Getting back to this $2.3 Trillion missing announcement on September 10th, 2001

Originally posted by Pervius
How could DOD lose track of $2.3 Trillion in transactions in 1 year alone....

When Congress was only budgeting them half a Trillion annually then to run on?

There's the bigger question. How could DOD have that much money moving around in 1 year when that amount alone was almost 3 years of Congressional Funding???????????????

Oh boy.

They didn't lose track of $2.3T in one years spending. They didn't lose track or misapproriate it. Over a period of decades, and expenditures of trillions and trillions of dollars they came to the conclusion that normal accounting records and procedures, as you would find in most businesses, could not be used to account for all the expenditures.

Originally posted by hooper


They didn't lose track of $2.3T in one years spending. They didn't lose track or misapproriate it. Over a period of decades, and expenditures of trillions and trillions of dollars they came to the conclusion that normal accounting records and procedures, as you would find in most businesses, could not be used to account for all the expenditures.

www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

Donald Rumsfeld was talking about the immediate timeframe. Not several decades prior. They did lose track of it and misappropriate it. The speech he made to America/Congress was that we have been getting ROBBED.

I have personal stories I could tell but it would set off the resident DOD Spooks and have them hunting me down.

The Pentagon was attacked the day after that speech because the thieves don't want their Robbing to end, or to face accountability for WHAT THEY DID.

Ok, so "We The People" allowed 2.3 Trillion USD to be wasted.

Blame should rest where responsibility remains; "We" are responsible.

Since we recognize the problem, now we have to correct the errors.

Run for office, learn about ways to interact with elected leaders.

Fiscal responsibility is the first-best way to earn trust and to serve transparency.

As long as this "under-handed" and "right-hand can't see what the left-hand is doing" system remains in-place, nothing will change, people will be "relegated as a source of revenue" objects and nothing good will come of it.

The United States of America and "We The People" were never based-on "Catch-22" financial policies and massive debt, or much-less to be incompetent as to render faulty and error-ridden audits to account for the taxes of the citizenry; this is a disgrace. This is an outrage to say the least.


“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own? “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” (Luke 16:10-13 NIV)

Wow the same BS keeps being written in this thread OVER and OVER again. Read the prior posts before posting seriously!

There is no critical evidence that shows that the records have been lost because of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon.
The 2.3 trillion dollars that is being referred to in this topic (let's pretend I am in the year 2001 still) HAS NOT DISAPPEARED, IT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED BUT BURIED IN AN AWFUL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, it MAY OR MAY NOT have been wasted there is no source giving proof of either.

This topic should no longer be in 9/11 section because there is lack of evidence of a link between the two. The link that is shared between the two is basically the same as me having the same first name as someone and saying we are related....

The problem stands that the Pentagon does not have an appropriate accounting system nor internal controls which leave it subject to potential misspending, misappropriated assets and lack of accountability. THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE YET THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED, BUT the POTENTIAL IS EXTREMELY LIKELY. The only way to PROVE IT is to AUDIT THE PENTAGON, just as Ron Paul wants to AUDIT THE FED.

I request that this topic be closed due to overwhelming stupidity.

Sorry for the caps.

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
Ok, so "We The People" allowed 2.3 Trillion USD to be wasted.

Blame should rest where responsibility remains; "We" are responsible.

What if....the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA), a joint program of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and NASA managed by the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO) was not really ended in 1972?

What if Project Rover grew as well? What if we DID have a secret base on the back of the moon? What if we did send a nuclear propelled spacecraft to the moon accompanying Apollo?

What IF we already have been to Mars and beyond?

WE were responsible for nothing. The missing Trillions funded something you have no idea about.

Look at the stories now of China, India, and Russia fast tracking nuclear propelled spacecraft. Wait...why? Didn't we end that program in 1972?

Ahhh....maybe they finally found out our little secret. Maybe in 50 years you'll be told where the Trillions went.

And how DOD was handling Trillions which were "lost".....when their budget was only half a Trillion annually...

Where did the Trillions go Americans paid for Car Insurance Bonds over their life times? Ca-ching. Afterall....highways were made for DOD. We all were made to buy car insurance to fund...DOD Space Travel.

Sorry you didn't get any benefit from that over your life times.

reply to post by Pervius


What if Apollo 11 was actually a secret mission to the moon to communicate with the Transformers?

Sorry, that's the plot line for the next Transfomers movie.

No Megan Fox. Bummer.

Originally posted by hooper
No Megan Fox. Bummer.

That's a huge bummer.

I'm still drinking the Megan Fox Kool-Aid.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by hooper
No Megan Fox. Bummer.

That's a huge bummer.

I'm still drinking the Megan Fox Kool-Aid.

Now this is WAY off topic, but they filmed Transformers 2 near my old hometown and one of my friends got to work on the set while she was visting. Said even in person she looked like CGI. Perfect.

reply to post by Pervius


What if...you did some research and discovered that the DoD budget that year was under 500 billion dollars?
(would kill your pipe driven fantasy that 2.3 trillion (almost FIVE TIMES as much) in cash disappeared)

What if...you did some research and discovered that auditors/accounts have accounted for almost all of that amount in the two years after 9/11?

What if...you did some research and discovered that 'black" budgets are STILL ACTUALLY in the budget, just creatively named?

What if...you stopped drinking the kool-aid?

reply to post by GenRadek


Well, now that you brought up the "Pull it" business... Do you really think they meant "let's get everybody out"? Here's a better idea, and it's only one word, and it just so happens to be a common term to get the hell out of dodge in America, and this word is............... "Evacuate". Are you even a real person? Can you even define this term you keep repeating called "reading comprehension"? Comprehension will always be different in others people's eyes unless we were all clones or programmed. Bring up this reading comprehension in a literature course, you think everyone's going to interpret classic french literature the same way? Pfft..

Originally posted by hooper
Now this is WAY off topic, but they filmed Transformers 2 near my old hometown and one of my friends got to work on the set while she was visting. Said even in person she looked like CGI. Perfect.

The topic is now Megan Fox!

When I was living in L.A. I met her a couple of times at the studio I worked at. Bumped into her once out and about in Burbank also. Even though she was not all dolled up, she is freakin stunning, jaw-droppingly so!

*sips the Kool-Aid*

Oh, what I would give...

Originally posted by mike184ever
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Ok Dude,you are a smart m%&#%$%&(*@er. We get it. Crystal. A point over and over in this thread is runaway spending in the DEFENCE BUDGET. There in no doubt to anybody that can READ that the said BLACK PROJECTS have a big gash and they are sucking huge amounts of money and because of their nature the huge amounts of money cant be tracked...

I was in the military when Ronald Reagan took office. He cut the Defence spending. Seriously, it took hours of paper work and time spent jumping through hoops to get bathroon supplies for the fire dept. at Homestead AFB..

Ah but arent black budgets named less conspicously? Its not like they have a list of goodies for spending, and then there is a whole blackout section with $$$$ next to them, is there? But the money is still there.

But you at least had a first hand account of the lovely red-tape buearocracy, and financial jams to even do something basic like batheroom supplies.

Originally posted by Pervius
www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

Donald Rumsfeld was talking about the immediate timeframe. Not several decades prior. They did lose track of it and misappropriate it. The speech he made to America/Congress was that we have been getting ROBBED.

I have personal stories I could tell but it would set off the resident DOD Spooks and have them hunting me down.

The Pentagon was attacked the day after that speech because the thieves don't want their Robbing to end, or to face accountability for WHAT THEY DID.

edit on 6-1-2011 by Pervius because: (no reason given)

All this costs money. It costs more than we have. It demands agility -- more than today's bureaucracy allows. And that means we must recognize another transformation: the revolution in management, technology and business practices. Successful modern businesses are leaner and less hierarchical than ever before. They reward innovation and they share information. They have to be nimble in the face of rapid change or they die. Business enterprises die if they fail to adapt, and the fact that they can fail and die is what provides the incentive to survive. But governments can't die, so we need to find other incentives for bureaucracy to adapt and improve.

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.

www.defense.gov...

Please point to the spot in the quote above where Rumsfeld says we are being robbed.

Once again folks, READING COMPREHENSION[/B]. Use it.

edit on 1/7/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

Funny how on 9/10, Rummy was complaining about outdated computer systems partly responsible for losing track of $2.3 trillion in military spending and then the very next day, a supposed bizarre terrorist plane hijacking wipes out all those outdated systems in the accounting section of the Pentagon. That's that make you go hmmm.

Originally posted by rstregooski
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Well, now that you brought up the "Pull it" business... Do you really think they meant "let's get everybody out"? Here's a better idea, and it's only one word, and it just so happens to be a common term to get the hell out of dodge in America, and this word is............... "Evacuate". Are you even a real person? Can you even define this term you keep repeating called "reading comprehension"? Comprehension will always be different in others people's eyes unless we were all clones or programmed. Bring up this reading comprehension in a literature course, you think everyone's going to interpret classic french literature the same way? Pfft..

why yes I am a real person, thank you for asking.

Reading comprehension is the basic ability of being able to read something, and extrapolate correctly the main idea from it, based on terms, words, context, and language.

Now as to "pull it", have you ever read the firefighter accounts of being "pulled" from WTC7?

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
www.firehouse.com...

There is more. But the most basic goof is that Silverstein said he pulled the building. He did no such thing. reading the quote, he didnt make any decisions to pull anything.

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
www.serendipity.li...

According to him, "they" made the decision to pull. Who made the decision? Go back to the beginning of his quote: "I got a call from the fire dept commander...." Oh well, I guess that means the fire dept pulled WTC7 then right? (not)

Do you understand why reading comprehension is important? And this isnt French Literature class. This is basic stuff that is on standardized tests like ACT, SATs, and other. You read a passage, you then answer questions based on the text and context. Simple.

Originally posted by ATH911
Funny how on 9/10, Rummy was complaining about outdated computer systems partly responsible for losing track of $2.3 trillion in military spending and then the very next day, a supposed bizarre terrorist plane hijacking wipes out all those outdated systems in the accounting section of the Pentagon. That's that make you go hmmm.

Not when it was mentioned back in 1999/2000.

Or did we forget that part already?

In my opinion, if you take your perspective "so seriously," that you will go to all-lengths" to expound on "your" viewpoint by making anyone with a contrary opinion feel sub-human and ignorant is very uncouth.

You have no business even putting your argument; if you take things "so seriously."

The POINT IS, IF...the 2 to 3 trillion dollars went missing, and even though it was found some 2 years or so later, it was missing. Missing is equivalent to being misappropriated, right?

Just my trillion cents...

reply to post by GenRadek


How does that negate the fact that the DAY BEFORE all the outdated systems got wiped out of the accounting section of the Pentagon, Rummy was complaining about them?

reply to post by ATH911


Other than that statement being a "coincidence," and visualizing the Pentagon's computer systems back in 1999 to 2000? I don't know if I could.

Depending on their back-up and recovery or disaster recovery procedures, it was common to use "tape-back-up;" with mirroring enabled.

If those tapes were kept on-site, a fire or accident in proximity to the back-up media would result in complete destruction and lost data.

Who knows.

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
In my opinion, if you take your perspective "so seriously," that you will go to all-lengths" to expound on "your" viewpoint by making anyone with a contrary opinion feel sub-human and ignorant is very uncouth.

You have no business even putting your argument; if you take things "so seriously."

The POINT IS, IF...the 2 to 3 trillion dollars went missing, and even though it was found some 2 years or so later, it was missing. Missing is equivalent to being misappropriated, right?

Just my trillion cents...

edit on 7-1-2011 by trekwebmaster because: Revision...in context.

I do take things seriously, when people are blatantly claiming something that does not exist. I take it seriously when people LIE, and continue to spread the LIE, and ignore any attempts to rectify the LIE. In this case we have the LIE that $2.3 trillion was stolen/missing/misappropriated, and that Rumsfeld said it. This whole premise is a lie. Here is the quote, for the trillionth time:

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.

Point to me the part where you can extrapolate from the text that $2.3 trillion was stolen, lost, misapropriated. If you need more, go back a few posts and read the full text. Then get back to me on this. Do you see yet why I am so serious? When people lie, and continue to lie, it ticks me right off. All of this is because some people have poor reading comprehension skills, and they created this lie out of thin air, by reading something that just wasnt there to begin with.