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

reply to post by ATH911


How do we know if it even was that particular section of the Pentagon? An article I read somewhere said the section of the Pentagon was newly renovated and empty office space.

Couldn't Rumsflield's ancient computers be located elsewhere and they might have been getting the "hit" section ready for a new system? I can see how the "major incident" would affect operations; it would be a recovery nightmare.

This is just another plausible explanation of things. Just trying to see things from all angles.

Originally posted by GenRadek

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.

That makes sense. Just furthers my theory which I posted earlier...

Ancient machines which a night-mare to even get to work. Can you imagine? I bet those machines back in the day couldn't count as high as a trillion. Remember the 2000 bug? Was before then...I bet....Could it be that 9-11 hit right at the most inappropriate time? During a massive upgrade? Who knows...

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet.

Windows 2000 was just coming out; everyone's desk had a PC and a network...perhaps is what I take it Rumsfield is referring to.

We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain.

Different types of mainframe-based systems networked "to hell and back," complete with bottle-necks and unresponsive networks which work some of the time, I take this to mean.

Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.

Rudimentary systems (computer or mainframe) which may not have the capability of handling that many zeros? Could be.

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.[

Computer systems are not networked together and can't "share files," as they can today. If they could, an interface would need to be used to extract the data you need due to the incompatibilities; this leaves holes in data sets, and information gets lost due to it, is what I think this sentence means.
/b]

This is exactly what Rumsfield is saying, you have to draw the inference, but he spells-it-out accurately and precisely. Technology was not as uniform or "plug-and-play" as it is today.

reply to post by trekwebmaster


Ok I do get what you saying. It is an interesting concept, but I mean that does get a little flimsy when delved deeper into.

I do get what you are saying though! And yes, that must have been a doozey of a pickle to untangle to get through all those finanical records and straighten everything else out. Which is what I was saying all along. Its not that $2.3 trillion was missing/stolen/etc and the plane crashed into it to "erase" the paper trail. Its about how crappy the systems were, and so outdated, it was a nightmare to access it all efficeintly. and I think you can agree, our govt is not the epitome of effeciency!

Originally posted by GenRadek
Its about how crappy the systems were, and so outdated, it was a nightmare to access it all efficeintly.

The ones that got taken out the next day by a freak terrorist plane hijacking?

reply to post by ATH911


That was a coincidence, I think. The embarrassment over the missing trillion or two complicated matters for Rumsfield, but I don't hold him to blame personally. Technology was changing the world; a paradigm shift was occurring. The technology of the world suddenly moved from dial-up to cable internet and DSL. It cost billions to upgrade old systems of the 80's to the new, and now obsolete, standard of the late 90's. We had what at most, 32 mbs of RAM in systems back then? Even if that much. Let's keep things in context and keep our perspective wide so we can see relevant content which is unseen in a narrow viewpoint.

reply to post by ATH911


If your statement was anywhere near accurate, it might negate it. But since your statement is false....ehh...not so much.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ATH911

 

If your statement was anywhere near accurate, it might negate it. But since your statement is false....ehh...not so much.

OK, what was false about it?

reply to post by ATH911


This ring any bells?

fact that the DAY BEFORE all the outdated systems got wiped out of the accounting section of the Pentagon,

Umm, neither all the outdated systems, nor the "accounting section of the Pentagon" got wiped out.

reply to post by vipertech0596


Oh, so what kind of systems did and what was housed in that section?

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Oh, so what kind of systems did and what was housed in that section?

hmmmmm can you point to me the spot where they have the accounting servers or databases?
upload.wikimedia.org...

Where they suppose to be in the Army Office of the Administrative Assistant? Or in the Navy Ops Center? Or was it in the Defense Intel Agency? Where oh where would they stick those financial databases?

reply to post by GenRadek


Sorry, I heard that a lot of accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts were killed and a budget analyst office was in the section that was hit. I guess that was all wrong, right?

You know what? I just watched a 3 second piece of video from the plane hitting the Pentagon, you know, the security cam footage that everyone thinks is a missile?

Well that's all fine and good; you know what? The footage was taken with a "Fish-Eye" lens, which makes the field of view wider but also objects nearer the center appear smaller, like on your car's right-hand mirror?

It's all about scale; the missile folks are visualizing a missile as the body of the jet which is somewhat obscured by the square pylon; the tail is visible and so is the damaged left engine's smoke-trail. I suggest everyone go to this website and see the video.

Another thing, I noticed also, a ground generator located just outside of the area of the Pentagon which was hit, was damaged and probably destroyed. What do you think would happen to the electronics tied to this equipment? Yes, you guessed it, FRIED! This might have fried any back-ups in place too.

America.Gov

The YouTube video is located at the following internet address: (see timecode 2:25 and start viewing.)

YouTube Video Link

It seems everyone is ignoring my posts.
...
...
...
It also seems a true conspiracy theorist doesn't make judgment based on facts or sources.



Good thing I am learning to be an accountant... not a conspiracy theorist.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Sorry, I heard that a lot of accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts were killed and a budget analyst office was in the section that was hit. I guess that was all wrong, right?

If you had bothered to do any research at all, you would see that 125 people died that worked in the Pentagon, both civilian and military personel, including a Lt. General. What you mention is the people that worked for Resource Services Washington, which lost 34 of its 45 employees (some say they had 65, so I'm not sure which number is correct).

So you mean to tell me, they somehow faked a whole plane crash to kill 34 civilian accountants

Oh and did you ever bother to look into who or what exactly is the Resource Services - Washington?

Resource Management
Resource Services-Washington (RSW) provides resource management and force management support for over two hundred activities within the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) that perform a variety of readiness and operations support functions Army-wide. RSW manages the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution process for Army headquarters organizations and activities. Also, the Director, RSW is the Co-Executive for the Army Organize Program Evaluation Group (OO PEG), the authority that determines valid to critical requirements in support of the Army's Strategic Initiatives and priorities.

www.oaa.army.mil...
(Under the HQDA Commander tab)

Yeah that doesnt sound like the DoD military budget office. Nor does it sound like its responsible for the billions of dollars of our defense budget.

Its amazing what one can do with just a few minutes of patience and research. So in other words, not only do the"perps" manage to completely fake/hoax an entire plane crashing into the Pentagon, but they target a newly renovated office, that holds an office for the Office of Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, which is primarily concerned with providing resource management and support for functions of the US Army's organizations and activities? That makes literally no sense.

When will the TM ever bother doing some real research. They always shout, Ask questions! Look into everything!! Well gee, if any of them had bothered to do so, this joke of a "conspiracy" (and I use the term very loosely) would have been nipped in the bud. But in classic TM style, they didnt, and let this LIE take root and spread like a weed, hoping to entangle any poor sap that blindly walks into it and accepts it at face value without even questioning it, or even doing any actual research into it that might confirm or deny it. Instead they accept it at fuill face value, and defend it like a religion, nomatter how many times they are shown to be WRONG WRONG WRONG.

reply to post by ThisIsMyName


Buddy, you have no idea how right you are. Its like a religion to them. (Did you notice who is on the forefront of the TM? David Griffin, a theologian. Interesting eh? )

Could we get a correction to the topic title?

Pentagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

hv.greenspun.com...

March 3rd 2000, when neither Dov S. Zakheim or Donald Rumsfeld were anywhere near the Pentagon.

Well I think we can say this thread and claim is dead and done in light of facts revealing what a crock it all was all along. One less dead branch cluttering up the view.

reply to post by trekwebmaster


So what is your best reason for the fact that they freleased 5 frames and never released the 84 other tapes from pentagon cameras filming the impact? Or the surrounding surveillance cams confiscated from gas stations, etc... Do they think we the public couldn't handle those images; it would be to damning to us? After we all watched two planes smash in to the two towers?

reply to post by GenRadek


man, maybe this thread should be dead because I don't think I can talk to you anymore. As a welding inspector I have a strong background in metallurgy, and you want me to think that you believe that building was the THIRD in u.s. history to fall from structural fire? Oh yea, by the way the first two being the two towers!

www.youtube.com...

These building were built like they are today, with SFRM (Sprayed Fire-Resistive Material) on all steel members (sfrm.com), 4 hour rating, which means the material adhered to the members consumes the heat before the steel is even affected. So just after a few hours the building falls like a classic pancake demolition. Logic alone should tell you, if fire did cause this, most likely one side would give first, like this:

www.youtube.com...

man, you better wake up.