911 inside job - for what?

[Stundie]

Have you done the math on what Larry paid to "get in" at WTC? Compared to what he received from the insurance companies after it was settled?

Didn't he only stump $14 million of his own cash?

Edited...Just googled up cause it's a while since I last looked. It was $14 mill.. not a bad return really!

Edited May 10, 2013 by Stundie

[poppet]

Of course the majority support the official story. Remember, Brent Blanchard, of 'Implosion world' and of Protec, is depended upon by demolition companies around the world. His publication is used as a good source of information on building demolition by demolition companies around the world and his company is sought after by demolition experts from around the world.

It is no secret that 911 Truthers are in a minority. Check it out.

* 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

sky

good grief that pie chart is 5 years old , have you not got anything more up to date,in 2008 i would have been in the AL-Qaeda section of that chart,now after reading the commission report and the nist report and working my way through many books by many different authors, i had to eventually conclude that the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a complete and utter load of tosh and to defend such utter nonsense is bordering on treasonous.

[Spinebreaker]

Looking at that chart, al-Qaeda has once again, distanced itself far ahead of the United States in the blame game.

Either admit that you don't comprehend English and maths to the right degree to converse with humans, or TRY and answer a direct question.

Do more people back the official explanation, or not. (according to your pie chart.

Once again, government blunders are nothing new and not unique to the government of the United States. We can thank Adolf Hitler for his blunders which helped him lose the war and we need to remember the blunders that embolden Hitler in the first place.

Yes, government blunders are frequent. Usually followed by enquiries, court hearings, dismissals, resigning, apologies and changes in the law to try and ensure they don't happen again.

That ALL happened after 9/11 didn't it. (Blue text is ironic)

Here you go Sky, just in case... http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/irony

[skyeagle409]

It is pathetic that you keep grouping and classifying everyone as "911 truthers", yet you overlook the obvious flaw in basic common sense and physics. The World Trade Center buildings all experienced free fall.

One of the things that I get on 911 conspiracist about is that they are not in the habit of doing homework, or doing it properly when they do. Look at the videos because in the videos you will see plumes and debris are outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings. Verdict: No collapse at free fall speeds.

http://www.debunking...om/freefall.htm

Not they did not experince free falls. Tht a That violates all accepted laws of physics unless it is indeed a controlled demolition.

Once again, the buildings are not falling at free fall speeds and explosives are not required. Check it out.

As you can plainly see, debris is falling at free fall speeds and that debris is outpacing the collapse, which is another indication that the WTC building is NOT collapsing at free fall speed especially when plumes and debris are outpacing the collapse itself.

And, explosives are not required to demolish a building. Check out the Verinage demolition process that does not use explosives in the initial demolition process.

[media=]

[/media]

So once again, if you are going to debate with me, you had better do your homework otherwise, expect the kind of response I am known to give others who failed to do their homework.

Edited May 10, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

sky

good grief that pie chart is 5 years old , have you not got anything more up to date,in 2008 i would have been in the AL-Qaeda section of that chart,now after reading the commission report and the nist report and working my way through many books by many different authors, i had to eventually conclude that the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a complete and utter load of tosh and to defend such utter nonsense is bordering on treasonous.

Even the latest polls show al-Qaeda fall ahead of the United States in the blame game.

Ok, i understand. .. but the fact remains that 54% in that poll, don't believe that Al qaeiouda was responsible. .. agreed?

I am only using the 46% and 15% references, which I have pointed out before.

Have you done the math on what Larry paid to "get in" at WTC? Compared to what he received from the insurance companies after it was settled?

What's the point?

[skyeagle409]

Either admit that you don't comprehend English and maths to the right degree to converse with humans, or TRY and answer a direct question.

Do more people back the official explanation, or not. (according to your pie chart.

What have I said about using the 46% and 15% references on the chart? A-Qaeda got the majority in that respect.

Yes, government blunders are frequent. Usually followed by enquiries, court hearings, dismissals, resigning, apologies and changes in the law to try and ensure they don't happen again.

Well, let's take a look at what happened after 911.

The Agonizing History of the CIA's Intelligence Failures

In a lecture addressed to an audience of nearly 200 in Dodd Hall on March 2nd, Tim Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times and author of "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (Anchor Books), discussed his deeply researched book, which won the 2007 National Book Award for nonfiction. The event was organized by the Burkle Center for International Relations.

C.I.A. Lays Out Errors It Made Before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 — A report released Tuesday by the Central Intelligence Agency includes new details of the agency’s missteps before the Sept. 11 attacks, outlining what the report says were failures to grasp the role being played by the terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to assess fully the threats streaming into the C.I.A. in the summer of 2001.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

CIA details errors it made before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON — A report released by the Central Intelligence Agency includes new details of the agency's missteps prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, outlining what the report says were failures to grasp the role being played by the terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to fully assess the threats streaming into the spy agency during the summer of 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/world/americas/22iht-cia.1.7207793.html

CIA boss admits intelligence failures over 9/11 attacks

THE HEAD of the CIA yesterday admitted that his agents had flatly failed to penetrate the September 11 plot and said it would be at least five years before America developed the sort of intelligence capabilities to take on terrorists such as al-Qa'ida.

George Tenet, whose agency was roundly criticised by the commission investigating the attacks, said that he and his colleagues had failed those people who died in the strikes in New York and Washington. "We all understood bin Laden's attempt to strike the homeland. We never translated this knowledge into an effective defence of the country," Mr Tenet testified before the commission. "No matter how hard we worked, or how desperately we tried, it was not enough. The victims and the families of 9/11 deserved better."

The failures, outlined in a statement issued by the commission and admitted to by Mr Tenet, were not failures of effort or of intention. Rather a picture emerged of an intelligence community still grounded in the challenges of the Cold War and ill-prepared and ill-equipped to deal with the threat presented by stateless terrorists using unconventional means of attack

http://www.independe...cks-176015.html

CIA criticises ex-chief over 9/11

A CIA inquiry has accused the agency's ex-chief George Tenet and his aides of failing to prepare for al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks on the US. "The agency and its officers did not discharge their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner," the CIA inspector general wrote in a scathing report.

The document was completed in June 2005 and kept classified until now. Its release was ordered by Congress.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/6957839.stm

Pre-9/11 Missteps By FBI Detailed

The inability to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacking plot amounts to a "significant failure" by the FBI and was caused in large part by "widespread and longstanding deficiencies" in the way the agency handled terrorism and intelligence cases, according to a report released yesterday.

In one particularly notable finding, the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded that the FBI missed at least five chances to detect the presence of two of the suicide hijackers -- Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar -- after they first entered the United States in early 2000.

"While we do not know what would have happened had the FBI learned sooner or pursued its investigation more aggressively, the FBI lost several important opportunities to find Hazmi and Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks," the report said.

Although many of the missteps surrounding Alhazmi and Almihdhar have become well known, Fine's report adds significant new details about the FBI's role in fumbling the case. Previous reports, including the best-selling tome by the independent Sept. 11 commission, focused more heavily on the CIA's failure to track the men after a pivotal terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia.

http://www.washingto...5060902000.html

FBI Blames al-Qaeda for the 9/11 Attacks

Two weeks after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation identified the hijackers and connected them to al-Qaeda, a global, decentralized terrorist network. In a number of video, audio, interview and printed statements, senior members of al-Qaeda have also asserted responsibility for organizing the September 11 attacks.

http://en.wikipedia....cks#cite_note-1

[RaptorBites]

Have you done the math on what Larry paid to "get in" at WTC? Compared to what he received from the insurance companies after it was settled?

Exactly what did he "receive"? A portion of the $4.6 billion dollar payout which by the insurance claim stated, had to go immediately to rebuilding! Exactly what part of that do neither you, stundie, or the professor exactly do not understand?

On top of that, he was required to pay the $100 million in ground rent EVERY year regardless if there was buildings and tenants on the property.

The estimated costs of rebuilding the complex led to more than $11 billion back in 2009.

Now, based on the current economy, the amount out of pocket Silverstein had paid over the course of rebuilding since 9/11, where exactly did he actually come out with a profit again?

I am sure if all 3 of you put your collective minds together, you will be able to handle such simple math.

[Babe Ruth]

Raptor

Anywhere one might read a copy of the insurance settlement and stipulations?

Actually, I thought he was in for $100 million, but I must have been wrong on that number. Plus, I thought that because of a court ruling he was given sort of a double indemnity, and the gross payout was something over $7 billion.

[skyeagle409]

I didn't even bring up the Hani Hanjour topic because it is open to speculation. Some experienced pilots have went on record saying that his maneuvers were impossible to pull off. I'm not too well versed in mechanical technical aviation techniques, nor do I want to speculate on it. I only give my thoughts on it. Perhaps the "Hani maneuver" was possible or maybe not, who knows? I'm sure we'll never know the complete story. Some things about that days will forever remain a mystery no matter how much is released after the fact.

I have been a pilot since 1969 and what Hani performed did not take extraordinary skill. I was performing similar maneuvers as a student pilot with less that 30 hours of flying experience. To show you how boring that maneuver was, draw a 20-foot circle with a piece of chalk and at the top of the circle place a small dot and call it the 12 o'clock position.

Now, go to the 10 o'clock position and place a small dot there. Starting at the 12 o'clock position of the circle, begin walking clockwise along that circle toward the 10 o'clock position, but, do so at a pace to where you will arrive at the 10 o'clock position 3 1/2 minutes later.

That will be an indication just how boring the so-called "Hani maneuver" really was. Today's airliners are very easy to fly and even a child can be taught to fly large aircraft in a relatively short period of time.

As I pilot of over 40 years experience, I knew that people were being mislead by conspiracist over the "Hani maneuver" and I just wanted to point that out. I disagree with John Lear because he has been misleading people as well.

I do think there are some outright bad theories concerning 9/11 that are way off. Mini nukes? That's too far out there, even for an admitted conspiracy theorist like myself to believe. However, there have been numerous witnesses that described hearing explosions and actually seeing that controlled demolition before the structures fell.

I have been through war and heard and felt many explosions, but I did not see a shred of evidence of bomb explosions in any WTC video nor heard bomb explosions on audio. Let's take a look at what some those witnesses have said in regards to sound of explosions they heard.

Explosions

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

http://www.debunking.../explosions.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://www.911myths....uote_abuse.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So once again, just because someone heard the sound of explosions, is not evidence that bombs were involved.

And just because someone heard...

• Rivets popping.
  
• Floors Collapsing.
  
• An explosion that blew out the floors which wasn't an explosions.
  

Nothing there indicating the use of explosives. There is no video of bomb explosions and no audio of bomb explosions and no evidence of bombs within the rubble of the WTC buildings and no seismic data of bomb explosions.

Verdict!! No bombs.

Now, let's take a look demolitions.

The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.

The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

An Analysis of the Collapse of the WTC Towers 1,2, and 7 from an Explosives and a Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

We’ve now read many reports from professionals on the scene about the condition of WTC 7. All of these firsthand reports are in agreement that the building was in imminent danger of collapse due to the damage and fires it sustained.

We’ve also seen that WTC 7’s collapse did not look or sound like an explosive demolition, and we’ve seen still photos and videos that show an immense amount of smoke pouring from the building’s south and east side.

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac

ome 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

Basic physics tells us that these structures could not have done "free fall" without a controlled demolition. The thermite theory seems to be a plausible one, especially when you consider how quickly the buildings fell.

And once again, explosives are not required to demolish a building.

My advice is don't listen to those conspiracy websites because they are well-known for spewing disinformation and misinformation, and in the case of' Pilots for 911 Truth,' outright lies as well.

[RaptorBites]

Raptor

Anywhere one might read a copy of the insurance settlement and stipulations?

Actually, I thought he was in for $100 million, but I must have been wrong on that number. Plus, I thought that because of a court ruling he was given sort of a double indemnity, and the gross payout was something over $7 billion.

The payout was supposed to be $7 billion. Which was to be split between Silverstein and PA. The settlement ended up as $4.6 ($4.55 if you want to be exact) which was still split between PA and Silverstein.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/nyregion/27rebuild.html

Richard A. Williamson, a lawyer for Mr. Silverstein, said at the court conference on March 18 that Mr. Silverstein was seeking damages to compensate him for continuing losses at the site. Mr. Silverstein, through his company, World Trade Center Properties, has a 99-year lease, worth $3.2 billion, on four buildings at the site, including the fallen twin towers. He signed the lease in July 2001, just six weeks before the attack.

Since the attack, Mr. Silverstein has been paying rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on towers that no longer exist, his lawyer told the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein. Mr. Williamson said that his client had also lost rental income from about 400 tenants.

Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said that the $12.3 billion represented $8.4 billion for the replacement value of the destroyed buildings and $3.9 billion in other costs, including $100 million a year in rent to the Port Authority and $300 million a year in lost rental income, as well as the cost of marketing and leasing the new buildings.

So, as you can see, $100 million rent to PA which per the lease Silverstein signed several months before 9/11 regardless of any tenants or buildings on the property. He at least expected $7.1 billion from the claim, which he only received a portion of to go into rebuilding.

He had purchased the property on a 99 year lease for $3.9 billion, along with paying over 9 years of a $100 million dollar rent with no profit from tenancy while rebuilding took place and who knows how long it would take for Silverstein to even start making a profit from new tenancy.

Granted, Silverstein is not poor or struggling at the least since his group owns several other real estate in NY. However, the myth that Silverstein actually made money off 9/11 is completely bogus.

You think that any good business men/women in their right mind would intentionally demolish his/her own property thinking he/she would immediately turn a profit? That in itself is fool hardy.

[skyeagle409]

As of right now, I've seen nothing to support that the money has been accounted for. Where was it found exactly?

It was just a matter of going over the books, I guess you might say. We didn't have the ability to track over $2 trillion. Check it out.

Pentagon's finances in disarray

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.

Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said.

n 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.

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.

And yet, there were those who found it very convenient to concoct an unfounded conspiracy over $2.3 trillion when it fact , the Pentagon made it clear that it could not track that large amount of money. If anyone had done anything illegal with $2.3 trillion, for the love of money, why would they announce it over the news wires?

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." According to a report by the Inspector General, the Pentagon cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

ccording 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.

http://911research.w.../trillions.html

It's not that the money is "missing", then, at least according to Rumsfeld, more that incompatible and aging financial systems don't allow it to be tracked throughout the system. A DoD news document from April 2002 spelled this out even more clearly:

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.

http://www.defense.g...e.aspx?id=44199

Pentagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

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.

Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said.

http://hv.greenspun....l?msg_id=002hxm

January 7, 2001

The Defense Department's inspector general recently identified $6.9 trillion in accounting entries, but $2.3 trillion was not supported by adequate audit trails or sufficient evidence to determine its validity.

Another $2 trillion worth of entries were not examined because of time constraints, and therefore, the inspector general was able to audit only $2.6 trillion of accounting entries in a $6.9 trillion pot.

Contra Costa Times (California)

akheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile 'Lost' Spending

By Gerry J. Gilmore American Forces Press Service

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.

http://web.archive.o..._200202201.html

It's no secret that Iraqi oil has always been important to the US before and after the Gulf War. However, don't you find it the least bit suspicious that the US invaded Iraq at the same time the economy was starting to spin outta control? Or that it was indeed at the hands of another Bush? I dunno about you, but I don't believe in coincidences. Especially when greed and money are involved

I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy or that he didn't deserve to be overthrown. What I am saying is that the government killed two birds with one war; overthrow Saddam and take possession of Iraqi oil.

How much oil was the United States importing from Iraq before the first Gulf War? You can go to this link and use the chart.

Iraqi Oil Inports to the United States

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttimiz2&f=m

Just another example of how those 911 conspiracy websites have been misleading people with disinformation, misinformation and lies.

It's not like I'm basing my opinion on personal expertise. However, the documentary "9/11: In Plane Sight" was a pretty interesting compilation of experts on both fire and buildings, as well as demolition experts. All of these unrelated experts are in agreement that there have been many hotter fires and buildings still survived.

How many of those other buildings were struck by B-767s? The steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain collapse due to fire whereas only the concrete core remained standing, and multiple steel-framed buildings in Thailand collapsed due to fire, but how many conspiracy websites will tell its readings that?

Just further examples as to why I continue to warn people about those conspiracy websites.

[skyeagle409]

[/i][/b]

What have I said about using the 46% and 15% references on the chart? A-Qaeda got the majority in that respect.

Well, let's take a look at what happened after 911.

The Agonizing History of the CIA's Intelligence Failures

In a lecture addressed to an audience of nearly 200 in Dodd Hall on March 2nd, Tim Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times and author of "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (Anchor Books), discussed his deeply researched book, which won the 2007 National Book Award for nonfiction. The event was organized by the Burkle Center for International Relations.

C.I.A. Lays Out Errors It Made Before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 — A report released Tuesday by the Central Intelligence Agency includes new details of the agency’s missteps before the Sept. 11 attacks, outlining what the report says were failures to grasp the role being played by the terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to assess fully the threats streaming into the C.I.A. in the summer of 2001.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

CIA details errors it made before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON — A report released by the Central Intelligence Agency includes new details of the agency's missteps prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, outlining what the report says were failures to grasp the role being played by the terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to fully assess the threats streaming into the spy agency during the summer of 2001.

http://www.nytimes.c....1.7207793.html

CIA boss admits intelligence failures over 9/11 attacks

THE HEAD of the CIA yesterday admitted that his agents had flatly failed to penetrate the September 11 plot and said it would be at least five years before America developed the sort of intelligence capabilities to take on terrorists such as al-Qa'ida.

George Tenet, whose agency was roundly criticised by the commission investigating the attacks, said that he and his colleagues had failed those people who died in the strikes in New York and Washington. "We all understood bin Laden's attempt to strike the homeland. We never translated this knowledge into an effective defence of the country," Mr Tenet testified before the commission. "No matter how hard we worked, or how desperately we tried, it was not enough. The victims and the families of 9/11 deserved better."

The failures, outlined in a statement issued by the commission and admitted to by Mr Tenet, were not failures of effort or of intention. Rather a picture emerged of an intelligence community still grounded in the challenges of the Cold War and ill-prepared and ill-equipped to deal with the threat presented by stateless terrorists using unconventional means of attack

http://www.independe...cks-176015.html

CIA criticises ex-chief over 9/11

A CIA inquiry has accused the agency's ex-chief George Tenet and his aides of failing to prepare for al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks on the US. "The agency and its officers did not discharge their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner," the CIA inspector general wrote in a scathing report.

The document was completed in June 2005 and kept classified until now. Its release was ordered by Congress.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/6957839.stm

Pre-9/11 Missteps By FBI Detailed

The inability to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacking plot amounts to a "significant failure" by the FBI and was caused in large part by "widespread and longstanding deficiencies" in the way the agency handled terrorism and intelligence cases, according to a report released yesterday.

In one particularly notable finding, the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded that the FBI missed at least five chances to detect the presence of two of the suicide hijackers -- Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar -- after they first entered the United States in early 2000.

"While we do not know what would have happened had the FBI learned sooner or pursued its investigation more aggressively, the FBI lost several important opportunities to find Hazmi and Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks," the report said.

Although many of the missteps surrounding Alhazmi and Almihdhar have become well known, Fine's report adds significant new details about the FBI's role in fumbling the case. Previous reports, including the best-selling tome by the independent Sept. 11 commission, focused more heavily on the CIA's failure to track the men after a pivotal terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia.

http://www.washingto...5060902000.html

FBI Blames al-Qaeda for the 9/11 Attacks

Two weeks after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation identified the hijackers and connected them to al-Qaeda, a global, decentralized terrorist network. In a number of video, audio, interview and printed statements, senior members of al-Qaeda have also asserted responsibility for organizing the September 11 attacks.

http://en.wikipedia....cks#cite_note-1

I just wanted to add that intelligence blunders and missteps continue to this very day. You have some hits, but then again, there are the misses. Remember, intelligence officials are human and proned to making errors.

[Spinebreaker]

I am only using the 46% and 15% references, which I have pointed out before.

Beautiful. Truly beautiful.

Skyeagle admits he's cherry-picking evidence to prove his point.

You might be using those, but I have asked 6 or 7 times now a very simple question with a very simple answer. My 4 year old can manage it, I had the utmost confidence you could to...

By the way, the answer was "According to that pie chart less people believe the official explanation than Disbelieve it."

You have demonstrated that rather than accept a flaw in your argument, or state a simple answer to a simple question that you don't like you'd rather lie by omission. You will happily choose what to discuss, narrow mindedly and now, confirmed by your own mouth, dishonestly. And if dishonesty and ignorance don't work, you see nothing wrong with nipping back with a good old edit to change your older positions.

There are plenty of people on this forum who, while vehement in their opinions, are not dishonest. I have very little interest in communicating with a person with a complete lack of integrity. Good day.

Edit : Spelling.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Spinebreaker

[skyeagle409]

Beautiful. Truly beautiful. Skyeagle admits he's cherry-picking evidence to prove his point.

Evidence speaks louder than words.

[ian hacktorp]

Evidence speaks louder than words.

Provided, of course, the evidence isn't squelched...right?

"But...but...there's no evidence the evidence was squelched!"

Edited May 11, 2013 by hacktorp

[skyeagle409]

Provided, of course, the evidence isn't squelched...right?

I have challenged 911 conspiracist and skeptics to refute the evidence and what I got was disinformation and misinformation. For an example, their claim that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speeds. A simple look at the dust plumes and debris falling at free fall speeds which are outpacing the collapse of the buildings should have been an indicator that the WTC buildings were NOT falling at free fall speeds.

Simple common sense logic says that since the dust plumes and debris are descending at free fall speed and faster than the collapse of the WTC buildings, then the buildings are not falling at free fall speeds.

[DONTEATUS]

RaptorBites Look at from whince this Information just came from ? BabeRuth `s even all three have trouble with the math. Like the Facts.

911 Indeed was a day that will live with us all forever. THe Terrorist Did Fly the Planes into the Two Towers ! Why wont people Look at the Actual Footage of the Two Aircraft Going into the Buildings ? Give me a Break ! WHat more does it take? How many Billions of educated people saw this ?

Oh ! OH ! I done and gont ant said it ! Educated !

[Spinebreaker]

RaptorBites Look at from whince this Information just came from ? BabeRuth `s even all three have trouble with the math. Like the Facts.

911 Indeed was a day that will live with us all forever. THe Terrorist Did Fly the Planes into the Two Towers ! Why wont people Look at the Actual Footage of the Two Aircraft Going into the Buildings ? Give me a Break ! WHat more does it take? How many Billions of educated people saw this ?

Oh ! OH ! I done and gont ant said it ! Educated !

Educated? Like you?

Educated enough to know it's 'whence', not 'whince', even then "look at from whince this information just came from." is a horrible, horrible sentence that looks constructed by a child.

"Look from whence this information comes."

"Look where this information comes from."

Not a random hodge-podge of the two because you heard the word 'whence' once and want to use it.

About 8% of the words you used capital letters in, actually needed them. Beginning of sentences, abbreviations and proper nouns, not tricky.

Being from Texas, I assume you know your bible. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", in other words, if you're gonna challenge other people's aducational standard, ensure that you, yourself are able to type like a human.

[conspiracy buff]

I have challenged 911 conspiracist and skeptics to refute the evidence and what I got was disinformation and misinformation. For an example, their claim that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speeds. A simple look at the dust plumes and debris falling at free fall speeds which are outpacing the collapse of the buildings should have been an indicator that the WTC buildings were NOT falling at free fall speeds.

It is a matter of fact that the WTC buildings DID experience free fall in every sense of physics. Look at how quickly the towers fell after the initial collapse. Misinformation & disinformation? You mean the very same type of garbage you quoted as FACT? Nice! Like I said before, the American public didn't get the whole story on that because the government never addressed it. Watch the documentary "9/11: In Plane Sight". These are NOT "911 conspiracist and skeptics" as you put it. These were all individual experts in their fields who dedicated years of scientific study and took time to come to the same conclusions as most conspiracy theorists already did upon the events of that day. Tapes of the collapse along with hundreds of witness statements of people in New York seem to independently verify each element of what these experts say. The collapse was a controlled demolition with what most scientists can only describe as "super thermite". That would certainly explain the free fall element and why the buildings didn't offer much resistance to the collapse.

Simple common sense logic says that since the dust plumes and debris are descending at free fall speed and faster than the collapse of the WTC buildings, then the buildings are not falling at free fall speeds.

The problem is that common sense is not too common. It's not the fact that the buildings fell, but the speed and lack of resistance that these structures experienced that is the key issue here. Common sense would also indicate that it would take a much longer time for the towers to fall with hundreds of floors from top to bottom. You cannot have such a big building falling in such a quick time[seconds] without there being a demolition to explain the free fall. I'm willing to hear any real evidence on that. Unfortunately, nothing would fit like the controlled demolition theory does. Basic laws and principles of physics do not allow skyscraper like buildings to fall that quickly and gravity cannot be violated. The bottom line is quite elementary and simple; these buildings fell with the help of a demolition that was orchestrated and planned way in advance. There isn't one element of 9/11 that has been fully explained beyond a shadow of a doubt. We cannot get simple questions answered, why do you think that is? Those involved in planning and executing this atrocity will never explain anything. Which is why this matter was quickly filed under the "terrorism" umbrella and pretty much swept under the rug, never to be talked about again. The Bush administration rarely talked about 9/11 and never attempted to explain the specifics of how and why. It was always back to terrorism and evil almost always accompanied by sidestepping the issue and lies. Which is a shame, considering all the lives lost in the name of what? Greed and power. The oldest motivations known to man.

[turbonium]

I have challenged 911 conspiracist and skeptics to refute the evidence and what I got was disinformation and misinformation. For an example, their claim that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speeds. A simple look at the dust plumes and debris falling at free fall speeds which are outpacing the collapse of the buildings should have been an indicator that the WTC buildings were NOT falling at free fall speeds.

Simple common sense logic says that since the dust plumes and debris are descending at free fall speed and faster than the collapse of the WTC buildings, then the buildings are not falling at free fall speeds.

You assume the debris is falling at free fall speed - no go.

How about huge forces blasting debris out, downward - think that could be a bit faster than free fall?

[aquatus1]

Question:

What difference does it make to the speed of fall whether a tower falls due to explosive demolition, to weakened supports, or to a magic sword slicing it off at the base?

Answer:

None at all. A tower will never fall at freefall speed, ever, in any of these scenarios. In every case, the tower is still going to have to do the exact same thing, namely, fall through itself, which reduces the speed from free-fall to a ridiculously tiny smidgen slower than free-fall. Explosive do not, in any way, shape, or form, speed up the fall of a building. Once the supports of a building are cut, it will fall at the same speed, regardless of the reason why the supports are cut.

[ChrLzs]

We cannot get simple questions answered, why do you think that is?

Which ones specifically? It seems to me they have been answered - 911 CTers simply don't like/understand/accept the answers.

Or perhaps it's because what you define as 'simple' questions are either 'loaded', or not able to be answered simply..

[SphericalMiracle]

Asking WHY about anything concerning 9/11 is putting the cart before the horse, jumping the gun, placing beliefs or opinions ahead of objective truth. The physically WHAT that happened on 9/11 has to be properly addressed (for the first time officially) and answered before one can get to any WHYS. Scientific, therefore REAL, conclusions require SOMETHING physically similar enough to happen before or since a physically unique event. It's called PROVING a mere theory (or at least a manufactured story) by DUPLICATION, not simply believing, in this case, that jet fuel alone has unprecedented, magical powers, or that lack of a 757 (or whatever large aircraft) at the Pentagon isn't problematic. And the crickets STILL chirp. There's absolutely no REAL science or physics in the official government-media 9/11 fairy tale.

[ChrLzs]

Yes, let's build two exactly matching full-scale buildings and fill them with all the same stuff, and then crash planes into them. That's the ticket.

And no, there is no science/physics whatsoever available...

[Babe Ruth]

Fairy Tale it is.

Raptor

Thanks for the numbers regarding Larry's money. No, he's not poor.

Regarding the last sentence of your post, when one is a team player, from time to time one must take a hit for the team.