9/11 Cruise Missile Theory

[*Quinn*]

Actually, I addressed it rather promptly. How does $2.3 trillion go missing? A little bit at a time. Bad accounting for decades and decades. It adds up.

You act as if it is of little importance though, regardless of what the reason might be. I find it surprising that anyone could hear $2.3 trillion dollars goes missing and dismisses it with a shrug of the shoulders as if it's no big deal if they have as much interest in the topic as they appear to in their previous responses.

[*Quinn*]

There is no missing 2.3 trillion, what's missing is proper accounting of money spent over the last few decades. That doesn't mean it was stolen, it means they don't know where it was spent.

Which means it could have been spent on anything. Which means that it could have been taken from what it was supposed to be spent on and then spent on something else instead. And yes, that means the possibilty exists that it could have been stolen as well.

[aquatus1]

Wow... you might be the only person in the world who sees $2.3 trillion dollars missing (let alone the other amounts you listed) as an issue of no relevance.

To me. Let's not forget that I was speaking of myself only.

It does show us you have no logical response however as to how such a large sum of money "vanishes".

You don't find it logical? That over decades and decades of bad accounting, $400 dollar ashtrays, and $700 toilet seats, it couldn't add up to a lot of money?

You may not agree with it, but you don't see any logic in it? I'll have to disagree with you again there.

I guess that's how you respond to issues though that are of importance when you can't dismiss it as untrue. Instead you simply blow off the entire issue without looking into it.

No, that's just how I respond to issues that don't interest me. I blow them off without looking into them. Why? Do you routinely look deeply into issues that do not interest you?

It's not this figure was pulled out of thin air. It's a number that was given to us by Rumsfeld himself.

I'm not aware that anyone has suggested that this number was made up.

I will agree with Phunk that the disposition of this money is not necessarily what some people here think it is (I don't believe anyone pocketed a lump sum of 2.3 trillion dollars).

[aquatus1]

You act as if it is of little importance though, regardless of what the reason might be.

I act as if it is of little importance to me, and that is my right. I am not under any obligation to consider important the same things you consider important.

I find it surprising that anyone could hear $2.3 trillion dollars goes missing and dismisses it with a shrug of the shoulders as if it's no big deal if they have as much interest in the topic as they appear to in their previous responses.

You misunderstand. I am not interested in the argument. I am interest in the logic behind it.

[acidhead]

There is no missing 2.3 trillion, what's missing is proper accounting of money spent over the last few decades. That doesn't mean it was stolen, it means they don't know where it was spent.

lol... is that you, George?

[*Quinn*]

I will agree with Phunk that the disposition of this money is not necessarily what some people here think it is (I don't believe anyone pocketed a lump sum of 2.3 trillion dollars).

I don't believe it was pocketed by anyone either. I think a more logical explanation is that it was spent on projects it was not meant to be spent on. To believe it was all spent on ashtrays and toilet seats is not a logical explanation for how such an extraordinary sum of money goes missing.

As you said, the number is so enormous to you that you don't see any diffence between $2.3 trillion and $2.3 million dollars. That being the case I suppose you might really believe poor accounting would account for the total sum of $2.3 trillion dollars not being accounted for that went into purchases such as ashtrays.

Regardless, the loss of such a large amount of money doesn't seem to pique any genuine interest from you (although if that's the case, I fail to see why you are responding to it as much as you are while trying to dismiss it as simply being faulty accounting), so I'm not really sure what your objective is in discussing the issue.

[aquatus1]

Regardless, the loss of such a large amount of money doesn't seem to pique any genuine interest from you (although if that's the case, I fail to see why you are responding to it as much as you are while trying to dismiss it as simply being faulty accounting), so I'm not really sure what your objective is in discussing the issue.

You will notice that I have been mostly responding to your assumptions of what I meant and what I said. I have had to respond to questions about the money solely because you keep accusing me of avoiding the subject altogether.

I have no interest in the topic. That does not mean that I will sit by and allow you to accuse me of avoiding questions, of referring to the entire subject as globally irrelevant or uninteresting, or of being overly emotional in my responses. If you poke, you will get a response. You will not, however, generate any interest, and you should not be surprised at that.

[frenat]

You can look at the list of those killed at the Pentagon on this website link below:

The site lists employer and occupation for each person.....

-- note: some are missing occupation.... those individuals I listed as non-confirmed occupation and there are around 10.

This website lists all who died at the Pentagon and on September 11, 2001. http://www.legacy.com/Sept11/SearchResult.aspx?location=PENT

..Pentagon crash ..Interesting note:

125 people were killed who were inside the Pentagon in the crash that killed 184 people total

59 of those were military personal

66 were civilian or civilian contractors

..here is the interesting part:

16 people were either Military Budget Analysts or Accountants

10 unconfirmed profession

Donald Rumsfield was quoted as saying to the press on September 10 2001, a day before the crash, ..that the Pentagon Staff cannot seem to locate or find 2.3 trillion dollars

What was the point of posting this? I'm not disputing that some were listed as budget analysts or accountants. I did say that based on personal experience that many if not all that work at the Pentagon will have their hands in the budget at some time. I wouldn't be surprised if you took out any random office in the Pentagon and found 20+% of the employees to have that same description. I'm not sure why you are.

[*Quinn*]

You will not, however, generate any interest, and you should not be surprised at that.

And I'm not in the least. It's easy to pick away at the absurd, but when a fact is presented that doesn't have a good explanation as to why it happened, you don't take interest in it. I am not surprised.

[frenat]

I don't believe it was pocketed by anyone either. I think a more logical explanation is that it was spent on projects it was not meant to be spent on. To believe it was all spent on ashtrays and toilet seats is not a logical explanation for how such an extraordinary sum of money goes missing.

As you said, the number is so enormous to you that you don't see any diffence between $2.3 trillion and $2.3 million dollars. That being the case I suppose you might really believe poor accounting would account for the total sum of $2.3 trillion dollars not being accounted for that went into purchases such as ashtrays.

Regardless, the loss of such a large amount of money doesn't seem to pique any genuine interest from you (although if that's the case, I fail to see why you are responding to it as much as you are while trying to dismiss it as simply being faulty accounting), so I'm not really sure what your objective is in discussing the issue.

referencing the bolded part; Why? Why is one explanation more logical than another? Without knowing the specifics, how can you come to ANY logical conclusion as to what the money was spent on? I believe that a big reason it is missing is indicated in this quote from Rumsfeld that acidhead included in post 132

Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, 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.

Key parts are "some estimates" and "cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

This indicates to me that the money is not necessarily missing but that not everybody can account for every part of it. I personally doubt that any investigation into the "missing" money was halted because of the impact. Even if some of the computers were destroyed there would be backups.

[aquatus1]

And I'm not in the least. It's easy to pick away at the absurd, but when a fact is presented that doesn't have a good explanation as to why it happened, you don't take interest in it. I am not surprised.

Again, I am under no obligation to find interesting what you find interesting. I find the logic behind suggesting an aircraft was crashed into the Pentagon in order to cover up an already publicly declared 2.3 trillion deficit as interesting. I don't find the actual deficit interesting at all.

You act as if your interest is somehow more worthy than mine. As if you are going to solve anything talking about it.

Now, you've had your say, I've had mine. Let's get back on topic.

Edited June 22, 2009 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

This indicates to me that the money is not necessarily missing but that not everybody can account for every part of it. I personally doubt that any investigation into the "missing" money was halted because of the impact. Even if some of the computers were destroyed there would be backups.

Umm...not necessarily. There are some seriously outmoded network systems in place, systems that would not have lent themselves to backing up to external servers. Similarly, people making physical backups to disks would likely have placed them in a safe in the same room or office area (seriously, in a place like the Pentagon, who would have though the entire office area would be destroyed?)

[KennyB]

Whatever happened to the 2.3 trillion bucks, I bet all the records on it were conveniently destroyed by that huge stream of liquid metal that came rushing through there after that airliner transmuted. Beam me up, Scotty! Kenny

[merril]

Whatever happened to the 2.3 trillion bucks, I bet all the records on it were conveniently destroyed by that huge stream of liquid metal that came rushing through there after that airliner transmuted. Beam me up, Scotty! Kenny

As for the issue of what damages were done to the Pentagon, what services were impaired or disrupted and for how long, I don't know. But, you might start with a few items on the Internet.

The Pentagon's $1 Trillion Problem

Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile 'Lost' Spending

Improving Financial Performance at DoD

Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan (FIAR)

Overview and Explanation- First FIAR Report, 2005

There seems to be a lot at those links that might shed some light on the subject of financial accounting relating to DoD activities. Information of what were and what are their assets and liabilites, and their general explanation. Whatever outside records and ongoing business relationships they had just prior to September 11, 2001 surely continued. And, they must have had some sort of contingency and emergency plans to bridge the time until they could rebuild and begin to restore order to whatever systems and processes were interrupted.

Edited June 23, 2009 by merril

[acidhead]

As for the issue of what damages were done to the Pentagon, what services were impaired or disrupted and for how long, I don't know. But, you might start with a few items on the Internet.

The Pentagon's $1 Trillion Problem

Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile 'Lost' Spending

Improving Financial Performance at DoD

Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan (FIAR)

Overview and Explanation- First FIAR Report, 2005

There seems to be a lot at those links that might shed some light on the subject of financial accounting relating to DoD activities. Information of what were and what are their assets and liabilites, and their general explanation. Whatever outside records and ongoing business relationships they had just prior to September 11, 2001 surely continued. And, they must have had some sort of contingency and emergency plans to bridge the time until they could rebuild and begin to restore order to whatever systems and processes were interrupted.

do you work for Fox ?..

[Obviousman]

Something I'm just watching now raised an interesting comparison:

In 1941, the German battleship BISMARCK posed an enormous threat to Allied operations and shipping. As part of the British effort to sink her, an aircraft attack was launched from the aircraft carrier HMS ARK ROYAL. The attacking aircraft were outdated biplanes fitted with torpedoes, Fairly Swordfish - known as the Stringbag. The BISMARCK was built to withstand aircraft attack, and had an armoured hull. During the attack, however, one aircraft - completely by chance - got a torpedo to strike the BISMARCK's rudder. This disable the ship's ability to steer and eventually led to her sinking.

Now - a hijacker with training as a commercial airline pilot (and with simulator training) flies an airliner into the side of the Pentagon.

So: was the BISMARCK as "false flag" operation?

Nope. People get lucky. There are events that occur by chance.

[KennyB]

That was not entirely luck. After all, the pilot was trying to hit the Bismark. Now, if the Bismark had ran over a whale and bent the rudder, THAT would have been 'luck'.KennyB

[aquatus1]

It's pretty much the same. After all, the pilot was trying to hit the Pentagon (granted, he missed the first time).

And, of course, we are basing the significance of the strike on the assumption that any irretrievable files were in the location.

A better question, I think, would be this: From what other direction could the airliner have hit? Options were limited.

[andy4]

So were there cruise missles supposedly being used on the WTC as well as the pentagon? About the Bismarck, the ship was one of the most high tech of it's time, but the old planes were so slow that the mechanical anti aircraft guns couldn't track them they were so slow. That played a major role in sinking the ship.

[The Infidel Guy]

If they...the government...really want to close the case on the whole "missile theory" then it would be relatively easy to just produce a video showing a Boeing hitting the building. Now, im sure the evidence of camera's in and around the surrounding area's of the Pentagon have been discussed ad hominem....Then i don't see a problem in releasing a video showing a Boeing hitting the Pentagon.

Instead what do we get from the Government? 5-6 slides and a couple of video's showing absolutely nothing but an explosion. How can we conclude that this was definitely a Boeing that struck the Pentagon?

What boggles me is, that the people who believe in the 9/11 official story (from the government) will believe the few eye witness's stating they saw a plane hit the Pentagon but will not believe the numerous eye witness's who state, on record, that there were explosions within the building before and after the plane hit the WTC towers. Go figure.....

Till i see a Boeing, on video, hitting the Pentagon i remain inconclusive on what actually hit the Pentagon. Missile or Plane? You cannot prove neither. But I am swaying on the fact that it was not a Boeing that hit the Pentagon since the government has not released anything resembling a Boeing hitting the Pentagon.

Peace

T.I.G

[Obviousman]

If they...the government...really want to close the case on the whole "missile theory" then it would be relatively easy to just produce a video showing a Boeing hitting the building.

And if they wanted to settle the JFK business, they'd show a movie of Oswald shooting from the building. If it doesn't exist, it can't be produced. Why is that so hard for you to understand? There were no camera angles covering that area.

What boggles me is, that the people who believe in the 9/11 official story (from the government) will believe the few eye witness's stating they saw a plane hit the Pentagon but will not believe the numerous eye witness's who state, on record, that there were explosions within the building before and after the plane hit the WTC towers. Go figure.....

What boggles me is why over 100 people who say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon are so easily dismissed, but people who say they heard an explosion - and there were minor explosions because of the fires - are not asked: do you believe the explosions you heard were the result of demolition charges going off in the build? My guess is most - if not all - would say "no".

Edited June 26, 2009 by Obviousman

[mrbusdriver]

The WTC observers/participants saw/heard loud, sudden noises, perhaps accompanied by shakes, flames, vibrations. They may have really been "exposions". Now, what is the evidence that they were caused by "explosives", vs other, more "expected" causes, considering the circumstances?

And what again makes you doubt the physical evidence of a 757 found in and around the Pentagon after the event?

[acidhead]

If they...the government...really want to close the case on the whole "missile theory" then it would be relatively easy to just produce a video showing a Boeing hitting the building. Now, im sure the evidence of camera's in and around the surrounding area's of the Pentagon have been discussed ad hominem....Then i don't see a problem in releasing a video showing a Boeing hitting the Pentagon.

Instead what do we get from the Government? 5-6 slides and a couple of video's showing absolutely nothing but an explosion. How can we conclude that this was definitely a Boeing that struck the Pentagon?

What boggles me is, that the people who believe in the 9/11 official story (from the government) will believe the few eye witness's stating they saw a plane hit the Pentagon but will not believe the numerous eye witness's who state, on record, that there were explosions within the building before and after the plane hit the WTC towers. Go figure.....

Till i see a Boeing, on video, hitting the Pentagon i remain inconclusive on what actually hit the Pentagon. Missile or Plane? You cannot prove neither. But I am swaying on the fact that it was not a Boeing that hit the Pentagon since the government has not released anything resembling a Boeing hitting the Pentagon.

Peace

T.I.G

No person can prove neither based on the video stills.. everybody agrees on this..

..Air/radio control, eyewitnesses, flight wreckage and DNA.. pretty much give a good idea as to what really hit the Pentagon.

Edited June 26, 2009 by acidhead

[aquatus1]

If they...the government...really want to close the case on the whole "missile theory" then it would be relatively easy to just produce a video showing a Boeing hitting the building. Now, im sure the evidence of camera's in and around the surrounding area's of the Pentagon have been discussed ad hominem....Then i don't see a problem in releasing a video showing a Boeing hitting the Pentagon.

I don't either. I do see a problem in assuming that anyone would aim a video camera, let alone a security camera, at the empty air above an empty field.

Instead what do we get from the Government? 5-6 slides and a couple of video's showing absolutely nothing but an explosion. How can we conclude that this was definitely a Boeing that struck the Pentagon?

Since not everyone limits themselves to the tenet of "Seeing is believing", they accept that evidence sometimes does come ater the fact, and can indeed point to a logical conclusion that has a hgih probability of having occurred.

What boggles me is, that the people who believe in the 9/11 official story (from the government) will believe the few eye witness's stating they saw a plane hit the Pentagon but will not believe the numerous eye witness's who state, on record, that there were explosions within the building before and after the plane hit the WTC towers. Go figure.....

I don't know of anyone who denies that there where explosions in the building after the plane hit the towers. Explosions happen in fires; that's a given. Where people disagree is that some claim that the explosions where from high explosives, rather than from the usual causes.

I don't know of anyone who claims that explosions occurred before the plane hit, however.

Till i see a Boeing, on video, hitting the Pentagon i remain inconclusive on what actually hit the Pentagon. Missile or Plane? You cannot prove neither. But I am swaying on the fact that it was not a Boeing that hit the Pentagon since the government has not released anything resembling a Boeing hitting the Pentagon.

How terribly close-minded. Magic shows must be very confusing for you.

[KennyB]

I don't deny that witnesses claim they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon, but until a better theory comes out to explain how that huge airplane managed to squeeze thru a 16 ft hole, I'm going to continue to believe that it was a cruise missile. That theory that the airliner changed into a liquid on impact is even more ridiculous than the 'magic bullet' theory. As far as the debris on the site, I think it was put there AFTER the collision. Just my opinion, of course. I believe there were actually airliners that hit WTC 1 and WTC 2 but I think they were radio-controlled. In both the WTC strikes and the Pentagon strikes, there were other aircraft in the area at the time. The fact that WTC 7 was brought down so fast after the decision was made to demolish it is proof that it was already rigged for demolition in advance. Same with the towers. The towers and WTC 7 were destroyed by 'controlled demolition', maybe as a cover for stealing 2 trillion dollars from WTC 4. IMHO, KennyB