Well, its been over eight years now and the silence is deafening.

[immune]

from Paul Thompson's Timeline

September 10, 2001: Rumsfeld Announces Defense Department Cannot Track $2.3 Trillion in Transactions

In a speech to the Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces that the Department of Defense "cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." CBS later calculates that 25 percent of the yearly defense budget is unaccounted for, and quotes a long-time defense budget analyst: "(Their) numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year." Coverage of this rather shocking story is nearly nonexistent given the events of the next day. (US Department of Defense, 9/10/2001; CBS News, 1/29/2002) In April 2002 it will be revealed that $1.1 trillion of the missing money comes from the 2000 fiscal year. Auditors won't even quantify how much money is missing from fiscal year 2001, causing "some (to) fear it's worse" than 2000. The Department of the Army will state that it won't publish a stand-alone financial statement for 2001 because of "the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack." (Insight, 4/29/2002) This $1.1 trillion plus unknown additional amounts continues to remain unaccounted for, and auditors say it may take eight years of reorganization before a proper accounting can be done. (Insight, 8/21/2003)

http://complete911timeline.org/context.jsp?item=a091001...

[immune]

1. The plot thickens

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php? (2/6/07)

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/01/17203.php
"In May, 2001, Zakheim was sworn in to the Bush Administration as Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) of the DOD.

Here's the wrinkle: Zakheim's company produces advanced Command
Transmitter Systems, designed to provide "remote control and flight
termination functions through a fully redundant, self-contained solid
state system." The unit is just 5 feet high and can be mounted easily
on a mobile platform. Although designed to control unmanned flights
such as Global hawk from remote positions on the ground, one British
aviation engineer said after 9/11 that the planes used in the attacks
were could have been equipped with, or suitable for, such remote
control units. "

well, I think that's interesting..Zakheim now works for Booz Hamilton, (quite a few of them died 9-11) He's pretty much connected to everything 9-11/Pentagon. Lots of financial people worked in that section of the Pentagon, I'm trying to find out if they were evenly disbursed all over the Pentagon, if so it doesn't really mean anything, but, if not, it looks suspicious considering they were in no hurry to put that fire out.

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/story ...

Of course the Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White,
had an excuse. In a shocking appeal to sentiment it says it didn't publish a
"stand-alone" financial statement for 2001 because of "the LOSS OF FINANCIAL-MANAGEMENT
PERSONNEL sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack."

[SDuderstadt]

2. "disbursed"

You mean "dispersed", dude.

Also, does it bother you that one of your "sources" (Insight Magazine) is far-RW and owned by the Washington Times? I'm pretty sure this is just another version of "the Jews did 9/11".

Did you fact-check this bullshit before you posted it? Oh, wait...I just answered my own question, dude.

P.S. What is your source for the claim that "they were in no hurry to put that fire out"?

Bonus question: Do you ever tire of posting goofy bullshit?

[Octafish]

3. What 'goofy bullshit', sduderstadt? That the Pentagon can't account for trillions of dollars?

Here's what CBS reported:

The War On Waste: Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds — $2.3 Trillion

You know, a quick read of your posts almost leaves the impression you know what your're talking about; but you don't, sduderstadt.

[zappaman]

4. war is a racket

the pentagon has always had questionable accounting.
what does that have to do with 9/11?

[SDuderstadt]

5. Back for more bloviation...

dude?

Maybe you should read my post for comprehension, rather than introducing your strawman arguments into the "debate", Octadude.

[immune]

21. Prescient?.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Thanks for making my point...

dude. Does that sound like he's trying to conceal something?

[immune]

6. Where'd the money go, dude?

dis·burse (ds-bûrs)
tr.v. dis·bursed, dis·burs·ing, dis·burs·es
To pay out, as from a fund; expend. See Synonyms at spend.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Read your post again, dude

"Lots of financial people worked in that section of the Pentagon, I'm trying to find out if they were evenly disbursed all over the Pentagon"

Tell me something...how do you "disburse" people? Wouldn't it just be easier to admit your stupid error?

[immune]

8. If you click on the link to

the earlier thread on DU, you'd notice the wording isn't mine.

That said, the accountants and others who were working on tracking down that "missing" 2.3 trillion WERE disbursed, just like paper, all over that area of the pentagon. Up in smoke.

So, where's the money, dude? Where are all the spreadsheets and accounting records and memos AND PEOPLE who were looking for the missing money? All up im Smoke. Convenient that. Those 19 terrorists really knew how to cover up their theft, innit?

[SDuderstadt]

10. Dude...

Do you know the difference between "disbursed" and "dispersed"? If you are referring to people spread out over a wide area, that would be "dispersed".

This is as stupid as the late, great SLAD arguing she meant to say "back peddle", rather than "back-pedal".

[reinvestigate911]

75. niggle

http://www.google.com/dictionary?q=niggle&langpair=en|en

[SDuderstadt]

9. "the silence is deafening"

More of your goofy bullshit. A simple Google search reveals numerous articles within the last eight years. Here's a Washington Post article from just a month ago.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkpoint-washington/2010/09/pentagons_inspector_general_ov.html

Would you PLEASE start fact-checking your goofy bullshit before just blurring it out here?

[immune]

11. Not very helpful

when you're trying to find the missing 2.3 trillion they assured us they'd be able to track down in eight years. Did anybody ever look for it? Did anybody ever get called before a congressional hearing? Like Zakheim maybe? I can't find it.

[SDuderstadt]

12. I fixed the link...

and it's simply not true there has been no mention in the press nor further action for 8 years.

And the money isn't "missing"...it just sounds more nefarious when you label it as such.

[immune]

16. Yep, sounds pretty nefarious to me.

Reuters) - The Pentagon's top watchdog has abandoned efforts to do in-depth audits of defense contracts, leaving billions of dollars in taxpayer money at risk because of overpayments and fraud, according to an investigative report due to be made public on Thursday.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Dude...

if Rumsfeld had been trying to conceal it, why would he give a major address about it???

[immune]

19. I'll admit that's a question

I'd like an answer to, as well, especially coming mere hours before the attack.

[SDuderstadt]

20. If you were trying to conceal it...

why would you mention it at all?

And, if you're positing that the announcement was somehow connected to the attacks the next day because it occurred just "mere hours" before, that's just an example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc on your part.

At this point, I'd even pay for you to take critical thinking classes, although I doubt they'd help you much, dude.

[immune]

23. No, actually there could be a few different reasons

he might do that.

For instance, he might have known a whistleblower was getting set to let the cat out of the bag at any moment and wanted to pre-empt such a disclosure from another source.

Or he possibly/probably didn't know an attack was coming on the following day or he might not have made that statement at all.

I'm sure there are other possibilities. With your amazing critical thinking skills, I'm sure you have an idea or two to add?

[SDuderstadt]

24. It's YOUR OP, dude

Your second paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.

[zappaman]

26. or he might have given the speech

cuz he's controlled by aliens.
hey, it makes as much sense as your reasons.

[immune]

25. All that article points out

is that graft and corruption is rife within the pentagon, always was and still is. Nothing at all about that particular 2.3 trillion dollars that could not be accounted for prior to 911. Do you know where that bit of pocket change ended up?

[SDuderstadt]

28. No, dude...

that and numerous other articles disprove your goofy "the silence is deafening" bullshit.

[deconstruct911]

13. Well obviously IF they were going to tell you

what happened to the money their just going to say they spent in on planes, tanks, military stuff, toilet seats????etc....

There is an OP about it here somewhere. I think it's called "Who did the pentagon audit for the missing 2.3 trillion"

[immune]

14. Yeah, I went through that thread, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x92233

If they were going to say it was spent on planes, tanks, military stuff and toilet seats, why did Rummy phrase it "cannot be accounted for"?

[deconstruct911]

15. "computers don't communicate" nt

[immune]

17. Huh?

[hack89]

27. What do you think this proves?

Are you aware that over 2 trillion was also unaccounted for FY1999? What did Clinton do with all that money?


The entire issue is not that money was diverted for nefarious schemes - it was that the Pentagon's accounting system was grossly negligent.

[immune]

30. What did Clinton do with all that money?

What, a president writes the checks? He's holding the purse strings? I didn't know that.

As for the pentagon's accounting system, we should have cut off their funding back in the '60s until they could come up with an accounting system as good as taxpayers are required to keep.

[SDuderstadt]

32. "we should have cut off their funding"

Y'know, you're really fucking brilliant, dude. Just fucking brilliant.

I hope I don't have to explain to you why your observation is monumentally stupid.

[hack89]

43. So this issue has nothing to do with 911

and is merely an issue of government's gross negligence? Hard to argue with that.

[KDLarsen]

29. Sigh, not this same old god damn debunked s*** again

Sorry for the use of profanity, but this is getting ridicolous.

Here's a news article from 7 months after 9/11, mentioning how far they had gotten in the process of cleaning up the computer systems:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041119191514/www.defense.gov/news/Feb2002/n02202002_200202201.html

Here's an article describing how the problem was known as early as 1999:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050106103834/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2002/n04032002_200204033.html

Here's an article from march 2000, describing the exact amount that couldn't be accounted for:
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002hxm

[SDuderstadt]

31. I highly doubt that "immune" understands that...

$2.3 T in adjustments means that some $ are counted multiple times.

This is just another example of conspiracists discussing things they don't remotely understand.

[immune]

33. From your link:

"DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop."

Sooooo, if they found all but 700 billion of the missing money, why would they need THIS much more for that same year?

"The Department of Defense has reported it will request a total of $329 billion in the 2002 federal budget. The amended request adds over $18 billion to President Bush's February Budget Proposal and includes $7.5 billion for the National Missile Defense System.

The $329 billion total represents an increase of $33 billion over defense funding for 2001."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa062601b.htm

Are you trying to claim they aren't completely out of their minds? On budget, off budget, black budget ... Yawn, nothing to see here folks. Go back to sleep.

[KDLarsen]

34. Because there was nothing to be 'found'

The money were never missing in the first place. It was just a nightmare to account for them, due to having 600-odd systems, where the vast majority couldn't communicate between them.

[immune]

36. IOW

Too big to fail. Just keep pumping those 600-odd systems up with taxpayer dollars. Just let them keep pumping out more contracts for no one knows what purposes. Just let them keep giving us comforting assurances with no substance.

Stay tuned. Eventually the empire will fall, whether through gross corruption or gross incompetence.

The question raised by this thread (and others) is the direct connection between Zakheim and the kind of techology that COULD EASILY have been used in the attacks on 911, as opposed to 19 cave dwellers with box cutters and a rudimentary ability to fly but not land jumbo jets. To deny these connections and capabilities is a prime example of eyes wide shut.

[KDLarsen]

38. What on earth are you babbling about?

The article I linked to in my first reply, had the leader of the cleanup crew report that would be able to reduce the number of system from 600-odd to 50. And that it would be possible to reduce the number even further.

Also, the 19 hijackers weren't exactly cavedwellers. All of the pilots were university graduates and had had some flying training. They didn't exactly need to know how to land a plane, just how to point it at a building and hit it.

[immune]

39. Are you a pilot?

Have you ever made the transition from a Cessna to the cockpit of a 737? Or even from a simulator to a real flying machine? I don't care how many degrees they allegedly had, the aerobatics performed that day is highly questionable. And as it turns out, several of the alleged "fliers" are still alive anyway.

Good job cleanup crews:

Proposed Military Spending Is Highest Since WWII - New York Times
Feb 04, 2008 · The Pentagon on Monday will unveil its proposed 2009 budget of $515.4 billion.

dEPARTMENT Of dEfENSE
Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent. increase over 2009

At that rate, we'll be rolling in clover by 2012. Correction ... THEY will be rolling in clover, we'll be buried in even more debt.

[KDLarsen]

40. You're still not getting it, are you?

The money never went missing, there was no money to recover and subsequently spend, which is why the DoD continued to propose budgets.

As for my abilities in a cockpit, I've gone straight into a DC10 simulator and managed to do what the hijackers did. That is, fly around, do a descending 360 degree turn (ala AA77) and managed to fly straight ahead. And I don't have any formal training whatsoever.

[immune]

41. Challenge.

FLIGHT 175 SPEED CHALLENGE

M.I.T. 503 mph – 437 knots?
F.A.A. 586 mph – 509 knots?
N.I.S.T 546 mph – 474 knots?
F.E.M.A 590 mph – 512 knots??!!

MY TEST – above 360 mph – 320 knots level flight is impossible. The ‘ hijackers ‘ did not possess the knowledge and training to be able to accurately ‘trim’ a 767.
They spent a total of 6 hours in an old style 727 pit simulator and were given temporary 6 month licenses to fly small 2 engined aircraft.

911 LIES ARE SO THICK YOU COULD WALK ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER ON THEM.

http://www.castlewellairport.com/2009/06/flight-175-speed-challenge-911-planes-impossible-speed/

[KDLarsen]

42. Here's a couple of tips for ya..

1) MSFS != Real world.
2) You're using a PMDG B744 to conduct the test, you'd might want to try the LDS 767.

[immune]

44. I don't need to fly anything to know

the overpriced "defense system" of this country was nowhere to be found on 911.

Anyone who thinks we're getting what we pay for is flying high on an illegal substance.

[KDLarsen]

45. You're really jumping from argument to argument now..

And once again you're wrong. Fighters were launched from Otis AFB and Langley AFB in northeastern USA, the only two bases with fighters on alert duty (meaning ready to fly at moments' notice).

[immune]

47. Yeah,, scrambled AFTER the pentagon was hit.

Fat lot of good that did.

[KDLarsen]

49. Wrong.

The first fighter from Otis was scrambled at 8:46 and took off at 8:52.

[SDuderstadt]

50. You'll soon learn (unfortunately the wrong way)...

"immune" has no idea wtf he's babbling about.

[immune]

52. Depends on who you listen to.

For the first few days after the attack, the official story was that no interceptors were scrambled until after the Pentagon strike. On September 16th Vice President Cheney told Meet the Press that George Bush personally made the decision to scramble interceptors, and suggested that he did so only after the Pentagon was hit. 1

General Myers, during his confirmation hearing on September 13th, said that no military aircraft were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit. 2 There was also no mention in the major media of scramblings of jets prior to the Pentagon hit, until September 14th, when Dan Rather announced on the CBS Evening News that F-15s were scrambled from Otis at 8:44 and F-16s were scrambled from Langley at 9:30. 3 Officials such as Cheney apparently were not kept apprised of these new "facts," since his Meet the Press interview was two days later. Four days after the CBS disclosure, the new story was incorporated into NORAD's official timeline.

The official timeline was changed again with the release of the 9/11 Commission Report. The differences between the NORAD and Commission timelines are graphically summarized on the timelines pages.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/

[SDuderstadt]

48. Watch "immune" now misinterpret your post to mean...

there were no fighters on alert outside of NEADS.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Dude...

can you lay out precisely what happened with our "overpriced defense system" on 9/11?

[immune]

51. What didn't happen is more to the point.

The United States Air Force (USAF) is the most technologically advanced, and the most dominate military force ever known to man. There were seven Air Stations that were armed and on full alert to protect the continental United States on Tuesday September 11, 2001. The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Panama City, Florida. The Air National Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fully armed fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Tyndall AFB, alert birds also sit armed and ready at; Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Homestead, Florida; Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia; Otis Air National Guard (ANG), Falmouth, Massachusetts; Oregon ANG, Portland, Oregon; March ARB, Riverside, CA; and Ellington ANG, Houston, Texas.
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home2.htm


There were at least 28 other USAF bases that were in range of the 4 airliners on 911.

The following link lists the 7 bases on full alert and the 28 that were within range.
http://www.StandDown.net/USAFbases.htm

[SDuderstadt]

53. Dude...

you just sank your own argument. Did you see that? Of the 7 air bases that were "on alert", how many were close enough to make a difference? Hint: Otis and Langley.

Now, what's the purpose of enumerating the air bases that were not "on alert"? Are you suggesting we could have scrambled fighters from any of those bases? Do you know the difference between "on alert" and "combat ready"?


Bonus question: how long does it take to arm and crew a fighter that is "combat ready"?

Simple question: why do you insist on embarrassing yourself by trying to "debate" topics you know nothing about?

[immune]

54. I'll repeat it real slow.

There were at least 28 other USAF bases that were in range of the 4 airliners on 911.

The following link lists the 7 bases on full alert and the 28 that were within range.
http://www.StandDown.net/USAFbases.htm

[SDuderstadt]

56. Dude...

I'll repeat my question real slow:

Do you understand the difference between "on alert" and "combat ready"? You can enumerate all the lists you want but, until you can explain how long it takes to arm and crew a "combat ready" fighter, you're merely parading your ignorance for all to see.

[KDLarsen]

55. Let's take a look at that list shall we?

Andrews AFB launched F-16's as they returned from training missions.

Bolling AFB doesn't have any runways :eyes:

Dover AFB was hosting an Airlift Wing, it didn't have any fighters.

Hanscom AFB didn't have any flying units.

McGuire AFB was another Airlift base, no fighters there.

Wright-Patterson AFB didn't have any fighters either.

Cape Cod AFS is a bloody radar site.

New Boston AFS is a space tracking site.

Want me to continue?

[immune]

57. Shorter list

No interceptors were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not before the Pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert, and is only about 10 miles from the Pentagon.

The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at:

[SDuderstadt]

58. Please provide whatever proof you have that...

Andrews AFB had two squadrons of fighters "on alert", dude. If you had the foggiest notion what "on alert" means, you wouldn't make such a stupid statement

[immune]

65. What makes that even more bizarre

is the training exercises taking place that very day involving passenger planes crashing into buildings. Apparently those exercises didn't include interceptions, either, not even mock interceptions, or the fighters would have been gassed up and ready to go, don't you think?

[SDuderstadt]

66. Dude...

it didn't involve actual planes.

Do you know ANYTHING?

[immune]

67. Kites?

Birds? Prove it.

But I do worry some kid will read this thread and decide to heist some cash from him mom's purse and when she accuses him of taking it he can just say it might not have been there to begin with, but if she'll give him her purse, he'll be happy to try to help her find it.

[zappaman]

68. wtf?

you are conducting an experiment of some sort because nobody can be this obtuse without trying.

[immune]

69. Where's your proof that

no planes were involved in the military exercises. What was it, nintendo?

[SDuderstadt]

70. Dude...

where's your proof that actual planes were involved in the exercise you're talking about?

[immune]

71. No no, dude.

You made the claim that they weren't. The ball's in your park.

[SDuderstadt]

72. No, dude...

I'm challenging your claim that planes were involved in the exercise. I don't have to prove your claim is wrong; you have to prove your claim is true.

You keep pulling this shit.

[immune]

74. This shit

National Reconnaissance Office "plane into building" exercise on 9/11



http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

More ....???

(Cynthia) McKinney was featured in the documentary American Blackout from Guerrilla News Network, which includes McKinney quizzing War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the 9/11 war games, the missing trillions of dollars, and military contractors engaged in child prostitution.

http://www.oilempire.us/cynthiamckinney.html

More .... ?

Information regarding military exercises is classified and difficult to research. Though there was unusually high and confusing drill activity on 9/11, this strange coincidence has not gained much public notice. This essay quotes military officials from their own magazines, and compares their statements to what the 9/11 Commission wrote about the so-called surprise factor, and also to the Commission's position that the drills aided the response.


Though both the 9/11 Commission Report and members of the Bush Administration repeatedly stated that the use of planes as weapons could not have been predicted, other official sources indicate that military exercises had been underway to counteract this very possibility.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WOO20070927&articleId=6906

Nuff?

[SDuderstadt]

76. No, dude...

You need to get real specific about which exercise you're talking about and show that it even happened on 9/11 and involved actual planes.

[immune]

77. For chrissakes, can't you read?

Or don't you understand the terms "live fly" and "actual aircraft"?

[SDuderstadt]

78. Dude...you're about to ger embarrassed again...

are you sure you want to do this?

Serious question: do you even bother to fact-check your goody CT bullshit?

[immune]

79. Go for it.

Let's see your fact check.

[SDuderstadt]

82. I asked you a specific question...

dude, which you can't remotely answer.

Which military exercises (by name) in which part of the country/world involving actual planes, actually occurred on 9/11?

[immune]

84. scroll up and click on the oilempire link, dude.

Think you can handle that much all by yourself?

[SDuderstadt]

85. Dude...

Do you understand the difference between a claim and an established fact? Do you just uncritically buy what you read on CT websites?

Why can't you answer the very specific questions I've asked you?

[immune]

86. Take it up with

FAA Administrator, Jane Garvey, who is quoted as saying: "We have reports of 11 aircraft off course." Whoa. 11? Where'd they all come from, dude?

Or Lt. Col. Wm E. Glover, Jr. of the NORAD Air Defense Operations, who said: "We didn't know how many more there were."

Of Col. Robert K. Marr, Jr., Northeast Air Defense Sector, who said: "Is this real world or an exercise?"

Of course you'd have to read the site I linked to see those quotes and get a feeling of their personal disbelief at what was happening. If that's too hard, I don't know what to tell you.

Or maybe these people don't really exist. Maybe they were just lying to make you sound like a fool. Shame on them.

[SDuderstadt]

113. More CT game-playing...

do you see what's missing? Where do the people you cite go on to attribute what they've said to live plane exercises? Hint: they didn't; this is just more dishonest quote-mining and not a single person on that list would support your goofy bullshit.

1+2 is never going to equal 4, dude.

[zappaman]

73. I worry that some kid will read your posts

and actually think that changing the argument on EVERY SINGLE POST you make, is the way to debate.

[KDLarsen]

59. You know..

If you're going to keep making facts up on the spot, at least have the decency to let me know in advance, so I don't have to waste my time.

Andrews AFB did not have any aircraft on alert duty. They may have had aircraft on combat ready status, but that means the airplane isn't fuelled or armed, and that the pilot isn't ready to go at moments notice.

Second, the FAA never advised NEADS or NORAD that AA77 was missing, so how could they have scrambled in the first place?

Third, the F-15s from Otis AFB were being sent into one of the busiest airspaces in the world, so they couldn't just go all out (not to mention their fuel tanks would have emptied in no time). On top of that, they still didn't know where AA11 was or that UA175 had been hijacked.

[immune]

60. See post #52

The early public statements of the officials in charge of the operation don't agree with one another, yet you would lecture me on how much more you know than even, seemingly, they did.

And of course we should all feel mighty protected .. to the tune of 2.3 trillion dollars.

Making stuff up? I've provided links up the gazoo.

[KDLarsen]

61. The early statements were made with one objective

To ensure the public that NORAD, the FAA, and the Government had had everything under control.

The NORAD tapes showed quite a different picture, showing that none of the top brass had any clue as to what was going on, and that it was left to the people on the ground to sort out the mess.

And I see you've come full circle on the 2.3 trillion. Care to admit they never went missing?

[immune]

62. Hell no, I wouldn't say that.

But lets get back to the original direction of the OP. Namely 19 Arabs vs. the advanced technology that connects the pentagon, Dov Zakheim's System Planning Corporation, which is a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote controlled aircraft systems, flight termination, and "home run" technology.

But you're saying the early statements were only "little lies" intended to calm the public. Wow.

[KDLarsen]

63. Again with the jumping from argument to argument

I'm not going to bother with it, I've got better things to spend a sunday evening on.

ETA: the OP was regurgitating the myth that $2.3 trillion were missing, gone, vanished into thin air. It's been pointed out repeatedly that that was far from the case.

[immune]

64. You've got an itemized statement

showing how that 2.3 trillion was "misappropriated" or simply computer errors? If not, your claim that it wasn't lost at all needs to be proved. If you screwed up on your taxes like that, you'd be called to account for every last red cent you made, spent and/or lost. How is the military apparatus so far above us ... whom they allegedly serve? You're good with that?

The subject here is 911 and there are so many ridiculous OCT claims that run into one another and contradict one another that its almost impossible to keep them separate. And that serves a purpose, too.

[Ghost in the Machine]

111. Dov Zakheim - Another PNACer with ties to the Pentagon

PNACers in high places on 9-11:

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld & Paul Wolfowitz*

* Cheney tried to have Wolfowitz named as the head of the CIA while they were still awaiting the recount results in Florida but was denied.

Funny how the PNACers got their new Pearl Harbor so quick, ain't it? 9-11 was PNACs version of Operation Northwoods, imho...

[immune]

114. Yeppers, ain't it just

strange how they got their Pearl Harbor all right and tight and no one (at least in a position of authority) even batted an eye. KILL those Arabs!!! Build that pipeline!!! Pass that Patriot Act!!! And then on to Iraq, which had been on somebody's back burner for decades. Grab that oil!!!

You can bet your boots there are no coincidences in politics and money grubbing, especially when you mix the two together, then you've got a really deadly witch's brew.

Thing is, PNAC coaxed Americans into the pot right along side their concocted enemies and set reality on its ear by calling anyone who wouldn't just leap into that boiling cauldron "anti-American. And there are some here who still cheer them on, despite all the evidence against them. It boggles the mind.

[SDuderstadt]

115. "you can bet your boots there are no coincidences in politics"

Really? Why would politics be any different than other parts of life? As I've said before, conspiracists just have a very poor grasp of probability.

I challenge you find just one person here who supported the invasion of Iraq. Just one.

[Ghost in the Machine]

117. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz signed a letter to Clinton in 1998 calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

{snip}

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.



http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[immune]

120. Only eighteen of 'em. We're missing one.

Zakheim's name should be on the list to make it an "even" 19.

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Irsq was what they wanted all along, they just took us on a UNICAL detour through Afghanistan to get where they really wanted to go (IMO).

[Ghost in the Machine]

125. Yeah, they were beating the war drums long before Bush got installed as pResident

... You can't open some people's eyes to it though. They wanted more than Iraq, though.. they had a plan for going to war in 7 countries in 5 years.

I personally think Bush really didn't have much knowledge about things, he was just a puppet-head for the neocons. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were the power behind 9-11.

[immune]

129. I agree

except I think there were a few more actively "in it" than just those three. But Bush was, like you said, nothing but a puppet and a useful tool.

As for what PNAC wanted, I'd call it getting more than they asked for. They expected a cakewalk.

[Ghost in the Machine]

145. Yes, there were more in on it, no doubt...

Those 3 just came to mind first.

Neocons in positions of power:

Dick Cheney - Vice President

Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense

Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense

Richard L. Armitage - United States Deputy Secretary of State

I Lewis "Scooter" Libby - Chief of Staff for VP Cheney

Condoleeza Rice - US National Security Adviser

Stephen Hadley - Deputy National Security Advisor

Elliot Abrams - National Security Council Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations

John Bolton - Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Paula Dobriansky - Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs

Zalmay Khalilzad - head the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Department of Defense and Khalilzad briefly served as Counselor to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Richard Perle - Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee

Peter W. Rodman - 1995-2001 Director of National Security Programs, Nixon Center.
July 16, 2001 - March 2007 Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs

William Schneider, Jr. - Chairman of the Defense Science Board

R. James Woolsey - Within hours of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Woolsey appeared on television suggesting Iraqi complicity.

Robert B. Zoellick - U.S. Trade Representative - member of the Executive Office, with the rank of Ambassador


These shit stains infiltrated our Government and Military and there's no telling how many of their followers/moles have done the same. They were/are hellbent on bringing about their New World Order.

Do you want to take a crack at some more of them? Have fun!

Original 25 PNAC Signatories

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
Lewis Scooter Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

Additional PNAC Signatories

Morton Abramowitz
Gordon Adams
Ken Adelman
Urban Ahlin
Madeleine K. Albright
Richard V. Allen
Giuliano Amato
Mark A. Anderson
Uzi Arad
Richard L. Armitage
Timothy Garton Ash
Anders Aslund
Ronald Asmus
Andrew Y. Au
Maureen Aung-Thwin
Nina Bang-Jensen
Rafael L. Bardaji
Carolyn Bartholomew
Wladyslaw Bartoszewski
Arnold Beichman
Peter Beinart
Jeffrey Bell
Jeffrey Bergner
Robert L. Bernstein
George Biddle
Carl Bildt
Daniel Blumenthal
John Bolton
Max Boot
Ellen Bork
Rudy Boshwitz
Pascal Bruckner
Mark Brzezinski
William F. Buckley, Jr
Reinhard Buetikofer
Janusz Bugajski
Buster C. Glosson (USAF Ret),
Michael Butler
Martin Butora
Daniele Capezzone
Per Carlsen
Gunilla Carlsson
Frank Carlucci
Linda Chavez
Steven C. Clemons
Seth Cropsey
Ivo H. Daalder
Helle Dale
Massimo D'Alema
Dennis DConcini
Pavol Demes
Larry Diamond
Peter Dimitrov
James Dobbins
Thomas Donnelly
Nicholas Eberstadt
Robert Edgar
Uffe Elleman-Jensen
Amitai Etzioni
Lee Feinstein
Edwin J. Feulner, Jr.
Jeffrey L. Fiedler
Michele Flournoy
Hillel Fradkin
Aaron Friedberg
Frank Gaffney
Peter Galbraith
Jeffrey Gedmin
Sam Gejdenson
Robert S. Gelbard
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Bronislaw Geremek
Carl Gershmann
Marc Ginsberg
Andre Glucksmann
Merle Goldman
Philip Gordon
Daniel Goure
Istvan Gyarmati
Morton Halperin
Pierre Hassner
Vaclav Havel
John Herfferman
Charles Hill
Richard C. Holbrooke
James Hooper
Toomas Ilves
Martin S. Indyk
Bruce P. Jackson
Eli S. Jacobs
Michael Joyce
Frederick Kagan
Robert Kagan
Max M. Kampelman
Adrian Karatnycky
Penn Kemble
Craig Kennedy
Paul Kennedy
Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, Ret)
Glenys Kinnock
Lane Kirklan
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick
Harold Hongju Koh
Bernard Kouchner
Peter Kovler
Jerzy Kozminski
Louis Kraar
van Krastev
Charles Krauthammer
William Kristol
Girts Valdis Kristovskis
Ludger Kuehnhardt
Mart Laar
Mark Lagon
Anthony Lake
Vytautas Landsbergis
Stephen Larrabee
John Lehman
Lewis E. Lehrman
Mark Leonard
Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger
Tod Lindberg
James Lindsay
Perry Link
Bette Bao Lord
Rich Lowry
Connie Mack
Christopher Makins
Tom Malinowski
James Mann
Yu Mao-chun
Mary Beth Markey
Will Marshall
Margarita Mathiopoulos
Clifford May
Sen. John McCain
Michael McFaul
Daniel McKivergan
Matteo Mecacci
Mark Medish
Edwin Meese III
Thomas O. Melia
Saah E. Mendelson
Michael Mertes
Ilir Meta
Adam Michnik
Derek Mitchell
Richard Morningstar
Joshua Muravchik
Klaus Naumann
Wing C. Ng
Steven J. Nider
Dietmar Nietan
James O'Brien
Michael O'Hanlon
Janusz Onyszkiewicz
Mackubin Thomas Owens
Wayne Owens
Cem Ozdemir
Can Paker
Mark Palmer
Martin Peretz
Richard Perle
Ralph Peters
Friedbert Pflueger
Daniel Pipes
Danielle Pletka
Norman Podhoretz
John Edward Porter
Florentino Portero
Barry R. McCaffrey (Gen. USA, Ret)
Samantha Ravich
Anusz Reiter
Sophie Richardson
Robert H. Scales (USA, Ret)
Peter Rodman
Alex Rondos
Jim Rosapepe
Dennis Ross
Kenneth Roth
Jacques Rupnik
Eberhard Sandschneider
Randy Scheunemann
Christian Schmidt
Gary Schmitt
William Schneider, Jr.
Charles Schumer Senator
Simon Serfaty
Stephen Sestanovich
John Shattuck
Sin-Ming Shaw
Richard H. Shultz
Radek Sikorski
Stefano Silvestri
Martin Simecka
Paul Simon
Walter Slocombe
Gary Smith
Abraham Sofaer
Henry Sokolski
Stephen J. Solarz
Helmut Sonnenfeldt
James B. Steinberg
Leonard Sussman
John J. Sweeney
William Howard Taft IV
Dick Thornburgh
Gry Titley
John Tkacik
Helga Flores Trejo
Ed Turner
Karl-Theodor von zu Guttenberg
Ivan Vejvoda
Sasha Vondra
Arthur Waldron
Cleste Wallander
Malcolm Wallop
James Webb
Ruth Wedgood
Caspar Weinberger
Kenneth Weinstein
Richard Weitz
Paul Weyrich
Leon Wieseltier
Chris Williams
Jennifer Windsor
Marshall Wittmann
R. James Woolsey
Minky Worden
Larry Wortzel
Dov Zakheim
Robert B. Zoellick

[immune]

146. I wonder

how many of the additional signatories knew exactly what they were getting us into. I wonder how many, if any of them, eventually added 2 + 2 together and regretted having put their name to that abomination.

... well, obviously not Zakheim and many others.

But how in God's name did so many shit stains who are determined to destroy millions of lives as well as the planet slip past our watchful eyes and get into positions of political power in the first place?

Oh, never mind, I must've forgotten where I was for a minute. :popcorn:

[Ghost in the Machine]

149. Francis Fukuyama (one of the 18) changed his views and denounced neoconservatism

In an essay in the New York Times Magazine in 2006 that was strongly critical of the invasion,<9> he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that neoconservatives:

believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.

He announced the end of the neocon movement and called for the demilitarization of the War on Terror:

War is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world.

He endorsed Obama in 2008:

"I’m voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don’t work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would be a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama#Fukuyama.27s_current_views

Don't forget that a U.S. Government funded study showed that Conservatism is a mental disorder:

Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve
Julian Borger in Washington The Guardian, Wednesday 13 August 2003 02.33 BST

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".

Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox

:hi:

[immune]

151. One.

That would be an interesting list to research.

Did you notice how the savage played his regular old projection game? I hear he wrote a book called "liberalism is a mental disorder". I wonder about the timing on the release of that book. Before, or after this study came out?

But we knew all along that Bush was all hat and no cattle. :eyes:

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

37. hats off for trying to deal with this child

is there anything he even remotely understands?
:rofl:

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

81. How about you

and the goofy ideas you embrace regarding 9/11?
Happy now?

[SDuderstadt]

83. "Bullies"

Oh, you poor babies! Are you being "bullied" again by questions you can not answer?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[immune]

89. Good for you!

:thumbsup: It needed to be said.

[zappaman]

91. yeah right

more likely if that is the case it is because you guys keep posting the same old long debunked nonsense over and over and over and over again.
when you guys gonna solve this?
hell, when are you gonna present one piece of evidence that collapses the whole official story.
keep chasing your tails, fellas!
:rofl:

[whatchamacallit]

92. I'll ask you the same question I ask your mentor

If you've got it all figured out, why waste your time in here? Who's a bigger loser, a 9/11 skeptic, or someone who's got all the answers but chooses to piss his life away shouting-down people in here? The answer is obvious.

[zappaman]

93. because someone needs to shoot down

your endless bullshit.
9 years and the same old debunked crap over and over and over and over and over again.
and you are right, the answer to who is the biggest loser IS obvious.
when you guys gonna solve this?

[whatchamacallit]

94. Well I guess you get the shiny tin badge Mr. Sheriff

What a pathetic joke...

[zappaman]

95. maybe you could start your own website

without a discussion forum.
then you could post your bullshit alllll day long and no one could call you on it.
www.whatchamacallitisfullofshit.com perhaps?

[whatchamacallit]

96. Listen ______

you've been given (spoon fed) a narrative and a bag of half-ass theories by a government with a vested interest in war in the middle east. The fact that, like a porn star, you gobble down every bit without hesitation, doesn't make you look smart.

[zappaman]

97. and posting debunked nonsense

makes you look smart?
:rofl:

[whatchamacallit]

98. Bullshit

A lot of "debunking" is little more than positing alternative theories. Sometimes an attempt to debunk actually does address or correct inaccuracies, but rarely does it lay the issue to rest. Of course you would know this if you weren't a mile wide and an inch deep.

[SDuderstadt]

100. Really, dude?

Why don't "truthers" have a unified theory of the events of that day that all of you can agree upon? Why is that so hard?

[zappaman]

102. you are wrong, dude

they are on the case!

[whatchamacallit]

103. You mean like your "unified theory"

the one provided by a government of corrupt oilmen and war profiteers, bent on global hegemony? Where you see absolute truth, we see holes, inaccuracies, and disinformation. I swear if the explanations were even in the ball park of being adequate to explaining what we witnessed, I'd be a believer too. Trust me, life would be a lot easier. But when I consider everything that happened that day, and all that has followed, it's impossible for me to accept the official story.

[SDuderstadt]

106. I see...

the Bush administration provided it?? They did?

Oh, wait...they didn't.

[zappaman]

101. "Of course you would know this if you weren't a mile wide and an inch deep."

oh sweetie, flattery will get you nowhere.
now stop trying to get in my pants and solve the 9/11 mystery!

[Ghost in the Machine]

171. You mean just like one of your fellow "debunkers" has?

:shrug:

Why is it that you guys never seem to hold those on your own side to the same standards as you do the "truthers"? I'm in the MIHOP camp, but at least I've stated that I think the no planers, and especially the DEW'ers and mini-nukers, are goofy and make us look bad... and I think it's a disinformation campaign designed to make the "truth movement" look bad.

One question I have heard a few times is 'why is hard to believe that there are people out there who wish to do us harm and they were responsible for this?' I can totally believe that... but why can't *you* believe that some of those very people are entrenched in our Government and they could and would do this to us?

[deconstruct911]

172. Great point. nt

[immune]

173. MIHOP here, too.

And I agree that "they" wouldn't have shot missiles into the towers and tried to convince people they were seeing planes. Thing is, you can't tell what's under the hood by kicking the tires or watching a beat up old chevy going down the road.

That said, I do believe the impacts of the planes were intended to take everyone's focus off the explosions in the sub basements and throughout the load bearing structure of the buildings.

[zappaman]

174. Really?

"I do believe the impacts of the planes were intended to take everyone's focus off the explosions in the sub basements and throughout the load bearing structure of the buildings."

That makes sense to you?
Seriously, think it through...and that makes sense to you?
I distrust the government as much as anyone. Watching Watergate on TV when I was 10 gave me a healthy "question authority" attitude.
But I have seen no evidence of MIHOP whatsoever. Give me some real evidence, not just "what ifs" and "that doesn't look rights", and I be right there with you.
However, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[immune]

88. You've been given plenty of answers,

its nobody's fault if you don't like them. You cannot disprove them. Poor baby's got nothing in his ammo belt but snark.

[zappaman]

90. lol

what answers?
disprove what exactly?
you haven't even remotely come close to raising any questions.
:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

107. I'm watching comments by "immune" to "ignored" .... may I make a suggestion ....

figure out the worth of the information you garnered from "ignored" in

this thread --

Was it worth it?

If not, try IGNORE!!

[SDuderstadt]

112. Yeah...

why not follow D&P's advice and soon, like her, you'll have almost everyone on ignore.

[immune]

118. Ah, I couldn't ignore you, dude.

I still think you're cute. Not as smart as you think, but cute.

[SDuderstadt]

122. I see you still can't answer the specific questions I posed...

dude.

If I were you, I don't think I'd be challenging anyone on their level of intelligence.

At least you've abandoned your initial pretext of having "drawn no conclusions" and only "having questions" and betrayed yourself as the full-bore "truther" you actually are, replete with a fundamental ignorance of the most basic facts of that day.

Your "several of the hijackers are still alive" line is as funny as your claim that the FBI admits there is no evidence against bin Laden or al Qaeda".

[immune]

132. Full bore?

Well, if that's the case, you can take the credit for pushing me over the edge with your caterwauling about my/our "fundamental ignorance of the most basic facts of that day", never giving us YOUR ideas of what those fundamentals are ... only haranguing everybody that we should blindly accept the government reports, commission reports, nist reports and media reports and just ignore our own lying eyes and common sense. That would make us just like you and god help me, I'd have to kill myself if I ever got that brainwashed.

[SDuderstadt]

134. Please point to where I have ever...

said that anyone should just "blindly accept" anything, dude. This is just more of your stupid strawman argument style. It's frankly comical given your uncritical parrotting of goofy CT bullshit.

And, your ignorance of that day is fundamental, as evidence by your silly "the planes were just on short hops" claim. If you expect to be taken seriously here, don't whine when you are challenged for proof of your goofy bullshit.

[immune]

137. Its all you've got dude,

don't wear it out. Even maggots occasionally have to find new places to go to for lunch.

The planes went where they were destined to go and that's the crux of the matter. Who destined them to go where they went is what most people in the truth movement want to know. Follow the money.

[SDuderstadt]

140. "the planes went where they were destined to go"

WTF are you babbling about now?

[immune]

116. Ignore?

I hear ya, and it would probably be the smart thing to do for my own peace of mind. I just can't make myself go there becaue ignorance has to be countered or it spreads. And God knows I don't have all the answers, or even many of them, I just want to fill in as many blanks as possible (or open them up) because people need to think for themselves instead of like the couple of well known robots on this forum who are trying so hard to choke us into silence.

[SDuderstadt]

119. "ignorance has to be countered"

I hereby nominate this as the unintentionally ironic post of the century. How can you counter ignorance, when you're so busy spreading it?? At any rate, you're only slightly ahead of D&P in that respect.

One of my favorites so far has been your insistence that UA 93 was bound for LA (it was SFO), while the other flights were just on short trips (all three were bound for LA).

Given your track record, you'd be lucky to "counter" an anecdote, dude.

[immune]

121. I'm still waiting to hear more about

your claim that there were no military drills going on that day involving real airplanes. The FAA Administrator clearly upset your bogus "theory". So you change the subject.

[SDuderstadt]

123. No, dude...

it was your claim that the "live-fly" exercises interfered with air defense. I challenged you to identify any live-fly exercise that did so, establish what part of the country it occurred in and upon what date and identify the exercise by name. You can't because you don't know.

Nothing Jane Garvey said supports your claim and you know full well that Garvey never attributed anything she said to "live-fly" exercises.

Why can't you answer any of the questions I posed?

Bonus question: why are all your "sources" other conspiracists"?

[immune]

124. 11 planes reported off course to the FAA Administrator

means nothing to you. I guess she's a conspiracist, too.

So tell me, where were these exercises supposedly going on, in your conspiracy theory, that the FAA and NORAD would be so concerned about? Timbuktu?

[SDuderstadt]

126. Dude...

Garvey doesn't say 11 planes were off course...she says 11 planes were REPORTED off course, which isn't the same thing as them actually BEING off course and NOWHERE does she say it had anything to do with any live-fly military exercises from that day, something you hope readers won't notice.

Again, this is YOUR claim. If you had the foggiest notion what you're talking about, you'd be able to give us the details of these exercises, instead of just mindlessly parrotting other conspiracist nonsense, dude.

[immune]

130. Go back and read slowly.

That's exactly what I said. Now, who did those reports come from? Who reports to the FAA Administrator when planes go off course?

Eleven planes reported off course, dude!! Where'd they come from? Who was flying them? Or did you think they were holograms?

But maybe if you could comprehend more than one line of a paragraph at a time, you'd get a better grasp on what the official reports actually say and what they don't say.

[SDuderstadt]

133. Dude...

Your quote-mining doesn't save you. Period. Not one of those sources attributes their comments to live-fly exercises.

This is getting stupid.

[immune]

135. So you ARE claiming

that the exercises were a nintendo game, then?

[zappaman]

136. Who claimed that?

I love how you put words into people's mouth when you can't back up ONE single claim you make.

[immune]

139. Extrapolation.

No planes, so it must've been a board or computer game. Got any other options you'd like to offer?

[SDuderstadt]

141. Stupid claim

Do you understand what a simulation is?

Again, please identify any live-fly military exercise by name you claim interfered with our defense capabilities on 9/11 and explain precisely how it interfered.

[SDuderstadt]

138. Dude...

it's YOUR claim. Quit demanding I disprove it. You're simply trying to shift the burden of proof.

Here's a hint: If there were live-fly exercises on 9/11 that actually interfered with our defense capabilities, you should be easily able to name the exercise and explain how it interfered. The fact that you can't is just more evidence of your uncritical parrotting of goofy CT bullshit.

Simple question: do you believe if you see something in print, it must be true? If so, that's called "false certainty".

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

144. I see you're following your rule book...

thanks for the confession.

[mrarundale]

99. A number of budget analysts and accountants were killed

in the Pentagon explosions as well as intelligence people. Kind of reminds me of how the SEC investigation information was "lost" in wtc7.

[defendandprotect]

104. Weren't all the records kept in the wing of the Pentagon being restored ... and

allegedly the subject of a plane crash?

Think the $2.3 trillion figure went up to $3.4 trillion --- false flag operations and

black jobs are expensive these days!!

[mrarundale]

105. I'm not sure I understand

records about a plane crash? that's a new one to me...can you give more info? Yeah, black ops, but probably just a lot into people's pockets.....I really do think most military guys are ok, but that particular administration was rotten. If you trace what some of them are doing now they have moved into the private sector and they are making money from the policies they created while at the Pentagon, I think that is the only reason some of them do it ...

[defendandprotect]

108. Seriously .... ? The Pentagon's accounting records were in the WING being renovated which was

destroyed --

isn't that where you would have kept them?

Coincidentally, SEC records -- Enron, etal -- were at the WTC tower #7 -- !!

[mrarundale]

109. Your first statement does not make sense to me

"Weren't all the records kept in the wing of the Pentagon being restored ... and
allegedly the subject of a plane crash?"

so I was asking for clarification. It sounds like you are saying there were records of a plane crash and I had not heard that. Also I DID say the SEC records were in wtc7!! Go read again! I have known about that for years!

[defendandprotect]

147. No -- you do recall that "allegedly" a plane crashed into the new wing????

Think we both agree, someone was anxious to get rid of records!!

:)

[mrarundale]

158. Yes although it's shocking records were not backed up

Same within the wtc7. Remember the Y2K scare dominating news? As I recall Wall Street had a remote location somewhere to continue their gambling operat....I mean, "trading". Sorry, I thought you meant they were hiding records of a previous plane crash...Since I don't think a plane crashed into the Pentagon, I wasn't sure what you were referencing...

[defendandprotect]

159. Thanks for the laugh about the "gambling/trading" ....!!!

But, what you're saying here about duplicate records reminds me of something I always

intend to post here and have never gotten around to --

If you recall the Nixon tape with the 18 minute gap . . . ?

Evidently, the Secret Service which was in charge of maintaining the recording of the

tapes and the tapes themselves, always made duplicates of them!!! :evilgrin:

Agree with you -- "no plane hit Pentagon" --

See you joined last June -- where have you been?

Do you like the 9/11 forum?

:)

[mrarundale]

162. I would like it if

posters could have a real discussion without the back n forth ad hominem stuff. (which I tend to have a hard time not getting pulled into, especially with easy targets) I have no problem with posters who believe the official story (well....) if they have SOME sort of intellect fact based arguments, other than "Are you crazy??" or the face with the eyes going round and round... I used to read here before and there were a couple of OCTS who at least knew what they were talking about...

Also, I hate the way anything that is "non mainstream" (corporate media) gets funneled into this forum, it feels like a psychological operation which causes people to categorize events as "real" or "kookville" when the opposite is often true.

[zappaman]

163. Oh please

Coming from a "no planer" as yourself, your post is most ridiculous.

[immune]

150. Sorry, I missed this post before.

FROM THE COINCIDENCE FILE:
The day after US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld announced that the military had lost $2.3 trillion, the accountants responsible for tracking the money were killed when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

“One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack,” reported The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Dec. 20, 2001. “Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck.”

In total, 184 people--including those onboard the hijacked airplane and inside the building--died as a result of the attack on the Pentagon.

© Copyright 2010 by Ken Boyte
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5029923-pentagon-accountants-killed-in-911-attacks-day-after-rumsfeld-announces-23-trillion-missing

Witnesses, computer data and paper trails. Oh, and don't forget the money. Poof. Well, I guess there's 31 potential witnesses still out there somewhere.

[SDuderstadt]

152. Dude...

Think this through. If you were trying to cover something up so desperately that you would plot to have 34 people killed to keep them from blowing your plot, why would you essentially announce your "crime" the day before???

[immune]

153. Rummy didn't announce "his" crime,

but he certainly managed to distance himself from "the" alleged crime. At least that how it works in some folks minds.

[SDuderstadt]

154. Why would he announce it all?

Does that sound like something you'd do to keep something from coming to light? Hint: Rumsfeld was talking about problems with the Pentagon's accounting systems.

[immune]

156. What would it look like

if someone spilled those beans AFTER 911?

And who WAS in charge of the pentagon's spending? Same guy who was a top dog at System Planning Corp., which coincidentally specializes in remote airplane control technology.

SPC provides flight-termination systems and command-transmitter systems -- exactly the kind of technologies that would allow planes to be taken over and flown by remote control should the pilots be incapacitated or the plane hijacked.

But then, you already knew that.

[SDuderstadt]

157. Dude...

wtf are you babbling about now?

[zappaman]

155. "At least that how it works in some folks minds."

No kidding!
:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

161. There's still very interesting YouTube video on that ... Rumsfeld Q'd by Rep. Cynthia McKinney!!!

[defendandprotect]

160. Thank you for that -- I'll add it to my files .....

And we should be mindful not only of the missing records but now deceased employees/

accountants who would have had info about the case.

Wow --

Notice also the conversation I'm having with "mrarundel"/? about why no DUPLICATES OF

RECORDS?


here ... my reply ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=298398&mesg_id=298664

[mrarundale]

110. Interesting WaPost article on the Pentagon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2845-2002Jan18

[immune]

127. Wow!

Brings it home.

[SDuderstadt]

128. How, specifically, does it...

bring "it home", dude?

[immune]

131. Oh, the humanity, dude.

Oh wait ... never mind.

[SDuderstadt]

142. In other words...

you can't explain that, either.

[mrarundale]

148. Isn't it kind of weird that an "above top secret" organization

-CNO-IP - (which was directly hit by whatever) at the Pentagon did not even have "al Qaeda" on their scope prior to the USS Cole "terrorist" bombing in 2000? It's almost like the term came out of nowhere. It would be interesting to find it's first usage (and yeah, I know the story about the Mujahadeen and CIA, but I mean the first actual usage of the words "Al Qaeda")

Also, what's up with Darin's cell phone calling his mom at 1:57? Oh, never mind, the FBI said it was an "anomaly".

[SDuderstadt]

164. By "silence" are you referring to...

the absolute lack of concrete evidence that "9/11 was an inside job"?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

165. but the money is still missing

[SDuderstadt]

166. Jesus...

it isn't "missing".

[Rosa Luxemburg]

167. yes it is

[SDuderstadt]

168. No, it's not....

if it was, there would be an investigation and there would be prosecutions. $2.3T was more then the entire federal budget in 2001. This is why I disdain conspiracists so much.

[immune]

169. So ...

Are you calling the Sec Def a liar?
Are you saying the Sec Def wouldn't know what the balance should be?
Are you saying he was just being an attention whore by making that announcement?
Are you saying you have a better idea of what the books should have shown?

What exactly are you saying?

[SDuderstadt]

170. Rumsfeld didn't say the money was "missing"

dude.

Read his remarks again for comprehension, dude.