happening between Boston and NY like being shot down or some other sanfu to occur? If they had taken off from NY, that would give less time for something to occur right? But yet they took off from a farther location. The plane that hit the Pentagon took off from DC------why did this plane wait until it almost reached Ohio for them to turn it around when they were minutes from the Pentagon from where they took off from? Hmmmmm?????

Why doesnt Jim Norton debate with Alex Jones? Or David Ray Griffin?Hmmmm? Id LOVE to debate Norton. Norton wouldnt debate me. You turn down invitations for debates Dave----so do the people on my site. You all have the 100% TRUTH, yet YOURE the ones afraid of debate! LOL

Larry said...

So far Dave, your "BEST" has been James Meigs (a movie critic just FOUR years ago), Michael Shermer (a non-theist) and Opie and Anthony/Jim Norton (uninformed, brain dead buffoons who admit they read NOTHING who have NO facts, just OPINIONS)-------is this the BEST you have Dave? Please tell me you have more than this---lol.

David H. Willis said...

So far Dave, your "BEST" has been James Meigs (a movie critic just FOUR years ago), Michael Shermer (a non-theist) and Opie and Anthony/Jim Norton (uninformed, brain dead buffoons who admit they read NOTHING who have NO facts, just OPINIONS)-------is this the BEST you have Dave?



And what exactly do you do? Are you employed? What are your qualifications?
Since the qualifications of people are apparently important to you let's hear yours.

Larry said...

Once AGAIN, my posts are COMPLETELY ignored----(no shock there). Did you watch the Jese Ventura videos? OF COURSE NOT!

Oh and by the way Dave, your failure to address my posts about the phone call/threat I received last night puts the word GUILTY written all over your face. Im telling you right now, if I find out you had one of your buddies make that call, I will contact the authorities AND your church and tell them EXACTLY what happened. Got it?

David H. Willis said...

Larry the loose cable guy wrote:
"Once AGAIN, my posts are COMPLETELY ignored----(no shock there). Did you watch the Jese Ventura videos? OF COURSE NOT!"

My reply: I did watch the ex pro wrestler video. So what?

More from Larry: "Oh and by the way Dave, your failure to address my posts about the phone call/threat I received last night puts the word GUILTY written all over your face. Im telling you right now, if I find out you had one of your buddies make that call, I will contact the authorities AND your church and tell them EXACTLY what happened. Got it?"

In reply: You have lost your mind. I haven't seen any post about alledged phone calls. I surely haven't called you or asked anyone else to. But, you don't need any evidence in rder to make accusations! You are paranoid and I'm not surprised. I'm sure all those really behind 9/11 are stalking you constantly. Please! Hey, maybe it was Ron Paul who called! You're making him look bad!

David H. Willis said...

Hey Mr Paranoid,

I finally went back through your voluminous postings and found your stuff about alledged phone calls. Apology accepted.

Larry said...

That just PROVES you pass by my posts without reading them! "all about the truth"-----thats the funniest thing I ever heard!

Hey Dave---you keep telling me that the people I accuse for 9-11 are INNOCENT until proven guilty right?? Well, the people YOU accuse (bin laden/hikackers) are innocent until proven as well---since that story is a THEORY too. Wheres your empirical evidence the hijackers even did it? The FBI doesnt even hold Bin Laden accountable for 9-11-----its on their freaking WEBSITE, MORON!

Larry said...



look it up---the FBI doesnt even hold bin laden accoutable for 9-11-----go ahead, view my link Dave--or are you AFRAID?? LOL

David H. Willis said...


Talking tough behind his keyboard. ROFL!

Dude, you got nothing but paranoia. So did you call Dr. Paul back yet? Maybe it was Osama calling. He wants the credit and you are trying to take it from him! lol!

C'mon RBC grad...did planes hit the towers" Huh, Larry?

David H. Willis said...

"That just PROVES you pass by my posts without reading them! "all about the truth"-----thats the funniest thing I ever heard!"

You are just noticing, huh? You might be surprised but I don't find your views of particular importance to me. But you freaking out and losing control is a lttle entertaining (yet tiresome).

Larry said...

I guess the FBI is paranoid too---since they dont charge Bin Laden for 9-11!

You really look like the BIG moron you are when all you can do is come back with insults without addressing ONE thing Ive said.

Already answered the planes question on SEVERAL posts, INCLUDING the VERY NEXT post after you asked it!! BUFFOON!

No, it only proves you dont care about FACTS----you admittedly IGNORE them. By doing so, you are actually an accomplice with the media and the government in suppressing the truth for our country and more importantly, the victims family members. Youre a despicable human being Dave----mocking the truth for personal entertainment. THIS is why I despise Christians!!! You'll preach about talking snakes and IGNORE and MOCK the real truth of 9-11. You're disgusting and your site is a big JOKE. Your friends will side with you naturally and thats understandable---sheep follow other sheep. I wouldnt want your friends' support anyway. They, like YOU are blind and you MOCK others who seek the truth.

My relationship with you (whatever it was) is completely severed forever. Youre an insult to humanity.

David H. Willis said...

Typical. I just expected it earlier. I've seen your blog and you routinely rant and insult those who post. Name calling and expeltives abound. Nowadays people can't even post on your blog without your approval. So much for free speech.

I can easily get caught up in banter but I had no idea when this began you were so anti-Christian and anti-God. I found out, huh? I guess i was to some kind of useful idiot for you. Didn't work out, hh? I had no idea that you could not handle someone who refuses to agree with you. You spun out in tantrums over & over again. I probably should have just ignored you like many others did. Live & learn.

So you had your chance to tell everyone how the "black ops" pulled off 9/11 and put the blame on Osama & the boys. But you didn't. Raise questions? Sure. Prove guilt? No way! But in your world whoever doesn't agree with you is an accomplice to the horror of 9/11. Nice.

It's all kind of sad in a way. I remember the old Larry. We weren't close but I liked you & we were generally friendly to each other. I never thought when you first showed up here that you were who you'd become. I knew you had changed but i hoped to by not shunning you - you might warm up to the church again.

I watched all your videos. I just don't see enough to convict someone. And I surely don't se wwhat you see. You are a true believer - no doubt. You just believe in the wrong things.

Anyone wanting more info form Larry should go to his blog: http://www.realtruthonline.blogspot.com/

Larry said...

and yet, you could never refute ANY of the "so-called" wrong things I believe.

and you never answered how you PROVE that Osama and the hijackers did it either!

The difference when I call someone a buffoon or an idiot is when they have SHOWN they are those things---when I get called names like "kook", it is accompanied by NO evidence of what Im saying is wrong---and from YOU especially..NO refutations. Not ONCE did you ever refute anything I stated. You claim its WRONG, but yet you never addressed any of it.

Ive told you a dozen times that we dont have to prove WHO did anything----our only goal is to PROVE the official story is caked with lies, omissions, distortions and cover-ups-----and we have 100 fold. You have not refuted ONE thing I ever said----nor CAN you. You failed to accept my invitation for a debate. Everytime I mention it--it goes IGNORED. Hmmm, I wonder why. CHICKENS usually do ignore, dodge and deflect---and youre the king of that.

The "old" me was blind....I've awakened.

David H. Willis said...

Wow! That didn't last long. I guess you're back already - here with the accomplices to 9/11, huh? You are operating under a completely false prestense. You come here and make statements and then say I now have to disprove them or you're right. That's nonsense. There are people out theere who devote themselves to this - i am not one of them. I have said, after reviewing hours of videos from you, that I don't believe the conclusions you have drawn. Errors and/or inconsistenies do not prove the "black ops" did. You have't even clearly articulated exactly what you believe happend. it's funny how the "thruthers" have so many different versions of their "truth." Plane - no planes...hijackers - no hijackers...on & on.

State your case & prove it, but then again, i thought you were done with "insults to humanity" like yours truly. I guess I'm the only guy even giving you the time of day, huh?

Larry said...

See Dave, this is where your FOX News mentality kicks in. Theres ALOT we dont know about 9-11, thats why we want a new investigation! Ive said REPEATEDLY, all we have to do is prove the official story is a FRAUD and we HAVE. Did you miss my perfect analogy of the man shot on the road? Of course you didnt miss it--you just IGNORED it.

Of course youd have to debunk what Ive said! You posted a video/audio of Jim Meigs ATTEMPTING to debunk us---and he didnt!

Funny how you post videos that supposedly "debunk" us, but when I ask YOU to debunk me, you say "You come here and make statements and then say I now have to disprove them or you're right. That's nonsense."-----Nonsense? Isnt that what youre trying to do with the videos you posted from Meigs?? YES, it is!

The bottom line is this: You CANT debunk us because it's impossible and you KNOW it is, thats why you have to search the web for OTHER people's "research" to do your talking for you---and when you find the first video or site that comes along, you get giddy and probably say to yourself---"ha! this will shut Larry up!"----when youve done NO work of your own. Then when I come back on and completely SMOKE YOU by giving you the backgrounds of the clips and links you send and EMBARRASSING YOU by giving you the FACTS about the sources you sent----you say "I have to debunk you? Nonsense!"----LOL----why is it nonsense Dave? Because youre too chicken to do the work YOURSELF?

You REFUSE to research the other side---REFUSE to research even the VERY clips YOU send---you REFUSE to read a word about it----but yet, Im the nut when Ive reaserched this a million times as much as you have and then you call my views FALSE---on what grounds? On the grounds of you posting the views of ONE side and REFUSING to study the other side? By your OWN ADMITTANCE you dont research this or read books-----but yet youre an expert on it?

WE have different versions? PLEASE state examples of the different versions! Who said there was NO planes? I said there was NO EVIDENCE planes hit the Pentagon and crashed in Shanksville, and I DID say planes hit the towers! I said there is MORE EVIDENCE there were no hijackers than there's evidence there WERE. Thats COMPLETELY different from just asserting "there WAS none at all". Leave it to Dave to SPIN adn TWIST peoples' words! Mr "Bibleboy"---LYING and SPINNING. No wonder you lie and spin Dave------you pull off the ultimate hustle to your sheep every week you stand before them and spew your fairy tales at them---talking snakes, donkeys--Seas being parted, etc....

Tell me something Dave---did MR. Ed really talk? You MUST believe even if he didnt that he COULD have, right? Since you preach that snakes and donkeys can!! LOL

David H. Willis said...

And yet the percentage climbs still higher.

Larry said...

you said the same thing on the other thread----hey Dave, you ignored my question (naturally)----could Mr Ed really talk??

David H. Willis said...

Yeah and the "black ops" took the towers down too!

Larry said...

Ill keep asking until you answer Dave-----could Mr. Ed REALLY talk?

David H. Willis said...

Do you understand "Yeah"?

Larry you might want to be careful becaue the black ops might be monitoring this blog...ha ha ha!

Larry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.