Who Lost the 2.3 Trillion ?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I gave you a star for being reasonable in stating that it's at least an interesting..."discrepancy".

It does oddly precede 9/11...by a day if I'm not mistaken. Maybe that's a coincidence. Just maybe. And maybe nothing disappeared in flames in that explosion. To be honest it's a speculation on a conspiracy part.

But, is it baseless ?

Even as an OS supporter...you will admit that there have been many "weird" things going on that day...many difficult to explain first happenings...many against all odds moments...would this surprise me ? No.

Interesting that you mention "other" budget...unknown to us. Would be interesting to ask Donny to explain these numbers.

The thing that gets me with this is how it illustrates how easily led people are. I mean in a specific, linguistic and logical sense.

"The day before Rumsfeld had announced 2.3 trn was missing!"

If one thinks about these things for a few seconds you realise that although at a cursory glance they seem odd the best explanation isn't the one many leap to.

- "The day before" creates an immediate false impression that they are related. The day before my cat died I went to the swimming pool. But the two things aren't logically intertwined because of their proximity

- The number in itself is absurd. What would 2.3 trn look like and where would you keep it? And if you're the shadow government why not simply print it?

- 9/11 must thushave been an attempt to draw attention away from this. But this is absurd. Why not SIMPLY NOT SAY IT? It's a bit like making a faux pas by calling your friend's wife ugly at a party - and then setting fire to their house to detract from your mistake. But to think that Rumsfeld would knowingly announce the crime that the very next day he was going to cover up with a hideous terrorist act... how could anyone think this? It's crazy.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Let's say you'd been stealing from your work. A few grands worth of stationery, and selling it. Would you

A Announce to your co workers that you had been stealing a lot of stationery. Go home. Then come back in the next day and blow up the bar across the road?

B Just keep quiet and hope nobody noticed?

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Perhaps Rumsfeld had nothing to do with the attack and after he made the announcement about the missing trillions was made they sent him and the administration a clear message that they better get with the program.

There are a lot of strange coincidences on 9/11, not just Rumsfeld's announcement. FEMA was already stage in NYC for terrorist drill. Fighter jets that could have been scrambled were participating in Operation Northern Vigilance on 9/11. There are many others.

To quote one of my favorite TV heroes, Leroy Jethro Gibbs on NCIS, Rule # 39:

There is no such thing as coincidence.

jrod
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Perhaps Rumsfeld had nothing to do with the attack and after he made the announcement about the missing trillions was made they sent him and the administration a clear message that they better get with the program.

So they organised 9/11 in one day?

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

It does oddly precede 9/11...by a day if I'm not mistaken. Maybe that's a coincidence. Just maybe. And maybe nothing disappeared in flames in that explosion. To be honest it's a speculation on a conspiracy part.

I agree with this point.

I think it is speculation, I have not seen any evidence that this $2.3Tn had anything to do with the attacks of 9/11. However there is one slight problem i would raise, that is that when "truthers" (i dont really like that term) try to incorporate factoids like this into their own idea's of what happened that day they complicate their own theories. I see this time and time, truthers make claims that to me seem overly complicated, this is a prime example, why add in this extra layer of complication to what would already be a very complex plot. I think if truthers kept things a bit more simple they would have a better position to argue from.

And yes i agree some very odd things happened that day, but then again the whole day was "odd".

reply to post by jrod


I think your post is very interesting but perhaps not for reasons you might like.

Something i find truly fascinating is the way truthers construct their arguments.

In this case, the idea that the missing $2.3Tn having a connection to the events of 9/11 has essentially been "debunked", purely from a logical stand point it does not seem to make any scene form any angel nor is their any real evidence to point to such nefarious dealings. As such one could say perhaps that a little weak link in the chain of "theories" that forms your wider understanding of 9/11 has been presented. Now for those with a truly open mind, this would be welcomed, they would admit that actually the claim that the missing cash had anything to do with 9/11 can be dismissed.

Not you...

Rather you backtrack and start coming up with all these superstitions and speculative allegations then slot them into your chain of theories to make the proverbial chain just as strong again, at least in your own mind. As such you now start to speculate that:

Perhaps Rumsfeld had nothing to do with the attack and after he made the announcement about the missing trillions was made they sent him and the administration a clear message that they better get with the program.

A totally baseless accusation that cannot be backed up by fact nor logic yet demonstrates you grasping at straws to keep the link in the chain strong. You do this because when multiple links in the chain (serious theories about different aspects of 9/11) start to present themselves when debunked it affects your wider view of not only the event itself but the world as a whole.

its really quite interesting for a observer

Please do not think i am picking on you, I see this all the time. The truther proposes or supports some theory or another then a debunker will come along and say well thats wrong because of this, this and this. Then the Truther fires back with the "what if line" or "what about this other information" and then at times will start to discuss a totally different topic all together that he or she perceives as being a strong link in the Chain (such as you bringing up Operation Tripod.)

Its all about you trying to preserve your believe that there has to be more to these horrible attacks and your fundamental mistrust in authority that contributes to your core world view. Which incidentally is why truthers (not all of them it must be said) tend to also believe other conspiracies that have similar patters: Aliens at Roswell, the CIA killed JFK, the NWO secretly rule the world and so on.

But thats starting to get off topic so i will shut up now.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
However there is one slight problem i would raise, that is that when "truthers" (i dont really like that term) try to incorporate factoids like this into their own idea's of what happened that day they complicate their own theories. I see this time and time, truthers make claims that to me seem overly complicated, this is a prime example, why add in this extra layer of complication to what would already be a very complex plot. I think if truthers kept things a bit more simple they would have a better position to argue from.

Some people call it circumstantial evidence and in a court of law there is precedence for it. In some instances a person can be convicted with only circumstantial evidence if it clearly points to intent and motive. So I've seen it time and time again, in the court of law.

Now that doesn't say the Rummy video of missing money shows intent and/or motive. But looked another way, if the "intent" was to bury the story, then there motivation to release it the day before 911 has merit. Seeing how it doesn't prove that that happened doesn't negate it as a possibility.

Perhaps the astonishing amount of 2.3tn was the cost to pull off 911 itself.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


Again read the above comment, the idea that 9/11 was a pretext to cover up the "stolen" 2.3 Trillion gets debunked so you start speculating with:

Perhaps the astonishing amount of 2.3tn was the cost to pull off 911 itself.

Apply some logic to this!

You are now speculating that the entire pentagon budget for over a decade was spent of orchestrating the worlds most spectacular false flag in history.

Really think about that, because the implication would then have to be that the money was stolen or at least redirected away from the "green army". Which makes zero sense because although they could not track where that money went soldiers did get paid, equipment was bought, the still paid for guns, tanks, jets, air craft carriers and all the rest of it. Really all Rumsfeld was saying was that due to bad technology and a over all failing of pentagon bureaucracy they could not find what we might colloquially call a "paper-trial" for that cash.

If all that money was really taken from the pentagon to pay for 9/11 then the US Military would have been pretty much non-existent throughout the '90s.

Now that doesn't say the Rummy video of missing money shows intent and/or motive. But looked another way, if the "intent" was to bury the story

Again that is utter rubbish the fact we are still talking about this in 2014 quite clearly shows that 9/11 did not bury the story and i fail to see how the attacks would have achieved that in the first place.

its just not a logical argument

And it is not circumstantial, the whole idea that the missing $2.3Tn had anything to do with 9/11 has been debunked, all you have left is speculation.

I deal in facts and truth, not speculation, this has been debunked.

move on.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


That was just speculation. I don't believe that, just throwing ideas out there. I do not know what to believe about 9/11.

The were some very strange coincidences that day. For years I was sure that the twin towers fell because they were weakened from the impacts and associated fires, it makes sense that the tower with the lower strike(thus more weight above the weakened area) would fall first. Also the architecture of the towers was unique and they could have possibly fell that way without a controlled demolition. Building 7 has always left me scratching my head to what made it fall, the official explanation does not seem right.

The Pentagon strike and the lack of surveillance at a highly secured building showing proof of a plane strike is quite odd. So are the contradicting live reports from witnesses.

As a result of 9/11, no one questioned Bush's presidency. Up until that day there were many protesting the 'recount' in Florida and many felt he should never have assumed office, those protests vanished after 9/11. It also led to our military action in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the quick passage of The Patriot Act and the creation of the DHS.

It did forever change the USA and without a doubt restricted our freedom.

reply to post by jrod

That was just speculation. I don't believe that, just throwing ideas out there

I hate the point this out but again back tracking,

Fundamentally the notion that the missing $2.3Tn having any connection to 9/11 has been debunked.

I do not know what to believe about 9/11.

This is not a personal attack against you but rather a observation of people who question the offical story in general.

You guys (not all of you) can be pretty lazy, you dont bother to read the offical reports, you dont bother to read up on the history of Islamic extremism, you dont really bother to read up on counterterrorism or how the halls of government work. Rather you run to people like Richard Gage (a conman in my view) or Steven Jones who just spoon feed you crap information.

Case in point, you also said that:

Building 7 has always left me scratching my head to what made it fall, the official explanation does not seem right.

WTC-7 is always treated as the smoking gun (notice how you have gone off-topic) yet it really is not.

I wrote this massive Thread on WTC-7 where i pretty much explain away lots of the conspiracies.

I am kind of the opposite to you, in that i used to believe the conspiracy theories, I remember vividly back in 2005 me and a bunch of friends all sitting down watching lose change. And for a few years I was pretty much a "truther", then i started to really research the topic of the history of islamic extremism. I done my own research, I found lots of week links if you like in my chain of understanding, I realized that this Bin Laden guy was really pissed at America so he probably did want to conduct the 9/11 attacks, so perhaps he did.

Now the point i am making is that when you say to me for example that when you say you think its odd that we only have one (well we actually have 2) shots of the impact at the pentagon, dont just leave it at that go find out why before you jump the the conclusion that "the must have done that because it was really a missile" because thats was you read on ATS.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I never considered myself to be a truther. However I do try to look at things differently, when I see inconsistencies in a story I dig for answers. On here when I post something it is usually pure speculation on my part, often just based on scanty observation and no real facts to back it up. If I post something I believe to be true I try to have a legitimate source to back it up. I would not be a member of ATS if I did not question authority, the official stories given to us by the government and media, and if I did not believe that there are some big conspiracies that have a major influence on how our society operates.

9/11 is no different. However one of the biggest problems is majority of the hijackers were Saudi's, yet we invaded Afghanistan as a result. Iraq's invasion was because of WMDs. Saudi Arabia is of course our ally and we have to be loyal to them or else our PetroDollar goes away. The RT has a good story on how that shapes US policy and a little history about the PetroDollar.
rt.com...

There are too many inconsistencies surrounding 9/11 for me not to question the official story.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Fundamentally the notion that the missing $2.3Tn having any connection to 9/11 has been debunked.

How is it debunked ? Humor me. it's too broad...any ? You can't possibly know that. Next thing you're gonna tell me that those unusually high put options on airline stocks were not in any any any way connected to 9/11 ??

You can't be that naive...

Wake up Coin...are you aware where we are living ? People kill, lie, steal for money and power...coincidentally...one equals the other.

If there is some money missing...you can bet your ass that somebody benefited from that...or do you believe it went up in the smoke ?? When money is missing...it's always a conspiracy. Money does not just get up and walk away.

Could 9/11 serve as a really good smoke screen for distracting the public eye from that money ? If you had foreknowledge....than you would time it perfectly...maybe just took an opportunity to wash some of your dirty undies...the next day trauma would completely erase the issue afterwards. And we know there was foreknowledge.

Perfect. But of course...it's just speculation.

While we're at it...has this issue ever been addressed after ? Have you the american people ever gotten an explanation for that statement ? What did happen to that money ? Just gone ? Did anyone ask ? do you care ?


btw. Rumsfeldt is a shape shifting lizard...he could have misspoken, due to his snake like tongue giving him trouble with english and really meant 2,3 billion...and than this is a non issue. All he has to do is show us the tongue...

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

How is it debunked ? Humor me. it's too broad...any ?

It is debunked (i dont think it ever needed to be debunked really) because so far nobody has provided any proof that it the missing (not stolen) $2.3Tn had anything to do with the events of 9/11. So far all that has been presented is speculation, not a single fact that points to this being connected to the events of 9/11. Furthermore none of the speculation even stands up to a logical critique.

As such its fair to say its been "debunked" another weakness in the chain of 9/11 conspiracies.

Now what i will admit to is that it is possible that one day some new evidence may come to light that proves that the $2.3Tn was connected to the 9/11 attacks in some way. IT would be very ignorant of me to assume otherwise. However in the absence of that evidence it would also be very ignorant to assume it does exist just so you can fit some hypothetical evidence into your little theories even though right now no such evidence actually exists.

Let me ask you a direct question.

What do you think of that $2.3Tn in relation to 9/11?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

As such its fair to say its been "debunked" another weakness in the chain of 9/11 conspiracies.

Look man...you're confusing debunked with having opinions. Connection of that unaccounted money to 9/11 is just a theory floating around the net. And not everyone subscribes to it, but...if you're from planet Earth...you wouldn't rule it out. Some circumstantial evidence might suggest a connection, when looking from a birds eye view perspective.

This theory is alive purely based on the fact that no one in positions has since explained the missing money. It remained unaccounted for. And as it has already been established that the sum exceeds to Pentagon multi year budget. No chump change.

So in essence...you don't know where the money is...and you obviously don't care. All you know is that it's not tied to 9/11...even though you have no idea what happened to it...

Great Debunk

As I already stated...the money missing may not have been directly tied to 9/11 event, but the event could have been used to cover the tracks of that money being missing. If it was...than...there is a connection Coin. Opportunity makes a thief. A valid speculative theory, considering already mentioned birds eye view of the foreknowledge fact.

What do you think of that $2.3Tn in relation to 9/11?

I think until I hear some valid explanation as to where the money went and see some paper trail of it...it could be stolen for all we know. It could also be tied to 9/11...why not ? Is that so far out ? Not to me. Than again...I like SF.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

Look man...you're confusing debunked with having opinions. Connection of that unaccounted money to 9/11 is just a theory floating around the net.

No, just no.

A position that i often see supported by truthers on this site (not necessarily you) is that the $2.3Tn was somehow connected to the events of 9/11, they stole the money to pay for the attacks, they stole the money for their own power then used the attacks to cover up the theft amongst other claims.

Quite often during a 9/11 thread someone will go off topic the the line "yeah, how do you explain the $2.3Tn".

Basically there is a belief (again not saying you believe this) that the missing cash had something to do with 9/11, there is zero proof to support this claim nor is there any logic to it as such it is "debunked" unless someone has some new evidence to say otherwise.

That's not a opinion its a fact, it is a fact that today there is zero evidence in the public eye that supports any notion that the unaccounted for money had anything to do with 9/11 nor is there any logical reason behind such a assumption. As such based on the information that we have a rational mind can only say that it has been "debunked" and there is no merit to such claims. FACT.

Some circumstantial evidence might suggest a connection, when looking from a birds eye view perspective.

There is no circumstantial evidence other than truthers saying "well what if..." that is speculation

This theory is alive purely based on the fact that no one in positions has since explained the missing money.

Well actually they have, even if you listen to the speech in its entirety Rumsfeld blames poor accounting and aging technical systems that meant that the accounting had not been documented correctly. In the very sentance after the 2.3Tn claim Rumsfeld himself says that:

bWe cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

Anyway you go on to say that:

So in essence...you don't know where the money is...and you obviously don't care. All you know is that it's not tied to 9/11...even though you have no idea what happened to it...

This might shock you but i do know what happened to it, $2.3Tn is just about the entire pentagon budget for the whole of the '90's so pretty much all of that money was spent on running the US Military throughout the '90's. Its just that they also happened to have piss-poor technical systems that were not compatible with each-other for tracking exactly where all of this money was going to. As such Rumsfeld was quite correct when he said they could not track the money. If it was a case that they had "stole" the money the essentially there would have been no US Military in the '90's.

Hell $2.3Tn is almost half the national dept level in 2001.

the money missing may not have been directly tied to 9/11 event, but the event could have been used to cover the tracks of that money being missing

Absolute rubbish a comment that is quite easily debunked by the very fact that we are talking about it today in 2014.

I really dont understand why truthers dont just let this one go, it only complicates their arguments and to anyone who is rational its quite a easy one to "Debunk".

9/11 is no different. However one of the biggest problems is majority of the hijackers were Saudi's, yet we invaded Afghanistan as a result. Iraq's invasion was because of WMDs. Saudi Arabia is of course our ally and we have to be loyal to them or else our PetroDollar goes away. The RT has a good story on how that shapes US policy and a little history about the PetroDollar.

Osama Bin Laden had briefly lived in America-he had a keen eye for politics and he understood the system and how the media feeds public discussions as to their own political agenda. What he didn't understand was Americans can have never ending political bickering but they have a history of pulling together when the need arises. This he sorely underestimated.

In Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Mukhtar) confession he stated that Bin Laden wanted all the operators to be from Saudi Arabia-his thinking was that this would provoke the Americans to invade the Kingdom. Then Muslims around the world would rise up to protect Mecca and his plan for global jihad would leave him as the world leader of an Islamic Caliphate. He would have made the Fuhrer proud with his megalomania.

He really didn't fool anybody and it was obvious that the operators he had personally chosen were all expatriated from the Kingdom and had given up their wealthy families to join his jihad. So in a sense they were really from Afghanistan his base of power as the majority would have been arrested and jailed (or possibly given an Islamic crew cut) if they ever tried to return to the Kingdom-the exact same thing that would happened to him.

reply to post by spooky24

Osama Bin Laden had briefly lived in America

I am just wondering,

what is your source regarding this?

You really know your stuff and i am just curious what source you have that says Bin Laden lived in America.

Its a honest question i am not trying to trip you up or be confrontational.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


really? you're using "9/11 myths" as a source?.....first a lot of these supposed 9/11 stories are not largely believed, even by the people that have serious questions. in other words, cherry picking.....I used to be a day trader, and I know how option trading works....somehow this "myths" site lowballs the amount of options traded in those airlines, and somehow link the massive put option trading to (my own paraphrase) "just a business decision"....several more of the "myths" have been downplayed to the point that you could sum it up as...."everyday happenings", (again, my paraphrase)....and another example, the "myths" site talked about jeb bush declaring martial in florida, nobody I have read has brought this up, nor that john Ashcroft stopped flying commercial, nor if willie brown was warned about flying....these are not a part of any serious dialog.

reply to post by jimmyx


I agree not everyone who questions 9/11 believes that the unaccounted for $2.3Tn has anything to do with 9/11 but my comments are not really directed at those people.

this thread is about that missing $2.3Tn and its quite apparent that it had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, thats all i am really saying.