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.

 

Follow the money possible source of 9/11 financing

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 05:52 AM
link   
From one of the threads on conspiracy researchers someone mention Joseph P. Farrell is good. I clicked on the link to Farrell's site and he had this posted as the first story:



You know things are in a bad state when an economics professor at one of the country's most prestigious research universities, the University of Michigan, says that there's about $21,000,000,000,000 missing, and when he says that in spite of his best efforts to find out where it went, he meets a stone wall of obfuscation, buck-passing, and missing links. The story has now captured the attention of Mr. Greg Hunter, well-known financial commentator at USAWatchdog.com(our thanks to Mr. V.T. for spotting and sharing this article):


THAT MISSING $21,000,000,000,000: DR. MARK SKIDMORE ON THE

Here's the original article:

Missing $21 Trillion Means Federal Government Is Lawless – Dr. Mark Skidmore

Wow! Now we now how all the 9/11 bad-stuff was financed!




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   
When someone that heads the FBI or the CIA isn't questioned by the public and even when the President doesn't fire that person, well, it was... well we all know by Bush's expression on the video of him in Florida.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Sure seems like $21 trillion is a lot of money to remote hack the planes to hit the towers.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: dfnj2015

Sure seems like $21 trillion is a lot of money to remote hack the planes to hit the towers.



These days all international flights have cameras in the cockpit, so maybe something good came about this. Well, where there is a bad outcome, maybe a good outcomes comes out of it. Personally its bs and sic.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

NOTHING good came out of 9/11.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

So is he saying 911 was orcastrated by the US government, or that 21 trillion was stolen during the Iraq war??


Because if he is saying 911 was orcastrated by the US, there are way cheaper, easier and less risky ways to start a war..



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: musicismagic

NOTHING good came out of 9/11.


well didnt bush say we got 'em



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Tell that to Haliburtons shareholders...


Imho bush lying is into Iraq and then giving his own company the rebuild contract to his own company, will be the most corrup act in modern US history..

Obama definitely didn’t beat it..

I doubt seriously trump will either.. imho Russian collusion doesn’t remotely touch it..
edit on 4-12-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Thanks for posting this. Dr. Farrell is a little deep in the outfield, but one can’t argue with his intelligence and ability to think outside the box.
I love listening to some of the podcasts he does and especially enjoyed the Giza Death Star. He certainly has some bold theories, but he backs them up with research. Good or bad, he makes you think about things.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Spader

The original article he referenced was more interesting:

Here's the original article:

Missing $21 Trillion Means Federal Government Is Lawless – Dr. Mark Skidmore



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
The site's asking for donations is this entire thread a long drawn out marketing campaign to get people to donate to the page linked in the op?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: libertytoall

No it is not. The second reference link is the one with the story. Maybe it's not true. But it doesn't sound like it's not true.



In one example, Skidmore found a huge transfer from the Treasury Department to the Army that, again, was not authorized. Keep in mind, the Army has an approved budget of a little more than $120 billion a year. Skidmore says, “In this one report . . . there is an appendix table that indicates there was a transfer from Treasury to the Army of about $800 billion. That’s almost a trillion dollars flowing in. There is a note that says we had to do this in order to reconcile past years. That doesn’t make sense to me either because, these earlier years, you have a transfer from the Treasury of your $120 billion or $130 billion, and every year, the Army is granted the authority to spend this money in the ways they say they will. How can you get (an additional) $800 billion in and call that an ‘adjustment’? I tried to call and talk to the office of the Inspector General to talk to the people who helped generate these reports. I haven’t been successful, and I stopped trying when they disabled the links.”




edit on 4-12-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

21 trillion is a HUGE number..

Might even be more than the total yearly US gdp.

So it is absolutely possible it is a vast over exaggeration..

I remember hearing something similar concerning a state department statement about new accounting practices, where people took his X trillions of dollars cannot be accounted for, when that X trillions was more than 30 years of the total US military budget..

He was saying that X trillions don’t meet resent accounting standards, not that it was totally unaccounted for.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't know the intend of the professor to track down the 21 trillion dollars, but you can bet it was not to do the 9/11 job. That doesn't make sense in any form. Why would anyone push that explanation? Hell, you could buy all of Saudi Arabia for that much.

Damnit, people, the US government has had a secret space program for decades. Reagan's Space Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") was a broad organized attempt to actualize our space goals and capabilities with ultra-secret planning and equipment. I've preached about it many times here on ATS but no one seems capable of accepting that such a deceptive operation has been wrought upon the American taxpayer. That is where your trillions of missing dollars have gone. But they must have a cover story.

UFOs are as real as the mysterious triangles that myself and others have witnessed. That there is a whole, messy, and complicated can of worms behind the reality of the UFOs simply adds to the expense of keeping them, the triangles and undisclosed efforts in space secret. No government agency is ever going to come out and admit to any of this hoodwinking of the public. But you can bet other nations are quite aware of the triangles and out deep space activities.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Yea.
2.3 trillion was what rumsfield affirmed on 9.10.'01. zeros are hard to keep track of?

As an aside;
who in the army would turn-down a crazy offer they can't refuse,
to keep quiet?

Hey man- it's a human conditioning that money trumps everything else.
People can be forgiven- but only after owning up to the responsibility of being human.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Remember that $2.3 trillion that went "missing" a few days before 9/11?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

The thing is, why would they need to steal money when they are the ones who print and track it???



Imho you can believe in,

A) a secret illuminati type group runs the government/media/ scientists..


B) there are tax scams..

You can believe in one thing or the other, you cannot believe in both.. because if you run the gov/media and scientists, you don’t need false flags /propaganda for tax scams when you are who holds the printing presses and your the only one tracking what’s in circulation accurately.. .

Why



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Quote from the FY 99 report:


The audits of the FY 1999 DoD financial statements indicated that $7.6 trillion of accounting entries were made to compile them. This startling number is perhaps the most graphic available indicator of just how poor the existing systems are. The magnitude of the problem is further demonstrated by the fact that, of $5.8 trillion of those adjustments that we audited this year, $2.3 trillion were unsupported by reliable explanatory information and audit trails or were made to invalid general ledger accounts. About $602.7 billion of accounting entries were made to correct errors in feeder reports.


Reminds me of those famous 2 trillion unaccounted Rumsfeld dollars.

It seems like there is at least a double counting here:

When I were to book an invoice of say 2200 $ for 6000 chopsticks purchase, and VAT is 200 $ I would have to book something akin like this in the journal:

Debit Credit
Goods to be received 2000
VAT 200
@/ Short term creditors 2200

Sending out a check:
Short term Creditors 2200
@/Checks to be cleared 2200

When the check clears:
Checks to be cleared 2200
@/ bankaccount 2200

Receipt of goods:

Warehouse # Goods received 2000
Goods to be received 2000

once a week, once a month or just once every year, the number of chopsticks is counted. And we are left with 1500, a fourth of the purchased number. So the amount that should be on balance is 500 (2000 - 1500) Therefore the Goods received account should be corrected with 1500.

Used chopsticks 1500
@/ Warehouse # goods received 1500

So far so good.

If you calculate the total amount booked on the debet or credit side, you will find an amount of $ 10,100.- Or almost 5 times the value of the original nett entry!

Add in pensions, insurance, write offs, sales, grants, education, salaries, withholdings (hmmm I wonder why the IRS and SS are not complaining ...,)


Add in the mix that a certain deviation is allowed, say 1% between debet and credit, and you get the idea: It either balances or not. If not, the books may be off by quadrillions and only show a 1 cent discrepancy.

Every self respecting accountant will flip when this happens on his watch. He will start sweating, kicking the dog, yelling at his wife, or even rather shoot himself than present book entries that do not balance!

What does unaccounted for mean?

What often happens is some money turns up on the bankaccount and normally it is booked against an invoice....... if the invoice can be found. In today's day and age, this is done by computer, and only the entries that cannot be reconciled automatically, are done manually.

But .... a clerk has to clean up his mess also, and for that, accounts have some parking accounts. And the more you correct, the bigger the mess. You can hide your mistakes, carry them over, apply them to other invoices, create invoices, create a new account, dump more # in there, separate them to have your colleagues help you sort the mess out, write the mess off,

When a trouble shooter is flown in, the best he can do is approximation over a certain period. After that, everybody is good to go with a fresh start. ....oops, again?

This is the normal routine! Now factor in intent.

Although I buy the amount "unaccounted for", I do not buy the idea that MONEY is missing in that order of magnitude. Even if it were only a seventh, it still is A LOT! Commercial companies, though having waste like this as a rule of thumb, would not be able to survive the heat coming from cooking the books.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You did not read the article. It was over multiple years.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

I think that was the misquoted statement I mentioned..

He wasn’t saying that much is missing, but basically he was saying that none of their previous accounting procedures were done to the new standards..

I don’t doubt billions were stolen, in not saying that, just that that statement wasn’t saying what a lot of people say it is saying..




top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join