Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
MysteryX

If you were under 15 on 9/11 click here

1,212 posts in this topic

I see this on both sides.

Of course, the Official Story Believers cannot admit that their own side leaves many, many unanswered and unexplained questions and coincidences.

Let's look at the evidence. We have evidence that the three WTC buildings were on fire and suffered impact damage before they collapsed and those facts cannot be denied. On the other hand, the 9/11 Truthers have claimed that explosives were used and yet, upon examination of the structures and videos, there is no evidence that explosives were used nor even found in the wreckages. In other words, the 9/11 Truthers have no evidence to support the use of explosives.

That presents a problem for the 9/11 Truthers because we have evidence as pointed out above and we knew the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel structures, but the 9/11 Truthers lack evidence to backup their claims.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cz

Yessir, I must admit you did a fine job summarizing your 'argument' here, whatever it might be, regarding the funds missing from Pentagon coffers. Yessir, critical thinking and communication of one's ideas are certainly your strong point. :wacko:

So I guess you and Boo want to frame the discussion around semantics? Whether the funds were 'missing' or merely 'untracked' or 'unaccounted for'? Thank you for making the point of the weakness of your 'position'.

The bottom line is that the funds were missing BEFORE the Bush Administration entered the picture, Congress was aware of it and investigating it, and Rummy & Co did their level best to stonewall the investigation, and the section of the Pentagon that was hit was where the auditors were working, and Dov Zakheim, dual Israeli & US citizen, went to work in the Pentagon during the Reagan Administration.

I know that is alot of very unpleasant dots to connect. Some are able, others are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Rafterman, let's make it all about ME.

Let's disregard and ignore the substance, and make it about ME.

Cz

OK, I'll bite--if you could please summarize those 'actual verifiable facts'? It would be way cool if you could do that in your own words, so that we might discuss. :rolleyes:

Others are doing such a good job dismantling your 'substance' that I don't really need to bother.

I just felt it important to point out that when you put forward Cynthia McKinney as 'evidence' (your word) for all of this, you've basically admitted that you have nothing better to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't that be 'if you were under 15 on 9/11 & have a limited IQ click here'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cz

Yessir, I must admit you did a fine job summarizing your 'argument' here, whatever it might be, regarding the funds missing from Pentagon coffers. Yessir, critical thinking and communication of one's ideas are certainly your strong point.

Correct, it is his strong point. Not yours, apparently. Read his post again. If it still hasn't sunk in, then you're beyond hope.

So I guess you and Boo want to frame the discussion around semantics? Whether the funds were 'missing' or merely 'untracked' or 'unaccounted for'? Thank you for making the point of the weakness of your 'position'.

The difference between "missing" and "untracked" is huge. It changes the whole meaning of the money. If you're too blind to see that, once again, you're beyond hope.

The bottom line is that the funds were missing BEFORE the Bush Administration entered the picture, Congress was aware of it and investigating it, and Rummy & Co did their level best to stonewall the investigation, and the section of the Pentagon that was hit was where the auditors were working, and Dov Zakheim, dual Israeli & US citizen, went to work in the Pentagon during the Reagan Administration.

Oopsie, I think you wrote this while consciously ignoring the fact that the funds weren't "missing". So you're just factually inaccurate. It's messing up your interpretation. But hey, there's a simple fix. Read the actual quotes about the funds.

I know that is alot of very unpleasant dots to connect. Some are able, others are not.

The only unpleasantness here is your repeated and deliberate refusal to accept the truth, even when Czero literally spells it out for you. Well, you're right about one thing, some are able to connect dots, other aren't. Guess which category you fit into?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yessir, I must admit you did a fine job summarizing your 'argument' here, whatever it might be, regarding the funds missing from Pentagon coffers. Yessir, critical thinking and communication of one's ideas are certainly your strong point. :wacko:

So I guess you and Boo want to frame the discussion around semantics? Whether the funds were 'missing' or merely 'untracked' or 'unaccounted for'? Thank you for making the point of the weakness of your 'position'.

The issue of the $ 2.3 trillion has been addressed and yet, here you are still talking 'missing funds,' which brings up some serious questions.

The bottom line is that the funds were missing BEFORE the Bush Administration entered the picture,

Since you missed it, I guess it needs to be posted.

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.

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.

My link

Nothing there about illegally missing funds and if you continue to make the false claim of missing $ 2.3 trillions dollars, it will very clear as to where you are coming from.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Others are doing such a good job dismantling your 'substance' that I don't really need to bother.

I just felt it important to point out that when you put forward Cynthia McKinney as 'evidence' (your word) for all of this, you've basically admitted that you have nothing better to offer.

I know it's a little complex for you to grasp, but Cynthia McKinney was not evidence of anything at all. Her committee's investigation of missing Pentagon funds was evidence that Congress knew about the missing funds before Dubya took office, and Rummy's performance at that investigation was evidence of his stonewalling.

Denying certain historical events is not really 'dismantling' anything at all.

That's what you guys prefer not to talk about. :yes:

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's a little complex for you to grasp, but Cynthia McKinney was not evidence of anything at all. Her committee's investigation of missing Pentagon funds was evidence that Congress knew about the missing funds before Dubya took office, and Rummy's performance at that investigation was evidence of his stonewalling.

What missing funds? Apparently, you are making up another fantasy considering that it was made clear to you that the funds were not missing at all and why, which brings up even more questions about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socrates

The differences between 'untracked' and 'missing' is huge?

You know, one would think that if it were that simple, if the funds really were not missing but just had not been tracked and really existed in some other account somewhere, that Rummy or any other public servant interested in efficient and responsible government would have pointed out that obvious fact and simple misunderstanding to the Congress. But he did not, of course.

Instead he chose to stonewall and obfuscate. I doubt you saw his testimony in the committee. Did you?

And if it is just that simple little accounting error, maybe you skillful accountants, yourself & Boo and whoever else in denial about the significance of these 'dots', could please enlighten me and any others interested in the subject.

Where ARE those untracked funds, and for how many years did this 'untracking' accumulate to reach 2.3 trillion?

Somehow I feel like I'm trying to talk to the intellectual double of Eric Holder when being questioned about F&F. :lol: Or to Richard Nixon about Watergate.

Yes, I understand there is the government version of any series of events, and then the truthful version of those events. Your unquestioning support of the government version speaks volumes. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socrates

The differences between 'untracked' and 'missing' is huge?

It sure is and it was made known to you that they didn't have the capability to track that much money. So here is another clear example where the 9/11 Truthers blew it again.

Rumsfeld says $2.3 Trillion never lost, just untracked

On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: “According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.”

Flying a B-757 into the Pentagon is not going to cover-up anything.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, one would think that if it were that simple, if the funds really were not missing but just had not been tracked and really existed in some other account somewhere, that Rummy or any other public servant interested in efficient and responsible government would have pointed out that obvious fact and simple misunderstanding to the Congress. But he did not, of course.

What part of

"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."

is unclear to you...?

You have been given this information SEVERAL times and yet you continually - one could even say purposely - misinterpret and refuse to acknowledge what is actually being said in favour of your unsubstantiated and patently false opinion that Rumsfeld was lying and saying something completely different.

And if it is just that simple little accounting error, maybe you skillful accountants, yourself & Boo and whoever else in denial about the significance of these 'dots', could please enlighten me and any others interested in the subject.

Here again, the information has been given to you along with soiurces explaining that most of the transactions have been reconciled.

Why is it you continually fail to acknowledge the information given to you

Where ARE those untracked funds, and for how many years did this 'untracking' accumulate to reach 2.3 trillion?

READ THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED

Somehow I feel like I'm trying to talk to the intellectual double of Eric Holder when being questioned about F&F. :lol: Or to Richard Nixon about Watergate.

Sometimes explaining things to you is like trying to have a conversation with the intellectual double of a piece of navel lint.

And unfortunately, that's not even funny... its just sad.

So what is it Babe... are you purposely doing this just to get a rise out of people or are you really as willfully ignorant and obtuse as your posts make you out to be?

Inquiring minds want to know...

ETA...

Yes, I understand there is the government version of any series of events, and then the truthful version of those events. Your unquestioning support of the government version speaks volumes. ;)

This right here speaks volumes for your hypocrisy, biased and ignorant preconceptions and highlights your intellectual dishonesty.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences between 'untracked' and 'missing' is huge?

Yes, the difference is huge. One is missing, one is not. If I'm going to have to teach you basic vocabulary, I'm not going to be happy. I already do that for my little sister.

You know, one would think that if it were that simple, if the funds really were not missing but just had not been tracked and really existed in some other account somewhere, that Rummy or any other public servant interested in efficient and responsible government would have pointed out that obvious fact and simple misunderstanding to the Congress. But he did not, of course.

Wrong. Wrongo wrongo wrong. If you actually read the evidence presented to you, you would've found this.

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.

But you didn't. You chose to deliberately ignore it, or you didn't bother to read it. Either way, it's a sad testament to either your honesty or your literacy. No good choices there. So what was it? Are you lying, or can you not read?

*snipped extraneous material that gives me credentials as an accountant that I don't have*

Where ARE those untracked funds, and for how many years did this 'untracking' accumulate to reach 2.3 trillion?

Simple, they're DoD funds, and this failure to track them occurred for quite a while. The report was from fiscal 1999. No conspiracy there, just bad technological systems.

Somehow I feel like I'm trying to talk to the intellectual double of Eric Holder when being questioned about F&F. Or to Richard Nixon about Watergate.

Awww I feel your pain. I'm sure you can empathize with me though, discussing events with someone who either can't read or deliberately lying. It's a tough world we live in.

Yes, I understand there is the government version of any series of events, and then the truthful version of those events. Your unquestioning support of the government version speaks volumes.

Nah, it doesn't say much. It says that I'm thinking logically and looking at evidence. There was a time when I was dumb enough to believe the lies that conspiracy theorists dreamed up, but then something happened. I grew up. You should too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

And this is a system, don't forget, that's supposed to have been able to plan and organise a plot of unprecedented complexity that worked absolutely flawlessly without any posisbility of being able to rehearse it in any way. Or is the manifold and manifest evidence of Government inefficiency (of which this [above] is but a small part) all a gigantic cover for the real ruthless efficiency? :unsure2: If that is the case, why have they never displayed anything like this ruthless efficiency at any time since?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is a system, don't forget, that's supposed to have been able to plan and organise a plot of unprecedented complexity that worked absolutely flawlessly without any posisbility of being able to rehearse it in any way. Or is the manifold and manifest evidence of Government inefficiency (of which this [above] is but a small part) all a gigantic cover for the real ruthless efficiency? :unsure2: If that is the case, why have they never displayed anything like this ruthless efficiency at any time since?

Completely agree.

For those of you who NEVER worked for the federal government or military, you DO NOT understand the inefficiency that happens even today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree.

For those of you who NEVER worked for the federal government or military, you DO NOT understand the inefficiency that happens even today.

I can also vouch for that. I can still remember the cost of a 1" X 1" X 2" blanked aluminum angle that was part of a seat modification on the C-5 Galaxy. You can probably pick up a 10-foot section for a few dollars at a hardware store, but the government paid $1000.00 for four 2-inch pieces.

If possible, I could have received $15,000.00 from the government for a 10-foot section that would have cost me less than $10.00.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can also vouch for that. I can still remember the cost of a 1" X 1" X 2" blanked aluminum angle that was part of a seat modification on the C-5 Galaxy. You can probably pick up a 10-foot section for a few dollars at a hardware store, but the government paid $1000.00 for four 2-inch pieces.

If possible, I could have received $15,000.00 from the government for a 10-foot section that would have cost me less than $10.00.

Not only that, I am good friends with the DFAC manager when I was stationed at FT. Lee, and I asked him if he could get me a simple meat thermometer. Answer was no as they cost $50 from his budget.

OH WOW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*snipped blah blah blah*

please enlighten me

*snipped blah blah blah*

You appear to be completely impervious to such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of

"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."

is unclear to you...?

You have been given this information SEVERAL times and yet you continually - one could even say purposely - misinterpret and refuse to acknowledge what is actually being said in favour of your unsubstantiated and patently false opinion that Rumsfeld was lying and saying something completely different.

Here again, the information has been given to you along with soiurces explaining that most of the transactions have been reconciled.

Why is it you continually fail to acknowledge the information given to you

READ THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED

Sometimes explaining things to you is like trying to have a conversation with the intellectual double of a piece of navel lint.

And unfortunately, that's not even funny... its just sad.

So what is it Babe... are you purposely doing this just to get a rise out of people or are you really as willfully ignorant and obtuse as your posts make you out to be?

Inquiring minds want to know...

ETA...

This right here speaks volumes for your hypocrisy, biased and ignorant preconceptions and highlights your intellectual dishonesty.

Cz

Finally, we're getting somewhere!

We cannot track $2.3 is one statement.

We cannot share information between floors is another statement.

I understand the first, and find the second to be an extremely childish explanation for the first. OMG, the various floors within the Pentagon are unable to communicate or share spreadsheets! Call in the National Guard!!! :w00t:

The various floors can't communicate, so we're unable to track this money. I understand that's been the way the Pentagon does things for most of my adult life, but I don't buy the excuse. I'm more skeptical that you weapons grade accountants here.

Further, by chance I happened to see Rummy being deposed, and I happened to see his press conference afterwards, and so have the benefit of having seen his body language. Those who place all their faith in 'links' and the honesty of government officials that might not mean much, but body language says alot. Rumsfeld smirked for the cameras because he had defeated McKinney's questions. Very effectively, actually.

So you guys that believe all that nonsense about 19 arabs with box cutters can go ahead and believe all that nonsense about "We can't communicate between floors because our software and records are not compatible, cry me a river". You've made your point gentlemen--you believe everything any government bureaucrat tells you, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

Ah, the skeptical mind... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, we're getting somewhere!

We cannot track $2.3 is one statement.

We cannot share information between floors is another statement.

I understand the first, and find the second to be an extremely childish explanation for the first. OMG, the various floors within the Pentagon are unable to communicate or share spreadsheets! Call in the National Guard!!! :w00t:

You didn't even understand what has been posted, which is typical of 9/11 Truthers who are lead by blind ignorance rather than facts and evidence..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cannot track $2.3 is one statement.

We cannot share information between floors is another statement.

I understand the first, and find the second to be an extremely childish explanation for the first. OMG, the various floors within the Pentagon are unable to communicate or share spreadsheets! Call in the National Guard!!! :w00t:

The various floors can't communicate, so we're unable to track this money. I understand that's been the way the Pentagon does things for most of my adult life, but I don't buy the excuse. I'm more skeptical that you weapons grade accountants here.

Great now that you understand we are getting somewhere.

Every statement after this is pure blind ignorance and shows that YOU cannot accept reality and want to live in a world of fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

That you and Cz and Boo accept such a facile explanation for the 'untracked' funds demonstrate your uncritical assessment.

Are you trying to have me believe that the Pentagon accounting system is just super advanced and beyond the comprehension of civilian accountants, or should I believe that their system is completely in the Dark Ages, and incomprehensible even within the building? The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, sort of thing? Really? :lol:

Are you really that gullible?

Stoopid question, I know.. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

That you and Cz and Boo accept such a facile explanation for the 'untracked' funds demonstrate your uncritical assessment.

Are you trying to have me believe that the Pentagon accounting system is just super advanced and beyond the comprehension of civilian accountants, or should I believe that their system is completely in the Dark Ages, and incomprehensible even within the building? The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, sort of thing? Really? :lol:

Are you really that gullible?

Stoopid question, I know.. :hmm:

Have you worked a Federal Job? Have you been in the Military?

Do you realize how old the laptops they are handing us for military use are? You seem to think that technological advancements are happening all over the government. Guess what you are wrong, dead wrong. It is you who does not understand because you live in this fantasy world.

I have been deployed 3 times in the past 7 years and spent a little over half my military career under deployment. Guess what? Our computer systems where prone to A LOT of issues when I was in.

Military pay was sometimes backed up, WHY? Because of computer issues. Imangine being deployed and having pay issues. Thats not a very fun thing to deal with.

So don't sit there on your high horse and tell me that you do not beleive for one second that our governments computer systems are so out-dated and incompatible, because YOU do not know what you are talking about.

Now tell me, have you worked for the federal government or the military before? If you have not, then don't try to pass off your fantasy world as reality because you are making yourself look ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not worked for the Federal government, but I have worked closely with the FAA. Yes, I did 4 years in Army ROTC and 2 years active duty in Southeast Asia way back in 1970.

No sir, I do NOT think technological advances are happening all over the federal government, and I am NOT an accountant, but I have a fair understanding how accounting works, having hired several of them during my days as a businessman.

I'm sorry to hear your computers are screwed up, but not surprised.

None of those facts explain what happened to those "untracked" funds. I am reminded of the "untracked" funds that Paul Bremer et al of the CPA experienced. Of course that was US Currency, not funds on books somewhere.

Though I am sympathetic to your personal problems, I do not find your story particularly persuasive or even relevant to funds missing in the Pentagon from the 1990's.

Basically, you gents would have me believe that the excuse given by probably the most mendacious of federal agencies is valid and truthful on the surface. You are suggesting to me that the same folks that brought us Reynolds v. U.S., the Gulf Of Tonkin, the Pat Tillman or Jessica Lynch stories, would not dissemble in a professional manner regarding missing funds.

Sorry Raptor, no can do. :no:

H.L. Menken observed that "Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."

While I find it most improbable that the DoD has a reputation for telling the truth, you would have me accept their word on funds missing. Sorry GI, no can do.

I watched Rummy's performance that day, and I spent enough time in the US Army to know he was stonewalling and smirking for a purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's a little complex for you to grasp, but Cynthia McKinney was not evidence of anything at all. Her committee's investigation of missing Pentagon funds was evidence that Congress knew about the missing funds before Dubya took office, and Rummy's performance at that investigation was evidence of his stonewalling.

Denying certain historical events is not really 'dismantling' anything at all.

That's what you guys prefer not to talk about. :yes:

As I said, plenty of folks are talking about it in this thread and doing a pretty good job of dismantling it.

So now McKinney isn't evidence? Has that changed since you said this a couple pages back:

"She and her actions as chair of that committee are but ONE tiny sliver of evidence on a very very large pile of circumstantial evidence surrounding the events of 11 September."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're getting a bit desperate, dude.

Or maybe I just was not clear enough?

The woman herself, CM, is evidence of NOTHING.

The matter her committee was investigating was evidence of something.

That something was funds missing from Pentagon coffers.

You gentlemen are saying that they weren't missing, they were simply untracked, and that because 60 years on, the accounting science and procedures in the Pentagon is in the dark ages, because within the outfit the software and computers are incompatible.

I'm saying that excuse is facile, especially considering the source. I'm saying that missing funds are nothing new under the sun when it comes to the federal government, but you would have me believe this is simply an oversight, and that Rummy's testimony was honorable and above board.

Sorry GI, no can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.