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.

 

Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: hellobruce


So silent explosives, that have no blast effects?


Thank you for your response.

However I never made any such claims to silent explosions. I believe the blast were very well controlled.

I am certain the people behind rigging up WTC 7 did not want the collapse to look like a traditional demolition. That would have sparked outrage immanently. No, they wanted it to look like a normal collapse, however when one is examining the News video, it does not look like a natural collapse.


What does a "normal collapse" of a large office building look like, Informer? How would you know if a collapse wasn't "normal?"




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   


It was never missing. Rumsfeld's statement has been taken out of context to make it seem like the money was missing. It wasn't, and therefore cannot be "accounted" for. His statement was in regards to tracking certain transactions with the current technology they have, not that the money is missing.






TextYou think that they kept paper records of transactions for military purchases? Really? And that the Navy was doing the audit? The Office of the Inspector General does any auditing and they are from all branches of the service, not just from one.




Both correct, this missing money is a non story...



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Drawsoho

First off, the fact that they couldn't account for the money was known over a year prior to his announcement. They haven't accounted for all of it, but they had it down to $700B or so that was still unaccounted for. And yes, they had the receipts, and records. They're not paper records, contrary to what you may believe, they're all computerized.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Drawsoho


In the current environment, DoD has a serious credibility problem in financial management. On January 11, 2001, in the confirmation hearing of the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), Senator Byrd questioned the Defense Department’s inability “to receive a clean audit opinion in its financial statements”. He went on to say, “I seriously question an increase in the Pentagon’s budget in the face of the department’s recent (inspector general) report. How can we seriously consider a $50 billion increase in the Defense Department’s budget when the (Department of Defense’s) own auditors–when DoD’s own auditors–say the department cannot account for $2.3 trillion in transactions…”

In subsequent Senate testimony of February 13, 2001, Senator Grassley referenced these questions and continued, “…these reports show that DoD has lost control of the money at the transaction level. With no control at the transaction level, it is physically impossible to roll up the numbers into a top-line financial statement that can stand up to scrutiny and, most importantly, audit.”

While DoD may debate some of the criticisms of its financial statements and the size and components of the $2.3 trillion issue, we think that corrective action requires radical financial management transformation. For the FY 1999 financial statements, the auditors concluded that $2.3 trillion transactions of the $7.6 trillion entries to the financial statements were “unsupported”. DoD notes that many of these entries included end-of- period estimates for such items as military pension actuarial liabilities and contingent liabilities, and manual entries for such items as contract accounts payable and property and equipment values. DoD would further note that the “unsupported” entries are “not necessarily improper” and that documentation does exist in many cases, albeit, not adequate for the auditing standards imposed.


archive.defense.gov...



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Melted steel was found by firefighters in the basement of the WTC1
and WTC2.


How about some proof of this "melted steel"


Once the 'jet' hit the revonovated, hardened and almost empty
pentagon, the Naval auditors and records were 100% destroyed.


Source for that claim?



Where was the wreckage in the Penssylvania crash? No plane parts were found.


Except for these you mean.... www.tinyurl.com...


edit on 3-1-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb




Tishman Realty & Construction, which had been planning work on the building prior to the attacks, did a quick assessment of the building in the days after the attack. William F. Collins AIA Architects was the lead architectural firm working on the restoration, while Tishman Interiors managed the project. Restoration of the building took three years, at a cost of $1.4 billion


3 years, 1.4 billion in restoration

Yea looks like suffered lot of damage

www.pinterest.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Drawsoho

Then how did they have the FDR and CVR data from Flight 93 and Flight 77? The wreckage from Flight 93 is currently stored in Iron Mountain, and may eventually end up in a museum somewhere.

911blogger.com...
projectavalon.net...


As for the $2.3T, wrong, yet again.

From 2002:

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.

archive.defense.gov...



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: wildb




Tishman Realty & Construction, which had been planning work on the building prior to the attacks, did a quick assessment of the building in the days after the attack. William F. Collins AIA Architects was the lead architectural firm working on the restoration, while Tishman Interiors managed the project. Restoration of the building took three years, at a cost of $1.4 billion


3 years, 1.4 billion in restoration

Yea looks like suffered lot of damage

www.pinterest.com...


on the wtc 7 side, I worked in the building at the one year point, your other photo was of wtc 3.. see here on the tower side.






edit on 1/3/2016 by eriktheawful because: Fixed Pictures Posted.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Drawsoho

First off, the fact that they couldn't account for the money was known over a year prior to his announcement. They haven't accounted for all of it, but they had it down to $700B or so that was still unaccounted for. And yes, they had the receipts, and records. They're not paper records, contrary to what you may believe, they're all computerized.


$700 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Do you know if the number ever dropped after that?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not sure what the final accounting was, but I believe they got it down to less than half that. That was less than a year after 9/11, so they were still working. They knew where the money was spent, and on what programs, they just didn't have all the records of the spending centralized. As he said, they had almost 700 programs for accounting, and very few of them spoke to one another. So it was a matter of going through each program by hand, finding the money spent, and putting it into the central accounting program.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I am an observer so I do not have any proof. I just know when I
am being hoodwinked and this case is clearly based on a
tangled web of lies.

If anyone wants to there is a video of a fireman who found
the melted steel in the basement. It is not proof, and
video can be faked.

700 billion not accounted for - 1.7 trillion $ accounted for -
it is an insane amount of money but if you say it's normal...

Eyewitnesses stated there was nothing in Shankesville but
for a hole in the ground, some paper , and dirt. Who to
believe - the eyewitness or a video of some
plane part in a video on a tiny url site? If the parts
will be in a museum, then why not include all the
WTC steel wreckage? Oh you can't - that evidence has
been destroyed.



a reply to: hellobruce


edit on 3-1-2016 by Drawsoho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Drawsoho

And yet, when they actually started looking, they found all kinds of wreckage, including engines, skin, body parts, etc. Not just standing and looking at the crash area. There were no large parts found, which is common for a crash like that, but almost all of the aircraft was eventually recovered.

If it was $2.3T, and they got it down to $700B, then how were all the records destroyed?
edit on 1/3/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not sure what the final accounting was, but I believe they got it down to less than half that. That was less than a year after 9/11, so they were still working. They knew where the money was spent, and on what programs, they just didn't have all the records of the spending centralized. As he said, they had almost 700 programs for accounting, and very few of them spoke to one another. So it was a matter of going through each program by hand, finding the money spent, and putting it into the central accounting program.


I'll be honest, even $1 billion is far more compelling motive than 'Muslims hating our freedom.'



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Drawsoho
If anyone wants to there is a video of a fireman who found
the melted steel in the basement. It is not proof, and
video can be faked.


911myths.com...

Steven Jones faked a photo of "molten steel"


Eyewitnesses stated there was nothing in Shankesville but
for a hole in the ground,


Did these "eyewitnesses" dig into the ground?


or a video of some plane part in a video on a tiny url site?


What video? I guess you never followed that link, or you would have seen lots of pictures of Flight 93 wreckage!



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The money wasn't missing though.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I was trying to find info on that and could not find where all the money was accounted for. Do you have a source?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The link I posted in that quote goes to an archive that shows they had it down to $700B. As I said, I'm not sure what they got it down to. Sources are hard to find about it, because it's usually a back page military newspaper article.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

WRONG

Scroll down to section on Verizon ......

911research.wtc7.net...

Will see the damage on Verizon, some was from collapse of WTC 1 (can see damage to World Financial Center 3 from collapse)

Most was from WTC 7 smashing up against it

I have also been in buildings around Verizon - Most in WFC2



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

This information should be made easily retrievable to lay certain theories to rest. Little wonder so many people have questions about money as motivation.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: wildb

WRONG

Scroll down to section on Verizon ......

911research.wtc7.net...

Will see the damage on Verizon, some was from collapse of WTC 1 (can see damage to World Financial Center 3 from collapse)

Most was from WTC 7 smashing up against it

I have also been in buildings around Verizon - Most in WFC2



Wow! They really knew a lot more about building with structural integrity when the Verizon building was erected in 1930.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join