It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Bombshell: Methodical Deception -- Rebekah Roth

page: 22
135
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport



If you have read my post relating to the Pentagon finances you will note that I refer to it also as unaccountable and I make reference to the terrible state of the Pentagons' financial system. I didn't say it had disappeared or had been spirited away I'm intelligent enough to be able to differentiate and quite capable of reading reports that clearly mark numerous amounts year in year out as unaccountable. Missing is a word that has been used however and I suppose until all receipts and records come to light missing is as good a word as any


The Pentagon does not keep all of its eggs in the same basket and if my bank burned down today, I will guarantee that will not erase my car loan.

Now, let's take a look at the rest of the story.



Rumsfeld, 9/11 and the $2.3 Trillion

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.

www.911myths.com...

edit on 14-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree quite ludicrous really considering just how much financial control they have. It seems that the system they were using was extremely antiquated and the left hand didn't know what the right was doing most of the time. I note that in early 2015 it was mentioned that it was like over 25% of the Pentagons budget was unaccountable...not good



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

They went back to 1996 and found a lot more money that had fallen into holes in the computer systems. Nothing nefarious, just unchecked bureaucracy run rampant. It's one of the things I tend to yell about.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yup I've read about it...been going on years with a shoddy system

Still doesn't explain why on earth Rumsfeld felt compelled to announce it the day before 9/11 when it was already public knowledge...it wasn't as if the Pentagon was trying to hide the discrepancies in the first place so makes no sense...well not to me anyway...and further I've since discovered that such an announcement was most out of character for any Government to make



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

He was giving a speech about the need to streamline and fix the nightmarish systems of the Pentagon just before the start of a new fiscal year and announcing plans to do just that. Nothing sinister about it.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Because that was when people really started to realize how boated the bureaucracy had become. As cardinalfan said, he was giving an address about it and how it needed fixing.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Great video. on to the longer interview now. I'm way behind. LOL

That's a lot to think about.

Keep in mind that Haliburton made nearly 40 billion dollars off of the IRAQ war. At least. That really benefits cheney and bush. Motive becomes clearer. Follow the money.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

So, who do you blame when Clinton was giving Halliburton contracts worth billions in the 90s?



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I've read Roth's "Methodical Deception" and found it an aggregation of ideas and observations that have been out on the web for over a decade. She blends them with a semi-autobiographical story which makes the ugly truth of 911 go down well with ordinary folk (mostly main stream republicans I suspect) who would be upset if someone called them a "truther".

That "Deception" has been a great commercial success was an amazement to me because I found it shamelessly derivative and then Roth never gives any of the fearless and socially battered researchers any credit for their brilliant and perhaps even dangerous work - allowing some to believe that she is a super sleuth with an inside track on the whole 911 conspiracy. I was told by someone on another blog that "...911 has already been solved, Roth is just making it acceptable to mainstream audiences." Maybe so.

I am nobody, and really don't know anything about 911 but as I was looking at the boxes behind the man with the pink shirt in "rappelling gear" and the "Gelatin" art students in her smoking gun video above, I "googled" "BB18 Little Fuse Company" looking for an explosive manufacturer like Roth claims and found this: www.littelfuse.com...

LittleFuse appears to be a legitimate electrical component manufacturer - but then again, who am I?

My message here is that anyone reading anything by Ms. Roth ought to check her sources before their friends label them a "truther" or something equally repugnant. Cheers!



edit on 14-9-2015 by catbird because: mistake and misspelling



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
While I feel it's been sufficiently substantiated that the photos do depict the art group in question (unless their own official website and more than one news article are all in collusion to deceive for an unknowable reason,) and that the boxes do say BB18, and that they were indeed in the WTC, I still would like to repeat my last remaining questions from earlier because the topic has strayed in a lot of directions since then and I have yet to see an answer.

1) Are we quite certain the DEA report is real, and if so, how? And ...
2) How do we know these particular individuals in this particular art group were linked to the purported Mossad agents in said DEA report?

Those are the last two questions I have, in an effort to play the devil's advocate, that don't make me fully commit to saying, "Okay, this is damned peculiar and suspicious." Though their sketches are already incredibly creepy, at least in retrospect, the possibility of coincidence cannot be dismissed. However improbable I might consider it.

So answering those questions in a provable, documentable way, would seal the deal for me that, at the very least, this is all extremely strange and suspicious.

Anyone?

Peace.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: amazing

So, who do you blame when Clinton was giving Halliburton contracts worth billions in the 90s?


That's kind of confusing the issue. But look who was president before Clinton and who had already lined up his family and his connections for lucrative contracts. Cheney's old family friend and George W's Dad.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Apparently did not get the message from Gubmint Shill HQ

All work was carried out at super sekrit location AREA 69......



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue



Apparently did not get the message from Gubmint Shill HQ

All work was carried out at super sekrit location AREA 69......


That won't work because only a certain number of B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft were built and all are accounted for. In addition, there was no way to switched such aircraft and not get caught.

Then, you have the problem of filing a flight plan to get the aircraft from point 'A' to point 'B' in colors and tail numbers of airliners already in service, which ATC computers will no doubt, sound the alarm bells. Using bogus tail numbers will also sound the alarms.

As I have mentioned before, acquiring and modifying such aircraft will leave paper trails that can easily be tracked back to the original source.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

As stated the money is not "missing" - just that the accountants could not track all the expenditures

Rather like asking you to account for every dollar you spend

Problem was the Pentagon had some 40 different accounting systems - each with different and incompatible data formats
making tracking very difficult



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You really have absolutely no proof that there were/they were 19 "terrorists" either, and not, say, patsies or operatives, do you? Just someone's word for it.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Darn you OP and everyone that has posted in this thread! LOL

Wow! What a rabbit hole!

I even learned about Barry Jennings!

So much is just not right. I have to walk away or I won't get any work done today.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
You know guys, I was only in 6th grade when 9/11 went down...and it had a profound effect on my psyche, my sense of patriotism, and a bundle of other aspects of my life. I knew a few people, including family, who were in the city that day to witness the horrors that occurred. I, being so young, initially believed the official story. Only when my father began chiming in about certain things not adding up for him did I begin to dive headfirst into the available information pertaining to what appears to be a significant coverup.
As far as this video goes,I will have to do my usual reference checks and such before I can consign. However, my initial feeling is that what is being put fourth in these videos is more than likely factual, and it's another notch in the 9/11 false flag belt. I for one truly believe that the official story is just complete garbage, especially from the scientific/physics standpoint.
No matter who did it, how it was done or why, we need to confidently hold those responsible for it accountable, and punish those bastards. May they ROT for this and SUFFER in the most vile ways imaginable...
edit on 14-9-2015 by s1ngular1ty because: I type too fast for my own good, man.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Okay so I have partially answered one of my two questions.

According to wayback machine and cryptome, the original source for the DEA report in question was one John Sugg, senior editor of an Atlanta based publication of Creative Loafing, the latter being headquartered in Tampa.

Source

Their official website - or the archive thereof - ( Source ) states that they are an alternative news publication first established in 1972.

They apparently broke the story, and then provided it to antiwar.org, which seems to be the most well publicized source.

The original Creative Loafing piece can be read here ( Source ) and reads in part:



One document obtained by CL -- from sources with years of close cooperation with both U.S. and Israeli intelligence services - is a March 4 letter from Robert Diegelman, an assistant attorney general. In it, he commands that with sensitive Justice Department communications, "Foreign Nationals shall not be allowed to access or assist in the development, operation, management or maintenance of the equipment." CL sources say this move results directly from the disclosures about the Israeli spy network.

A Dec. 18 e-mail among DEA communications employees makes clear that the agency underwent self-scrutiny as the "result of the Fox network expose on Israeli counterintelligence activities."

CL also has verified with more than a half-dozen DEA agents specific parts of the 60-page document - DEA Washington spokesmen won't confirm or deny the authenticity of the report despite their own agents' confirmation.

Jack Wall, DEA's supervisor in Montgomery, Ala., said the portions of the document pertaining to his office were "definitely" accurate. Other agents didn't want to be named.


So now the question becomes: how credible is this individual, and Creative Loafing in general? We only have that to go on, as this original sources cites their sources as being "sources." Commonplace enough among journalists who must protect said sources, of course. However, that being the case, credibility becomes paramount.

Does anyone have any insight into or knowledge regarding this individual and Creative Loafing in general? It seems like much hinges upon this.

Peace.

EDIT: Links working now.

edit on 9/14/2015 by AceWombat04 because: link format fix



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

If you'd read all the posts you would see that this has already been discussed to death but thanks for your input



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: s1ngular1ty

Do you not now think that those emotions are exactly what "they" were relying on? Emotion and patriotism? Everything that happened from that date and continuing now has been an emotionally driven rallying cry to justify assisting Israel in removing their enemies and threats.

In my humble opinion



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join