Care to Comment

[fess]

Larry said he just meant to "pull the fire fighters" by saying "pull it".

Do you recognize any sense? I don't.

If you were a firefighter, you would understand exactly what he meant.

 

[achimspok]

I've seen the videos they are about a technology problem and getting funding to fix it. That's what they're about. There's no 2.3 trillion missing from anywhere. The entire discussion revolves around integrating the accounting systems within the DOD. You don't seem to understand the difference between "Missing Money" and unaccounted for money. I took three hundred out of the bank last week and now I have one hundred. I have no clear documentation to prove where the two hundred went but to use the term missing is simply misleading.

Accepted. So Rummy just had a small talk about a very usual problem - some all days babble about bookkeeping. No big thing. If the bookkeepers were not killed the next day no one would have noticed, right?

 

[TexasJack]

The 911myth sources are mostly DOD or military telling that back in 2000 the problem was almost solved. ...just some billion were lost. ...and for 2001 the necessary manpower was killed in the Pentagon attack ...but a lot of the money can now be accounted for ...
Where is one member of the senate who saw that list a said something like "well done"? ...a YouTube link would do it.

I don't understand this gibberish, please rephrase it so it comprehensible.

...accounting errors equal an inside job? That's not what I said. I said there was another major scandal besides Enron.

Then why did you dump those youtube videos for, because that is what they basically entail? They are about accounting problems from the Pentagon. And why are the titles 2.3 trillion missing when the videos say no such thing? Were you intentionally trying to mislead?

 

[achimspok]

If you were a firefighter, you would understand exactly what he meant.

But nobody knows if he talked to a fire fighter, right? ...but besides what he maybe meant or not meant the core simply fell down.

 

[achimspok]

I don't understand this gibberish, please rephrase it so it comprehensible.

Just read 911myth.

Then why did you dump those youtube videos for, because that is what they basically entail? They are about accounting problems from the Pentagon. And why are the titles 2.3 trillion missing when the videos say no such thing? Were you intentionally trying to mislead?

Mr. Byrd: "It's preposterous that the defense department doesn't know what is happen with this money."
Would you say if nobody knows where something is then it is misleading to say it is missing?

 

[TexasJack]

Just read 911myth.

I read it, it debunks the 2.3 trillion truther crap. What is your argument?

Mr. Byrd: "It's preposterous that the defense department doesn't know what is happen with this money."
Would you say if nobody knows where something is then it is misleading to say it is missing?

The title of the videos you dumped, says 2.3 trillion missing. How do the videos prove this? They don't. They're misleading titles about accounting problems within the Pentagon, not about 2.3 trillion dollars missing.

 

[pgimeno]

Why super silent? If you don't like the noise just put it in the basement.

What basement?

WTC7's nonexistent basement, or the basement of WTC1 and WTC2 which fell from top down with the cores standing for a while?

What about the nonexistent seismic P-waves? Oh wait, I know the answer to that one. The seismic station was in the conspiracy and they forged the data.

 

[achimspok]

I read it, it debunks the 2.3 trillion truther crap. What is your argument?

The title of the videos you dumped, says 2.3 trillion missing.

Yes, and it was a scandal at that time. That's what I said.

How do the videos prove this? They don't. They're misleading titles about accounting problems within the Pentagon, not about 2.3 trillion dollars missing.

no one knows where it is = it is missing
it is missing = no one knows where it is
That's not an invention by any truther!

If I have accounting problems with my taxes then the fiskus says my taxes are missing, you know. That's pretty simple even if it is not that nice.
If the military would have missed tax money and this would be the reason why NORAD had no fighter jet then the Pentagon could say "the tax money was missing". That simple, you know. It would sound a little like the tax payer did 9/11 - you would have the right to feel uncomfortable - but nevertheless it would be true, you know: no tax money, no fighter, no air defense = tax money missing

 

[TSR]

Yes, and it was a scandal at that time. That's what I said.

.
And it was, back in February 2000, when it was first reported. How does this relate to the events of 9/11?
.

no one knows where it is = it is missing

.
Except that they *did* know where it was. The funds came in, this was documented. They were spent, this was also documented. It was how they got from point A to point B which was badly documented, and this got fixed.

Again: how does this relate to the events of 9/11?
.

 

[bill smith]

Yes, and it was a scandal at that time. That's what I said.


no one knows where it is = it is missing
it is missing = no one knows where it is
That's not an invention by any truther!

If I have accounting problems with my taxes then the fiskus says my taxes are missing, you know. That's pretty simple even if it is not that nice.
If the military would have missed tax money and this would be the reason why NORAD had no fighter jet then the Pentagon could say "the tax money was missing". That simple, you know. It would sound a little like the tax payer did 9/11 - you would have the right to feel uncomfortable - but nevertheless it would be true, you know: no tax money, no fighter, no air defense = tax money missing

I think this was yet another red herring. The perps just love to watch people going round in circles on the 2.3 Trillion, Silverstein and the 'pull-it' comment, the Enron papers, The Pentagon, and maybe a few dozen other sidetracks that never lead anywhere. And then a 'new' video will be released and set all the hounds chasing a new ball. Does anybody get that 'managed' feeling ?

 

[achimspok]

What basement?

WTC7's nonexistent basement, ...

I cite:
Conspiracists misrepresent WTC 7's condition
"We’ve already seen an aerial view of the “small pile” left by WTC 7 and the damage it did to 30 West Broadway. Here’s a view from the ground. Keep in mind that WTC 7’s basement was 5 stories deep."
Who is right? You or the Anti-Twoof site?

...or the basement of WTC1 and WTC2 which fell from top down with the cores standing for a while?

Who told you that the cores remained standing?
Let's see! In the case of WTC1 less than 2 rows of columns remained for about 20 seconds (row 500 + row 600) and the east half of it fell to the east when the collapse reached some low enough level to allow it. The upper tip of the western half was 77 floors tall.
So there are pretty possibilities. You could place a lot of stuff in the basement to redistribute the loads to the members. And then you place some tiny noodling cracker (without noise) in the 77th floor along row 1000 for example. You know that is the floor with elevator pits and toilets called "lower escalator" below the skylobby and above the MER floors. No one ever needed the lower escalator. It was dead space but famous for the huge dust jets in the west.
What would you say what happens to the top - especially the impact floors?

hypothetical scenario:
The plane hit and you deceit to noodle e.g. 702, 802, 707, 806. You could say it was some jet fuel in the local shafts.
Then you let the tower burn for a while. Maybe you wait for some apparent peak of fire development or so or you wait that most people get out. Next you noodling row 1000 at the 77th floor - column by column - maybe you start in the center 1004+1005 next 1003+1006...
What do you think will happen at the burning impact floors? ...just hypothetically - for sports so to say...

What about the nonexistent seismic P-waves? Oh wait, I know the answer to that one. The seismic station was in the conspiracy and they forged the data.

No, that's not the answer. Noodling will cause absolutely nothing. Even the truck bomb 1993 in the WTC basement caused no seismic activity - nothing - zero. You will get a hard time to generate seismic waves.
But that point is nevertheless pretty interesting. Could you explain these two tiny seismic spikes prior to the WTC7 collapse? You know, the one in the moment the building started to sway the other about 1 second before the east penthouse collapsed. Any idea?

 

[achimspok]

I think this was yet another red herring. The perps just love to watch people going round in circles on the 2.3 Trillion, Silverstein and the 'pull-it' comment, the Enron papers, The Pentagon, and maybe a few dozen other sidetracks that never lead anywhere. And then a 'new' video will be released and set all the hounds chasing a new ball. Does anybody get that 'managed' feeling ?

You might be right. Of course, they didn't kill the bookkeepers but it could be a nice red herring for a while. ...something like CIT and the mystical flyover plane supported by some Pentagon employees and clown Ranke right now? Funny stuff but some kids take it seriously. And then - here in the halls of famous science and millions of years of expertise - they think twoofers are stupid, you know? Bad bad game.

 

[TexasJack]

Yes, and it was a scandal at that time. That's what I said.

And? How does this scandal tie into 9/11 conspiracy theories?

no one knows where it is = it is missing
it is missing = no one knows where it is
That's not an invention by any truther!

No, it's not the same. So when rsalinger posted this fine analogy:

You don't seem to understand the difference between "Missing Money" and unaccounted for money. I took three hundred out of the bank last week and now I have one hundred. I have no clear documentation to prove where the two hundred went but to use the term missing is simply misleading.

and you replied with "accepted," you really didn't understand the difference, or does "accepted" mean something else in trutherland? And as has been pointed out by TSR and 911myths, over time the money started to be accounted for.

 

[bill smith]

You might be right. Of course, they didn't kill the bookkeepers but it could be a nice red herring for a while. ...something like CIT and the mystical flyover plane supported by some Pentagon employees and clown Ranke right now? Funny stuff but some kids take it seriously. And then - here in the halls of famous science and millions of years of expertise - they think twoofers are stupid, you know? Bad bad game.

What difference would killing a few bookkeepers make ? Makes a nice little conspiracy story though. Nah,...I think the whole Pentagon thing was a set up. A honeypot to attract and create conspiracy theorists.

Craig Ranke seems sincere and dedicated but I am not convinced. I like the Lloyd England statements though.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I think this was yet another red herring. The perps just love to watch people going round in circles on the 2.3 Trillion, Silverstein and the 'pull-it' comment, the Enron papers, The Pentagon, and maybe a few dozen other sidetracks that never lead anywhere. And then a 'new' video will be released and set all the hounds chasing a new ball. Does anybody get that 'managed' feeling ?

Managed by the people that pusg the conspiracy theory.

Look at the Apollohoax, look at Holocaust Deniers, look at UFOs are alien Spaceship proponents.

All work to the same MO. That's how they sell their videos and books, that's how they get to keep the ball rollong. When something is debunked or shown to be false stick something new intothe mix, repackage the old shtick and off we go again. Add inthose that stumble upon the old info for the firs ttime on some Woo site and it keeps them all busy for life.

 

[achimspok]

And? How does this scandal tie into 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Let's say, it depends on how over time the money started to be accounted for. The scandal is undisputed? So how much do you know about the later accounted money? ... I mean trillions. Is that one one part of the cake?

... While JSOC has long played a central role in US counterterrorism and covert operations, military and civilian officials who worked at the Defense and State Departments during the Bush administration described in interviews with The Nation an extremely cozy relationship that developed between the executive branch (primarily through Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld) and JSOC. During the Bush era, Special Forces turned into a virtual stand-alone operation that acted outside the military chain of command and in direct coordination with the White House. Throughout the Bush years, it was largely General McChrystal who ran JSOC. "What I was seeing was the development of what I would later see in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Special Operations forces would operate in both theaters without the conventional commander even knowing what they were doing," said Colonel Wilkerson. "That's dangerous, that's very dangerous. You have all kinds of mess when you don't tell the theater commander what you're doing."

Wilkerson said that almost immediately after assuming his role at the State Department under Colin Powell, he saw JSOC being politicized and developing a close relationship with the executive branch. He saw this begin, he said, after his first Delta Force briefing at Fort Bragg. "I think Cheney and Rumsfeld went directly into JSOC. I think they went into JSOC at times, perhaps most frequently, without the SOCOM [Special Operations] commander at the time even knowing it. The receptivity in JSOC was quite good," says Wilkerson. "I think Cheney was actually giving McChrystal instructions, and McChrystal was asking him for instructions." He said the relationship between JSOC and Cheney and Rumsfeld "built up initially because Rumsfeld didn't get the responsiveness. He didn't get the can-do kind of attitude out of the SOCOM commander, and so as Rumsfeld was wont to do, he cut him out and went straight to the horse's mouth. At that point you had JSOC operating as an extension of the [administration] doing things the executive branch--read: Cheney and Rumsfeld--wanted it to do. This would be more or less carte blanche. You need to do it, do it. It was very alarming for me as a conventional soldier."

Wilkerson said the JSOC teams caused diplomatic problems for the United States across the globe. "When these teams started hitting capital cities and other places all around the world, [Rumsfeld] didn't tell the State Department either. The only way we found out about it is our ambassadors started to call us and say, 'Who the hell are these six-foot-four white males with eighteen-inch biceps walking around our capital cities?' ...

http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-us-war-pakistan

So I ask you, how much do you know if the military sources tell you these or that is the case e.g. about the money?
So theoretically in some innocent democracy "accepted" means "accepted" but in trutherland it means "You may believe in big daddy but you know nothing at all!" So it doesn't help a lot to cite big daddy as long as there is nobody who can control it, you know?
That why I ask you, what do you know about the missing and later accounted money? ...accounted for what?

 

[TexasJack]

Let's say, it depends on how over time the money started to be accounted blah blah.

One more time, how does this tie into a conspiracy on 9/11? Where is your evidence if it does?

 

[achimspok]

Nah,...I think the whole Pentagon thing was a set up. A honeypot to attract and create conspiracy theorists.

I think it was a set up to look like an undisputable victim.

Remember, Mineta started at "50 miles out". According to the FDR it refers to 9:27am and well before O'Brien saw the reappeared plane. She first saw it about 16 miles out and it came closer 1 mile in about 8 seconds.
So what information had Cheney during the flight through the alleged radar hole?
I think these radar holes are a myth as well.

This is the alleged "hole" at an altitude of 5000ft. In other words, at 10000ft these circles have the double radius.

Craig Ranke seems sincere and dedicated but I am not convinced. I like the Lloyd England statements though.

Ranke is a liar. Lloyd England is a nice old cab driver. He drove down the road. He was in front of the plane. He had 2 seconds to see it and less time to hear it. Suddenly a lamp pole came through his windshield. For the next seconds he had to stop the car somehow.
Some years later Craig Ranke comes along and shows the cabbie an aerial view with the wrong drawing of the "flyover" path and Lloyd should show his position. The only thing Lloyd knew for sure - he was right below the plane and close to the Pentagon. So he saw Ranke's false path and pointed with the finger right below it. ...instead of confronting Lloyd with the possibilities, Ranke constructed a cabbie conspiracy. Here are some links where I wrote about that topic.
achimspok's Pentagon Northern Approach?
Sgt. William Lagasse - Pentagon witness?
Pilots for Truth paper "The North Approach, Technical Supplement to "9/11: The North Flight Path"
Comparison of the CIT "Northern Approach" to some "North of VDOT" approach.

 

[achimspok]

One more time, blah blah

Where is the money, Jack?

 

[TexasJack]

Where is the money, Jack?

Cat got your tongue? First you don't understand what the word "accepted" means, and now you can't answer a simple question. Do you or don't you have evidence tying any of this to a conpiracy that happened on 9/11? If so, please provide it. I'm not interested in any sort of wild speculation on your part.