Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-23-2010, 06:10 PM
 
46,964 posts, read 26,011,859 times
Reputation: 29454

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Did you see the molten steel pouring out of the buildings?
How would you identify a molten substance as steel by sight?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-23-2010, 06:13 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,328,875 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
How would you identify a molten substance as steel by sight?

By deductive reasoning: It wasn't carpet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 06:23 PM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,708,969 times
Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
How would you identify a molten substance as steel by sight?
Its color. If it is shine silver looking it is (Maybe Aluminum), zinc, tin, lead etc. If it is yellow it can be those plus some other medium melting point alloys. If it is white hot it can be iron. But looking at video you get false colors. So all bets are off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 07:17 PM
 
15,096 posts, read 8,641,275 times
Reputation: 7444
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
What has always enabled me to brush aside the "inside job" conspiracy theories was the targets involved:

1) A building full of Republicans during a Republican administration, which almost tanked the stock market and threw the economy off the rails, and,

2) the Pentagon.


I mean, really, much easier, and much more symbolic targets could have been hit that would not have threatened to derail the economy. Because economic motives, right? That's why they did it?
You seem to be unaware of some pertinent facts. Go back and check a few things ... no I'm not providing links .. you all have computers too and you can do the same thing I would have to do ... I already know this ... you do your homework. Her's a couple of things

On September 10th, Donald Rumsfeld stated in a press conference that the Pentagon audit came up with a missing 2.3 Trillion dollars .... that's not Billion ... TRILLION. The next day, that was forgotten ... and I'm not sure if any pertinent data regarding that audit was lost in the attack.

Building 7 in NY housed a number of US Law Enforcement agencies, and I know there were a few BIG DOLLAR cases still under investigation and or prosecution, Enron, Word Com, etc. involving Trillions.

That's just a couple of issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 07:51 PM
 
15,096 posts, read 8,641,275 times
Reputation: 7444
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me - you still haven't responded to this post.

I'd really like to see your response to the second half of that post. You danced around and deflected the first time you replied. Ergo has been playing stupid(er) with regard to this issue, and since it was you I was questioning in the first place, I'd really like to see your reply.

Thanks.
It's EXACTLY the issue. Don't deflect or divert - if you're going to use one subset of this group to support your position, you have to explain why the rest are wrong.

Is this what you are referring to? If so, I haven't deflected anything. I think I've been very clear as to why I believe what I believe ... are you that f'ing confused? I believe the evidence, not the people, and I've taken considerable time to lay out that evidence, including my rationale for why I do not accept the official story ... contrary to many others who just hurl insults without a shred of substance. I don't allow anyone else to tell me what to think, and I consider (unlike many others) the motives and the information presented on both sides of the argument, amongst those who claim to be experts and authorities on such matters. OK I don't just accept one side because I like what they say (as you insinuated). Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't like the conclusion, but my liking it or disliking it doesn't change the situation.

I find it difficult to take the word of a a bunch of insiders being paid by the government as undisputed truth, when they are caught lying and obfuscating, especially when what they say doesn't make sense. Then I compare that to hundreds of others, many of whom have paid a high price personally for speaking out, and I ask myself, who is credible and who is not. Which explanation makes sense, and which does not.

But just in case you are still confused, let me make clear the bottom line. The official story has it that 19 Arab terrorists with box cutters, directed by an ex CIA operative hiding in a cave in Afghanistan were able to defeat the most sophisticated air defense apparatus in the world for over two hours, striking 3 out of 4 of their intended targets, leveling three hi-rise buildings in NY, strike the most heavily defended building on planet earth (Pentagon) in the most heavily defended city on planet earth (Washington DC) and we have yet to see one clear photo of the Jumbo Jet that hit the most heavily surveilled building on planet earth.

That is a tall story even without the 200 unanswered questions, stone walling, and outright fabrications. But with them, makes the official story a fairytale even a child could see through.

Are we now clear?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,496,494 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
On September 10th, Donald Rumsfeld stated in a press conference that the Pentagon audit came up with a missing 2.3 Trillion dollars .... that's not Billion ... TRILLION. The next day, that was forgotten ... and I'm not sure if any pertinent data regarding that audit was lost in the attack.
so you are saying bill clinton was involved???? because the unaccounted money was from fiscal year 1999




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 for FY99.

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.




Quote:
The next day, that was forgotten ... and I'm not sure if any pertinent data regarding that audit was lost in the attack.
nope not forgotten

CBS Reports Pentagon
Cannot Account for $2.3 Trillion

"'According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,' Rumsfeld admitted. $2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America."
-- CBS, 1/29/02
--------------

here is the actual speech

The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems...

In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.

Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on...

Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business...

The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking.

They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill -- a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.

That's wrong. It's wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts.

Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today's world demands.

Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military....

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.

We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us....
[plenty more here, please go read the whole thing]
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html (broken link)

-------
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.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2002/n04032002_200204033.html (broken link)

-----
by feb 02 two/thirds had been accounted for:


Zakheim 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.

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.

"We're getting it down and we are redesigning our systems so we'll go down from 600-odd systems to maybe 50," he explained.

"That way, we will give people not so much more money, but a comfort factor, to be sure that every last taxpayer penny is accounted for," he concluded.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/n02202002_200202201.html (broken link)

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

apparently you would rather only look for what you WANT to see, than to look for the truth,,,otherwise you would have researched that garbage you spew
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 10:20 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 103,224,262 times
Reputation: 29983
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
Checkmate
You know, you can't really checkmate one who doesn't even have the intellectual wherewithal to find his way to a chess table.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 10:39 PM
 
46,964 posts, read 26,011,859 times
Reputation: 29454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
By deductive reasoning: It wasn't carpet.
That's a funny definition of "identify by sight".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 10:43 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,328,875 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
You know, you can't really checkmate one who doesn't even have the intellectual wherewithal to find his way to a chess table.
Oh, tag team - sounds like fun.

Now, where did I leave the flyswatter!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 10:46 PM
 
15,096 posts, read 8,641,275 times
Reputation: 7444
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
so you are saying bill clinton was involved???? because the unaccounted money was from fiscal year 1999
Who was president in 1993? Slick Willie? Yeah, well there was the 1993 WTC Bombing. As I recall, the idiot driver didn't park the truck next to one of the support columns as he was instructed, so the the damage was greatly contained, otherwise it could have been a much greater disaster, and way more loss of life. And it was an FBI operation. They ran the op, cooked the bomb and let it happen!! Their inside guy, being familiar with black ops type of operations smartly decided to record his conversations with his FBI handlers, and he got real suspicious when they provided real bomb material instead of fake. He argued with them, but they insisted. So there you have it. To this day the FBI still refuses to acknowledge their role, but the tapes and the testimony of their operative paints a clear picture. But OH NOOOO, the government wouldn't blow up the WTC, would they?

I think Slick Willie was also president in 1995, and the OKC bombing. Of course that was done by Timothy Mcveigh, and a fertilizer bomb in a truck outside the building. Blew 1/3 of the building off ... only strange that the building blew outward instead of inward. And, then there were two other devices found inside the building, both larger than the first. Of course, we heard very little about those two bombs, but they quickly traced McVeigh down (some think too quickly to be believable). Of course there is almost as much mystery and intrigue with OKC as there is with 911. Two people were murdered, one of the an OKC police officer, first on the scene. And then there was a witness inside who took some photos that the FBI didn't want to reach the public. Agents who worked in the building took off the day of the bombing. There are also ties to islamists, read:

FBI Caused Special Sufferings in the OKC Bombing Case - September 2, 2002

And the three bombs? Apparently, the plan was to bring down the entire building, but two of the bombs inside didn't go off.


YouTube - Oklahoma City Bombing RARE footage

Now it's important to note that the Anti-Terror bill that had been stuck dying a slow death in congress was quickly passed after OKC. Where have we heard this scenario before? Oh, was it the Patriot Act after 911?

Well yes it was. The complex, detailed 340 page Patriot Act was submitted to congress 13 days after the 911 attacks. Hmmmm ... with all of the other things going on, who had the time to fashion a 340 page document that eviscerated the Bill of Rights? Mor than 10 pages a day, drafted, reviewed, and submitted? I don't think so. This legislation was prepared way ahead of 911, and ready to go.

The law was submitted to Congress by the Bush Administration on September 24th. Two of the Senators who attempted to slow passage of the bill, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, just happened to be the recipients of those letters containing weaponized anthrax delivered to their offices on October 9. It was also reported that the Bush administration officials had already taken a course of Cipro just prior to this event, the common antibiotic used to treat anthrax. Maybe just a coincidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
apparently you would rather only look for what you WANT to see, than to look for the truth,,,otherwise you would have researched that garbage you spew
And apparently you're as blind as a headless bat, and about as capable of thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:50 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top