Mystery Solved about building collapse, what do you think?

a reply to: tinymind

Oh sorry OK I get what you mean.

originally posted by: Salander
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.

Indeed, and again, like the $2.3 trillion, no documentation or records from the Department of Defense, but, according to Hellobruce, "only silly truthers say that money was missing". He insists it's accounted for, but doesn't respond when asked for evidence.

The Pentagon alone among all federal agencies has never been audited, with roughly £8.5 trillion in taxpayers' money now unaccounted for since 1996, the first year it was supposed to be audited.

originally posted by: EvilAxis
Indeed, and again, like the $2.3 trillion, no documentation or records from the Department of Defense, but, according to Hellobruce, "only silly truthers say that money was missing". He insists it's accounted for, but doesn't respond when asked for evidence.

Wrong again, funny how you missed from the link I posted:

In February of 2002 the DoD released this statement in which they said that: DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.

a reply to: hellobruce

Do you really believe what the Pentagon says? I don't.

Their testimony at the 911 Commission was so erratic and so frequently edited that several members of the commission wanted to charge those testifying with perjury.

How can a rational person believe a word they say?

a reply to: EvilAxis

Indeed, and again, like the $2.3 trillion, no documentation or records from the Department of Defense, but, according to Hellobruce, "only silly truthers say that money was missing". He insists it's accounted for, but doesn't respond when asked for evidence.

The Pentagon alone among all federal agencies has never been audited, with roughly £8.5 trillion in taxpayers' money now unaccounted for since 1996, the first year it was supposed to be audited.

My paycheck was never affected and the Pentagon doesn't place all of its eggs in the same basket. Now, for the rest of the story.

Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile 'Lost' Spending

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2002 -- As part of military transformation efforts, DoD Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim and his posse of accountants are riding the Pentagon's financial paper trail, seeking to corral billions of dollars in so-called "lost" expenditures.

For years, DoD and congressional officials have sought to reconcile defense financial documents to determine where billions in expenditures have gone. That money didn't fall down a hole, but is simply waiting to be accounted for, Zakheim said in a Feb. 14 interview with the American Forces Information Service. Complicating matters, he said, is that DoD has 674 different computerized accounting, logistics and personnel systems.Most of the 674 systems "don't talk to one another unless somebody 'translates,'" he remarked. This situation, he added, makes it hard to reconcile financial data.

Billions of dollars of DoD taxpayer-provided money haven't disappeared, Zakheim said. "Missing" expenditures are often reconciled a bit later in the same way people balance their checkbooks every month. The bank closes out a month and sends its bank statement, he said. In the meanwhile, people write more checks, and so they have to reconcile their checkbook register and the statement.

DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.
"We're getting it down and we are redesigning our systems so we'll go down from 600-odd systems to maybe 50," he explained.

"That way, we will give people not so much more money, but a comfort factor, to be sure that every last taxpayer penny is accounted for," he concluded.

web.archive.org...://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/n02202002_200202201.html

We cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

www.911myths.com...

zakheim one of the neocons who is in on this yeah very trustworthy.

a reply to: HorusChrist

Once again, the Pentagon doesn't keep all of its eggs in the same basket and was unable to handle that much money at one time.

originally posted by: gazzerman
a reply to: loveguy

Well I would say that it all makes sense if you look at it from both angles.

The first is the official story, lie about the way it collapsed to protect the knowledge that all buildings are rigged with a fail safe to protect them from data getting into the wrong hands so that people are not aware that perhaps many builds have a vulnerability if the fail safes were to be made aware. Then just to make sure, you take all the scrap and ship it off because there is a chance that some top secret data could still be lurking about. Percentage chance of this being the true story pretty high I would say.

The second, its an inside job, they rigged it up specifically for an event and too it down to hide various illegal dealings and the many other reasons detailed to death on here. Percentage chance of this is still up there based on so much weird stuff going on but, I would say if the building had a fail safe like I am suggesting then that fail safe could have been used to perpetuate the whole story where we find ourselves today.

Its simply a case of the building having always been rigged for a fail safe and what the real reason was for using it that day. The official story is not true but my point being that it does not have to be a conspiracy for the reasons it was pulled.

I just believe these and many others have a fail safe. How and why it was used is the real question but for another thread perhaps but its also been discussed to death.

I'll have to search for it, but I found a page talking about building with sub-standard materials in many of new york's high rises.
Mainly, it described the strength of concrete being compromised...
this should be fun.

the link in the link

a reply to: skyeagle409
Oh, I think we can be sure the money was handled. But accounted for? No.

I knew I could tease it out of you. So the £2.3 trillion unaccounted for when Dov Zakheim was Pentagon comptroller was in fact accounted for because Dov Zakheim said in 2002 he was making good progress accounting for it... But no accounts were filed. And to this day the Pentagon has not been audited.

So this is what you mean when you say it was accounted for. We don't bother with actual accounts. Just accept somebody's say-so.

Hmmn... and that somebody... I saw his name on the bottom of that infamous document, published a year before 9/11, arguing the New American Century required "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

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.

Barry Jennings said he stepped over dead body's on the way out..

a reply to: EvilAxis

So this is what you mean when you say it was accounted for. We don't bother with actual accounts. Just accept somebody's say-so.

I have been scratching my head as to whom was duping 9/11 Truthers that the $2.3 trillion somehow translated into a 9/11conspiracy. Mly paycheck wasn't affected and anyone who has been doing illegal things with someone's money is definitely nott going to announce it on national television unless he wants to be thrown in jail.

a reply to: EvilAxis

... I saw his name on the bottom of that infamous document arguing the New American Century required "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

What does "New Pearl Harbor" imply?

TextWhat does "New Pearl Harbor" imply?

Now that shows you don't know as much as you think, PNAC...

a reply to: skyeagle409
A catastrophic attack upon homeland America which would draw the country into global conflicts?
Possibly a false flag operation to achieve that aim?
What would it imply to you?

a reply to: wildb

Now that shows you don't know as much as you think, PNAC...

That is not an answer to my question. What does the "New Pearl Harbor" imply?

a reply to: skyeagle409

What he said..


A catastrophic attack upon homeland America which would draw the country into global conflicts?
Possibly a false flag operation to achieve that aim?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Now that shows you don't know as much as you think, PNAC...

That is not an answer to my question. What does the "New Pearl Harbor" imply?

How does the world's smartest 911 researcher intentionally act so dumb for no other purpose than to troll 911 threads and not get banned for it? That's the 23 trillion dollar question.

a reply to: EvilAxis

A catastrophic attack upon homeland America which would draw the country into global conflicts?
Possibly a false flag operation to achieve that aim?
What would it imply to you?

Nothing, so let's take a look.

* The United States did not go to war when Osama bin Laden bombed our embassies in Kenya and in Tanzania, killing local and American citizens.

* The United States did not go to war when Osama bin Laden bombed the USS Cole, killing American sailors. I might add that Osama bin Laden was upset that the ship wasn't sunk

* The United States didn't go to war when Osama bin Laden bombed WTC 1 in 1993, where one of the terrorist fled to Iraq before moving on to Pakistan.

* The United States didn't go to war as Iraq continued to violate 16 UN resolutions after the first Gulf War.

* The United States didn't go to war after terrorist bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing many U.S. troops.

* The United States didn't go to war when terrorist hijacked American airliners.

* The United States didn't go to war when North Korea shot down our EC-121 over international waters, killing its crewmembers.

* The United States didn't go to war when North Korea hijacked the USS Pueblo in international waters

* The United States didn't go to war when Iraq fired a missile at one of our warships in the Persian Gulf, seriously damaging the vessel, which killed U.S sailors.

* The United States didn't go to war when Libya bombed Pan Am 103 out of the sky.

* The United States didn't go to war when the Philippine government uncovered a terrorist plot to bomb many American airliners out of the sky and to fly an aircraft into CIA headquarters. I might add that one of the terrorist involved in the Bojinka Plot, was the same terrorist who bombed WTC 1 in 1993, and to further add, he is the nephew of the 9/11 mastermid, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Those are just a few of many such examples.

Trolling.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

How does the world's smartest 911 researcher intentionally act so dumb for no other purpose than to troll 911 threads and not get banned for it? That's the 23 trillion dollar question.

Could it be that I have something up my sleeve?