One of the Dumber Things The Deniers Claim
Here's yet another post on the missing $2.3 trillion at the Pentagon.
I’m sure as most of you know, On September 10th, 2001, the day before the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld admitted that they lost track of $2.3 trillion in spending.
This of course is true enough. But the blogger goes on:
The reason this fact is important, is that no matter what any American’s views about what happened on 9/11 are, they’ll be interested to know that the government “cannot track” $8000 of their money. This could be a good way to get people to look at 9/11 truth. Go around asking people if they heard the government stole $2.3 trillion, or $8000 of your money?
This is of course a complete mischaracterization. The government didn't "steal" the money. They didn't even lose it, as should be obvious to all but 9-11 Deniers. The entire defense budget for 2001 was about $292 billion, so in order to believe that the government lost $2.3 trillion you'd have to believe that over 8 years' of spending had gone for nothing.
And when they ask why they didn’t hear about, you tell them it was the day before 9/11, and the next day the accounting section of the pentagon was attacked. If you’re out on the street handing out flyers or whatever, just print off a copy of the CBS War on Waste article and show them. Since this is 100% fact, no one will be able to debunk you and people will be shocked and intrigued to find out more about what happened to their money.
This tie-in to 9-11 is ridiculous, given currency only by the fact that the 9-11 attacks came one day after Rumsfeld's announcement. But let's work this through; Rummy announces the money cannot be completely accounted for. One day later a bunch of Pentagon accountants die in the 9-11 attacks. If Rummy were really one of the plotters, why didn't he keep his mouth shut on 9-10, knowing that the next day the accountants would be killed?
When we bring this up, some of the commenters say that it's well known that you get your bad news out on a busy news day. But of course, 9-10 was not a busy news day; 9-11 was.
BTW, I've made some negative comments about people at 9-11 Blogger recently and I want to clarify my remarks. I disagree with the 9-11 Blogger people, but I don't think they're all idiots. So if I make a comment about the 25 percenters (from the South Park episode, 1/4 of all people are retards) over at 9-11 Blogger I am criticizing the people who made particular posts or comments. Reprehensor, for example, seems to be a reasonable and responsible guy.
posted by Pat @ 12:57 PM
40 comments
40 Comments:
Pat,
Do I detect an attempt at civility?
Dumber?
I have to wholeheartedly disagree.
I mean, at least Rummy did say this, and it is somewhat a coherent theory.
It certainly isn't dumber than Star Wars beams, controlled demolitions, no planes, cruise missiles, planted lightpoles, A guy sending his son off to die on Flt. 77, concrete cores, melting steel, pull it, or a whole host of other total stupidity.
The 2.3 trillion theory, while really dumb, is lightyears ahead of other truther theories in terms of intelligence.
Pre-9/11 Cold Fusion U.S. Patent, once blocked by Steven E. Jones, linked to suspicious murder
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2364
http://911blogger.com/node/4980?page=7
By ewing2001
December 14, 2006
picked up at (internal story)
Pre-9/11 Cold Fusion U.S. Patent, once blocked by Steven E. Jones, linked to suspicious murder
December 14, 2006
by ewing2001
(see also
Steven "Los Alamos" Jones biggest Traitor of U.S. since George Westinghouse (1880)
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2325 )
(Photo: Eugene F. Mallove, Fleisch/Ponsman Cold Fusion Supporter)
As 911bloglines.com and others resported (Rosalee Grable, "HeavyWaterGate",
Jones sabotaged cold fusion research
, in 1989 a panel organized by the U.S. Department of Energy, with the help of Steven "Los Alamos" Jones (now one of the leaders of the "9/11 Truth Movement" concluded there was no convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion...
However the US Patent Office accepted at least one patent of cold fusion in 2001,
interestingly also only a few weeks before 9/11.
This US patent 6,248,221, was cited by Infinite energy, by Eugene F. Mallove.
Mallove discussed the R&D behind this patent with co-inventor Randolph R. Davis (the other is Thomas F. McGraw), whom he has "known since the early 1990s", though he "was unaware of his involvement with this work":
Landmark Cold Fusion Patent Issued
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue41/landmark.html
"...Approval of the patent was through an art group within the USPTO that somehow managed to escape the well-known forces of opposition..."
Mallove was highly critical of the DOE Sabotage Stunt against the Fleischmann-Pons paper of 1989.
He brutally was killed May 14, 2004. The crime wasn't officially solved until 1 year later.
Pureenergy wrote, that he "left MIT faculty position in 1989 in protest over what he considered to be rigged data intended to debunk Cold Fusion...."
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/05/15/EugeneMalloveDies/index...
Pure Energy Systems News
May 15, 2004
NORWICH, CT, USA
Dr. Eugene Mallove, the tireless spokesperson for integrity and honesty in cold fusion
research, whose persistent efforts finally persuaded the U.S. Department
Dr. Eugene Mallove, to give the phenomenon a second look
after 15 years of denial and stonewalling, was killed in Norwich, CT on 14 May 2004..."
The official patsy killers had been mentioned here:
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/obituaries/2004/EugeneMallove/
# Second suspect implicated in Mallove killing - Provides more details
of the murder and of the two suspects: Gary McAvoy and Joseph Reilly.
McAvoy "cried and curled up into the fetal position when he was first
questioned about the murder of Eugene Mallove." (Norwich Bulletin;
July 12)
# Police say McAvoy did not act alone
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/obituaries/2004/EugeneMallove/
McAvoy Pleads 'Not Guilty'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Mallove
....On October 4, 2005, a judge ruled that there was enough evidence for Joseph Reilly to stand trial for felony murder...
http://www.controversial-science.com/cf/patent.html
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issues "cold fusion" patent
"...According to a report in the new technology journal Infinite Energy (Issue 41, 2002), the U.S. Patent Office has approved a cold fusion patent. Although the details behind the patent are being withheld for proprietary reasons, according to Infinite Energy Editor-in-Chief Eugene F. Mallove, U.S. Patent #6,248,221 for "Electrolysis Apparatus and Electrodes and Electrode Material Therefor," issued to Randolph R. Davis and Thomas F. McGraw, is definitely a patent for a form of cold fusion technology. The Davis and McGraw patent cites several cold fusion papers, including Pons and Fleishmann's 1989 article "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium"...
...Why the Davis and McGraw patent was allowed to slip by the usual cold fusion censors remains a mystery, but while it is certain Patent #6,248,221 represents a breakthrough, it is not the first time a cold fusion patent has fallen through the cracks at the USPTO. A cold fusion device invented by physical chemist James Patterson is patented under U.S. Patents #4,943,355 and #5,036,031. According to Mallove, the most recent Patterson patent was granted by accident in 1994...
...Davis and McGraw, in a paper presented at the American Nuclear Society's 33rd Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion ("Critical Factors in Transitioning from Fuel Cell to Cold Fusion Technology"), explain why more patents are likely to be issued, even by the perennially biased U.S. Patent Office....
Posted on: Thu, Dec 14 2006
BG, yes, it's an attempt.
Jujigitami, those things you mention can all at least be tied in with the conspiracy theory. I cannot for the life of me see how they tie in the missing $2.3 trillion. It's a dot that refuses to connect with anything.
Ban ewing, please.
Just to give you an idea what 2.3 trillion dollars in gold would look like:
At today's market rate, that's over 114 metric tonnes of gold.(US $20,100 per kilogram). Large Oil tankers usually carry about that weight in crude oil.
A gold bar is 6" x 3" x 2" and weighs 27.4 pounds (12.4kg). That means you get 8 bars to fit perfectly in a square foot, 48 to the cubic foot. The cubic foot of said gold would weigh in at over 1,300 lbs (595 kg). (worth about $12 million) So 114,000 metric tonnes converts to just over 9 million gold bricks, and 192,000 cubic feet of (solid) gold.
If you stacked the gold 8 feet high, like you might in a typical storage room, it would take up almost exactly 24,000 square feet. That's without any aisles or any space between the gold bars at all. That's the size of a medium sized grocery store.
ewing:
here is some advice. Provided you actually have the intellect to debate some of the 9/11 issues, you would actually get much more attention if you did debate, rather than spam. I can tell you that I personally immediately scroll over your posts without looking at them simply because they are spam.
TAM
Like hey man, they were going to steal the gold in the basement of the WTC, but it melted in the fire.
It is reasonable to assume that by "not being able to track the transactions," Rumsfeld meant that the money is missing, although he meant total over a very long period of time, he did not mean that they suddenly discovered that a chunk was missing.
Also, it is interesting to note that the announcement was made on a Monday, while announcements of such bad news are usually made late in the day on Friday.
The newly refurbished wing of the Pentagon had many key accountants there who died in the plane strike, and "the Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White, had an excuse [for not making a full accounting]. In a shocking appeal to sentiment it says it didn't publish a 'stand-alone' financial statement for 2001 because of 'the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.'"
Following is a summary of the issue with links and a CBS news video clip speaking about the subject and the subject of fraud at the Pentagon in general.
http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911_money_trail.html#accountants_perishing
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armements”
http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com
The Pentagon is a giant,incredibly complex establishment,budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Adminisitrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.
How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the Sec. Def. to be - Mr. Gates- understand such complexity, particulary if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?
Answer- he can’t. Therefor he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.
From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.
This situation is unfortunate but it is ablsolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.
This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen unitil it hits a brick wall at high speed.
We will then have to run a Volkswagon instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.
It is reasonable to assume that by "not being able to track the transactions," Rumsfeld meant that the money is missing, although he meant total over a very long period of time, he did not mean that they suddenly discovered that a chunk was missing.
Not in context, it's not. Sec. Rumsfeld was talking about a shortage of technological systems and a lack of CPAs. Those same lacks are the reason the number he mentions is so unfathomably large -- multiple counting. Say Congress allocates $100 MM for a certain specific program in a certain specific year. So Treasury moves $100 MM to the, say, Army account over the course of the year, and that's accounted for. The Army moves $80 MM to department A for disbursal to contractors and $20 MM to an overhead account. They account for it at that level but the level above -- the Treasury to Army level -- can't access those records. Bang! $100 MM unaccounted for. Department A now spends $80 MM on contractors and that's accounted for. But again, the level above can't see it, so there's another $80 MM unaccounted for. We're already at $180 MM on a $100 MM expenditure, without a dime of waste or fraud.
This stuff is important exactly because of the potential for waste and fraud, but that doesn't mean by any stretch that even 1% of the $2.6 trillion was stolen.
Also, it is interesting to note that the announcement was made on a Monday, while announcements of such bad news are usually made late in the day on Friday.
It wasn't designed to be "bad news" in the sense of everyone gasps and wonders what happened to all that money. It was designed to be "bad news" in the sense of "please approve our defense budget, Messrs. Representatives, so we can do a better job." Sec. Rumsfeld was begging for money and absolutely wanted his appeal to make the news.
As an aside, it's really fun to read that transcript. It goes back to a happier and less partisan time. And time before everyone knew Duke Cunningham was a crook.
This wasn't an "announcement", Rumsfeld made these comments in a speech during a convention of Pentagon logisticans. Ths is just when his speech happened to take place. He wasn't announcing anything, he was complaining about the status quo and trying to inspire change.
Thank you andrew, edward35, and RoseCovered Glasses for once again proving that the missing $2.3 trillion is a big deal.
Everybody should take a look at these 3 links:
- www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091001defensebudget
- www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
- www.whereisthemoney.org/
----------------------------------
Pat, you're good at debunking dumbass theories, but don't try to be ignorant towards the situation of the missing $2.3 trillion.
If you finished reading the links above, google these keywords:
"Dov Zakheim + Missing $2.3 trillion"
You guys are proberly saying "Why assume it's stolen ... couldn't this be legitimate accounting errors?"
For accounting errors to be legitimate, they must be subject to a materiality standard -- a standard rule of thumb dictating whether errors are immaterial (acceptable) or material (unacceptable). A standard of 1-3% of an operation's budget could be argued as immaterial. Hard to say that about adjustments that are greater than 100% of the annual budget! And in any case no amount is "immaterial" to the people and living things that are suffering due to lack of funds for important federal programs....(More here:www.whereisthemoney.org/FAQ-detail.htm#FAQ09)
Extra link (everybody should take a look at this): http://www.oilempire.us/trillions.html
Manny, I have to disagree with your statement that his statement was taken out of context.. the quote from the speech you cited is as follows:
" As you know, the Department of Defense really is not in charge of its civilian workforce, in a certain sense. It's the OPM, or Office of Personnel management, I guess. There are all kinds of long- standing rules and regulations about what you can do and what you can't do. I know Dr. Zakheim's been trying to hire CPAs because the financial systems of the department are so snarled up that we can't account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that's believable. And yet we're told that we can't hire CPAs to help untangle it in many respects."
Obviously he's going to choose his words carefully.. his statement combined with decades of documented fraud and waste points to money that is missing. Tell me how "not being able to account for $2.6 Trillion in transactions," can be interpreted in any other way, just because he claims that it's because of lack of technical ability doesn't mean that the money isn't missing, it's just his way of spinning it.
Also, the link I specified contains a link to that speech, here is the link again..
http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911_money_trail.html#accountants_perishing
In any event, the heart of this issue related to September 11 is "the Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White, had an excuse [for not making a full accounting]. In a shocking appeal to sentiment it says it didn't publish a 'stand-alone' financial statement for 2001 because of 'the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack."
If Rummy were really one of the plotters, why didn't he keep his mouth shut on 9-10, knowing that the next day the accountants would be killed?
Look, you obviously don't know anything about intelligence work, lady. It's an X-K-Red-27 technique.
I always say that one cannot underestimate the intelligence of the 9/11 Denial Movement.
Nonetheless, after reading a post like this, I still find myself having overestimated the intelligence of its members.
S. King what are you trying to say?
What me, andrew, edward35, and RoseCovered Glasses posted is the type of info you will never hear out of a 'truther's' (such as bg, killtown, etc.) mouth. We were not talking about the WTC collapse, flight 93, or any other stuff close to that. BTW, I don't support the 9/11 truth movement, and never will.
It's a silly assertion. Money unaccounted for is not money stolen. Hell, I can't account for probably about $20,000 of my spending last year (yes, I know I should keep receipts), does that mean that someone stole all that money?
It's been known for a LONG time that the military is unable to effectively track it's expenditures. Runsfield's speech put a number to the actual amount that can't be tracked, but people have been aware of the overall problem for years.
Shawn, Ewing is Nico Haupt. I don't mind him spamming the comments because he does come up with interesting stuff as does BG.
Hey, Im a "truther." ;-)
Anyway, like I said in a recent post, the Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White used the deaths of the accountants as an excuse not to publish a "stand-alone" financial statement for 2001, potentially enabling massive fraud.
This is more important than the Rummy announcement..
This wasn't an "announcement", Rumsfeld made these comments in a speech during a convention of Pentagon logisticans.
How embarrassing. All this time I've been conflating his speech at the kickoff of Acquisition and Logistics Excellence Week (and you just know that had some kickin' after-parties!) on 9-10 with that Congressional testimony I cited, which actually occurred in July! And for whatever it's worth, here he is talking about it in June. And in the July testimony Rep. Lewis makes reference to the fact that Dov Zackheim (apparently jokingly) told him he'd have a handle on the problem by now. Clearly this was not some hidden secret which was announced prior to a known front-page event on 9-10.
In other news, Zackheim says he found the money. Turns out someone forgot to carry the "1" after he wrote a check in the commissary.
Hell, I can't account for probably about $20,000 of my spending last year (yes, I know I should keep receipts), does that mean that someone stole all that money?
Dam Alex, you used that same elementary example the last time this issue came up. Kudos for your critical thinking.
Considering it is my money they lost/misplaced/stole whatever, there dam well ought to be an investigation by the GAO and some heads should roll.
Second, and this is just speculation, the money probably went into black budgets over the years...financing operations, weapons development, foreign countries etc. Money like that is 'lost' because it is used to finance things that Congressional committees are not made aware of or do not approve of.
Thanks Rosecovered for dropping by. What is your take on 9/11?
James What questions do you still have regarding the actions of the FAA and NORAD? You brought this up as one of the things you have issues with after your radio interview.
Ooh, and here's the number again, in July 2001. Turns out it's for FY 1999, before Rumsfeld had returned to DoD. And here it is in an internal news article, again referencing 1999.
But wait, there's more! Here's Zakheim in 2002, bragging that the Pentagon had reduced that number to $700 MM!.
Anyone still convinced that Secretary Rumsfeld or anyone else was trying to bury the disclosure of this? They were practically shouting it from the rooftops!
Manny said: "In other news, Zackheim says he found the money. Turns out someone forgot to carry the "1" after he wrote a check in the commissary."
from this link
I didn't see that in the link. But yes, it is true that the issue has been discussed before.
Anyway, though.. the key issue to related to September 11 is this:
"The Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White used the deaths of the accountants as an excuse not to publish a "stand-alone" financial statement for 2001, potentially enabling massive fraud."
It is reasonable to assume that by "not being able to track the transactions," Rumsfeld meant that the money is missing, although he meant total over a very long period of time, he did not mean that they suddenly discovered that a chunk was missing.
No, it isn't reasonable to assume that. You have the context plain as dayy. There was no indication whatsoever of any substantial unaccounted for money.
And even if that was the implication? Why the fuck would Rumsfeld say it? What does the timing have to it? Why reveal info that might set off a red flag? How come not a single piece of media coverage on his speech took that meaning when it was all written before the attacks the next day? Did he just slip up and they decided to cost a few billion in damage?
The fact that this is continually cited as "evidence" is just another blatant example of how piss-poor the 9/11 Truth Movement is at actual critical thinking and competent research. It's blatant quote-mining.
"The Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White used the deaths of the accountants as an excuse not to publish a "stand-alone" financial statement for 2001, potentially enabling massive fraud."
Sorry, Ed. I'm done arguing with people who keep changing the subject, only to bring up old subjects again and again. I don't know if you are one of those people, so I apologize in advance if I'm painting you with too broad a brush. However, simply to protect my own sanity I am unwilling to address this until you make an affirmative statment that a) Rumsfeld did not mean that the money was missing and b) it was not "interesting" that one of the many mentions of the accounting problem happened to be on 9-10 and c) neither Rumsfeld nor Zakheim nor any other policital appointee (we'll leave out White for now) was trying to hide or bury this information and d) the accounting problem preceded the Bush administration and e) there is literally no evidence whatsoever that the 9-11 attacks had anything at all to do with the accounting problem.
Manny,
I don't think the point I brought up is changing the subject, and I just did acknowledge that in fact Rumsfeld had discussed the issue on other occasions previously. To answer the points then..
a) I still feel his explanation was "spin" to explain that the money was missing. It is reasonable to assume "not being able to track it" means it is considered missing, especially in light of the notorious fraud and waste at the Pentagon ($500 toilet seats, ect.. )
b) You are correct, the fact that the issue was brought up previously makes the issue of him mentioning it on Sept 10 meaningless.
c) You are correct, they don't seem to be burying the fact that it is missing, although it is still missing nonetheless, even if the amount is less than $2.3 trillion.
d) Of course it preceded the Bush administration, but it hasn't preceded the neo-con elements of the government which don't change much with administrations.
e) Which brings me to the point which you claim is changing the subject as far as what I think is relevant to the 9/11 attacks.. "The Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White used the deaths of the accountants as an excuse not to publish a "stand-alone" financial statement for 2001, potentially enabling massive fraud."
Also, for point "d", maybe "neo-con" is too specific, really what I mean is old-school higher-ups in the government.
Also, come to think of it.. although the Sept 10 and previous announcements can't be interpreted as a technique for somehow "hiding" that the money was missing, I suppose that it could be interpreted as a convenient method for "winning points," as appearing to be responsible knowing that after the attacks the country will be in conflict mode and not concerned with such issues. As far as I am concerned the Iraq war was already scheduled when he was making those statements.
It's all part of the government's "make everything as complicated as possible" strategy. Because everyone knows that the more you complicate an operation, the less chance there is that something will go wrong.
Stop being so damn ignorant, people!
www.whereisthemoney.org
Stop being so damn ignorant, people!
www.whereisthemoney.org
Stop being so stupid and paranoid truther.
www.911myths.com
As for the 2.3 Trillion:
Rummie: I feel bad about stealing all that money Dick.
Dick: Ya, so what, just keep quiet about it.
Rummie: I can't Dick, my concience is getting to me. I'm not sleeping, I'm not eating.
Dick: Oh shut up pussy. You have your millions, stop whining.
Rummie: Sorry Dick, but tomorrow I am gonna tell the world the money is missing.
Dick: Are you mad, we have the "big attack" the very next day. Just shut up for one more day and we'll make the accountants go away.
Rummie: sorry, I can't Dick. I gotta tell.
Dick smacks his head off the wall in frustration...
TAM:)
Hey 'The Artistic Macrophage', I see that you're to act funny, you gave me the link to 911myths.com but 911myths.com doesn't mention anything about the missing $2.3 trillion. It's also funny how you keep making fun of missing $2.3 trillion cover-up but never try to refute any of the claims on the links that I posted above. Please don't speak unless you have something good to say.
He did have something to say. Basically it boiled down to "you're stupid". Which, in this case, is a perfectly valid refutation. When you manage to come up with some actual evidence of missing money, we'll have another look at it. Until then, giving you a detailed response is a waste of time. From the quality of your "evidence" it clear that you have no interest in the truth.
Hey 'The Artistic Macrophage', I see that you're to act funny, you gave me the link to 911myths.com but 911myths.com doesn't mention anything about the missing $2.3 trillion. It's also funny how you keep making fun of missing $2.3 trillion cover-up but never try to refute any of the claims on the links that I posted above. Please don't speak unless you have something good to say.
I will have to deny you your request. I will speak as I see fit. Now you may ignore me if you wish, but short of being told by the blog owners that I should "shut up", I will not.
The reason I chose not to "argue" your silliness is that many here have already done so, and others elsewhere have as well.
You call yourself "critical thinker" but it must be to make fun of us, as your thinking seems to be more lost in paranoia than anything else.
That said, you I am sure, will reply with some form of insult to me, and then I suppose we can call it even.
For what it is worth to you, and upon ignorant ears I am sure, here is my opinion (or rather, a question):
If he was going to have the people who could "out" him as one of the "takers" of the 2.3 Trillion killed on 9/11/01, WHY THE HELL WOULD HE TELL ANYONE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED AT ALL, LET ALONE THE DAY BEFORE THEIR EXECUTION???????
TAM:)
Calling me "stupid" and "paronoid" is a pathetic way of trying to escape a good healthy debate. You know what, let's say the missing trillions had nothing to do with 9/11, can you please just take a look at this site then: www.whereisthemoney.org (Don't worry, it barely mentions anything about 9/11, it talks about stolen money).
How would you transfer 114,000 metric tonnes of gold?
A "normal" dump truck carries a maximum load of 20 tons. So you're looking at 5,700 dump trucks full of the stuff.
Calling me "stupid" and "paronoid" is a pathetic way of trying to escape a good healthy debate. You know what, let's say the missing trillions had nothing to do with 9/11, can you please just take a look at this site then: www.whereisthemoney.org (Don't worry, it barely mentions anything about 9/11, it talks about stolen money).
1. My calling you stupid and paranoid was a reply to you calling us ignorant in your post prior to mine. You started the name calling.
2. I could care less about the $2.3 Trillion, as to me it is a non-issue in 9/11, so I am not going to waste my time reading an article that by nature of the site it is on, obviously has an agenda built in.
3. Please tell me this is not a revival of the silly, long debunked missing gold issue...please. I thought we buried that garbage long ago.
TAM
Post a Comment
<< Home