Revisiting Rumsfeld’s "Missing" Trillions

you guys have such a strong desire to be right and to "prove" your grandiose paranoid theories that you will willingly give in, lay back, and let the ignorance take over.

Well put. However that is nothing-I got the summary yesterday of-if you can believe it-of another book by Griffin. In this one he blames everything on President Obama right down to the fact he was in lower Manhattan that morning.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

WE KNOW WHERE IT WENT!!!!

YOU ASSUME YOU KNOW WHERE IT WENT!!!

So we know that the money went into to the pentagon, we know it must have been used to buy tanks, pay the troops, get a few generals some hookers and pay for some dogy black ops because the US military was still running all those years.

How do you know for a fact that is what it was spent on?

A real seeker of truth, a "truther" if you like, would acknowledge and accept that this whole $2.3Tn stuff has nothing to do with 9/11 but everything to do with bad accounting practices at the pentagon.

So we are to just shut our mouths and accept massive incompetence by the US government...................................................................................
But then again that is a very common theme when it comes to 911 so I guess you do really think that.

How about this coin, find me something that states that ANY of the 2.3T they found was ever used to upgrade the computer systems that so obviously needed an upgrade.

The claim that $2.3 trillion was missing is misleading. It is true that Rumsfeld was saying there were $2.3 trillion worth of transactions that they couldn't track due to over 700 different outdated IT systems.
However, you are taking their word for it that they know what it was spent on. Something seems off about the fact that whatever hit the pentagon just happened to hit the section involved in this matter the next day. For all of the people who believe the government and others were involved in 9/11, for whatever reasons, then this becomes much more significant and too coincidental not to find it supicious. The natural conclusion, if assuming this particular area was chosen to be destroyed by the people who run it, and by the same people who tried to look transparent the day before... The natural conclusion is that it is connected and likely a cover up. If you don't believe 9/11 was carried out by the US and others, than this matter would carry far less weight and not seem quite as coincidental.
It seems strange to me that they could not track this $2.3 trillion in transactions, but after the destruction at the Pentagon, where many of the systems must have been destroyed, they were then able to magically account for most of it in only 6 months? Can't we assume that they could have accounted for it faster if the attacks had not occured? Maybe in only 4 or 5 months? You would think that the particular section of the pentagon being destroyed would have left them unable to ever track those funds. They did it extremely fast and we can assume it would have been done faster if the attacks didn't occur. So if they had people working on accounting for the transactions, and they didn't expect any interruptions (like the department being destroyed), why would Rumsfeld even make the announcement, or why not mention that they have people working on it and they should have results in a few months?
It doesn't seem to add up. I don't believe a word that comes out of that man's mouth, so that factors in to the suspicion that something was not quite right here.
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

a reply to: Snaylor

To keep things in perspective, one must realize that the accounting irregularities were showing up before Bush was elected. That, because Congress was aware of it and doing something about it, and everybody knows it takes Congress at least months to do anything about anything.

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney chaired the committee investigating the missing funds, and conducted some hearings, deposing Rumsfeld and a female assistant on the day before the attacks. I watched it on CSPAN. It's probably no longer available for public view, but it showed how Rumsfeld stonewalled the investigation. He knew that in less than 24 hours, it would all be rather moot.

a reply to: Salander

And how did it make it a moot point? Are you saying it stopped all tracking of the money? There was no requirement to have backup files on a disaster proof off site location.

If all the accounting files were destroyed at the Pentagon, then why not all the video footage of the Pentagon on 911.......

a reply to: Salander

In fact. Anyone doing business with the Pentagon would have their own records of purchase orders and sales slips. The more I think about it, large portions of the Pentagon's budget is through contracts. Yes, we will buy one hundred tanks for x amount of dollars. It's not like the Pentagon gets 300 billion in their pocket to take a trip to weapons R us.......

It's like there is a reason the Pentagon just doesn't a cash lump sum for its yearly budget. Wonder why?

Don't forget to add the 6 trillion that is presently missing as well.

One of my son's has a small dog named Mr. Leaker, and he provided the following.... ( he's a good source !!)

The time line of of the precious metal removal was so screwed..... ( How insane was it ??)

The last armored car leaving became high-centered on falling debris and had to be unload in the middle of the street
during all the chaos. The cargo was loaded into civilian vehicles in plain sight and not single person was curious.

There is no missing trillions
There are no black triangles
There are no chem trails
At this point, I believe a picture with connecting dots , will be misinterpreted.
I'm ready to pull out what little hair I have left.

Buck

a reply to: flatbush71

Who's previous metal from who's budget?

Why would 911 hide the fact gold went missing?

Was the attack going to make the gold and silver unsalvageable and make it wink out of existence?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

In fact. Anyone doing business with the Pentagon would have their own records of purchase orders and sales slips. The more I think about it, large portions of the Pentagon's budget is through contracts. Yes, we will buy one hundred tanks for x amount of dollars. It's not like the Pentagon gets 300 billion in their pocket to take a trip to weapons R us.......

It's like there is a reason the Pentagon just doesn't a cash lump sum for its yearly budget. Wonder why?

Watch the movie WAR DOGS that has just come out 12 Billion in cash in a hanger

Lets not forget that 2.3 trillion was the sum total of DOD funds for the previous 8 years.
So if you believe it was stolen how did they pay the troops ?
Also what bank or banks are storing 2.3 trillion and the IT guys are clueless ?

a reply to: stonerwilliam

Not wasting time with propaganda. You need to argue with facts and logic.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: stonerwilliam

Not wasting time with propaganda. You need to argue with facts and logic.

www.nytimes.com...


Over the next year and a half, $12 billion to $14 billion was sent to Iraq in the airlift, and an additional $5 billion was sent by electronic transfer. Exactly what happened to that money after it arrived in Baghdad became one of the many unanswered questions from the chaotic days of the American occupation, when billions were flowing into the country from the United States and corruption was rampant.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

What does that have to do with 2 billion alleged Pentagon corruption.

Well, they are on to us. Better take out the Pentagon even though files are backed up off site, all the transactions are by contracts and recorded with purchase orders, and even embezzle more cash. Oh, wait, we don't get cash. We get budgets that purchase orders are applied too.

a reply to: neutronflux


www.wanttoknow.info...


A critical mass of brokers from the major governmen
t security
brokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated
to create chaos in the government securities market
. A
situation needed to be created wherein $240 billion
dollars of covert securities could be electronical
ly “cleared”
without anyone asking questions- which happened whe
n the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and inv
oked its
“emergency powers.” that very afternoon.
4
The ongoing Federal investigations into the crimes
funded by those
securities needed to be ended or disrupted by destr
oying evidence in Buildings 6, 7 and 1.
5
Finally, one has to
understand and demonstrate the inconceivable: that
$240 billion in covert, and possibly illegal govern
ment funding
could have been and were created in September of 19
91. Filling in the last piece of the puzzle require
s
understanding 50 years of history of key financial
organizations in the United States, understanding h
ow U.S.
Intelligence became a key source of their off-balan
ce sheet accounts, and why this was sanctioned by e
very
President since Truman.
6
With that, a pattern of motivation is defined whi
ch allows government leaders and
intelligence operatives to ‘rationalize’ a decision
to cause the death of 3000

a reply to: neutronflux

You have no idea how budgets, purchase requisitions, purchase approvals, purchase orders, and applying purchase orders and contracts against a budget controlled by accountants with no cash in hand works! Do you? Systems design to keep people's hands off cash to prevent theft.

To make your case, you better reveal how cash was removed from controlled budgets that are applied only to contracts and purchase orders.


If the Pentagon records were destroyed, how do you know anything incriminating.......

I will put it thus way. A person goes rogue with a DOD credit card for ten years. Charges up 2 trillion of unauthorized purchases. There is a record sent to the accounting department with a group of people that reconcile DOD credit charges each month. The money is missing because there are 2 trillion dollars of purchase not authorized. They still have a record of the transaction. The DOD side, the credit card company, and the place of business.

Then the books usually get audited ever quarter.

Big difference in stolen money vs, incorrect paper work, didn't get authorized, companies not charging the right amount, projects not coming in as scheduled or as budgeted.

a reply to: neutronflux

Weapons R' Us is pretty much the slogan of the Pentagon and its associated companies and former employees.

You can rationalize it any way you would like, but there were funds missing that accountants working for Congress and GAO could not find.

Watching Rummy and his helper on CSPAN being questioned by Cynthia McKinney, one cannot help but see the stonewalling going on, and its associated smirk.

I have no clue where the money went in detail, but it is highly likely that at least part of it went into somebody's pocket.

Only slightly related, Philip Van Buren describes pretty well how US tax dollars were pissed away in his year with the State Department in Iraq. It's not rocket science.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: stonerwilliam

Not wasting time with propaganda. You need to argue with facts and logic.

It seems you are the one resistant to facts and logic. You are the one with selective amnesia.

The pentagon is the tail wagging the dog for us taxpayers.

a reply to: Salander

Again, tell me how cash was leveraged from budgets which access is gained through contracts and purchase orders, guarded by procedure and army of accountants, and audited by third parties.

How was taking out the Pentagon going to get rid of the records of contracts, purchase orders, and supplier side records.


Face it, faith in your narrative depends on lack of understanding on accounting, the false belief the Pentagon gets cash, and lack of common sense.

a reply to: neutronflux

Please, bring me up to speed. If what you say is true then surely the audit would have continued, eventually reaching a conclusion as to where the funds ended up.

Could you link me to that story please?