- The entire defense budget for 2001 was about $292 billion, so in order to believe that the government lost $2.3 trillion you'd have to believe that over 8 years' of spending had gone for nothing. (Thanks SLC blog)
- Why would Rumsfield even announce this?
- Since CTers can't really claim that 9/11 was a HUGE cover up in as much as literally THOUSANDS of people would have had to have kept shut about it, they can't say that this money would go to 'paying people off'. They have to resort to saying about '7 people' were in on it, which completely disregards the paying off issue.
So the next time someone brings this your way, you can counter them.
Sciencespeed, James.
15 comments:
Succinct yet comprehensive and pertinent analysis of the 2.3 trillion myth, JAS.
Nice blog, too.
Myth??
Well, why don't you listen to it coming out of Rumsfelds mouth?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaMxaykpi5o
You guys are such fools.
Do you still think its a myth??
FX9,
Orphia_Nay isn't saying that Rumsfield DIDN'T admit it, he's just saying that it being a sort of a conspiracy or related to 9/11 is a myth.
i just can't believe your making such ridiculous claims without doing any research. What a f** fool you are. Are you american? You like to deny that 8000$ of your tax money went bunkers in the pentagon, and nobody is / was / will ever be responsible. Cause idiots like you try to claim its 'just a myth'.???
get a f** clue, idiot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaMxaykpi5o
jastewart, bullshit, this is what he said:
"# 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. (Thanks SLC blog)
# Why would Rumsfield even announce this?"
So, what?? This clearly sais it did not happen. period. You freaking fools. Get a f** clue.
realise somethin?
Its you debunkers who are the f** 911 deniers. period.
You're being pretty rude but I'm going not going to buy into your awful attitude.
Lets recap:
NO-ONE.
(that means no persons/zero people/nobody)
claims that this did not happen.
IT HAPPENED.
But it has nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever.
Besides, why hasn't this been covered by Bush hating press? Has the NWO got to them too?
well , do you care to clarify this statement, as it obviously sais it did not happen. You say 'in order to believe that they lost 2.3 ...'. I'd appreciate clarification. Or, if you were wrong on this, at least admit it.
Here is the quote again:
""# 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. (Thanks SLC blog)
# Why would Rumsfield even announce this?"
Let me add:
So, this now means that you actually believe that over 8 years of spending got lost. Is this correct?
Regardless of my answer you won't change your views at all. You'll still think I'm an idiot because I don't fit into YOUR world view.
I used to be one of you. And I'm sorry about it.
You might want to remember that the pentagon is a military institute, and so this is military money thats been lost over 8 or so years.
Aha, so you don't give me an answer, cause you 'know it won't change my world view'?
What an original excuse. Come on. You should at least admit that you were wrong.
Also, you seem to be a bit confused by those 8 years. At first you said thats the spending total of 8 years, now you say ah well its all normal cause its over 8 years.
Get a clue kiddy.
I have a raging clue over this entertaining attempt of yours.
nice try. Trying to get outta here without having to answer my questions. Is it that hard to admit you were wrong thinking its just a myth?
http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html
yea, always a good way out, just post a link to some 911 myth article. Sheesh. If at least the link would work, but its incomplete.
Post a Comment