Saturday, December 6, 2008

Real Truth Online’s 2008 Fraud of the Year: David H. Willis

Snatches victory from Billo the Clown!

by Larry Simons
December 6, 2008

I am proud to announce that RTO’s first ever Fraud of the Year Award goes to conservative minister David H. Willis. Willis and Bill O’ Reilly were the frontrunners, but Dave wins with a whopping 36% of the vote. A part of me is sad that O’ Reilly didn’t win, because I’ve done many, many stories on how big of a fraud Billo is, but maybe when you read why Willis won, you’ll agree.

Visitors of my site may not know who David Willis is. I actually met Dave when I attended Bible College in the late 80’s. Yes, that’s right, I once believed in talking snakes and a 500 year-old man who built a boat the size of the Titanic all by himself.

Since then, I’ve changed into a person whom many of my religious friends from yesteryear would deem “radical”, or even “of the devil”. I now form my own opinions, think and use rational thought. I have become honest with myself and have simply stated that “I don’t know” if the Bible is true. This is called agnosticism; the belief that God may or may not exist and that even if he does exist, it can never be proven. How dare me to demand proof.

Now, where does this tie into Dave Willis? About a year ago, I stumbled upon Dave’s website, “Watcha Talkin’ Bout Willis”. It’s a website of brainfarts, occasional political commentary and Bible discussion. The general overview of the site is perfectly represented by the disembodied head of Gary Coleman in its logo. What I also found interesting is that his website boasts “I enjoy political & sports talk radio and I'm all about the truth.”

I first noticed that Dave, like me, is a big Ron Paul supporter, which shocked me because I thought most, if not all, religious people supported (and were fooled by) the vast smorgasbord of neo-conservatives that permeate Washington and in particular, the Bush administration. I thought, “wow, Dave’s not one of the sheep!” It wasn’t long before I realized this was a premature thought.

One day, I stuck my nose into a heated debate between him and another blogger. This is what led to a huge discussion about the war in Iraq, and more importantly, the event in which we were all lied to by Bush as to what caused the war…9/11. This is when I found out that when it came to 9/11, Dave “I’m all about the truth” Willis was in lock step with the government’s conspiracy theory of 9/11.

What is incredible about Dave's disdain about the truth of 9/11 is the fact that just 7 months prior to this (when I first discovered his site) Dave said this to me (the highlighted parts are most puzzling), "'Hey bro. I'm about truth - the real truth, so I weigh everything based whether it is true or not. I can't stand when people are afraid to examine an issue to see if they've sold a bunch of...I recently discovered Alex Jones. Whenever I hear the "mainstreamers" dismiss him it makes all the more interested in what he has to say. When I hear an outcry against people being lunatics, etc. it usually sparks my curiosity. A lot of my church friends walk in lock step with the republicans like thry're the apostles or something! I love telling folks I support Ron Paul. You well know the expressions I get in return. If the "ol' boys" club can run a town, why can't they run bigger entities? Hmmm.I believe in freedom of speech and truth, so, like I said, I'll be back with an open mind." Hmmmm. My oh my, how things change.

What I find interesting is that when I first discovered Dave's site and he revealed to me the above post, he had not yet known about how I felt about religion (me being agnostic). It wasn't until I began saying religious people were "nutballs" that Dave began his anti-9/11 truth, anti-Alex Jones crusade. Awwwww, did I hurt Dave's wittle feelwings? Awwww, poor baby. So, it makes one wonder: Does Dave believe in the 9/11 truth movement and have a personal vendetta against me? Or does he not believe in it and lied to me in the above February 2008 post? A church person lying....what a shock.

From the day I began posting my political comments on September 10, 2008, until the day I was being deleted on a regular basis and ultimately banned due to Dave’s Gestapo-like tactics by enabling comment moderation...ending free speech on his site (although he claimed on the Sept. 10 thread, “You know how most people will react to what you've written. I'll leave it up to my readers to form their own views, but thanks for stopping in. I'll probably get beat up a little too, but this is a free speech zone and I've never deleted a comment) I was destroying everyone with fact after fact after fact with virtually no personal opinions cited.

My arsenal was a barrage of names, dates, links, sources, video clips and quotes-----none of which were ever challenged with anything even resembling a logical debate or researched fact. I would ask questions over and over only to be ignored over and over. I challenged Dave countless times to public debates even telling him he could bring any tool he chose…books, newspapers, DVD’s, anything, and I would bring nothing but just the info in my head and still win. I was ignored repeatedly.

Instead, Dave responded the only way he knew how. Panic. Panic led Dave to simply type the words “debunk 9/11 theories” into the search bar and whatever popped up, he blindly copied and pasted the links into our discussions on the thread and would disguise it as an investigation. Dave’s 20-second research led him to the biggest proponents of yellow journalism on the planet….Popular Mechanics. A magazine whose research editor, Davin Coburn, claimed during a radio interview in 2006 with Arizona talk radio host, Charles Goyette, that DNA evidence of the hijackers had been recovered from the rubble at ground zero. A feat (pointed out by Goyette) that would be impossible unless there was DNA previously obtained (prior to the hijackings) in which to match the ground zero DNA.

I almost felt sorry for Dave “I’m all about the truth” Willis. He had no clue these imbeciles (at PM) had already been debunked. He would post audio clips (from YouTube) of Popular Mechanics' Editor-in-chief James Meigs (a man just 4 years prior to becoming EIC of PM, was making Oscar predictions for Premiere Magazine). The very makers of the audio/video clip didn’t even research enough to spell Meigs’ name correct in the clip. They spelled his last name “Miggs”. See here.

During the course of our “debating”, Dave admitted researching 9/11 was not a priority to him by saying, “Why don't I read the books you've suggested? Because I have other priorities. I am not consumed like you are.” Yet, Dave had plenty of time to do more 'in-depth' social commentary, like when we should and shouldn't use windshield wiper fluid.

Therein lies his contradiction. He says that investigating 9/11 is “not a priority”, but yet he knows more about the intricate details about 9/11 than I did (and I’ve done 4 years of extensive research on the subject, even studying the views of the advocates of the official conspiracy theory)?

This is why when he would send me clips or links in an attempt to 'debunk' my views, I knew more information about his own sources than he did! Like the spelling of Meigs’ last name and one link he sent me from Skeptic.com founder Michael Shermer, in which I informed Dave “all about the truth” Willis that Shermer did a segment on the Penn and Teller show “Bullshit!” a few years back in which he denounced the validity of the Bible.

What was ironic about this was, one of the top 9/11 sources I used repeatedly was the brilliant David Ray Griffin (who just happens to be a retired theology professor). Here I am, the agnostic, praising Christian David Ray Griffin’s works on 9/11 and there was Dave, the Christian, using as his source (to attempt to ‘debunk’ me) Bible-trasher Michael Shermer! The true sign that Dave "I'm all about the truth" Willis did ZERO research!

During our entire “debate” on 9/11, all Dave did was cite debunked “experts”, give BAD analogies for his points, deflect and ignore 90% of my points and dish out ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack. Just look at our threads. I completely school him repeatedly here and here.

And when Dave “all about the truth” Willis finally banned me, he resorted to the only tactic left in his arsenal…to mock me and liken the 9/11 cover-up to Bigfoot and aliens, despite the fact that he believes in talking snakes, talking donkeys, a man living 3 days inside of a big fish and a 500 year old man building a Titanic-sized boat by himself.

I told Dave that one doesn’t have to agree with my views to be considered rational. It’s all in the debating technique you use. Dave resorted to the old, tiresome ignore/deflect/dodge and ad hominem attack method and uses the term “conspiracy theorist” in the pejorative sense, when in reality, the official account of 9/11 best fits the description of a conspiracy theory in the pejorative sense.

What is interesting is that of the 5 nominees for FOTY, the only one who is NOT a neocon is Dave Willis, yet he won the award. Why did he get the most votes? I believe that although O’ Reilly, Limbaugh, McCain and Hannity are far worse in their ideologies, you have to understand that they are controlled puppets who are paid to ignore important issues and whose jobs will be in jeopardy if they dare speak in any manner that is not in lock step with their puppeteers. So, it’s really not unexpected of them to be complete dicks---they’re controlled.

Willis, on the other hand, is not in the media. He is free to have an independent thought. Or is he? Let’s keep in mind, he works in a church. His strings are being pulled too and he has no choice but to do the same thing the aforementioned puppets do.....comply . In fact, he even ADMITTED to me that if he spoke about a 9/11 cover-up in his church, he’d get fired. (see below)

(click to enlarge)
The difference between Willis and the other neocon goons is that Dave, being the “Christian”, is supposed to be a zealot for truth, no matter what that truth is. He’s in a business (and that’s what church is, a business) where speaking about controversy is in the job description. Like the media, he’s a salesman. He’s selling God. God is supposed to be the ultimate truth. If God were giving Willis enlightenment as a reward for Willis’ faithfulness, why wouldn’t he see the real truth of 9/11? I will tell you why. Because of the 5 characteristics that writer Douglas Herman said were the 5 reasons why people don’t accept that 9/11 was an inside job:

1. Comfort
2. Complacency
3. Cowardice
4. Conviction
5. Collusion

Herman writes of people just like David H. Willis when he says, "Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world — a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community — want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all."

There’s something more sinister about a person who should be the very epitome of truthseeking (although they claim they are) yet completely ignores and ridicules something so obvious in which the evidence for it’s existence couldn’t be more obvious if it was being jammed up their ass. Also, it also has to do with the method of debating, as I mentioned. You've already lost the debate when you ignore documented facts and begin using references to Bigfoot and aliens. NY Times writer Paul Krugman puts it best when he says:

“The truth is that many of the people who throw around terms like “loopy conspiracy theories” are lazy bullies who [as one observer put it] want to “confer instant illegitimacy on any argument with which they disagree.” Instead of facing up to hard questions, they try to suggest that anyone who asks those questions is crazy.”

Well said Paul.

Congrats Dave!

20 comments:

Larry Simons (this site's operator) said...

Dear Jesus, this is Larry Simons. Why does my daughter hate me? Why don't I have any friends who come to my site? Why do I threaten others and get kicked off other people's websites? Why do I have to hate other people so much? Why do I have to bash religion when it should be fine for other people to believe in whatever they want? Who am I to judge anyone since I'm such a fucking loser douchebag living my life out vicariously though several online personas? Why don't they lock away the sasquatch that is truly responsible for 9/11 when I have so much overwhelming "proof?" Why do I stay up late at night and search the web for gay pornography? Why don't I have the guts to go to a gay bar and not be ashemed? Why do I get aroused when I see my old pastor? Why am I filled with hate and sooooo unhappy? Dear God why did you create such an insignificant scumbag loser fucktard? Just wondering, Larry.

One of Larry's relatives said...

Sounds like that guy knows you pretty well Larry lol lol lol. We all know you would have won the biggest fraud award if you put your name up there truther moron lol lol lol

Real Truth Online said...

Well, I guess you got me! You've debunked me!

Richard said...

Hilarious comments. What a colmplete moron. I went to school with Larry. Not suprised most the people who come here call him out on his hypocrisy and bullshit. He's a total fraud.

Earl said...

I've seen this moron "realtruth" on my site and you're right... he doesn't have any facts to debunk on 9/11 that is true. He got banned from herald mail, prison planet, huffington post, and several other websites for threatening behavior. Glad to see someone put him in his place with some real truth. ask him to give you one fact and he has none, just questions as you say. I loved the long post... soooooo true.

Real Truth Online said...

"Not suprised most the people who come here call him out on his hypocrisy and bullshit."-----they do? Can you name ONE example of this?

"He got banned from herald mail, prison planet, huffington post, and several other websites for threatening behavior."------I hardly EVER visit the Huffington Post and its funny you say I was banned from PrisonPlanet when just over a week ago they published a story I wrote (my 7th published on there). "threatening behavior?"---care to provide the link where my "threats" were? Oh, thats right, you cant, because there were no threats. Nice attempt at deflecting away from my story on Willis. My guess is----you ARE Dave Willis posing as several of your personalities. Not ONE thing you said refuted ANYTHING I said.

Sad indeed said...

Poor Larry. He would have won the fraud award on his own site but he hadn't the balls to put his own name on the list. What I find sad is the fact that he puts stories and photos of other people on his site without there approval. That's pretty much the lowest form of humanity I have to say. I don't know David Willis but I can tell him without any doubt whatsoever that the reason he won the poll is because Larry voted for him over and over again. There is no one who visits this site because Larry ends up threatening and insulting everyone who might happen upon it. Not one person other than Larry has made any comments about David, but larry continuse to create various online personas comment on his stories. The long post above while long speaks volumns about Larry and yet only touches on the seriousness of his condition. God help the poor boy. I will pray for him.

Real Truth Online said...

Any evidence I voted over and over? Any evidence I threaten and insult? Any evidence I create online personas? Your post was just a barrage of unsubstantiated OPINIONS and zero facts!

By the way, see that new feature on my site in the upper right hand corner, right above the cost of Iraq war? Its called Sitemeter---it tells me EXACTLY who is on my site, their IP address, their internet provider, their city and the sites they visited right before and after they visited mine and what time they logged in to my site. I know youre in Hagerstown, you logged in at 9:25am and your internet provider is Verizon and your IP address which I wont reveal.

Anonymous said...

Do you realize this falls under defamation of character? Slander and libel. A truthful but malicious statement can still be considered defamation of character if it is for the purpose of destroying someone's reputation or career. If I was this David guy, I'd be seeing you in court. David if you read this, take this loser to court.

Real Truth Online said...

Do you realize youre absolutely WRONG? Slander, libel, defamation of character ALL hinge upon FALSE statements. I can PROVE every single thing I say in my story here. There is not ONE false statement in this entire story. If there's no FALSE statement or claim, there is no libel or slander. In fact, it's very ironic that you mention the whole libel and slander thing, because technically Dave's statements about ME could fall under libel or slander since his statements that Im a "nut" cannot be proven and he HASNT proven it. I can PROVE what Ive said about Dave is true!

The above post came from Spring Hill, TN from Internet provider BellSouth.net. Could this be Jay, Tony or Laura? Hmmmmmm.

Real Truth Online said...

So, all my stories about Billo where I not only SAY he lied but I PROVE it---that's defamation? That's just simply reporting that someone lied. That's exactly what I did with Dave's story----just pointed out what was said and when and proved he said it and proved that he has never debated me on the 9-11 issue. Name ONE thing in my story that would PROVE I was out to ruin his reputation or career?? Just one. Not ONE word of this story is slander (this is only SPOKEN word so it doesnt apply), libel or defamation. None of my story is malicious. This story basically says "Dave's a fraud and here's the FACTS as to why". I see your study of the law is on the same par as your 9-11 research skills.

Anonymous said...

Libel is use of print or pictures to harm someone's reputation.

Information from a lawyer states that until 1964, a person could prove that they had been libeled simply by showing that the statements in question were incorrect. In 1964, the Supreme Court decided that public officials had to prove that the statements in question were made with "actual malice"-for the purpose of harming the person's reputation. As a result of the Supreme Court case, Time, Inc. v. Firestone (1976); private individuals only have to prove negligence, rather than "actual malice," on the part of the press.

Dude, are you a stalker? How's it feel to be debunked? Jay, Tony, Laura and all the people who know them in Spring Hill, Tennessee.

Anonymous said...

Libel is use of print or pictures to harm someone's reputation.

Information from a lawyer states that until 1964, a person could prove that they had been libeled simply by showing that the statements in question were incorrect. In 1964, the Supreme Court decided that public officials had to prove that the statements in question were made with "actual malice"-for the purpose of harming the person's reputation. As a result of the Supreme Court case, Time, Inc. v. Firestone (1976); private individuals only have to prove negligence, rather than "actual malice," on the part of the press.

Dude, are you a stalker? How's it feel to be debunked? Jay, Tony, Laura and all the people who know them in Spring Hill, Tennessee.

Real Truth Online said...

First of all, you dont need to post the same comment TWICE. Second of all, since you cant read, I stated in an earlier post that the SiteMeter tool at the top of my page tells me who logs onto my site. It tells me their city, IP address, internet provider, what time they logged on and off and what sites they were on prior to visiting my site and the sites they went to after visiting---so nope---no stalker here! It's just that you cant READ.

Thirdly, dude--make up your mind. In your 7:48 post you said my statements were "truthful"---which they ARE---but just now in your repeated posts you said "a person could prove that they had been libeled simply by showing that the statements in question were incorrect."-----are my statements TRUE or FALSE to you?

You have YET to give me ONE example in my story where anything I said was FALSE, nor have you given me an example of "malice" or proof that I am attempting to ruin Willis' reputation or career. Can you give me ONE example from my story where anything you claim I am doing is present? If so, please copy and paste it and show me. If youre trying to scare me, it isnt working. It would only be against the law for me to post Dave's picture if it was a picture I owned in my photo album and I posted it without his permission, but since the same picture of him is on his OWN site, it's fair game to use it but only in a truthful manner. I couldnt post the picture and say he molested children---that WOULD be against the law! But as you can see, everything in my story is TRUE and there is NO malice in my story at ALL. Just like you could post the picture of ME on my site with Ron Paul and use it in the same manner. If you posted my picture and called me a "kook", you would have to PROVE Im a kook, just as I proved Dave is a fraud for lying and speaking untruths about me and the 9-11 truth movement. My goodness, if MY story about Dave was against the law, then blogging wouldnt exist!

Oh and by the way, my SiteMeter tells me that you're the SAME person, from Spring Hill, TN. So, are you Jay, Tony or Laura? Come on, have some BALLS and stop hiding behind "anonymous" you coward.

Anonymous said...

Libel and defamation of character is all throughout this offensive "award" post. I can't believe you can't see it. Well, then again, I completely understand how you wouldn't get it.

Attacking what someone does at work falsely? Putting facts together randomly to form a false picture of someone just for the purpose of attacking their character and position? Posting something making fun of someone's religious beliefs and job? i could go on and on, but what's the point? Why would he take you to court? He'd probably have to help pay your way there. I've heard you have no job because you're physically unable to work. You're a waste of space. Your blog is the dumbest and most offensive thing I've ever laid eyes on. Probably why it's being investigated for libel and activity and speech considered over the top in regards to our nations leaders, along with anti-american language, or so I'm told. The question is whether it would be worth the cash to shut you and this blog down. Nobody reads it and it has been discovered that many of the posters are actually the blog owner posting under different identities. I'm not sure why I even stopped by here this evening. Heard about the nature of this post and couldn't believe someone would be so dumb as to post something like this. I guess they can be that dumb. I guess you are that dumb. Don't hurt your wrist typing, God forbid you'd hurt yourself and not be able to type anymore.

Real Truth Online said...

Sorry, wrong again. The "award" doesnt really exist---even a 2nd grader would be able to tell that this is just a joke---the same as Keith Olbermann's "worst Person in the World" segment----gee, why isnt Olbermann constantly getting hit with lawsuits????? Got an answer for that? He's calling them the "WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD" and STILL ZERO lawsuits have been issued to Olbermann! And since slander is spoken word (as opposed to words in print), Olbermann would be the recipiant of roughly 1,400 lawsuits!

I still noticed that you have yet to give ONE example of anything illegal I have said in my story. The "award" thing is all you can come up with?? I attack people's religious views because I want them to PROVE they are TRUE--which they have YET to do. Dave Willis CONTINUALLY attacked me about believing in the 9-11 cover-up but I dont see you posting on Dave's blog that he attacked ME and my views---DESPITE the FACT that I have PROOF of MY views---and he has still YET to prove God exists!

Give me ONE example of "putting facts together randomly to form a false picture". That sentence alone makes NO sense. If they are FACTS, how can they form a FALSE picture?????? That's like saying 5 rights make a wrong. LOL. Do you even know what you're saying? I love how you said "i could go on and on, but what's the point?"---you could??? I'd love to know what "on and on" refers to. You actually have ANYTHING else but the "award" example? Give me just two more things. No, wait, I'll make it easy for you---give me ONE more. You wont, because you cant.

You also babbled "You're a waste of space. Your blog is the dumbest and most offensive thing I've ever laid eyes on. Probably why it's being investigated for libel and activity and speech considered over the top in regards to our nations leaders, along with anti-american language, or so I'm told."----so youre told??? LOL, by who? Martians from the planet "IM fucking NUTS"??? It's being "investigated"??? LOL. Funny, YOU cant even investigate long enough to give me one VALID example of how I defamed Dave Willis!!

If my blog is "so dumb" as you bellowed---why do you visit it???? Hmmm???? Why dont you have the GONADS to tell me who you are?? I ALREADY know you're in Spring Hill, TN according to my sitemeter---so come on, fess up Jay, Tony or Laura----be a MAN, or woman.

Anonymous said...

Yes. You are being investigated. It's pretty common knowledge. There's more to it, but In order for you to see for yourself all you need to do is proceed to a high dollar hotel room and try to access your site. It will come up stating that this site is restricted do to questionable content which is currently under surveillance or investigation.

Libel is present just by the nature of this post. That would be enough. I would post specific examples of what entire portions and mere portions of sentences would be deemed libel, but that is not my job. I have learned much about libel recently and what all it entails whereas you merely think it has to always be something false, and not merely presented falsely. There is a difference, but don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out.

There's very real concern that everything is not as it should be with you. Without getting in to detail, you have been deemed a serious threat to society.

You're being watched.

I would also recommend you seek the help of a mental health professional.

Anonymous said...

Allow me to clarify "you're being watched". Your site and actions are being monitored closely.

Real Truth Online said...

"Yes. You are being investigated. It's pretty common knowledge. There's more to it, but In order for you to see for yourself all you need to do is proceed to a high dollar hotel room and try to access your site. It will come up stating that this site is restricted do to questionable content which is currently under surveillance or investigation."

LOL!!! I'm more frightened of thunderstorms than I am of any "investigation". You're hilarious Jay, Tony or Laura (the posts are STILL coming from Spring Hill, TN) What's most hilarious is that you said "In order for you to see for yourself all you need to do is proceed to a high dollar hotel room and try to access your site"-----lol, well, then I guess all you can afford is the cheap hotels since you can apparently access it!! LOL!

Actually, it's YOU that needs the mental health professional since you are visiting a site of a person who is an alleged "threat to society" and a site that you called "the dumbest and most offensive thing I've ever laid eyes on."------I guess that makes YOU the dumbest and most offensive PERSON you've ever laid eyes on---LOL. I love how you addressed my Keith Olbermann example of how he posts pictures of people on his show and calls them "Worst Person in the World" and how he has not received ONE lawsuit in 5 1/2 years of his show being on the air. I guess you didnt address it because you CANT.

Oh by the way, nice job in giving me ONE example where I have defamed Dave Willis. I'm assuming that question was too hard. LOL. Is it defamation to call you a complete dickhead? I know I dont have a picture of you, because youre too chickenshit to post who you really are---so in the place of your actual identity, can I just use a picture of a large pile of shit? LOL

Investigation-----oooooooooooooooo, Im shaking. LOL.

By the way, thanks for the hits! LOL.

dave willis kid said...

you got my dad on this one larry. one day ill come out to him.