How Do 'They' Build Huge Underground Shelters for SHTF Without Us Knowing About It.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I did not say anything, about, it not being known prior to 9/10/2001, my point was the date he decided to get up there and talk about it. Like he just found out that morning, I don't think so. What I'm talking about is timing, the day before 911.
Also, after that, when brought up in congress again, some of the members didn't even know it was missing to begin with. These are the people running our government?
You need to not try and put words, in my mouth, I did not say, they just found out about it, my question was the timing, and the loss of records.

But what your say is our government, is incompetent, and we need a new system, any company that couldn't keep it's books to with you say a trillion dollars, is totally due for restructure. And the whole thing is lie anyhow, the amount missing now is over 20 Trillion, were in debt about 80 Trillion. There is no Gold in Fort Knox, any that is in there belongs to The Fed, who you kidding, that's been known since the Reagan era.

Listen to you own words, what bull.
"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, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments."

Yeah, attempt to make add up, you mean they jiggled the books to make it appear to be legit.

If they didn't lose any records, why were they still talking about it 10 years later.

But pretty much you just said, "the system is broken, one hand does not know what the other is doing, time for new system" correct.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pheonix358

It was missing only when an audit was ordered.

Rumsfield did not say it was missing.
There is an annual audit.

Phage, I know your a smart dude, but what does unaccounted for mean?

un·ac·count·ed-for (ŭn′ə-koun′tĭd-fôr′)
adj.
1. Not explained, understood, or taken into account.
2. Missing or absent without explanation, as from a roll call or after a military operation.

I know we are not speaking of soilders, but if it's "unaccounted for", then it's missing

I worked in a DUMB decades ago and that was what i heard as a young guy ,How the hell did they build this and nobody knew

Its a funny old life

The accounting system is corrupt, it is designed, to make it impossible to balance the books, if you can't balance the books, you just write it off, what else can you do. For the good of America's crook's.

Just like the Federal Reserve, NO!, we are above the US government and you can not audit our books, records, if you won't let someone examine something then there is something wrong with that, which there is a desire to look at. For which does thou wish to look upon such records, "WE seek to see, the Truth". Well the Truth has nothing to hide, the Truth, is a open book, A undeniable thing. Well there is no way in Hell, your going to look at the Feds books. Fact.

The World is a Lie, and yous just gullible enough to believe it. But we have Faith, Faith in the lies you are feed.

a reply to: OOOOOO

Why did you ignore the primary definition? The money was provided as allocated. Otherwise there would have been a lot of people screaming about the money they were supposed to get but didn't. What was difficult to do was determine exactly how they spent that money. At that time, it was not immediately possible to account for the spending because the system was a mess.

The notion that trillions of dollars went missing, never reached it's assigned departments, is absurd and it is not what Rumsfeld said.

There are still problems, but at least an overall audit is being done.
www.defense.gov...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah. That's not where the money comes from. Here's a documentary about that.

I agree, although having seen some of this while working for dod contractors some of it does. It is amazing people really think they pay 600 for a toilet seat or hammer's etc etc etc lol. no, lol...

But phage right there, most of the money does not come this way... think about it... do you really think we allow the multi-trillion dollar drug trade world wide or have we always had hooks in it... if you don't think the three letter boys use this trade to fund black op projects you are very naive... money has never been there problem lol...

I do believe my friend about denver.. and ppl are right, we don't look up anymore or around us lol.. walking around in there they were flaunting it lol.. signs were everywhere lol.. i mean the mural's alone about the end of the world were very spooky lol...

Having been in around the mine's and other projects there in Colorado I don't believe they are as prolific as people think however... I mean when you are talking about this, deep shelters and cities you are talking way more than the 2 Trillion said missing.. that is just for one... and you are not going to dig this very easily and in secret... I mean everyone has a drone and camera today... Just moving in the equipment and personnel is daunting task, let alone all the supplies needed.. you are not making concrete down there out of what you dig, although that is theoretically possible.

The thought by the one about workers living down there and then killed is interesting one... there are allot of people who go missing in this country every year... the numbers are staggering, i mean staggering.... but, that too would be a very hard one to pull off... having worked in classified setting I mean hey, everyone talks and on a military base everyone pretty much knows the scuttle butt... unless you are bringing in illegal aliens as workers I don't buy that one...

a reply to: OOOOOO

Both the Senate and House had been having meetings on the FY02 NDAA on 9/10/01, which is why Rumsfeld spoke about it on that day. The week prior they had been having hearings on spending and the budget. It was known that the accounting process in the Pentagon was, and still is broken.

Have you ever worked around the military? It's not bull, it's what happens in reality when the Pentagon gets involved. They move money around so that it goes from one year to five year allocations. If they don't spend all their budget in the one year allocation then at the end of the FY, whatever is left is deducted from the next year's budget. If it's in the five year allocation it doesn't matter, because then they have five years to spend it all.

Adjusting budgets happens in private companies too, although it's not the rule, like it is at the Pentagon. It doesn't mean any money is missing, it means that it was spent, but the records don't match. The problem with the Pentagon is that they can get a budget allocation, for say an aircraft carrier, but the money doesn't get actually paid out for somewhere up to 10 years after its allocated. The money for the new ship doesn't get paid out all at once, it gets paid out as contract obligations are met. The USS Ford cost about $13B to build. The Navy was initially allocated $5.1B for design and construction, this was in addition to $2.7B from an earlier contract for advanced construction. The $5.1B was paid out over 7 years as contract milestones were reached. Huntington Ingalls started getting money in 2016 for the USS Enterprise, which won't start actual construction until next year. In December 2018, HII received $228M for additional long lead items for Enterprise.

It's the same with any program led by the Pentagon. They get allocated money in one year lots, but might not actually need to spend it until years later. So it gets moved around, and "lost". It's there, and it gets spent on what it's supposed to, but with so many years going on between allocation and spending, the Pentagon screws up and doesn't properly annotate where it went. People in program offices leave, others come in, filing systems change, and Fort Fumble finds new ways to screw up their procurement process.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You really believe what you saying, Huh?

Yeah, and God is a Old dude with white beard.

Main concern of congress, is how to impeach Trump, while still ling their own pockets with big money, from the lobbyist.
You need to remember most of these people, up on the Hill are Attorneys, Professional lairs. The whole thing is joke and why the founding Father's feared the Government to such a extent.
Look who Owned the Bank of England when the Revolutionary, war broke out, a Rothschild, who owns our Money now Rothschild's.

[SNIP]

a reply to: OOOOOO

Main concern of congress, is how to impeach Trump

No. That seems to be mostly a concern mostly of the Democrat committee members in the House of Representatives. But they, and Congress as a whole, are doing other things at the same time. Did you notice that the hearings were sometimes recessed so that the members could vote?

a reply to: OOOOOO

I've seen it in action many times. What does Trump have to do with what's been going on for decades in the Pentagon? He certainly didn't have anything to do with the hearings happening in 2001, when Rumsfeld said what he did.

But of course, they're actually gutting over half their budget to steal trillions of dollars. That's the reality, and everyone who believes otherwise is too stupid to keep breathing.

a reply to: Phage

What was wrong with secondary meaning, still missing. You just don't like to be wrong, all the wording in the news said Missing, missing, missing, you should let them know also, I am quite sure they are far more edumucated than me, but they don't know either. "Unaccounted for" just really means, they don't know where the _____ it is.

I don't really even pay attention to congress, it's just all that is on news, which I try avoid is, this never ending story of how to get rid of Trump, hell the republicans didn't want him in either to begin with.
It's all just waste of time.

It's seems it's all the News covers,nothing really important going on, oh yea they need to stop to increase their pay and bennies.

a reply to: OOOOOO

all the wording in the news said

I thought the MSM was full of crap.

"Unaccounted for" just really means, they don't know where the _____ it is.

Rumsfeld doesn't seem to have used that word but no, it means they don't know exactly what it was spent on. But rest assured, it was spent, as Zaphod pointed out.

Folks, could we please get back on topic.

Underground bases is the topic. We all seem to have drifted off.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Funding is not an aspect?
We don't follows the monies?

How much do them things cost, anyhoo? And where does the money come from?

a reply to: Phage

The world drug trade run by the Intel community world wide.

Do you really believe they spend $300.00 on a hammer?

Cooking the books is easy when your systems are disjointed.

They wants their hidey holes, they does!

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Do you really believe they spend $300.00 on a hammer?

Yes.

But it's awesome that you think Independence Day is a documentary.

a reply to: pheonix358

Neither.

Factual.

a reply to: pheonix358

It was supposedly a $600 hammer, and it didn't really cost $600.

One problem: "There never was a $600 hammer," said Steven Kelman, public policy professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and a former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. It was, he said, "an accounting artifact."

The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list-a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the Pentagon paid overall-they simply treated every item the same. So the hammer, originally $15, picked up the same amount of research and development overhead-$420-as each of the highly technical components, recalled retired procurement official LeRoy Haugh. (Later news stories inflated the $435 figure to $600.)

www.govexec.com...