WHATCHU TALKIN BOUT WILLIS?

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...



Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Ron Paul on 9/11 Truthers

I couldn't have said it better myself. You go Ron! I wonder if Larry is still going to write your name in come November. Obviously Ron must be losing it because he isn't walking in lockstep with "truthers."

Btw, I like Dr. Paul and I definitely agree with him on the issue in the video.

16 comments:

Larry said...

Hey Dave----whats he gonna say "Yes, I believe it was an inside job??" They ALREADY thought he was radical and wanted him BANNED and FOX News even DID ban him from one debate----do you really think he would ADMIT he thought it was an inside job too?? It would have been political suicide----this is the SAME reason why the media doesnt mention it, theyd LOSE their jobs! Oh and by the way, saying Ron Paul doesnt believe in it either is NOT debunking NOR research.

By the way, I dont care if Ron Paul didnt agree with me anyway---he still hates neocons---and thats good enough to me.

David H. Willis said...

Hey we have some common ground. I can't neocons either! And we both like Ron Paul! Look at this - more common ground. And we both think Tony Wolf is extremely talented. See I'm not so bad.

Larry said...

Oh andother thing about that clip Dave---funny how you say youre "all about the truth" and you hate Neocons, but you use a clip from a FOX News debate and none other than water carrier Carl Cameron who was asking Ron Paul and UNFAIR question---a question that had NOTHING to do with the issues. That question had one purpose and one purpose ONLY----to try to reel Ron Paul into saying he either believes it too or to say he supports the viewpoint---I think Ron Paul did a GREAT job with the question, but NOT for the same reason you do. You just watch the clip and say "ahhh see?? he doesnt believe in the 9-11 'conspiracy' stuff either! ahh ha!"---and by doing that, you feed into the tactics of FOX News. I saw the answer as "Great job Ron! You didnt give those Neocon buffoons at FOX News what they wanted, which was to trap you into saying something more radical than they think you already have said!" Did you notice how Ron was so quick to get back to the issues?

BUT, I will say this....Ron Paul DOES support a new investigation of 9-11 because he has said the first one was a joke. What does this clip prove about whether the truthers' views on 9-11 are true or not? And keep in mind Dave (and Ive said this a hundred times too)----we dont have to be right on EVERY SINGLE issue we talk about---all we have to do is provide flaws in the official story and theres TONS of those! All we want is a new independent REAL investigation of 9-11. The official story supporters (you included) have to be EXACTLY RIGHT on EVERY issue or your story crumbles. We only have to be right on ONE issue. David Ray Griffin says this in his books and thats why he's great. It's just like a court case----if there's doubt cast upon ONE thing, the jury cannot convict (rightfully). So, if this was ever brought to trial, the official story people (you) would fail miserably, because there's not just ONE issue that makes your story crumble---there's hundreds.

And you post these Popular Mechanics videos as if that is the gospel truth about 9-11. David Ray Griffin tears those frauds apart in his books----the books that you have "no time to read". If you cant study BOTH sides of it, then dont condemn one side over the other. Like I said before Dave---can you PROVE the official story to be true? You cannot, and so far, you have asked NO hard questions. You read my posts which are riddled with facts---only to respond with either portions of previous posts REPEATED that Ive already addressed---or it's chock full of personal OPINION and no FACTS. Your last 3 posts were nothing but just what you THINK. Where's the facts Dave? If you cant devote any time to researching this, then you shouldnt cover your blog with videos that supposedly "debunk" what Im saying, which they dont. You're extremely lazy, and you call the ones who are NOT lazy and have researched this extensively "kooks" for NOT being lazy like YOU.

And by the way, we DO have MANY experts that agree with us. Steven Jones (physicist)----he is the one that coined the term "fusion"---he says the WTC collapses was controlled demolition. Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
says Inside job. Architect Richard Gage---Inside job---and many many more, including pilots, engineers, military people, politicians and even many celebrities (oh thats right, celebrities dont have the right to speak, do they?)

Why dont you reply with an ACTUAL question? Actual subatnce instead of a diatribe of OPINIONS. You didnt address ONE fact I posted in my posts---not one. Not equppied enough to respond---dont know what youd even ask? If you know very little---study. If you dont want to study---dont litter your blog with videos that give the "appearance" that you study. It only makes you look more foolish than you already are!

David H. Willis said...

The burden of proof is squarely on you. You must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A justice system based on your approach would be a travesty to say the least. "I say you you're guilty - now prove you're innocent!" One, even the government, doesn't have to prove innocence. I don't have to prove the "official" story - YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR "UNOFFICIAL STORY" You can't. All you can to is raise doubt or cast aspersions - but PROVE your case so we can KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt? This you simply cannot do. It's really just that simple.

Apply your approach to the issue of the existence of God and you'd be a believer. Somehow you dismiss evidence and reasonable inferences in this case however. It must be proven so you can know! Raise doubts about evolutionists - not permitteed as a way of strengthening the creationist position. Raise doubts about the offical 9/11 story (even just 1 doubt) and your case is airtight!

Larry said...

Actually you are incorrect. I only have to prove the official story is flawed---if it is flawed, then that negates the entire account----whereas what I believe only requires 1 thing to be correct. Only ONE thing correct in our account throws the entire official story into doubt.

Are you kidding me with your comment "Raise doubts about the offical 9/11 story (even just 1 doubt) and your case is airtight!"----Ive done NOTHING but post examples of the doubts of the official story---you just chose to not address ANYTHING I posted. Popular Mechanics claiming to have the DNA of the hijackers casts doubts, since you have to possess ORIGINAL DNA to match it. What do you believe the hijackers did? Submit DNA samples to the ticket person at the airport before they boarded the plane?

The fact that there were NO plane parts at the Pentagon and Shanksville is another HUGE doubt. I have hundreds Dave---care to hear them all? I would gladly post them---question is: Will you read them? Let me know so I dont waste my time. Want them posted or not?

David H. Willis said...

Larry,

Actually you are wrong. You must prove guilt not raise just questions. I can't say "that guy doesn't have a job but he's wearing new shoes - therefore he must prove he didn't steal them!" That's ludicrous! No, it must be proven that he committed a crime. Doubt is not equivalent to guilt. It is a logical fallacy to suggest one error or doubt discredits an entire story or position or explanation. If this is true then you have discredited yourself unless you are flawless.

You have blog: http://www.realtruthonline.blogspot.com/

People can go there if they want to read what you've written.

Larry said...

LOL---you said "It is a logical fallacy to suggest one error or doubt discredits an entire story or position or explanation."-----wrong! when it purported to be the TRUE official government account then they HAVE to be right on EVERY single issue for it to NOT constitute a cover up! I could post freely over 100 issues that make their account FLAWED----but naturally, you dont want me to post them, nor would you read them.

"All about the truth"----ha!

David H. Willis said...

No Larry you are still wrong. Guilty until proven innocent is what you guys want, but it just won't fly.

Larry said...

No. another investigation, this time a REAL one to PROVE their guilt is what we want. Unfortuneately, this will never happen because the governemnt never investigates themselves.

Dave, one question for you. If Im wrong about 9/11, then why is there so much covered up and unanswered. Do you want me to post the over 100 things that were NEVER asked in the 9-11 commission? Did you know that during the ENTIRE 9-11 investigations that the collapse of WTC 7 was NEVER mentioned?

Als Dave, one more question: If one of your family members were killed on 9-11, wouldnt you do everything, I mean EVERYTHING in your power to get the FULL, 100% TRUTH about how and why your relative died? Would you STILL just accept the official story as callously as you accept it now? I would assume you would--so tell me this----> why should it matter if one of your relatives did NOT die on 9-11? Should you not want that SAME truth as if one of your family DID die that day? And why do you condemn others for wanting the full truth of that day?

David H. Willis said...

I've said this several times but one more won't hurt.

I would welcome another investigation. If ir won't happen as yuu assert then practically speaking isn't this a giant waste of time?

Suspicion is not equivalent to guilt - it really isn't.

IHAVE looked at your evidence. I did not reflexively dismiss you. :arry, you sent me several videos. Remember? I watched them = I really did.

Larry said...

Dave, WTC 7 collapsing into it's own footprint when it was NOT hit by a plane is NOT suspicion. Go research when another building has collapsed due solely to fire and damage and if you find one---I will give you $1,000. Im talking about a universal symmetrical collapse (just like WTC 7 was). You wont find ONE example. I could list many, many, many other examples just like this one that is NOT suspicion. Care to hear any or are you afraid you will be subject to evidence glaring you in the face and you'd be left with two options: To ignore it (like you've ignored everytime I've posted facts) or to face it head on (of course, if you cared about justice and the truth like you claim on your site, you'd be faced with having to do something about it besides callously accepting the official story as you clearly do)

You blew off my most recent question (nothing new) about 'what if you had a family member die on 9-11, would you callously accept the official story'? Acknowledging my post and posting in response is NOT synonomous with ANSWERING my question, which you failed to do. You've done this about 20 other times----NOT answer my question, but you posted general comments in response to my post. Gonna answer it this time? I really want that question answered. Saying you'd welcome another investigation is NOT answering the question. If it was an acceptable answer---my question would have been "do you support another investigation?"----I asked a specific question about your personal search for justice if you had a family member die on 9-11, and you didnt answer that.

Stop giving me O'Reilly-isms and stop spinning and actually answer what I ask.

David H. Willis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David H. Willis said...

I just deleted a comment! Mine. I typed so fast that it made no sense so here is my 2nd try...

Larry,

I don't have to answer your questions & you don't have to answer mine (and you haven't in every case either, but I'm happy to just move on).

Here's your answer: I honestly do not know what I would do or how I would react with regard to 9/11 if I had a loved who died there. I had brother in law escape, but that's as close as i got.

Also, appealing to the fact that a lot of victims families want more answers, in itslef, doesn't prove anything. Afterall most folks believe in God and I'm sure you find that unconvincing.

Btw, I'd like a new car instead of $1,000 even though that's about what my current ride is worth! (lol)

Larry said...

well, bad anaology---you cant prove God--but you can prove a cover-up in a REAL independent investigation---but I know it wont happen, because the very people who have the power to make it happen are the very people who have the power to cover it up. Kinda stole that line from the scene from "JFK" where Donald Sutherland is talking to Kevin Costner on that bench---my favorite scene. Rewatch that part (it came out in 1991) and tell me if the things Sutherland says are EXACTLY what is happening now---its eerie! I think Oliver Stone has been bought off --- if he believes in the JFK conspiracy then he should on the 9-11 one too---there's 20 times the evidence

David H. Willis said...

Larry,

I know you like to avoid this clip because it's an embarrassemnet oto you. Plain and simple.

Larry said...

what clip is that? Oh you mean like YOUVE avoided debunking me, addressing the SPECIFIC facts Ive posted, the film Zeitgeist and the David Ray Griffin video "Lets Get Empirical" on google video? Youve avoided ALL those---Ive actually WATCHED yours even when Ive HEARD it all before!

I even know the backgrounds of the sites you send me better than YOU do! Talk about embarrassing! It must also fill you with shame that you CONTINUALLY dodge and deflect my invitations for a debate. Cant beat the "nut" CAN you Dave????? LOL