Not billions but TRILLIONS, and just look who lost it.

[Twist_U_Up]

Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference

On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." According to a report by the Inspector General, the Pentagon cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends. 1 2

Such a disclosure normally might have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried. To the trillions already missing from the coffers, an obedient Congress terrorized by anthrax attacks would add billions more in appropriations to fight the "War on Terror."

The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. 3 4 Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor." 5

Estimates of the sums of money missing vary wildly. A 2003 report put the amount missing at "more than a trillion dollars." 6
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html

[Skink]

1. That would imply Clinton was in on it.

Even W can't operate that fast.

[tech3149]

3. We've been victims of these bloodsuckers for decades

Since Eisenhower was in office it's been a continual build-up. It wasn't until this misadministration that we got sold into the "shock and awe" of continual budget busting war. Man, I hope people really wake up soon.

[JackRiddler]

4. No, it means it's systemic and independent of administration...

Who knows how much of the gap was generated or "discovered" during the audit itself?

Here are some interesting discoveries about it - one fellow went and tracked the report itself down:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x92233

[gulfcoastliberal]

2. Think about all those black programs that money buys.

We must demand disclosure.

[Ezlivin]

5. Now consider one fact: The Pentagon was struck in the finance/accounting department

Of course we all know that was just a sheer coincidence. Hani Hanjour the Super Pilot decided that it was better to take a diving 270° turn than simply lower the nose and plow straight ahead. But if he'd done that he would have struck the section where Rummy was sitting and not the finance/accounting department.

It's just a pity that the very department in charge of finding those missing 2+ trillion dollars was destroyed.

Just like it was a pity that the SEC was destroyed when WTC 7 collapsed, thus destroying its ability to pursue cases against Enron and others.

All just coincidental.

[seemslikeadream]

6. DoD Statement on Jack Shaw and the Iraq Telecommunications Contract

For several months there have been allegations in the press that activities of John A. Shaw, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for International Technology Security, were under investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DoD IG). The allegations were examined by DoD IG criminal investigators in Baghdad and a criminal investigation was never opened.



Furthermore, attempts to discredit Shaw and his report on Iraqi telecommunications contracting matters were brought to the attention of the DoD IG and were accordingly referred to the FBI.



Shaw carried out his duties in the investigation of Iraqi telecommunications matters pursuant to the authorities spelled out in the Memorandum of Understanding between the DoD IG and the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Shaw provided a copy of his report to the DOD IG and, at the request of the Coalition Provisional Authority, to the Iraqi National Communications and Media Commission.



Shaw is not now, nor has he ever been, under investigation by the DoD IG. Any questions concerning FBI activities should be addressed to the FBI.
http://www.dod.mil/releases/2004/nr20040810-1103.html


Do you know who Jack Shaw is?

[seemslikeadream]

7. oops that info doesn't seem to be at that link anymore?

here it is

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/08/iraq-040810-dod01.htm



http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/ring081304.html
Shaw vindicated
We reported recently on an inaccurate Los Angeles Times report that John A. Shaw, deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, was under FBI investigation over accusations that he improperly interfered in communications contracting in Iraq.

A Justice Department official we contacted said there was no probe of Mr. Shaw and never was.

Now the Pentagon has gone further. A statement released Tuesday cleared Mr. Shaw of "press allegations" that he was under investigation by the Department of Defense inspector general.

"The allegations were examined by the DoD IG criminal investigators and a criminal investigation was never opened," the statement says.

"Shaw is not now, nor has he ever been, under investigation by the DoD IG," the statement says, noting that questions regarding any FBI probe should be addressed to the FBI.

[seemslikeadream]

8. Analysis: Defense budget practices probed

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/dp/Uus-defense-young-analysis.RUt1_DO2.html


Analysis: Defense budget practices probed
Thursday, 02-Oct-2003 10:00AM PDT Story from United Press International
Copyright 2003 by United Press International (via ClariNet)

MIAMI, Oct. 2 (UPI) --

Zakheim said, however, he was limited in his response because of the ongoing audit of the issue, which originally was sparked by a telephone call to the Pentagon's Defense Hotline.


"Our objective will be to review the allegations to the Defense Hotline concerning funds 'parked' at the U.S. Special Operations Command by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)," said a letter from the inspector general's office to Gen. Charles Holland, who has since retired as Special Operations commander.

Among several documents The St. Petersburg Times obtained during its investigation was e-mail sent by Special Operations Command Comptroller Elaine Kingston to colleagues in February 2002.
She said an unidentified official in the Pentagon comptroller's office had asked her if the command could "park" $40 million of research-and-development money in its proposed budget for the 2003 fiscal year.


The programs where the money was placed included missile warning systems on aircraft, infrared equipment on helicopters and radar system. The amounts ranged from $2 million to $5 million.
Kingston said in the e-mail message she coached her colleagues on how to account for the money and avoid attracting congressional attention to it.

"We are doing a favor for the OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) which we hope will benefit the command if we should need additional (research and development funds)," the message said.
Young said at the hearing on President Bush's request for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan Tuesday that he wants to know if it is a common practice.

Young is clearly not finished and called it "an obvious attempt to keep from Congress what was happening. I think that would make you suspicious. It makes me a little suspicious."

more
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/dp/Uus-de...

[wildbilln864]

9. Someone lost it we know...

who found it? It sure didn't just disappear! :shrug:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

10. It slipped out of Rummy's pocket when he was

digging for his car keys. Think it fell down the storm gutter.

[Twist_U_Up]

14. Hres an interesting site

http://www.whereisthemoney.org/

[seemslikeadream]

11. "We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery,

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

"The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job," said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.

"They have to cover it up," he said. "That's where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can't do the job."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml


Dov Zakheim: Defense Department Chief Financial Officer

According to the Baltimore Sun, Dov Zakheim -- who until April was the Defense Department's chief financial officer -- described himself as "a very partisan person." And his mix of partisanship and corporate lobbying for defense contractors made him a perfect Bush administration appointee to oversee all financial transactions at the Pentagon.

Before being appointed, Zakheim made a career selling access to the Pentagon as CEO of the defense consultancy Systems Planning Corporation. A client named Emultek bragged in an August 1997 press release that partnering with Zakheim would provide "significant DoD exposure for the company." In 2000, he was a part of a neoconservative group nicknamed "the Vulcans" who were senior advisors to the Bush campaign. After taking office Bush appointed him to the Defense Department where "he oversaw three Department of Defense budgets, each totaling more than $300 billion, and recently proposed a 2005 budget of $401.7 billion." Zakheim resigned in April to take a lucrative position as a vice president of the consultancy Booz Allen Hamilton. According to a May 6, 2004 press release, he will be an officer in Booz Allen's "public sector" business.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0709-06.htm

[HCE SuiGeneris]

12. Between the Neocons

and the DLC, "we the people" has become an empty phrase. We have been sold... auctioned off -- lock, stock and barrel.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

13. I don't know if I'm correct, but wasn't the accounting dept. of the Pentagon destroyed on 9/11? nt

[Twist_U_Up]

20. along with the people in charge of investigating this.

ruthless gangsters

[seemslikeadream]

15. Where's the money?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1rT4bszWg&eurl=

[sabbat hunter]

16. over how many years/decades

has that money gone "missing"

chances are most of it isnt missing but was used on top secret projects. while i would love to see full accounting for this money, i am not sure if that is possible if the projects are indeed classified. but congress should at least be able to see where the money is going, report back.

[Contrite]

17. Google Dov Zakheim.

Google Booz Allen Hamilton.

That is all.

[seemslikeadream]

18. "Pat Buchanan, in my view, is an anti-Semite," said Zakheim.

Four years ago, when Zakheim was on presidential candidate George Bush's foreign policy planning team, he told Haaretz the U.S. did not need to play policeman around the globe, and that American military involvement overseas should be reserved for extreme situations, such as the prevention of genocide.

............

From the time when reports about the Bush administration's intention to go to war started to circulate, critics have charged that Jewish neoconservatives in the Pentagon were responsible for dragging the U.S. into war with Iraq, with the intention of protecting Israeli, not American, interests. Proponents of this claim hail from all parts of the political spectrum, starting with arch-conservative Pat Buchanan, and continuing with two Democrats from Capitol Hill, Congressman Jim Moran (Virginia), and Senator Friz Hollings (South Carolina).

"Pat Buchanan, in my view, is an anti-Semite," said Zakheim. "I'm sorry, but you cannot keep saying what he says, and say he's not an anti-Semite. He is an anti-Semite. I know one when I see one."

..........

Alongside such claims about corruption in Saddam Hussein's regime, Zakheim brings up the issue of terror. Given Saddam Hussein's well-known support for Palestinian suicide bombers, "why is it so hard to believe that he had ties with Al-Qaida," Zakheim wonders. "If you make the connection - Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism - then it definitely becomes a world problem," he concludes.

.........


Israelis who worked with Zakheim are full of praise for his professionalism. Though he always upheld American interests, they say, he had a warm place in his heart for Israel and he did as much as he could to help. For instance, after the start of the intifada, when it became clear that Israel's police force lacked equipment to defuse bombs, Zakheim found funds, and arranged a transfer of $28 million for automatic gear used by sappers. Zakheim is proud of his close relations with many Israelis - recently his son was married in Jerusalem, but at the time, a stepson who went on a photo-shoot in Hebron was beaten by settlers.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/441712.html

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

19. Amazing -- they're essentially just coming right out and saying...

...we stole billions, used it for whatever we wanted, and now, what are you gonna do about it?

[SDuderstadt]

21. I am perpetually amazed at how you can read a story and...

immediately jump to the wrong conclusion. Does the inability to track something mean it was "stolen"? Hint: no. It simply means that there are a variety of different accounting platforms/systems used and it isn't as transparent as it should be. Does it mean that NO money has been misappropriated or used fraudulently? No, it doesn't mean that either and it is cause for some degree of concern.

Think about this for a second, Mr. J. Do you honestly think if it was as nefarious as you seem to believe, that Rumsfeld would be announcing it publicly on September 10th, 2001? What would be the point of that? Wouldn't you try to hide it instead? Another poster notes that supposedly, it was "the accounting center" of the Pentagon that was hit that day. Think about that one for just a moment. Wouldn't there be a lot less difficult ways to pull something off rather than hit a building with a plane and hope it destroys the area you so desperately need it to destroy?

The thinking (?) you guys employ reminds me of all those scenes from the 007 films where they want to kill James Bond but, rather than just shoot him right then and there, they opt instead to strap him to a metal table with a laser beam slowly working its way up to his crotch. Of course, he always gets away. I'm the one in the theater silently screaming, "Just SHOOT him! Shoot'im!".

Use your brains for a change.

[Ezlivin]

22. Hey, Mr. Amazed

How long did it take for someone to even remember what Rumsfeld said on September 10, 2001?

Read Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine" and come to grips with what "shock and awe" is capable of.

You remark: "Wouldn't there be a lot less difficult ways to pull something off rather than hit a building with a plane and hope it destroys the area you so desperately need it to destroy?"

Perhaps if they had someone like you on staff they could have thought of some way to keep the staff of accountants from eventually tracking it down. Or perhaps you could have dreamed up a way to kill all of those people and destroy the records in some plausible manner. But you have to admit that having a big ol' jetliner rammed right into that section, killing people and destroying records was pretty damned convenient. And no one had to deny anything because, as we all know, the "terrorists" did it.

And, wow, it was convenient that the Pentagon didn't have a single camera to record the impact (well, except for that misdated, grainy one that magically appeared).

You, apparently, are willing to excuse dozens of so-called "coincidences" and back the story of an administration that has proved itself capable of the most brazen lying and criminal activity in U.S. history. Regardless of the point in question, if it has even the slightest bearing on 9/11 you rush to back the official story. You find no fault with any aspect of the events leading to or occurring on or after 9/11.

Yet you tell us to use our "brains for a change."

That's rich. You are the very definition of credulous.

[SDuderstadt]

24. No, I'm the very definition of...

a critical thinker. Any large scale catastrophic event will have, by definition, a number of anomalies, inconsistencies and coincidences. The problem with most conspiracy theorists is that they are constantly "connecting the dot" (my phrase), never realizing they don't have enough data points to reach the conclusion they do. There is also a phenomenon known as "found significance" in which someone employs a post hoc rationalization to reach a conclusion they regard as meaningful, when it is largely the opposite.

How the fuck do you know how 'credulous" I am? How do you know that I didn't have just as many suspicions on that day? How do you know that I just "bought" what I was told? Hint: I didn't. But when most, if not all, of the conspiracy theories are subjected to scrutiny, they just don't hold up. If you'd bother to research the situation regarding the Pentagon accounting, they aren't exactly trying to not "track it down". Think about exactly what I asked. If there was something to hide, why on earth would Rumsfeld be drawing attention to it on September 10th? No matter which side of the Pentagon was struck, could we not construct some sort of nefarious motive? Does that mean it's true? Hint: no.

Why would the Pentagon have the kind of security cameras you're talking about, since the purpose of most of those cameras (which most certainly did not "magically appear") are used rather mundanely at car entry points. I'm willing to bet the kind of cameras you're referring to have not been installed to date. Does that mean the Pentagon is planning a subsequent similar event? What difference does it make if literally hundreds of eyewitnesses saw the freakin' plane so we don't need the camera footage anyhow?? Talk to someone who was actually there that day and I have little doubt they will tell you just how absurd the no plane/missile/whatever theories are. Ask someone who held not only identifiable wreckage of the plane, but identifiable pieces of AA uniforms and even body parts of the passengers in their hands.

For the record, I despise the Bush administration and hope that Bush and Cheney are tried and convicted after they leave office. That doesn't mean I embrace goofy conspiracy theories that have not s shred of proof simply because I like the outcome. Just because it's possible for something to happen, doesn't mean that it happened. If it did happen, it will leave some trail of evidence. What the "truthers" need to do is get some real evidence, postulate a coherent, cohesive alternative hypothesis and prove the freakin' thing. If they do, I'll be all ears. To date they haven't.

What I find most odd is that the "truth" movement is apparenly unwillingly to subject their own theories to the same level of scrutiny that they demand of the "official story". What is so implausible about the "official story", especially in view of the mountain of physical evidence and eyewitness testimony? Does that mean it's 100% right? No. Does that mean that I accept it unconditionally? Absolutely not. But it does mean that I accept it provisionally until someone can come up with a better explanation.

You can come away from this with whatever take on it you wish. But I'll match my critical thinking skills against yours any day.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

28. YOU'RE "the very definition of a critical thinker?"

:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

29. Well...

you certainly don't fit it. The funniest thing is that people with no critical thinking skills whatsoever lack the ability to recognize their lack of critical thinking skills.

[wildbilln864]

30. Got me too...

:rofl: :rofl:

[Ezlivin]

31. Does the Pentagon have cameras? Does your local convenience store have them?

The Pentagon, headquarters of the US department of defence, is the nerve centre for command and control of America's military might and widely regarded as one of the most secure and impregnable buildings in the world. Source

A common statement provided, as you are walking around is that, 'you are now standing in one of the most secure building in all of the United States.' It is quite an impressive building on the inside. (Sgt. Gallop, Pentagon survivor) Source

The nightmare scenario was played out at the Pentagon—one of the world's most secure buildings—to test its contingency plans for such an attack. (1998 Mock attacks at Pentagon) Source

The Defense Department is seeking to improve security at what is already one of the most heavily protected facilities in the world, said Raymond F. DuBois Jr., deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment. ... This latest drive to improve Pentagon security began a decade ago, under Cooke, as part of a thorough renovation of the building. Source

What kind of security can be expected at the Pentagon?

There are five Security Levels (I - V). The Pentagon and CIA Headquarters are Level V.

A level V facility is a building such as the Pentagon or CIA Headquarters that contains mission functions critical to national security. Source

What do lower level facilities have? For instance, what does a Level IV facility require?

In addition to security requirements applicable for Level III facilities, the following apply (for Level IV):

1. Closed circuit television monitoring with time lapse video recording.
2. X-Ray screening of all incoming mail and packages.
3. Agency photo identification cards displayed at all times.

Source

There are cameras mounted to the roof of the Pentagon.


They enable monitoring of the entire perimeter of the building. This camera was close enough to capture the events of 9/11.


There are other security cameras that could have captured the events.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Ummm, dude...

This is from YOUR own post:

"Closed circuit television monitoring with time lapse video recording."

Note the words TIME LAPSE. Now the question is how many frames per second do the cameras records at and how fast was the plane going when it slammed into the building. Hint: the frame speed was quite low and the plane was going incredibly fast. What do you think you would see under those circumstances??

[Ezlivin]

33. El Duderino - I'm not into that whole brevity thing

Well, since I answered your question concerning the presence of cameras, now the discussion must necessarily switch to the capabilities of those cameras.

Let's suppose that the cameras mounted on the outside of the Pentagon were, in fact, time lapse cameras. Unless they were all synched to the exact same frame rate you still have the possibility of multiple cameras covering a single area, any one of which could have easily captured a clear image of whatever impacted the building. (A slow frame rate does not mean the camera does not have a high shutter speed.)

Security measures as detailed in my post does not negate the notion that the cameras mounted outside of the Pentagon were not time lapse cameras. There would be very valid reasons for each of these cameras to be real-time, monitored and recorded. For instance, my wife is a Navy veteran who worked at a very secure location (Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet Headquarters) in 1979. This building had real-time monitored closed-circuit cameras. In fact, every door inside the building that had key-pad access had cameras focused on them. If you had that sort of security for movement inside the building, would you expect no real-time camera security outside?

Real-time cameras that record are so ubiquitous that even convenience stores have them. They are dirt cheap, very capable and are very, very useful in solving crimes. This should be self-evident simply from watching the nightly news. To think that the Pentagon, with a trillion dollar budget, has less sophisticated video monitoring is simply ridiculous. Hell, go out to Area 51 and stomp around in the middle of nowhere and armed guards will show up to ask you what you are doing. If that remote area is that well monitored, the Pentagon, surrounded by people, damn sure is.

[Twist_U_Up]

35. more pics of cameras around Pentagon. Good Post EZ

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

23. Oh goodness, a severe dress down from

...the poster child for crimestop -- gosh what am I gonna do now.

I guess I shoulda listened to you all along, you're obviously the guy that knows the score and you're only here to spread truth -- 19 Arabs with box cutters, right?

[SDuderstadt]

25. Yeah, just keep calling it 'crimestop", Mr. J.....

and, hopefully, no one will ever notice that you haven't got a shred of evidence of your goofy theories. If you'd open your eyes long enough, you'd find that there actually is ample evidence of "19 Arabs with boxcutters". You seem to dismiss the notion that they were smart enough and organized enough to, armed with the element of surprise, pull it off. Surely you're not suggesting that Arabs are incapable of pulling something like this off, right? Right?

I'm all ears for your alternative hypothesis, pal. Oh, and some definitive proof would be nice. Good luck.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

27. Hallelujah, sweet Jesus, do you mean it? Do you really mean it?...

...Pals?

Alrighty then, pals it is.

:pals:

[SDuderstadt]

26. The OP can't even manage to get basic facts straight....

it wasn't a press conference. It was actually a speech to a group of military logisticians. A link to the ENTIRE speech (rather than the cherry-picked snippet) is below. Read the ENTIRE thing and I challenge you to come to the conclusion it was something nefarious. It was anything but, which you'd find out if you'd bother to read it.

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

P.S. I despise Donald Rumsfeld.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

34. remote controlled airplanes - ah!

Zahheim

lots of money went to the supposed 'hijackers'