- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,390
- 19,525
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
What is hard to understand about dealing with big govt! They employ you don't they?
History 5/2/15 New allegations of Saudi involvement in 9/11
- Thread starter CountryRace
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #327
Uh huh
Pity they couldn't fix the computers
Oh you know. Trillions go missing all the time
Yeah, it is. Pull it means to pull a building down.
Both in denial and attacking the man. Who would've thought?
Watched your videos - Silverstein was talking to the fire chief and the decision was made to pull it or some such was said.
How you get a pre-planned controlled demolition from that phrase is beyond me.
I dare say a more reasonable interpretation is to pull the fire fighting operation.
Still its 28 seconds long so its hard to get the context from that.
The other video with John Kerry has questions being put to him in a forum and he isn't aware of the claims being made and he says I'll check that out or similar.
Is that supposed to prove something?
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
wrong again! "pull" means to tie a cable to a building and aid in the direction of its fall. "pull it" means nothing. almost 15 years and you haven't even been able to get the basics right. don't feel bad, even Dick Gage struggles too.
i just showed you where the "missing" money was. who's in denial?
Last edited:
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
well clearly CountryRace seems to overestimate the efficiency and underestimate the capacity for uselessness re big government. like i pointed out, centrelink would be the sum total of experience he has.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
that's exactly what he meant which he has since clarified. but oh no, we can believe his second quotation, only the first
Yet the fire chief has denied this?
No, I got it from how the building actually fell.
There was no fire fighting operation. They let the building burn.
Sure he wasn't.
The proof is from the way the building fell, and the quick cleanup of the remains before they could be forensically examined. The two statement just further states it.
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
What Silverstein said was
I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse.
The most obvious literal meaning is that he was advising the fire department to pull down the building. And subsequently WTC7 collapsed in a similar manner to hundreds of other tall buildings brought down by controlled demolition. However, this interpretation is problematic because i) fire departments do not bring down buildings by controlled demolition ii) fire departments do not liaise with building owners about operational matters during fire fights iii) no fire department commander has been identified who made such a call.
Another popular interpretation is that he was advising the fire department to withdraw their men from WTC7 which subsequently collapsed due to office fires. However, this is problematic because i) no high rise building has ever collapsed symmetrically, and for significant periods of free fall due to office fires ii) fire departments do not liaise with building owners about operational matters during fire fights iii) no fire department commander has been identified who made such a call iv) Silverstein's words don't make sense in that context.
A further interpretation is that this conversation as related by Silverstein never took place at all. WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition which had nothing to do with the fire department. Silverstein said these words as a distraction from what really occurred.
Astonishingly, the physical evidence that might have indicated why a 47 storey building suddenly collapsed was disposed of before an investigation could begin. What was the hurry?
"Pull it" means to pull down a building. It is used in the context of demolishing buildings.
Did you? All you showed me was a government website. The same government who authorised wargames on the day of the attacks, and regularly lies to its people (and the world). The same government who bombed a country who had nothing to do with 9/11, and only went there for resources.i just showed you where the "missing" money was. who's in denial?
not to mention its top speed is only 400K's
The John Kerry youtube has a header saying he admits to the controlled demolition of WTC7, he does no such thing.
He's asked 2 questions and denies any knowledge, the closest he gets to saying anything like what is purported is something about a wall being knocked over by the firies.
And you come back with "sure he wasn't" to the point that he claims not to be aware of what the questions are about.
What are you a mindreader?
As for the "quick cleanup of the remains before they could be forensically examined" that's not my recollection.
The WTC site was called the pile and I reckon the cleanup took at least a year maybe 2. It was done by picking at the rubble with earthmoving equipment, teasing it apart and loading it onto dump trucks that drove it to the defunct NY garbage dump called Fresh Kills.
The various authorities would have had ample opportunity to examine anything they liked.
Frankly I doubt Fresh Kills was Fort Knox so I dare say amateur sleuths could have jumped fences and done likewise.
That's not my recollection, the clean-up took ages. I remember watching news snippets of dump-trucks loaded with girders and stories about Fresh Kills and its ironic name. I'd guess it took well over a year to clear the site.
As far as I'm aware there was an investigation by the relevant authorities, I'd imagine that might have included the NY Coroner, Police and Fire Dept and similar Federal authorities.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #339
I merely find it hard to believe they 'lost' TRIllion/s dollars due to the government Being too large and the computers not "talking". It's not five dollars falling behind the couch. It's eight, nine times the multi billion military budget of that year.
"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on,"
said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/
Just another part which is all rather convenient and conincidental in the big picture. Almost like, why did the take the evidence away, before the investigation could be done?
There are many question that don't quite add up. Some of them, trillion dollar questions.
Last edited:
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
you know it's not actual money, right? we're talking about financial transactions. which were spread around 600ish systems. i know you "find it hard to believe"; i already provided you the fallacy your stupidity falls under.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
i know you believe everything you read on the internet, but that's hardly my fault. you're full of s**t. it didn't mean that in 2001, it still doesn't mean that in 2015. such degrees of ignorance 14 years after the event is poor form.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
ohhhhh right. so you can quote rumsfeld, whom every truther at the time claimed was part of the 911 scheme, but i can't quote his department
you guys are so predictable.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #342
Oh - it's not real. Ok.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
no, stupid, what was "missing" wasn't money, but financial records. learn to read, idiot.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #344
Only 8% of the money on the earth is 'real'
92% is 'on computers'
To lose TRillions is a reasonable large issue, regardless of the inefficiency or size of the government.
92% is 'on computers'
To lose TRillions is a reasonable large issue, regardless of the inefficiency or size of the government.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
hence why they had people working on it to find it, einstein.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #346
Then what happened ?
All the files and documents of the computers that were not talking to each other - went down in wtc7?
I'm trying to keep up with the offical story. s**t, what a freak number of events
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
are you a moron? i already told you what happened. they consolidated the systems and found the transactions. note that virtually all of these transactions were clinton-era spendings (or before), and had nothing to do with george II and his band of merry men. imbecile.
you couldn't keep up with my grandma and her zimmerframe.
Last edited:
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
your mate rummy again
http://web.archive.org/web/20031224...ink.mil/news/Feb2002/n02202002_200202201.html
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.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...annot-track-2-3-trillion-in-transactions.165/
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.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...annot-track-2-3-trillion-in-transactions.165/
http://web.archive.org/web/20031224...ink.mil/news/Feb2002/n02202002_200202201.html
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
From the NIST report.
the reader should bear in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding for this investigation to begin.
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
The collapse of a steel-framed skyscraper due to office fires is completely unprecedented. The steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis but instead this key evidence was quickly recycled to local salvage yards or sent overseas.
He said it was brought down in a controlled fashion. Maybe you should ask him what that means?
But they didn't. And the clean-up operation was controlled by the people who would have something to hide.
- Status
Similar threads
