Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Zaphod58

This information should be made easily retrievable to lay certain theories to rest. Little wonder so many people have questions about money as motivation.

Isnt the fact it was anounced a day before not more peculiar than the fact it was missing?

Also 700 billion is still missing... You could build an entire city with such an amount. But it wasnt the motivation, if anything just the right moment to announce it. Next day noone cared anymore, at least not the public.

originally posted by: whatsup86

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Zaphod58

This information should be made easily retrievable to lay certain theories to rest. Little wonder so many people have questions about money as motivation.

Isnt the fact it was anounced a day before not more peculiar than the fact it was missing?

Also 700 billion is still missing... You could build an entire city with such an amount. But it wasnt the motivation, if anything just the right moment to announce it. Next day noone cared anymore, at least not the public.

It's not unimportant if that is true (I don't have specific knowledge of that. Do you have a source?)

$1 billion, $700 billion....$10 million....money in those numbers is compelling motive.

a reply to: Drawsoho

If anyone wants to there is a video of a fireman who found
the melted steel in the basement. It is not proof, and
video can be faked.

He was not an expert to identify molten metal. However, no evidence of pools of molten steel was ever found, but molten aluminum was seen flowing from the northeast corner of WTC 2, which is where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest.

700 billion not accounted for - 1.7 trillion $ accounted for - it is an insane amount of money but if you say it's normal...

Outdated systems at the Pentagon was unable to handle that much money. However, most of the money has now been accounted for.

Eyewitnesses stated there was nothing in Shankesville but for a hole in the ground, some paper , and dirt.

The description is comparable to what was found at the crash site of Caspian Airlines Flt 7908.

Photo: Crash Site of Caspian Airlines Flt 7908

Who to believe - the eyewitness or a video of some plane part in a video on a tiny url site?

You can believe the Mayor of Shanksville.

Ernie Stull (the Mayor of Shanksville)

"My statements were taken completely out of context. Of course there was an airplane. It's just that there wasn't much left of it after the explosion. That's what I meant when I said 'no airplane'. I saw parts of the wreckage with my own eyes, even one of the engines. It was lying in the bushes."

www.spiegel.de...

And, you can also believe the Coroner of Shanksville.

Flight 93 Remains Returned

The remains and belongings of 40 people who died when United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a western Pennsylvania field Sept. 11 will be returned to their survivors, the county coroner said.

The remains of all but the plane's four hijackers will be placed into caskets. The first sets of remains were shipped Monday and the rest will be delivered when the victims' survivors are contacted, Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said.

"Everybody's concerned about remains that they can have a memorial for," Miller said.

www.cbsnews.com...

And, you can believe United Airlines.

Text: United Airlines Statement on Plane Crashes

Following is a statement issued by United Airlines on the crash of Flight 93 near Pittsburgh and Flight 175 in a location that was not immediately disclosed:
United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

— UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.

www.washingtonpost.com...

If the parts will be in a museum, then why not include all the WTC steel wreckage? Oh you can't - that evidence has been destroyed.

Actually, the WTC steel have been spread around and placed on display, and I once posed with a piece of WTC steel a few years ago. Some WTC steel was sold to China while other WTC steel was used in the construction of the USS New York.

Over 200 pieces of WTC steel were examined and I might add there is no need to examine every piece of WTC steel. For an example, the landing gear of an airplane fails on landing, so why examine the tail section?

.

originally posted by: whatsup86
Isnt the fact it was anounced a day before not more peculiar than the fact it was missing?

It was actually announced a year before...

Also 700 billion is still missing

Who said any money was missing?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: whatsup86
Isnt the fact it was anounced a day before not more peculiar than the fact it was missing?

It was actually announced a year before...

Also 700 billion is still missing

Who said any money was missing?

It sounds like the federal government did -- or that it was not accounted for, to be more precise. I cannot find any source stating that it was all accounted for.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: whatsup86
Isnt the fact it was anounced a day before not more peculiar than the fact it was missing?

It was actually announced a year before...

Also 700 billion is still missing

Who said any money was missing?

Missing= not accounted for.

A year before and a day before.

And even if nothing was missing anymore: like i said isnt the fact it was anounced a day before more peculiar? Still a good moment for the ones responsible.

a reply to: whatsup86

It was known that there were major accounting problems in the 1999 Fiscal Year, which actually started in 1998. The first media reports were in 2000 that the money was unaccounted for. The fact that he announced it the day before didn't change anything.

They knew it was spent, and they knew what projects it was spent on. What they didn't have was the records in the main accounting system at the Pentagon.


archive.defense.gov...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: whatsup86

It was known that there were major accounting problems in the 1999 Fiscal Year, which actually started in 1998. The first media reports were in 2000 that the money was unaccounted for.

Ha, well the federal government is still having a problem accounting for its spending and using the same-type excuses.

$43 million on a gas station in Afghanistan, millions of Obama-stimulus money unaccounted for via Recovery.org, etc... At some point, the federal government has earned all the scrutiny it gets.

a reply to: hellobruce



It was announced the day before, the number is 2.3 TRILLION unaccounted for. The next day, the world forgot about it.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

$1 billion, $700 billion....$10 million....money in those numbers is compelling motive.

Actually it's not very compelling.
Where would you put 700 billion?
Walk down to the local PNC and fill out a deposit slip?
No questions asked?
You are aware that top IT guys have access to all data at banks?
They who the top depositors are. They know all the banks financial secrets.

If you look at almost every multi billionaire they get tired of their money.
Most give the lions share away after many years.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: whatsup86

It was known that there were major accounting problems in the 1999 Fiscal Year, which actually started in 1998. The first media reports were in 2000 that the money was unaccounted for. The fact that he announced it the day before didn't change anything.


archive.defense.gov...

Except the next day the public didnt care anymore. Nor any difficult reporters. If you knew 911 was going to happen wouldnt you use that knowledge? I can imagine one would. But otherwise just a big coincidence.

And didnt the office occupied with getting the balance straight get hit the next day? Also very coincidental and I imagine convenient for the ones responsible. Could be nothing more than a big coincidence though.

a reply to: Signals

It was announced the day before, the number is 2.3 TRILLION unaccounted for. The next day, the world forgot about it.

That 2.3 trillion was the sum total of the previous 8 years defense budget.
In that almost decade they paid for planes, ships, nukes, personnel.
So clearly the money wasn't stolen.

But how did a thread about the hour delay between strike and collapse shift into the pentagon?????

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: MotherMayEye

$1 billion, $700 billion....$10 million....money in those numbers is compelling motive.

Actually it's not very compelling.
Where would you put 700 billion?
Walk down to the local PNC and fill out a deposit slip?
No questions asked?
You are aware that top IT guys have access to all data at banks?
They who the top depositors are. They know all the banks financial secrets.

If you look at almost every multi billionaire they get tired of their money.
Most give the lions share away after many years.

Oh, I am sure the money could be handled covertly after reviewing the PRISM banking controversies.

originally posted by: Signals
It was announced the day before, the number is 2.3 TRILLION unaccounted for.

In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented.

A year before, actually. Under Clinton.

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.

archive.defense.gov...

a reply to: whatsup86

It was already in the public for over a year and a half though. It was in the news from March of 2000.

No, the office in charge of the audit didn't get hit. The ONI office was in that wing, but they weren't in charge of the audit. The Office of the Inspector General is in charge of auditing, along with civilian accountants.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: whatsup86

It was already in the public for over a year and a half though. It was in the news from March of 2000.

No, the office in charge of the audit didn't get hit. The ONI office was in that wing, but they weren't in charge of the audit. The Office of the Inspector General is in charge of auditing, along with civilian accountants.

That's partly why I am compelled by this theory: Link

a reply to: pteridine

What does a "normal collapse" of a large office building look like, Informer? How would you know if a collapse wasn't "normal?"

I am sure you know that anyone can pull up hundreds of videos of buildings collapsing from earth quakes, or from faulty design online to see how buildings fall without the use of demolition.

Here is something I would like you to read, that are facts concerning the WTC demise.

Collapse Features Characteristics of the Twin Towers' Destruction and What They Show

The total destructions of the two towers were almost identical. The most apparent difference is that the top of the South Tower tipped for a few seconds before falling, whereas the top of the North Tower telescoped straight down from the start. Here are some of the principal characteristics of the destructions, based on study of the surviving evidence.

The cores were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores.

The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds.

Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.

The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust, which were several times the original volumes of the buildings by the time their disintegration reached the ground.

Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. The downward forces of a gravity collapse cannot account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces.

911research.wtc7.net...

This is exactly what I observed when I watch the videos of the the WTC 1 & 2.

There is way to much energy involved when watching the WTC fall. Would you agree?

originally posted by: Informer1958
The tops fell at near the rate of free fall. The rates of fall indicate that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them.

Just by watching a video of the collapse that clearly is not true, you can easily see that the collapsing building is falling much slower than the debris that has fallen from it (which IS falling at freefall speed)

a reply to: hellobruce

Just by watching a video of the collapse that clearly is not true, you can easily see that the collapsing building is falling much slower than the debris that has fallen from it (which IS falling at freefall speed)

I disagree.

That is not what I see.

Explosive events were visible before many floors had collapsed. Since overpressures are the only possible explanations for the explosive dust plumes emerging from the buildings, the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling.

This is correct, and what we are witnessing when the building is coming down.

originally posted by: Informer1958
the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling.

The top of the building does not have to fall to compress air inside the building, we did not know what was collapsing inside.