Mystery Solved about building collapse, what do you think?

originally posted by: EvilAxis
I don't think anyone's saying it went missing,

Apart from truthers, you mean!

$2.3 trillion in transactions were unaccounted for, meaning it disappeared from public scrutiny, because we cannot know how it was spent.

It has been accounted for.

Rumsfeld's announcing it the day before the attack ensured it got little attention.

It was announced well before then....www.911myths.com...

By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday. The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes,

originally posted by: hellobruce
It has been accounted for.

No it hasn't. Show your evidence.

originally posted by: hellobruce
It was announced well before then....

Correct. And Rumsfeld held a press conference about it on Sept. 10th.

a reply to: hellobruce

www.911myths.com...

Yellow Journalism.

It is a well known fact that 911 Myths is a disinformation website.

Most people stay away from that nonsense.

Why is it that OS supporters are the only ones that use that website?

$2.3 trillion in transactions were unaccounted for, meaning it disappeared from public scrutiny, because we cannot know how it was spent.

The fact is that money was never accounted for and there was no investigation either.

Rumsfeld's announcing it the day before the attack ensured it got little attention.

Yes it was announced the day before 911 happened.

9-11 Pentagon missing $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld Exposed 9/10/2001

a reply to: gazzerman

So OP essentially you are saying that the motive for taking down WTC-7 was to cover up some secrets the CIA where keeping.

I have a number of issues with your thread over all.

Firstly why the CIA, why not the Secret Service or the emergency management department? CIA is just a little sexier right?

Second point, there are much easier ways to cover up evidence than blowing up a entire building, destroying WTC-7 just to cover up some evidence does not add up because it only adds to a already very complex plot and does so needlessly.

My third issue, you seem to be approaching this thread like the CIA have a office in WTC-7 is a new thing and this is some great revelation, its not, everyone knows the CIA had a office in WTC-7.

My fourth and biggest issue, you have zero evidence, your entire basis of this thread is basically your own suspicion and nothing more, yet you go on about this like you are stating is as a absolute fact and refuse to listen to any sensible counter argument.

a reply to: Informer1958

The fact is that money was never accounted for and there was no investigation either.

What a load of crap!

Honestly some of you people need to educate yourselves.

Rumsfelds missing trillions

originally posted by: Informer1958
Why is it that OS supporters are the only ones that use that website?

Of course truthers avoid it, it totally destroys their conspiracies!

The fact is that money was never accounted for and there was no investigation either.

Another truther lie!

Rumsfeld's announcing it the day before the attack ensured it got little attention.

Yes it was announced the day before 911 happened.

Wrong again,
all explained here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Which I may add was not the first time that this money had been announced as being “missing” or as it should really be described “unaccounted for”. A Pentagon fiscal report in 1999 was shown to have demonstrated that there was $2.3Tn in accounting errors according to a report published in 2002 stating that:

In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.

I was not aware this was mention in a document back in 1999.

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet . We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old . According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

So the government excuse is their computers technology is old.

I am sure you are correct that a pentagon paper showed the money was missing in 1999, however I also believe Rumsfeld knew all about this information long before he made his announcement.

Just because someone from the accounting office made the claim they found most of the money, doesn't mean it is true.

I do not trust anything that our government says any longer because they have a proven history of being lairs.

As for you saying this has been DEBUNKED, I have to disagree.

As for the rest of your thread it is your "opinion" and nothing else.

a reply to: hellobruce

Of course truthers avoid it, it totally destroys their conspiracies!

No, because most Truthers do not use lies to defend their claims.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Honestly some of you people need to educate yourselves.

That's obfuscation, not education - and of course nothing about the $2.3 trillion being accounted for.

"From 1995 through 2002, Senator Charles Grassley pushed through an amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill requiring the Pentagon to account for its expenditures by following one seemingly simple procedure: match each payment to the expense it covered. The order was ignored, and Grassley gave up."

Things are worse now, mind.

"the lack of reliable accounts - Pentagon staff routinely insert billions of dollars a year of false accounting entries to cover missing information - conceals huge sums lost to waste, fraud and mismanagement."

"Q: How much taxpayer money has the Defense Department spent that has never been audited since the 1996 deadline?
A: About $8.5 trillion."

According to Reuters, 2013: www.reuters.com.../part1

originally posted by: Informer1958
No, because most Truthers do not use lies to defend their claims.

Apart from the lies that explosives were used, or thermite was used, or mini nuclear weapons were used, or beam weapons from space were used, or the aircraft were carrying pods etc. etc!

a reply to: hellobruce

Apart from the lies that explosives were used, or thermite was used, or mini nuclear weapons were used, or beam weapons from space were used, or the aircraft were carrying pods etc. etc!

I have been on ATS for a long time.

Most Truthers do not subscribe to your silly claims. If ridiculing is all you have in your support of the OS, you have lost the 911 debate years ago.

There is mountains of science that proves that some kind of demolition was used to bring all 3 WTC and that has become an excepted fact now.

As for your ridiculing the Truth movement still holding on old disinformation that was planted perhaps by Gov keyboard OP's many years ago, no one support it.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Most Truthers do not subscribe to your silly claims.

Not my silly claims, they are silly claims made by truthers!

If ridiculing is all you have in your support of the OS,

Wrong again, in support of the OS I have facts, not made up stories about thermite, or explosives being used!

There is mountains of science that proves that some kind of demolition was used to bring all 3 WTC

No there is not, there is zero evidence that thermite, or explosives etc. were used on 9/11

Even in the last day or so we have had a truther here claiming that flight 175 was carrying pods, so truthers are still making up and believing such nonsense!

a reply to: hellobruce

No there is not, there is zero evidence that thermite, or explosives etc. were used on 9/11

Yes there is. It's called science.

Even in the last day or so we have had a truther here claiming that flight 175 was carrying pods, so truthers are still making up and believing such nonsense!

That is a fallacy, nonsense.

I see your only goal here is to ridicule. The fact is, you give us nothing in support of your claims. How interesting.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Yes there is. It's called science.

Science has show there was no thermite nor explosives. Truther claims are NOT science!

That is a fallacy, nonsense.

Wrong again, in fact in this very thread we had someone claiming Flight 175 had a pod attached!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The fact is, you give us nothing in support of your claims.

Except the facts, which as we have all seen, truthers cannot handle!

a reply to: hellobruce

Science has show there was no thermite nor explosives. Truther claims are NOT science!

That is False.

Only OS conspiracy theories support that nonsense.

Wrong again, in fact in this very thread we had someone claiming Flight 175 had a pod attached!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Last thing... United Flight #175 that flew into the 2nd tower. All media released of that plane shows it clearly having a polished aluminum-split fuselage (I won't even mention the extra equipment obviously attached to the underside), when #175 DID NOT HAVE a split fuselage. It had a smooth, uniform fuselage underside that should've been blue in color. That alone not only cannot be explained, it's reason enough and the evidence clear enough, to warrant a complete investigation from an outside source.

Pod attached?

I don't see the word POD used, nice try.

Except the facts, which as we have all seen, truthers cannot handle!

I see you have appointed yourself "expert" on everything concerning 911. How interesting.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What?

I would suggest you take a few more seconds to read the OP before you march down a road of defending a side that is opposite to something you seem to believe in. You are making yourself look a little bit silly when I am sure you probably more intelligent.

Please reply to this explaining that you made a mistake so that people can see that.

At no point did I say "cover up" what was there to cover up? I have no clue what you mean. What do they have to hide/protect is a better question. I am sure they have plenty, like agents names abroad that if compromised would put them in danger?

Just so you are aware this post edges towards the idea that its very possible that WTC-7 Collapse had nothing to do with the other events of the day but more towards protecting data that would be dangerous in other peoples hands.

you seem to be approaching this thread like the CIA have a office in WTC-7 is a new thing and this is some great revelation, its not, everyone knows the CIA had a office in WTC-7

Not at all, you know that well and again are making yourself look silly. I never said "WOW did you know there was CIA in the building" or something like that?

You are way to used to seeing things expecting a viewpoint from one side or another and jumping on them before you read it.

you go on about this like you are stating is as a absolute fact and refuse to listen to any sensible counter argument.

Another lie, what is wrong with you? You should be spoken to by the mods in here for out right lying and trying to make this forum look bad.

If you look back just a few post I took 2 peoples points on board and said I was no expert on the matter and was happy for their feedback.

My post was a question with a question mark and it asked for peoples thoughts, if that is an "absolute fact" then I think general conversation is wasted on you.

You look very stupid right now. I suggest you explain yourself to everyone on here why you did this or this post will forever be a stain on your credibility.

a reply to: hellobruce

After reading so many of your posts its interesting to see the way you respond.

It is clear you have a great passion for this and have put in a lot of time to research everything. Do you have a strong personal connection to the event, I hope you don't mind me asking that. Of course you don't have to answer, I am just curious.

I am also wondering why even though you have taken so much time to do your research that you kind of mixed my words in attempt to answer them like I was trying to suggest something other than the fact that I was leaning towards the idea that WTC-7 may have had an additional reason to not be connected to any of the 9/11 goings on that day.

Would you mind going into more detail about your response to me in your early post? did you simply interpret what I was saying as something else?

I even left it wide open at the end saying from there it may go either way anyone wants to take it from there. This OP never took a side and still has not and will not.

Its funny how nobody seems to be able to have a conversation that does not involve defending a side on here. If you argue your point instead of work together to work out a particular point you will never get anywhere, its pointless both sides wasting their energy.

It would be far more interesting if everyone took one singular point and worked together to get to the bottom of it. With everyone asking questions based on what the other thought rather than saying "there you go, told you so" like 5 year olds.

For such a long time I stayed away from posting because of this childish behavior. It's almost like I can feel the "that will piss them off [click send]" in each post of some users. Not pointing fingers on that but if anyone is doing that and you know who you are, just take a moment and think that this space is for all of us and is unique like that. There is plenty of other space outside of this forum for that. I don't understand why people s**t on their own doorstep sometimes just to try and be right.

a reply to: EvilAxis

Not to go off topic, but Pentagon accounting procedures are notorious for being "smoke & mirrors". An excellent current example is the $43 million they paid for a LNG station in Afghanistan. Grassley's recommendations were ignored, as usual.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: gazzerman

So OP essentially you are saying that the motive for taking down WTC-7 was to cover up some secrets the CIA where keeping.

I have a number of issues with your thread over all.

Firstly why the CIA, why not the Secret Service or the emergency management department? CIA is just a little sexier right?

Second point, there are much easier ways to cover up evidence than blowing up a entire building, destroying WTC-7 just to cover up some evidence does not add up because it only adds to a already very complex plot and does so needlessly.

My third issue, you seem to be approaching this thread like the CIA have a office in WTC-7 is a new thing and this is some great revelation, its not, everyone knows the CIA had a office in WTC-7.

My fourth and biggest issue, you have zero evidence, your entire basis of this thread is basically your own suspicion and nothing more, yet you go on about this like you are stating is as a absolute fact and refuse to listen to any sensible counter argument.

It had a lot of motives, it just made so much sense for CIA skull and bones types. They wanted a war against a fake threat for making war profits, that was number one. How to do that though, they had many options. Many different buildings to take down. Larry Silverstein had one right in the heart of the biggest city that was riddled with asbestos which is expensive to remove the legal way. So they loaded it with bombs and then made wall st bets against airlines. Pentagon had a problem with missing trillions so they hit the side of that building where info on that was held. Bonus. Their main mistake was flying bin laden family members out that week . . . talk about caught red handed. You're naïve if you don't think that was odd.

originally posted by: gazzerman
a reply to: tinymind



But that is exactly why this forum is great, I asked a question with an idea in my head that with no knowledge of this technology and I got two very informative and personally educating responses from bedlam and yourself.



Although you said one thing that I was not aware of

Would it be more prudent to dispose of the files this way or blow up a building, with people inside?

There were people inside WTC-7 when it went down? I was not aware of that.

It was really not my intent to convey anything about people being inside WTC-7 when it went down.
I made this statement with-in the context of your concern about a building being under siege and blowing up the building in order to distroy any documents inside. If such an event were taking place, there would almost certainly be some people inside; either the workers and/or the insergents.