Home » Blogs » gretavo's blog

Some fun on Amazon forums...

gretavo's picture
Submitted by gretavo on Thu, 2009-04-16 23:46.

I'm employing some new tactics that seem to be working pretty well! :) Join the fun here!

Politics Community
Home Products (7,895) Discussions (1,023) Lists & Guides (887) Images Contributors (9,430)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
See latest post
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first Showing 1-25 of 274 posts in this discussion
Your post: April 16, 2009 4:43 PM PDT
RT says:
OK so back to you all's theory--that the planes on 9/11 were hijacked by Arab Muslims. What happened to all their ticket stubs? Who's hanging on to those? Can we see them anywhere? How about some surveillance video from Logan airport showing the 10 different hijackers who allegedly boarded their flights there? Who has those? Can we see them? Have YOU seen them? I mean, this evidence obviously must exist if what you believe is true, so where is it?

Edit your post:
OK so back to you all's theory--that the planes on 9/11 were hijacked by Arab Muslims. What happened to all their ticket stubs? Who's hanging on to those? Can we see them anywhere? How about some surveillance video from Logan airport showing the 10 different hijackers who allegedly boarded their flights there? Who has those? Can we see them? Have YOU seen them? I mean, this evidence obviously must exist if what you believe is true, so where is it? Guidelines
Edit this post | Permalink

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 4:36 PM PDT
RT says:
"RT: I think you are talking about Vigilant Guardian, part of which simulated a "traditional" hijacking: the perps commandeer an airliner, land on a "Cuba-like" island, and seek asylum. It was scheduled to run later on 9/11 but I believe it was canceled for obvious reasons. "

I see, so you concede that there was at least one exercise scheduled for 9/11 that involved simulating one or more hijackings. How about next time someone brings up these drills and has some of the details wrong, you just say--"OH, OK, you mean Vigilant Guardian, one of the several drills that day, and one that involved simulated hijackings. It didn't involve the hijackers flying the planes into buildings (that was the NRO drill also on 9/11/01) so you're wrong." Instead of: "WHAT DRILLS?"

Because the way you responded almost sounded like you were questioning there having been any drills, or any drills remotely resembling what happened on 9/11 (hijackings).

Edit your post:
"RT: I think you are talking about Vigilant Guardian, part of which simulated a "traditional" hijacking: the perps commandeer an airliner, land on a "Cuba-like" island, and seek asylum. It was scheduled to run later on 9/11 but I believe it was canceled for obvious reasons. "

I see, so you concede that there was at least one exercise scheduled for 9/11 that involved simulating one or more hijackings. How about next time someone brings up these drills and has some of the details wrong, you just say--"OH, OK, you mean Vigilant Guardian, one of the several drills that day, and one that involved simulated hijackings. It didn't involve the hijackers flying the planes into buildings (that was the NRO drill also on 9/11/01) so you're wrong." Instead of: "WHAT DRILLS?"

Because the way you responded almost sounded like you were questioning there having been any drills, or any drills remotely resembling what happened on 9/11 (hijackings). Guidelines
Edit this post | Permalink
1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 4:31 PM PDT
RT says:
Avraham,

I think that the 9/11 truth deniers come in two types. First you have the hard core kooks. They're going to swallow any trash thrown their way that they think "proves" an Islamofascist conspiracy. Logic, reason, and hard evidence mean nothing to these folks. They'd rather wallow in the propaganda broadcast on various cable "news" programs, and lap up the latest tripe spouted by nuts like Michael Savage, base their accusations on bogus claims like "Saddam did 9/11" and "had WMD". Nothing will ever convince these nuts that their theories are laughable nonsense.

The second type WANTS to believe the Islamofascists were responsible. They really do. However, they're opened minded enough to look at the actual evidence. And when they do, they realize the Office of Special Plans gurus had NOTHING. Nothing but speculation, innuendo and, in many cases, outright lies. Once the blinders are shot off these folks they realize the error of their way and properly reject the conspiracy nonsense.

Edit your post:
Avraham,

I think that the 9/11 truth deniers come in two types. First you have the hard core kooks. They're going to swallow any trash thrown their way that they think "proves" an Islamofascist conspiracy. Logic, reason, and hard evidence mean nothing to these folks. They'd rather wallow in the propaganda broadcast on various cable "news" programs, and lap up the latest tripe spouted by nuts like Michael Savage, base their accusations on bogus claims like "Saddam did 9/11" and "had WMD". Nothing will ever convince these nuts that their theories are laughable nonsense.

The second type WANTS to believe the Islamofascists were responsible. They really do. However, they're opened minded enough to look at the actual evidence. And when they do, they realize the Office of Special Plans gurus had NOTHING. Nothing but speculation, innuendo and, in many cases, outright lies. Once the blinders are shot off these folks they realize the error of their way and properly reject the conspiracy nonsense. Guidelines
Edit this post | Permalink
1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 4:31 PM PDT
Bill says:
Av,
I know the articles have some big words that you'll struggle with, but if you ask your mommy to explain them to you then perhaps you could understand them better.

Your reply to Bill's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to your post on April 16, 2009 4:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author 8 minutes ago
Suetonius says:
RT: I believe you are talking about Vigilant Guardian, part of which simulated a "traditional" hijacking: the perps commandeer an airliner, land on a "Cuba-like" island, and seek asylum. This was scheduled to run later on 9/11 but was canceled for obvious reasons.

You replied with a later post

Your reply to Suetonius's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to your post on April 16, 2009 4:28 PM PDT
Bill says:
Griffin's been debunked.

Your reply to Bill's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 4:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author 13 minutes ago
Bill says:
Hey Suet?

Have I ever called you a "nut job"?

If not, that would make Av an liar (big surprise, huh?), since you are a normal, intelligent folk. Unlike Av.

Your reply to Bill's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 4:27 PM PDT
Bill says:
Hi Av,

I have the evidence on my side.

You have idiocy, stupidity, lies, innuendo, wild rumors, irrelevant questions, and other assorted garbage.

If you want to know what a kook looks like, look in the mirror.

Your reply to Bill's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post: April 16, 2009 4:23 PM PDT
RT says:
Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903...

So maybe g-the-amateur got some details mixed up with regard to which exercises had to do with what, but it sure looks to me like there was a lot of stuff going on on 9/11/01 that didn't just happen every day. Evidence of a conspiracy? Not exactly, but no honest person can simply dismiss all of this as irrelevant.

Edit your post:
Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903...

So maybe g-the-amateur got some details mixed up with regard to which exercises had to do with what, but it sure looks to me like there was a lot of stuff going on on 9/11/01 that didn't just happen every day. Evidence of a conspiracy? Not exactly, but no honest person can simply dismiss all of this as irrelevant. Guidelines
Edit this post | Permalink
1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 4:20 PM PDT
RT says:
Gosh, sure sounds like there was an exercise involving simulated hijackings...
[quote]
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
Powell's question-"Is this real-world or exercise?"-is heard nearly verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the simulations team on hand to send "inputs"-simulated scenarios-into play for the day's training exercise.[/quote]

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentP...

Edit your post:
Gosh, sure sounds like there was an exercise involving simulated hijackings...
[quote]
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
Powell's question-"Is this real-world or exercise?"-is heard nearly verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the simulations team on hand to send "inputs"-simulated scenarios-into play for the day's training exercise.[/quote]

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentP... Guidelines
Edit this post | Permalink
1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to your post on April 16, 2009 3:05 PM PDT
Suetonius says:
The exercises that were taking place on 9/11 (plus some that weren't taking place that day or never happened at all!) are discussed in 'The Military Drills on 9-11' by Don Jacobs: http://physics911.net/pdf/jacobs.pdf. But check sources and beware spin.

Far from "practicing drills for airplanes flown into skyscrapers etc", none of the exercises had any such scenario. At least one of them did entail having NORAD staff already in place, which may be why Myers said it helped rather than hindered the response.

You replied with a later post

Your reply to Suetonius's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to your post on April 16, 2009 2:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author 1 hour ago
Avraham says:
Bill is a nut case. He is one of those conspiracy kooks who think that 911 happened exactly the way the Commission report describes it. One has to be crazy to swallow that much bs. But, unfortunately, Bill does swallow, all of it too. And then he calls normal, intelligent folks "nut jobs".

You replied with a later post

Your reply to Avraham's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 2:40 PM PDT
RT says:
So you agree bill that anyone who reads both the popular mechanics book and prof. Griffin's book in response will have no doubt as to which is more credible?yes or no?

Edit your post:
So you agree bill that anyone who reads both the popular mechanics book and prof. Griffin's book in response will have no doubt as to which is more credible?yes or no? Guidelines
Edit this post | Permalink
1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 2:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author 2 hours ago
Avraham says:
Popular Mechanics? You mean the magazine whose main areas of expertise are vacuum cleaners and bicycles? What a shlomo.

Your reply to Avraham's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to your post on April 16, 2009 2:05 PM PDT
Bill says:
Popular Mechanics utterly debunked the bulk of the idiocy spouted by conspiracy clowns.

Your reply to Bill's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 2:04 PM PDT
Bill says:
Christopher,

I think that the 9/11 conspiracy people come in two types. First you have the hard core kooks. They're going to swallow any trash thrown their way that they think "proves" a conspiracy. Logic, reason, and hard evidence mean nothing to these folks. They'd rather wallow in the nonsense posted on various oddball websites, and lap up the latest tripe spouted by nuts like David Griffin, base their "theories" on out of context quotes like "new pearl harbor" and "pull it". Nothing will ever convince these nuts that their theories are laughable nonsense.

The second type WANTS to believe the government was involved. They really do. However, they're opened minded enough to look at the actual evidence. And when they do, they realize the conspiracy gurus have NOTHING. Nothing but speculation, innuendo and, in many cases, outright lies. Once the blinders are shot off these folks they realize the error of their way and properly reject the conspiracy nonsense.

You replied with a later post

Your reply to Bill's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 1:51 PM PDT
RT says:
"the 9-11 inside job has been laid to rest by popular mechanics "
So you say, but anyone who has actually read the Popular Mechanics book knows that isn't true. But there's no need for me to belabor the point--I invite anyone who wants to test Liberty 1775's claim above to actually read the Popular Mechanics book followed by the response to it by Prof. David Griffin (Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics) and decide for themselves. It's really that simple and I really am that confident that anyone who reads both will not have any doubts left as to where they stand on these issues. Now when was the last time any of the truth-deniers actually suggested such a comparison? Never! They instead claim against reality that 9/11 skeptics' arguments are entirely Internet-based. Let's ask a simple question (though when I asked the simple question of "where's the evidence that your 19 arab muslims hijacked planes on 9/11?" I got no answer:)

Does anybody here disagree that after reading both the Popular Mechanics book and Griffin's book in response people should be able to figure out which one is more credible?

I mean, I *hope* we can all agree on that but you all never cease to amaze me... :)

Edit your post:
"the 9-11 inside job has been laid to rest by popular mechanics "
So you say, but anyone who has actually read the Popular Mechanics book knows that isn't true. But there's no need for me to belabor the point--I invite anyone who wants to test Liberty 1775's claim above to actually read the Popular Mechanics book followed by the response to it by Prof. David Griffin (Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics) and decide for themselves. It's really that simple and I really am that confident that anyone who reads both will not have any doubts left as to where they stand on these issues. Now when was the last time any of the truth-deniers actually suggested such a comparison? Never! They instead claim against reality that 9/11 skeptics' arguments are entirely Internet-based. Let's ask a simple question (though when I asked the simple question of "where's the evidence that your 19 arab muslims hijacked planes on 9/11?" I got no answer:)

Does anybody here disagree that after reading both the Popular Mechanics book and Griffin's book in response people should be able to figure out which one is more credible?

I mean, I *hope* we can all agree on that but you all never cease to amaze me... :) Guidelines
Edit this post | Permalink
1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 1:43 PM PDT
RT says:
"Suetonius says: Because McKinney was asking if the exercises might have hindered the response to the hijackings. Myers said no."

Why don't you elaborate? Myers said that the drills did not hinder the response, and added that it was his understanding that they HELPED respond to the attacks, so naturally they had some bearing on what was happening. Forget for a second what anyone else has claimed--I speak only for myself. It is clear that there were drills going on that day that had something in common with the response to the events--otherwise why would General Myers even suggest that the drills helped in the response? Now, you may be inclined to trust Myers on that assertion (that the drills helped, not hindered) but that would be a faith based response on your part. In fact, I'd like to read more about these drills--what source did you learn about them from? Can you cite the page number in the Commission Report?

Edit your post:
"Suetonius says: Because McKinney was asking if the exercises might have hindered the response to the hijackings. Myers said no."

Why don't you elaborate? Myers said that the drills did not hinder the response, and added that it was his understanding that they HELPED respond to the attacks, so naturally they had some bearing on what was happening. Forget for a second what anyone else has claimed--I speak only for myself. It is clear that there were drills going on that day that had something in common with the response to the events--otherwise why would General Myers even suggest that the drills helped in the response? Now, you may be inclined to trust Myers on that assertion (that the drills helped, not hindered) but that would be a faith based response on your part. In fact, I'd like to read more about these drills--what source did you learn about them from? Can you cite the page number in the Commission Report? Guidelines
Edit this post | Permalink
1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 12:09 PM PDT
liberty tree 1775 says:
Don't confuse the Cool-Aid drinkers with facts they hate that

Your reply to liberty tree 1775's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 12:04 PM PDT
liberty tree 1775 says:
You have not cited a single credible source. Every "reference" you offer are little more than blogs and opinions. By the way the 9-11 inside job has been laid to rest by popular mechanics unless you think they are in on it as well-maybe you just dropped your Cool-Aid on that copy.

You replied with a later post

Your reply to liberty tree 1775's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 11:57 AM PDT
Kwin says:
Based upon Giulianis effort to conceal evidence at WTC the most likely guess about this incident was a contrived excuse to prevent examination of the evidence. Where else in America do trucks of scrap metal get an armed escort.

It is not logical to assume that the multi million contracts awarded for cleanup would be risked by stealing scrap steel.

Never heard of any prosecutions as a result of this announcement by Giuliani.

The story is not plausible at face value.

250 tons of scrap stolen from ruins

It is estimated that the scrap metal value of the 255 tons so far recovered would be about £10,000. The detective said: "That is not a great deal in itself but the operation to steal from the WTC was obviously not going to be limited to the 255 tons we have found."

Police are understood to be looking at the role of known associates of some of the city's five Mafia families, who have decades-long connections with the waste disposal business and whose stranglehold on rubbish collections in New York was broken by the current mayor, Rudy Giuliani.

Officers working on a tip-off found 75 tons of material at a scrapyard in Deer Park, Long Island, on Monday. They subsequently raided two New Jersey scrapyards and found another 180 tons.

Trucks delivering rubble from the site of the tragedy in lower Manhattan to the Fresh Kills landfill site on Staten Island are now getting official escorts but, until last week, trucks were travelling alone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1357981/250-t...

Your reply to Kwin's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to your post on April 16, 2009 11:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author 5 hours ago
Christopher Gwyn says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Show post anyway.]
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Hide post again. (Show all ignored posts)]
How would I go about verifying 'it'? I'm not a scientist or engineer and have absolutely no access to any evidence or anything else and I wouldn't know what to do with it if I did. All any of us can do is come to our own conclusions based on what we read or hear. If you think scanning truther websites is some kind of 'verification' of anything you are only fooling yourself.

Your reply to Christopher Gwyn's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to your post on April 16, 2009 11:33 AM PDT
Last edited by the author 4 hours ago
Suetonius says:
RT asks:

Because McKinney was asking if the exercises might have hindered the response to the hijackings. Myers said no.

RT adds:

WHAT is quite relevant? Do you have any evidence to put forward or not?

This started when g-the-amateur claimed:

I asked: WHAT drills? I have had no answer.

You replied with a later post

Your reply to Suetonius's post:

You are already tracking this discussion.
Receive e-mail when new posts are made
Guidelines
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 11:26 AM PDT
RT says:
Christopher Gwyn says:
Yeah. I always go to Kwin when I need sane answers. LMAO.

Excellent--so you agree that Operation Gladio could not have happened as Kwin says? Because someone would have spilled the beans LONG before right? I mean faking attacks and blaming people who didn't do it? How could THAT remain secret for decades huh?

Edit your post:
Christopher Gwyn says:
Yeah. I always go to Kwin when I need sane answers. LMAO.

Excellent--so you agree that Operation Gladio could not have happened as Kwin says? Because someone would have spilled the beans LONG before right? I mean faking attacks and blaming people who didn't do it? How could THAT remain secret for decades huh? Guidelines
Edit this post | Permalink
1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on April 16, 2009 11:24 AM PDT
RT says:
"I'm satisfied with the official version of events. "

It doesn't matter if you are satisfied or not, your feelings don't come into this. What facts can YOU point to that what is satisfactory to YOU should be satisfactory to EVERYONE? In other words, on what hard evidence do you base your belief in the official version of events? It sounds like you just trust everything you've heard without verifying it. Like it's enough to have faith in something for it to be true. That's not very objective, though you are of course welcome to believe whatever you want--that's your right.

»